我创建了一个基类来帮助我减少C＃中不可变对象初始化的样板代码，
我使用延迟初始化以尽量不影响性能， 我想知道这样做对我的影响有多大？
这是我的基类：
public class ImmutableObject<T>
{
private readonly Func<IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, object>>> initContainer;
protected ImmutableObject() {}
protected ImmutableObject(IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> properties)
{
var fields = GetType().GetFields().Where(f=> f.IsPublic);
var fieldsAndValues =
from fieldInfo in fields
join keyValuePair in properties on fieldInfo.Name.ToLower() equals keyValuePair.Key.ToLower()
select new {fieldInfo, keyValuePair.Value};
fieldsAndValues.ToList().ForEach(fv=> fv.fieldInfo.SetValue(this,fv.Value));
}
protected ImmutableObject(Func<IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>>> init)
{
initContainer = init;
}
protected T setProperty(string propertyName, object propertyValue, bool lazy = true)
{
Func<IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, object>>> mergeFunc = delegate
{
var propertyDict = initContainer == null ? ObjectToDictonary () : initContainer();
return propertyDict.Select(p => p.Key == propertyName? new KeyValuePair<string, object>(propertyName, propertyValue) : p).ToList();
};
var containerConstructor = typeof(T).GetConstructors()
.First( ce => ce.GetParameters().Count() == 1 && ce.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType.Name == "Func`1");
return (T) (lazy ? containerConstructor.Invoke(new[] {mergeFunc}) : DictonaryToObject<T>(mergeFunc()));
}
private IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> ObjectToDictonary()
{
var fields = GetType().GetFields().Where(f=> f.IsPublic);
return fields.Select(f=> new KeyValuePair<string,object>(f.Name, f.GetValue(this))).ToList();
}
private static object DictonaryToObject<T>(IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> objectProperties)
{
var mainConstructor = typeof (T).GetConstructors()
.First(c => c.GetParameters().Count()== 1 && c.GetParameters().Any(p => p.ParameterType.Name == "IEnumerable`1") );
return mainConstructor.Invoke(new[]{objectProperties});
}
public T ToObject()
{
var properties = initContainer == null ? ObjectToDictonary() : initContainer();
return (T) DictonaryToObject<T>(properties);
}
}
可以这样实现：
public class State:ImmutableObject<State>
{
public State(){}
public State(IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> properties):base(properties) {}
public State(Func<IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string, object>>> func):base(func) {}
public readonly int SomeInt;
public State someInt(int someInt)
{
return setProperty("SomeInt", someInt);
}
public readonly string SomeString;
public State someString(string someString)
{
return setProperty("SomeString", someString);
}
}
可以像这样使用：
//creating new empty object
var state = new State();
// Set fields, will return an empty object with the "chained methods".
var s2 = state.someInt(3).someString("a string");
// Resolves all the "chained methods" and initialize the object setting all the fields by reflection.
var s3 = s2.ToObject();
答案 0 :(得分：6)
正如评论中已经提到的那样，它会更有意义，而不是＆＃34; conflate＆＃34;不可变实例实现或接口，其中包含新实例的构建器的行为。
你可以用这种方式制作一个更清洁，更安全的解决方案。因此，我们可以定义一些标记接口并键入其安全版本：
public interface IImmutable : ICloneable { }
public interface IImmutableBuilder { }
public interface IImmutableOf<T> : IImmutable where T : class, IImmutable
{
IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Mutate();
}
public interface IImmutableBuilderFor<T> : IImmutableBuilder where T : class, IImmutable
{
T Source { get; }
IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(string fieldName, TFieldType value);
IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(string fieldName, Func<T, TFieldType> valueProvider);
IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(Expression<Func<T, TFieldType>> fieldExpression, TFieldType value);
IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(Expression<Func<T, TFieldType>> fieldExpression, Func<TFieldType, TFieldType> valueProvider);
T Build();
}
并在下面的类中提供所有必需的基本构建器行为。注意，为了简洁/简洁起见，省略了大多数错误检查/编译的委托创建。可以在gist中找到具有合理级别错误检查的更清晰，性能优化的版本。
public class DefaultBuilderFor<T> : IImmutableBuilderFor<T> where T : class, IImmutableOf<T>
{
private static readonly IDictionary<string, Tuple<Type, Action<T, object>>> _setters;
private List<Action<T>> _mutations = new List<Action<T>>();
static DefaultBuilderFor()
{
_setters = GetFieldSetters();
}
public DefaultBuilderFor(T instance)
{
Source = instance;
}
public T Source { get; private set; }
public IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(string fieldName, TFieldType value)
{
// Notes: error checking omitted & add what to do if `TFieldType` is not "correct".
_mutations.Add(inst => _setters[fieldName].Item2(inst, value));
return this;
}
public IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(string fieldName, Func<T, TFieldType> valueProvider)
{
// Notes: error checking omitted & add what to do if `TFieldType` is not "correct".
_mutations.Add(inst => _setters[fieldName].Item2(inst, valueProvider(inst)));
return this;
}
public IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(Expression<Func<T, TFieldType>> fieldExpression, TFieldType value)
{
// Error checking omitted.
var memberExpression = fieldExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
return Set<TFieldType>(memberExpression.Member.Name, value);
}
public IImmutableBuilderFor<T> Set<TFieldType>(Expression<Func<T, TFieldType>> fieldExpression, Func<TFieldType, TFieldType> valueProvider)
{
// Error checking omitted.
var memberExpression = fieldExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
var getter = fieldExpression.Compile();
return Set<TFieldType>(memberExpression.Member.Name, inst => valueProvider(getter(inst)));
}
public T Build()
{
var result = (T)Source.Clone();
_mutations.ForEach(x => x(result));
return result;
}
private static IDictionary<string, Tuple<Type, Action<T, object>>> GetFieldSetters()
{
// Note: can be optimized using delegate setter creation (IL).
return typeof(T).GetFields(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance)
.Where(x => !x.IsLiteral)
.ToDictionary(
x => x.Name,
x => SetterEntry(x.FieldType, (inst, val) => x.SetValue(inst, val)));
}
private static Tuple<Type, Action<T, object>> SetterEntry(Type type, Action<T, object> setter)
{
return Tuple.Create(type, setter);
}
}
使用示例
然后可以使用State的示例类：
public static class Example
{
public class State : IImmutableOf<State>
{
public State(int someInt, string someString)
{
SomeInt = someInt;
SomeString = someString;
}
public readonly int SomeInt;
public readonly string SomeString;
public IImmutableBuilderFor<State> Mutate()
{
return new DefaultBuilderFor<State>(this);
}
public object Clone()
{
return base.MemberwiseClone();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("{0}, {1}", SomeInt, SomeString);
}
}
public static void Run()
{
var original = new State(10, "initial");
var mutatedInstance = original.Mutate()
.Set("SomeInt", 45)
.Set(x => x.SomeString, "Hello SO")
.Build();
Console.WriteLine(mutatedInstance);
mutatedInstance = original.Mutate()
.Set(x => x.SomeInt, val => val + 10)
.Build();
Console.WriteLine(mutatedInstance);
}
}
使用以下输出：
45, Hello SO
20, initial
答案 1 :(得分：4)
很好地回答你关于表现的问题，反思非常昂贵（相对而言）。如果它在性能关键代码中，我就不会使用你的设计。
当涉及到泛型和反射时，性能影响通常会非常大。考虑一下这么简单的事情：
public class Builder<T> where T : new()
{
public T Build()
{
return new T();
}
}
这实际上做的是调用使用反射的Activator.CreateInstance并且它非常昂贵。
如果我想像上述情况那样优化代码，我会使用dynamic methods。两者之间的性能差异很大。
当然，请记住，为了提高性能，我们会进入更复杂，更难阅读的高级代码区域。您可以认为这种过度优化和过度杀伤性能不严格的代码。
但在我写的代码中，我避免像瘟疫那样的反思。
答案 2 :(得分：2)
我最喜欢的方式就是使用表达式树。您可以手动构建表达式树，只需创建类型的新实例，并将此表达式树编译为委托。这种方法的优点在于，您只需要反射和动态代码生成一次，然后您就可以使用生成的委托。此外，表达式编译器甚至可以在动态方法存在问题的部分可信环境中工作。另一方面，你有一个抽象层比在ILGenerator中编写纯IL代码要高得多，这将是动态方法的一种方式。