Skip to main content

C# 2.0 - Partial Types

For those of you interested, i found a very interesting list of features that were introduced in C# in here. This is a very complete list that contains all the features, and i'm explaining them one by one in this post series. We've talked about Generics and Iterators. Now it's time for some partial types.

A partial type is a type which definition is spread across one or more files. It doesn't have to be in multiple separated files, but can be. This is a very simple concept that can give us many benefits, let's see:
  • If a type is partial, multiple developers can work on every part of it. This allows a more organized way of working and can lead to production improvement. 
  • Winforms, for example, generates a partial class for the form so that the client can separately edit other parts it. This way, a part contains information about the design and the other contains the logic of the form. In fact, this is a very spread pattern across .Net. Entity Framework uses this too. The T4 Template by default creates partial classes for each entity and then we can create other parts of the same class to include our business logic without worrying with it getting overwritten. 
  • There is virtually no performance penalty in using partial types, because at compile time the parts will be unified. So, this is really just a convenience feature.
We can also create partial interfaces, structs and methods (not sure if this was introduced in 2.0). In case of methods, we need to be sure that they return void.

Below are some inconveniences of using partial types:
  • A partial type generally has it's logic or definition spread across it's parts, so it can be difficult to find the piece of code you want (this is arguably a bad argument, because today's IDE's overcome this problem.).
  • When using a partial type, sometimes may become hard to know every attribute a class implements, or every interface (also, the same as before).
To be clear, a partial type is always the sum of it's attributes, implemented interfaces, generic type parameters, documentation, etc. Let's see an example:

This is equivalent to:

To use a partial type, keep in mind that the partial declarations must obviously be in the same namespace.

Thank you for reading, next time i'll talk about nullable types!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The repository's repository

Ever since I started delving into architecture,  and specifically service oriented architecture, there has been one matter where opinions get divided. Let me state the problem first, and then take a look at both sides of the barricade. Given that your service layer needs to access persistent storage, how do you model that layer? It is almost common knowledge what to do here: use the Repository design pattern. So we look at the pattern and decide that it seems simple enough! Let's implement the shit out of it! Now, let's say that you will use an ORM - here comes trouble. Specifically we're using EF, but we could be talking about NHibernate or really any other. The real divisive theme is this question: should you be using the repository pattern at all when you use an ORM? I'll flat out say it: I don't think you should... except with good reason. So, sharpen your swords, pray to your gods and come with me to fight this war... or maybe stay in the couch? ...
2 comments
Read more

Follow up: improving the Result type from feedback

This post is a follow up on the previous post. It presents an approach on how to return values from a method. I got some great feedback both good and bad from other people, and with that I will present now the updated code taking that feedback into account. Here is the original: And the modified version: Following is some of the most important feedback which led to this. Make it an immutable struct This was a useful one. I can't say that I have ever found a problem with having the Result type as a class, but that is just a matter of scale. The point of this is that now we avoid allocating memory in high usage scenarios. This was a problem of scale, easily solvable. Return a tuple instead of using a dedicated Result type The initial implementation comes from a long time ago, when C# did not have (good) support for tuples and deconstruction wasn't heard of. You would have to deal with the Tuple type, which was a bit of a hassle. I feel it would complicate the ...
Post a Comment
Read more