Skip to main content


Va mai aduceti aminte ca in C++ puteam sa declaram o variabila sa fie constanta, fara a ne face probleme ca un utilizator ii poate schimba valoarea. In C# putem sa facem un lucru asemanator folosindu-ne de readonly.
public class Car
internal readonly int _id;

public Car(int id)
_id = id;
Doar in contructor se va putea initializa field-ul _id. Valoarea acestui camp nu se va putea modifica in nici o locatie din cod. Dar daca in loc de int am aveam o lista, ar aparea probleme. Chiar daca nu se va putea instanta din nou acest camp, continutul acestuia se va putea modifica.
public class Car
internal readonly List<Component> _components;

public Car(List<Component> components)
_components = components;

public class Logan : Car
// ...

public void SomeMethod()
Oricine ar putea sa adauge sau sa stearga elemente din lista. Am avea nevoie de o lista care sa permita doar operatii de read. Pentru acest lucru .NET ne vine in ajutor si ne ofera clasa generica ReadOnlyCollection. Aceasta colectie nu contine metode prin care putem sa adaugam elemente sau sa stergem elemente din lista. Totodata indexer-ul ne permite sa facem doar get si atat.
Orice lista contine metoda AsReadOnly(), care ne returneaza o lista de tip ReadOnlyCollection.
List<int> items = new List<int>(){ 1, 2 ,3};
items[1] = 10;
ReadOnlyCollection<int> itemsReadOnly = items.AsReadOnly();
itemsReadOnly.Add(4); //Eroare la compilare, metoda nu exista;
itemsReadOnly.Remove(1); //Eroare la compilare, metoda nu exista;
itemsReadOnly[1] = 10; //Doar get se poate face;
Chiar daca incercam sa facem apoi o conversie la List, nu o sa putem, .NET ne returneaza o eroare de genul: collection is read-only.
Exemplul dat cu clasa de tip Car, poate sa rescris in forma urmatoare:
public class Car
internal readonly ReadOnlyCollection<Component> _components;

public Car(ReadOnlyCollection<Component> components) //sau public Car(List<Component> components)
_components = components; //sau _components = components.AsReadOnly();


Popular posts from this blog

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

GET call of REST API that contains '/'-slash character in the value of a parameter

Let’s assume that we have the following scenario: I have a public HTTP endpoint and I need to post some content using GET command. One of the parameters contains special characters like “\” and “/”. If the endpoint is an ApiController than you may have problems if you encode the parameter using the http encoder.
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient()) { httpClient.BaseAddress = baseUrl; Task<HttpResponseMessage> response = httpClient.GetAsync(string.Format("api/foo/{0}", "qwert/qwerqwer"))); response.Wait(); response.Result.EnsureSuccessStatusCode(); } One possible solution would be to encode the query parameter using UrlTokenEncode method of HttpServerUtility class and GetBytes method ofUTF8. In this way you would get the array of bytes of the parameter and encode them as a url token.
The following code show to you how you could write the encode and decode methods.

Entity Framework (EF) TransactionScope vs Database.BeginTransaction

In today blog post we will talk a little about a new feature that is available on EF6+ related to Transactions.
Until now, when we had to use transaction we used ‘TransactionScope’. It works great and I would say that is something that is now in our blood.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection("...")) { conn.Open(); SqlCommand sqlCommand = new SqlCommand(); sqlCommand.Connection = conn; sqlCommand.CommandText = ... sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... } scope.Complete(); } Starting with EF6.0 we have a new way to work with transactions. The new approach is based on Database.BeginTransaction(), Database.Rollback(), Database.Commit(). Yes, no more TransactionScope.
In the followi…