Skip to main content

[Code refactoring] From Method to Property

Looking over a project I found the following code:
public class AzureLocalStorageTraceListener : XmlWriterTraceListener
{
  public AzureLocalStorageTraceListener()
    : base(Path.Combine(AzureLocalStorageTraceListener.GetLogDirectory().Path, "WebService.svclog"))
  {
  }

  public static DirectoryConfiguration GetLogDirectory()
  {
    DirectoryConfiguration directory = new DirectoryConfiguration();
    directory.Container = "wad-tracefiles";
    directory.DirectoryQuotaInMB = 10;
    directory.Path = RoleEnvironment.GetLocalResource("WebService.svclog").RootPath;
    return directory;
  }
}
My attention was attracted by two things. First, was that we had a method called GetLogDirectory that returns the directory configuration for the logs. This method don’t has any custom logic there, only read a configuration from a specific location and retrieves an object populated with specific information. In this case we could have a property called LogDirectoryConfiguration
public class AzureLocalStorageTraceListener : XmlWriterTraceListener
{
  private const string WebServiceConfigurationKey = "WebService.svclog";

  public AzureLocalStorageTraceListener()
    : base(Path.Combine(LogDirectoryConfiguration.Path, WebServiceConfigurationKey))
  {
  }

  private static DirectoryConfiguration LogDirectoryConfiguration
  {
    get
    {
      DirectoryConfiguration directory = new DirectoryConfiguration
      {
        Container = "wad-tracefiles",
        DirectoryQuotaInMB = 10,
        Path = RoleEnvironment.GetLocalResource(WebServiceConfigurationKey).RootPath
      };
      return directory;
    }
  }
}
Next things is that we return a DirectoryConfiguration and we end up using only the path. Well, why we don’t return directly the string path of the directory.
public class AzureLocalStorageTraceListener : XmlWriterTraceListener
{
  private const string WebServiceConfigurationKey = "WebService.svclog";

  public AzureLocalStorageTraceListener()
    : base(Path.Combine(LogDirectoryPath, WebServiceConfigurationKey))
  {
  }

  private static string LogDirectoryPath
  {
    get
    {
      DirectoryConfiguration directory = new DirectoryConfiguration
      {
        Container = "wad-tracefiles",
        DirectoryQuotaInMB = 10,
        Path = RoleEnvironment.GetLocalResource(WebServiceConfigurationKey).RootPath
      };
      return directory.Path;
    }
  }
}
Now, if we log in our new property will notify that even if we create a directory configuration, we only use the path from it, which is read from configuration. Because of this we don’t need to create an instance of DirectoryConfiguration, we can return directly the RootPath.
public class AzureLocalStorageTraceListener : XmlWriterTraceListener
{
  private const string WebServiceConfigurationKey = "WebService.svclog";

  public AzureLocalStorageTraceListener()
    : base(Path.Combine(LogDirectoryPath, WebServiceConfigurationKey))
  {
  }

  private static string LogDirectoryPath
  {
    get
    {
      return RoleEnvironment.GetLocalResource(WebServiceConfigurationKey).RootPath      
    }
  }
}
Now, we could even delete the property and make directly the call from the constructor, but personally I prefer to keep the call in a separate place. I easier to read (personal opinion).

Comments

  1. Next refactoring :) - if the property is accessed only from within it's own class, why keep it public?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Tudor. This is happening when you rewrite the sample code in Notepad++. I wanted to write private, I already made the update.

      Delete
  2. The important thing here is what GetLocalResource does. If it is an expensive (or potentially expensive) operation, exposing it like a property is not a great idea.

    When I read a property, I don't expect it to have any performance impact. I also don't expect it to throw an exception.

    If there is some resource access (reading from the DB, file system, calculating something expensive) then I would choose to expose it as GetSomething().

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100% True. I didn't thought about properties from this perspective. :-)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(

Azure AD and AWS Cognito side-by-side

In the last few weeks, I was involved in multiple opportunities on Microsoft Azure and Amazon, where we had to analyse AWS Cognito, Azure AD and other solutions that are available on the market. I decided to consolidate in one post all features and differences that I identified for both of them that we should need to take into account. Take into account that Azure AD is an identity and access management services well integrated with Microsoft stack. In comparison, AWS Cognito is just a user sign-up, sign-in and access control and nothing more. The focus is not on the main features, is more on small things that can make a difference when you want to decide where we want to store and manage our users.  This information might be useful in the future when we need to decide where we want to keep and manage our users.  Feature Azure AD (B2C, B2C) AWS Cognito Access token lifetime Default 1h – the value is configurable 1h – cannot be modified

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 http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 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 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see