Delegates: one of the few unique aspects of .NET. How useful are they? Here’s a delegate declaration. The syntax can take some getting used to.
In order to use the
Operation delegate we’ll need some methods
that match the
double (double, double) form.
There’s nothing special about that. Now to create an instance of the
Again the syntax can throw you off a bit. This line instantiates an instance
Operation with the
Add method and stores it in a
math. To use
math you invoke it as
though you were calling a method.
math, with parameters 1 and 2, actually called
Add with the same parameters, hence the result of 3. The oposite
behavior can be achieved by using the
Subtract method instead of
Math just delegated the call with parameters 1 and 2 to
Subtract and so the result was -1. So far this isn’t very
We can wrap methods up in delegates and call methods through the delegate but that’s just a lot of extra work. The power of Delegates comes into play when you don’t know which method to use.
Assume this code was used in a bank system. A frequent action of a bank system is to adjust the balance of an account.
AdjustBalanceBy takes an
Which means it could be
Divide to adjust the balance.
There might be operations we haven’t considered yet like applying interest.
AdjustBalanceBy could take care of that for us as long as we
give it a delegate that calls
The code in
AdjustBalanceBy would never have to change and
that’s exactly how the Open/Closed Principle says it should be. How would
this be done without delegates? The Command Pattern would work great!
There’s a bit more code without delegates but we’re saved from the wacky syntax. Considering the extra language complexity of delegates, I feel the Command pattern has the upper hand here. Point for Command Pattern.!meta Delegates 0 - Command Pattern 1.
What about multicasting?
Delegates have this feature called multicasting that allows you to add multiple delegates together. Here’s an example:
math is called at the bottom, all four operations are
performed. In this case it’s not particularly useful but for something like a
button, where, when clicked, multiple actions need to take place,
multicasting is very convenient. But what happens to all the return values?
Each of the methods combined in the math delegate above returns a value but
math can only return one value.
Interesting. Multicasted delegates only return one value from the combined execution. This suggests that multicasting should only be used when you don’t really care what the return values are.
The Command Pattern alone can’t compete with multicasting but along with his good buddy Composite, they’ve got things under control.
This version of Composite mimics the delegate’s handling of the return values but it could easily average them, store them in a list, or do whatever else your funny bone fancies.
Composite gives much more control over combined execution and so I say it earns another point for Command Pattern. !meta Delegates 0 - Command Pattern 2
Oh gosh. Get a load of this syntax.
An intuitive interpretation:
button.Click - Telling the button
that it was clicked
button.Click += - Adding something to the
clicking of the button…Huh?
new System.EventHandler(SomeAction) -
SomeAction must be a method the fits the
An instance of
EventHandler is created with
SomeAction. After those logical steps a developer concludes that
Click must be a public field (or property) of
EventHandler which is a delegate.
And the developer would be wrong!
Click is actually an Event.
The declaration looks something like this:
The whole Event construct is rather silly because, as far as I can tell, it could just as easily be replaced with a public field (or property). 1 point deduction from delegates for flagrant misuse of syntax.