C#•3y ago

❔ Better way of handling this?

switch (syncMessage.type)
{
  case "Obj1": 
    Obj1.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);
    break;
  case "Obj2": 
    Obj2.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);
    break;
  case "Obj2": 
    Obj2.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data); 
    break;
  default: 
    break;
}

switch (syncMessage.type)
{
  case "Obj1": 
    Obj1.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);
    break;
  case "Obj2": 
    Obj2.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);
    break;
  case "Obj2": 
    Obj2.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data); 
    break;
  default: 
    break;
}

Is there a better way of handling this? The objects all inherit from the same base abstract class which contains the HandleUpdate method. The syncMessage.type is a string and I don't think I can change that (not 100% sure) It feels like the strategy pattern might be what I'm after but this implementation already uses 3 classes per object and I'd rather not add more. Any ideas? Edit: Cleaned code up to remove information irrelevant to the question

4 Replies

Unknown User•3y ago

Message Not Public

D.Mentia•3y ago

if the type is a string and matches the actual type, you could try something like...

List<AbstractBaseClass> objects = new () { Obj1, Obj2, Obj3 };
objects.Where(o => o.GetType().Name == syncMessage.type).FirstOrDefault()?.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);

List<AbstractBaseClass> objects = new () { Obj1, Obj2, Obj3 };
objects.Where(o => o.GetType().Name == syncMessage.type).FirstOrDefault()?.HandleUpdate(syncMessage.data);

Or similar. It's not great, but might be the best you can do with that kind of input

Unknown User•3y ago

Message Not Public

Accord•3y ago

Was this issue resolved? If so, run /close - otherwise I will mark this as stale and this post will be archived until there is new activity.

Gaming

Programming

❔ Better way of handling this?