Timeline for Own implementation of Lazy<T> object
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2018 at 11:47 | comment | added | Dirk Boer | @Flater, construction of the Lazy can't happen in the Get because you need state. I.e. the lock object and the cached value. Maybe copy paste it and try it out on your own. It works, and you have one third less 'moving parts'. If you found a good alternative with less code for the consumer then please provide it as an answer! | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 7:34 | comment | added | Flater | @DirkBoer: I just don't quite understand the point of having a lazy object whose initialization is not yet known. Why not simply instantiate the lazy when you know what you effectively want - which for you is at the time you call your get method? That, combined with the fact that you "waste" the get method parameter for subsequent calls, makes me feel like it's a less clear version of doing the same thing. Reinventing the wheel comes at a cost, and I don't quite see the benefit that allegedly outweighs the cost. | |
| Nov 19, 2018 at 15:32 | comment | added | Dirk Boer | @Flater, of course for me everything will go through the exposed public property - I am not going to to duplicate the .Get(). What I save is that I can initialize inline instead of doing it seperately in the constructor. Try writing one for the current implementation and you see that you will need at least 3 moving parts. The member, the property and the initialization logic / construction within the constructor. For me the current implementation feels like 33% more boilerplate, plus that one third actually needs to be in the constructor instead of close to the rest of the code. | |
| Nov 19, 2018 at 14:04 | comment | added | Flater |
This saves boilerplate code How so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but now you're going to have to implement initialization logic for every get, even after the object is already instantiated. How does adding the necessity to create logic that will in effect be ignored on any call except the first (or, conversely, hoping that the consumer knows when it can/cannot leave the initialization logic empty) make this easier? If you write two get calls to the same object, each with a completely different initialization, how are you easily going to figure out which one is actually initialized?
|
|
| Nov 18, 2018 at 10:27 | vote | accept | Dirk Boer | ||
| Nov 18, 2018 at 9:12 | answer | added | Theraot | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 18, 2018 at 9:05 | vote | accept | Dirk Boer | ||
| Nov 18, 2018 at 9:09 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2018 at 0:41 | answer | added | Dirk Boer | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 17, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | Dirk Boer | Hi @OrkhanAlikhanov, thanks! I tried stripping a lot of that source to try to get to the core. See the results in one of the answers that I posted if you think it's interesting. | |
| Nov 17, 2018 at 12:25 | answer | added | Dirk Boer | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 17, 2018 at 7:29 | comment | added | Orkhan Alikhanov |
Source code of System.Layz<T>: referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/… (put for curious people)
|
|
| Nov 16, 2018 at 17:11 | answer | added | user52292 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 11:10 | answer | added | Dirk Boer | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 11:05 | comment | added | Vogel612 | Mod Note: Please do not use comments to lead extended discussions about a question and about how to write correct threadsafe code. Comments have been purged. You're all very welcome to continue the discussion in Code Review Chat if you want :) | |
| Nov 16, 2018 at 10:56 | history | rollback | Heslacher |
Rollback to Revision 5
|
|
| Nov 16, 2018 at 10:40 | history | edited | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2018 at 10:35 | vote | accept | Dirk Boer | ||
| Nov 18, 2018 at 1:21 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2018 at 10:25 | history | edited | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1945 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2018 at 22:12 | answer | added | jpmc26 | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 21:25 | answer | added | phoog | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 19:26 | history | edited | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2018 at 19:09 | answer | added | Eric Lippert | timeline score: 39 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 18:57 | comment | added | Dirk Boer | @AdrianoRepetti, I actually agree, so I provided the second example (how I usually use it). Problem is that I indeed 95% of the time need to access instance variables, and putting in the constructor I really dislike. Because if you have 5+ properties like that you're moving actually a lot of logic into your constructor meaning you really have to jump around in your code because the rest of the boilerplate actually needs to be outside the constructor. | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 18:52 | history | edited | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 213 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2018 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeReview/status/1063129632126447616 | ||
| Nov 15, 2018 at 17:14 | answer | added | user73941 | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 12:50 | answer | added | Nkosi | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 10:44 | comment | added | t3chb0t | @AdrianoRepetti this would make a great answer ;-) | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 10:32 | history | edited | t3chb0t | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed language tag from title
|
| Nov 15, 2018 at 10:31 | answer | added | t3chb0t | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 15, 2018 at 10:20 | history | edited | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 210 characters in body
|
| Nov 15, 2018 at 10:15 | history | asked | Dirk Boer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |