Comments on: Use C# dynamic typing to conveniently access internals of an object

By: mukti

mukti — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:06:31 +0000

class ExposedObjectSimple : DynamicObject
{
private object m_object;

public ExposedObjectSimple(object obj)
{
m_object = obj;
}

public override bool TryInvokeMember(
InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result)
{
// Find the called method using reflection
var methodInfo = m_object.GetType().GetMethod(
binder.Name,
BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance);

// Call the method
result = methodInfo.Invoke(m_object, args);
return true;
}
}

By: Igor Ostrovsky

Igor Ostrovsky — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:28:29 +0000

Yeah, I use it for testing as well.

BTW, nice blog that you have there.

By: Peter Gfader

Peter Gfader — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:44:45 +0000

Nice work!!

I had this idea 1 week ago… Way tooo late
And works PERFECT for testing!
And ONLY for testing!

By: Mauricio Scheffer

Mauricio Scheffer — Mon, 17 May 2010 23:27:33 +0000

I’ve been using this technique for some time, it’s cool to see that someone got the same idea and wrote a proper implementation

By: Vince

Vince — Sun, 02 May 2010 15:08:36 +0000

Mark, internals are usually best left untouched yes, that’s a core concept of OO programming, duh

I could see how this code could be useful in a debugging session where you don’t have access to the code and you want to reflect over the hidden properties in order to identify an issue with a vendors library.

Handy stuff to know.

By: .NET 4.0 DLR: ExposedObject Class « Zor's Blog

.NET 4.0 DLR: ExposedObject Class « Zor's Blog — Sun, 02 May 2010 00:24:22 +0000

[...] in Programming Igor Ostrovsky made an interesting post on his blog, where he implements an ExposedObject class, which allows to take the private fields of an object [...]

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:52:43 +0000

While I am a .Net developer to the core, most dynamic languages don’t have a real concept of access modifiers. You can re-write any part of Ruby you want, and JavaScript is wide open for modification whenever you feel like it.

I am not a Ruby guy, but I use JavaScript a lot, and the complete freedom to change behavior hasn’t screwed me yet. In fact, it opens up a lot of possibilities.

Cliff jumping into a lake isn’t as safe as the diving board at your public pool; cliff diving is certainly a lot more fun!

By: K. L. Estes

K. L. Estes — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:59:17 +0000

Generally, yes. But there are extenuating circumstances, as the man said. Besides, the man didn’t argue that it was a good thing on the whole, he just showed you how it _could_ be done. Microsoft probably does stuff like this behind the scenes 20 times a day – not that thats a good thing on the whole, either !

By: Mark Broadhurst

Mark Broadhurst — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:00:31 +0000

Err that doesn’t look like a good thing on the whole.
Internals are generally internal for a reason.