George Tsiokos

Wednesday

10Dec2008

Sequence membership

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at 12:06AM

Given two sorted sequences, this method returns the intersection, a-b, and b-a, using a single iteration over both sequences. The return type is an IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<T, int>>, where:

only in A = -1

in both = 0

only in B = 1

/// <summary>
/// Return an int for every element in sortedSetA and sortedSetB specifying objects
/// that belong to A but not to B (-1), objects which are both in A and in B (0), and objects
/// that belong to B but not A (1).
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>This method is an O(n+m) operation when the two sets have different members, where n 
/// is the count of <paramref name="sortedSetA"/> and m is the count of <paramref name="sortedSetB"/>.
/// Otherwise the operation approaches O(n+m-n) where m is the count of the larger set and n is the
/// smaller set.
/// </remarks>
/// <typeparam name="T">Type of element in each set</typeparam>
/// <param name="setA">A set where each element is of type <typeparamref name="T"/></param>
/// <param name="setB">A set where each element is of type <typeparamref name="T"/></param>
/// <returns>Returns A \ B (-1), the intersection of A and B (0), and B \ A (1)</returns>
public static IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<T, int>> Membership<T> (IEnumerable<T> sortedSetA, IEnumerable<T> sortedSetB) {
    return Membership<T> (sortedSetA, sortedSetB, Comparer<T>.Default);
}
/// <summary>
/// Return a KeyValuePair<int, T> for every element in sortedSetA and sortedSetB where the int
/// specifies membership and T is the element. The int specifies objects that belong to A but
/// not to B (-1), objects which are both in A and in B (0), and objects that belong to B but
/// not A (1).
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>This method is an O(n+m) operation when the two sets have different members, where n 
/// is the count of <paramref name="sortedSetA"/> and m is the count of <paramref name="sortedSetB"/>.
/// Otherwise the operation approaches O(n+m-n) where m is the count of the larger set and n is the
/// smaller set.
/// </remarks>
/// <typeparam name="T">Type of element in each set</typeparam>
/// <param name="setA">A set where each element is of type <typeparamref name="T"/></param>
/// <param name="setB">A set where each element is of type <typeparamref name="T"/></param>
/// <param name="comparer"><see cref="IComparer"/> used to sort the sets</param>
/// <returns>Returns A \ B (-1), the intersection of A and B (0), and B \ A (1)</returns>
public static IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<T, int>> Membership<T> (IEnumerable<T> sortedSetA, IEnumerable<T> sortedSetB, IComparer<T> comparer) {
    const int onlyA = -1;
    const int both = 0;
    const int onlyB = 1;

    if (sortedSetA == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException ("sortedSetA");
    if (sortedSetB == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException ("sortedSetB");
    if (comparer == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException ("comparer");

    IEnumerator<T> enumeratorA = sortedSetA.GetEnumerator ();
    IEnumerator<T> enumeratorB = sortedSetB.GetEnumerator ();

    bool nextA = enumeratorA.MoveNext ();
    bool nextB = enumeratorB.MoveNext ();

    // default value for type T
    T a = default (T);
    // default value for type T
    T b = default (T);

    // if both collections have a value
    if (nextA & nextB) {
        // get current value
        a = enumeratorA.Current;
        // get current value
        b = enumeratorB.Current;

        do {
            // Compare a to b: is a < b, a == b, or a > b ?
            int val = comparer.Compare (a, b);
            // a == b
            if (val == 0) {
                // return both collections have the value a
                yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (a, both);
                // if collection a can move next
                if (nextA = enumeratorA.MoveNext ())
                    // get the next a
                    a = enumeratorA.Current;
                // if collection b can move next
                if (nextB = enumeratorB.MoveNext ())
                    // get the next b
                    b = enumeratorB.Current;
            }
            // a < b
            else if (val < 0) {
                // return only collection a has the value a
                yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (a, onlyA);
                // if collection a can move next
                if (nextA = enumeratorA.MoveNext ())
                    // get the next a
                    a = enumeratorA.Current;
            }
            // a > b
            else {
                // return only collection b has the value b
                yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (b, onlyB);
                // if collection b can move next
                if (nextB = enumeratorB.MoveNext ())
                    // get the next b
                    b = enumeratorB.Current;
            }
            // loop while there are values for both collections
        } while (nextA & nextB);
    }
    // if collection a has more values
    if (nextA) {
        // return only collection a has the value a
        yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (a, onlyA);
        // if collection a can move next
        while (enumeratorA.MoveNext ()) {
            // return only collection a has the value a
            yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (enumeratorA.Current, onlyA);
        }
    }
    // if collection b has more values
    else if (nextB) {
        // return only collection b has the value b
        yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (b, onlyB);
        // if collection b can move next
        while (enumeratorB.MoveNext ()) {
            // return only collection b has the value b
            yield return new KeyValuePair<T, int> (enumeratorB.Current, onlyB);
        }
    }
}

George Tsiokos |

c# Language request for properties

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 2:04PM

Auto-Implemented properties are great, until you need to implement custom get or set logic. I love the ability to make the field an implementation detail, until you need to implement the property. What if you could continue to hide the field, like this:

public string FirstName {
  get {
    // do more stuff, like lazy init the field
    if (field == null)
      field = "Unknown";
    return field;
  }
  set {
    field = value;
  }
}

A new keyword, field, references the compiler generated property’s backing field. Also, for readonly fields:

public readonly string Id {
  get {
    return field;
  }
  set { // private is implied
    // do more stuff, like don't accept null
    if (value == null)
      value = string.Empty;
    field = value;
  }
}

Where the property would need to be set in the constructor (like read-only fields) as the backing field would be marked read-only. For simplicity, the implementation would use simple property syntax while the compiled output would involve a read-only field, a truly read-only property and a constructor that executes the property's set body via a static method call each time the field is set in the constructor.

Please rate and validate this sugestion at the MSDN Microsoft Product Feedback Center.

George Tsiokos |

LINQ to SQL produces incorrect TSQL when using UNION or CONCAT

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 4:50PM

When a LINQ to SQL query contains a Union or Concat with a second query, and the second query references a column twice, a SqlException will occur.

var a = from address in dc.Addresses
select new {
ID = address.AddressID,
Address1 = address.AddressLine1,
Address2 = address.AddressLine2,
};
var b = from address in dc.Addresses
select new {
ID = address.AddressID,
Address1 = address.AddressLine1,
Address2 = address.AddressLine1, // notice AddressLine1 repeated
};
var q = a.Take(10).Union (b.Take(10));
q.ToArray ();

SqlException: All the queries in a query expression containing a UNION operator must have the same number of expressions in their select lists.

SELECT [t2].[AddressID] AS [ID], [t2].[AddressLine1] AS [Address1], [t2].[AddressLine2] AS [Address2]
FROM (
SELECT TOP (10) [t0].[AddressID], [t0].[AddressLine1], [t0].[AddressLine2]
FROM [Person].[Address] AS [t0]
UNION
SELECT TOP (10) [t1].[AddressID], [t1].[AddressLine1]
FROM [Person].[Address] AS [t1]
) AS [t2]

Notice the third SELECT statement is only selecting two columns instead of the required three.

Please rate and validate this bug at the MSDN Microsoft Product Feedback Center so Microsoft responds with a solution or workaround.

George Tsiokos |

6 Comments | |

Email Article |

Print Article

tagged

Bugs,

LINQ in

.NET

Tuesday

09Sep2008

Extending LINQ to SQL

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 12:15PM

Last year, Scott Guthrie stated “You can actually override the raw SQL that LINQ to SQL uses if you want absolute control over the SQL executed”, but I can’t find documentation describing an extensibility method.

I would like to modify the following LINQ to SQL query:

using (NorthwindContext northwind = new NorthwindContext ()) {
    var q = from row in northwind.Customers
            let orderCount = row.Orders.Count ()
            select new {
                row.ContactName,
                orderCount
            };
}

Which results in the following TSQL:

SELECT [t0].[ContactName], (
    SELECT COUNT(*)
    FROM [dbo].[Orders] AS [t1]
    WHERE [t1].[CustomerID] = [t0].[CustomerID]
    ) AS [orderCount]
FROM [dbo].[Customers] AS [t0]

To:

using (NorthwindContext northwind = new NorthwindContext ()) {
    var q = from row in northwind.Customers.With (
                        TableHint.NoLock, TableHint.Index (0))
            let orderCount = row.Orders.With (
                        TableHint.HoldLock).Count ()
            select new {
                row.ContactName,
                orderCount
            };
}

Which would result in the following TSQL:

SELECT [t0].[ContactName], (
    SELECT COUNT(*)
    FROM [dbo].[Orders] AS [t1] WITH (HOLDLOCK)
    WHERE [t1].[CustomerID] = [t0].[CustomerID]
    ) AS [orderCount]
FROM [dbo].[Customers] AS [t0] WITH (NOLOCK, INDEX(0))

Using:

public static Table<TEntity> With<TEntity> (
    this Table<TEntity> table,
    params TableHint[] args) where TEntity : class {

    //TODO: implement
    return table;
}
public static EntitySet<TEntity> With<TEntity> (
    this EntitySet<TEntity> entitySet,
    params TableHint[] args) where TEntity : class {

    //TODO: implement
    return entitySet;
}

And


public class TableHint {
    //TODO: implement
    public static TableHint NoLock;
    public static TableHint HoldLock;
    public static TableHint Index (int id) {
        return null;
    }
    public static TableHint Index (string name) {
        return null;
    }
}

Using some type of LINQ to SQL extensibility, other than this one. Any ideas?

Please comment on this question over at StackOverflow.com

George Tsiokos |

1 Comment | |

Email Article |

Print Article

tagged

LINQ in

.NET

Thursday

10Jul2008

Introducing nComet

Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 12:40AM

nComet is a .NET implementation of the Comet (reverse-AJAX push) architecture. This server-side pipeline uses long-lived client-initiated HTTP connections to push messages to the client. Once the client receives a response, it immediately opens another HTTP request, which the server holds until a message is ready. This architecture allows the server to push dynamic html/xml/json/etc to the browser, rather than the browser polling the server.

This project focuses on the .NET server-side architecture, initially providing a HttpListener implementation (for a custom host communicating with HTTP.SYS directly) and may eventually provide a ASP.NET implementation as well. The library will simplify the implementation of common message patterns such as pushing latest data as well as sync. Example code for multiple client-side javascript implementations will also be provided.

George Tsiokos |

1 Comment | |

Email Article |

Print Article

tagged

nComet