 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / .NET SDK / September 2004"marker" interfaces. What are they good for?
I was wondering why MS defined "marker" interfaces (empty interfaces) in the .NET framework(interfaces such as such as INamingContainer, IRequiresSessionState etc...). Why not use attributes? Eran Kampf http://www.ekampf.com For frequent operations (such as naming asp.net controls or getting session state), it is probably faster to check whether or not a class implements an interface, then to go dig up its attributes. > I was wondering why MS defined "marker" interfaces (empty interfaces) in the > .NET framework(interfaces such as such as INamingContainer, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Eran Kampf > http://www.ekampf.com The only reason I can think of is that its faster to perform a type check than go to the custom attributes via reflection Regards Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/<#JBadEZpEHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl> I was wondering why MS defined "marker" interfaces (empty interfaces) in the .NET framework(interfaces such as such as INamingContainer, IRequiresSessionState etc...). Why not use attributes? Eran Kampf http://www.ekampf.com [microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp] >Why not use attributes? I don't know about Microsofts design decisions behind this. But I know that last time I looked, testing if an object implements a certain interface was significantly faster than using Reflection to check for the presence of an attribute. Mattias  SignatureMattias Sjögren [MVP] mattias @ mvps.org http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com Please reply only to the newsgroup. > >Why not use attributes? > > I don't know about Microsofts design decisions behind this. But I know > that last time I looked, testing if an object implements a certain > interface was significantly faster than using Reflection to check for > the presence of an attribute. um.... but doesn't testing if an object implements a certain interface also require using Reflection? SignatureTruth, James Curran Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com (note new day job!) Type checking has its own IL opcode ininst so is faster than reflection Regards Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor http://staff.develop.com/richardb/weblog nntp://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/<uaZO0GapEHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl> "Mattias Sj?gren" <mattias.dont.want.spam@mvps.org> wrote in message news:Ogw82LZpEHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > >Why not use attributes? > > I don't know about Microsofts design decisions behind this. But I know > that last time I looked, testing if an object implements a certain > interface was significantly faster than using Reflection to check for > the presence of an attribute. um.... but doesn't testing if an object implements a certain interface also require using Reflection? -- Truth, James Curran Home: www.noveltheory.com Work: www.njtheater.com Blog: www.honestillusion.com Day Job: www.partsearch.com (note new day job!) [microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp] Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.