[英]DataTable to List<T> conversion
Is there any better way than the following? 有没有比以下更好的方法?
Particularly, I want to replace Activator
with something else. 特别是,我想用其他东西取代
Activator
。
public static List<T> ToList<T>(DataTable dt)
{
Type type = typeof(T);
List<T> list = new List<T>();
foreach (DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
object[] args = new object[1];
args[0] = dr;
list.Add((T)Activator.CreateInstance(type, args));
}
return list;
}
The first thing I want to mention is that you probably don't need a list. 我想提到的第一件事是你可能不需要列表。 Odds are, an IEnumerable is enough.
赔率是,IEnumerable足够了。 Even if you do need a list, it's trivial to convert an IEnumerable to a list.
即使你确实需要一个列表,将IEnumerable转换为列表也是微不足道的。
With that in mind, this code is a nice generic way to accomplish it: 考虑到这一点,这段代码是实现它的一种很好的通用方法:
public static IEnumerable<T> ToEnumerable<T>(DataTable dt, Func<DataRow, T> translator)
{
foreach(DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
yield return translator(dr);
}
}
Hopefully you can see how re-usable this is. 希望你能看到它的可重用性。 All you need to do is supply a function that knows how to convert an individual DataRow into your T type.
您需要做的就是提供一个知道如何将单个DataRow转换为T类型的函数。 That function might use Activator, but it doesn't have to.
该函数可能使用Activator,但它不必。 It might just use a normal constructor and set a few properties.
它可能只使用普通的构造函数并设置一些属性。
I don't really see any way to improve this code - why do you want to avoid Activator
? 我真的没有办法改进这段代码 - 你为什么要避免使用
Activator
?
One option you could explore would be to create some sort of interface like this: 您可以探索的一个选项是创建某种类似的界面:
interface IFoo
{
void Initialize(DataRow dr);
}
And then implement this interface on any type that gets passed to this method. 然后在传递给此方法的任何类型上实现此接口。 Then you would constrain your generic type parameter like this:
然后你会限制你的泛型类型参数,如下所示:
public static List<T> ToList<T>(DataTable dt)
where T : IFoo, new()
Then change the implementation of your method like this: 然后像这样更改方法的实现:
public static List<T> ToList<T>(DataTable dt)
where T : IFoo, new()
{
List<T> list = new List<T>();
foreach (DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
T t = new T();
t.Initialize(dr);
list.Add(t);
}
return list;
}
One thing I'd add to Andrew's answer is if you go that route you can (sorta) avoid the Activator class by constraining the generic method with a new() constraint. 我要添加到Andrew的答案中的一件事是,如果你走这条路,你可以通过用new()约束约束泛型方法来避免Activator类。
public static List<T> ToList<T>(DataTable dt)
where T : IFoo, new()
{
...
foreach ( ... ) {
var foo = new T();
foo.Initialize(dataRow);
list.Add(foo);
}
...
}
The reason I say "sorta" is because C# actually just compiles that into an Activator.CreateInstance call at compile-time anyway. 我说“sorta”的原因是因为C#实际上只是在编译时将其编译成Activator.CreateInstance调用。 But it looks much cleaner.
但它看起来更干净。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.