How make mapping in serviceStack.ormlite or Dapper dependent on column type?

Question

how I can do mapping in serviceStack.ormlite or Dapper dependent on column type?

For example I have next classes:

//table A
abstract Class A
{
  public ulong? id {get; set}
  public string Name {get; set}
  public string DeviceType {get; set}

  abstract public void method()
}

//no table
Class B : A
{
  public override void method()
  {
    //dependent on B implementation
  }
}

//no table
Class C : A
{
  public override void method()
  {
    //dependent on C implementation
  }
}

From ORM I need something lite that:

List<A> items = orm.Must_Return_list_With_B_and_C_Instances_From_A_Table();

How I see this logic:

function Must_Return_list_With_B_and_C_Instances_From_A_Table()
{
  var items = new List<A>();
  foreach(var row in rows)
  {
    if (row.DeviceType == "B")
    {
      items.Add(new B(row)); // mean mapping there
    }
    else if (row.DeviceType == "A")
    {
      items.Add(new C(row)); // mean mapping there
    }
  }
}

Then I can:

-use next:

foreach(var item in items)
{
  item.method(); // calls the right method  of class B or C
}

-if I need add new deviceType I implement only class D : A and edit the mapper, and dont touch global program logic.

This is generally implemented in the context of ORM and С# idea?

If you understand what I want, please indicate the direction of how to make similar. Many thanks.

Answer 1

I wouldn't make B or C derive from A . Instead, I would make them own a member instance. You could still have B and C implement some interface:

interface IProcessA
{
    void Method();
}

class B : IProcessA
{
    readonly A _a;

    public B(A a)
    {
        _a = a;
    }

    public void Method()
    {
        // do something with _a
    }
}

class C : IProcessA
{
    readonly A _a;

    public C(A a)
    {
        _a = a;
    }

    public void Method()
    {
        // do something different with _a
    }
}

Then you can use Linq to return instances of either B or C as IProcessA :

List<IProcessA> items = dbResult.Select(a => a.DeviceType == "B" ? new B(a) : new C(a))
    .ToList();

If you're going to add new types D or E , you would want to move the work done in the Select to a method or factory that you could add to later.

Answer 2

You're expecting a bit much of Dapper I feel. It's not Dapper's job to do this. But instead of writing your own factories, why don't you introduce a DI container. With TinyIoC for example, you would register B and C as named implementations of interface A. When another DeviceType comes along, you just register a new implementation and you're in business.

public interface A
{
    POCO poco { get; set; }
    void MyMethod();
}
public class B : A
{
    public void MyMethod()
    {
        throw new NotImplementedException();
    }
    public POCO poco { get; set; }
}
public class C : A
{
    public void MyMethod()
    {
        throw new NotImplementedException();
    }
    public POCO poco { get; set; }

}
public class POCO
{
    public ulong? id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string DeviceType { get; set; }
}

public class Program
{
    public static void main()
    {
        var ctr = TinyIoCContainer.Current;
        ctr.Register<A, B>("B");
        ctr.Register<A, C>("C");
        List<A> devices = new List<A>();
        using (var db = new SqlConnection(Config.DefaultConnectionString))
        {
            db.Open();
            List<POCO> queryResults = db.Query<POCO>("SELECT * FROM Devices").ToList();
            foreach (var queryResult in queryResults)
            {
                // the magic step where we create the right type of A based on the value in column Name...
                var newDevice = ctr.Resolve<A>(queryResult.Name);
                newDevice.poco = queryResult;
                devices.Add(newDevice);
            }
        }

    }
}