Hi Walter,
>>Well though the above does not look real pretty, from an architectual view I like this better. Writing such functionality now is independed from the implementation of the classes, hence my favour the above. <Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, although I still think you're missing the point of an interface. There is no additional functionality implemented in the classes. You already want to have a SetFilter() method or a SetFocusAtAdd property in your classes, so you're not adding any functionality at all to those classes that need that method or that property. All you're doing is setting up the class definition to implement one or more interfaces.
As an example, you could have an ISetFocus interface (that stipulates that the class contain a SetFocusAtAdd property), and a IFilter interface (that stipulates that the class contains a SetFilter() method). You'd only implement these interfaces on the classes that you need to.
~~Bonnie
>Hi bonnie,
>
>>
>>public bool PemStatus(object o, string name, string PEM)
>>{
>> switch (PEM.ToUpper())
>> {
>> case "P" :
>> System.Reflection.PropertyInfo pi = o.GetType().GetProperty(name);
>> if (pi == null)
>> return false;
>> else
>> return true;
>> case "E" :
>> System.Reflection.EventInfo ei = o.GetType().GetEvent(name);
>> if (ei == null)
>> return false;
>> else
>> return true;
>> case "M" :
>> System.Reflection.MethodInfo mi = o.GetType().GetMethod(name);
>> if (mi == null)
>> return false;
>> else
>> return true;
>> default :
>> return false;
>> }
>>}
>>>>And the code to call it:
>>
>>if (this.PemStatus(oObject, "SetFilter", "M"))
>>{
>> // You didn't say if this method call required any parameters, but if it does,
>> // they need to be passed in as an array of objects.
>> object[] parms = new object[1];
>> parms[0] = "MyParm";
>> MyFilter = (string)oObject.GetType().GetMethod("SetFilter").Invoke(oObject, parms);
>>}
>>>>I still like interfaces better!!! <g>
>
>Well though the above does not look real pretty, from an architectual view I like this better. Writing such functionality now is independed from the implementation of the classes, hence my favour the above.
>
>Anyways, thanks for the solution above.
>
>Walter
