C# Build anonymous object dynamically
In C# I can easily create an anonymous object like this at the compile time:
var items = new {
Price = 2000,
Description = "",
Locations = new List<string> { "", "" }
};
My question is, it's possible to create this object at the runtime ?
I've heard of emit/meta programming, but I don't know if it helps here.
Noting that these objects will be created inside a for loop (100 items or more), so I recommend techniques that allow type caching.
Thanks.
Update - Why I need this
- One example could be implementing the
Includefunctionality like indb.Users.Include("Users"), so I need to add theUsersproperty at runtime on demand.
c# dynamic reflection anonymous-types reflection.emit
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
add a comment |
In C# I can easily create an anonymous object like this at the compile time:
var items = new {
Price = 2000,
Description = "",
Locations = new List<string> { "", "" }
};
My question is, it's possible to create this object at the runtime ?
I've heard of emit/meta programming, but I don't know if it helps here.
Noting that these objects will be created inside a for loop (100 items or more), so I recommend techniques that allow type caching.
Thanks.
Update - Why I need this
- One example could be implementing the
Includefunctionality like indb.Users.Include("Users"), so I need to add theUsersproperty at runtime on demand.
c# dynamic reflection anonymous-types reflection.emit
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
can you post the code forforloop just to see what you are trying
– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27
add a comment |
In C# I can easily create an anonymous object like this at the compile time:
var items = new {
Price = 2000,
Description = "",
Locations = new List<string> { "", "" }
};
My question is, it's possible to create this object at the runtime ?
I've heard of emit/meta programming, but I don't know if it helps here.
Noting that these objects will be created inside a for loop (100 items or more), so I recommend techniques that allow type caching.
Thanks.
Update - Why I need this
- One example could be implementing the
Includefunctionality like indb.Users.Include("Users"), so I need to add theUsersproperty at runtime on demand.
c# dynamic reflection anonymous-types reflection.emit
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
In C# I can easily create an anonymous object like this at the compile time:
var items = new {
Price = 2000,
Description = "",
Locations = new List<string> { "", "" }
};
My question is, it's possible to create this object at the runtime ?
I've heard of emit/meta programming, but I don't know if it helps here.
Noting that these objects will be created inside a for loop (100 items or more), so I recommend techniques that allow type caching.
Thanks.
Update - Why I need this
- One example could be implementing the
Includefunctionality like indb.Users.Include("Users"), so I need to add theUsersproperty at runtime on demand.
c# dynamic reflection anonymous-types reflection.emit
c# dynamic reflection anonymous-types reflection.emit
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
edited Nov 12 at 14:42
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
asked Nov 12 at 14:25
amd
13.6k33550
13.6k33550
can you post the code forforloop just to see what you are trying
– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27
add a comment |
can you post the code forforloop just to see what you are trying
– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27
can you post the code for
for loop just to see what you are trying– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
can you post the code for
for loop just to see what you are trying– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Anonymous types are generated on compile time, and are just regular types.
Since you are talking beyond the compilation process, you don't have the 'generate an (anonymous) type on compile time' option any more, unless you compile the type yourself to an assembly you load right after generating it. System.Reflection.Emit is your friend here. This is quite expensive though.
Personally I would skip all that hassle, and look into a type that is dynamic by nature, like ExpandoObject. You can add properties, just like you would add entries to a dictionary:
dynamic eo = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
IDictionary<string, object> d = (IDictionary<string, object>)eo;
d["a"] = "b";
string a = eo.a;
Result:
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53264203%2fc-sharp-build-anonymous-object-dynamically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Anonymous types are generated on compile time, and are just regular types.
Since you are talking beyond the compilation process, you don't have the 'generate an (anonymous) type on compile time' option any more, unless you compile the type yourself to an assembly you load right after generating it. System.Reflection.Emit is your friend here. This is quite expensive though.
Personally I would skip all that hassle, and look into a type that is dynamic by nature, like ExpandoObject. You can add properties, just like you would add entries to a dictionary:
dynamic eo = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
IDictionary<string, object> d = (IDictionary<string, object>)eo;
d["a"] = "b";
string a = eo.a;
Result:
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
add a comment |
Anonymous types are generated on compile time, and are just regular types.
Since you are talking beyond the compilation process, you don't have the 'generate an (anonymous) type on compile time' option any more, unless you compile the type yourself to an assembly you load right after generating it. System.Reflection.Emit is your friend here. This is quite expensive though.
Personally I would skip all that hassle, and look into a type that is dynamic by nature, like ExpandoObject. You can add properties, just like you would add entries to a dictionary:
dynamic eo = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
IDictionary<string, object> d = (IDictionary<string, object>)eo;
d["a"] = "b";
string a = eo.a;
Result:
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
add a comment |
Anonymous types are generated on compile time, and are just regular types.
Since you are talking beyond the compilation process, you don't have the 'generate an (anonymous) type on compile time' option any more, unless you compile the type yourself to an assembly you load right after generating it. System.Reflection.Emit is your friend here. This is quite expensive though.
Personally I would skip all that hassle, and look into a type that is dynamic by nature, like ExpandoObject. You can add properties, just like you would add entries to a dictionary:
dynamic eo = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
IDictionary<string, object> d = (IDictionary<string, object>)eo;
d["a"] = "b";
string a = eo.a;
Result:
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
Anonymous types are generated on compile time, and are just regular types.
Since you are talking beyond the compilation process, you don't have the 'generate an (anonymous) type on compile time' option any more, unless you compile the type yourself to an assembly you load right after generating it. System.Reflection.Emit is your friend here. This is quite expensive though.
Personally I would skip all that hassle, and look into a type that is dynamic by nature, like ExpandoObject. You can add properties, just like you would add entries to a dictionary:
dynamic eo = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
IDictionary<string, object> d = (IDictionary<string, object>)eo;
d["a"] = "b";
string a = eo.a;
Result:
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
answered Nov 12 at 14:32
Patrick Hofman
125k18170224
125k18170224
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
add a comment |
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
Thanks, isn't expando objects two slow in this case ?
– amd
Nov 12 at 14:44
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
It is basically a dictionary. That can't be really that slow.
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:45
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53264203%2fc-sharp-build-anonymous-object-dynamically%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
can you post the code for
forloop just to see what you are trying– Rahul
Nov 12 at 14:27
What is the purpose of such dynamically typed types?
– Patrick Hofman
Nov 12 at 14:27