Lets say i have a
zoo class, with a bunch of collections. The collections are
tigers etc. All animal types derive from the same interface or base class, lets call it
So in my code i'm running in the same problem in 2 places. I end up in a method, that gets an IAnimal that its supposed to delete, but i dont know which exact type it is. So i basically end up with methods that look like this
if(animal is Tiger tiger)
else if(animal is Giraffe giraffe)
This code moves around, sometimes it lands in the zoo class, sometimes in a DBService class, sometimes in a viewmodel. Sometimes its a dictionary, but lets be honest its the same thing.
I know i can probably brute force a solution that i never need to touch again with some smart reflection somehow, but that feels like its not really OOP.
I can split up the method it ends up in from a single method that gets an
IAnimal into several method that get a
Giraffe etc, but that feels the same as a big factory method. It feels like i should be able to do something with generics, but it just doesn't work since i don't know the type at compile time.
The best i can do is a bunch of
DeleteTiger(Tiger tiger) methods that internally call a
DeleteAnimal<Tiger> method that saves a single line of code in each of the delete methods.
This isn't just a theoretical best practice thing, i keep having to go back and back to that method every time i add a new subentity to my application.
What can i do to stop having to do this? Can i even do anything?
Edit: I don't like the just make an animal collection approach, but it would definitely work with in memory objects. I would never get the idea to model a zoo as "300 animals", its 20 monkeys, 5 tigers... etc.
However how would this approach work with the repositories or entity frameworks dbsets WITHOUT having a method that just switches on the type again takes that repository / dbset and calls the Delete method?
I just saw that EF Cores DBContext actually has just simple Remove(object entity) method, but internally it probably just type checks too. I feel like i cant get around it with a repository pattern approach.