82

Take the following class as an example:

class Sometype
{
    int someValue;

    public Sometype(int someValue)
    {
        this.someValue = someValue;
    }
}

I then want to create an instance of this type using reflection:

Type t = typeof(Sometype);
object o = Activator.CreateInstance(t);

Normally this will work, however because SomeType has not defined a parameterless constructor, the call to Activator.CreateInstance will throw an exception of type MissingMethodException with the message "No parameterless constructor defined for this object." Is there an alternative way to still create an instance of this type? It'd be kinda sucky to add parameterless constructors to all my classes.


  • FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject not allow to create uninitialized string. You may get exception: System.ArgumentException: Uninitialized Strings cannot be created. Please keep this in mind. - Bartosz Pierzchlewicz
  • Thanks for the heads up, but I'm already handling strings and basic types separately. - Aistina

4 답변


122

I originally posted this answer here, but here is a reprint since this isn't the exact same question but has the same answer:

FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject() will create an instance without calling a constructor. I found this class by using Reflector and digging through some of the core .Net serialization classes.

I tested it using the sample code below and it looks like it works great:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.Serialization;

namespace NoConstructorThingy
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            MyClass myClass = (MyClass)FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(typeof(MyClass)); //does not call ctor
            myClass.One = 1;
            Console.WriteLine(myClass.One); //write "1"
            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }

    public class MyClass
    {
        public MyClass()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("MyClass ctor called.");
        }

        public int One
        {
            get;
            set;
        }
    }
}



71

Use this overload of the CreateInstance method:

public static Object CreateInstance(
    Type type,
    params Object[] args
)

Creates an instance of the specified type using the constructor that best matches the specified parameters.

See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wcxyzt4d.aspx


  • This solution oversimplifies the problem. What if I don't know my type and I'm saying "just create an object of the Type in this Type variable"? - kamii

18

When I benchmarked performance of (T)FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(typeof(T)) it was slower. At the same time compiled expressions would give you great speed improvements though they work only for types with default constructor. I took a hybrid approach:

public static class New<T>
{
    public static readonly Func<T> Instance = Creator();

    static Func<T> Creator()
    {
        Type t = typeof(T);
        if (t == typeof(string))
            return Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.Constant(string.Empty)).Compile();

        if (t.HasDefaultConstructor())
            return Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(Expression.New(t)).Compile();

        return () => (T)FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(t);
    }
}

public static bool HasDefaultConstructor(this Type t)
{
    return t.IsValueType || t.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes) != null;
}

This means the create expression is effectively cached and incurs penalty only the first time the type is loaded. Will handle value types too in an efficient manner.

Call it:

MyType me = New<MyType>.Instance();

Note that (T)FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(t) will fail for string. Hence special handling for string is in place to return empty string.


  • It is strange how a look at one line of someone's code can save a day. Thank you, sir! Performance reasons took me to your post and the trick is done :) FormatterServices and Activator classes are underperforming compared to compiled expressions, what a pity one finds Activators all around the place. - jmodrak
  • @nawfal Regarding your special handling for string, I know it would fail for string without this special handling, but I just want to know: will it work for all other types? - Sнаđошƒаӽ
  • @Sнаđошƒаӽ unfortunately no. The given example is barebones and .NET has many different types of types. For e.g. consider, if you pass a delegate type how will you give you it an instance? Or else if constructor throws what can you do about it? Many different ways to handle it. I had since answering this updated to handle lot more scenarios in my library. It isnt published anywhere for now. - nawfal

4

Good answers but unusable on the dot net compact framework. Here is a solution that will work on CF.Net...

class Test
{
    int _myInt;

    public Test(int myInt)
    {
        _myInt = myInt;
    }

    public override string ToString()
    {
        return "My int = " + _myInt.ToString();
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var ctor = typeof(Test).GetConstructor(new Type[] { typeof(int) });
        var obj = ctor.Invoke(new object[] { 10 });
        Console.WriteLine(obj);
    }
}


  • This is the way I'd call a non-default constructor. I'm not sure I'd ever want to create an object without calling any constructor at all. - Rory MacLeod
  • You may want to create an object without calling constructors if you are writing custom serializers. - Autodidact
  • Yup, that's the exact use case scenario this question was for :) - Aistina
  • @Aistina Perhaps you could add this information to the question? Most people would be against creating objects without calling their ctors and would take the time to argue with you about that, but your use case actually justifies it, so I think it is very relevant to the question itself. - julealgon

Linked


Related

Latest