Programming

What Makes Good Code? – Should Every Class Have An Interface? Pt 2

Should Every Class Have an Interface?

This is part two in the sub-series of “Should Every Class Have an Interface?“, and part of the bigger “What Makes Good Code?” series.

Other Peoples’ Code

So in the last post, we made sure we could get an interface for every class we made. Okay, well that’s all fine and dandy (I say half sarcastically). But you and I are smart programmers, so we like to re-use other peoples’ code in our own projects. But wait just a second! It looks like Joe Shmoe didn’t use interfaces in his API that he created! We refuse to pollute our beautiful interface-rich code with his! What can we do about it?

Wrap it.

That’s right! If we add a little bit of code we can get all the benefits as the example we walked through originally. It’s not going to completely fix “the problem”, but I’ll touch on that after. So, we all remember our good friend encapsulation, right?

Let’s pretend that Joe Shmoe wrote some cool code that does string lookups from an Excel file. We want to use it in our code, but Joe didn’t use the IStringLookup interface (because… it’s in OUR code, not his) and he didn’t even use ANY interfaces. The constructor for his class looks like:


public ExcelParser(string pathToExcelFile);

On this class, there’s two methods. One method allows us to find the column index for a certain heading, and the other method allows us to get a cell’s value given a column and row index. The method calls looks like:


public int GetColumnIndex(string columnName);

public string GetCellValue(int columnIndex, int rowIndex);

We can wrap that class by creating a wrapper class that meets our interface, like so:


public sealed class ExcelStringLookup
{
  // ugh... we have to reference the class directly!
  private readonly ExcelParser _excelParser;

  // ugh... we have to reference the class directly!
  public ExcelStringLookup(ExcelParser excelParser)
  {
    _excelParser = excelParser;
  }

  public string GetString(string name)
  {
    var columnIndex = _excelParser.GetColumnIndex(name);
    // assumes all of our strings will be under a column header
    var cellValue = _excelParser.GetCellValue(columnIndex, 1);
    return cellValue;
  }
}

And now this will plug right into the rest of our code that we defined originally.

This doesn’t totally eliminate “the problem” though (the problem being that some class doesn’t have an interface (what this post is trying to answer)). There’s still a class we’re making use of that doesn’t have an interface, but it looks like we’ve reduced the exposure of that problem to JUST this class and the spot that would construct this class. Are we okay with that?

Thoughts So Far…

Let’s do a little recap on what we’ve seen so far:

  • Having interfaces for our classes is a nice way to introduce a layer of abstraction
  • Interfaces are just *one* tool to get layers of abstraction introduced
  • If you wanted to have interfaces for all of the classes in your code and some third party didn’t use interfaces, that code is likely not as common in your code base (especially if you wrap it like I mentioned above). This may not always be true in your code base, but it’s likely the case.
  • The amount of work to wrap things can vary greatly. Some things are straight forward to wrap, but you need to add many methods/properties. Sometimes it’s the inverse and you only have a few things to wrap but they’re not straight forward.
  • The number of classes you’d need to wrap to get to this state can vary greatly… Since even built-in System classes aren’t all backed with interfaces!
  • There’s certainly a trade off between the original work + maintenance to wrap a class in an interface versus the benefits it provides.

Is that last point blasphemy?! So there may actually be times we DON’T want to have an interface for a class?

Watch this space for part 3 where we start to look at a counter-example!

 


API: Top-Down? Bottom-Up? Somewhere in the Middle?

A Quick Brain-Dump on API Desgin

I’ll keep this one pretty brief as I haven’t totally nailed down my thoughts on this. I still thought it was worth a quick little post:

When you’re creating a brand new API to expose some functionality of a system, should you design it with a strong focus on how the internals work? Should you ignore how internals work and make it as easy to consume as possible? Or is there an obvious balance?

I find myself trying to answer this question without ever explicitly asking it. Any time I’m looking to extend or connect systems, this is likely to come up.

Most Recently…

Most recently I started trying to look at creating an API over AMQP to connect my game back-end to a Unity 3D front-end. I had been developing the back-end for a little while now, so I had a pretty good idea for how things needed to work from that perspective. The front-end? Not so much really. I knew some basic actions that I was considering, so I tried coding up an early API for them.

A lot of my focus was around how I was going to implement the code on the back-end to make this API work. It resulted in some of the API calls looking a little bit gross. But the idea was that if I settled on an API that would make the back-end easy to implement, I could get it up and running faster.

After a little while, I feel like my API isn’t getting any cleaner from a consumer perspective, and funny enough, it’s not actually as easy to implement as I was hoping on the back-end. Which had me reflect on a work example…

Once Upon a Time at Work…

Well, it was only a couple of months ago, really. I was working with a colleague on integrating a new system into an existing code base. We decided we wanted to approach the API problem from a consumer perspective. We said “let’s make this as easy to call and use as possible so that people ACTUALLY want to use it”.

We set out with this mission, and created a pretty simplistic API. The challenge? There was a lot of heavy lifting and a bit of voodoo going on behind the scenes. But you know what? We hid the magic in one spot of the code (instead of having ugly stuff scattered all over the code base) and it ended up being a very usable API.

So…

So does this consumer-first, top-down approach to API design always work? I’m not sure. Some similarities/differences in the scenarios:

  • In my current situation, I have a back-end implemented and very minimal code implemented on the caller side. In the work example, we had nothing implemented on the back-end, and a ton of code implemented where the caller side would be.
  • In both examples, at least one of the caller side or back-end side was reasonably well understood. For my game, the back-end was pretty well understood. For work, the caller side was pretty well understood and we had experience with what we’d call a “failed’ back-end implementation (that we were actually setting out to redesign).
  • The work example was a relatively small subset for an API, but the game example was about to be a very specific implementation that I’d need to adapt into a pattern for all messaging in my AMQP system

So there’s a few things to consider there. I think I’m at the point in my game where I’d like to revisit how I’m forming this API and try it from a client-first perspective. Now that I know some of the catches, maybe I’ll shed some new light!

How do you approach API design?


What Makes Good Code? – Should Every Class Have An Interface? Pt 1

What Makes Good Code? - Should Every Class Have An Interface?

What’s An Interface?

I mentioned in the first post of this series that I’ll likely be referring to C# in most of these posts. I think the concept of an interface in C# extends to other languages–sometimes by a different name–so the discussion here may still be applicable. Some examples in C++, Javaand Python to get you going for comparisons.

From MSDN:

An interface contains definitions for a group of related functionalities that a class or a struct can implement.
By using interfaces, you can, for example, include behavior from multiple sources in a class. That capability is important in C# because the language doesn’t support multiple inheritance of classes. In addition, you must use an interface if you want to simulate inheritance for structs, because they can’t actually inherit from another struct or class.

It’s also important to note that an interface decouples the definition of something from its implementation. Decoupled code is, in general, something that programmers are always after. If we refer back to the points I defined for what makes good code (again, in my opinion), we can see how interfaces should help with that.

  • Extensibility: Referring to interfaces in code instead of concrete classes allows a developer to swap out the implementation easier (i.e. extend support for different data providers in your data layer). They provide a specification to be met should a developer want to extend the code base with new concrete implementations.
  • Maintainability: Interfaces make refactoring an easier job (when the interface signature doesn’t have to change). A developer can get the flexibility of modifying the implementation that already exists or creating a new one provided that it meets the interface.
  • Testability: Referring to interfaces in code instead of concrete classes allows mocking frameworks to leverage mocked objects so that true unit tests are easier to write.
  • Readability: I’m neutral on this. I don’t think interfaces are overly helpful for making code more readable, but I don’t think they inherently make code harder to read.

I’m only trying to focus on some of the pro’s here, and we’ll use this sub-series to explore if these hold true across the board. So… should every class have a backing interface?

An Example

Let’s walk through a little example. In this example, we’ll look at an object that “does stuff”, but it requires something that can do a string lookup to “do stuff” with. We’ll look at how using an interface can make this type of code extensible!

First, here is our interface that we’ll use for looking up strings:

public interface IStringLookup
{
    string GetString(string name);
}

And here is our first implementation of something that can lookup strings for us. It’ll just lookup an XML node and pull a value from it. (How it actually does this stuff isn’t really important for the example, which is why I’m glossing over it):

public sealed class XmlStringLookup : IStringLookup
{
    private readonly XmlDocument _xmlDocument;

    public XmlStringLookup(XmlDocument xmlDocument)
    {
        _xmlDocument = xmlDocument;
    }

    public string GetString(string name)
    {
        return _xmlDocument
            .GetElementsByTagName(name)
            .Cast<XmlElement>()
            .First()
            .Value;
    }
}

This will be used to plug into the rest of the code:

private static int Main(string[] args)
{
    var obj = CreateObj();
    var stringLookup = CreateStringLookup();
    
    obj.DoStuff(stringLookup);
 
    return 0;
}
 
private static IMyObject CreateObj()
{
    return new MyObject();
}
 
private static IStringLookup CreateStringLookup()
{
    return new XmlStringLookup(new XmlDocument());
}
 
public interface IMyObject
{
    void DoStuff(IStringLookup stringLookup);
}
 
public class MyObject : IMyObject
{
    public void DoStuff(IStringLookup stringLookup)
    {
        var theFancyString = stringLookup.GetString("FancyString");
        
        // TODO: do stuff with this string
    }
}

In the code snippet above, you’ll see our Main() method creating an instance of “MyObject” which is the thing that’s going to “DoStuff” with our XML string lookup. The important thing to note is that the DoStuff method takes in the interface IStringLookup that our XML class implements.

Now, XML string lookups are great, but let’s show why interfaces make this code extensible. Let’s swap out an XML lookup for an overly simplified CSV string lookup! Here’s the implementation:

public sealed class CsvStringLookup : IStringLookup
{
    private readonly StreamReader _reader;
 
    public CsvStringLookup(StreamReader reader)
    {
        _reader = reader;
    }
 
    public string GetString(string name)
    {
        string line;
        while ((line = _reader.ReadLine()) != null)
        {
            var split = line.Split(',');
            if (split[0] != name)
            {
                continue;
            }
 
            return split[1];
        }
 
        throw new InvalidOperationException("Not found.");
    }
}

Now to leverage this class, we only need to modify ONE line of code from the original posting! Just modify CreateStringLookup() to be:

private static IStringLookup CreateStringLookup()
{
    return new CsvStringLookup(new StreamReader(File.OpenRead(@"pathtosomefile.txt")));
}

And voila! We’ve been able to extend our code to use a COMPLETELY different implementation of a string lookup with relatively no code change. You could make the argument that if you needed to modify the implementation for a buggy class that as long as you were adhering to the interface, you wouldn’t need to modify much surrounding code (just like this example). This would be a point towards improved maintainability in code.

“But wait!” you shout, “I could have done the EXACT same thing with an abstract class instead of the IStringLookup interface you big dummy! Interfaces are garbage!”

And you wouldn’t be wrong about the abstract class part! It’s totally true that IStringLookup could instead have been an abstract class like StringLookupBase (or something…) and the benefits would still apply! That’s a really interesting point, so let’s keep that in mind as we continue on through out this whole series. The little lesson here? It’s not the interface that gives us this bonus, it’s the API boundary and level of abstraction we introduced (something that does string lookups). Both an interface and abstract class happen to help us a lot here.

Continue to Part 2


What Makes Good Code? – Patterns and Practices Series

What Makes Good Code?

It’s been a while since I’ve had a programming oriented post, and I figured this would be a great topic to write about. It’s been a topic I’ve been thinking about more and more over the last year and I’ve been experimenting with certain patterns and practices to see if certain things actually make code “better”. A lot of the information presented in this series will be completely based on my opinion, but I’ll try to back up my opinion with as many concrete examples as I can. If you have a differing opinion, I’d love to hear it in the comments.

I’d also like to call out that much of what I’ll be discussing is in the context of object oriented programming. To be specific, there may be mostly C# examples used. If this isn’t something you’re actively doing, then don’t worry! It would be great to hear if you see parallels in the work you’re doing.

What Is “Good”?

So let’s start by defining what “good” or “better” means (and I’ll leave this high level and we can dive in afterwards)…

  • Extensible: Re-writing of code is minimized when adding more functionality. It feels straight forward to extend the code. Developers won’t do “the wrong thing” when trying to extend the code.
  • Maintainable: Many of the same qualities that go with extensible. Fixing bugs or making tweaks involves touching few places in the code base.
  • Testable: It’s straight forward to write coded tests that can exercise functionality of the code under test.
  • Readable**:  Developers should be able to read code and understand what it’s doing. The flow of execution within and between different modules of code shouldn’t cause anyone a headache,

All of these describe qualities of the code. I could argue that you could write very maintainable, extensible, and testable code and it would be awful if it didn’t actually solve the customers’ needs. I’d like to try and leave this aspect out of the discussion, and focus on the actual patterns/practices that we can implement in code. I’d love to write something separate about writing code that actually solves a problem versus code that may potentially solve some possible problem at some potential point in the future (and yes, all of the uncertainty in that sentence was on purpose).

Why Should We Care?

It’s kind of a funny question, I guess, but I think it’s a fair one to ask. Why should we care what good code is? If we agree on the definition of good code, so what? Maybe those criteria for good code are obvious to some people. Maybe they weren’t so obvious to some people, but they still don’t really care. So why the fuss about what good code is?

If you’ve read other posts on DevLeader or you know me personally, you may know that I started work at a digital forensics startup a few years back in Waterloo Ontario. What you may not know is that that startup has grown significantly, and based on the accolades we’ve received as an entire organization, we’re actually one of the fastest growing software companies in North America in terms of revenue. I’m not trying to do the horn tooting without a reason though… I think one of the reasons we’ve been able to have such great success on the development side of things is because we’re always trying to improve.

We didn’t always write “good” code, and we certainly don’t always write “good” code right now. However, we’re always trying to figure out how we can get better. So why might WE care as developers at our office? I think it comes down to trade-offs.

In the real world of software development, you’re often faced with trade-offs. You can get a product out faster if you don’t test it. Or you can get a product out and test it, but maybe you had to take a lot of shortcuts in the code. Or maybe you can get all the features in the product and tested, but you can’t hit the deadline. There’s countless more combinations of trade-offs that we make in real software development every day. I think that by understanding what “good” code means allows a team to recognize just what kinds of corners they’re cutting sometimes. When teams talk about introducing “tech debt”, there’s a better grasp around what type of debt you’re introducing. If you need to get some extra features and bug fixes in but they’re getting added with some tech debt, what could that end up meaning?

Even if you don’t agree with what my criteria are for good code, I think it’s important that you establish this within your team. If everyone can agree on what good code is, it makes constructive conversations about different implementations much easier. Just because some new code is different doesn’t instantaneously make it scary and/or wrong… Maybe it’s a new way that emphasizes one of the criteria for good code a bit more than another implementation might emphasize. Perhaps it doesn’t… You can at least refer back to a reference point for what “good” is.

It’s also important to recognize that the criteria for “good” may change over time. Revisiting the definition periodically might allow you to recognize when your team is redefining what “good” means to them.

Enough Rambling! Where’s This Going?

Right. Okay. I want to write some follow up posts that will focus on a few of the following items:

  • Does every class need an interface?
  • Does every class need a factory that can create it?
  • Unit tests versus functional tests
  • Is there a benefit to only passing interfaces to objects around?
  • Is there a way to enforce that interfaces HAVE to be passed around?
  • Is the single responsibility principle even helpful?
  • Mutability and immutability
  • Is it always good to follow patterns and practices in all scenarios?

And after I feel that I’ve covered enough on these topics, I’d like to circle back and revisit what “good” code is. It’ll be cool to see if the definition changes at all!

**Readability was an after thought and I’m not sure how… I started writing the first example post for this series and QUICKLY realized I had omitted this.


Yeah, We’re an “Agile” Shop

Everybody Has Gone “Agile”

If you’re a software developer that’s done interviews in the past few years, then you already know that every software development shop has gone agile. Gone are the days of waterfall software development! Developers have learned that waterfall software development is the root of all evil, and the only way to be successful is to be agile. You need to be able to adapt quickly and do standups. You need to put story point estimates on your user stories. You need retrospectives… And agility! And… more buzz words! Yes! Synergy! In the cloud! You need it!

Okay, so why the sarcasm? Every single software development team is touting that they’re following the principles of agile software development, but almost no team truly is. Is it a problem if they aren’t actually following agile principles? Absolutely not, if they’re working effectively to deliver quality software. That’s not for me to say at all. I think the problem is that people are getting confused about “being agile”, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with how they’re operating if it works for them.

Maybe We’re Not So “Agile”

I work at Magnet Forensics, and for a long time now, I’ve been saying “yeah, we’re an agile shop”. But you know what? I don’t think we are. I also don’t think that’s a problem. I think our software development process is best defined by “continuous improvement”. That’s right. I think we’re a “Continuous Improvement” shop. Our team has identified the things we think work well for us in how we develop software, and we experiment to improve on things that we think aren’t working well. I’m actually happy that we operate that way instead of operating by a set of guidelines that may or may not work for us.

So, why aren’t we agile? When I look at the Agile Manifesto, I feel like there’s a few things we actually don’t do, and we don’t even worry about them. We don’t necessarily have business people working with developers daily through things, for example. Our delivery cycles are much longer than a couple of weeks most of the time. Sometimes people on our teams don’t communicate best face-to-face. I mean, just because we’re not focusing on those things isn’t necessarily proof that we aren’t agile, but I truly don’t think we’re trying to embody all of the components that make up agile.

As I stated previously, I do think that we try to focus on continuous improvement above all else, and I’m absolutely content with that. I think that if over time we continued our retrospectives and our team ended up operating closer to a traditional waterfall process then it would be the better thing for our team. Why? Because we make incremental changes for our team in an attempt to keep improving. Switching to waterfall is a bit of a contrived example, but I definitely stand by it. Another example might be that maybe working with business people daily isn’t actually effective for our team. I don’t know, to be honest, because we’re currently tweaking other parts of our development process to improve them. Maybe we’ll get around to worrying about that at some other point.

I do know that the way we operate, we’re always trying to improve. Whether or not we get better sprint to sprint is for the retrospective to surface for us, but if we took a step back, at least we can try a different path when we try to take our next step forward.

So, We Don’t Need To Be Agile?

I think my only point of writing this post was to get this across: If you’re not actually an agile software development shop, then don’t call yourself that. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with not living and breathing agile. Maybe you’re a software shop that’s transitioning into Agile. Maybe you’re moving away from Agile. Maybe you have no parts of your software development process that are agile. Who’s to say that because you’re not 100% agile your setup is bad?

I can’t advocate that agile software development is the absolute best thing for all software development teams. I personally like to think that it’s a great way to develop software, but… I don’t know your team. I don’t know your codebase. I don’t know your products, services, or clients. How the heck could I tell you the best way to go make your software?

Again, there’s nothing wrong with not being 100% agile, but we should try to be honest with ourselves. Find what works for your team. Find out how you can effectively deliver quality software.


Should My Method Do This? Should My Class?

Whose Job Is It?

I wanted to share my experience that I had working on a recent project. If you’ve been programming for a while, you’ve definitely heard of the single responsibility principle. If you’re new to programming, maybe this is news. The principle states:

That every class should have responsibility over a single part of the functionality provided by the software, and that responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by the class

You could extend this concept to apply to not only classes, but methods as well. Should you have that one method that is entirely responsible for creating a database connection, connecting to a web service, downloading data, updating the database, uploading some data, and then doing some user interface rendering? What would you even call that?!

The idea is really this: break down your code into separate pieces of functionality.

Easier Said Than Done… Or Is It?

The idea seems easy, right? Then why is it that people keep writing code that doesn’t follow this guideline? I’m guessing it’s because even though it’s an easy rule, it’s even easier to just… code what works.

The recent experience I wanted to share was my work on a project that has a pretty short time frame to prove it was feasible. It was starting something from scratch, so I had all the flexibility in the world to design code however I wanted to. I really made an effort to keep asking myself this one question: Whose job is it?

Every time I asked that question and found that it was not my current method’s responsibility, I would ask “Is this class really responsible for that”? I’d either go make myself a new method in my class or I’d just go immediately make a new class with a single method on it. It seemed like a bit of extra overhead each time I had to do it, but was it worth it in the end?

Absolutely. After the project had proven itself and development continued on, I was easily able to refactor code (where necessary) and mock out functionality in my coded tests. Instead of trying to write test setup code that required a whack of classes I needed to initialize, I could mock out a couple of interfaces and test with ease. It was also really obvious which pieces were responsible for what functionality.

Final Thoughts

If you want to get better at following the single responsibility principle, I think it starts with one question: Whose job is it? Try it out!


Multiple C# Projects In Your Unity 3D Solution

Unity

Problem: Visual Studio and Unity Aren’t Playing Nice!

Disclaimer: I develop on Windows, so I have no idea if any of this even applies to other operating systems. I assume not. Sorry.

I just started poking around in Unity 4.6 and I’ve been having a blast. I’ve made it to the point where I want to actually start hammering out some code, but I came across a bit of a problem: I want to start leveraging other projects I’ve written in my Unity solution while I’m in Visual Studio, and things are blowing up. So, what gives?

Okay, so let me start by explaining why I want to do this. I understand that if I’m making a simple game, I should have no problem breaking out my unity scripts into sub folders and organizing them to be nice and pretty. The problem I’m encountering is that I have existing projects under source control and I don’t want to copy and paste all of the code as scripts into my Unity folder. I also want to be able to create re-usable code for my future games, so I’d like to start breaking things out into libraries as I see fit.

So, if you’ve been playing around in Unity for a bit, you might say “Oh, well you’re a dummy! Unity can totally leverage your C# DLLs once you drop them into your asset folder”! And you’d be 100% correct. But that’s not the workflow I want.

The underlying problem here is this: Unity will re-write your solution and project file when you flip between Unity and Visual Studio. But I’m sure they have it that way for a reason.

The Goal: Visual Studio and Unity Should… Play Nice!

My ideal state would be something like this:

  • Work in visual studio as much as I’d like to new projects to my solution, and reference them accordingly
  • Flip back and forth from Unity and Visual Studio without having to reset things to compile/run again
  • Build from visual studio and have things end up in the right spot… NOT copy DLLs
  • Not copy+paste my entire project(s) already under source control elsewhere

Is this something that can be achieved though? I was pretty determined that I should be able to do *something* to have this working. Could I get it perfect? I wasn’t sure… But I knew I could make it better.

The Solution: Give and Take with Unity

My *almost* perfect sution, which I’ll walk you through, is this: Leveraging Visual Studio tools for Unity, modify the Unity solution as you see fit and use directory junctions (symlinks) to the build output directories of other projects.

  1. Let’s get Visual Studio tools for Unity installed. Visit that link and download the version that you need for the version of Visual Studio that you use. After installing, I opened up my project within Unity and I had to import the Visual Studio Tools package.Import Package
    After selecting this menu item, I was presented with a dialog for picking the items to import. I left it as is.Import Package2After importing these items, I could see that Unity had successfully added these entries under my Assets folder. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Next up, I wanted to configure Unity to not modify my solution every time I go back and forth from Unity to Visual Studio. This is the part that kills whether or not I’ve added projects to my solution. For me, it’s critical to have code I’m working on immediately accessible so that I can jump back and forth between projects. Lucky for us, this part is pretty easy. Go to the menu to access your new Visual Studio Tools menu item:

    VS Tools Configure
    Selecting “Configuration” opens up a really simple dialog. Let’s make sure “Generate solution file” is unchecked! It’s that easy.

    VS Tools Configure2
    Once we have all of this setup, we should be able to go into Visual Studio and add other projects to our solution.

  2. The one thing that I *could not* get this solution to do is have Unity leave my main game project alone in Visual Studio. As a result, the rest of this walk through is allowing us to play by Unity’s rules. Unity is good at magically referencing all of the managed DLLs that you include within your assets folder. If you drop DLLs somewhere within “Assets” and switch to Visual Studio, Unity will likely have modified your main project to reference this DLL.My next step was creating a spot where I wanted to drop the build outputs of my extra projects I wanted to reference. In my Visual Studio solution, I have my original game project and some newly added projects I want to build from source. In Unity, I wanted these to end up in “Assets/Dependencies/bin”. No problem. Let’s make that folder structure (or your equivalent if you don’t like my naming):Bin Dependencies
    The next part is probably the “trickiest” part because it’s… well… unusual. You could technically stop here and manually copy DLLs back and forth, but I’m not about that life. I want things to happen automatically. For this, we’re going to use junction points. Browse to your newly created folder in an administrator command prompt. I say administrator because only certain users have permissions to create junction points. Your non-admin user might, but this is my “safe” way of instructing you. On the command prompt, we’re going to use “mklink” to create a junction. The command is “mlkink /D /J <NAME_OF_YOUR_PROJECT> <RELATIVE_PATH_TO_YOUR_PROJECT>”. For example, if you had a C# project you wanted to reference that was “MyCoolLibrary.csproj” and was located in the directory above your Unity project, you might use the command “mlkink /D /J MyCoolLibrary “……..MyCoolLibrarybindebug””. Note that I used two dots to go back up a directory several times (since we’re inside of AssetsDependenciesbin and want to get outside of our Unity project). you should get a success message when your junction is created.

    Repeat this step for as many extra projects as you want to include. You can always come back and add more projects this way too, or remove the junctions if you don’t want to include a project anymore.

    At this point, you’re technically done. If you build from Visual Studio, you should have your other projects’ DLLs end up in your Unity folder, and your main game project will be updated by Unity to reference these now!

  3. But… You’re not done if you use source control for your Unity project and have separate source control on your other projects. The scary thing here is that usually we don’t want our build outputs to be stored in source control… But if we do nothing else, your source control system will likely want to include the newly created “AssetsDependenciesbin” folder and any of the contents you’re building into there. I just modified my git ignore file (I’m sure there’s an equivalent for SVN or other source control) to exclude the contents of “AssetsDependenciesbin”.The reason I didn’t excluded dependencies all together is because I can add other folders and DLL references here that I don’t want to build (like… the normal way). This gives me the flexibility of building the projects I want to control and still be able to just reference other pre-built DLLs!

Summary

In three easy steps, you should be able to use Unity, Visual Studio, and multiple projects in one solution in a what-feels-like-normal way. Because there’s still some dynamic stuff going on with Unity updating your main project, you might find the odd time you need to build twice to fix up compilation problems. I’ve seen this happen maybe once or twice so far, but otherwise it feels like normal. It’s also  important to note that you can’t escape the Unity project updating… don’t add references to your main project manually. That’s what that “AssetsDependencies” folder is for that we made.

Here are a few shots of what my setup looks like (proof that it works):

Solution Explorer

Unity Dependencies

And of course… it’s not the perfect solution. There’s still these things:

  • Unity gets mad at you for using junctions within your project. It actually tells you not to do this because you can mess things up. It’s working awesome for me right now though… So I’m going to just ignore this warning.
  • Remember step 3 where we ignored the AssetsDependenciesbin location in git? This actually ignored your junction points you created too. As a result, anyone else who clones your code will need to create junctions too. I’m working solo, so I’m not too worried about this step… But it’s definitely something that should be fixed up (again, I’m sure it’s doable, but I’m in no rush).

Hope that helps you feel more at home in Unity and Visual Studio! It certainly made it nicer for me.

 


C# Dev Connect 1 – Intro To Threading

C# Dev Connect

C# Dev Connect 1: Intro to Threading

In my last post, I mentioned we’d be hosting a C# Dev Connect meetup at our Magnet Forensics HQ in Waterloo. I figured I’d post to talk about how the event went so that if you couldn’t make it, you’ll have an idea for next time (and if you did make it, maybe you can comment on how you thought the event went). Our first Dev Connect was lead by a colleague of mine, Chris Sippel, who wanted to give a talk on threading basics in C#. Threading can quickly become a really complex topic, so Chris wanted to keep it high level and talk about the different approaches you can use to start threading in your C# applications.

Dev Connect: Before the Talk

Before Chris gave his talk on threading, we had our attendees slowly streaming in. Sure, we had a lot of our Magnet development team show up to offer support for Chris, but I was still pleasantly surprised to see others from the area that I’ve never met before showing an interest in C#. Our colleague Amaris had done an awesome job coordinating the first event for us, and even got us stocked up with pizza and pop. For the first hour or so, we had our guests fed and introduced to each other. A great start to the evening!

Dev Connect: The Talk

After everyone was settled in, we had our attendees pull up some chairs at tables or post up in our comfy soft seating to listen to what Chris had to say. Chris walked us through various slides and coding examples and was able to show us working examples of code to back up what he was saying. I was really proud of Chris for taking the leap to be our first speaker, and I think he did a great job. His slides and sample code are available at the Dev Connect git hub if you’re interested in taking a peek.

Dev Connect: The Aftermath

Once Chris was done talking, we had a few attendees leave to carry on with the rest of their evening, but it was great to see the majority hang back for further discussion. Some people were trying out the threading exercises that Chris had put together, others had tried it beforehand and had questions on it, and a bunch of people were sticking around just to talk .NET. When I envisioned what Dev Connect might have looked like, this was it. It felt great to help facilitate a positive discussion around using the .NET framework and C#, especially because people were clearly benefiting from it.

If you came for our first meetup, then thanks! If you couldn’t make it or you’re interested in the next one, be sure to check out our meetup page. We’ll see you next time!


First C# Dev Connect is Coming Up

C# Dev Connect

 

C# Dev Connect Meetup!

About a year ago I had thrown around the idea of creating a C#-specific group that would meet at a regular interval with some of my colleagues. I saw that there was interest, but between all of the things we had going on in our personal lives and work lives, we just hadn’t been able to co-ordinate something. I’m excited to announce that with some more solid planning over the last couple of months, C# Dev Connect will be able to host their first meetup! The company I work for, Magnet Forensics, has graciously offered our new office to host the event which will help tremendously. We’ll have a group of people from Magnet Forensics their to help out, but the only thing “Magnet” about the event is really just that it’s hosted at the office.

What’s on the Dev Connect Agenda?

This upcoming Tuesday (Tuesday January 20th, 2015) C# Dev Connect will be hosting their first monthly meetup on the topic of Threading in C#. Directly from the event’s Meetup page:

Overview of the the basics of threading in C# language. Threading is a very complex idea with many different ways of handling the same problem, however, you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. We’ll be discussing the basics of threads in .NET 2.0 and .NET 4.0. In .NET 2.0 we’ll be discussing the Thread object, various ways to start/stop threads, and potential stumbling blocks when it comes to threading in C#. In .NET 4.0 we’ll be talking about the async and await operators and how to use them.

A colleague of mine, Chris Sippel, will be giving the talk. People are encouraged to bring their laptops so they can try out some C# exercises related to the discussion. This initial talk may be more geared at an introductory-level, but our goal is to be able to cover topics for all levels of knowledge in C# (From never used it before, to expert level). We’ll even provide some food! All you have to do is show up and be ready to learn some C#, or share your C# knowledge.

If you’re looking for our venue, we had this little map put together:

C# Dev Connect Venue Map

Go into the back of 156 Columbia Street West in Waterloo (at the corner of Phillip and Columbia). If you’re familiar with the area, this used to be called RIM/Blackberry 5.

 

More Dev Connect Info

Here are a few additional links to get you to more C# Dev Connect information online:

We’re excited for you to join us!


MyoSharp – Update On The Horizon

MyoSharp

If you haven’t checked it out already, my friend Tayfun and I created an open source C# wrapper for Thalmic’s Myo. It’s hosted on GitHub over here, so you can browse and pull down code whenever you want. We’ve had some great feedback from users of our API, so we continue to welcome it (both positive and negative!) in order to improve the usability.

Thalmic has plans to release a firmware update to allow more data to be accessible through their API. Right now, MyoSharp is a bit out of date, but once this big firmware update lands we’ll take some more time to get it up to date again. Remember, it’s open source so you can feel free to contribute!

Troubleshooting

The most common question I receive is “I keep getting an exception about not being able to connect when I run the sample code”. I’ve tried to help a few people through this so I just figured I’d mention it right here for clarity: It’s more than likely that your MyoConnect version and the version we packaged with MyoSharp have become out of date. You probably keep your Myo SDK more up to date than MyoSharp is.

Don’t worry! So far we’ve had reasonably good luck just replacing the Myo DLLs in the x86 and x64 folder of the solution. Provided Thalmic didn’t break any API compatibility, things should actually just work out of the box. If they *DID* break backwards compatibility, it’s likely not that big of a deal either. You can update the PInvokes used to match the signatures they expect, and again, you should be up and running pretty quickly.

With that said, hold tight! We’ll get something updated soon. If you can’t wait, then that’s my suggestion for how to get up and running. Please don’t hesitate to contact Tayfun or myself for troubleshooting. Just post in the comments here and we can try to help out!


  • Nick Cosentino

    Nick Cosentino

    I work as a team lead of software engineering at Magnet Forensics (http://www.magnetforensics.com). I'm into powerlifting, bodybuilding, and blogging about leadership/development topics over at http://www.devleader.ca.

    Verified Services

    View Full Profile →

  • Copyright © 1996-2010 Dev Leader. All rights reserved.
    Jarrah theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress