Field reference and reflection

Question

One class has a field. Second class should be able to reference that field and to change it. Since you cannot get the address of a field in memory, I have to use reflections. But my approach only works on non-encapsulated fields. So basically:

This works:

public class Dummy
{
    public int field;
    public Dummy(int value)
    {
        this.field = value;
    }
}

class Program
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        Dummy d = new Dummy(20);
        //Shows 20
        Console.WriteLine(d.field.ToString());
        d.GetType().GetField("field", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).SetValue(d, 40);
        //It should show 40 now
        Console.WriteLine(d.field.ToString());
    }
}

This doesn't (throws NullReferenceException):

public class Dummy
{
    public int field { get; set; }
    public Dummy(int value)
    {
        this.field = value;
    }
}

class Program
{
    public static void Main()
    {
        Dummy d = new Dummy(20);
        //Shows 20
        Console.WriteLine(d.field.ToString());
        d.GetType().GetField("field", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).SetValue(d, 40);
        //It should show 40 now
        Console.WriteLine(d.field.ToString());
    }
}

Why? How do I fix it? Can I even access an encapsulated object like that? Thank you!

In your second example, that is not a `field`, its a `property`. — EkoostikMartin, Jan 23 '14 at 20:13
Why do you need reflection here? Both the `field` and the `property` are public, so `d.field = 40;`... — Alden, Jan 23 '14 at 20:15
It's rather just a silly example to make things clear. You obviously don't need reflection here. — JTaylor, Jan 23 '14 at 20:30

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Jan 23 '14 at 20:14

2

It is not a field any longer. Instead of GetField you should use GetProperty method:

d.GetType().GetProperty(...);

answered Jan 23 '14 at 20:14

Paweł Bejger

5,976
20
26

score 2 · Answer 2 · edited May 23 '17 at 12:03

2

In both cases, you could (and should) write

d.field = 40;

When you want a field to be non-private, you should always make it a property, as in your second example. You should never have public fields. Note that if you need to access a property via reflection, you'd use GetProperty, not GetField.

edited May 23 '17 at 12:03

Community

1
1

answered Jan 23 '14 at 20:17

Tim S.

53,874
7
89
119

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Jan 23 '14 at 20:19

0

Can you be more precise about the use case? Maybe an interface that isolates the properties' accessors is better:

public interface IDummy
{
    int field { get; set; }
}

You'll be able to manipulate the property without knowing anything about the rest of the object. Isn't that what you need when you want to "reference" a single field?

answered Jan 23 '14 at 20:19

pid

11,182
5
35
58

You are surely right but in my case there's too much variety to use interface. I just wanted a class that holds an object reference and when it gets changed - it changes the field / property elsewhere. That thing up there is just a silly example to make it clear to see where's the error. – JTaylor Jan 23 '14 at 20:34
Perfect. I guess you'll poll the value then. Needless to say that setters + events are excellent for these cases. I sense you don't have access to the source code and can't get around polling... – pid Jan 23 '14 at 20:44

Field reference and reflection

3 Answers3