Bind properties to the chain interface

[R2D221]

Hi, I saw your library and thing it's an interesting idea! However, I think it's missing property chaining to be 100% useful.

Let's say I have a class Foo, with property Bar, but then I want to do: foo.Chain<IFooChain>.SetBar(bar). With your current examples, there seems to be no way to do it, but maybe it is possible since I haven't tested it on a project.

Either way, I think it needs to be done, because many fluent interfaces are used to set properties.

[smatsson]

@R2D221 Great idea! Feel free to submit a PR if you have any suggestion on how to solve this. From your example I'm guessing that you would want to add a SetX-method for each property?

[natehitze]

Is this even possible? IFooChain would have to contain the SetX methods for the properties.

Does it make sense to have properties work like the Value() method works now?

[smatsson]

@laughinggoose that is actually a very good idea. There is basically no different between a void method with parameters and a property setter. I could update the code to check for a property or member if a method matching the signature was not found.

On mobile so sorry for formatting:

Interface TInterface { Tinterface Name(string value); }

Given the above interface Chainly could check for a property or member with the name "Name" given that a method does not exist. The interface method must have this signature for it to work: Tinterface PropertyName(TPropertyType value);

Any thoughts on this approach?

[natehitze]

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

[R2D221]

Sorry I haven't done a pull request or anything, I've been busy.

I think there are two possibilities: that we name the method either SetX or just X. I think SetX would be better because it would be clear it's a setter, and it works similar to Java and other languages. But X would be simpler, of course.

In any case, the library would check first if there's already an existing method, and if not then try to find a property.

[smatsson]

Maybe I missunderstand your last sentence but I think that we should either go with X for methods and SetX for properties/members OR X for everything. My interpretation is that SetX should check for a method before checking for properties which does not make much sense.

Imo it's a matter of what makes most sense for the consumer of the library. SetX for properties/members might be better as it would make it clear that this is not a method that is executed but rather a value that is set.