oreilly.comSafari Books Online.Conferences.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Copying, Cloning, and Marshalling in .NET
Pages: 1, 2, 3

Listing 2: Introducing the System.ICloneable interface

namespace System
  interface ICloneable
    object Clone();

But there are two problems with the ICloneable interface. First, it's weakly-typed -- it's specified to return an object, which could be darn well anything -- the lack of generics (templates) in the current version of .NET makes this an unavoidable necessity. This forces clients of ICloneable to downcast the clone back to the type in question, which can sometimes result in cumbersome and error-prone (or at least ugly) code.

It seems to me that the best analog of a "copy constructor/assignment operator" pair, in C#, would be an implementation of ICloneable that delegates to a public, type-safe alternative Clone method:

Listing 3: A well-designed, cloneable class

class MyCloneableClass : System.ICloneable
  // Explicit interface method impl -- available for 
  // clients of ICloneable, but invisible to casual 
  // clients of MyCloneableClass
  object ICloneable.Clone()
  // simply delegate to our type-safe cousin
    return this.Clone(); 

  // Friendly, type-safe clone method
  public virtual MyCloneableClass Clone()
    // Start with a flat, memberwise copy
    MyCloneableClass x = 
            this.MemberwiseClone() as MyCloneableClass;

    // Then deep-copy everything that needs the 
    // special attention
    x.somethingDeep = this.somethingDeep.Clone();


    return x;

ICloneable.Clone vs. Object.MemberwiseClone

Related Reading

Programming C#
By Jesse Liberty

In the previous section, we made use of an interesting member function, present on all .NET objects: MemberwiseClone. This method is a source of great confusion in the developer community. Don't be fooled by its name -- it's certainly not any kind of alternative to ICloneable.Clone, because it's a protected method. Furthermore, it's not even overrideable by derived types, because it's not a virtual method. Its only purpose in life seems to be to assist us in our implementations of Clone methods, by performing the default .NET shallow-copy in just one line of code.

Now, this begs the following question: why is there no corresponding "DeepClone" method on System.Object? Shouldn't it be possible for the framework to provide a method that queries each member for the ICloneable interface, and either calls ICloneable.Clone on that member or performs a bitwise (shallow) copy of the member, as appropriate? This would allow a great many implementations of Clone to be implemented with just one trivial line of code:

Listing 4: Wishful thinking

public virtual MyCloneableClass Clone()
  // let .NET do the heavy lifting
  return this.DeepClone(); 

The only exceptions, of course, would be types that contain one or more references to objects that neglect to implement ICloneable as expected, or object graphs that contains circular references (like the doubly-linked list example in Figure 1). These objects would have to be copied "by hand," in the current manner.

Anyway, this brings us to the second problem with ICloneable: although it's a well-known interface, defined by the system, the .NET runtime doesn't seem to make use of it (at least not in any context that I've yet encountered). This is in contrast to most of the other system-defined "IXXXXable" interfaces (e.g.: ISerializable, IComparable, IEnumerable, IDisposable, etc.) each of which is either called by the .NET runtime in some situation, or else serves to support some language feature (e.g.: C#'s foreach and using constructs are supported by IEnumerable and IDisposable, respectively).

It seems that ICloneable is purely a convention -- no better or worse than recommending that we all implement a public Clone method to accomplish the same thing. The fact that ICloneable is an interface does, however, make it easy for callers to query an object of unknown origin for its copy-semantics, without resorting to reflection (although in practice, the need to do this does not come up very often).

Listing 5: Do our best to make a copy of object x, deep or shallow

public static object MakeCopyOf( object x)
  if (x is ICloneable)
    // Return a deep copy of the object
    return ((ICloneable)x).Clone();
  else if (x is ValueType)
    // Return a shallow copy of the value
    return ((ValueType)x);
    // Without resorting to reflection or serialization, 
    // all we can do is fall back to default copy semantics, 
    // which will return a ref to the same physical object 
    // (not what we want!)
    throw new 
         System.NotSupportedException("object not cloneable");

What's So Special About System.String?

An interesting case study in the field of object-cloning is that of System.String. We all know how easy it is give pass-by-reference semantics to a value-type -- just box it, and copy the object around. But how do you give pass-by-value semantics to a reference-type? Surely it must be possible, because System.String gets away with it. Or is System.String special in some way?

To be sure, strings are given a lot of special treatment in .NET. They even have some of their very own Intermediate Language (IL) opcodes. However, there is no magic at play, here -- System.String accomplishes its pass-by-value trick by virtue of being immutable, by design. In other words, strings in .NET are passed by-reference just like instances of any other class. But you can't easily test that hypothesis without modifying the string's contents, and there simply aren't any methods that modify a string without returning a newly-created string instance.

Every method that might appear, at first glance, to modify a string in fact returns a modified copy of the string. Unlike C++ and some other languages, .NET does not offer the concept of "const" methods -- methods that do not modify any of the object's member variables. If it did, however, then every instance method on the System.String class would surely be marked "const".

This clever design is similar to the "pass-by-reference-but-copy-on-write semantics" made popular by the C++ string classes found in STL and MFC. This is a very efficient design, because strings take great resources to copy (it should be done only when necessary).

Note that it is probably not worthwhile to imitate this technique in your own classes. Only strings are used so heavily as to justify the excessive amount of code involved (viz. a whole separate class, System.Text.StringBuilder, is needed to avoid spurious copying in some other common usage scenarios). But it's always good to understand how the magic works.

Now let's leave the topic of object-cloning behind, for a while, and expand our horizons by analyzing what happens when we pass parameters to objects that live in remote app domains!

Marshalling Arguments Across AppDomain Boundaries

The topic of remoting in .NET (whereby objects communicate across AppDomain boundaries) is long and complex -- far beyond the scope of this article. However, a central premise of all remoting architectures is marshalling, and marshalling is very closely related to the subject matter of this article (namely, the passing of objects as arguments to method calls), so it's worth taking a look at how marshalling works in .NET remoting. (See the References section for some interesting links to learn more about remoting in .NET, in general.)

For our purposes, marshalling can be defined as the mechanism by which arguments to/from a method call are transported, across some communication channel, to a remote recipient. Often the process of marshalling involves serialization -- persisting the object's state into a stream, and reconstituting the object "over there." Other times, it involves the creation of a proxy object, which will in turn marshal arguments to subsequent method calls back and forth across the wall.

The former case is known as "marshal-by-value" (or MBV), and it's very much like the pass-by-value semantics exhibited by value-types. The latter case is known as "marshal-by-reference" (or MBR), and, no surprise, it's very much like the pass-by-reference semantics that we've already seen.. But the most important thing to understand about marshalling in .NET is that the default semantics are different: by default, all objects in .NET (both value- and reference-types) are marshalled by value when sent across the "wire" to a remote AppDomain.

But how can a reference-type be passed by-value? Didn't we learn, back in Listing 5, that this was impossible (without resorting to reflection or serialization)? We did. And indeed it's true -- if you attempt to pass an MBV object that is not serializable (marked with the [Serializable] attribute), you will experience a SerializationException at run time. Listing 6 demonstrates this phenomenon.

Pages: 1, 2, 3

Next Pagearrow