How to avoid too many downcasts in a function

Question

I have too many downcasts in my code. In c++ I can use templates to avoid downcasting. But what is the best implementation of the following example in c#?

class Pet { bool mIsDog; }
class Dog : Pet // mIsDog = true
class Cat : Pet // mIsDog = false

class Owner //There are many different owner classes, may come from different dlls
{
    private List<Food> mFoods;

    private void FeedDog(Dog dog)
    {
        ... //Use mFoods, which is invisible to dog
    }

    void HandlePet(Pet pet)
    {
        if(pet.mIsDog) //In c++ I can use templates to avoid downcasting
            FeedDog((Dog)pet);
        else
            FeedCat((Cat)pet);

        ... //code handling general pet

        while(pet.IsUnhappy())
        {
            if(pet.mIsDog) //In c++ I can use templates to avoid downcasting
                PlayWithDog((Dog)pet);
            else
                PlayWithCat((Cat)pet);
        }

        ... //a lot of code handling general pet or specific pet (cat or dog)
    }
}

Note that function HandlePet has very complex logic with many levels of indentations so it is difficult to break it into multiple seperate functions.

---

The reason that I do not make BeFedWith or BePlayedWith a virtual function within Pet class is that I may have many different Owner classes, e.g., BoyOwner, GirlOwner, WomanOwner, ManOwner, each with its own way to feed the pet. Pet is a common class and is used by many other classes, but Owner classes only interact with Pet. Also, functions such as FeedDog need to access the private members of Owner class.

Answer 1

If you must do what you suggest, keeping the Feed etc. methods part of the owner not the pet, then you could utilize dynamic binding to call the correct owner method:

using System;

class Pet { }
class Dog : Pet { }
class Cat : Pet { }

class Owner
{
    public void HandlePet(Pet pet)
    {
        HandlePet((dynamic)pet);
    }

    private void HandlePet(Cat pet)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Stroke the cat softly whispering Please don't scratch me.");
    }

    private void HandlePet(Dog pet)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Stroke the dog firmly saying Who's a good boy?");
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var owner = new Owner();

        Console.WriteLine("Handle dog first");
        owner.HandlePet(new Dog());

        Console.WriteLine("Handle cat second");
        owner.HandlePet(new Cat());

        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

Output:

Handle dog first
Stroke the dog firmly saying Who's a good boy?
Handle cat second
Stroke the cat softly whispering Please don't scratch me.

---

If you can avoid it, then I would put the methods on the Pet classes, as below:
One way would be to make Pet an abstract class, which has EatFood and Play abstract methods. The Dog and Cat classes would implement these methods:

using System;

abstract class Pet
{
    public abstract void EatFood();
    public abstract void Play();

    public void BrushHair()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Hair brushed!");
    }
}
class Dog : Pet
{
    public override void EatFood()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Eating dog food...");
    }

    public override void Play()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Run around manically barking at everything.");
    }
}
class Cat : Pet
{
    public override void EatFood()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Eating cat food...");
    }

    public override void Play()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Randomly choose something breakable to knock over.");
    }
}

class Owner
{
    public void HandlePet(Pet pet)
    {
        pet.EatFood();
        pet.Play();
        pet.BrushHair();
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var owner = new Owner();

        Console.WriteLine("Handle dog first");
        owner.HandlePet(new Dog());

        Console.WriteLine("Handle cat second");
        owner.HandlePet(new Cat());

        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

Output:

Handle dog first
Eating dog food...
Run around manically barking at everything.
Hair Brushed!
Handle cat second
Eating cat food...
Randomly choose something breakable to knock over.
Hair Brushed!

---

If you want to use the visitor pattern, try the code below:

using System;

public interface IPetVisitor
{
    void Visit(Dog dog);
    void Visit(Cat cat);
}

public interface IPetAcceptor<T>
{
    void Accept(T visitor);
}

public abstract class Pet : IPetAcceptor<IPetVisitor>
{
    public abstract void Accept(IPetVisitor visitor);
}
public class Dog : Pet
{
    public override void Accept(IPetVisitor visitor)
    {
        visitor.Visit(this);
    }
}
public class Cat : Pet
{
    public override void Accept(IPetVisitor visitor)
    {
        visitor.Visit(this);
    }
}

class Owner
{
    // Private variable on owner class
    private int HandCount = 2;

    // Pet handler is an inner class so we can access the enclosing class' private member.
    public class PetHandler : IPetVisitor
    {
        private Owner Owner;

        public PetHandler(Owner owner)
        { Owner = owner; }

        public void Visit(Dog dog)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Pet the dog with {0} hands", Owner.HandCount);
        }

        public void Visit(Cat cat)
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Pet the cat with {0} hands", Owner.HandCount);
        }
    }
    private PetHandler PetHandlerInstance;

    public Owner()
    {
        PetHandlerInstance = new PetHandler(this);
    }

    public void HandlePet(IPetAcceptor<IPetVisitor> pet)
    {
        pet.Accept(PetHandlerInstance);
    }
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var owner = new Owner();

        Console.WriteLine("Handle dog first");
        owner.HandlePet(new Dog());

        Console.WriteLine("Handle cat second");
        owner.HandlePet(new Cat());

        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

Answer 2

The problem you are try to solve is how to dispatch based on object type, when you don't know at the time you design the object all the different operations that might be required. (The other answers suggest putting all the required operations in the base class; this is sometimes not possible and leads to excessive coupling).

The answer is not to test the type of the object and cast; you should be doing that seldom, if ever. A good solution is to use the Visitor pattern: when you make the object Visitable, you can add new operations dispatched on the object type by implementing the operation, not by changing the object itself.

Answer 3

Well, downcasting is considered bad design... you should move common method to baseclass and make them abstract or have an interface to do that.

if you have:

public interface Pet{
    void Feed();
    void Play();
}

public class Dog:Pet{
    public void Feed(){
        ...dog feeding code...
    }
    public void Play(){
        ...dog playing code...
    }
}
public class Cat:Pet{
    public void Feed(){
        ...cat feeding code...
    }
    public void Play(){
        ...cat playing code...
    }
}

then you handlePet function become:

void HandlePet(Pet pet){
    pet.Feed();
    while(pet.isUnhappy())
        pet.Play();
}