问题
In a thread resolved yesterday, @hvd showed me how to get "control" over exception handling by .Invoke when dealing with delegates of unknown type (an issue seen in libraries like Isis2, where the end-user provides polymorphic event handlers and the library type-matches to decide which to call). Hvd's suggestion revolved around knowing how many arguments the upcall handler received and then using that information to construct a generic of the right type, which allowed him to construct a dynamic object and invoke it. The sequence yielded full control over exception handling.
The core of his suggestion was that Isis2 might consider doing upcalls this way:
MethodInfo mi = typeof(Program).GetMethod("Foo", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
Delegate del = Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<,>).MakeGenericType(mi.GetParameters().Select(p => p.ParameterType).ToArray()), mi);
((dynamic)del).Invoke(arg0, arg1);
Here's my question: Can anyone suggest a way to do this same thing that works for an arbitrary number of arguments? Clearly I can do a switch statement and write code for the case of 1 arg, 2, etc. But is there a way to do it where mi.GetParameters().Length tells us how many arguments?
As a capsule summary for those who don't want to click the link, the core issue is this: when doing these kinds of dynamic upcalls, the end-user (who registered the method being called) may throw an exception due to bugs. Turns out that when not running under Visual Studio -- when running directly in the CLR -- the C# .Invoke will catch and rethrow exceptions, packaging them as inner exceptions inside a InvocationTargetException. This unwinds the stack and causes the user to perceive the bug as having been some kind of problem with the code that called .Invoke (e.g. with MY code). This is why the C# reference manual argues that catch/rethrow is poor coding practice: one should only catch exceptions that one plans to handle...
hvd explained that this was basically because .Invoke had no clue as to the number or types of the arguments and in that mode, apparently, catchs and rethrows exceptions for some reason. His workaround essentially pins down the number of arguments (the generic in the example: Action<,>) and this apparently is enough so that .Invoke doesn't do a "universal catch". But to use his example for arbitrary code, I need a case for each possible number of parameters. Doable (after all, who would ever want more than 16?) but ugly!
Hence today's challenge: Improve that code so that with a similar 3 line snippet of C# it works no matter how many parameters. Of course the resulting delegate needs to be callable too, presumably with a vector of objects, one per argument...
PS: One reason for pessimism: Action itself comes in 16 forms, with 1 to 16 arguments. So to me this suggests that the C# developers didn't see a more general way to do it, and ended up with the version that would correspond to me using a switch statement (and I guess the switch would have cases for 0 to 16 arguments, since I would need an Action<...> with N type arguments to handle N user-supplied arguments!)
回答1:
I don't want to leave this open forever, so I've done what I could to understand the core issue, including downloading the code for .Invoke in Mono. As far as I can tell, the original problem is simply due to an optimization that favors faster invocations at the cost of catching exceptions this way when a dynamic Invoke is done on an object with an argument vector. The code for a dynamic delegate created using the generic template simply doesn't have this catch in it.
Not a great answer but without access to the .NET implementation of Invoke, it apparently won't be possible to give a better one.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9759305/controlled-exception-handling-in-dynamic-invocations-with-variable-numbers-of-pa