| StrongOf | StrongOf.AspNetCore | StrongOf.Json | StrongOf.FluentValidation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NuGet |  |
 |
 |
 |
All StrongOf Packages are available for .NET 7, .NET 8 and .NET 9.
StrongOf helps to implement primitives as a strong type that represents a domain object (e.g. UserId, EmailAddress, etc.). It is a simple class that wraps a value and provides a few helper methods to make it easier to work with.
In contrast to other approaches, StrongOf is above all simple and performant - and not over-engineered.
This library was developed because C# did not support type abbreviations up to and including version 12. Originally announced for C#13, we should finally receive Extension Types with C# 14.
See GitHub proposal: Proposal: Type aliases / abbreviations / newtype
The frequent problem in code implementation is that values are not given any meaning and many methods are simply a technical string of values or data classes are just a list of types.
public class User
{
public Guid TenantId { get; set; }
public Guid UserId { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
}A consequential problem is that there is also no compiler support if parameters are swapped. This can only be covered by complex unit tests.
// no compiler warning if you mess up the order here
public User AddUser(Guid tenantId, Guid userId, string firstName, string lastName, string email)The idea is to use a domain-driven design approach to give specific values a meaning through their own types.
private sealed class TenantId(Guid value) : StrongGuid<TenantId>(value) { }
private sealed class UserId(Guid value) : StrongGuid<UserId>(value) { }
private sealed class FirstName(string value) : StrongString<FirstName>(value) { }
private sealed class LastName(string value) : StrongString<LastName>(value) { }
private sealed class Email(string value) : StrongString<Email>(value) { }
public class User
{
public TenantId TenantId { get; set; }
public UserId UserId { get; set; }
public FirstName FirstName { get; set; }
public LastName LastName { get; set; }
public Email Email { get; set; }
}
// with compiler warning if you mess up the order here
public User AddUser(TenantId tenantId, UserId userId, FirstName firstName, LastName lastName, Email email)Now you are safe!
The clearest distinction to other approaches is that all StrongOf types inherit from StrongOf<T> in order to be able to implement generic approaches. Furthermore, it is possible to extend the class, e.g. to implement validations.
private sealed class UserId(Guid value) : StrongGuid<UserId>(value) { }You can just use StrongOf.Json and use one of the pre-defined converters
public class MyClass
{
[JsonConverter(typeof(StrongGuidJsonConverter<UserId>))]
public UserId Id { get; set; }
}or use the JsonSerializerOptions
JsonSerializerOptions serializeOptions = new JsonSerializerOptions
{
WriteIndented = true,
Converters =
{
new StrongGuidJsonConverter<UserId>()
}
};
string jsonString = JsonSerializer.Serialize(myObject, serializeOptions);You can just use StrongOf.AspNetCore and use one of the pre-defined binders
public class MyBinderProvider : IModelBinderProvider
{
private static readonly IReadOnlyDictionary<Type, Type> s_binders = new Dictionary<Type, Type>
{
{typeof(UserId), typeof(StrongGuidBinder<UserId>)}
// ... more here ...
};
public IModelBinder? GetBinder(ModelBinderProviderContext context)
{
if (s_binders.TryGetValue(context.Metadata.ModelType, out Type? binderType))
{
return new BinderTypeModelBinder(binderType);
}
return null;
}
}You can also create a customized binder
public class MyCustomStrongGuidBinder<TStrong> : StrongOfBinder
where TStrong : StrongGuid<TStrong>
{
public override bool TryHandle(string value, out ModelBindingResult result)
{
// do something here
if (StrongGuid<TStrong>.TryParse(value, out TStrong? strong))
{
result = ModelBindingResult.Success(strong);
return true;
}
result = ModelBindingResult.Failed();
return false;
}
}Unfortunately, Entity Framework does not love generic Value Converters, which is why you have to write it yourself.
public class UserIdValueConverter : ValueConverter<UserId, Guid>
{
public UserIdValueConverter(ConverterMappingHints? mappingHints = null)
: base(id => id.Value, value => new(value), mappingHints) { }
}There is no benefit in providing you a base class with an additional package and dependency.
FluentValidation is a great library for validating models; especially popular in the ASP.NET Core world.
Therefore, separate validations are available for StrongOf models, which are constantly being expanded.
In order not to forget the namespace, separate methods are available that differ from the default ValidationContext.
public class MySubmitModel
{
// Mandatory properties should be
// marked as not null, but can still be null at
// runtime if no value has been passed.
public MyStrongString MyUserName { get; set; } = null!;
}
public class MySubmitModelValidator : AbstractValidator<MySubmitModel>
{
public MySubmitModelValidator()
{
RuleFor(x => x.MyUserName)
.HasValue() // not NotNull
.WithMessage("No user name passed.");
// more validations...Since the strong types created here can still be instantiated with new(), this also means an enormous performance advantage over libraries that have to work with Activator.CreateInstance or Expression.New.
BenchmarkDotNet v0.14.0, Windows 10 (10.0.19045.5131/22H2/2022Update)
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, 1 CPU, 32 logical and 16 physical cores
.NET SDK 9.0.100
[Host] : .NET 9.0.0 (9.0.24.52809), X64 RyuJIT AVX-512F+CD+BW+DQ+VL+VBMI
.NET 7.0 : .NET 7.0.20 (7.0.2024.26716), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
.NET 8.0 : .NET 8.0.11 (8.0.1124.51707), X64 RyuJIT AVX-512F+CD+BW+DQ+VL+VBMI
.NET 9.0 : .NET 9.0.0 (9.0.24.52809), X64 RyuJIT AVX-512F+CD+BW+DQ+VL+VBMI
| Method | Runtime | Mean | Ratio |
|------------ |--------- |---------:|------:|
| Guid_New | .NET 7.0 | 1.712 ns | 1.03 |
| Guid_New | .NET 8.0 | 1.672 ns | 1.00 |
| Guid_New | .NET 9.0 | 1.665 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| Guid_From | .NET 7.0 | 3.250 ns | 1.32 |
| Guid_From | .NET 8.0 | 3.165 ns | 1.29 |
| Guid_From | .NET 9.0 | 2.462 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| Int32_New | .NET 7.0 | 1.604 ns | 1.00 |
| Int32_New | .NET 8.0 | 1.637 ns | 1.02 |
| Int32_New | .NET 9.0 | 1.609 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| Int32_From | .NET 7.0 | 2.738 ns | 1.41 |
| Int32_From | .NET 8.0 | 2.636 ns | 1.36 |
| Int32_From | .NET 9.0 | 1.942 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| Int64_New | .NET 7.0 | 1.633 ns | 1.02 |
| Int64_New | .NET 8.0 | 1.605 ns | 1.00 |
| Int64_New | .NET 9.0 | 1.608 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| Int64_From | .NET 7.0 | 2.673 ns | 1.41 |
| Int64_From | .NET 8.0 | 2.648 ns | 1.40 |
| Int64_From | .NET 9.0 | 1.890 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| String_New | .NET 7.0 | 2.613 ns | 1.61 |
| String_New | .NET 8.0 | 1.582 ns | 0.97 |
| String_New | .NET 9.0 | 1.627 ns | 1.00 |
| | | | |
| String_From | .NET 7.0 | 3.526 ns | 1.28 |
| String_From | .NET 8.0 | 3.596 ns | 1.31 |
| String_From | .NET 9.0 | 2.746 ns | 1.00 |For certain scenarios, this library also has an Expression.New implementation (through a static From method); but not for general instantiation.
Why no records?
Records (currently) have a few disadvantages, which is why they are not suitable for this type of class. For example, it is currently not possible to validly inherit GetHashCode. sealed on GetHashCode is only available if the record itself is sealed, which does not make sense here.
Why no Code Generator?
Code generators are great, were my first idea too, but have proven to be a disadvantage in everyday life, e.g. when implementing generic extensions / implementations. This library is based on the experience of other libraries that have tended to be too large and their disadvantages.
Why no structs?
Structs cannot be used in all scenarios, e.g. with ASP.NET Core Action parameters.