Defining enum inside of enum?

[Brett Romero]

I'd like to create one enum that holds webpage name values and
corresponding URL values. For example:

enum webPageFileName
{index = "index.aspx "}

enum webPageName
{index = "index"}

enum webPageNameTitl e
{index = "Home Sweet Home"}

enum webPageRelative Path
{index = "index.aspx "}

enum webPageNameAbso luteURL
{index = "http://www.abc.com/index.aspx"}

But instead of referencing seperate enums, I could reference something
similar to this:
webPageInfo.ind ex.FileName
webPageInfo.ind ex.PageName
webPageInfo.ind ex.Title
webPageInfo.ind ex.RelativePath
webPageInfo.ind ex.AbsoluteURL

Now each webpage is grouped by a common index name within one enum.
WebPageInfo.ind ex for the index.page or WebPageInfo.Con tact for the
contact page. It's easy enough to get all the page info in one place
at that point.

This probably can't be done with an enum but needs a static class.
Suggestions?

Thanks,
Brett

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Brett Romero <ac*****@cygen. com> wrote:

I'd like to create one enum that holds webpage name values and
corresponding URL values.

It sounds like you want proper OO enums. See
http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon.skeet/ar...classenum.aspx
for my suggestions.

Unfortunately, they don't exist in C#. However, there are some comments
which would give you workarounds to give a similar effect, without the
language support.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Brett Romero]

>From the comments on that page, here's the closest I can get:

public abstract class WebPageInfo
{

private WebPageInfo()
{
}

public class Index:WebPageIn fo
{
public static readonly string FileName = "index.ascx ";
public static readonly string AbsoluteURL =
"www.abc.co m/index.ascx";
public static readonly string PageTitle= "Home Sweet Home";
}
}

For every page involved, I'll need to create the above structure:

public class somePageName:We bPageInfo
....

which isn't so bad since most of the information isn't unique. Just
copy/paste and fill in the needed changes.

Brett

[Brett Romero]

>From the comments, I don't see a way to get the
webPageInfo.ind ex.AbsoluteURL syntax.

Thanks,
Brett

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Brett Romero <ac*****@cygen. com> wrote:

From the comments on that page, here's the closest I can get:

public abstract class WebPageInfo
{

private WebPageInfo()
{
}

public class Index:WebPageIn fo
{
public static readonly string FileName = "index.ascx ";
public static readonly string AbsoluteURL =
"www.abc.co m/index.ascx";
public static readonly string PageTitle= "Home Sweet Home";
}
}

For every page involved, I'll need to create the above structure:

public class somePageName:We bPageInfo
...

which isn't so bad since most of the information isn't unique. Just
copy/paste and fill in the needed changes.

I'd do it slightly differently. In this case, I'd just have:

public class WebPageInfo
{
public static readonly WebPageInfo Index =
new WebPageInfo ("index.ascx ",
"www.abc.co m/index.ascx",
"Home Sweet Home");

// etc

private WebPageInfo (string filename,
string absoluteUrl,
string pageTitle)
{
this.filename = filename;
this.absoluteUr l = absoluteUrl;
this.pageTitle = pageTitle;
}

public string Filename
{
get { return filename; }
}

// etc
}

The use of derived classes would really be if you wanted to override
method behaviour.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Brett Romero]

Very good. Thanks. I can take the inheritance off of my technique.
It works just as well since I don't need inheritance.

Your technique creates an object for each page. I don't need objects.
However, yours does scale better and ends up with much less code. Is
there any disadvantage to creating all of these objects vs. somehow
staying completely static?

Thanks,
Brett

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Brett Romero <ac*****@cygen. com> wrote:

Very good. Thanks. I can take the inheritance off of my technique.
It works just as well since I don't need inheritance.

Your technique creates an object for each page. I don't need objects.
However, yours does scale better and ends up with much less code. Is
there any disadvantage to creating all of these objects vs. somehow
staying completely static?

Not really - it's not like there are many of them, or that they get
created more than once.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too