c# - event Action<> vs event EventHandler<>

Question

Is there any different between declaring event Action<> and event EventHandler<>.

Assuming it doesn't matter what object actually raised an event.

for example:

public event Action<bool, int, Blah> DiagnosticsEvent;

vs

public event EventHandler<DiagnosticsArgs> DiagnosticsEvent;

class DiagnosticsArgs : EventArgs
{
    public DiagnosticsArgs(bool b, int i, Blah bl)
    {...}
    ...
}

usage would be almost the same in both cases:

obj.DiagnosticsEvent += HandleDiagnosticsEvent;

There are several things that I don’t like about event EventHandler<> pattern:

• Extra type declaration derived from EventArgs
• Compulsory passing of object source – often no one cares

More code means more code to maintain without any clear advantage.

As a result, I prefer event Action<>

However, only if there are too many type arguments in Action<>, then an extra class would be required.

Answer 1

Based on some of the previous answers, I'm going to break my answer down into three areas.

First, physical limitations of using Action<T1, T2, T2... > vs using a derived class of EventArgs. There are three: First, if you change the number or types of parameters, every method that subscribes to will have to be changed to conform to the new pattern. If this is a public facing event that 3rd party assemblies will be using, and there is any possiblity that the event args would change, this would be a reason to use a custom class derived from event args for consistencies sake (remember, you COULD still use an Action<MyCustomClass>) Second, using Action<T1, T2, T2... > will prevent you from passing feedback BACK to the calling method unless you have a some kind of object (with a Handled property for instance) that is passed along with the Action. Third, you don't get named parameters, so if you're passing 3 bool's an int, two string's, and a DateTime, you have no idea what the meaning of those values are. As a side note, you can still have a "Fire this event safely method while still using Action<T1, T2, T2... >".

Secondly, consistency implications. If you have a large system you're already working with, it's nearly always better to follow the way the rest of the system is designed unless you have an very good reason not too. If you have publicly facing events that need to be maintained, the ability to substitute derived classes can be important. Keep that in mind.

Thirdly, real life practice, I personally find that I tend to create a lot of one off events for things like property changes that I need to interact with (Particularly when doing MVVM with view models that interact with each other) or where the event has a single parameter. Most of the time these events take on the form of public event Action<[classtype], bool> [PropertyName]Changed; or public event Action SomethingHappened;. In these cases, there are two benefits. First, I get a type for the issuing class. If MyClass declares and is the only class firing the event, I get an explicit instance of MyClass to work with in the event handler. Secondly, for simple events such as property change events, the meaning of the parameters is obvious and stated in the name of the event handler and I don't have to create a myriad of classes for these kinds of events.