Can generics improve this design?

The PartyRoleConstraints class in the model below (on the right) is the subject of this question.

The idea is that when a client tries to associate a Party with a RoleType, the RoleType sees if it has any Constraints that should prevent a given Party from being associated. A Party is a supertype for both Person and Organization.

Here is the totally generic interface I am after:

public interface IRoleConstraint<in T>
{
    Func<T, bool> IsSatisfied { get; }
    string UnsatisfiedDescription { get; }
    bool CanAddRole(T instance);
}

A common constraint would be by Type. So if I have role type of "husband" then I want to make sure the Party instance is a Person. Here is some implementation and a test case proving I can do this:

public class RoleConstraint<T> : IRoleConstraint<T>
{
    public RoleConstraint(Func<T, Boolean> isSatisfied, string unsatisfiedDescription) {
        if (isSatisfied == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("isSatisfied");
        if (unsatisfiedDescription == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("unsatisfiedDescription");

        IsSatisfied = isSatisfied;
        UnsatisfiedDescription = unsatisfiedDescription;
    }

    public Func<T,开发者_StackOverflow bool> IsSatisfied { get; protected set; }

    public string UnsatisfiedDescription { get; protected set; }

    public bool CanAddRole(T instance) { return IsSatisfied.Invoke(instance); }
}

public class PartyRoleConstraint : RoleConstraint<Party>
{
    public PartyRoleConstraint(Func<Party, bool> isSatisfied, string unsatisfiedDescription) : base(isSatisfied, unsatisfiedDescription) { }
}

public class PartyRoleConstrainedToType<TRequired> : PartyRoleConstraint where TRequired : Party
{
    private static readonly string _unsatisfiedDescription
        = string.Format("This role requires a Party instance to be a {0}", typeof(TRequired).Name);

    private static readonly Func<Party, bool> _isSatisfied = instance => instance.GetType().Equals(typeof(TRequired));

    public PartyRoleConstrainedToType() : base(_isSatisfied, _unsatisfiedDescription) { }
}

    [Test]
    public void Constraints_IfTypeConstraint_and_InstanceDoesNotMatch_False()
    {
        var sony = new Organization("Sony Corporation");
        var constraint = new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>();
        _husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(constraint);
        Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(sony), Is.False);
    }

The problem I am hitting is if I want to set up a rule based on an attribute of a subtype of Party. For example, I want the gender of the husband to be Male. I can do this with a cast, as:

    [Test]
    public void Constraints_IfConstraintConditionIsNotMet_False()
    {
        _husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>());
        Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.True);

        //**** here is the cast **** //
        var mustBeMale = new PartyRoleConstraint(p => ((Person)p).Gender == Gender.Male, "the husband must be male.");  

        _husbandRoleType.AddConstraint(mustBeMale);
        Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.False);
        _arthur.Gender = Gender.Male;
        Assert.That(_husbandRoleType.CanAddRole(_arthur), Is.True);
    }

The question (finally!) is: can I use generics to avoid that cast, and if so, how?

---

Yes, you can get rid of the cast, but you will have to specify "Person" somewhere. It's hard to propose a "best place" to do so, without knowing more about your requirements and constraints. One option would be something like:

var mustBeMale = PartyRoleConstraint.For<Person>( p => p.Gender == ...);

Another option would be to tweek PartyRoleConstrainedToType to allow further restrictions. And example might look like this:

var combinedConstraint = new PartyRoleConstrainedToType<Person>().MustSatisfy(p => p.Gender == ...);

As said before: You will have to specify Person somewhere, but there a different options to create a nice syntax. What nice means, depends on your requirements and use cases.