We Keep Coding

Can an interface be added to existing .NET types?

My example below involves 2 NET classes which both contain the method CommonMethod. I would like to design MyMethod that can accept either class (Using ) while retaining the functionality common to NetClassA and NetClassB. Case1 would do just that only it is illegal as stated below. Case2 would also accomplish the goal except INetClassA and INetClassB do not exist. Therefore my question is there a way to impose a custom interface (ICommonNetMethods) on existing .NET types (Case 3)? Alternative solutions to my problem are welcomed.
// Case 1: Illegal because "where" can only have 1 base class
public void MyMethod<Ttype>(Ttype myClass) where Ttype : NetClassA, NetClassB {}
// Case 2: Legal to utlize multiple "where" interface types
public void MyMethod<Ttype>(Ttype myClass) where Ttype : INetClassA, INetClassB {}
// Case 3: For this to work ICommonNetMethods must be added to NetClassA/NetClassB
public void MyMethod<Ttype>(Ttype myClass) where Ttype : ICommonNetMethods {}
NetClassA() { This .NET class has method CommonMethod() }
NetClassB() { This .NET class has method CommonMethod() }
interface ICommonNetMethods { void CommonMethod() }
Thanks,
aidesigner

There are ways to solve this that involve creative thinking.
Most obvious:
Adapter Pattern
You build your interface, then two adapters where each take NetClassA and the other NetClassB. Your common code stays common and the specific lives in the adapters.
This works even for sealed classes. You do not dervice from NetClassA or NetClassB. I kind of want to leave this to you to figure out the implementation, come back in a day if you want the code implementation I'll post it.
Other things to look at:
Extension Methods
and/or
Reflection
More Help
=====================
= ICommonNetMethods =
=====================
| (derive)
|-------------------------------|
==================== ====================
= NetClassAAdapter = = NetClassBAdapter =
==================== ====================
| uses (not derive) | uses (not derive)
============= =============
= NetClassA = = NetClassB =
============= =============

Use Func<>:
Assume two classes, A and B, each with a function Foo (though this isn't really a requirement for this solution, observe class C, below):
public class A { int Foo() { return 1; } }
public class B { int Foo() { return 2; } }
public class C { int Deviant() { return 3; } }
Then in some code fragment, you will write:
var a = new A();
var b = new B();
var c = new C();
var fs = new Func<int>[] {() => a.Foo(), () => b.Foo(), () => c.Deviant()};
So to use this:
foreach(var func in fs)
Console.WriteLine(func());
Which in turn will output:
1
2
3
Lambda functions are a big deal in C#, and a great technology to learn. If you are unfamiliar, and would like to learn more, start at Microsoft's help page.
If you are looking at larger interfaces, consider, as has been mentioned, the adapter pattern. If the idea of wrapping each of your objects with their own concrete adapter classes seems like too much bloat for your buck, then again, Func<> to the rescue.
public interface ISomeInterface
{
void f1();
int f2(string p1);
...
}
public class FuncImplementation : ISomeInterface
{
public Action Func_f1 { get; set; }
public Func<string,int> Func_f2 { get; set; }
...
public void f1() { Func_f1(); }
public int f2(string p1) { return Func_f2(p1); }
...
}
Now you can make new Adapters inline:
var adaptA = new FuncImplementation { Func_f1 = MyF1, Func_f2 = Myf2 };
adaptA.f1();

You cannot impose an interface on existing code (unless you use a code weaver like PostSharp, but that's cheating ;-).
Instead, consider these options:
If you simply have a single method on your interface, you could use
a Delegate instead.
You could make a simple wrapper class for each of your types, and implement the interface there.

C# 4.0 introduced the dynamic keyword which allows C# developers to use duck typing (an alternative to the adapter pattern). With it, you could define MyMethod like this:
public void MyMethod(dynamic myClass)
{
myClass.CommonMethod();
}
You could then simply pass instances of NetClassA and NetClassB to MyMethod like this:
var a = new NetClassA();
var b = new NetClassB();
MyMethod(a);
MyMethod(b);
The drawback to this approach is that there's no static type checking. If NetClassA or NetClassB didn't have a method called CommonMethod that accepted no parameters, the program would compile, but fail at run time.
Also since there's no associated interface, it's not clear what functions and properties are available. Avoid using this approach in public facing assemblies.

The only way I can think of (off the top of my head) is to derive from the .NET class in question and add your interface to that implementation. I don't think that's the optimal solution, however.
Why not simply inspect the type that Ttype is in the method, and execute your code accordingly based on the type?
For example:
public void MyMethod<Ttype>(Ttype myClass)
{
string className = typeof(Ttype).Name;
switch (className)
{
case "NetClassA":
// Do stuff
break;
case "NetClassB":
// Do stuff
break;
default:
// Do something if necessary
break;
}
}

Thanks to all, I was really impressed with the various options. First I had already started pursing the delegate option ( The use of nested type parameters and recursion (C#) ) and have an almost ideal solution. The second post on this thread shows my exact implementation. This approach tries to solve the problem by passing just the needed function "Add" of NETClassA (SrgsItem) and NetClassB (SrgsElement) instead of the entire class. This is almost perfect except C# lack of "Generics Variance" support is getting in the way.
As to the other options they are all very insightful. After pursuing the delegate thread I will be trying the Adapter/Func approach proposed by Michael and Andrew (Will add comments). If you have time please follow the delegate thread above as it relates and it might help understand another facet of C#.

As of 2022, the best practice of C# is still to map external classes into Value Objects or Adaptors. To some people such as me, this is a logic overhead I wish to remove.
C# type system is closed in that we cannot extend an existing class with new interfaces. Of course, this can be mitigated by using a New-type Pattern.
class ExternalClass {
public string InfoWithDifferentLayoutOrName { get; }
}
interface IMyInterface {
string Info { get; }
}
record struct ExternalClassExtensionWrapper(ExternalClass Value): IMyInterface {
public string Info => Value.InfoWithDifferentLayoutOrName;
}
T MyAwesomeInnerFunc<T>(T input) where T: IMyInterface { ... }
But, from the view of code design, this approach does not cut down on code logic compared to a value-object mapper as you still have to write something like a wrapper. The only difference is whether you are depending on a concrete layout (VOs) or a contract (interfaces). A mysophobia do exist in the wild that insists interfaces bring lower coupling, but I don't see any lower cognitive burden in this specific case.
You will like a trait system where you can extend interfaces on others.

Appropriate design/design pattern for this problem?

I previously posted this, but I guess it was too verbose and irrelevant. My question is also like this. One poster in the second link said the answer (of why you can't do the code below) was a problem of design, specifically "bad use of inheritance". So I'd like to check this issue again with the experts at StackOverflow and see if this is really an issue of "bad inheritance" - but more importantly, how to fix the design.
Like the poster, I'm also confused about the Factory method and how I can apply it. It seems the factory method is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class and do not add their own properties. But, as you will see below, my concrete classes build upon the abstract base class and add extra properties.
The Base Class We Build Upon:
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
}
Extension Class Examples:
public class PhillipsFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
// Specific to Phillips TVs. Controls the backlight intensity of the LCD screen.
public double BackLightIntensity { get; set; }
}
public class SamsungFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
// Specific to Samsung TVs. Controls the time until the TV automatically turns off.
public int AutoShutdownTime { get; set; }
}
Let's say there are more extension classes for more brands of flat screen TVs. And then, let's say we stick them all into a generic List:
public static void Main()
{
List<FlatScreenTV> tvList = new List<FlatScreenTV>();
tvList.Add(new PhillipsFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new SamsungFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new SharpFlatScreenTV());
tvList.Add(new VizioFlatScreenTV());
FlatScreenTV tv = tvList[9]; // Randomly get one TV out of our huge list
}
The Problem:
I want to access the specific properties of whatever 'original' brand TV this variable belongs to. I know the brand because if I call tv.GetType(), it returns the correct 'original' type - not FlatScreenTV. But I need to be able to cast tv from FlatScreenTV back to its original type to be able to access the specific properties of each brand of flat-screen TVs.
Question #1: How can I dynamically cast that, properly - without makeshift hacks and huge if-else chains to brute-guess the 'original' type?
After browsing around similar design issues, most answers are: you can't. Some people say to look at the Factory Pattern, and others say to revise the design using interfaces, but I don't know how to use either to solve this problem.
Question #2: So, how should I design these classes so that I can access the original type's specific properties in the context above?
Question #3: Is this really bad inheritance?

Your design violates the "Liskov Substitution Principle". In other words, the code that deals with items from your list of FlatScreenTV shouldn't know or care what derived type is.
Say your code needs to create a custom remote control GUI. It might be enough to simply know the names and types of the properties of each TV to auto-generate the UI. In which case you could do something like this to expose the custom properties from the base class:
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public FlatScreenTV()
{
CustomProperties = new Dictionary<string,object>();
}
public Dictionary<string,object> CustomProperties { get; private set; }
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
}
public class PhillipsFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
public PhillipsFlatScreenTV()
{
BackLightIntensity = 0;
}
// Specific to Phillips TVs. Controls the backlight intensity of the LCD screen.
public double BackLightIntensity
{
get { return (double)CustomProperties["BackLightIntensity"]; }
set { CustomProperties["BackLightIntensity"] = value; }
}
}
public class SamsungFlatScreenTV : FlatScreenTV
{
public SamsungFlatScreenTV()
{
AutoShutdownTime = 0;
}
// Specific to Samsung TVs. Controls the time until the TV automatically turns off.
public int AutoShutdownTime
{
get { return (int)CustomProperties["AutoShutdownTime"]; }
set { CustomProperties["AutoShutdownTime"] = value; }
}
}
If you really do need to be working directly with the derived types, then you should instead consider moving to a plugin based architecture. For example, you might have a factory method like this:
IRemoteControlGUI GetRemoteControlGUIFor(FlatScreenTV tv)
which would scan your plugins and find the one that knew how to build the UI for the particular type of FlatScreenTV you passed in. This means that for every new FlatScreenTV you add, you also need to create a plugin that knows how to make its remote control GUI.

Factory Pattern would be the best way to go

I can offer a partial answer:
Firstly read up on Liskov's Substitution Principle.
Secondly you are creating objects that inherit from FlatScreenTV, but apparently for no purpose as you want to refer to them by their SubType (SpecificTVType) and not their SuperType (FlatScreenTV) - This is bad use of Inheritance as it is NOT using inheritance lol.
If your code wants to access properties particular to a given type, then you really want this code encapsulated within that type. Otherwise everytime you add a new TV type, all the code that handles the TV list would need to be updated to reflect that.
So you should include a method on FlatScreenTV that does x, and override this in TV's as required.
So basically in your Main method above, instead of thinking I want to be dealing with TVTypeX, you should always refer to the basetype, and let inheritance and method overriding handle the specific behaviour for the subtype you are actually dealing with.
Code eg.
public abstract class FlatScreenTV
{
public virtual void SetOptimumDisplay()
{
//do nothing - base class has no implementation here
}
}
public class PhilipsWD20TV
{
public int BackLightIntensity {get;set;}
public override void SetOptimumDisplay()
{
//Do Something that uses BackLightIntensity
}
}

"the factory method is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class [interface] and do not add their own properties."
No, speaking more practical, than theorical, the factory method can provide you with objects of concrete classes, in which the concrete classes, must have some common methods and interfaces, but, also some additional specific attributes.
Sometimes I use a method that creates the same class object every time I called, and I need to call it several times, and sometimes I use a method that create several different class objects, and that maybe be confusing, maybe another question.
And, your further comment about a switch sentence, with many options, when using the factory pattern, you usually provide an identifier for the concrete class / concrete object. This can be a string, an integer, an special type id, or an enumerated type.
You could use an integer / enum ID instead, and use a collection to lookup for the concrete class.

You can still leverage a factory. The point of a factory IMO is to put all the heavy lifting of constructing your various TVs in one place. To say categorically "a factory is for multiple concrete classes that have the exact same implementation as the abstract base class" is forgetting about polymorphism.
There is no law that says you cannot use a factory pattern because the sub classes declare unique properties and methods. But the more you can make use of polymorphism, the more a factory pattern makes sense. Also as a general guideline, IMHO, the more complexity that must go into constructing from the base the better off you are in the long run using a factory because you are "encapsulating change" - that is, constructing concrete classes is likely to change due to differing requirements and inherent construction complexity (a design analysis decision, to be sure) . And that change is in a single class - the factory.
Try this: Define everything in the abstract class and then for a given TV subclass either write concrete-specific code, and for those that don't apply write some standard "I don't do that" code.
Think about all the things your TVs do in generic terms: turn on, turn off, etc. Write a virtual method shell in the base class for all the generic things a TV does - this is a simple example of the template method pattern by the way. Then override these in the concrete classes as appropriate.
There are other things you can do in the base class to make it more fundgeable (that's a technical term meaning "reference subclasses as the base class, but do sub-classy things").
Define delegate methods (very powerful yet under-utilized)
use params[] for dynamic method parameter lists
Make Property delegates
Static methods
Declare Properties and methods "abstract" - forces sub-class implementation, vis-a-vis "virtual"
Hide inherited stuff in the sub class (generally using "new" keyword to communicate that it's on purpose)
If construction parameters are numerous or complex, create a class specifically designed to pass configuration to the factory's build method.
public class TVFactory {
public TV BuildTV(Brands thisKind) {
TV newSet;
switch (thisKind) {
case Brands.Samsung :
Samsung aSamsungTV = new Samsung();
aSamsungTV.BacklightIntensity = double.MinVal;
aSamsungTV.AutoShutdownTime = 45; //oops! I made a magic number. My bad
aSamsungTV.SetAutoShutDownTime = new delegate (newSet.SetASDT);
newSet = aSamsungTV;
break;
. . .
} // switch
}
//more build methods for setting specific parameters
public TV BuildTV (Brands thisKind, string Size) { ... }
// maybe you can pass in a set of properties to exactly control the construction.
// returning a concrete class reference violates the spirit of object oriented programming
public Sony BuildSonyTV (...) {}
public TV BuildTV (Brands thisKind, Dictionary buildParameters) { ... }
}
public class TV {
public string Size { get; set; }
public string ScreenType { get; set; }
public double BackLightIntensity { get; set; }
public int AutoShutdownTime { get; set; }
//define delegates to get/set properties
public delegate int GetAutoShutDownTime ();
public delegate void SetAutoShutDownTime (object obj);
public virtual TurnOn ();
public virtural TurnOff();
// this method implemented by more than one concrete class, so I use that
// as an excuse to declare it in my base.
public virtual SomeSonyPhillipsOnlything () { throw new NotImplementedException("I don't do SonyPhillips stuff"); }
}
public class Samsung : TV {
public Samsung() {
// set the properties, delegates, etc. in the factory
// that way if we ever get new properties we don't open umpteen TV concrete classes
// to add it. We're only altering the TVFactory.
// This demonstrates how a factory isolates code changes for object construction.
}
public override void TurnOn() { // do stuff }
public override void TurnOn() { // do stuff }
public void SamsungUniqueThing () { // do samsung unique stuff }
internal void SetASDT (int i) {
AutoShutDownTime = i;
}
}
// I like enumerations.
// No worries about string gotchas
// we get intellense in Visual Studio
// has a documentation-y quality
enum Brands {
Sony
,Samsung
,Phillips
}

Interfaces or Attributes for Tagging Classes?

I have a couple of classes that I wish to tag with a particular attribute. I have two approaches in mind. One involves using an Attribute-extending class. The other uses an empty interface:
Attributes
public class FoodAttribute : Attribute { }
[Food]
public class Pizza { /* ... */ }
[Food]
public class Pancake { /* ... */ }
if (obj.IsDefined(typeof(FoodAttribute), false)) { /* ... */ }
Interface
public interface IFoodTag { }
public class Pizza : IFoodTag { /* ... */ }
public class Pancake : IFoodTag { /* ... */ }
if (obj is IFoodTag) { /* ... */ }
I'm hesitant to use the attributes due to its usage of Reflection. At the same time, however, I'm hesitant on creating an empty interface that is only really serving as a tag. I've stress-tested both and the time difference between the two is only about three milliseconds, so performance is not at stake here.

Well, with attributes, you can always create the attribute in such a way that its function doesn't propagate to descendant types automatically.
With interfaces, that's not possible.
I would go with attributes.

I'll have to say otherwise. I think that, for your example, a marker interface makes more sense.
That's because it seems very likely that you might one day add some members to IFood.
Your design starts like this:
interface IFood {}
But then you decide to add something there:
interface IFood {
int Calories { get; }
}
There are also other ways to extend interfaces:
static class FoodExtensions {
public static void Lighten(this IFood self) {
self.Calories /= 2;
}
}

You probably have answered on you question by your own. Attributes is more logical here, reflection is not a BIG MONSTER WITH RED EYES =)
btw, can you show calling code, where you determine marked with interface types? Aren't you using reflection there?

It's an old question, but maybe someone stumbles on it like I did.
Seems in this case:
"If the object is Food, I would return FoodEventArguments. If the object were, say, Beverage, I'd return DrinkEventArguments. Basically, there's a common base class (let's say ConcessionStandItem) that gets passed into the function"
tagging with either interface or attribute and then checking with an if statement is not the only option you have.
Might be a valid scenario for the visitor pattern with implementations for each 'ConcessionStandItem' like FoodEventArguments CreateEventArgs(Pizza pizza).... as well.
Maybe food for thought for someone else in this scenario. (pun intended).

In this case, as you say, you're not using an interface correctly.
What's wrong with using reflection the get you attributes? The usual answer is performance but that is generally not a real issue in nearly all cases.

C# virtual static method

Why is static virtual impossible? Is C# dependent or just don't have any sense in the OO world?
I know the concept has already been underlined but I did not find a simple answer to the previous question.

virtual means the method called will be chosen at run-time, depending on the dynamic type of the object. static means no object is necessary to call the method.
How do you propose to do both in the same method?

Eric Lippert has a blog post about this, and as usual with his posts, he covers the subject in great depth:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/ericlippert/calling-static-methods-on-type-parameters-is-illegal-part-one
“virtual” and “static” are opposites! “virtual” means “determine the method to be called based on run time type information”, and “static” means “determine the method to be called solely based on compile time static analysis”

The contradiction between "static" and "virtual" is only a C# problem. If "static" were replaced by "class level", like in many other languages, no one would be blindfolded.
Too bad the choice of words made C# crippled in this respect. It is still possible to call the Type.InvokeMember method to simulate a call to a class level, virtual method. You just have to pass the method name as a string. No compile time check, no strong typing and no control that subclasses implement the method.
Some Delphi beauty:
type
TFormClass = class of TForm;
var
formClass: TFormClass;
myForm: TForm;
begin
...
formClass = GetAnyFormClassYouWouldLike;
myForm = formClass.Create(nil);
myForm.Show;
end

Guys who say that there is no sense in static virtual methods - if you don't understand how this could be possible, it does not mean that it is impossible. There are languages that allow this!! Look at Delphi, for example.

I'm going to be the one who naysays. What you are describing is not technically part of the language. Sorry. But it is possible to simulate it within the language.
Let's consider what you're asking for - you want a collection of methods that aren't attached to any particular object that can all be easily callable and replaceable at run time or compile time.
To me that sounds like what you really want is a singleton object with delegated methods.
Let's put together an example:
public interface ICurrencyWriter {
string Write(int i);
string Write(float f);
}
public class DelegatedCurrencyWriter : ICurrencyWriter {
public DelegatedCurrencyWriter()
{
IntWriter = i => i.ToString();
FloatWriter = f => f.ToString();
}
public string Write(int i) { return IntWriter(i); }
public string Write(float f) { return FloatWriter(f); }
public Func<int, string> IntWriter { get; set; }
public Func<float, string> FloatWriter { get; set; }
}
public class SingletonCurrencyWriter {
public static DelegatedCurrencyWriter Writer {
get {
if (_writer == null)
_writer = new DelegatedCurrencyWriter();
return _writer;
}
}
}
in use:
Console.WriteLine(SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.Write(400.0f); // 400.0
SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.FloatWriter = f => String.Format("{0} bucks and {1} little pennies.", (int)f, (int)(f * 100));
Console.WriteLine(SingletonCurrencyWriter.Writer.Write(400.0f); // 400 bucks and 0 little pennies
Given all this, we now have a singleton class that writes out currency values and I can change the behavior of it. I've basically defined the behavior convention at compile time and can now change the behavior at either compile time (in the constructor) or run time, which is, I believe the effect you're trying to get. If you want inheritance of behavior, you can do that to by implementing back chaining (ie, have the new method call the previous one).
That said, I don't especially recommend the example code above. For one, it isn't thread safe and there really isn't a lot in place to keep life sane. Global dependence on this kind of structure means global instability. This is one of the many ways that changeable behavior was implemented in the dim dark days of C: structs of function pointers, and in this case a single global struct.

Yes it is possible.
The most wanted use case for that is to have factories which can be "overriden"
In order to do this, you will have to rely on generic type parameters using the F-bounded polymorphism.
Example 1
Let's take a factory example:
class A: { public static A Create(int number) { return ... ;} }
class B: A { /* How to override the static Create method to return B? */}
You also want createB to be accessible and returning B objects in the B class. Or you might like A's static functions to be a library that should be extensible by B. Solution:
class A<T> where T: A<T> { public static T Create(int number) { return ...; } }
class B: A<B> { /* no create function */ }
B theb = B.Create(2); // Perfectly fine.
A thea = A.Create(0); // Here as well
Example 2 (advanced):
Let's define a static function to multiply matrices of values.
public abstract class Value<T> where T : Value<T> {
//This method is static but by subclassing T we can use virtual methods.
public static Matrix<T> MultiplyMatrix(Matrix<T> m1, Matrix<T> m2) {
return // Code to multiply two matrices using add and multiply;
}
public abstract T multiply(T other);
public abstract T add(T other);
public abstract T opposed();
public T minus(T other) {
return this.add(other.opposed());
}
}
// Abstract override
public abstract class Number<T> : Value<T> where T: Number<T> {
protected double real;
/// Note: The use of MultiplyMatrix returns a Matrix of Number here.
public Matrix<T> timesVector(List<T> vector) {
return MultiplyMatrix(new Matrix<T>() {this as T}, new Matrix<T>(vector));
}
}
public class ComplexNumber : Number<ComplexNumber> {
protected double imag;
/// Note: The use of MultiplyMatrix returns a Matrix of ComplexNumber here.
}
Now you can also use the static MultiplyMatrix method to return a matrix of complex numbers directly from ComplexNumber
Matrix<ComplexNumber> result = ComplexNumber.MultiplyMatrix(matrix1, matrix2);

While technically it's not possible to define a static virtual method, for all the reasons already pointed out here, you can functionally accomplish what I think you're trying using C# extension methods.
From Microsoft Docs:
Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type.
Check out Extension Methods (C# Programming Guide) for more details.

In .NET, virtual method dispatch is (roughly) done by looking at the actual type of an object when the method is called at runtime, and finding the most overriding method from the class's vtable. When calling on a static class, there is no object instance to check, and so no vtable to do the lookup on.

To summarize all the options presented:
This is not a part of C# because in it, static means "not bound to anything at runtime" as it has ever since C (and maybe earlier). static entities are bound to the declaring type (thus are able to access its other static entities), but only at compile time.
This is possible in other languages where a static equivalent (if needed at all) means "bound to a type object at runtime" instead. Examples include Delphi, Python, PHP.
This can be emulated in a number of ways which can be classified as:
Use runtime binding
Static methods with a singleton object or lookalike
Virtual method that returns the same for all instances
Redefined in a derived type to return a different result (constant or derived from static members of the redefining type)
Retrieves the type object from the instance
Use compile-time binding
Use a template that modifies the code for each derived type to access the same-named entities of that type, e.g. with the CRTP

The 2022+ answer, if you are running .Net 7 or above, is that now static virtual members is now supported in interfaces. Technically it's static abstract instead of "static virtual" but the effect is that same. Standard static methods signatures can be defined in an interface and implemented statically.
Here are a few examples on the usage and syntax in .Net 7

Tracking instances with generics and supporting subclasses

I've defined the following generic class
public class ManagedClass<T> where T : ManagedClass<T>
{
static ManagedClass()
{
Manager = new ObjectManager<T>();
}
public static ObjectManager<T> Manager { get; protected set; }
public ManagedClass()
{
Manager.Add( (T)this );
}
}
The idea is that I can use it like so:
class Product : ManagedClass<Product> {}
Now I can do something to the 7th product created like so:
Product.Manager.GetById(7).DoSomething();
The problem comes in if i try to use a derived class:
class ExtendedProduct : Product {}
now ExtendedProduct.Manager has a list of 'Products', and if i want to use a new function that I have added to ExtendedProduct (DoSomethingElse), I have to cast the object I get back like so:
((ExtendedProduct)ExtendedProduct.Manager.GetById(7)).DoSomethingElse();
This is a bit ugly, and the whole point of using generics for this is to avoid casting. I suppose I could add a static constructor to the derived class to set Manager = new ObjectManager() and add a new Manager.addObject( this ) in the derived class constructor, but It seems like there should be some better way of doing this using generics. Any suggestions?

The problem is that ExtendedProduct.Manager is the same thing as Product.Manager; the manager object can't act differently depending on where it's accessed from.
A couple of possibilities I can think of:
Hide the typecast inside the GetById method by making it generic:
Product.Manager.GetById<ExtendedProduct>(7).DoSomethingElse();
Use one ObjectManager instance per subclass, connecting them privately if needed
Option 1 reminds me of NHibernate's ICriteria interface. It's effectively the same as a typecast, but a little harder to accidentally break.

Really what you're running into is a weakness with Generics. Once your class has resolved what type it's using for generics, you're somewhat restricted in what you can do.
Normally, I'd say Dependency Injection would be a savior here, but since the problematic method is static, that muddies up the waters.
I'd say the best thing is to have the ObjectManager class do the work for you:
static public class ObjectManager<T>
{
... the code that already exists in ObjectManager ...
static public U GetById<U>(long id)
{
object obj = GetById(id);
if (obj is U)
return (U)obj;
return default(U);
}
}
Then, in your code:
ExtendedProduct.Manager.GetById<ExtendedProduct>(7).DoSomethingElse();
It's not really tons more elegant than casting, but may be one of the only solutions using Generics.