I have a parent class
abstract class ClassPlugin
{
public ClassPlugin(eGuiType _guyType)
{
GuiType = _guyType;
}
public eGuiType GuiType;
public void Action() { }
}
I want all derived classes to implement the Action member and to define the guyType field.
To do that I have put it in the constructor, this is the only way that comes to mind.
Therefore an abstract class can be:
class ClassStartWF: ClassPlugin
{
public ClassStartWF(eGuiType _guyType)
{
GuiType = _guyType;
}
public void Action()
{
MessageBox.Show(GetType().Name);
}
}
the problem is that I get the error:
Severity Code Description Project File Line Suppression State
Error CS7036 There is no argument given that corresponds to the
required formal parameter '_guyType' of
'MainWindow.ClassPlugin.ClassPlugin(MainWindow.eGuiType)'
You should call the base class constructor in derived class constructor. Since you have create a constructor then compiler will not generate default constructor for your classes.
public ClassStartWF(eGuiType _guyType)
: base(_guyType)
{
// GuiType = _guyType; //this is not needed since the value is assigned in the base class constructor
}
Two problems...
First, you need to call the base class constructor from the derived type, as the base has no default constructor:
public ClassStartWF(eGuiType _guyType) : base(_guyType)
{
}
Since the base class takes care of setting the field you don't need to do it.
Secondly, you should make Action abstract in the base class and then override it in the derived class:
abstract class ClassPlugin
{
public abstract void Action();
}
class ClassStartWF: ClassPlugin
{
public ClassStartWF(eGuiType _guyType)
{
GuiType = _guyType;
}
public override void Action()
{
MessageBox.Show(GetType().Name);
}
}
At the moment you calls to Action won't dispatch to the derived instances when called through a base reference.
Also, rather than make GuiType a public variable you'd be better off making it a property:
public eGuiType GuiType{get; set;}
This will give you some control over the value. Also, you might want to consider making the setter private if it should only ever be set during construction.
I have a number of custom controls that extend from existing Windows Forms controls as well as one or more interfaces designed my myself. The implementation of these interfaces is virtually identical within each custom control, so I would have repeating code such as the following:
public class CustomTextBox : TextBox, ISomeInterface
{
// Implementations of interface members
...
}
public class CustomButton : Button, ISomeInterface
{
// Implementations of interface members
...
}
Ideally I would like to be able to do something similar to the following:
public abstract class BaseCustomControl<C> : C, ISomeInterface where C : Control
{
// Implementations of interface members
}
public class CustomTextBox : BaseCustomControl<TextBox>
{
// Implementations of interface members
...
}
public class CustomButton : BaseCustomControl<Button>
{
// Implementations of interface members
...
}
This way, my identical implementations would be removed and consolidated into a single base class to reduce repeating code. Unfortunately, this isn't possible; are there any suitable alternatives I can use?
Since C# doesn't support multiple inheritance, you're going to have to use composition to get the behavior you want.
Define a pair of interfaces; one is the "real" interface, and the other does nothing more than provide an instance of the first:
public interface ISomeInterface
{
string Foo { get; }
void Bar();
}
public interface ISomeInterfaceControl
{
ISomeInterface SomeInterface { get; }
}
Then create an implementation of the "real" interface:
public class SomeInterfaceImpl : ISomeInterface
{
private Control _control;
public string Foo { get; private set; }
public void Bar()
{
}
public SomeInterfaceImpl(Control control)
{
_control = control;
}
}
And modify your controls to implement the "wrapper" interface by returning an instance of the "real" interface implementation:
public class CustomTextBox : TextBox, ISomeInterfaceControl
{
public ISomeInterface SomeInterface { get; private set; }
public CustomTextBox()
{
this.SomeInterface = new SomeInterfaceImpl(this);
}
}
Now all of the logic is contained inside the "SomeInterfaceImpl" class, but you can access that logic for any of your custom controls as follows:
CustomTextBox customTextBox = new CustomTextBox();
customTextBox.SomeInterface.Bar();
If the behavior for your custom controls needs to vary, you can introduce a parallel inheritance hierarchy for ISomeInterface:
public class TextBoxSomeInterface : SomeInterfaceImpl
{
public TextBoxSomeInterface(CustomTextBox textBox)
: base(textBox)
{
}
}
public class ButtomSomeInterface : SomeInterfaceImpl
{
public ButtomSomeInterface(CustomButton button)
: base(button)
{
}
}
And use it like this:
public class CustomTextBox : TextBox, ISomeInterfaceControl
{
public ISomeInterface SomeInterface { get; private set; }
public CustomTextBox()
{
this.SomeInterface = new TextBoxSomeInterface(this);
}
}
You could look into extension methods.
As an example
// This would be your interface method
public static bool IsHigh(this Control mySelf) {
return mySelf.Height > 100;
}
If your classes then extend Control (or one of it's sub-classes) you can simply call the method like this:
CustomTextBox tb = new CustomTextBox();
if (tb.IsHigh()) ...
I have the following and at some point I need to create Failures for Validations. We suppose each type deriving from Validation has one and only one type deriving from Failure<T> where T is the aforementioned implementation of Validation.
As I have a growing number of implementations of Validation, I need to be able to instantiate the right type deriving from Failure<T>, and call the link method on it within a method that looks like
void recordFailureForValidation(Validation v) {
Type failureType = dict[v.GetType()];
Object failure = Activator.CreateInstance(failureType);
// how do I call failure.link(v) ?
}
At Runtime, a dictionary gives me the type deriving from Failure<T> given T.
I am able to instantiate Failure<T> (Failure1, Failure2, etc...), but I can't find how to call link on the public field reference of my newly created Failure instance (by making all uses that made sense to me of GetMethod, MakeGenericMethod, Invoke, etc...)
public class MyReferenceClass<T>
where T : Object, new() {
public void link(T arg) { ... }
}
public abstract class Failure<T>
where T : ValidationRule, new() {
...
public MyReferenceClass<T> reference;
...
}
public class Failure1 : Failure<Validation1> {
}
public class Failure2 : Failure<Validation2> {
}
public abstract class ValidationRule {
...
}
public class ValidationRule1 : ValidationRule {
...
}
public class ValidationRule2 : ValidationRule {
...
}
link is private since you do not specify a different accessibility. Make it public or internal:
public class MyReferenceClass<T>
where T : Object, new() {
public void link(T arg) { ... }
}
then you can call it from Failure<T> through the reference property:
public abstract class Failure<T>
where T : ValidationRule, new()
{
protected T Validation {get; set;};
public MyReferenceClass<T> reference;
}
public class Failure1 : Failure<Validation1>
{
public void Test()
{
this.reference.link(Validation);
}
}
Let Failures implement a non generic IFailure interface as well as a generic one in the same manner as IEnumerable and IEnumerable<T>
Create an abstract factory method within ValidationRule that has to be implemented by each concrete Validation
public ValidationRule1 : ValidationRule
{
public override IFailure ToFailure()
{
return new Failure1(this);
}
...
}
I have the following class:
public class ContentService : IContentService
I would like to make a BaseService class and implement some common functionality there. However I would also like to still implement all the IContentService methods.
How can I modify this line so it both implements the interface and inherits from BaseService?
public class ContentService: BaseService, IContentService
{
}
You can add as many interfaces as you want, and up to one base class in the list. Just use a comma to separate each additional interface.
The base class doesn't need to be the first item in the list, either.
You can inherit your class from both base class and interface. Implementing interface in base class provides you with option to not implement all the interface methods. Like following example:
interface ITestInterface
{
void Test();
string Test2();
}
public class TestBase : ITestInterface
{
#region ITestInterface Members
public void Test()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Feed");
}
public string Test2()
{
return "Feed";
}
#endregion
}
public class TestChild : TestBAse, ITestInterface
{
public void Test()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Feed1");
}
}
public static void Main(){
TestChild f = new TestChild();
f.Test();
var i = f as ITestInterface;
i.Test();
i.Test2();//not implemented in child but called from base.
}
public class ContentService: BaseService, IContentService
Will inherit from BaseService and implement your IContentService interface.
You may also want to look up Abstract classes/methods for your base class.
It's weird that this is the first time I've bumped into this problem, but:
How do you define a constructor in a C# interface?
Edit
Some people wanted an example (it's a free time project, so yes, it's a game)
IDrawable
+Update
+Draw
To be able to Update (check for edge of screen etc) and draw itself it will always need a GraphicsDeviceManager. So I want to make sure the object has a reference to it. This would belong in the constructor.
Now that I wrote this down I think what I'm implementing here is IObservable and the GraphicsDeviceManager should take the IDrawable...
It seems either I don't get the XNA framework, or the framework is not thought out very well.
Edit
There seems to be some confusion about my definition of constructor in the context of an interface. An interface can indeed not be instantiated so doesn't need a constructor. What I wanted to define was a signature to a constructor. Exactly like an interface can define a signature of a certain method, the interface could define the signature of a constructor.
You can't. It's occasionally a pain, but you wouldn't be able to call it using normal techniques anyway.
In a blog post I've suggested static interfaces which would only be usable in generic type constraints - but could be really handy, IMO.
One point about if you could define a constructor within an interface, you'd have trouble deriving classes:
public class Foo : IParameterlessConstructor
{
public Foo() // As per the interface
{
}
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
// Yikes! We now don't have a parameterless constructor...
public Bar(int x)
{
}
}
As already well noted, you can't have constructors on an Interface. But since this is such a highly ranked result in Google some 7 years later, I thought I would chip in here - specifically to show how you could use an abstract base class in tandem with your existing Interface and maybe cut down on the amount of refactoring needed in the future for similar situations. This concept has already been hinted at in some of the comments but I thought it would be worth showing how to actually do it.
So you have your main interface that looks like this so far:
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
Now create an abstract class with the constructor you want to enforce. Actually, since it's now available since the time you wrote your original question, we can get a little fancy here and use generics in this situation so that we can adapt this to other interfaces that might need the same functionality but have different constructor requirements:
public abstract class MustInitialize<T>
{
public MustInitialize(T parameters)
{
}
}
Now you'll need to create a new class that inherits from both the IDrawable interface and the MustInitialize abstract class:
public class Drawable : MustInitialize<GraphicsDeviceManager>, IDrawable
{
GraphicsDeviceManager _graphicsDeviceManager;
public Drawable(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
: base (graphicsDeviceManager)
{
_graphicsDeviceManager = graphicsDeviceManager;
}
public void Update()
{
//use _graphicsDeviceManager here to do whatever
}
public void Draw()
{
//use _graphicsDeviceManager here to do whatever
}
}
Then just create an instance of Drawable and you're good to go:
IDrawable drawableService = new Drawable(myGraphicsDeviceManager);
The cool thing here is that the new Drawable class we created still behaves just like what we would expect from an IDrawable.
If you need to pass more than one parameter to the MustInitialize constructor, you can create a class that defines properties for all of the fields you'll need to pass in.
A very late contribution demonstrating another problem with interfaced constructors. (I choose this question because it has the clearest articulation of the problem). Suppose we could have:
interface IPerson
{
IPerson(string name);
}
interface ICustomer
{
ICustomer(DateTime registrationDate);
}
class Person : IPerson, ICustomer
{
Person(string name) { }
Person(DateTime registrationDate) { }
}
Where by convention the implementation of the "interface constructor" is replaced by the type name.
Now make an instance:
ICustomer a = new Person("Ernie");
Would we say that the contract ICustomer is obeyed?
And what about this:
interface ICustomer
{
ICustomer(string address);
}
You can't.
Interfaces define contracts that other objects implement and therefore have no state that needs to be initialized.
If you have some state that needs to be initialized, you should consider using an abstract base class instead.
I was looking back at this question and I thought to myself, maybe we are aproaching this problem the wrong way. Interfaces might not be the way to go when it concerns defining a constructor with certain parameters... but an (abstract) base class is.
If you create a base class with a constructor on there that accepts the parameters you need, every class that derrives from it needs to supply them.
public abstract class Foo
{
protected Foo(SomeParameter x)
{
this.X = x;
}
public SomeParameter X { get; private set }
}
public class Bar : Foo // Bar inherits from Foo
{
public Bar()
: base(new SomeParameter("etc...")) // Bar will need to supply the constructor param
{
}
}
It is not possible to create an interface that defines constructors, but it is possible to define an interface that forces a type to have a paramerterless constructor, though be it a very ugly syntax that uses generics... I am actually not so sure that it is really a good coding pattern.
public interface IFoo<T> where T : new()
{
void SomeMethod();
}
public class Foo : IFoo<Foo>
{
// This will not compile
public Foo(int x)
{
}
#region ITest<Test> Members
public void SomeMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
#endregion
}
On the other hand, if you want to test if a type has a paramerterless constructor, you can do that using reflection:
public static class TypeHelper
{
public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Object o)
{
return HasParameterlessConstructor(o.GetType());
}
public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Type t)
{
// Usage: HasParameterlessConstructor(typeof(SomeType))
return t.GetConstructor(new Type[0]) != null;
}
}
Hope this helps.
One way to solve this problem i found is to seperate out the construction into a seperate factory. For example I have an abstract class called IQueueItem, and I need a way to translate that object to and from another object (CloudQueueMessage). So on the interface IQueueItem i have -
public interface IQueueItem
{
CloudQueueMessage ToMessage();
}
Now, I also need a way for my actual queue class to translate a CloudQueueMessage back to a IQueueItem - ie the need for a static construction like IQueueItem objMessage = ItemType.FromMessage. Instead I defined another interface IQueueFactory -
public interface IQueueItemFactory<T> where T : IQueueItem
{
T FromMessage(CloudQueueMessage objMessage);
}
Now I can finally write my generic queue class without the new() constraint which in my case was the main issue.
public class AzureQueue<T> where T : IQueueItem
{
private IQueueItemFactory<T> _objFactory;
public AzureQueue(IQueueItemFactory<T> objItemFactory)
{
_objFactory = objItemFactory;
}
public T GetNextItem(TimeSpan tsLease)
{
CloudQueueMessage objQueueMessage = _objQueue.GetMessage(tsLease);
T objItem = _objFactory.FromMessage(objQueueMessage);
return objItem;
}
}
now I can create an instance that satisfies the criteria for me
AzureQueue<Job> objJobQueue = new JobQueue(new JobItemFactory())
hopefully this helps someone else out someday, obviously a lot of internal code removed to try to show the problem and solution
One way to solve this problem is to leverage generics and the new() constraint.
Instead of expressing your constructor as a method/function, you can express it as a factory class/interface. If you specify the new() generic constraint on every call site that needs to create an object of your class, you will be able to pass constructor arguments accordingly.
For your IDrawable example:
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
public interface IDrawableConstructor<T> where T : IDrawable
{
T Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager);
}
public class Triangle : IDrawable
{
public GraphicsDeviceManager Manager { get; set; }
public void Draw() { ... }
public void Update() { ... }
public Triangle(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
Manager = manager;
}
}
public TriangleConstructor : IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>
{
public Triangle Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Triangle(manager);
}
}
Now when you use it:
public void SomeMethod<TBuilder>(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
where TBuilder: IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>, new()
{
// If we need to create a triangle
Triangle triangle = new TBuilder().Construct(manager);
// Do whatever with triangle
}
You can even concentrate all creation methods in a single class using explicit interface implementation:
public DrawableConstructor : IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>,
IDrawableConstructor<Square>,
IDrawableConstructor<Circle>
{
Triangle IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Triangle(manager);
}
Square IDrawableConstructor<Square>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Square(manager);
}
Circle IDrawableConstructor<Circle>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Circle(manager);
}
}
To use it:
public void SomeMethod<TBuilder, TShape>(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
where TBuilder: IDrawableConstructor<TShape>, new()
{
// If we need to create an arbitrary shape
TShape shape = new TBuilder().Construct(manager);
// Do whatever with the shape
}
Another way is by using lambda expressions as initializers. At some point early in the call hierarchy, you will know which objects you will need to instantiate (i.e. when you are creating or getting a reference to your GraphicsDeviceManager object). As soon as you have it, pass the lambda
() => new Triangle(manager)
to subsequent methods so they will know how to create a Triangle from then on. If you can't determine all possible methods that you will need, you can always create a dictionary of types that implement IDrawable using reflection and register the lambda expression shown above in a dictionary that you can either store in a shared location or pass along to further function calls.
The generic factory approach still seems ideal. You would know that the factory requires a parameter, and it would just so happen that those parameters are passed along to the constructor of the object being instantiated.
Note, this is just syntax verified pseudo code, there may be a run-time caveat I'm missing here:
public interface IDrawableFactory
{
TDrawable GetDrawingObject<TDrawable>(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
where TDrawable: class, IDrawable, new();
}
public class DrawableFactory : IDrawableFactory
{
public TDrawable GetDrawingObject<TDrawable>(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
where TDrawable : class, IDrawable, new()
{
return (TDrawable) Activator
.CreateInstance(typeof(TDrawable),
graphicsDeviceManager);
}
}
public class Draw : IDrawable
{
//stub
}
public class Update : IDrawable {
private readonly GraphicsDeviceManager _graphicsDeviceManager;
public Update() { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public Update(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
{
_graphicsDeviceManager = graphicsDeviceManager;
}
}
public interface IDrawable
{
//stub
}
public class GraphicsDeviceManager
{
//stub
}
An example of possible usage:
public void DoSomething()
{
var myUpdateObject = GetDrawingObject<Update>(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
var myDrawObject = GetDrawingObject<Draw>(null);
}
Granted, you'd only want the create instances via the factory to guarantee you always have an appropriately initialized object. Perhaps using a dependency injection framework like AutoFac would make sense; Update() could "ask" the IoC container for a new GraphicsDeviceManager object.
You could do this with generics trick, but it still is vulnerable to what Jon Skeet wrote:
public interface IHasDefaultConstructor<T> where T : IHasDefaultConstructor<T>, new()
{
}
Class that implements this interface must have parameterless constructor:
public class A : IHasDefaultConstructor<A> //Notice A as generic parameter
{
public A(int a) { } //compile time error
}
The purpose of an interface is to enforce a certain object signature. It should explicitly not be concerned with how an object works internally. Therefore, a constructor in an interface does not really make sense from a conceptual point of view.
There are some alternatives though:
Create an abstract class that acts as a minimal default implementation.
That class should have the constructors you expect implementing classes
to have.
If you don't mind the overkill, use the AbstractFactory pattern and
declare a method in the factory class interface that has the required
signatures.
Pass the GraphicsDeviceManager as a parameter to the Update and Draw methods.
Use a Compositional Object Oriented Programming framework to pass the GraphicsDeviceManager into the part of the object that requires it. This is a pretty experimental solution in my opinion.
The situation you describe is not easy to handle in general. A similar case would be entities in a business application that require access to the database.
you don't.
the constructor is part of the class that can implement an interface. The interface is just a contract of methods the class must implement.
It would be very useful if it were possible to define constructors in interfaces.
Given that an interface is a contract that must be used in the specified way. The following approach might be a viable alternative for some scenarios:
public interface IFoo {
/// <summary>
/// Initialize foo.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Classes that implement this interface must invoke this method from
/// each of their constructors.
/// </remarks>
/// <exception cref="InvalidOperationException">
/// Thrown when instance has already been initialized.
/// </exception>
void Initialize(int a);
}
public class ConcreteFoo : IFoo {
private bool _init = false;
public int b;
// Obviously in this case a default value could be used for the
// constructor argument; using overloads for purpose of example
public ConcreteFoo() {
Initialize(42);
}
public ConcreteFoo(int a) {
Initialize(a);
}
public void Initialize(int a) {
if (_init)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
_init = true;
b = a;
}
}
One way to force some sort of constructor is to declare only Getters in interface, which could then mean that the implementing class must have a method, ideally a constructor, to have the value set (privately) for it.
While you can't define a constructor signature in an interface, I feel it's worth mentioning that this may be a spot to consider an abstract class. Abstract classes can define unimplemented (abstract) method signatures in the same way as an interface, but can also have implemented (concrete) methods and constructors.
The downside is that, because it is a type of class, it cannot be used for any of the multiple inheritance type scenarios that an interface can.
I use the following pattern to make it bulletproof.
A developer who derives his class from the base can't accidentally create a public accessible constructor
The final class developer are forced to go through the common create method
Everything is type-safe, no castings are required
It's 100% flexible and can be reused everywhere, where you can define your own base
class.
Try it out you can't break it without making modifications to the base classes (except
if you define an obsolete flag without error flag set to true, but even then you end up with a warning)
public abstract class Base<TSelf, TParameter>
where TSelf : Base<TSelf, TParameter>, new()
{
protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead";
public static TSelf Create(TParameter parameter)
{
var me = new TSelf();
me.Initialize(parameter);
return me;
}
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected Base()
{
}
protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public abstract class BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>: Base<TSelf, TConfig>
where TSelf : BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>, new()
{
public TConfig Config { get; private set; }
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithConfig()
{
}
protected override void Initialize(TConfig parameter)
{
this.Config = parameter;
}
}
public class MyService : BaseWithConfig<MyService, (string UserName, string Password)>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public MyService()
{
}
}
public class Person : Base<Person, (string FirstName, string LastName)>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage,true)]
public Person()
{
}
protected override void Initialize((string FirstName, string LastName) parameter)
{
this.FirstName = parameter.FirstName;
this.LastName = parameter.LastName;
}
public string LastName { get; private set; }
public string FirstName { get; private set; }
}
[Test]
public void FactoryTest()
{
var notInitilaizedPerson = new Person(); // doesn't compile because of the obsolete attribute.
Person max = Person.Create(("Max", "Mustermann"));
Assert.AreEqual("Max",max.FirstName);
var service = MyService.Create(("MyUser", "MyPassword"));
Assert.AreEqual("MyUser", service.Config.UserName);
}
EDIT:
And here is an example based on your drawing example that even enforces interface abstraction
public abstract class BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
where TSelf : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithAbstraction()
{
}
protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead";
public static TInterface Create(TParameter parameter)
{
var me = new TSelf();
me.Initialize(parameter);
return me;
}
protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public abstract class BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter> : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
where TSelf : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
{
protected TParameter Parameter { get; private set; }
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithParameter()
{
}
protected sealed override void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
this.Parameter = parameter;
this.OnAfterInitialize(parameter);
}
protected virtual void OnAfterInitialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public class GraphicsDeviceManager
{
}
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
internal abstract class Drawable<TSelf> : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, IDrawable, GraphicsDeviceManager>, IDrawable
where TSelf : Drawable<TSelf>, IDrawable, new()
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected Drawable()
{
}
public abstract void Update();
public abstract void Draw();
}
internal class Rectangle : Drawable<Rectangle>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public Rectangle()
{
}
public override void Update()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
public override void Draw()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
}
internal class Circle : Drawable<Circle>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public Circle()
{
}
public override void Update()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
public override void Draw()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
}
[Test]
public void FactoryTest()
{
// doesn't compile because interface abstraction is enforced.
Rectangle rectangle = Rectangle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
// you get only the IDrawable returned.
IDrawable service = Circle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
}