In C# a static class can not derive from any other class besides object.
Currently I have this base class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Now, depending on which class I'm using, I want to change UsedSource.
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
static ModuleA(){
UsedSource = "A" // just an example
}
}
// this does not work
internal static class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
static ModuleB(){
UsedSource = "B" // just an example
}
}
Supposed to be called like this
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
This approach does not work because a static class cannot derive from anything else than object.
Is there any other way to change the property?
You have a lot of static classes going on here and I'm not entirely sure they're necessary. My example does not use static classes other than for the OtherStaticClass reference you have. I understand this may not be quite what you're looking for; many ways to skin this cat.
public abstract class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource { get; set; }
public void Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
public class ModuleA : BaseModule
{
public ModuleA()
{
UsedSource = "A";
}
}
public class ModuleB : BaseModule
{
public ModuleB()
{
UsedSource = "B";
}
}
To get your output then, you just need to create new instances of ModuleA and ModuleB.
var moduleA = new ModuleA();
var moduleB = new ModuleB();
moduleA.Write("Hi");
moduleB.Write("Hi");
Using a static class means using a singleton. Singletons defeat the purpose of tracking the effective dependencies of your classes.
Anyway, you can approach the problem by refactoring your code and using a factory:
In this case, just drop the static keyword and let the class be inheritable (you have to add the appropriate virtual keywords to allow proper inheritance):
public class BaseModule
{
public string UsedSource {get; set;}
public Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
Then, add an additional class which holds the reference (I gave useless names, focus on the purpose):
public static class MySingleton
{
public static BaseModule _Module;
public static BaseModule Module
{
get
{
return _Module;
}
}
public static void ChangeImplementation (BaseModule module)
{
// do your checks here
_Module = module;
}
}
This way wou can achieve what you ask.
As you can see, this code has several issues, among them it's important to note that this code has global side effects and is not thread safe.
A better approach is to have drop the singleton entirely, and pass the BaseModule class (that can be inherited) as an argument of methods/constructors when needed.
I don't see that you need more than one static class. Instead separate the logic into methods in one static class.
public static class Module
{
private const string SourceA = "A";
private const string SourceB = "B";
public static WriteA(string text)
{
Write(SourceA, text);
}
public static WriteB(string text)
{
Write(SourceB, text);
}
private static Write(string source, string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
Then instead of
ModuleA.Write("Hi");
ModuleB.Write("Hi");
you'd do
Module.WriteA("Hi");
Module.WriteB("Hi");
If you can't change the BaseModule class, you can use it with other state and recover state after using:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static string UsedSource {get; set;}
public static Write(string text)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(UsedSource, text);
}
}
internal class Writer : IDisposable
{
string _lastSource;
public Writer(string source)
{
_lastSource = BaseModule.UsedSource;
BaseModule.UsedSource = source;
}
public void Dispose()
{
BaseModule.UsedSource = _lastSource;
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
using (var writer = new Writer(Source))
{
BaseModule.Write(text);
}
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}
But you must ensure thread safety.
If you can change the BaseModule class:
public static class BaseModule
{
public static Write(string text, string source)
{
OtherStaticClass.Log(source, text);
}
}
internal abstract class Module
{
public abstract Source { get; };
public void Write(string text)
{
BaseModule.Write(text, Source);
}
}
internal class ModuleA : Module
{
public override Source => "A";
}
internal class ModuleB : Module
{
public override Source => "B";
}
Related
I want to override a static method from a DLL Export
public class Export {
[DllExport] public static string plugin_name() { return Plugin.Instance.plugin_name(); }
}
public class Plugin<T> where T: Plugin<T>, new()
{
private static readonly Lazy<T> val = new Lazy<T>(() => new T());
public static T Instance { get { return val.Value; } }
protected Plugin() { }
public new static string plugin_name() { }
}
}
so these classes are in a dll file now I want that people who use the dll only do that in the main class.
public class Main : Plugin<Main> {
public override string plugin_name() {
return "a test plugin";
}
}
I have tested it for hours but failed.
You can not override static methods. You need to make a virtual or abstract instance method.
public abstract class Plugin<T> where T : new()
{
private static readonly Lazy<T> val = new Lazy<T>(() => new T());
public static T Instance { get { return val.Value; } }
protected Plugin() { }
public abstract string plugin_name();
}
public class Main : Plugin<Main> {
public override string plugin_name() => "a test plugin";
}
To make the method plugin_name static also does not make much sense, since you anyway create a singleton instance.
You can check out the code here.
I'm new to C#, I'm in doubt about how to make this work:
namespace Core {
public class A{
private reandonly string _var;
public A(string var){
_var=var
}
public GetValue() => return _var;
}
}
using System;
namespace Core.Resources {
public static class B{
public static void DoSomething(){
Console.Writeline($"{A.GetValue()}");
}
}
}
public class C{
static void Main(string args[]){
A a = new A("name");
a.Resources.B.DoSomething();
}
}
A is in main folder, B is in Main/Resources folder, together they make a classlib, Program.cs is using this lib. Is there a way to make this work?
If you write a.Resources you are basically trying to retrieve the member Resources of the class A, which is obviously not defined. Since B is a static class defined in the Core.Resources namespace, all you have to do is to change your code as follows:
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("A");
Core.Resources.B.DoSomething();
}
}
or, alternatively, if you don't want to reference the namespace every time:
using Core.Resources;
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("A");
B.DoSomething();
}
}
Note that if yuu explicitly define a public constructor for A that accepts one or more arguments, the default parameterless constructor is no more available... hence you have to pass a string to the A constructor if you don't want to see an error in your console. Alternatively, you have to rewrite your A class so that it implements a default parameterless compiler, for example:
public class A
{
private reandonly String _var;
public A() : this(String.Empty) { }
public A(String var)
{
_var = var;
}
}
EDIT AS PER OP COMMENTS AND QUESTION CHANGES
public class A
{
private reandonly String _var;
public String Var
{
get { return _var; }
}
public A(String var)
{
_var = var;
}
}
public static class B
{
public static void DoSomething(String text)
{
Console.Writeline(text);
}
}
public class C
{
public static void Main(string args[])
{
A a = new A("name");
B.DoSomething(a.Var);
}
}
Obviously using virtual and override is the normal situation, but does this telecoms'ish example count?
public class Pipe
{
// whole bunch of protected member variables such as bandwidth, latency, download limit
// etc,
public int GetCost()
{
// work out cost based on above
}
}
public class BigFatPipe : Pipe
{
public BigFatPipe()
{
// sets up the member variables one way
}
}
public class CheapestPossiblePipe: Pipe
{
public CheapestPossiblePipe()
{
// sets up the member variables another way
}
}
then you might call
PrintPrice(new BigFatPipe())
PrintPrice(new CheapestPossiblePipe())
public void PrintPrice(Pipe pipe)
{
int a = pipe.GetCost();
....
}
You'll get two different answers. This isn't the most useful example but does it count?
This post here has a useful discussion of what exactly polymorphism is.
I think most definitions do not explicitly state that an object must have virtual functions to be polymorphic - so yes, I think your example counts.
Constructor overloading is a recognized method to implement static polymorphism. While this isn't really constructor overloading, it's close. So yes, I'd call it polymorphism.
This pattern does work, but introducing a bunch of classes will confuse the user uselessly: they will wonder what the classes do differently.
A few factories methods will do the same job and will be easier to understand and maintain:
public class Pipe
{
// whole bunch of private member variables such as bandwidth, latency, download limit
// etc,
public int GetCost()
{
// work out cost based on above
}
public static Pipe MakeBigFatPipe()
{
var result = new Pipe();
// sets up the member variables one way
return result;
}
public static Pipe MakeCheapestPossiblePipe()
{
var result = new Pipe();
// sets up the member variables another way
return result;
}
}
If I were you I would use folowing approach:
public interface IGetCost
{
int GetCost();
}
public class Pipe : IGetCost
{
public int GetCost(){}
}
public class BigFatPipe : IGetCost
{
//aggregation
private readonly Pipe _pipe;
public BigFatPipe(Pipe pipe)
{
_pipe = pipe;
}
public int GetCost() { }
}
public class CheapestPossiblePipe : IGetCost
{
private readonly Pipe _pipe;
public CheapestPossiblePipe(Pipe pipe)
{
_pipe = pipe;
}
public int GetCost() { }
}
public static void PrintPrice(IGetCost obj)
{
int cost = obj.GetCost();
Console.WriteLine(cost);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IGetCost p;
p = new Pipe();
PrintPrice(p);
p = new BigFatPipe();
PrintPrice(p);
p = new CheapestPossiblePipe();
PrintPrice(p);
}
I also need to say that there're two different things - polymorphism and overloading
polymorphism
public class foo
{
public virtual void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooA : foo
{
public override void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooB : foo
{
public new void foo1{/*....*/}
}
public class fooC : foo
{
//new is the default modifier
public void foo1{/*....*/}
}
overloading
public class foo{
public int foo1{/*....*/}
public int foo1(int a){/*....*/}
public int foo1(string a){/*....*/}
public int foo1(int a, string b){/*....*/}
}
I currently have the following problem:
I have a class which includes 3 different fields
Enum x
ActiveDirectoryUser y
CustomClass z
The enum can be initialised by passing a string or the enum object.
The ADUser can be initialised by passing a string (LoginName) or the user by itself and the CustomClass can be initialized by passing a string, int or the object.
Now I want to initialize the class to pass all different combinations like
class(string enumValue, string adUser, string customClass)
class(string enumValue, ADUser adUser, CustomClass customClass)
class(EnumValue enumValue, string adUser, CustomClass customClass)
Is there a way to simplify the constructors without typing all of the 12 possibilities (Enum-2 * ADUser-2 * CClass-3 = 12)?
I thought about chained constructors where i also ended up with 12 constructors but also thought about just passing the c# Object on each parameter and cast it and do stuff with it but i think that is just a dirty workaround?
Edit
The class is contained in an library and so can be used internal but also public. For the internal uses there is no problem to pass a concrete version of an object.
But if i use it public in other solutions these solutions can only refer to string or int values. So the class should be able to 'take' the values and convert them while beeing initialised because it have access to all the real objects.
Maybe this clarifies the problem a bit.
Here some code snippets with changed names:
#region Content of libraryOne
public class ClassName
{
internal EnumValueWrapper { get; set; }
internal CustomClass { get; set; }
internal ADUser { get; set; }
public ClassName() { ... } //Now via Builder Pattern
internal ClassName() { ... } //With Parameters for internal initialisations
public InformationContainer GetContentInfo()
{
//[...]Process Stuff and Return Container
}
}
internal CustomClass { ... }
internal EnumValueWrapper { ... }
internal ADUser { ... }
#endregion Content of libraryOne
If your class has only 3 properties (EnumValue, ADUser, CustomClass) then you should have only one constructor with these :class(EnumValue enumValue, ADUser adUser, CustomClass customClass). The ADUser and CustomClass should be instantiated outside of your class using their constructor which support string or int, etc;
Example:
class (EnumValue param, new ADUser(string_param), new CustomClass(int_param));
class (EnumValue param, new ADUser(ADUser_param), new CustomClass(string_param));
Edit
You can use it like I described above for internal scope and for the public part you can use and expose a factory (wrapper) class which actually can receive users and other parameters as strings or int and internally instantiate and return your class.
In addition to your snippet: Create a proxy like public class in your assembly that can be accessed from outside (from other assemblies).Make your class internal:
public class ClassNameBuilder
{
private ClassName _className;
public ClassNameBuilder(string enumValue, string user, string custom_class)
{
_className = new ClassName(EnumToString, new User(user), new CustomClass(custom_class));
}
public void CallClassNameMethod1()
{
return _className.Method1()
}
public void CallClassNameMethod2()
{
return _className.Method2()
}
}
The builder class can use whatever method you want to build the ClassName object; This way you can expose all your class methods without using multiple constructors.
I think the best thing to do is use the Builder pattern. You can even use it with derived classes.
My classes to build:
public class MyBaseClass
{
public MyBaseClass(SomeEnum enumValue, User user)
{
}
}
public class MyDerivedClass : MyBaseClass
{
public MyDerivedClass(SomeEnum enumValue, User user, CustomClass customStuff)
: base(enumValue, user)
{
}
}
Now let's add a builder class featuring an additional extension class for making things much more comfortable (it's sort of an extended Builder pattern using C# extension method wizadry):
public class MyBaseClassBuilder
{
public SomeEnum EnumValue { get; set; }
public User User { get; set; }
}
public static class MyBaseClassBuilderExtensions
{
public static T SetEnumValue<T>(this T instance, SomeEnum value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.EnumValue = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetEnumValue<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.EnumValue = (SomeEnum)Enum.Parse(typeof(SomeEnum), value);
return instance;
}
public static T SetUser<T>(this T instance, User value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.User = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetUser<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
instance.User = new User(value);
return instance;
}
public static MyBaseClass Build(this MyBaseClassBuilder instance)
{
return new MyBaseClass(instance.EnumValue, instance.User);
}
}
Now let's do the same thing for our derived class:
public class MyDerivedClassBuilder : MyBaseClassBuilder
{
public CustomClass CustomStuff { get; set; }
}
public static class MyDerivedClassBuilderExtensions
{
public static T SetCustomStuff<T>(this T instance, CustomClass value)
where T : MyDerivedClassBuilder
{
instance.CustomStuff = value;
return instance;
}
public static T SetCustomStuff<T>(this T instance, string value)
where T : MyDerivedClassBuilder
{
instance.CustomStuff = new CustomClass(value);
return instance;
}
public static MyDerivedClass Build(this MyDerivedClassBuilder instance)
{
return new MyDerivedClass(instance.EnumValue, instance.User, instance.CustomStuff);
}
}
Now you can construct your instances in some fluent API style way:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyBaseClass baseInstance = new MyBaseClassBuilder()
.SetEnumValue("Alpha")
.SetUser("Big Duke")
.Build();
MyDerivedClass derivedInstance = new MyDerivedClassBuilder()
.SetEnumValue(SomeEnum.Bravo)
.SetUser(new User("Lt. Col. Kilgore"))
.SetCustomStuff("Smells like victory")
.Build();
}
Finally the additional types:
public enum SomeEnum
{
Alpha,
Bravo
}
public class User
{
public User(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
}
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
public class CustomClass
{
public CustomClass(string notation)
{
this.Notation = notation;
}
public string Notation { get; private set; }
}
This way you can construct instances which require many constructor arguments in a comfortable way.
I wrote C# code as described below that inherits a class from a generic class with static methods. I want to call the child class for its static methods (inherited from the base class) without having to specify the type.
EDITED! More "real" code
public class Rec
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public override string ToString() { return this.Name; }
public virtual void Load() { /* HERE IT READS A TEXT FILE AND LOAD THE NAME */ }
}
public class BaseClass<T> : Rec
{
public T Argument { get; set; }
public override void Load() { /* NOW IT LOADS ALSO THE ARGUMENT */ }
public static H Method<H>() where H : Rec, new()
{
H iH = new H();
iH.Load();
iH.Name += " " + iH.Argument.ToString();
return iH;
}
}
public class Child : BaseClass<string> { }
public class SomeOtherClass
{
public void Test()
{
Child i = Child.Method();
//instead of Child.Method<Child>();
}
}
So, instead of having to call method<h>() i'd like to just call method(), so the code should assume that "h" is the caller type. Like in:
How can I do it?
Static methods are not inherited in C#
See this answer for an idea of a potential implementation: Stack Overflow whats-the-correct-alternative-to-static-method-inheritance
You could change method<h> to method and make it an instance method:
public class BaseClass<T> where T, new()
{
public T method() { /* RETURN SOMETHING */ }
}
And then call it as follows:
public class ABC : Child
{
public void Test()
{
var iABC = this.method();
}
}