So, I want to create an interface which has a method that can take in any model class.
For example
I have these three property class
class A
{
public long id { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public string code { get; set; }
}
class B
{
public long someID { get; set; }
}
class C
{
public long anydesign { get; set; }
}
class D
{
public long Router { get; set; }
}
I have an interface
public interface IModel
{
void Dosomething(A model); // Now in this example it takes the A model,But I want it to be set, so that that class that implements the interface can put any model as required
}
Now, I have a class that implements the mode
Since the interface only takes the A model, I can pass in the A model in the class during implementation
public class ImplemenationA: IModel
{
public void Dosomething(A model)
{
Console.WriteLine(model.description);
}
}
Say i have another implemenation Class
Now, I am guessing the below one wouldnt work, as the interface signature enforces only to take a Model A and not any other model
public class ImplementationB:IModel
{
public void Dosomething(B model)
{
Console.WriteLine(model.someID);
}
}
I want to the interface method to be invoked by any implementation class and use any model
While it is unjustified what you're attempting to do... to answer the actual question it is possible using generics...
Take the following for guidance (and example)...
class Test : IJobTask
{
public void Start(string val = "")
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public interface ITest
{
void MyMethod<T>(T model) where T : IJobTask;
}
public class ConcreteTest : ITest
{
public void MyMethod<T>(T model) where T : IJobTask
{
}
}
public class Main
{
public Main()
{
var ct = new ConcreteTest();
ct.MyMethod(new Test());
}
}
Your MyMethod will need to perform checks and casts now which kind of defeats the purpose, but this does answer the question of "a method accepting any model"
Use interface for your property classes.
public interface IProperty
{
...
}
class A: IProperty
{
...
}
class B: IProperty
{
...
}
class C: IProperty
{
...
}
class D: IProperty
{
...
}
And then you can pass interface as a parameter:
public interface IModel
{
int getModel(IProperty model);
}
Related
So, I want to create an interface which has a method that can take in any model class. For example
I have these three property class
class A
{
public long id { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public string code { get; set; }
}
class B
{
public long someID { get; set; }
}
class C
{
public long anydesign { get; set; }
}
class D
{
public long Router { get; set; }
}
I have an interface
public interface IModel
{
void Dosomething(A model); // Now in this example it takes the A model,But I want it to be set, so that that class that implements the interface can put any model as required
}
Now, I have a class that implements the mode Since the interface only takes the A model, I can pass in the A model in the class during implementation
public class ImplemenationA: IModel
{
public void Dosomething(A model)
{
Console.WriteLine(model.description);
}
}
Say i have another implemenation Class Now, I am guessing the below one wouldnt work, as the interface signature enforces only to take a Model A and not any other model
public class ImplementationB:IModel
{
public void Dosomething(B model)
{
Console.WriteLine(model.someID);
}
}
I want to the interface method to be invoked by any implementation class and use any model
Based on your description you may want to use Generics. Since you're creating separate implementations you can apply the interface below to achieve a similar result.
public interface IModel<T>
{
void Dosomething(T model);
}
public class ImplementationB : IModel<B>
{
public void Dosomething(B model)
{
Console.WriteLine(model.someID);
}
}
Some sort of Decorator pattern can solve it, postpone your actual implementation to inner classes and insist on separation of concern, please leave a comment if I miss understood your question:
//added to support inner implementation
interface IModelImpl {
void Do();
}
class A: IModelImpl
{
public long id { get; set; }
public string description { get; set; }
public string code { get; set; }
public void Do(){
console.WriteLine(this.description);
}
}
class B: IModelImpl
{
public long someID { get; set; }
public void Do(){
console.WriteLine(this.someID);
}
}
class C: IModelImpl
{
public long anydesign { get; set; }
public void Do(){
...
}
}
Here is your IModel, pretty much the same, considered like an outer implementation:
public interface IModel
{
void Dosomething(IModelImpl model); //put any model as long it implements IModelImpl
}
Your class implementation should now changed to:
public class ImplemenationA: IModel
{
public void Dosomething(IModelImpl model)
{
//Do more specific work to ImplementationA
model.Do();
}
}
Another class implementation:
public class ImplementationB:IModel
{
public void Dosomething(IModelImpl model)
{
//Do more specific work to ImplementationB like validation
model.Do();
}
}
I have several classes that all have extremely similar code and I am wondering if it would make sense to combine the generic code, and how to go about it. Each class has a specific Model property and a specific Service property, but other than that they are pretty much the same.
Here is an example of the code I am working with:
public class Example1 {
public Object1 Model { get; set; }
private Service1 Service {get;set;}
protected bool Create()
{
try
{
Model = Service.Create(Model);
return true;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
So say I have 4 classes that all have the same Create() method syntax, but the property object types all differ. Is there a way I can transform that into 4 classes that each have their properties defined and then have the Create() method in one base class?
I would expect it to look something like below:
public class Example1 : Base {
public Object1 Model { get; set; }
private Service1 Service { get; set; }
}
public class Example2 : Base {
public Object2 Model { get; set; }
private Service2 Service { get; set; }
}
public class Example3 : Base {
public Object3 Model { get; set; }
private Service3 Service { get; set; }
}
public class Example4 : Base {
public Object4 Model { get; set; }
private Service4 Service { get; set; }
}
public class Base {
// Wondering if this would do the trick; could be confusing though
// public object Model { get; set; }
// private object Service { get; set; }
//
protected bool Create()
{
try
{
Model = Service.Create(Model);
return true;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
But I'm getting stuck on how I should be providing the properties in the base class.
Thanks for any help. If this is not possible that is fine, I just wanted to make my code base a little less bloated.
EDIT:
One thing I thought may work is having the Model and Service defined in the Base class as Object, but then I was worried there would be confusion depending on where the property was being called from.
You can use generics with an abstract base class to get where you need to be:
public abstract class Base<TModel, TService> where TService: IService
{
public TModel Model { get; set; }
private TService Service { get; set; }
protected bool Create()
{
try
{
Model = Service.Create(Model);
return true;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
The only thing you would have to change here is add a backing abstraction to your "service" type that has the reference to Create(). Then you would have to restrict your generic to that abstraction (in my example above the abstraction is IService). Your abstraction would look something like this:
public interface IService
{
T Create(T input);
}
After implementing this abstract base class your implementations are just like this:
public class Example1 : Base<Object1, Service1>
{
//Code specific to this implementation
}
public class Example2 : Base<Object2, Service2>
{
//Code specific to this implementation
}
One thing you never address is how your base will actually get its contents. You will likely have to pass those in through the constructor. I have not provided that here since you have not either, but keep in mind you will need to pass at least the service down into the base so it can call Create() from that passed down service.
If the Model and Object are the same class, your example will work. If Object1 and Object2 are different classes then some tweaking may be needed, or what you're trying to achieve may not be possible.
If they are the same class, you could have the Object variable as protected and declare it differently in each derived class's constructor.
If they are not the same class but are similar, the Object1, Object2 etc. classes could all inherit from one Object class and the above could be done the same, however this would not be useful if Object1 and Object2 are wildy different.
If I understand what you're trying to do, maybe this will help:
public class Base
{
public Object model;
protected Service service;
protected bool Create()
{
try
{
Model = Service.Create(Model);
return true;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
public class Example1 : Base
{
public Example1() //Assign specifics in constructor
{
model = model1;
service = service1;
}
}
public class Example2 : Base
{
public Example2() //Assign specifics in constructor
{
model = model2;
service = service2;
}
}
If this doesn't help then maybe what you're looking for is abstract classes/methods but I can't be sure.
interface IModel { }
interface IService<out TModel>
{
TModel Create(IModel model);
}
interface IModelService<TModel, TService> where TModel : IModel where TService : IService<TModel>
{
TModel Model { get; set; }
TService Service { get; set; }
}
class ExampleModel : IModel { }
class ExampleService : IService<ExampleModel>
{
public ExampleModel Create(TModel model)
{
return new ExampleModel();
}
}
class Example : ExampleBase<ExampleModel, ExampleService>
{
}
abstract class ExampleBase<TModel, TService> : IModelService<TModel, TService> where TModel : IModel where TService : IService<TModel>
{
public TModel Model { get; set; }
public TService Service { get; set; }
protected bool Create()
{
//do what you must
}
}
abstract class with generic type arguments and few interfaces for defining and constraining
Another way you can use Template_method_pattern to solve your problem, because every subclass has its own Sevice object.
Make an IService interface be Service class contract.
There is a contract TModel Create<TModel>(TModel model); in IService.
public interface IService {
TModel Create<TModel>(TModel model);
}
then let Base class be an abstract class with generics, which can let subclass inheritance, make a hang method protected abstract IService GetService(); to let subclass provide the Service object.
public abstract class Base<TModel>
{
public TModel Model { get; set; }
protected abstract IService GetService();
protected bool Create()
{
IService service = GetService();
try
{
Model = service.Create(Model);
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
Your subclass can inheritance Base<Object1> and set its Model Type, and provide a service object belonging to this class.
public class Example1 : Base<Object1>
{
protected override IService GetService()
{
return new Service1();
}
}
I know similar questions have been asked, but I didn't find any which was similar enough to what I did.
Let's say I have this:
public interface IData
{
string Data { get; set; }
}
public interface IJob<out T> where T: IData
{
T JobData { get; } // works because no setter
void Run();
}
public class JobAData : IData
{
public string Data { get; set; }
}
public class JobA : IJob<JobAData>
{
public JobAData JobData { get; private set; } // implements IJob's get plus a set
public JobA(JobAData data)
{
JobData = data;
}
public void Run()
{
//can use JobData nicely here
}
}
And, because of the out parameter, this also works:
List<IJob<IData>> jobs = new List<IJob<IData>>();
jobs.Add(new JobA(new JobAData()));
//in another class, extremely simplified (actually running with Quartz)
foreach (var job in jobs)
{
job.Run();
}
While this works fine, it feels like a hack since I have to remember that JobA needs a setter that is not enforced by the interface.
I originally was using a double IJob interface (an IJob and an IJob<T>) but that meant I had to cast from IJob<T> to IJob and I didn't like that.
Is there any cleaner way to do this?
UPDATE
My original suggestion was to create an abstract class that sets the Data in the constructor,
public abstract class JobBase<T> : IJob<T> where T : IData {
public JobBase(T data) {
JobData = data;
}
public T JobData { get; private set; }
public abstract void Run();
}
forcing derived classes to set the JobData property.
public class JobA : JobBase<JobAData> {
public JobA(JobAData data) : base(data) { }
public void Run() {
//can use JobData nicely here
}
}
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Following the abstract base class idea consider a abstract factory method that would force any derived class to provide data, either in the property itself
public abstract class JobBase<T> : IJob<T> where T : IData {
public T JobData { get { return GetData(); } }
public abstract void Run();
public abstract T GetData();
}
or having a private setter and setting it one time in the constructor
public abstract class JobBase<T> : IJob<T> where T : IData {
public JobBase() {
JobData = GetData();
}
public T JobData { get; private set; }
public abstract void Run();
public abstract T GetData();
}
Any derived implementations would be forced to implement the GetData method.
From what I understand, you want to enforce setter definition on inheritance which would have accessibility restriction as well! If you define a setter method, you would still end up making it publicly accessible. And, "double IJob interface (an IJob and an IJob<T>) but that meant I had to cast from IJob<T> to IJob" doesn't sound good to you.
There are not much solutions to this situation but one work around can be restriction using Abstract Classes. What I am suggesting here is something like this:
public interface IData
{
string Data { get; set; }
}
public interface IJob<out T> where T : IData
{
T JobData { get; }
void Run();
}
public class JobAData : IData
{
public string Data { get; set; }
}
public abstract class Abs_JobA : IJob<JobAData>
{
public abstract JobAData JobData { get; protected set; }
public abstract void Run();
}
public class JobA : Abs_JobA
{
public override JobAData JobData
{
get;
protected set;
}
public JobA(JobAData data)
{
this.JobData = data;
}
public override void Run()
{
//can use JobData nicely here
}
}
So now, you do not implement IJob to subsequent classes but, rather you extend Abs_JobA abstract class.
I have this class
class A
{
public string OnlyOnA { get; private set; }
public virtual void Accept<T>(ITaker<T> ia) where T : A
{
ia.Take((T)this);
}
}
and this interface
interface ITaker<T> where T : A
{
void Take(T a);
}
with this I can subclass A like following
class B : A
{
public string OnlyOnB { get; private set; }
}
and implement the interface
class BTaker : ITaker<B>
{
public void Take(B b)
{
var v = b.OnlyOnB;
}
}
I get the flexibilty in the Taker class to get the correct type of A and subtypes of A.
but I still need to the cast in A where I have to do (T)this;
how can I avoid the cast?
many thanks.
What you are trying to do is unsafe since you can do:
new A().Accept(new BTaker());
To make this safe you could create a new interface to specify the type of T which can be accepted e.g.
interface IAccept<T> where T : A
{
void Accept(ITaker<T> taker);
}
class A : IAccept<A>
{
public string OnlyOnA { get; private set; }
public virtual void Accept(ITaker<A> ia)
{
ia.Take(this);
}
}
Given this code:
public interface ITagModel { }
public interface ITemplate {
ITagModel Model { get; set; }
}
public class EmailTag : ITagModel { }
public class EmailTest : ITemplate {
public EmailTag Model { get; set; }
}
I am being told that the Type of EmailTag (inside EmailClass) cannot implement the Property Model because it is not the type ITagModel.
It is inheriting ITagModel....so why won't this work? What can I do to accomplish what I'm looking for?
C# doesn't support covariant return.
e.g.
public class Base { }
public class Derived : Base { }
public class Component
{
public virtual Base GetComponent()
{
return new Base();
}
}
public class DerviedComponent : Component
{
public override Dervied GetComponent()
{
return new Derived();
}
}
So you'll need to abstract the return type and constrain it to your interface. That way any implementation will need to supply an ITagModel.
public interface ITagModel { }
public interface ITemplate<TModel>
where TModel : ITagModel
{
TModel Model { get; set; }
}
public class EmailTag : ITagModel { }
public class EmailTest : ITemplate<EmailTag> {
public EmailTag Model { get; set; }
}
It sounds like your ITemplate interface should be generic:
public interface ITemplate<TModel> where TModel : ITagModel
{
TModel Model { get; set; }
}
Then:
public class EmailTest : ITemplate<EmailTag>
{
public EmailTag Model { get; set; }
}
Imagine if your current code worked. I could then write:
ITemplate template = new EmailTest();
template.Model = new SomeOtherModel();
... and you wouldn't want that. (Basically, you'd be violating type safety.)