Related
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.
This issue comes up for me so often in my coding that I'm astonished I can find so little reference to it, and would value other people's thoughts and ideas.
I define lots of APIs, for the frameworks I work on, and within large domain models that I want to break up. Those APIs consist almost entirely of interfaces (meaning, in my case, C# interfaces). I find, over and over again, that I want to distinguish between two kinds of interface. In the absence of finding any more widely used terms, I define these two as follows:
'Role' interfaces are intended to be implemented by objects outside of the API, in order that those objects can be used as arguments for methods defined on the API.
'Result' interfaces are implemented by objects inside the API and made available to other parts of the system via the API. The intent of defining a result interface rather than exposing the object that implements it is to restrict the view of the object to the outside world.
To pick one example, a Payments sub-system might define IPayableItem as a Role interface, implemented by many types in other parts of the application in order that Payments may be generated for them. Those generated Payment objects may be retrieved via the API but defined by the Result interface IPayment.
The only way I can currently distinguish these is by naming convention and/or commenting. Ideally, I would like the distinction enforced by the language, and have it enforce the rule: you can't implement a Result interface outside the API, only use it. But C# doesn't provide any such mechanism. (Can anyone advise me of a language that does?). I could define an attribute, but this still wouldn't enforce anything.
Another important significance of the distinction lies in Semantic Versioning of the API. If I add a new member to a Role interface then this should be seen as a breaking change (and hence a first-level version) - because any existing external implementations will need to add that member. But if I add a member to what I deem to be a 'Result' interface then it should only be my own code that is impacted - it is just a new feature (second-level version) for everyone else. But with no enforced distinction between the two types there's some risk that people are implementing the Result interfaces and hence their code would be broken.
Has anyone else encountered this dilemma? If so, how have you dealt with it? I look forward to your answers.
But please don't both to respond with either of the following arguments (which I have heard all too often):
My Result interfaces should be abstract classes rather than interfaces. This does not solve the problem, and potentially makes it worse, since external code can sub-class them.
I should be returning the concrete type and ensuring that anything I don't want accessible outside the API is marked 'internal'. There are lots of cases where I need things inside the API to be public, e.g. to be accessible to other frameworks (not going through the API).
I think what you're asking is it possible to expose an interface, but determine that a given instance is one you created?
If so, you could also create an internal private interface, and mark all your implementations as also implementing the private interface. Then upon being given an object from the outside world, verify it has the internal interface implementation as well.
public interface IPublic
{
...
}
internal interface ISecret { }
public class PublicImplementation : IPublic, ISecret
{
...
}
Only you can implement the ISecret, so even if someone implements the IPublic and passes it to you, it will fail the ISecret test.
What is the cost of using dynamic proxies?
I do not want to clutter my project with Interface Implementations, so I am considering using Dynamic proxies created by some 3rd party library like LinFu , Castle, Unity etc. Do they generate one instance per interface or do I get one for each call.
It is a web app, so whats the performance problem in the long run.
I am also using EF 4.1 (CTP5 at the moment), so if does create proxy classes itself, which makes me wonder if I can use EF's own Dynamic Proxy creating tools.
P.S. yes my interfaces are implemented by concrete classes along with other interfaces and base classes, but sometimes I only need the interface portion of it and not the extra stuff that comes with the concrete class.
All interfaces declare just some part of an EF4.1 POCO. So just getters and setters.
The opensource Impromptu-Interface, requires c# 4.0, and creates a lightweight proxy type for each Interface and Implementation Type combo you use and keeps them cached.
So creating an interface proxy around a given implementation (an ExpandoObject counts as one type no matter how you set it up) will have a one time cost of generating the proxy type, an Activator.CreateInstance for each time you make a proxy (which isn't bad) and for each call there will be a static invocation which is what you'd have with out the proxy + a dlr dynamic invocation which is very optimized thanks to microsoft.
Looks like you need more of a stub rather than a dynamic proxy. Perhaps you might want to take a look at Moq. As far as I know it creates a different instance for every time you create a mock, don't know if internally keeps some sort of a Type cache, though. Mind you, as it's a library targeted for unit tests, so this kind of use would be probably unorthodox.
I'm working with a 3rd party c# class that has lots of great methods and properties - but as time has gone by I need to extend that class with methods and properties of my own. If it was my code I would just use that class as my base class and add my own properties and method on top - but this class has an internal constructor. (In my opinion it was short sited to make the constructor internal in the first place - why limit the ability to subclass?)
The only thing I could think of was to create method / properties on my class that simply called into theirs - but it's acres of code and, well, it just doesn't "feel" right.
Is there any way to use this class a base class?
You ask: "Why limit the ability to subclass?"
Because designing for inheritance is tricky, particularly if you're designing for other developers to inherit from your class. As Josh Bloch says in Effective Java, you should design for inheritance or prohibit it. In my view, unless you have a good reason to design for inheritance, you shouldn't do so speculatively.
Does the class implement an interface which you could also implement (possibly by proxying most calls back to an instance of the original)? There's often no really elegant answer here - and the best solution will depend on the exact situation, including what you're trying to add to the class.
If you're not adding any more state - just convenience methods, effectively - then extension methods may work well for you. But they don't change what data an object is capable of storing, so if you need to add your own specialised data, that won't work.
Sounds like a perfect application for extension methods:
MSDN extension method docs
"Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type. Extension methods are a special kind of static method, but they are called as if they were instance methods on the extended type. For client code written in C# and Visual Basic, there is no apparent difference between calling an extension method and the methods that are actually defined in a type."
If the class has an internal constructor, and there are no public constructors, then that suggests that the designers did not intend for it to be subclassed. In that case, you can use encapsulation, or you can use extension methods.
Only if your class lives in the same assembly as the class you want to inherit from. An internal constructor limits the concrete implementations of the abstract class to the assembly defining the class. A class containing an internal constructor cannot be instantiated outside of the assembly.
Resharper has a nice feature to create delegating members.
Here is a sample of what you can do with it. It takes a couple of seconds.
I will not discuss whether you can build your own Facade around that 3rd party class. Previous authors are right, the library could be designed in the way that will not allow this. Suppose they have some coupled classes that have singletons that should be initialized in specific order or something like this - there may be a lot of design mistakes (or features) that 3rd party developers never care about, because they do not suppose that you will use their library in that way.
But OK, lets suppose that building a facade is not an impossible task, and you have in fact only one problem - there are too many methods you have to write wrappers around, and it is not good to do this manually.
I see 3 solutions to address exactly that problem
1) I suppose that new "dynamic" types of .NET 4.0 will allow you to workaround that problem without having to write "acres of code"
You should incapsulate an instance of 3rd party class into your class as a privare member with dynamic keyword
Your class should be derived from Dynamic or implement IDynamicObject interface. You will have to implement GetMember/SetMember functions that will forward all calls to the encapsulated instance of 3rd party class
Well, c# 4.0 is a future, Let's see on other solutions:
2) Do not write code manually if you have significant number of public methods (say more then 100). I would write a little console app that uses reflection and finds all public members and then automatically generates code to call encapsulated instance. For example
public type MethodName(params)
{
this.anInstanceOf3rdPartyClass.MethodName(params);
}
3) You can do the same as 2, but with the help of existing reflection tools, for example RedGate .NET Reflector. It will help you to list all classes and methods signatures. Then, paste all this in Word and a simple VB macro will let you generate the same code as you could do in 2.
Remark: As soon as you are not copying the code, but only copying method signatures, that are publicly available, I don't think you will violate the license agreement, but anyway it worth to re-check
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.