We Keep Coding

Cast object from an interface to its implementation

I have the following code:
public interface BaseInterface
{
int ID { get; }
}
public interface SpecialInterface1 : BaseInterface
{
int price { get; }
}
public interface SpecialInterface1 : BaseInterface
{
int xyz { get; }
}
public class Implementation1 : SpecialInterface
{
int price { get; }
int ID { get; internal set; }
}
public class Implementation2 : SpecialInterface
{
int xyz { get; }
int ID { get; internal set; }
}
Now in a Management class I want to add the objects that implement BaseInterface into a List.
I know that I can use as or is to cast the interface to an implementation, but in my project, I have about 10 special interfaces with an implementation each so I would have to write a really big if statements.
public void Add(BaseInterface u, int id)
{
if (u is Implementation1)
{
((Implementation1)u).ID = id;
Units.Add(u);
}
if (u is Implementation2)
{
((Implementation2)u).ID = id;
Units.Add(u);
}
}
My goal is that the id is not changeable outside the implementation and I would provide only the interfaces outside my dll so none can change the id.

A solution would be to add an extra interface. This eliminates the internal setter in your implementation.
internal interface IChangeID
{
void SetID(int id);
}
public interface IBaseInterface
{
int ID { get; }
}
public class Implementation : IBaseInterface,
IChangeID
{
public void SetID(int id) { ID = id; }
public int ID { get; private set; }
}
Only the real implementations should implement IChangeID. Returning IBaseInterface or ISpecialInterface will hide the setter, because those interfaces do not inherit from IChangeID.
This would change your add into:
public void Add(BaseInterface u, int id)
{
((IChangeID)u).SetID(id);
Units.Add(u);
}
If you do want to return the concrete types, not interfaces. You could implement the given interface explicit. This will hide the set method even from the concrete implementation.
public class Implementation : IBaseInterface,
IChangeID
{
void IChangeID.SetID(int id) { ID = id; }
public int ID { get; private set; }
}
var obj = new Implementation();
obj.SetID() // This WILL NOT Compile

If you don't want to modify the interfaces and implementations, you could use C# 7's pattern matching to access the implementation type without casting. It requires 3 lines per implementation type but avoids modifying the classes:
public void Add(BaseInterface u, int id)
{
switch(u)
{
case Implementation1 u1:
u1.ID = id;
break;
case Implementation2 u1:
u1.ID = id;
break;
default :
throw new ArgumentException("Unexpected implementation!");
}
Units.Add(u);
}
The obvious disadvantage is that the code will have to be modified if a new implementation is added.
Another option is to use dynamic, losing type safety. This will fail at runtime if some implementation doesn't have a setter (eg because it was replaced by constructor initialization)
public void Add(BaseInterface u, int id)
{
dynamic x =u;
x.ID=id;
Units.Add(x);
}

While I like this answer the best,
I recommend making the ID a required parameter of all the implementation's constructors, and then to use a factory pattern to generate any instance you require. This makes any instance without the ID set throw an exception at compile time rather than runtime reducing the probability of exceptions.
Here is a simple example that gets you what you want without an additional interface. Should you choose you can combine my answer with #Iqon's answer.
public interface IInterface
{
int ID { get; }
}
internal class InternalImplementation: IInterface {
public InternalImplementation(int ID) { this.ID = ID; }
public int ID { get; set; }
}
public class MyImplementationFactoryService {
public IInterface Create() {
int id = 1 // Or however you get your ID, possibly from a DB query?
return new InternalImplementation(id);
}
public IInterface Create(type|enum createtype) {
// return type based on typeof or enum
}
}

In case you want to use reflection to set property, code below may help
public interface IBaseInterface
{
int ID { get; }
}
public class Impl1 : IBaseInterface
{
public int ID { get; internal set; }
public int Price {get; set;}
}
public class Impl2 : IBaseInterface
{
public int ID { get { return 0;} }
public int Subscription {get; set;}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
IBaseInterface obj1 = new Impl1();
SetProperty(obj1, "ID", 100);
Console.WriteLine("Object1 Id is {0}", obj1.ID);
IBaseInterface obj2 = new Impl2();
SetProperty(obj2, "ID", 500);
Console.WriteLine("Object2 Id is {0}", obj2.ID);
}
private static void SetProperty(IBaseInterface obj, string propertyName, object id){
if(obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName).CanWrite) {
obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName).SetValue(obj, id);
Console.WriteLine("CanWrite property '{0}' : {1}" , propertyName, obj.GetType().GetProperty(propertyName).CanWrite);
}
}
}
Output
CanWrite property 'ID' : True
Object1 Id is 100
Object2 Id is 0

C# instantiate class with varying "child" class

I have a class that has some derived classes. That works.
I want to instantiate the "parent" class. Got that far...
But I want to instantiate it with one of the "child" classes, and then possibly change that "child" class later. Maybe the deriving is inappropriate here.
Take the following example:
public class Unicorn {
public string Horn { get; set; }
public Unicorn(){
}
}
public class BadUnicorn : Unicorn{
public string Rainbow()
{
return "dark rainbow";
}
}
public class GoodUnicorn : Unicorn{
public string Rainbow()
{
return "light rainbow";
}
}
I could instantiate one of the children, but then if I change one from "good" to "bad", I would have to re-instantiate. And maybe that's just the way it is, and that would be an acceptable answer if that's all there is to it.
I rather want to instantiate a Unicorn, and then be able to change it from Good to Bad to maintain information stored on that Unicorn, but have access to the current methods and properties of the "child" class.
That way when I call Unicorn.Rainbow() it calls the desired method of the "child" class.
I'm a little new to C#, is there a pattern that fits this bill?

You can't do what you want with polymorphism. You cannot change an instance of class from one to another. Once it is created it is always the same type.
You can use composition though.
Here's what you'd need to do:
public class Unicorn
{
public string Horn { get; set; }
public Unicorn(Rainbow rainbow)
{
_rainbow = rainbow;
}
public void SetRainbow(Rainbow rainbow)
{
_rainbow = rainbow;
}
private Rainbow _rainbow;
public string Rainbow()
{
return _rainbow.Colour();
}
}
public abstract class Rainbow
{
public abstract string Colour();
}
public class BadRainbow : Rainbow
{
public override string Colour()
{
return "dark rainbow";
}
}
public class GoodRainbow : Rainbow
{
public override string Colour()
{
return "light rainbow";
}
}
You can test like this:
var unicorn = new Unicorn(new GoodRainbow());
Console.WriteLine(unicorn.Rainbow());
unicorn.SetRainbow(new BadRainbow());
Console.WriteLine(unicorn.Rainbow());
This outputs:
light rainbow
dark rainbow
The instance of Unicorn stays the same, but you can change the rainbow.

Here's my take on delegate dictionary. While it seems superfluous to use Func instead of just string, if the method have additional functionality like calculation or need parameters, you're covered with Func.
public class Unicorn
{
static Dictionary<Attitude, Func<string>> RainbowByAttitude =
new Dictionary<Attitude, Func<string>>()
{
[Attitude.Bad] = new Func<string>(() => "dark rainbow"),
[Attitude.Good] = new Func<string>(()=>"light rainbow")
};
public string Horn { get; set; }
public enum Attitude
{
Good,Bad
}
public Attitude attitude;
public Unicorn(Attitude attitude)
{
this.attitude = attitude;
}
public string Rainbow() => RainbowByAttitude[attitude].Invoke();
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Unicorn unicorn;
unicorn = new Unicorn(Unicorn.Attitude.Bad);
Console.WriteLine(unicorn.Rainbow());
unicorn.attitude = Unicorn.Attitude.Good;
Console.WriteLine(unicorn.Rainbow());
}
}

It seems like a state pattern to me like this:
public abstract class UnicornState
{
public abstract UnicornState Change();
public abstract string Rainbow();
}
public sealed class GoodUnicornState : UnicornState
{
public override UnicornState Change()
{
return new BadUnicornState();
}
public override string Rainbow()
{
return "light rainbow";
}
}
public sealed class BadUnicornState : UnicornState
{
public override UnicornState Change()
{
return new GoodUnicornState();
}
public override string Rainbow()
{
return "dark rainbow";
}
}
public class Unicorn
{
public string Horn { get; set; }
public UnicornState State { get; set; }
public string Rainbow => State.Rainbow();
}
Usage:
var u = new Unicorn();
u.State = new GoodUnicornState();
Console.WriteLine(u.Rainbow);
u.State = u.State.Change();
Console.WriteLine(u.Rainbow);

Static method call in generic manner

I have multiple classes like:
public class Base { }
public class Base1: Base { public static List<Base1> LoadFromXml(string path) }
public class Base2: Base { public static List<Base2> LoadFromXml(string path) }
Then I want to have a method like this:
public List<T> PrepareBase<T>() where T: Base { return T.Load("C:\test.xml"); }
So that I don't have to make a method for every type.
But I don't know how to accomplish this or something similar.
The problem is that I can't make the LoadFromXml method known to the base class because static inheritance is not a thing. Neither is creating a seperate interface with a static method.
Is there a way to do this or am I expecting too much?
Edit:
An example of the LoadFromXml method:
public class Base1
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string PropertyOnlyInBase1 { get; set; }
public static List<Base1> LoadFromXml(string path)
{
List<Base1> baseList = new List<Base1>();
XDocument doc = XDocument.Load(path);
foreach(var node in doc.Descendants("Base1"))
{
Base 1 base = new Base1() { ID = node.Attributes["id"] };
base.PropertyOnlyInBase1 = node.Element("PropertyOnlyInBase1");
baseList.Add(base);
}
return baseList;
}
}
So the Base classes also have some unique properties. That's why I needed the inheritance thing in the first place.

One option is to add a GenericBase:
public abstract class Base
{
}
public static class GenericBase<T>
where T : Base
{
public static List<T> LoadFromXml(string path)
{
//Load from XML
}
}
public class Base1 : Base { }
public class Base2 : Base { }
public class Test //MainForm.cs class or whatever you want
{
public void Tester() //Load event handler or whatever you want
{
List<Base1> base1List = PrepareBase<Base1>();
}
public List<T> PrepareBase<T>() where T : Base
{ return GenericBase<T>.LoadFromXml("C:\test.xml"); }
}
Edit:
As D Stanley mentioned, it's not possible; but I made some work-around that could be helpful for you:
public abstract class Base
{
public static List<T> LoadFromXml<T>(string path) where T : Base, new()
{
List<T> baseList = new List<T>();
XDocument doc = XDocument.Load(path);
foreach (var node in doc.Descendants(typeof(T).Name))
{
T t = new T();
Dictionary<string, string> d = new Dictionary<string, string>();
foreach (var item in node.Elements())
d.Add(item.Name.ToString(), item.Value);
t.Load(d);
baseList.Add(t);
}
return baseList;
}
protected internal abstract void Load(Dictionary<string, string> elements);
}
public class Base1 : Base
{
public string CustomProp1 { get; set; }
public string CustomProp2 { get; set; }
public string CustomProp3 { get; set; }
protected internal override void Load(Dictionary<string, string> elements)
{
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp1"))
CustomProp1 = elements["CustomProp1"];
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp2"))
CustomProp2 = elements["CustomProp2"];
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp3"))
CustomProp3 = elements["CustomProp3"];
}
}
public class Base2 : Base
{
public string CustomProp1 { get; set; }
public string CustomProp2 { get; set; }
public string CustomProp3 { get; set; }
protected internal override void Load(Dictionary<string, string> elements)
{
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp1"))
CustomProp1 = elements["CustomProp1"];
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp2"))
CustomProp2 = elements["CustomProp2"];
if (elements.ContainsKey("CustomProp3"))
CustomProp3 = elements["CustomProp3"];
}
}
public class Test //MainForm.cs class or whatever you want
{
public void Tester() //Load event handler or whatever you want
{
List<Base1> base1List = PrepareBase<Base1>();
}
public List<T> PrepareBase<T>() where T : Base, new()
{
return Base.LoadFromXml<T>("C:\test.xml");
}
}

I think you're correct that the class that loads these from XML should be separate from the class that's being loaded. As you said, it has no real connection to the instance.
Perhaps what you need is a separate class that loads those instances for you.
public class BaseXmlLoader<TBase> where TBase : Base
{
public List<TBase> LoadFromXml(string filePath)
{
var serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(TBase));
// Load your file and deserialize.
}
}
The benefits aren't huge because it's not saving you that much code. But if the LoadFromXml methods are essentially the same except for the type then you're getting something out of it.

I changed my approach to the problem and solved it using the Factory pattern. I also provided each class with an instance method SetPropertiesFromXml to handle the custom properties. Unlike the previously used method, a method like that made sense as an instance method.
Factory:
public static class BaseFactory
{
public static Base GetBase(string id)
{
switch(id) { case '1': return new Base1(); ... }
}
public static T GetBaseList<T>(string xml, string tagName) where T: Base
{
List<T> list = new List<T>();
var nodes = XDocument.Load(xml).Descendants(tagName);
foreach(XElement node in nodes)
{
var base = GetBase(node.Attribute("id").Value);
base.SetPropertiesFromXml(node);
list.Add(base as T);
}
}
}
Bases
public abstract class Base
{
public virtual void SetPropertiesFromXml(XElement node)
{
//<Set Properties like: this.Property = node.Element("key");>
}
}
public class Base1
{
public override void SetPropertiesFromXml(XElement node)
{
//<Set Custom Properties for Base1>
//Call Base to add the normal properties as well
base.SetPropertiesFromXml(node);
}
}
Call
List<Base1> list = BaseFactory.GetBaseList<Base1>("test.xml", "Base1");

Interfaces and inheritance with derived class

I am stuck on interfaces and inheritance. If I implement two classes who both have an interface each, how would I be able to add the properties of Class A and B together? For instance I wanted to associate firstitem with the seconditem.
public interface IAlpha
{
[WebInvoke(Method = "POST", BodyStyle = WebMessageBodyStyle.Bare, RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Xml, ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Xml, UriTemplate = "/AddBravoToAlpha/{firstitem}/{seconditem}")]
void AddBravoToAlpha(int firstitem, int seconditem);
}
public interface IBravo
{
// what goes in here?
}
public Class Alpha
{
public Alpha()
{
AlphaAdd = new List<Bravo>();
}
int Firstitem { get; set }
public List<Bravo> AlphaAdd { get; set; }
}
public Class Bravo
{
public Bravo()
{
BravoAdd = new List<Alpha>(); //not sure if Bravo can access Alpha (derived class)
}
int Seconditem { get; set }
Guid Indexer { get; set }
public List<Alpha> BravoAdd { get; set; }
}
public Class BravoDoesAlpha : IBravo, IAlpha //????
{
List<Alpha> alpha = new List<Alpha>();
List<Bravo> bravo = new List<Bravo>();
public void AddBravoToAlpha(int firstitem, int seconditem)
{
var result = alpha.Where(n => String.Equals(n.Firstitem, firstitem)).FirstOrDefault();
var result1 = bravo.Where(n => String.Equals(n.Seconditem, seconditem)).FirstOrDefault();
if (result != null)
{
result.BravoAdd.Add(new Alpha() { Firstitem = firstitem });
}
if (result1 != null)
{
result1.AlphaAdd.Add(new Bravo() { Seconditem = seconditem });
}
}
}

Okay, so the question you are being asked is basically one about how to do a certain kind of refactoring known as "extracting" an interface.
This is one of the more easy refactorings to do and to understand if you understand interfaces vs. types.
All interfaces are types, but not all types are interfaces.
Now let's assume we are dealing in a world with two families of types: classes and interfaces (as in your example).
Instead of working your example directly, I will work a different but clearer example that does not use Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Epsilon, etc. because this kind of stuff makes it harder to see the meaning.
First, here's the before:
public class Dog
{
public void Bark() { Console.WriteLine("Woof!"); }
public int NumberOfDogLegs { get { return 2; } }
public int NumberOfDogFriends { get; set; } // this can be set
private string SecretsOfDog { get; set; } // this is private
}
public class DoorBell
{
public void Chime() { Console.WriteLine("Ding!"); }
}
To extract the interface of a class, simply, well, extract all the public members of the class to an interface.
public interface IDog
{
void Bark();
int NumberOfDogLegs { get; }
int NumberOfDogFriends { get; set; }
}
public interface IDoorBell
{
void Chime();
}
Now to really make use of OOP, you can find a way to abstract IDog and IDoorBell. What do they have in common? Well, the obvious one is they both make a noise. So we make a new interface, public interface IMakeANoise and say that IDog and IDoorBell both implement it.
public interface IMakeANoise
{
void MakeNoise();
}
public interface IDog : IMakeANoise
{
void Bark();
int NumberOfDogLegs { get; }
int NumberOfDogFriends { get; set; }
}
public interface IDoorBell : IMakeANoise
{
void Chime();
}
And now we have a new method to implement on Dog and DoorBell.
public class Dog : IDog
{
public void Bark() { Console.WriteLine("Woof!"); }
public int NumberOfDogLegs { get { return 2; } }
public int NumberOfDogFriends { get; set; } // this can be set
private string SecretsOfDog { get; set; } // this is private
public void IMakeANoise() { Bark(); }
}
public class DoorBell : IDoorBell
{
public void Chime() { Console.WriteLine("Ding!"); }
public void IMakeANoise() { Chime(); }
}
Now let's say we are actually writing a video game and Dog and DoorBell are both things that we can show on the screen. Well, this makes them a lot bigger because we will need to provide more information like their coordinates, their states, etc.
In this case, Dog and DoorBell may be very different to us but are similar enough to potentially merit sharing a base class. (Really, this is a stretch, but it does get the point across.)
Without adding all those new interfaces and their implementations, let's just do the "sharing a base class" refactoring for what we already have.
public class RenderableThing : IMakeANoise, IDoAThousandOtherThings
{
protected virtual string MyNoiseToMake { get { return ""; } }
public virtual void MakeANoise()
{
Console.WriteLine(MyNoiseToMake);
}
}
public class Dog : RenderableThing, IDog
{
protected override string MyNoiseToMake { get { return "Woof!"; } }
public void Bark() { MakeANoise(); } // see what we did there?
// Notice that I am not declaring the method MakeANoise because it is inherited and I am using it by overriding MyNoiseToMake
public int NumberOfDogLegs { get { return 2; } }
public int NumberOfDogFriends { get; set; } // this can be set
private string SecretsOfDog { get; set; } // this is private
}
public class DoorBell : RenderableThing, IDoorBell
{
public void Chime() { Console.WriteLine("Ding!"); }
public override void MakeANoise()
{
Chime(); Chime(); Chime(); //I'll do it my own way!
}
}
You may wonder, what's the point? So we can do this...
IMakeANoise dogNoiseMaker = new Dog();
IMakeANoise doorBellNoiseMaker = new DoorBell();
IList<IMakeANoise> listOfNoiseMakers = new List<IMakeANoise>();
listOfNoiseMakers.Add(dogNoiseMaker);
listOfNoiseMakers.Add(doorBellNoiseMaker);
foreach (IMakeANoise noiseMaker in listOfNoiseMakers)
{
noiseMaker.MakeANoise();
}
// This will output
// Woof!
// Ding!
// Ding!
// Ding!

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and venture a guess that you don't quite understand what interfaces and inheritance is. I'll start off by explaining what interfaces are:
Interfaces contain only the definitions of methods, properties, events or indexers that an inheriting class must implement.
For example:
interface IExample
{
void HelloWorld();
}
class ExampleClass : IExample
{
public void HelloWorld()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello world.");
}
}
Now for Inheritance; when you derive a class from a base class the derived class will inherit all members of the base class except for the constructors. Note: Depending on the accessibility of the members in the base class it's children may or may not be able to access the parents members.
public class Animal
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public Animal(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public void Talk()
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} is talking", Name);
}
}
public class Cat : Animal
{
public Cat(string name) : base(name) { }
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
public string FurColor { get; set; }
public Dog(string name, string furColor) : base(name)
{
FurColor = furColor;
}
public void Greeting()
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} has {1} fur.", Name, FurColor);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var cat = new Cat("Rex");
cat.Talk();
var dog = new Dog("Beanie", "Red");
dog.Talk();
}
}

C#: Confusion about Interfaces, Implementation and Inheritance

I'm wondering about what's the way to go, if I need to publicate data-interfaces but want to use them internal with extended calculated properties. To make it clearer:
// The public interface
public interface IData
{
int Property { get; }
}
// The internal interface
internal interface IExtendedData : IData
{
int ExtendedProperty { get; }
}
// The assumed implementation of someone using my interface
public class Data : IData
{
public Data(int a)
{
Property = a;
}
public int Property
{
get;
private set;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Property.ToString();
}
}
// My implementation
internal class ExtendedData : IExtendedData
{
public ExtendedData(int a)
{
Property = a;
}
public int Property
{
get;
private set;
}
public int ExtendedProperty
{
get
{
return 2 * Property;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Property.ToString() + ExtendedProperty.ToString();
}
}
// publicated by me, for the person who uses my dll
public static class Calculations
{
public static int DoSomeCalculation(IData data, int parameter)
{
// This probably don't work, but maybe shows what I want to do
IExtendedData tempData = (ExtendedData)data;
return tempData.ExtendedProperty * parameter;
}
}
I'm realy frustrated, cause I feel like missing some basical programing skills.

You could solve this problem by implementing ExtendedData as a Wrapper for a class implementing IData
internal class ExtendedData : IExtendedData
{
private IData data;
public ExtendedData(IData data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public int Property
{
get { return data.Property; }
private set { data.Property = value; }
}
public int ExtendedProperty
{
get
{
return 2 * Property;
}
}
}
and use this in DoSomeCalculation like
IExtendedData tempData = new ExtendedData(data);

ExtendedData could inherit from Data:
class ExtendedData : Data
{...}
And for creation of a Data object you add a factory like so:
public class DataFactory
{
public IData CreateData()
{
return new ExtendedData();
}
}
User have to create all its Data objects by this factory. You can ensure it by making Data's constructor internal.
In your DLL you can then cast to ExtendedData.