Related
I just want to understand the purpose that static method serves and what are the desirable situation where i can create static methods except some would say that static methods are used for creating helper.
Consider i have 1 website that will be used in my company only like Human resource management system like websites.
Now after Admin login in to the system admin will see the list of employees.so the method is simple which does nothing more than fetching all details of employees from employee table and will display them on the web site and this method will be define in business access layer like this in .net:
public class EmployeeBal
{
public List<Employee> GetAllEmployees()
{
return Select * from Employee
}
}
This is how i would call this method from my application.For Eg(.aspx page or mvc controller etc....)
var employeeBal= new EmployeeBal();
employeeBal.GetAllEmployees();
So my question is should i create this method as static method or non static method??
Note:This is just an example of method and this method is in my business access layer.
Consider i have 1 ecommerce website where on the home page i am displaying some list of products and on visit of that website every users can see that list of products.
so my function would be same as above define in Business acess layer:
public class ProductBal
{
public List<Product> DisplayProductonHomePage()
{
return Select * from Products
}
}
So my question would be same like whether to create this method as static method or non-static method and what will happen if more than 10 users at same time simultaneously access this website then what will be the behaviour/implications of this method???
Will this method will serve the purpose of this each user if we declare this method as static??
Can anybody answer this question with briefly explaining every scenario???
A static method makes sense when there’s no state to maintain. What do I mean by state? Well, consider the following: You have two distinct objects, a and b, which are both of type EmployeeBal. Is there ever a case in your program where a.GetAllEmployees() and b.GetAllEmployees() would yield different results?
If not, then why do the objects a and b exist at all? The whole point of having objects is to associate some distinct state with them. If two different objects can never refer to a different state, then they fulfil no purpose.
In fact, in this situation your EmployeeBal would be exactly equivalent to System.Math, and all its methods are “helper methods” (if that’s what you want to call them). In this case, forget about static methods for a minute: your whole class should be static (static class EmployeeBal), and it should not have any constructors; because the concept of an object of type EmployeeBal simply makes no sense. In fact, in other languages EmployeeBal wouldn’t be a class at all; instead, it would be something generally called a module: a unit that logically groups code. C# has no modules, and all code must reside within classes. Classes thus fulfil a dual purpose: they group code, and they generate objects.1
Now consider a less extreme case: EmployeeBal objects actually maintain state, and differ. Yet GetAllEmployees() will still yield the same result, regardless of which object calls the method.
In this case, EmployeeBal obviously cannot be a static class. But GetAllEmployees is still stateless, and thus doesn’t belong to objects of type EmployeeBal. And thus the method should be static.
1 This lack of distinction between two fundamentally distinct concepts (module and class) is actually quite annoying, and the main reason that C# behaves this way is because it was conceived to be similar to Java. It was a mistake in hindsight, but not a serious one.
Is there a reason why the method should be static? If not I'd always side with non-static.
One big reason is being able to write unit tests.
In order to write unit tests you want to be able to isolate the class you're testing from other classes. But if class A contains a reference to static class B, then you can't test A without testing B. Maybe B depends on connection strings or config settings. Maybe B depends on other static classes. Now you can't test A unless B and everything it depends on are in place.
If, on the other hand, class A depends on an interface like IEmployeeProvider that gets provided through its constructor then you can test class A with a mocked implementation of IEmployeeProvider.
If A has IEmployeeProvider as an argument in its constructor then you can tell by looking at the constructor that it depends on IEmployeeProvider. But if it depends on a static EmployeeProvider class somewhere inside a method then the dependency is hidden. You have to read the whole class to know what it depends on.
Also, the static class itself can be harder to test. Unless it's absolutely always going to remain stateless then it's better to have a non-static class that you can unit test.
It's fine to have multiple threads executing the same static method, as long as the method does not access static state such as field or properties. In that case, the shared objects stored in the fields/properties must themselves be thread safe. The data access parts of .Net are not designed to be thread safe.
As soon as you start considering aspects such as managing a database connection that can be reused for several queries during the execution of a single web request, you should consider if static is the best approach. Since you cannot store the connection in a static field as explained above, you will have to pass it as a parameter to each static method. On the other hand, if you pass the connection to a constructor and store it in a (non-static) field, you can access it from multiple non-static methods of that instance, which will IMO be easier to manage.
This is quite a big topic however, and in general the management of class dependencies is quite tricky to get right in OOP. Some programmers prefer to delegate this task to an "Inversion of Control"-library. There are many available for .Net such as Microsoft Unity, StructureMap, AutoFac, etc.
To answer your question:
So my question is should i create this method as static method or non static method??
Note:This is just an example of method and this method is in my business access layer.
I would make those methods static - given what you provided. But I bet that you would have instance variables either declared in your class, or in methods in that class, which then of course that would mean don't make it static.
So a determining factor for me if I decide to use a static method or not has to do with re-use and resources.
If I find myself re-using a method many times over, and I conclude it doesn't need state (kept in memory) - I will make it a static method.
Also I usually will make my methods static if they can be used in other applications or if I think they will be useful down the road.
For example I recently wrote a method that converts a excel file to a flat file. I made this a static method in its own static class (i may put it in a similar utility class down the road) because I will probably end up using it again in another project, so I can now just reference its class without having to instantiate a new object to just call the method. ( I don't need state anyways)
I'm pretty new to programming as well and I hope you found this helpful.
If we are going to talk about static, we need to introduce a dependency. In this case it is a sql client. Here's what the code looks like with that introduced. Since we aren't going to get into the details of a sql client it's used as an interface in the static method.
var client = new SqlClient();
var allEmployeeData = EmployeeBal.GetAllEmployees(client);
class EmployeeBal
{
public static Employee GetAllEmployees(ISqlClient client)
{
return client.Execute("Select * from Employee");
}
}
Dependency injection through an interface changes everything. Now the method is good as being static, because it only deals with an interface and a string. Both of these are stateless. Since all components of the method are stateless they are perfectly safe for a static method which can have only one global state.
As your code was written originally it's not safe as being static, because how can I be assured the sql client is prepared to be used and after I've checked that it's ready it hasn't been altered when I go to run the query? If I can inject the sql client I can manage it since it has a local vs global scope.
A better example would be something like a factory for a sql client. For example with nhibernate there should only be one session factory created. That one thread safe session factory can create multiple non-thread safe sessions for running sql queries. In this case it's appropriate to have the session factory exposed through a static method, because that describes the fact that there is only ever going to be one session factory.
var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession();
Using static methods is equivalent of having a global behaviour. It comes with benefits: ease of access for simple scenarios.
It also comes with all the problems that global data and state have. Among them you cannot substitute an implementation with another (for example for tests). See https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/148108/why-is-global-state-so-evil
While you might consider that you don't have a global state ... conceptually you have. You have a unique, predetermined, unconfigurable, hard coded way of accessing some behaviour. You published it and you cannot change it ... ever. You break the open-close principle. You break the liskov substitution principle.
Java has this but scala amended that. More on this here: Why doesn't Scala have static members inside a class?
Use cases for static and non-static methods differ, so you need to create one based on what's the need that they fulfill:
Static method does not participate in inheritance-based polymorphism, while non-static does. In other words, you can't mark static method as virtual or abstract, which means you cannot change its behavior. This also means that caller of the static method knows exactly what this static method is going to do and how exactly. With non-static method, you can be calling it on base class but due to polymorphism you may end up calling the derived class method with overriden behavior.
Both static and non-static methods can be changing a state of something (as opposed to what others claim), but there's a difference. You can design a static class that has all static members (properties, methods, etc.) in it, so the methods can be changing the state of this static class (that said, even though C# allows you doing that, I don't recommend creating such class anyway). With non-static method, you can be changing both static and non-static state of the class. This goes further into the differences between static and non-static classes, which in short means: static class is one concrete instance, while a non-static class can be multiplied and each of them will have its own copy of the state (so why design a static class with the artificial limitation then - this is why I didn't recommend them before).
One more nice usage of static methods is extension methods. These should be defined as static, but you can call them on the instance of the class that they are extending. They still serve as outside shortcuts to the instance, since they can't do anything more than regular static methods (cannot access private or protected members for instance).
And you're right, static class fits well when defining helper methods, because those usually are just shortcuts to some fixed functionality, accessible easily to re-execute it from many places. In Visual Basic, instead of static keyword you would use shared keyword, which nicely explains the purpose of the static method.
Finally, I personally recommend creating static methods as Pure functions, which always produce same output for the same input (no side effects, such as output is different based on time or other implicit factors). You should have a strong reason to design it otherwise (e.g. if you are writing Math.Random()).
Now, to answer the points from your question (I know, finally):
I think business access layer should not be static, because you would most likely need benefits of non-static classes, such as dependency injection and unit-testability.
There is no difference between static and non-static methods from the threading/multithreading standpoint, both of them can be called by multiple threads at the same time and all of them will execute simultaneously (unless using synchronization constructs). However, there is common design recommendation that you should make static methods thread-safe if you expect race conditions. Non-static methods don't have to worry about this, as this would put them into too many assumptions.
While designing my data access layer, I wanted to make all my classes Static so that no object instantiation is required and all members of the class can be access using the class name.
Is this a good approach. If yes then why do we need to have a instance class type at all. Would it have an impact on the performance of the application where n clients want to access my DAL and then might cause a problem with managing the request(s) because no object is created at all?
I understand that static classes cannot be instantiated, and should be used for something like Logging, Utility methods etc, because all objects need to behave in a similar way, Is it valid/safe to assume that all DAL classes does behave the same way (have the same functionality) and hence make them static rather than instantiating it.
Please advice.
Either the type conceptually represents operations that are tied to instances, or it doesn't. Performance is not a consideration here.
If your methods have no state, or their state is designed to be shared between all invocations of the method throughout the application, then the method should be static. If there needs to be separate state shared between members but not shared with the entirety of the application then they need to be non-static. The type will generally require one or the other based on what it conceptually represents. It's not an actual choice.
Static classes are generally best avoided as they introduce tight coupling into your code. They make unit testing much harder because the calls are "hard wired" and can't be easily stubbed out.
Much better would be to make them instances, but only instantiate a single instance. If you couple this with dependency injection (i.e. passing the DAL object into the classes that need it) then you get looser coupling and can pass in a stub version for unit tests - look up Unity or Castle Windsor or other IoC frameworks to see how this works.
There is an impact on performace - static method calls are faster than instance method calls, especially if you address late binding. But that's also the big advantage of object-oriented programming.
If you just use static classes and therefore static method calls, you do not have the ability to 'exchange objects' - and that is, in my opinion, the most important part of object-oriented programming. Have a look at the SOLID principles of Object-Oriented Design and you'll learn about the real benefits of this programming style. Of course this might come with a performance penalty, but usually you won't have to think about it, except if you want to program e.g. real-time applications. Correct usage of OOP and OOD makes your code extremely flexible and (somewhat) easy to understand.
A useful design pattern for this is a variation of a singleton. Set up your static implementatation, leaving the static methods private, exposing them via an object instance, like this:
class MySingletonClass
{
//-----------------------------------------
// here, we hide the static implementations
//-----------------------------------------
private static int privateFoo()
{
/* do something useful here */
}
private static string privateBar()
{
/* do something useful here */
}
//---------------------------------------
// and expose them via an object instance
//---------------------------------------
public int Foo()
{
return privateFoo() ;
}
public string Bar()
{
return privateBar() ;
}
}
Your static class now has the same semantics as an ordinary object instance. Static methods are invoked thus:
SomeStaticClass.SomeStaticMethod() ;
while non-static classes are references thus:
SomeNonStaticClass instance = new SomeNonStaticClass() ;
instance.SomeNonStaticMethod() ;
By exposing the [private] static methods via instance methods, you have hidden the
implementation from the object's users. Down the line, then, when you realize that
your static methods won't work any more (for whatever reason) and the class has to
become non-static, all you have to do is modify the internal implementation of the class.
If your class's users were directly referencing the static methods, you would have to change
every reference in your code base.
I am developing C# and asp.net web application.
I have general class called utilities, I have lot of public and static variables in this public utilities class.
Since this number is gradually increasing, I want to know is it good practice to store utilities methods and variable as public static.
Example of my code
public class utilities
{
public static string utilVariable1 = "Myvalue";
public static string utilVariable2 = "Myvalue";
public static string utilVariable3 = "Myvalue";
:
public static string utilVariableN = "Myvalue";
public static string UtilMethod1()
{
//do something
}
public static string UtilMethod2()
{
//do something
}
public static string UtilMethodN()
{
//do something
}
}
There's nothing inherently wrong with static classes, although they should typically not have state (fields). Your use of public static fields indicates that this is not the case, so it seems like you are using abusing the static keyword slightly. If your class needs to have state, then it should be a normal, non-static class, and you should create instances of it. Otherwise, the only public fields visible on the class should be const (consider the Math class, with constants such as Math.PI - a good use of static methods and fields).
Another consideration is cohesion. Methods typically exist grouped in one class because they are closely related in one way or another. Again, the Math class is a good example; everything in there has to do with maths. At some point, you would want to split your global utility class into multiple smaller, more focussed ones. See Wikipedia for some examples on cohesion, it sounds like your usage falls under "Coincidental cohesion (worst)".
There's nothing wrong with this approach for methods, but variables should really be const if they're going to be static and public. If they are subject to change then you should look at a different structure for variables that are being manipulated by more than one component.
Personally, I'm a fan of the Singleton pattern.
static is not a bad thing per se. Methods that don't need to access any member variables or methods should always be declared static. That way the reader of the code sees immediately that a method won't change member variables or methods.
For variables the situation is different, you should avoid static variables unless you make them const. Public static variables are globally accessible and can easily raise issues if multiple threads access the same variable without proper synchronization.
It is hard to tell for your case if it's a good or a bad idea to use statics, because you didn't provide any context information.
Creating one class to do it all is not a good practice, and it's recommended to structure your project, and keep stuff that belongs to each other separated from the randomness.
A great example of this was a project I took over from a co-worker. There was 1 class, called Methods. It contained over 10K lines of methods.
I then categorized them into approx. 20 files, and the structure was restored.
Most of the methods from that project were validating user input, which can easily be moved into a static class Validation.
One awful thing I notice is the mutable public and static variables. This is bad for several reasons:
Incorrect behavior, because if some method changes this, while it isn't supposed to do that, it causes other methods to behave improperly, and it's really hard to track down/debug.
Concurrency, how are we going to ensure thread safety? Do we let it over to all methods that work with that? Say if it's a value type, what will we let them lock on? What if some method forgets to make it thread safe?
Expand-ability (I hope you understand what I mean with that), if you have for example a static class data that stores all these public static variables, that you shouldn't have. It can store that once, if for example you might change your application structure a bit, and say want to make it possible to load two projects in the same screen, then it's very difficult to make that possible, because you can't create two instances of a static class. There is only one class, and it'll remain like that.
For number 3 a cleaner solution would be to store either a list of instances of a data class, or to store a reference to the default and/or active data class.
Static member, and private static members (or protected) are a good practice, as long as you don't make huge classes, and the methods are related.
Public and static variables are okay if they're not really variable.
The two ways to do this is by marking them constant (const modifier) or readonly (readonly modifier).
Example:
public class UtilitiesClass
{
internal UtilitiesClass() { }
public void UtilityMethod1()
{
// Do something
}
}
// Method 1 (readonly):
public static readonly UtilitiesClass Utilities = new UtilitiesClass();
// Method 2 (property):
private static UtilitiesClass _utilities = new UtilitiesClass();
public static UtilitiesClass Utilities
{
get { return _utilities; }
private set { _utilities = value; }
}
The advantage of method 1 is that you don't have to worry about thread-safety at all, the value can't change.
Method 2 is not thread-safe (though it's not difficult to make it that), but it has the advantage of allowing the static class itself to change the reference to the utilities class.
No, it is not a good practice for large applications, especially not if your static variables are mutable, as they are then effectively global variables, a code smell which Object Oriented Programming was supposed to "solve".
At the very least start by grouping your methods into smaller classes with associated functionality - the Util name indicates nothing about the purpose of your methods and smells of an incoherent class in itself.
Second, you should always consider if a method is better implemented as a (non-static) method on the same object where the data that is passed as argument(s) to the method lives.
Finally, if your application is quite large and/or complex, you can consider solutions such as an Inversion of Control container, which can reduce the dependency on global state. However, ASP.Net webforms is notoriously hard to integrate into such an environment, as the framework is very tightly coupled in itself.
We have a Student class in our business model. something struck me as strange, if we are manipulating one student from another student, the students private members are visible, why is this?
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
Student s1 = new Student();
Student s2 = new Student();
s1.SeePrivatePropertiesAndFields(s2);
}
}
public class Student {
private String _studentsPrivateField;
public Student() {
_studentsPrivateField = DateTime.Now.Ticks.ToString();
}
public void SeePrivatePropertiesAndFields(Student anotherStudent) {
//this seems like these should be private, even from the same class as it is a different instantiation
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateField);
}
}
Can i have some thoughts on the design considerations/implications of this. It seems that you can't hide information from your siblings. Is there a way to mark a field or member as hidden from other instances of the same class?
There's an easy way to ensure this:
Don't mess around with private members of other instances of the same class.
Seriously - you're the one writing the Student code.
The easiest way to ensure this is to program to an interface, such as:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IStudent s1 = new Student();
IStudent s2 = new Student();
s1.ExamineStudentsMembers(s1);
}
}
public interface IStudent
{
void ExamineStudentsMembers(IStudent anotherStudent);
}
public class Student : IStudent
{
private string _studentsPrivateMember;
public Student()
{
_studentsPrivateMember = DateTime.Now.Ticks.ToString();
}
public void ExamineStudentsMembers(IStudent anotherStudent)
{
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateMember);
}
}
This will no longer compile due to ExamineStudentsMembers trying to access a private field.
If you are writing the class, you have complete control over it, so if you don't want one object to be able to modify another, don't write in that functionality.
Classes will often use private variables in other instances to implement efficient comparison and copy functions.
Private just means that the member (field/method/etc.) can be accessed only from the within the code of the parent type. From CSharpOnline
Private members of multiple instances are visible and can be invoked. This comes in handy when you are implementing a "copy constructor" or a "clone" method on your type, where the argument is an instance of the same type. If the designers would have made private fields inaccessible, then you may have to create a bunch of getter methods just for clone/copy to get at them. IMHO, I like it better the way it is. Within the same type, Reading another object's state isn't that bad as writing to it though (which could be a DONT-code-convention for you/your team.)
Accessing a sibling's private data may seem wrong when phrased like:
public void ExamineStudentsMembers(Student anotherStudent) {
//this seems very wrong
Console.WriteLine(anotherStudent._studentsPrivateMember);
}
However, it doesn't seem so odd for methods which require this sort of functionality. What methods require accessing a sibling's private data? Comparison methods (in particular equals) and objects in a data structure (say a tree or linked list).
Comparison methods often compare private data directly rather than just the public data.
For a class of nodes that make up a linked list, graph or tree, being able to access a sibling's private data is exactly what is needed. Code in the know (part of the class) can tinker around with the data structure, but code outside of the data structure cannot touch the internals.
It is interesting to note that these two cases are less common in day-to-day programming than when this language feature were first developed. Back in 1990s and early 2000s, in C++ it would have been much more common to build custom data structures and comparison methods. Perhaps it is a good time to reconsider private members.
i like the second point, you can look, but dont touch those private members.
it's funny you should say that, i knew a teacher once and he said he often had a problem deciding what classes it was ok to look at the members and which ones he could actually have a play with.
An object is just a piece of data; the class contains the functionality. A member method is just a nice trick the compiler plays; it's really more like a static method with an implied argument (sort of like extension methods). With that in mind, protecting objects from each other doesn't make any sense; you can only protect classes from each other. So it's natural that it works that way.
No, this is necessary, the method code is not specific to the instance, it is only specific to the type of the object. (virtual methods) or the declared type of the variable (for non-virtual methods). The non-static fields, on the other hand, are instance specific... That's where you have instance-level isolation.
The only difference between a static method and a non-static method is that the static method is not allowed to access other instance based (non-static) methods or fields. Any method that CAN be made static without modification will not be affected in any way by making it static, except to force compiler to throw errors anywhere it was called using instance-based syntax.
If you intend to examine a given student's information then I would change the method to be static:
public static void ExamineStudentsMembers(Student student)
{
Console.WriteLine(student._studentsPrivateMember);
}
You would then use Student.ExamineStudentsMembers(s1). Using s1.ExamineStudentsMembers(s2) would be invalid.
If this isn't the intended purpose I would rewrite the method as:
public void ExamineStudentsMembers()
{
Console.WriteLine(_studentsPrivateMember);
}
The above would then be used by writing s1.ExamineStudentsMembers()
Private members are to hide implementation details from clients. The clients should only see the interface (public methods / fields / properties).
The purpose is not to protect the programmer from himself.
This is also NOT a security feature because you can always access private fields via reflection.
It's really to separate interface & implementation (black box design), and clients programming against a contract (all public fields).
For example if you have a public get property, it could access some private field directly, or it could calculate the value from some other fields.
The purpose is, the client only knows the contract (the public property) and the implementation can be changed without affecting the client
Object scope does not ever imply security - ever! It is role of the OS to provide runtime security. It is a bug to design a system that relies on language specific object scope to limit runtime object instance data access. If this were not the case, then all non OO languages are, by definition, not secure.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
The C++ friend keyword allows a class A to designate class B as its friend. This allows Class B to access the private/protected members of class A.
I've never read anything as to why this was left out of C# (and VB.NET). Most answers to this earlier StackOverflow question seem to be saying it is a useful part of C++ and there are good reasons to use it. In my experience I'd have to agree.
Another question seems to me to be really asking how to do something similar to friend in a C# application. While the answers generally revolve around nested classes, it doesn't seem quite as elegant as using the friend keyword.
The original Design Patterns book uses it regularly throughout its examples.
So in summary, why is friend missing from C#, and what is the "best practice" way (or ways) of simulating it in C#?
(By the way, the internal keyword is not the same thing, it allows all classes within the entire assembly to access internal members, while friend allows you to give a certain class complete access to exactly one other class)
On a side note.
Using friend is not about violating the encapsulation, but on the contrary it's about enforcing it. Like accessors+mutators, operators overloading, public inheritance, downcasting, etc., it's often misused, but it does not mean the keyword has no, or worse, a bad purpose.
See Konrad Rudolph's message in the other thread, or if you prefer see the relevant entry in the C++ FAQ.
Having friends in programming is more-or-less considered "dirty" and easy to abuse. It breaks the relationships between classes and undermines some fundamental attributes of an OO language.
That being said, it is a nice feature and I've used it plenty of times myself in C++; and would like to use it in C# too. But I bet because of C#'s "pure" OOness (compared to C++'s pseudo OOness) MS decided that because Java has no friend keyword C# shouldn't either (just kidding ;))
On a serious note: internal is not as good as friend but it does get the job done. Remember that it is rare that you will be distributing your code to 3rd party developers not through a DLL; so as long as you and your team know about the internal classes and their use you should be fine.
EDIT Let me clarify how the friend keyword undermines OOP.
Private and protected variables and methods are perhaps one of the most important part of OOP. The idea that objects can hold data or logic that only they can use allows you to write your implementation of functionality independent of your environment - and that your environment cannot alter state information that it is not suited to handle. By using friend you are coupling two classes' implementations together - which is much worse then if you just coupled their interface.
For info, another related-but-not-quite-the-same thing in .NET is [InternalsVisibleTo], which lets an assembly designate another assembly (such as a unit test assembly) that (effectively) has "internal" access to types/members in the original assembly.
In fact, C# gives possibility to get same behavior in pure OOP way without special words - it's private interfaces.
As far as question What is the C# equivalent of friend? was marked as duplicate to this article and no one there propose really good realization - I will show answer on both question here.
Main idea was taking from here: What is a private interface?
Let's say, we need some class which could manage instances of another classes and call some special methods on them. We don't want to give possibility to call this methods to any other classes. This is exactly same thing what friend c++ keyword do in c++ world.
I think good example in real practice could be Full State Machine pattern where some controller update current state object and switch to another state object when necessary.
You could:
The easiest and worst way to make Update() method public - hope
everyone understand why it's bad.
Next way is to mark it as internal. It's good enough if you put your
classes to another assembly but even then each class in that assembly
could call each internal method.
Use private/protected interface - and I followed this way.
Controller.cs
public class Controller
{
private interface IState
{
void Update();
}
public class StateBase : IState
{
void IState.Update() { }
}
public Controller()
{
//it's only way call Update is to cast obj to IState
IState obj = new StateBase();
obj.Update();
}
}
Program.cs
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//it's impossible to write Controller.IState p = new Controller.StateBase();
//Controller.IState is hidden
var p = new Controller.StateBase();
//p.Update(); //is not accessible
}
}
Well, what about inheritance?
We need to use technique described in Since explicit interface member implementations cannot be declared virtual and mark IState as protected to give possibility to derive from Controller too.
Controller.cs
public class Controller
{
protected interface IState
{
void Update();
}
public class StateBase : IState
{
void IState.Update() { OnUpdate(); }
protected virtual void OnUpdate()
{
Console.WriteLine("StateBase.OnUpdate()");
}
}
public Controller()
{
IState obj = new PlayerIdleState();
obj.Update();
}
}
PlayerIdleState.cs
public class PlayerIdleState: Controller.StateBase
{
protected override void OnUpdate()
{
base.OnUpdate();
Console.WriteLine("PlayerIdleState.OnUpdate()");
}
}
And finally example how to test class Controller throw inheritance:
ControllerTest.cs
class ControllerTest: Controller
{
public ControllerTest()
{
IState testObj = new PlayerIdleState();
testObj.Update();
}
}
Hope I cover all cases and my answer was useful.
You should be able to accomplish the same sorts of things that "friend" is used for in C++ by using interfaces in C#. It requires you to explicitly define which members are being passed between the two classes, which is extra work but may also make the code easier to understand.
If somebody has an example of a reasonable use of "friend" that cannot be simulated using interfaces, please share it! I'd like to better understand the differences between C++ and C#.
With friend a C++ designer has precise control over whom the private* members are exposed to. But, he's forced to expose every one of the private members.
With internal a C# designer has precise control over the set of private members he’s exposing. Obviously, he can expose just a single private member. But, it will get exposed to all classes in the assembly.
Typically, a designer desires to expose only a few private methods to selected few other classes. For example, in a class factory pattern it may be desired that class C1 is instantiated only by class factory CF1. Therefore class C1 may have a protected constructor and a friend class factory CF1.
As you can see, we have 2 dimensions along which encapsulation can be breached. friend breaches it along one dimension, internal does it along the other. Which one is a worse breach in the encapsulation concept? Hard to say. But it would be nice to have both friend and internal available. Furthermore, a good addition to these two would be the 3rd type of keyword, which would be used on member-by-member basis (like internal) and specifies the target class (like friend).
* For brevity I will use "private" instead of "private and/or protected".
- Nick
You can get close to C++ "friend" with the C# keyword "internal".
Friend is extremely useful when writing unit test.
Whilst that comes at a cost of polluting your class declaration slightly, it's also a compiler-enforced reminder of what tests actually might care about the internal state of the class.
A very useful and clean idiom I've found is when I have factory classes, making them friends of the items they create which have a protected constructor. More specifically, this was when I had a single factory responsible for creating matching rendering objects for report writer objects, rendering to a given environment. In this case you have a single point of knowledge about the relationship between the report-writer classes (things like picture blocks, layout bands, page headers etc.) and their matching rendering objects.
C# is missing the "friend" keyword for the same reason its missing deterministic destruction. Changing conventions makes people feel smart, as if their new ways are superior to someone else' old ways. It's all about pride.
Saying that "friend classes are bad" is as short-sighted as other unqualified statements like "don't use gotos" or "Linux is better than Windows".
The "friend" keyword combined with a proxy class is a great way to only expose certain parts of a class to specific other class(es). A proxy class can act as a trusted barrier against all other classes. "public" doesn't allow any such targeting, and using "protected" to get the effect with inheritance is awkward if there really is no conceptual "is a" relationship.
This is actually not an issue with C#. It's a fundamental limitation in IL. C# is limited by this, as is any other .Net language that seeks to be verifiable. This limitation also includes managed classes defined in C++/CLI (Spec section 20.5).
That being said I think that Nelson has a good explanation as to why this is a bad thing.
Stop making excuses for this limitation. friend is bad, but internal is good? they are the same thing, only that friend gives you more precise control over who is allowed to access and who isn't.
This is to enforce the encapsulation paradigm? so you have to write accessor methods and now what? how are you supposed to stop everyone (except the methods of class B) from calling these methods? you can't, because you can't control this either, because of missing "friend".
No programming language is perfect. C# is one of the best languages I've seen, but making silly excuses for missing features doesn't help anyone. In C++, I miss the easy event/delegate system, reflection (+automatic de/serialization) and foreach, but in C# I miss operator overloading (yeah, keep telling me that you didn't need it), default parameters, a const that cannot be circumvented, multiple inheritance (yeah, keep telling me that you didn't need it and interfaces were a sufficient replacement) and the ability to decide to delete an instance from memory (no, this is not horribly bad unless you are a tinkerer)
I will answer only "How" question.
There are so many answers here, however I would like to propose kind of "design pattern" to achieve that feature. I will use simple language mechanism, which includes:
Interfaces
Nested class
For example we have 2 main classes: Student and University. Student has GPA which only university allowed to access. Here is the code:
public interface IStudentFriend
{
Student Stu { get; set; }
double GetGPS();
}
public class Student
{
// this is private member that I expose to friend only
double GPS { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
PrivateData privateData;
public Student(string name, double gps) => (GPS, Name, privateData) = (gps, name, new PrivateData(this);
// No one can instantiate this class, but Student
// Calling it is possible via the IStudentFriend interface
class PrivateData : IStudentFriend
{
public Student Stu { get; set; }
public PrivateData(Student stu) => Stu = stu;
public double GetGPS() => Stu.GPS;
}
// This is how I "mark" who is Students "friend"
public void RegisterFriend(University friend) => friend.Register(privateData);
}
public class University
{
var studentsFriends = new List<IStudentFriend>();
public void Register(IStudentFriend friendMethod) => studentsFriends.Add(friendMethod);
public void PrintAllStudentsGPS()
{
foreach (var stu in studentsFriends)
Console.WriteLine($"{stu.Stu.Name}: stu.GetGPS()");
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var Technion = new University();
var Alex = new Student("Alex", 98);
var Jo = new Student("Jo", 91);
Alex.RegisterFriend(Technion);
Jo.RegisterFriend(Technion);
Technion.PrintAllStudentsGPS();
Console.ReadLine();
}
There is the InternalsVisibleToAttribute since .Net 3 but I suspect they only added it to cater to test assemblies after the rise of unit testing. I can't see many other reasons to use it.
It works at the assembly level but it does the job where internal doesn't; that is, where you want to distribute an assembly but want another non-distributed assembly to have privileged access to it.
Quite rightly they require the friend assembly to be strong keyed to avoid someone creating a pretend friend alongside your protected assembly.
I have read many smart comments about "friend" keyword & i agree what it is useful thing, but i think what "internal" keyword is less useful, & they both still bad for pure OO programming.
What we have? (saying about "friend" I also saying about "internal")
is using "friend" makes code less pure regarding to oo?
yes;
is not using "friend" makes code better?
no, we still need to make some private relationships between classes, & we can do it only if we break our beautiful encapsulation, so it also isn`t good, i can say what it even more evil than using "friend".
Using friend makes some local problems, not using it makes problems for code-library-users.
the common good solution for programming language i see like this:
// c++ style
class Foo {
public_for Bar:
void addBar(Bar *bar) { }
public:
private:
protected:
};
// c#
class Foo {
public_for Bar void addBar(Bar bar) { }
}
What do you think about it? I think it the most common & pure object-oriented solution. You can open access any method you choose to any class you want.
I suspect it has something to do with the C# compilation model -- building IL the JIT compiling that at runtime. i.e.: the same reason that C# generics are fundamentally different to C++ generics.
you can keep it private and use reflection to call functions. Test framework can do this if you ask it to test a private function
I used to regularly use friend, and I don't think it's any violation of OOP or a sign of any design flaw. There are several places where it is the most efficient means to the proper end with the least amount of code.
One concrete example is when creating interface assemblies that provide a communications interface to some other software. Generally there are a few heavyweight classes that handle the complexity of the protocol and peer peculiarities, and provide a relatively simple connect/read/write/forward/disconnect model involving passing messages and notifications between the client app and the assembly. Those messages / notifications need to be wrapped in classes. The attributes generally need to be manipulated by the protocol software as it is their creator, but a lot of stuff has to remain read-only to the outside world.
It's just plain silly to declare that it's a violation of OOP for the protocol / "creator" class to have intimate access to all of the created classes -- the creator class has had to bit munge every bit of data on the way up. What I've found most important is to minimize all the BS extra lines of code the "OOP for OOP's Sake" model usually leads to. Extra spaghetti just makes more bugs.
Do people know that you can apply the internal keyword at the attribute, property, and method level? It's not just for the top level class declaration (though most examples seem to show that.)
If you have a C++ class that uses the friend keyword, and want to emulate that in a C# class:
1. declare the C# class public
2. declare all the attributes/properties/methods that are protected in C++ and thus accessible to friends as internal in C#
3. create read only properties for public access to all internal attributes and properties
I agree it's not 100% the same as friend, and unit test is a very valuable example of the need of something like friend (as is protocol analyzer logging code). However internal provides the exposure to the classes you want to have exposure, and [InternalVisibleTo()] handles the rest -- seems like it was born specifically for unit test.
As far as friend "being better because you can explicitely control which classes have access" -- what in heck are a bunch of suspect evil classes doing in the same assembly in the first place? Partition your assemblies!
The friendship may be simulated by separating interfaces and implementations. The idea is: "Require a concrete instance but restrict construction access of that instance".
For example
interface IFriend { }
class Friend : IFriend
{
public static IFriend New() { return new Friend(); }
private Friend() { }
private void CallTheBody()
{
var body = new Body();
body.ItsMeYourFriend(this);
}
}
class Body
{
public void ItsMeYourFriend(Friend onlyAccess) { }
}
In spite of the fact that ItsMeYourFriend() is public only Friend class can access it, since no one else can possibly get a concrete instance of the Friend class. It has a private constructor, while the factory New() method returns an interface.
See my article Friends and internal interface members at no cost with coding to interfaces for details.
Some have suggested that things can get out of control by using friend. I would agree, but that doesn't lessen its usefulness. I'm not certain that friend necessarily hurts the OO paradigm any more than making all your class members public. Certainly the language will allow you to make all your members public, but it is a disciplined programmer that avoids that type of design pattern. Likewise a disciplined programmer would reserve the use of friend for specific cases where it makes sense. I feel internal exposes too much in some cases. Why expose a class or method to everything in the assembly?
I have an ASP.NET page that inherits my own base page, that in turn inherits System.Web.UI.Page. In this page, I have some code that handles end-user error reporting for the application in a protected method
ReportError("Uh Oh!");
Now, I have a user control that is contained in the page. I want the user control to be able to call the error reporting methods in the page.
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError("Uh Oh");
It can't do that if the ReportError method is protected. I can make it internal, but it is exposed to any code in the assembly. I just want it exposed to the UI elements that are part of the current page (including child controls). More specifically, I want my base control class to define the exact same error reporting methods, and simply call methods in the base page.
protected void ReportError(string str) {
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError(str);
}
I believe that something like friend could be useful and implemented in the language without making the language less "OO" like, perhaps as attributes, so that you can have classes or methods be friends to specific classes or methods, allowing the developer to provide very specific access. Perhaps something like...(pseudo code)
[Friend(B)]
class A {
AMethod() { }
[Friend(C)]
ACMethod() { }
}
class B {
BMethod() { A.AMethod() }
}
class C {
CMethod() { A.ACMethod() }
}
In the case of my previous example perhaps have something like the following (one can argue semantics, but I'm just trying to get the idea across):
class BasePage {
[Friend(BaseControl.ReportError(string)]
protected void ReportError(string str) { }
}
class BaseControl {
protected void ReportError(string str) {
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError(str);
}
}
As I see it, the friend concept has no more risk to it than making things public, or creating public methods or properties to access members. If anything friend allows another level of granularity in accessibility of data and allows you to narrow that accessibility rather than broadening it with internal or public.
If you are working with C++ and you find your self using friend keyword, it is a very strong indication, that you have a design issue, because why the heck a class needs to access the private members of other class??
B.s.d.
It was stated that, friends hurts pure OOness. Which I agree.
It was also stated that friends help encapsulation, which I also agree.
I think friendship should be added to the OO methodology, but not quite as it in C++. I'd like to have some fields/methods that my friend class can access, but I'd NOT like them to access ALL my fields/methods. As in real life, I'd let my friends access my personal refrigerator but I'd not let them to access my bank account.
One can implement that as followed
class C1
{
private void MyMethod(double x, int i)
{
// some code
}
// the friend class would be able to call myMethod
public void MyMethod(FriendClass F, double x, int i)
{
this.MyMethod(x, i);
}
//my friend class wouldn't have access to this method
private void MyVeryPrivateMethod(string s)
{
// some code
}
}
class FriendClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
C1 c = new C1();
c.MyMethod(this, 5.5, 3);
}
}
That will of course generate a compiler warning, and will hurt the intellisense. But it will do the work.
On a side note, I think that a confident programmer should do the testing unit without accessing the private members. this is quite out of the scope, but try to read about TDD.
however, if you still want to do so (having c++ like friends) try something like
#if UNIT_TESTING
public
#else
private
#endif
double x;
so you write all your code without defining UNIT_TESTING and when you want to do the unit testing you add #define UNIT_TESTING to the first line of the file(and write all the code that do the unit testing under #if UNIT_TESTING). That should be handled carefully.
Since I think that unit testing is a bad example for the use of friends, I'd give an example why I think friends can be good. Suppose you have a breaking system (class). With use, the breaking system get worn out and need to get renovated. Now, you want that only a licensed mechanic would fix it. To make the example less trivial I'd say that the mechanic would use his personal (private) screwdriver to fix it. That's why mechanic class should be friend of breakingSystem class.
The friendship may also be simulated by using "agents" - some inner classes. Consider following example:
public class A // Class that contains private members
{
private class Accessor : B.BAgent // Implement accessor part of agent.
{
private A instance; // A instance for access to non-static members.
static Accessor()
{ // Init static accessors.
B.BAgent.ABuilder = Builder;
B.BAgent.PrivateStaticAccessor = StaticAccessor;
}
// Init non-static accessors.
internal override void PrivateMethodAccessor() { instance.SomePrivateMethod(); }
// Agent constructor for non-static members.
internal Accessor(A instance) { this.instance = instance; }
private static A Builder() { return new A(); }
private static void StaticAccessor() { A.PrivateStatic(); }
}
public A(B friend) { B.Friendship(new A.Accessor(this)); }
private A() { } // Private constructor that should be accessed only from B.
private void SomePrivateMethod() { } // Private method that should be accessible from B.
private static void PrivateStatic() { } // ... and static private method.
}
public class B
{
// Agent for accessing A.
internal abstract class BAgent
{
internal static Func<A> ABuilder; // Static members should be accessed only by delegates.
internal static Action PrivateStaticAccessor;
internal abstract void PrivateMethodAccessor(); // Non-static members may be accessed by delegates or by overrideable members.
}
internal static void Friendship(BAgent agent)
{
var a = BAgent.ABuilder(); // Access private constructor.
BAgent.PrivateStaticAccessor(); // Access private static method.
agent.PrivateMethodAccessor(); // Access private non-static member.
}
}
It could be alot simpler when used for access only to static members.
Benefits for such implementation is that all the types are declared in the inner scope of friendship classes and, unlike interfaces, it allows static members to be accessed.