We Keep Coding

C#: Protected Variables inside of a Generic Class can be accessed by a different subclass of that Generic Class. Can I prevent this?

Say I have a generic class Foo, that has a variable that is protected
public class Foo<T>
{
protected bool knowsFu;
}
I also have 2 sub-classes: Bar and Pipe
public class Bar : Foo<Bar> {}
public class Pipe : Foo<Pipe> {}
It is actually possible for me to access the knowsFu in Pipe FROM Bar, e.g.:
public class Bar : Foo<Bar>
{
void UpdateFuInOtherClass(Pipe p)
{
p.knowsFu = false;
}
}
Is this intended behaviour? (If so, what would be the usecase?)
Is there a way for me to prevent other Foo-Subclasses from modifying/reaching the protected variable inside of my current subclass?
More specifically: I'm using a generic class to implement the Singleton-Pattern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
However, I'm currently able to access any singleton's protected instance-variable, as long as I am inside of another Singleton. Is there a way to prevent this?
EDIT: It might be relevant to note that the protected variable (knowsFu) is actually STATIC as well.
EDIT2: Ok, maybe the example was abit too generic.. here's how I'm actually currently implementing it:
why use Singleton? A:The platform I'm working on is Unity3D, in which the pattern is used frequently
I have a generically typed abstract class SingletonBehaviour
public abstract class SingletonBehaviour<T> where T : MonoBehaviour
{
public static T Instance { get { return instance; } }
protected static T instance { get; private set; } }
// Loading is done through Unitys Awake-Method
}
One of the Singleton-Objects that I'm using is the APIManager
public class APIManager : SingletonBehaviour<APIManager>
{
// Methods like SendHTTPPost(), HTTPGet(), etc.
}
However, since most of my projects need some better API-implementation than that, what I'm currently doing is:
public class ProjectAAPIManager : APIManager
{
// Overriding Instance so my return value is not APIManager but instead ProjectAAPIManager
public static new ProjectAAPIMamager Instance { get { return (ProjectAAPIManager)instance; } }
}
This ^ is the reason my (inner) instance-variable is protected, and not private.
However, because of this, any other SingletonBehaviour in my project can now access the (inner) instance-variable on my ProjectAAPIManager
public class GameController : SingletonBehaviour<GameController>
{
private void AMethod()
{
// Accessing inner variable instead of public one
ProjectAAPIManager.instance.DoSomething();
}
}
As it's only the getter, this currently does not really matter. But what if I'd need access to the setter in my subclass as well?
Also: would it be worth it to generically type my APIManager as well?

Your question is nothing short of bewildering. How can you make a protected member not be accesible from a derived class? Well, a good start is not making it protected.
protected is by definition exactly what you don't want, so don't use it! Use private instead.
If what you are asking is how to make it a readonly member when accessed from derived types, you have two options:
Declare it as readonly in the base class if possible.
Use a protected property instead with a private setter.
Many novice coders seems to think protected members aren't part of the public surface of the type but they really are, as long as the class can be extended. As such, the rules of public members apply: never expose public fields unless they are readonly or constants, use properties instead.

You should not have classes that implement your generic singleton class.
Otherwise, by default, your protected fields will be accessible by the subclasses (it's what "protected" keyword does)
Instead, you should do something like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var barInstance = Foo<Bar>.GetInstance();
}
}
public class Foo<T> where T : new()
{
protected bool knowsFu;
private static T _instance;
public static T GetInstance()
{
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new T();
return _instance;
}
}
public class Bar
{
public Bar()
{
}
}
Edit 1:
To use a singleton, you should not make another class implement the singleton behavior (This is not how the singleton pattern works).
To use the same classes as your second example, you should do something like this.
public class SingletonBehaviour<T> where T : new()
{
public static T Instance
{
get
{
if(instance == null)
instance = new T()
return instance;
}
}
private static T instance { get; set; }
}
public class APIManager // This class should not inherit from the SingletonBehavior class
{
// Methods like SendHTTPPost(), HTTPGet(), etc.
}
public class ProjectAAPIManager : APIManager
{
public ProjectAAPIManager GetInstance() => SingletonBehavior<ProjectAAPIManager>.Instance();
}

Is there a good way to handle private static fields in a generic type in C#?

I am trying to figure out a way I can make use of private static fields in a generic class. This is the obvious way to do it (fiddle). It won't compile because Field is not accessible in BaseChild, and ideally I wouldn't want it to be accessible there:
public class Base<T>
{
private static readonly string Field = "field";
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
public class BaseChild : Base<string>
{
public BaseChild()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
The problem with this solution is that there is a different Field for each generic type, instead of being shared across them.
I have seen this answer where it says that JetBrains recommends a solution for static fields across generic types:
If you need to have a static field shared between instances with different generic arguments, define a non-generic base class to store your static members, then set your generic type to inherit from this type.
This makes sense for the case where you have public or protected static fields in the base class that you want to share across any child class like this example (fiddle):
public abstract class Base
{
protected static readonly string Field = "field";
}
public class Base<T> : Base
{
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
public class BaseChild : Base<string>
{
public BaseChild()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
However, what about the case where you want to use a private static field? I would guess that this is not possible since private means only accessible to the class it's declared in and I think that since the generic class is really just a template to create a class, that any private field could only ever be shared by each class, not across all the classes created by the template.
Do I have to just put the private field in the generic class (example 1) and accept it as at least a workable solution for what I want, or is there another way I can accomplish this?

First off -- private is doing exactly what it's made to do: to restrict access to only the type it was declared in. Keep in mind that instantiations of a generic type are all distinct types. You shouldn't be wanting to work around this.
If I understand your question correctly, you can accomplish what you want by using protected with an extra level of inheritance:
class EvenMoreBase
{
protected static readonly string Field = "field";
}
class Base<T> : EvenMoreBase
{
public Base()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
class BaseChild : Base<string>
{
public BaseChild()
{
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
Now each of your Base<T> will share the same instance of Field.

You're correct in your thoughts on private within the base class. Whether it is static or not makes no difference.
Here's a little example:
using System;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Bar b = new Bar(); // Prints "Foo"
// Console.WriteLine(Foo.BaseField); // Compile error
}
}
public class Foo
{
protected static readonly string BaseeField = "Foo";
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
public Bar()
{
Console.WriteLine(Foo.BaseeField);
}
}
Marking it protected is useful, if you'd like only your children to be able to access it. And leaving it static is how you'd keep only one instance around for all children of the base Foo class.

This is something I came up with that I think actually does what I want better than the initial example I put in my question. It shares a single static field across all the generic types, and it is inaccessible from children of the Base generic class.
public static class Base
{
private static string Field = "field";
public class Base2<T>
{
public Base2()
{
// Field is accessible here, but is the same across all generic classes
Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}
}
public class BaseChild : Base.Base2<string>
{
public BaseChild()
{
//Field is not accessible here, and I don't really want it to be
//Console.WriteLine(Field);
}
}

How can I access a static property of type T in a generic class?

I am trying to accomplish the following scenario that the generic TestClassWrapper will be able to access static properties of classes it is made of (they will all derive from TestClass). Something like:
public class TestClass
{
public static int x = 5;
}
public class TestClassWrapper<T> where T : TestClass
{
public int test()
{
return T.x;
}
}
Gives the error:
'T' is a 'type parameter', which is not valid in the given context.
Any suggestions?

You can't, basically, at least not without reflection.
One option is to put a delegate in your constructor so that whoever creates an instance can specify how to get at it:
var wrapper = new TestClassWrapper<TestClass>(() => TestClass.x);
You could do it with reflection if necessary:
public class TestClassWrapper<T> where T : TestClass
{
private static readonly FieldInfo field = typeof(T).GetField("x");
public int test()
{
return (int) field.GetValue(null);
}
}
(Add appropriate binding flags if necessary.)
This isn't great, but at least you only need to look up the field once...

Surely you can just write this:
public int test()
{
return TestClass.x;
}
Even in a nontrivial example, you can't override a static field so will always call it from your known base class.

Why not just return TestClass.x?

Generics do not support anything related to static members, so that won't work. My advice would be: don't make it static. Assuming the field genuinely relates to the specific T, you could also use reflection:
return (int) typeof(T).GetField("x").GetValue(null);
but I don't recommend it.

Another solution is to simply not make it static, and work with the new() constraint on T to instantiate the object. Then you can work with an interface, and the wrapper can get the property out of any class that implements that interface:
public interface XExposer
{
Int32 X { get; }
}
public class TestClass : XExposer
{
public Int32 X { get { return 5;} }
}
public class XExposerWrapper<T> where T : XExposer, new()
{
public Int32 X
{
get { return new T().X; }
}
}
In fact, you can change that to public static Int32 X on the TestClassWrapper and simply get it out as Int32 fetchedX = XExposerWrapper<TestClass>.X;
Though since whatever code calls this will have to give the parameter T those same constraints, the wrapper class is pretty unnecessary at this point, since that calling code itself could also just execute new T().X and not bother with the wrapper.
Still, there are some interesting inheritance models where this kind of structure is useful. For example, an abstract class SuperClass<T> where T : SuperClass<T>, new() can both instantiate and return type T in its static functions, effectively allowing you to make inheritable static functions that adapt to the child classes (which would then need to be defined as class ChildClass : SuperClass<ChildClass>). By defining protected abstract functions / properties on the superclass, you can make functions that apply the same logic on any inherited object, but customized to that subclass according to its implementations of these abstracts. I use this for database classes where the table name and fetch query are implemented by the child class. Since the properties are protected, they are never exposed, either.
For example, on database classes, where the actual fetching logic is put in one central abstract class:
public abstract class DbClass<T> where T : DbClass<T>, new()
{
protected abstract String FetchQuery { get; }
protected abstract void Initialize(DatabaseRecord row);
public static T FetchObject(DatabaseSession dbSession, Int32 key)
{
T obj = new T();
DatabaseRecord record = dbSession.RetrieveRecord(obj.FetchQuery, key);
obj.Initialize(record);
return obj;
}
}
And the implementation:
public class User : DbClass<User>
{
public Int32 Key { get; private set;}
public String FirstName { get; set;}
public String LastName { get; set;}
protected override String FetchQuery
{ get { return "SELECT * FROM USER WHERE KEY = {0}";} }
protected override void Initialize(DatabaseRecord row)
{
this.Key = DbTools.SafeGetInt(row.GetField("KEY"));
this.FirstName = DbTools.SafeGetString(row.GetField("FIRST_NAME"));
this.LastName = DbTools.SafeGetString(row.GetField("LAST_NAME"));
}
}
This can be used as:
User usr = User.FetchObject(dbSession, userKey);
This is a rather simplified example, but as you see, this system allows a static function from the parent class to be called on the child class, to return an object of the child class.

T is a type, not parameter or variable so you cannot pick any value from any members. Here is a sample code.
public class UrlRecordService
{
public virtual void SaveSlug<T>(T entity) where T : ISlugSupport
{
if (entity == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
int entityId = entity.Id;
string entityName = typeof(T).Name;
}
}
public interface ISlugSupport
{
int Id { get; set; }
}

cjk and Haris Hasan have the most-correct answers to the question as asked. However in this comment the OP implies that he is after something else not quite possible in C#: a way to define a contract for a static member in a derived class.
There isn't a way to strictly define this, but it is possible to set up a pattern that may be implied by a base class (or interface); e.g.:
public class TestClass
{
private static int x;
public virtual int StaticX => x;
}
or if not intended to be used directly
public abstract class AbstractTestClass
{
public abstract int StaticX {get;}
}
or (my preference in this contrived example)
public interface ITest
{
int StaticX {get;}
}
Elsewhere, this pattern of a StaticXxx member may be (loosely) associated with implementations that should back the member with static fields (as in TestClass above).
What's kind of fun is that this can be (re)exposed as static by the generic wrapper, because generic statics are isolated to each type used.
public class TestClassWrapper<T> where T : ITest, new()
{
private readonly static T testInstance = new T();
public static int test() => testInstance.x;
}
This uses a new() condition, but an associated static, generic factory pattern for creating ITest (or TestClass or AbstractTestClass) instances may also be used.
However this may not be feasible if you can't have long-lived instances of the class.

In this situation you assume that T is a subclass of TestClass. Subclasses of TestClass will not have the static int x.

How can I factor out the code duplication here?

So, I'd like to hear what you all think about this.
I have a project where three different inheritance paths need to all implement another base class. This would be multiple inheritance and isn't allowed in C#. I am curious how I can implement this without code duplication.
EDIT: I don't own the three classes. The three classes are from 3rd party code. So I cannot make them all extend my base class.
Right now I am using three different classes, each one extending a different base class. Then I have the same code in each of the three abstract classes.
I could use a single interface, but I would still need to duplicate the code.
I could make some kind of static class that implements the code and then reference that in each of the 3 abstract classes. It would eliminate the duplication, but, I am not sure how I feel about this. I could implement Extensions methods on the interface, but then the interface itself would be empty and the extension methods (containing the duplicate code) would be in a totally different file, which seems not quite right. Plus I can't implement properties in extension methods...
How can I factor out the code duplication here?
EDIT, inheritance tree:
class Class1 : 3rdPartyBaseClass1 { }
class Class2 : 3rdPartyBaseClass2 { }
class Class3 : 3rdPartyBaseClass3 { }
I have code I want to be in each of the above Classes, but I cannot add it to the 3rdPartyClasses.

Create an interface that Class1, Class2, and Class3 can implement. Then put your code in extension methods so it will apply to all.
interface IMyInterface {
void Foo(); //these are the methods that these
//classes actually have in common
void Bar();
}
public class Class1 : 3rdPartyBaseClass1, IMyInterface {
// whatever
}
public static class IMyInterfaceExtensions {
public static void CommonMethod(this IMyInterface obj) {
obj.Foo();
obj.Bar();
}
}
public static class Program {
public static void Main() {
var instance = new Class1();
instance.CommonMethod();
}
}

OK, you can do something similar to my previous suggestion, and also similar to recursive's suggestion. For the functionality you require in all three of your derived classes, you can create a single Interface along with a single class (call it "Implementer" for kicks) that implements that Interface (and that has the actual code you want executed with each call).
In each of your derived classes, then, you implement the Interface and create a private instance of Implementer. In each of the interface methods, you just pass the call along to the private instance of Implementer. Because Implementer and your derived classes all implement your Interface, any changes you make to the Interface will require you to modify Implementer and the derived classes accordingly.
And all your code is in one place, except for all the lines passings the calls on to the private instance of Implementer (obviously multiple inheritance would be better than this, but you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had).
Update: what about just adding a public instance of your class to each of the derived classes?
public class DerivedClass1 : ThirdPartyClass1
{
public MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
}
Or if you care who Demeter is and you get paid by LOC:
public class DerivedClass1 : ThirdPartyClass1
{
private MyClass _myClass = new MyClass();
public MyClass myClass
{
get
{
return _myClass;
}
}
}
Then you'd just call the MyClass methods like this:
DerivedClass1 dc1 = new DerivedClass1();
dc1.myClass.DoSomething();
This way, we could all go to sleep.

Similar to MusiGenesis's suggestion, if you need the functionality of the 3rd party classes but do not have to descend from them, you could use composition as follows:
class ThirdPartyBaseClass1
{
public void DoOne() {}
}
class ThirdPartyBaseClass2
{
public void DoTwo() { }
}
class ThirdPartyBaseClass3
{
public void DoThree() { }
}
abstract class Base
{
public void DoAll() { }
}
class Class1 : Base
{
public void DoOne() { _doer.DoOne(); }
private readonly ThirdPartyBaseClass1 _doer = new ThirdPartyBaseClass1();
}
class Class2 : Base
{
public void DoTwo() { _doer.DoTwo(); }
private readonly ThirdPartyBaseClass2 _doer = new ThirdPartyBaseClass2();
}
class Class3 : Base
{
public void DoThree() { _doer.DoThree(); }
private readonly ThirdPartyBaseClass3 _doer = new ThirdPartyBaseClass3();
}
This also gives you the freedom to define whatever interfaces you want and implement them on your classes.

Sounds like you need to insert the new abstract class into the inheritance tree at whatever point those three paths come together, but there really isn't enough information to tell. If you could post some of your inheritance tree, that would help a lot.

I think you may want to use composition instead of inheritance. Exactly how to do this depends on what the third party classes look like, and what your own code looks like. Some more specific code relating to your problem would be helpful, but for example, suppose you want to have three different third party GUI widgets that all need to be customized with your own initializer code.
Case 1: Suppose your third party widgets look like:
public interface IThirdPartyWidget {
public void doWidgetStuff();
}
public class ThirdPartyWidget1: ThirdyPartyWidget implements IThirdPartyWidget {
...
}
public class ThirdPartyWidget2: ThirdPartyWidget implements IThirdPartyWidget {
...
}
You can do:
public class MyWidget implements IThirdPartyWidget {
private IThirdPartyWidget delegateWidget;
public MyWidget(IThirdPartyWidget delegateWidget) {
this.delegateWidget = delegateWidget;
}
public void doWidgetStuff() {
delegateWidget.doWidgetStuff();
}
}
Case 2: Suppose you absolutely need to extend those widgets, and you have to refactor your own code:
public class MyWidget1: ThirdPartyWidget1 {
public void myMethod() {
runMyCode();
}
private void runMyCode() {
//something complicated happens
}
}
public class MyWidget2: ThirdPartyWidget2 {
public void myMethod() {
runMyCode();
}
private void runMyCode() {
//something complicated happens
}
}
This can become:
public class MyCodeRunner {
public void runMyCode() {
//...
}
}
public class MyWidget1: ThirdPartyWidget1 {
private MyCodeRunner myCode = new MyCodeRunner();
public void myMethod() {
myCode .runMyCode();
}
}
public class MyWidget2: ThirdPartyWidget2 {
private MyCodeRunner myCode = new MyCodeRunner();
public void myMethod() {
myCode .runMyCode();
}
}
Hope this makes sense!

What's the correct alternative to static method inheritance?

I understand that static method inheritance is not supported in C#. I have also read a number of discussions (including here) in which developers claim a need for this functionality, to which the typical response is "if you need static member inheritance, there's a flaw in your design".
OK, given that OOP doesn't want me to even think about static inheritance, I must conclude that my apparent need for it points to an error in my design. But, I'm stuck. I would really appreciate some help resolving this. Here's the challenge ...
I want to create an abstract base class (let's call it a Fruit) that encapsulates some complex initialization code. This code cannot be placed in the constructor, since some of it will rely on virtual method calls.
Fruit will be inherited by other concrete classes (Apple, Orange), each of which must expose a standard factory method CreateInstance() to create and initialize an instance.
If static member inheritance were feasible, I would place the factory method in the base class and use a virtual method call to the derived class to obtain the type from which a concrete instance must be initialized. The client code would simple invoke Apple.CreateInstance() to obtain a fully initialized Apple instance.
But clearly this is not possible, so can someone please explain how my design needs to change to accommodate the same functionality.

One idea:
public abstract class Fruit<T>
where T : Fruit<T>, new()
{
public static T CreateInstance()
{
T newFruit = new T();
newFruit.Initialize(); // Calls Apple.Initialize
return newFruit;
}
protected abstract void Initialize();
}
public class Apple : Fruit<Apple>
{
protected override void Initialize() { ... }
}
And call like so:
Apple myAppleVar = Fruit<Apple>.CreateInstance();
No extra factory classes needed.

Move the factory method out of the type, and put it in its own Factory class.
public abstract class Fruit
{
protected Fruit() {}
public abstract string Define();
}
public class Apple : Fruit
{
public Apple() {}
public override string Define()
{
return "Apple";
}
}
public class Orange : Fruit
{
public Orange() {}
public override string Define()
{
return "Orange";
}
}
public static class FruitFactory<T>
{
public static T CreateFruit<T>() where T : Fruit, new()
{
return new T();
}
}
But, as I'm looking at this, there is no need to move the Create method to its own Factory class (although I think that it is preferrable -separation of concerns-), you can put it in the Fruit class:
public abstract class Fruit
{
public abstract string Define();
public static T CreateFruit<T>() where T : Fruit, new()
{
return new T();
}
}
And, to see if it works:
class Program
{
static void Main( string[] args )
{
Console.WriteLine (Fruit.CreateFruit<Apple> ().Define ());
Console.WriteLine (Fruit.CreateFruit<Orange> ().Define ());
Console.ReadLine ();
}
}

I would do something like this
public abstract class Fruit() {
public abstract void Initialize();
}
public class Apple() : Fruit {
public override void Initialize() {
}
}
public class FruitFactory<T> where T : Fruit, new {
public static <T> CreateInstance<T>() {
T fruit = new T();
fruit.Initialize();
return fruit;
}
}
var fruit = FruitFactory<Apple>.CreateInstance()

Why not create a factory class (templated) with a create method?
FruitFactory<Banana>.Create();

The WebRequest class and its derivative types in the .NET BCL represent a good example of how this sort of design can be implemented relatively well.
The WebRequest class has several sub-classes, including HttpWebRequest and FtpWebReuest. Now, this WebRequest base class is also a factory type, and exposes a static Create method (the instance constructors are hidden, as required by the factory pattern).
public static WebRequest Create(string requestUriString)
public static WebRequest Create(Uri requestUri)
This Create method returns a specific implementation of the WebRequest class, and uses the URI (or URI string) to determine the type of object to create and return.
This has the end result of the following usage pattern:
var httpRequest = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create("http://stackoverflow.com/");
// or equivalently
var httpRequest = (HttpWebRequest)HttpWebWebRequest.Create("http://stackoverflow.com/");
var ftpRequest = (FtpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create("ftp://stackoverflow.com/");
// or equivalently
var ftpRequest = (FtpWebRequest)FtpWebWebRequest.Create("ftp://stackoverflow.com/");
I personally think this is a good way to approach the issue, and it does indeed seem to be the preffered method of the .NET Framework creators.

First of all, not having static initializers that can be virtual doesn't mean you can't have "standard" member methods, that could be overloaded. Second of all, you can call your virtual methods from constructors, and they will work as expected, so there's no problem here. Third of all, You can use generics to have type-safe factory.
Here's some code, that uses factory + member Initialize() method that is called by constructor (and it's protected, so you don't have to worry, that someone will call it again after creating an object):
abstract class Fruit
{
public Fruit()
{
Initialize();
}
protected virtual void Initialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("Fruit.Initialize");
}
}
class Apple : Fruit
{
public Apple()
: base()
{ }
protected override void Initialize()
{
base.Initialize();
Console.WriteLine("Apple.Initialize");
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "Apple";
}
}
class Orange : Fruit
{
public Orange()
: base()
{ }
protected override void Initialize()
{
base.Initialize();
Console.WriteLine("Orange.Initialize");
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "Orange";
}
}
class FruitFactory
{
public static T CreateFruit<T>() where T : Fruit, new()
{
return new T();
}
}
public class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Apple apple = FruitFactory.CreateFruit<Apple>();
Console.WriteLine(apple.ToString());
Orange orange = new Orange();
Console.WriteLine(orange.ToString());
Fruit appleFruit = FruitFactory.CreateFruit<Apple>();
Console.WriteLine(appleFruit.ToString());
}
}

I'd say the best thing to do is to create a virtual/abstract Initialise method on the fruit class which must be called and then create an external 'fruit factory' class to create instances:
public class Fruit
{
//other members...
public abstract void Initialise();
}
public class FruitFactory()
{
public Fruit CreateInstance()
{
Fruit f = //decide which fruit to create
f.Initialise();
return f;
}
}

All these ideas compensate for a glaring lack of language with stilted language constructs.
If I want an apple, I don't call a method on the fruit. Why should I even learn the family tree of the class? And I don't want to repeat myself or copy constructors through the whole hierarchy like a madman. Computers were invented to save me from such nonsense.
Two languages that have noticed and are now doing it right are PHP and Swift. Both supported static inheritance and covariance.
And old holy OOP books with a supposedly pure doctrine you can burn, because everything that allows me elegant code and compiles is good.