I am new to C# programming. I understand that it is necessary to modify the class as abstract if it contains any abstract methods, and its implementation must be provided in any of the child classes in class hierarchy.
But my question is whether can we have an abstract class without any abstract methods(so it is not necessary for it to be a base class), and if it is so, then what are the significance of the same. Please help in this regard. :)
Yes you can have an abstract base class without any abstract methods. The benefit is that you cannot create an instance of this class.
There is a consideration to replace that abstract class with an interface. The difference is that the interface may not contain any implementation, but in the abstract class you can provide some implementation for methods that any inheritor may use.
You cann't create instances of the abstract class, and if you are not use this class as base - it is useless (only possible for some tricky goals using reflection)
Yes, it can be used without having an implementing subclass. Basically you have three "ways" of defining and calling methods here:
static: Methods that can be called directly on the abstract class, because they do not require an instance at all.
abstract: Methods that must be implemented in a sub-class (note that the existance of one of these does not stop you from using any existing static methods directly!)
"Regular": Normal methods, implemented directly in the abstract class, and which can be called via an instance of a sub-class. Note that you can only call them via sub-classes, since you can only have instances of a subclass (not the abstract class itself). Such a sub-class must also by definition implement any abstract method(s) in the abstract class (otherwise you`ll get a compile time error).
The following simple console app gives a nice, concrete (no pun intended) example:
using System;
namespace ConsoleStuff
{
public abstract class MyAbstractClass
{
public abstract void DoSomethingAbs();
public void DoSomethingElse()
{
Console.WriteLine("Do something general...");
}
public static void TakeABreak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Take a break");
}
}
class MyImplementation : MyAbstractClass
{
public override void DoSomethingAbs()
{
Console.WriteLine("Do something Specific...");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Static method; no instance required
MyAbstractClass.TakeABreak();
var inst = new MyImplementation();
inst.DoSomethingAbs(); // Required implementation in subclass
inst.DoSomethingElse(); // Use method from the Abstract directly
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
Related
The C# spec, section 10.1.1.1, states:
An abstract class is permitted (but
not required) to contain abstract
members.
This allows me to create classes like this:
public abstract class A
{
public void Main()
{
// it's full of logic!
}
}
Or even better:
public abstract class A
{
public virtual void Main() { }
}
public abstract class B : A
{
public override sealed void Main()
{
// it's full of logic!
}
}
This is really a concrete class; it's only abstract in so far as one can't instantiate it. For example, if I wanted to execute the logic in B.Main() I would have to first get an instance of B, which is impossible.
If inheritors don't actually have to provide implementation, then why call it abstract?
Put another way, why does C# allow an abstract class with only concrete members?
I should mention that I am already familiar with the intended functionality of abstract types and members.
Perhaps a good example is a common base class that provides shared properties and perhaps other members for derived classes, but does not represent a concrete object. For example:
public abstract class Pet
{
public string Name{get;set;}
}
public class Dog : Pet
{
public void Bark(){ ... }
}
All pets have names, but a pet itself is an abstract concept. An instance of a pet must be a dog or some other kind of animal.
The difference here is that instead of providing a method that should be overridden by implementors, the base class declares that all pets are composed of at least a Name property.
The idea is to force the implementor to derive from the class as it is intended to provide only a basis for a presumably more specialized implementation. So the base class, while not having any abstract members may only contain core methods an properties that can be used as a basis for extension.
For example:
public abstract class FourLeggedAnimal
{
public void Walk()
{
// most 4 legged animals walk the same (silly example, but it works)
}
public void Chew()
{
}
}
public class Dog : FourLeggedAnimal
{
public void Bark()
{
}
}
public class Cat : FourLeggedAnimal
{
public void Purr()
{
}
}
I think a slightly more accurate representation of your question would be: Why does C# allow an abstract class with only concrete members?
The answer: There's no good reason not to. Perhaps someone out there has some organizational structure where they like to have a noninstantiatable class at the top, even if a class below it just inherits and adds nothing. There's no good reason not to support that.
You said it -- because you can't instantiate it; it is meant to be a template only.
It is not "really a concrete class" if you declare it as abstract. That is available to you as a design choice.
That design choice may have to do with creating entities that are (at risk of mixing the terminology) abstractions of real-world objects, and with readability. You may want to declare parameters of type Car, but don't want objects to be declarable as Car -- you want every object of type Car to be instantiated as a Truck, Sedan, Coupe, or Roadster. The fact that Car doesn't require inheritors to add implementation does not detract from its value as an abstract version of its inheritors that cannot itself be instantiated.
Abstract means providing an abstraction of behaviour. For example Vehicle is an abstract form. It doesn't have any real world instance, but we can say that Vehicle has accelerating behaviour. More specifically Ford Ikon is a vehicle, and Yamaha FZ is a vehicle. Both these have accelerating behaviour.
If you now make this in the class form. Vehicle is abstract class with Acceleration method. While you may/ may not provide any abstract method. But the business need is that Vehicle should not be instantiated. Hence you make it abstract. The other two classes - Ikon and FZ are concrete classes deriving from Vehicle class. These two will have their own properties and behaviours.
With regards to usage, using abstract on a class declaration but having no abstract members is the same as having the class public but using protected on its constructors. Both force the class to be derived in order for it to be instantiated.
However, as far as self-documenting code goes, by marking the class abstract it informs others that this class is never meant to be instantiated on its own, even if it has no virtual or abstract members. Whereas protecting the constructors makes no such assertion.
The compiler does not prevent implementation-logic, but in your case I would simply omit abstract ?! BTW some methods could be implemented with { throw Exception("must inherit"); } and the compiler could not distinguish fully implemented classes and functions including only throw.
Here's a potential reason:
Layer Supertype
It's not uncommon for all the objects
in a layer to have methods you don't
want to have duplicated throughout the
system. You can move all of this
behavior into a common Layer
Supertype.
-- Martin Fowler
There's no reason to prevent having only concrete methods in an abstract class - it's just less common. The Layer Supertype is a case where this might make sense.
I see abstract classes serving two main purposes:
An incomplete class that must be specialized to provide some concrete service. Here, abstract members would be optional. The class would provide some services that the child classes can use and could define abstract members that it uses to provide its service, like in the Template Method Pattern. This type of abstract class is meant to create an inheritance hierarchy.
A class that only provides static utility methods. In this case, abstract members don't make sense at all. C# supports this notion with static classes, they are implicitly abstract and sealed. This can also be achieved with a sealed class with a private constructor.
I have a few questions regarding interfaces.
Why we can't use virtual keyword with Interfaces members
Why we can't use override keyword in derived class from interfaces
Suppose
interface Iface
{
void Func();
}
class Program : Iface
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
}
public void Func()
{
Console.WriteLine("In func");
}
}
Why I need to use public on member functions in derived class from interface i.e. in Func() definition? If I am not using public keyword it will result in a compile time error
Can we use static Members in Interface?
Marking a method virtual gives the inheriting class the option to override the respective method. But when inheriting from an interface the implementation is not optional but mandatory. Every interface method is abstract by definition.
You don't override the methods, you implement them. An interface method has no own implementation, there is nothing to override. It just wouldn't make any sense.
Why a C# interface method implemented in a class must be public
No we can't use static methods on an interface
Interfaces don't need that. The implementation can be virtual.
An implementation doesn't need that - there is nothing to override.
You will have to instantiate a Program to call Func. Also there is no concept of static interfaces.
Interfaces dont act like class because, we cant make an object of interfaces if we can make make an object of interfaces to achieve multiple inheritance then we can face diamond problem that occur in the case of multiple inheritance of classes.
If I have a project that contains similar classes and some may use the same implementation, but in most cases they implement their own way of handling the methods defined in an interface or abstract class. I am trying to figure out if an interface/abstract class is better or not. I don't get the point of an interface if you can just use an abstract class with virtual abstract methods.
Here is an interface:
public interface IAthlete
{
void Run();
}
Here is an abstract class:
public abstract class Athlete
{
public abstract void Run();
}
Here is an implementation of the interface:
public class Sprinter : IAthlete
{
public void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine("Running Fast....");
}
}
Here is an extension of the abstract class:
public class MarathonRunner : Athlete
{
public override void Run()
{
Console.Write("Jogging....");
}
}
Now if I decide to add a method called Stop to either the interface or abstract method, Sprinter and MarathonRunner both break and because I can provide some default implementation to abstract, it seems like a better choice. Am I missing something?
There are 2 main differences between Interfaces and abstract super-classes:
Abstract Classes
code reuse is possible by using an abstract super-class
you can only inherit one super-class
Interfaces
every method has to be implemented in each sub-class
a class can inherit more than 1 interface (multiple inheritance)
In the case where all you have is one piece of commonality to extract, you're quite right that there isn't a substantive difference between the two. But this is rather like saying "in the case of adding 1 to 2, there's no difference between an int and a double" - it's technically true, but not a particularly useful guide to how to think.
In case with any more complexity than this (that is, in most cases) there will be more classes, and pieces of common baheaviour to extract. Then you have to start making a significant choice between class inheritance and interface implementation, taking into account things like:
you only get one shot at choosing a base class, but you can implement as many interfaces as you like
if you want your 'parent' to do any work, it needs to be a class not an interface
and so on.
In general, the semantics of your classes should guide you - where the 'things' have an "IS A" relationship (like MarathonRunner to Athlete), inheritance is suggested; where the 'things' have an "I CAN FULFIL THE CONTRACT OF A" (like, say, Person to Runner), interface implementation is suggested.
Interfaces are a btter way to go as the current consensus amongst the .NET developer comunity is that you should favour composition over inheritance, so Interfaces are a much better strategy (think of Injection Containers and how usefull they are as well, and lets not get started on unit testing).
also, classes can implement many interfaces but can only inherit from one class (abstract or otherwise). also structs can implement interfaces but not inherit from another class.
At the runtime level, interfaces are more efficient as the runtime doesnt have to walk the inheritance stack in order to work out the polymorphic implications of calling a specific member.
Interfaces are a very useful feature, and are very similar to abstract classes, and in some circumstances, exchangable with abstract classes.
But, don't jump straight to interfaces, unleass you have to (very common antipattern in Java developers). I suggest, by reading your example, to stick to abstract classes.
Most of the times I only use interfaces, when I have several non related classes, and I need them to have common members, as If these classes came from the same base class.
In your example, you are trying to find what happen if you need a new stop method, when adding a base virtual method. These can be solved in a different approach, that is not Abstract Classes versus interfaces.
There are 3 choices:
(1) Add an abstract method that coerce the programmer to override it, in order to instantiate objects.
(2) Add a new virtual method that does something, but doesn't have to be overriden.
(3) Add a new method that does nothing, maybe applies to your case.
// cannot instantiate an abstract class
public abstract class Athlete
{
// helper method:
public /* non-abstract */ void DoNothing()
{
// does nothing on purpouse !!!
}
// (1) virtual & abstract method, must be overriden
public abstract void Run();
// (2) new virtual method, doesn't need to be overriden,
// but, maybe you dont like what it does
public virtual void Stop()
{
Message.Show("Stop !!!");
}
// (3) new virtual method, doesn't need to be overriden,
// its safe to be called
public virtual void TakeBreak()
{
// works like an abstract virtual method, but, you don't need to override
DoNothing();
}
} // class Athlete
// in a non abstract class, you must override all abstract methods
public /* non-abstract */ class Runner: Athlete
{
public override void Run()
{
DoNothing();
}
public override void Stop()
{
DoNothing();
}
// don't need to override this method
// public virtual void TakeBreak();
} // class Trekker
// ...
Runner ARunner = new Runner();
ARunner.Run();
ARunner.Stop();
ARunner.TakeBreak();
The third kind of virtual method, that may apply to your example, doesnt' have a special name, I already post a question about it on stackoverflow, but, nobody knew an special name for this case.
Cheers.
An important difference between interfaces and abstract classes is how their members handle multi-generational inheritance. Suppose there's an abstract class BaseFoo with abstract method Bar and interface IFoo with method Boz; class Foo inherits BaseFoo and implements IFoo, and class DerivedFoo inherits from Foo.
If DerivedFoo needs to override BaseFoo.Bar, it may do so, and its override may call base.Bar() if it needs to use its parent's implementation. If Foo implements Boz implicitly using a virtual method, then DerivedFoo may override that method and call base.Boz() (the override being a function of the class rather than the interface) but if Foo explicitly implements IFoo.Boz, then the only way for DerivedFoo to change the behavior of IFoo.Boz will be to re-implement it. If it does so, then Foo's implementation of IFoo.Boz will become inaccessible, even within DerivedFoo's implementation of the same interface member.
I am surprised to know that an abstract class in C# is possible with no abstract methods also.
abstract class AbstractDemo
{
public void show()
{
Console.WriteLine("In Show Method");
}
}
class MainDemo:AbstractDemo
{
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("In Main Method");
}
}
Any explaination ?
Sometimes you don't want to give the possibility to instantiate a class but you need this class as a base class for other classes.
The reason for choosing abstract classes over interfaces is that you can provide some basic implementation.
This is entirely valid, and occasionally useful if you want to provide event-like behaviour: provide an abstract class with all the "event handlers" implemented as virtual methods with a default behaviour of doing nothing.
I've also personally used this a lot for abstract remote API client classes where all methods throw exceptions: they're abstract for the purposes of test doubles, expecting our implementations to be the only production implementations, but allowing users to create their own test doubles either by hand or via mocking frameworks. Making the methods virtual instead of abstract means that new RPCs can be added without that being a breaking change.
A derived class can then override some of the methods, but doesn't have to override any specific one, because nothing's abstract. It still makes sense for the class to be abstract because an instance of the base class would be pointless (as everything would be a no-op).
This pattern is much more common in Java than C#, however - as in C# you'd normally just use "proper" events.
An abstract class is a class that must be extended before it can be used. This does not it any way mean that the function themselves must be abstract.
Take for example an Animal class
public abstract class Animal
{
void Move()
{
//whatever
}
}
public class Fish : Animal
{
void Swim()
{
}
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
void Bark()
{
}
}
All animals can move but only the fish can swim and the dog can bark.
Or for a real life example. I have an Asp.net MVC base controller I use in my application. It has some basic methods I need very often like GetCurrentUser() and a function I wrote to help with localization. It also takes care of tracking so I don't have to rewrite that code in all of my controllers. The class has about 200 lines of code but not a single abstract method.
I think you're confusing abstract classes with interfaces. Interfaces can't have methods with body, abstract classes can. There are times when you want to prevent user from instantiating an object of a specific class; but still provide some base functionality for the classes that derive from it; this is what an abstract class is useful for.
If your class is just a base for other classes and it does not have an full usablility - in other words as a base itselfe is not usable at all then you want to prevent from creating instances of it. In this case you can make abstract class without abstract members.
You could use abstract keyword on a class just to signal the compiler that it can only used inheriting from it, and not directly; In this case you are not oblied to put abstract member on the class.
This is equivalent to put in the class only one protected constructor, but using abstract is more clear and understandable.
No better explanation than MSDN it self
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa645615(v=VS.71).aspx
An abstract class cannot be instantiated directly, and it is a
compile-time error to use the new
operator on an abstract class. While
it is possible to have variables and
values whose compile-time types are
abstract, such variables and values
will necessarily either be null or
contain references to instances of
non-abstract classes derived from the
abstract types.
An abstract class is permitted (but not required) to contain abstract
members.
An abstract class cannot be sealed.
We have heard that in abstract class, there must be an abstarct member. But when I compile the abstarct class without an abstract method, it compiles. It gives me surprise. Now I am unable to find the article which explain exact behavior of an abstarct class.
I am sorry if I am asking something stupid but I am completely a newbie in C# and ASP.NET.
I am having an error in my code and I don't understand it.
I am working on Visual Studio 2008.
In this line of code:
public class SQLFAQProvider : DBFAQProvider
I am getting this error:
Moby.Commerce.DataAccess.FAQ.SQLFAQProvider does not implement inherited abstract member Moby.Commerce.DataAccess.FAQDBFAQProvider.DeleteFAQbyID(int)
When I go to DBFAQProvider the error is in this line of code:
public abstract DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID);
What should I change to correct it?
First thought would be implement the abstract member in the inherited class ala:
public class SQLFAQProvider : DBFAQProvider
{
public override DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID)
{
//TODO: Real Code
return null;
}
}
Implement the DeleteFAQbyID method in your derived class:
public override DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID)
{
// Put your code here
}
The point of an abstract method is to say (in the abstract base class), "I want to make sure that this method is available in every concrete class deriving from me" - it's up to you to provide the implementation. It's a bit like a method in an interface.
Your subclass needs to explicitly implement that particular method.
If you have no idea how to do it, then at least do:
public override DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID)
{
throw new NotImplementedException("This isn't done yet");
}
When you inherit from a class in C#, you are required to implement all methods marked as abstract unless your class is itself marked as abstract. Abstract classes are ones that cannot be directly instantiated at runtime because they don't fully implement all of the required methods that the base class(es) say must exist.
Abstract methods are a mechanism that allows a class to indicate that a particular method must "eventually" exist - without having to provide an implementation at that point. You typically use abstract classes when you cannot or don't want to dictate what a particular implementation should do, but you need to pre-define a method that you will eventually rely on.
To fix your problem either mark your class as abstract (with the expectation that another level of inheritance will fill in the missing pieces) or implement DeleteFAQbyId() in your class:
public DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID)
{
// write appropriate implementation here or:
throw new NotImplementedException();
// or possibly NotSupportedException() if the operation should can't ever be supported.
}
When a class inherits from an abstract class it must implement all abstract methods defined by said class. This is the class interface, the abstract methods can be thought of as pure virtual functions, i.e., functions that must be implemented by descended classes but do not make sense to be implemented in the base class.
Because your SQLFAQProvider class isn't abstract, it has to implement every abstract method that it inherits.
To fix this, implement the DeleteFAQbyID method in SQLFAQProvider, like this:
public override DBFAQ DeleteFAQbyID(int fAQID) {
//Do something
}
Alternatively, you could make your SQLFAQProvider class abstract by changing its declaration to public abstract class SQLFAQProvider.
Your subclass (SQLFAQProvider) must provide implementation code for the method DeleteFAQbyID because the parent class (DBFAQProvider) did not.
In the abstract class use an entity property like IsValid. Make it return the abstract method that you want to override in the derived class.
In abstract base class:
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
return DeleteFAQbyID();
}
}
public abstract bool DeleteFAQbyID();
In the derived class now it will override the abstract class' method.