I understand that static methods are not correct for interfaces (see: Why Doesn't C# Allow Static Methods to Implement an Interface?) yet have come up against a situation where I have an object that implements all methods of an interface where all can be static, so I think I must be designing incorrectly.
Trouble is, I cant see any alternative
My interface IDataSerializer is implemented by several classes. One that de/serializes XML, one that does JSON, etc. All of these classes implement the same functions and none have any "state data" (members, etc), but all eventually result in the same type of object being output.
For example, the XML class:
public class MyXmlSerializer : IDataSerializer
{
public string SerializeFoo(object foo)
{
// uses .Net XML serialzer to serialize foo
}
public object DeserializeFoo(string foo)
{
// uses .NET XML serializer to deserialize foo
}
// Object type returned by above methods is only ever
// used by following method which returns a type available
// to all IDataSerializer implementations as this is
// the data actually used by the rest of the program
public IList<Bar> CreateBarList(object deserializedFoo)
{
// does some magic to extract a list of Bar from the
// deserialized data, this is the main work for any
// IDataSerializer implementation
}
}
Obviously all of the methods shown above could be static (they all take in all the info they need as parameters and all return the result of their working, there are no members or fields)... but because they should be implemented in a serializer that can do work for any type of serial data (XML,JSON, YAML, etc) then they form an interface... Which is it? Am I thinking about this wrong? Is there an alternative, specific, pattern for achieving what I want to do?
Afterthought: maybe I should simply change my idea of de/serialization being work that something can do to thinking of each implementation as is a serlializer, thus suggesting replacing interface with abstract class?
After-afterthought: overridden methods can't be static either, so changing to abstract class doesn't help any.
From logical point of view these methods should be static, because they logically don't work on a particular instance and don't use shared resources.This class don't have a state as well. But... from a pragmatic point of view, instant class brings many benefits, like:
class (interface) if fully testable,
follows the OOP and SOLID principles,
can be registered as singleton, so you can create only one instance of this object,
it's easy to add any dependencies to these classes
easy to maintain
some useful design patterns can be applied (e.g. decorator, composite)
can be lazy loaded and disposed in any time
In your case, in my opinion, you should hide this implementation behind the interface and register it as a singleton, e.g.(using autofac)
builder.RegisterType<MyXmlSerializer>().As<IDataSerializer>().SingleInstance();
In addition, if you need to, you can create an extension method for this interface and add static methods to this contract.
More information can be found here:
Instance methods vs static
Static class vs singleton
Extension methods
Why was C# designed this way?
As I understand it, an interface only describes behaviour, and serves the purpose of describing a contractual obligation for classes implementing the interface that certain behaviour is implemented.
If classes wish to implement that behavour in a shared method, why shouldn't they?
Here is an example of what I have in mind:
// These items will be displayed in a list on the screen.
public interface IListItem {
string ScreenName();
...
}
public class Animal: IListItem {
// All animals will be called "Animal".
public static string ScreenName() {
return "Animal";
}
....
}
public class Person: IListItem {
private string name;
// All persons will be called by their individual names.
public string ScreenName() {
return name;
}
....
}
Assuming you are asking why you can't do this:
public interface IFoo {
void Bar();
}
public class Foo: IFoo {
public static void Bar() {}
}
This doesn't make sense to me, semantically. Methods specified on an interface should be there to specify the contract for interacting with an object. Static methods do not allow you to interact with an object - if you find yourself in the position where your implementation could be made static, you may need to ask yourself if that method really belongs in the interface.
To implement your example, I would give Animal a const property, which would still allow it to be accessed from a static context, and return that value in the implementation.
public class Animal: IListItem {
/* Can be tough to come up with a different, yet meaningful name!
* A different casing convention, like Java has, would help here.
*/
public const string AnimalScreenName = "Animal";
public string ScreenName(){ return AnimalScreenName; }
}
For a more complicated situation, you could always declare another static method and delegate to that. In trying come up with an example, I couldn't think of any reason you would do something non-trivial in both a static and instance context, so I'll spare you a FooBar blob, and take it as an indication that it might not be a good idea.
My (simplified) technical reason is that static methods are not in the vtable, and the call site is chosen at compile time. It's the same reason you can't have override or virtual static members. For more details, you'd need a CS grad or compiler wonk - of which I'm neither.
For the political reason, I'll quote Eric Lippert (who is a compiler wonk, and holds a Bachelor of Mathematics, Computer science and Applied Mathematics from University of Waterloo (source: LinkedIn):
...the core design principle of static methods, the principle that gives them their name...[is]...it can always be determined exactly, at compile time, what method will be called. That is, the method can be resolved solely by static analysis of the code.
Note that Lippert does leave room for a so-called type method:
That is, a method associated with a type (like a static), which does not take a non-nullable “this” argument (unlike an instance or virtual), but one where the method called would depend on the constructed type of T (unlike a static, which must be determinable at compile time).
but is yet to be convinced of its usefulness.
Most answers here seem to miss the whole point. Polymorphism can be used not only between instances, but also between types. This is often needed, when we use generics.
Suppose we have type parameter in generic method and we need to do some operation with it. We dont want to instantinate, because we are unaware of the constructors.
For example:
Repository GetRepository<T>()
{
//need to call T.IsQueryable, but can't!!!
//need to call T.RowCount
//need to call T.DoSomeStaticMath(int param)
}
...
var r = GetRepository<Customer>()
Unfortunately, I can come up only with "ugly" alternatives:
Use reflection
Ugly and beats the idea of interfaces and polymorphism.
Create completely separate factory class
This might greatly increase the complexity of the code. For example, if we are trying to model domain objects, each object would need another repository class.
Instantiate and then call the desired interface method
This can be hard to implement even if we control the source for the classes, used as generic parameters. The reason is that, for example we might need the instances to be only in well-known, "connected to DB" state.
Example:
public class Customer
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
//do work...
}
}
in order to use instantination for solving the static interface problem we need to do the following thing:
public class Customer: IDoSomeStaticMath
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
//dummy instance
public Customer() { IsDummy = true; }
int DoSomeStaticMath(int a) { }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
if(!IsDummy)
{
//do work...
}
}
}
This is obviously ugly and also unnecessary complicates the code for all other methods. Obviously, not an elegant solution either!
I know it's an old question, but it's interesting. The example isn't the best. I think it would be much clearer if you showed a usage case:
string DoSomething<T>() where T:ISomeFunction
{
if (T.someFunction())
...
}
Merely being able to have static methods implement an interface would not achieve what you want; what would be needed would be to have static members as part of an interface. I can certainly imagine many usage cases for that, especially when it comes to being able to create things. Two approaches I could offer which might be helpful:
Create a static generic class whose type parameter will be the type you'd be passing to DoSomething above. Each variation of this class will have one or more static members holding stuff related to that type. This information could supplied either by having each class of interest call a "register information" routine, or by using Reflection to get the information when the class variation's static constructor is run. I believe the latter approach is used by things like Comparer<T>.Default().
For each class T of interest, define a class or struct which implements IGetWhateverClassInfo<T> and satisfies a "new" constraint. The class won't actually contain any fields, but will have a static property which returns a static field with the type information. Pass the type of that class or struct to the generic routine in question, which will be able to create an instance and use it to get information about the other class. If you use a class for this purpose, you should probably define a static generic class as indicated above, to avoid having to construct a new descriptor-object instance each time. If you use a struct, instantiation cost should be nil, but every different struct type would require a different expansion of the DoSomething routine.
None of these approaches is really appealing. On the other hand, I would expect that if the mechanisms existed in CLR to provide this sort of functionality cleanly, .net would allow one to specify parameterized "new" constraints (since knowing if a class has a constructor with a particular signature would seem to be comparable in difficulty to knowing if it has a static method with a particular signature).
Short-sightedness, I'd guess.
When originally designed, interfaces were intended only to be used with instances of class
IMyInterface val = GetObjectImplementingIMyInterface();
val.SomeThingDefinedinInterface();
It was only with the introduction of interfaces as constraints for generics did adding a static method to an interface have a practical use.
(responding to comment:) I believe changing it now would require a change to the CLR, which would lead to incompatibilities with existing assemblies.
To the extent that interfaces represent "contracts", it seems quiet reasonable for static classes to implement interfaces.
The above arguments all seem to miss this point about contracts.
Interfaces specify behavior of an object.
Static methods do not specify a behavior of an object, but behavior that affects an object in some way.
Because the purpose of an interface is to allow polymorphism, being able to pass an instance of any number of defined classes that have all been defined to implement the defined interface... guaranteeing that within your polymorphic call, the code will be able to find the method you are calling. it makes no sense to allow a static method to implement the interface,
How would you call it??
public interface MyInterface { void MyMethod(); }
public class MyClass: MyInterface
{
public static void MyMethod() { //Do Something; }
}
// inside of some other class ...
// How would you call the method on the interface ???
MyClass.MyMethod(); // this calls the method normally
// not through the interface...
// This next fails you can't cast a classname to a different type...
// Only instances can be Cast to a different type...
MyInterface myItf = MyClass as MyInterface;
Actually, it does.
As of Mid-2022, the current version of C# has full support for so-called static abstract members:
interface INumber<T>
{
static abstract T Zero { get; }
}
struct Fraction : INumber<Fraction>
{
public static Fraction Zero { get; } = new Fraction();
public long Numerator;
public ulong Denominator;
....
}
Please note that depending on your version of Visual Studio and your installed .NET SDK, you'll either have to update at least one of them (or maybe both), or that you'll have to enable preview features (see Use preview features & preview language in Visual Studio).
See more:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/tutorials/static-virtual-interface-members
https://blog.ndepend.com/c-11-static-abstract-members/
https://khalidabuhakmeh.com/static-abstract-members-in-csharp-10-interfaces#:~:text=Static%20abstract%20members%20allow%20each,like%20any%20other%20interface%20definition.
Regarding static methods used in non-generic contexts I agree that it doesn't make much sense to allow them in interfaces, since you wouldn't be able to call them if you had a reference to the interface anyway. However there is a fundamental hole in the language design created by using interfaces NOT in a polymorphic context, but in a generic one. In this case the interface is not an interface at all but rather a constraint. Because C# has no concept of a constraint outside of an interface it is missing substantial functionality. Case in point:
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values)
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
Here there is no polymorphism, the generic uses the actual type of the object and calls the += operator, but this fails since it can't say for sure that that operator exists. The simple solution is to specify it in the constraint; the simple solution is impossible because operators are static and static methods can't be in an interface and (here is the problem) constraints are represented as interfaces.
What C# needs is a real constraint type, all interfaces would also be constraints, but not all constraints would be interfaces then you could do this:
constraint CHasPlusEquals
{
static CHasPlusEquals operator + (CHasPlusEquals a, CHasPlusEquals b);
}
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values) where T : CHasPlusEquals
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
There has been lots of talk already about making an IArithmetic for all numeric types to implement, but there is concern about efficiency, since a constraint is not a polymorphic construct, making a CArithmetic constraint would solve that problem.
Because interfaces are in inheritance structure, and static methods don't inherit well.
What you seem to want would allow for a static method to be called via both the Type or any instance of that type. This would at very least result in ambiguity which is not a desirable trait.
There would be endless debates about whether it mattered, which is best practice and whether there are performance issues doing it one way or another. By simply not supporting it C# saves us having to worry about it.
Its also likely that a compilier that conformed to this desire would lose some optimisations that may come with a more strict separation between instance and static methods.
You can think of the static methods and non-static methods of a class as being different interfaces. When called, static methods resolve to the singleton static class object, and non-static methods resolve to the instance of the class you deal with. So, if you use static and non-static methods in an interface, you'd effectively be declaring two interfaces when really we want interfaces to be used to access one cohesive thing.
To give an example where I am missing either static implementation of interface methods or what Mark Brackett introduced as the "so-called type method":
When reading from a database storage, we have a generic DataTable class that handles reading from a table of any structure. All table specific information is put in one class per table that also holds data for one row from the DB and which must implement an IDataRow interface. Included in the IDataRow is a description of the structure of the table to read from the database. The DataTable must ask for the datastructure from the IDataRow before reading from the DB. Currently this looks like:
interface IDataRow {
string GetDataSTructre(); // How to read data from the DB
void Read(IDBDataRow); // How to populate this datarow from DB data
}
public class DataTable<T> : List<T> where T : IDataRow {
public string GetDataStructure()
// Desired: Static or Type method:
// return (T.GetDataStructure());
// Required: Instantiate a new class:
return (new T().GetDataStructure());
}
}
The GetDataStructure is only required once for each table to read, the overhead for instantiating one more instance is minimal. However, it would be nice in this case here.
FYI: You could get a similar behavior to what you want by creating extension methods for the interface. The extension method would be a shared, non overridable static behavior. However, unfortunately, this static method would not be part of the contract.
Interfaces are abstract sets of defined available functionality.
Whether or not a method in that interface behaves as static or not is an implementation detail that should be hidden behind the interface. It would be wrong to define an interface method as static because you would be unnecessarily forcing the method to be implemented in a certain way.
If methods were defined as static, the class implementing the interface wouldn't be as encapsulated as it could be. Encapsulation is a good thing to strive for in object oriented design (I won't go into why, you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented). For this reason, static methods aren't permitted in interfaces.
Static classes should be able to do this so they can be used generically. I had to instead implement a Singleton to achieve the desired results.
I had a bunch of Static Business Layer classes that implemented CRUD methods like "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" for each entity type like "User", "Team", ect.. Then I created a base control that had an abstract property for the Business Layer class that implemented the CRUD methods. This allowed me to automate the "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" operations from the base class. I had to use a Singleton because of the Static limitation.
Most people seem to forget that in OOP Classes are objects too, and so they have messages, which for some reason c# calls "static method".
The fact that differences exist between instance objects and class objects only shows flaws or shortcomings in the language.
Optimist about c# though...
OK here is an example of needing a 'type method'. I am creating one of a set of classes based on some source XML. So I have a
static public bool IsHandled(XElement xml)
function which is called in turn on each class.
The function should be static as otherwise we waste time creating inappropriate objects.
As #Ian Boyde points out it could be done in a factory class, but this just adds complexity.
It would be nice to add it to the interface to force class implementors to implement it. This would not cause significant overhead - it is only a compile/link time check and does not affect the vtable.
However, it would also be a fairly minor improvement. As the method is static, I as the caller, must call it explicitly and so get an immediate compile error if it is not implemented. Allowing it to be specified on the interface would mean this error comes marginally earlier in the development cycle, but this is trivial compared to other broken-interface issues.
So it is a minor potential feature which on balance is probably best left out.
The fact that a static class is implemented in C# by Microsoft creating a special instance of a class with the static elements is just an oddity of how static functionality is achieved. It is isn't a theoretical point.
An interface SHOULD be a descriptor of the class interface - or how it is interacted with, and that should include interactions that are static. The general definition of interface (from Meriam-Webster): the place or area at which different things meet and communicate with or affect each other. When you omit static components of a class or static classes entirely, we are ignoring large sections of how these bad boys interact.
Here is a very clear example of where being able to use interfaces with static classes would be quite useful:
public interface ICrudModel<T, Tk>
{
Boolean Create(T obj);
T Retrieve(Tk key);
Boolean Update(T obj);
Boolean Delete(T obj);
}
Currently, I write the static classes that contain these methods without any kind of checking to make sure that I haven't forgotten anything. Is like the bad old days of programming before OOP.
C# and the CLR should support static methods in interfaces as Java does. The static modifier is part of a contract definition and does have meaning, specifically that the behavior and return value do not vary base on instance although it may still vary from call to call.
That said, I recommend that when you want to use a static method in an interface and cannot, use an annotation instead. You will get the functionality you are looking for.
Static Methods within an Interface are allowed as of c# 9 (see https://www.dotnetcurry.com/csharp/simpler-code-with-csharp-9).
I think the short answer is "because it is of zero usefulness".
To call an interface method, you need an instance of the type. From instance methods you can call any static methods you want to.
I think the question is getting at the fact that C# needs another keyword, for precisely this sort of situation. You want a method whose return value depends only on the type on which it is called. You can't call it "static" if said type is unknown. But once the type becomes known, it will become static. "Unresolved static" is the idea -- it's not static yet, but once we know the receiving type, it will be. This is a perfectly good concept, which is why programmers keep asking for it. But it didn't quite fit into the way the designers thought about the language.
Since it's not available, I have taken to using non-static methods in the way shown below. Not exactly ideal, but I can't see any approach that makes more sense, at least not for me.
public interface IZeroWrapper<TNumber> {
TNumber Zero {get;}
}
public class DoubleWrapper: IZeroWrapper<double> {
public double Zero { get { return 0; } }
}
As per Object oriented concept Interface implemented by classes and
have contract to access these implemented function(or methods) using
object.
So if you want to access Interface Contract methods you have to create object. It is always must that is not allowed in case of Static methods. Static classes ,method and variables never require objects and load in memory without creating object of that area(or class) or you can say do not require Object Creation.
Conceptually there is no reason why an interface could not define a contract that includes static methods.
For the current C# language implementation, the restriction is due to the allowance of inheritance of a base class and interfaces. If "class SomeBaseClass" implements "interface ISomeInterface" and "class SomeDerivedClass : SomeBaseClass, ISomeInterface" also implements the interface, a static method to implement an interface method would fail compile because a static method cannot have same signature as an instance method (which would be present in base class to implement the interface).
A static class is functionally identical to a singleton and serves the same purpose as a singleton with cleaner syntax. Since a singleton can implement an interface, interface implementations by statics are conceptually valid.
So it simply boils down to the limitation of C# name conflict for instance and static methods of the same name across inheritance. There is no reason why C# could not be "upgraded" to support static method contracts (interfaces).
An interface is an OOPS concept, which means every member of the interface should get used through an object or instance. Hence, an interface can not have static methods.
When a class implements an interface,it is creating instance for the interface members. While a static type doesnt have an instance,there is no point in having static signatures in an interface.
I have 2 objects that inherit from an interface i created which worked nicely. The Objects are injected into another object calls the methods of both the object. The methods of the objects perform some simple XML manipulation which is then returned to the worker object.
I now have a change request which affects one object that inherits from the interface but not the other and I'm at a loss as to how I should handle this. I've created a couple of new methods and I simply throw a not implemented exception if its not used. This doesn't seem "Best Practice" to me. What is the best way to handle this scenario?
I think that this is a situation where the Interface Segregation Principle comes in place.
If you find yourself having two objects for which it does not make sense to expose the same set of public members, then probably they should not implement the same interface. Or at least not only the same interface. You have two options here, depending on your application's logic:
Leave the original interface as is, and the first class (the one not needing extra methods) unmodified. Define a new interface only for the new methods, and make the second class implement both interfaces.
Define a new interface that inherits from the old one and contains the new methods. Leave your first class unmodified, and have your second class implement the new interface.
Implementing an interface and doing nothing more than throwing an exception in some methods is indeed a bad practice, as it breaks the Liskov substitution principle.
An interface doesn't "need" to be fully implemented... Even in .NET there are classes that implement partially an interface (and that throw NotSupportedException() when used in an "illegal" way)... For example arrays are IList<> that don't support Add() or Remove()...
Or the Stream abstract class, that has an additional "pattern": CanRead, CanWrite, CanSeek, ..., so there are methods, and properties that tell if it is legal to use those methods.
Another way is to use an additional interface, and try casting it with as operator. The Entity Framework for example "returns" IQueryable<T>, that "are" IEnumerable<T>... But those objects even support the IDbAsyncEnumerable<T> interface... but not all the IQueryable<T> are IDbAsyncEnumerable<T>. You have to do a cast and see if the interface is present or not.
You could extend the interface like this:
public interface SimpleInterface
{
void SimpleMethod();
void OtherMethod();
}
public interface ExpandedInterface : SimpleInterface
{
void ExpandedMethod();
void OtherExpandedMethod();
}
That way you could declare, on your client code, if you really need an expanded interface implementer (in which case you should pass only an instance of the subset of concrete classes that implement ExpandedInterface) or it is enough to use a SimpleInterface implementer (in which case you can pass either).
The situation you presented (needing to add funcion to one object, but not other) has more to do with the client code than the interface implementers themselves. You have to think: "in this client class, what do I really need: an instance of SimpleInterface, or an instance of ExtendedInterface?"
I use interfaces for decoupling my code. I am curious, is the usage of explicit interface implementation meant for hiding functionality?
Example:
public class MyClass : IInterface
{
void IInterface.NoneWillCall(int ragh) { }
}
What is the benefit and specific use case of making this available only explicitly via the interface?
There are two main uses for it in my experience:
It allows you to overload methods by return value. For example, IEnumerable<T> and IEnumerable both declare GetEnumerator() methods, but with different return types - so to implement both, you have to implement at least one of them explicitly. Of course in this question both methods are provided by interfaces, but sometimes you just want to give a "normal" method with a different type (usually a more specific one) to the one from the interface method.
It allows you to implement part of an interface in a "discouraging" way - for example, ReadOnlyCollection<T> implements IList<T>, but "discourages" the mutating calls using explicit interface implementation. This will discourage callers who know about an object by its concrete type from calling inappropriate methods. This smells somewhat of interfaces being too broad, or inappropriately implemented - why would you implement an interface if you couldn't fulfil all its contracts? - but in a pragmatic sense, it can be useful.
One example is ICloneable. By implementing it explicitly, you can have still have a strongly typed version:
public class MyClass : ICloneable {
object ICloneable.Clone() {
return this.Clone();
}
public MyClass Clone() {
return new MyClass() { ... };
}
}
It is not meant for hiding methods but to make it possible to implement two methods with the same signature/name from different interface in to different ways.
If both IA and IB have the operation F you can only implement a different method for each F by explicitly implementing the interfaces.
It can be used for hiding. For example, some classess that implement IDisposable do so explicitly because they also have a Close() method which does the same thing.
You can also use the explicit interface definitions for when you are implementing two interfaces on one class and there is a signature clash and the functionality differs depending on the interface. However, if that happens it is usually a sign that your class is doing too much and you should look at splitting the functionality out a bit.
I haven't quite got my head around interfaces so thought I'd word the question in a way that'd help me better understand it.
I'm following a tutorial which has had me make an IQueryable. Why couldn't I just make a Queryable?
Queryable is just a static class that contains extension methods to the IQueryable<T> interface. You wouldn't use Queryable directly in your code but rather invoke its methods given an IQueryable<T> instance.
Queryable is a static class that provides some convenient and useful methods to anything implementing IQueryable. You can't make it because it's already made. You need to make a new class that actually does what you want it to do, and implement IQueryable so other code written to use IQueryable (including Queryable) knows how to use it.
An interface is a contract that defines methods and properties, but there is no implementation in an interface.
A class implements the interface by supplying implementation for everything that is defined in the interface.
As an interface has no implementation, you can't create an instance of one. You have to create an instance of a class that implements the interface.
However, you can have a reference of the interface type, but it will point to an actual object. When you use the interface reference, you can use everything that is defined in the interface, but if the class contains more methods, you can't reach them without casting the reference to the actual class.
An interface does not imply how the class will be coded, only how the interaction with that class will be defined.
There may be many different implementations of a class that can query but that's unimportant as long as the interaction with all of those classes is the same.