We Keep Coding

inheritance of abstract class with static property in C#

Short version:
I have an abstract class A. It has a method that needs to know the value of a static class property that is specific to each subclass. The name and type is the same, just the value can be unique for each subclass.
Can I define this static property in the base class A to be able to access it with methods defined in A, but keeping the property's values of different subclasses unrelated?
Or how would I implement something like that?
Long version:
Let's say I have an abstract base class for data models. It has a public property Id (Int32).
I would like to implement a constructor in the base class that generates a new ID based on the last assigned ID for objects of a subclass.
The reason is that the real IDs are assigned automatically by the database, but each data model object already has to have a unique ID when it gets constructed without being written to the database yet. As the database assigns only positive integers as ID, my plan is to assign newly created data model objects a temporary, unique negative ID. As soon as the object gets written, the ID will get changed to the real one.
As I have quite a few different data model classes all deriving from my abstract base class, I thought it would be good to include that functionality there to not duplicate it. But each subclass has to have their own counter that points to the next free negative ID, as the different classes' IDs are unrelated.
So I need a static property in each subclass storing this class' last assigned temporary ID, but the mechanism to assign it is always the same and could be implemented into the abstract base class' constructor. However, I can't access a property from the base class that has to be implemented by the subclasses, which means I have to define it in the base class. But will this static property then be global for all subclasses, which is not what I want?
How can I implement this temporary ID counter the most elegant way?
Simplified code example:
public abstract class ModelBase
{
public Int32 Id { get; set; }
protected static Int32 LastTempId { get; set; } = 0;
public ModelBase()
{
Id = --LastTempId;
}
}
public class Model1 : ModelBase
{
public Model1 () : base ()
{
// do something model1-specific
}
}
public class Model2 : ModelBase
{
public Model2() : base()
{
// do something model2-specific
}
}
If I implement it like this, I fear that for both subclasses model1 and model2, the inherited static property LastTempId will be the same instance. But I want a separate counter for each subclass while still using it in the base class constructor.

Short answer
The sub-classes cannot have different values for the static property because the static property is a property of the class, not of it's instances, and it's not inherited.
Long answer
You could implement a single counter on the abstract class as a static property and have one constructor of the abstract class using it.
EDIT: To save different counters for each sub-class you could use a static dictionary mapping a Type (sub-class) to a counter.
public abstract class A<T>
{
public static Dictionary<Type, int> TempIDs = new Dictionary<Type, int>();
public int ID { get; set; }
public A()
{
if (!TempIDs.ContainsKey(typeof(T)))
TempIDs.Add(typeof(T), 0);
this.ID = TempIDs[typeof(T)] - 1;
TempIDs[typeof(T)]--;
}
}
public class B : A<B>
{
public string Foo { get; set; }
public B(string foo)
: base()
{
this.Foo = foo;
}
}
public class C : A<C>
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
public C(string bar)
: base()
{
this.Bar = bar;
}
}
B b1 = new B("foo");
B b2 = new B("bar");
C c1 = new C("foo");
C c2 = new C("foo");
b1.ID would be -1, b2.ID would be -2, c1.ID would be -1 and c2.ID would be -2

First of all, my humble opinion is entities shouldn't be responsible of assigning their own unique identifier. Keep a clear separation of concerns.
There should be another player in that game that should assign those temporary unique identifiers (either if they're negative or positive integers).
Usually, that so-called other player is an implementation of repository design pattern which is responsible of translating the domain (your models) into the definitive representation of your data and vice versa.
Usually a repository has a method to add objects. And this should be the point where you set these temporary identifiers:
public void Add(Some some)
{
some.Id = [call method here to set the whole id];
}
And, most repository implementations are per entity.
CustomerRepository
InvoiceRepository
...
...but this doesn't prevent you from defining a base repository class which could implement what can be in common when handling some entity types:
public interface IRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : EntityBase
{
// Other repository methods should be defined here
// but I just define Add for the convenience of this
// Q&A
void Add(TEntity entity);
}
public class Repository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity>
where TEntity : EntityBase
{
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
entity.Id = [call method here to set the whole id];
}
}
...and now any class deriving Repository<TEntity> will be able to generate a temporary identifier for their specialized entities:
public class CustomerRepository : Repository<Customer> { }
public class InvoiceRepository : Repository<Invoice> { }
How you could implement the unique and temporary entity identifier as part of the abstract repository class and being able to do so for each specific entity type?
Use a dictionary to store per-entity last assigned identifier implementing a property to Repository<TEntity>:
public Dictionary<Type, int> EntityIdentifiers { get; } = new Dictionary<Type, int>();
...and a method to decrease next temporary identifier:
private static readonly object _syncLock = new object();
protected virtual void GetNextId()
{
int nextId;
// With thread-safety to avoid unwanted scenarios.
lock(_syncLock)
{
// Try to get last entity type id. Maybe the id doesn't exist
// and out parameter will set default Int32 value (i.e. 0).
bool init = EntityIdentifiers.TryGetValue(typeof(TEntity), out nextId);
// Now decrease once nextId and set it to EntityIdentifiers
nextId--;
if(!init)
EntityIdentifiers[typeof(TEntity)] = nextId;
else
EntityIdentifiers.Add(typeof(TEntity), nextId);
}
return nextId;
}
Finally, your Add method could look as follows:
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
entity.Id = GetNextId();
}

One way to go is reflection, but it takes run-time and is prone to runtime errors. As others mentioned: you cannot force inheriting classes to redeclare some static field and be able to use this field in ancestor class. So I think minimal code redundancy is necessary: each inheriting class should provide it's own key generator. This generator can be kept in static field of the class of course.
(Note this is not necessarily thread-safe.)
class KeyGenerator
{
private int _value = 0;
public int NextId()
{
return --this._value;
}
}
abstract class ModelBase
{
private KeyGenerator _generator;
public ModelBase(KeyGenerator _generator)
{
this._generator = _generator;
}
public void SaveObject()
{
int id = this._generator.NextId();
Console.WriteLine("Saving " + id.ToString());
}
}
class Car : ModelBase
{
private static KeyGenerator carKeyGenerator = new KeyGenerator();
public Car()
: base(carKeyGenerator)
{
}
}
class Food : ModelBase
{
private static KeyGenerator foodKeyGenerator = new KeyGenerator();
public Food()
: base(foodKeyGenerator)
{
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Food food1 = new Food();
Food food2 = new Food();
Car car1 = new Car();
food1.SaveObject();
food2.SaveObject();
car1.SaveObject();
}
}
This produces:
Saving -1
Saving -2
Saving -1

Just generate a GUID for each object before it gets added to your database. You could have an isAdded flag that tells you the object should be referred to be GUID, or clear the GUID once the object is added. With a GUID you never have to worry that two objects will clash. Also it obviates the need for separate IDs per subclass. I would not reuse the same property for two states as you propose.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.guid(v=vs.110).aspx

Well, static classes aren't inherited, so that's out,m and you can't force subclasses to implement a static method, so that's out too.
Rather than putting that method in the class itself, why not have a base interface that you can implement. Then you can have an instance method that can be abstract:
public interface IDataModelFactory<T> where T:ModelBase
{
int GetLastTempId();
}
public Model1Factory : IDataModelFactory<Model1>
{
public int GetLastTempId()
{
// logic for Model1
}
}
public Model2Factory : IDataModelFactory<Model2>
{
public int GetLastTempId()
{
// logic for Model2
}
}
Or if the logic is common to all classes, have an abstract base class with (or without) the interface:
public DataModelFactory<T> : IDataModelFactory<T>
{
public virtual int GetLastTempId()
{
// common logic
}
// other common logic
}
You could even make the factories singletons so you don't have to create instances all the time, and they can even be sub-classes of the model classes so they're closely linked.
As a side note, if you're uncertain what the inheritance/interface relationship would be, I often find it's quicker start with copy/paste reuse and refactor your code to introduce base classes and interfaces. That way you know what the common code is and can refactor that into common methods. Otherwise you are tempted to try and put everything in the base class and use switches or other constructs to change logic based on the derived type.

What is the best way to define a static property which is defined once per sub-class?

I wrote the following console app to test static properties:
using System;
namespace StaticPropertyTest
{
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public static int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedAlpha : BaseClass
{
}
public class DerivedBeta : BaseClass
{
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
DerivedBeta.MyProperty = 7;
Console.WriteLine(DerivedAlpha.MyProperty); // outputs 7
}
}
}
As this console app demonstrates, the MyProperty property exists once for all instances of BaseClass. Is there a pattern to use which would allow me to define a static property which will have allocated storage for each sub-class type?
Given the above example, I would like all instances of DerivedAlpha to share the same static property, and all instances of DerivedBeta to share another instance of the static property.
Why am I trying to do this?
I am lazily initializing a collection of class property names with certain attributes (via reflection). The property names will be identical for each derived class instance, so it seems wasteful to store this in each class instance. I can't make it static in the base class, because different sub-classes will have different properties.
I don't want to replicate the code which populates the collection (via reflection) in each derived class. I know that one possible solution is to define the method to populate the collection in the base class, and call it from each derived class, but this is not the most elegant solution.
Update - Example of what I'm doing
At Jon's request, here's an example of what I'm trying to do. Basically, I can optionally decorate properties in my classes with the [SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)] attribute (there are other attributes, this is just a simplified example).
public class BaseEntity
{
// I want this property to be static but exist once per derived class.
public List<string> PropertiesWithDoNotInclude { get; set; }
public BaseEntity()
{
// Code here will populate PropertiesWithDoNotInclude with
// all properties in class marked with
// SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude.
//
// I want this code to populate this property to run once per
// derived class type, and be stored statically but per class type.
}
}
public class FooEntity : BaseEntity
{
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_A { get; set; }
public int? Property_B { get; set; }
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_C { get; set; }
}
public class BarEntity : BaseEntity
{
public int? Property_D { get; set; }
[SalesRelationship(SalesRelationshipRule.DoNotInclude)]
public int? Property_E { get; set; }
public int? Property_F { get; set; }
}
Desired end result
Accessing FooEntity.PropertiesWithDoNotInclude returns a List<string> of:
{
"Property_A",
"Property_C"
}
Accessing BarEntity.PropertiesWithDoNotInclude returns a List<string> of:
{
"Property_E"
}

Two possible approaches:
Use attributes; decorate each subclass with an attribute, e.g.
[MyProperty(5)]
public class DerivedAlpha
{
}
[MyProperty(10)]
public class DerivedBeta
{
}
That only works when they're effectively constants, of course.
Use a dictionary:
var properties = new Dictionary<Type, int>
{
{ typeof(DerivedAlpha), 5) },
{ typeof(DerivedBeta), 10) },
};
EDIT: Now that we have more context, Ben's answer is a really good one, using the way that generics work in C#. It's like the dictionary example, but with laziness, thread-safety and simple global access all built in.

Jon has a good solution as usual, although I don't see what good attributes do here, since they have to be explicitly added to every subtype and they don't act like properties.
The Dictionary approach can definitely work. Here's another way to do that, which explicitly declares that there will be one variable per subclass of BaseEntity:
class FilteredProperties<T> where T : BaseEntity
{
static public List<string> Values { get; private set; }
// or static public readonly List<string> Values = new List<string>();
static FilteredProperties()
{
// logic to populate the list goes here
}
}
The drawback of this is that it's rather difficult to pair with a GetType() call such as you might use in methods of BaseEntity. A Dictionary, or wrapper thereto which implements lazy population, is better for that usage.

I just recently needed this same thing and came across this question. I think Jon's and Fried's ideas to use a Dictionary are on the right track but don't quite hit what I was looking for so I thought I'd show my own complete and very easy to extend implementation.
public class TypeStaticProperty<T>
{
T _defaultValue;
Dictionary<Type, T> _values = new Dictionary<Type, T>();
public TypeStaticProperty(T defalutValue = default)
{
_defaultValue = defalutValue;
}
public T Get(object caller)
{
lock (_values)
{
if (_values.TryGetValue(caller?.GetType(), out T val))
return val;
else
return _defaultValue;
}
}
public void Set(object caller, T val)
{
lock (_values)
_values[caller?.GetType()] = val;
}
}
And to demonstrate:
class TestBaseClass
{
static TypeStaticProperty<int> _property = new TypeStaticProperty<int>();
public int Property
{
get => _property.Get(this);
set => _property.Set(this, value);
}
}
class TestClass1 : TestBaseClass
{
}
class TestClass2 : TestBaseClass
{
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestClass1 test1a = new TestClass1();
TestClass1 test1b = new TestClass1();
test1a.Property = 1;
test1b.Property = 2;
TestClass2 test2a = new TestClass2();
TestClass2 test2b = new TestClass2();
test2a.Property = 3;
test2b.Property = 4;
Console.WriteLine($"test1a.Property = {test1a.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test1b.Property = {test1b.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test2a.Property = {test2a.Property}");
Console.WriteLine($"test2b.Property = {test2b.Property}");
}
}
Output:
test1a.Property = 2
test1b.Property = 2
test2a.Property = 4
test2b.Property = 4
So while you still need a class instance to access and set the property, the value will always be the same across all instances of that precise type. (This includes generics too; Foo<int> will be seen as a different type than Foo<string>). This has the huge advantage over Fried's example in that you don't need to know at compile time the precise type whose "static" value you're looking for when accessing or setting.
PS - For full disclosure, this was heavily inspired by the WPF source code, which uses a very similar pattern for DependencyProperty's and all kinds of other internal bells and whistles designed to improve performance and reduce memory footprint.

Wildcard equivalent in C# generics

Let's say I have a generic class as follows:
public class GeneralPropertyMap<T>
{
}
In some other class I have a method that takes in an array of GeneralPropertyMap<T>. In Java, in order to take in an array that contains any type of GeneralPropertyMap the method would look like this:
private void TakeGeneralPropertyMap(GeneralPropertyMap<?>[] maps)
{
}
We use the wildcard so that later we can call TakeGeneralPropertyMap passing a bunch of GeneralPropertyMap with any type for T each, like this:
GeneralPropertyMap<?>[] maps = new GeneralPropertyMap<?>[3];
maps[0] = new GeneralPropertyMap<String>();
maps[1] = new GeneralPropertyMap<Integer>();
maps[2] = new GeneralPropertyMap<Double>();
//And finally pass the array in.
TakeGeneralPropertyMap(maps);
I'm trying to figure out an equivalent in C# with no success. Any ideas?

Generics in C# make stronger guarantees than generics in Java. Therefore, to do what you want in C#, you have to let the GeneralPropertyMap<T> class inherit from a non-generic version of that class (or interface).
public class GeneralPropertyMap<T> : GeneralPropertyMap
{
}
public class GeneralPropertyMap
{
// Only you can implement it:
internal GeneralPropertyMap() { }
}
Now you can do:
private void TakeGeneralPropertyMap(GeneralPropertyMap[] maps)
{
}
And:
GeneralPropertyMap[] maps = new GeneralPropertyMap[3];
maps[0] = new GeneralPropertyMap<String>();
maps[1] = new GeneralPropertyMap<Integer>();
maps[2] = new GeneralPropertyMap<Double>();
TakeGeneralPropertyMap(maps);

While, as others have noted, there's no exact correspondence to wildcards in c#, some of their use cases can be covered with covariance/contravariance.
public interface IGeneralPropertyMap<out T> {} // a class can't be covariant, so
// we need to introduce an interface...
public class GeneralPropertyMap<T> : IGeneralPropertyMap<T> {} // .. and have our class
// inherit from it
//now our method becomes something like
private void TakeGeneralPropertyMap<T>(IList<IGeneralPropertyMap<T>> maps){}
// and you can do
var maps = new List<IGeneralPropertyMap<Object>> {
new GeneralPropertyMap<String>(),
new GeneralPropertyMap<Regex>()
};
//And finally pass the array in.
TakeGeneralPropertyMap<Object>(maps);
The caveat is that you can't use covariance with value types, so adding a new GeneralPropertyMap<int>() to our list fails at compile time.
cannot convert from 'GeneralPropertyMap<int>' to 'IGeneralPropertyMap<object>'
This approach may be more convenient than having a non-generic version of your classes/interfaces in case you want to constrain the types that GeneralPropertyMap can contain. In that case:
public interface IMyType {}
public class A : IMyType {}
public class B : IMyType {}
public class C : IMyType {}
public interface IGeneralPropertyMap<out T> where T : IMyType {}
allows you to have:
var maps = new List<IGeneralPropertyMap<IMyType>> {
new GeneralPropertyMap<A>(),
new GeneralPropertyMap<B>() ,
new GeneralPropertyMap<C>()
};
TakeGeneralPropertyMap(maps);

There is no direct equivalent to this in C#.
In C#, this would often be done by having your generic class implement a non-generic interface or base class:
interface IPropertyMap
{
// Shared properties
}
public class GeneralPropertyMap<T> : IPropertyMap
{
}
You could then pass an array of these:
IPropertyMap[] maps = new IPropertyMap[3];
// ...
TakePropertyMap(maps);

Make an interface from the members of GeneralPropertyMap (IGeneralPropertyMap), and then take an IGeneralPropertyMap[] as an argument.

Actually, you can get pretty close to a wildcard by using dynamic. This also works nicely if you have a non-generic superclass.
For example:
public class A
{
// ...
}
public class B<T> : A
{
// ...
}
public class Program
{
public static A MakeA() { return new A(); }
public static A MakeB() { return new B<string>(); }
public static void Visit<T>(B<T> b)
{
Console.WriteLine("This is B with type "+typeof(T).FullName);
}
public static void Visit(A a)
{
Console.WriteLine("This is A");
}
public static void Main()
{
A instA = MakeA();
A instB = MakeB();
// This calls the appropriate methods.
Visit((dynamic)instA);
Visit((dynamic)instB);
// This calls Visit(A a) twice.
Visit(instA);
Visit(instB);
}
}
How this works is explained in the C# documentation here.

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.

Can I force a subclass to declare a constant?

I want to force subclasses to define a constant value.
Like
const string SomeConstantEverySubclassMustDefine = "abc";
I need that because I need to have it tied to the Type, rather than to the instance and you can't override static Methods/Properties iirc.
I'd really like to have a compile-time check for those constants.
Let me explain in more detail:
Some classes in our Domain-Model are special, you can take certain actions for them, depending on the type. Thus the logic is tied to the type. The action to be taken requires a string tied to the type. I sure could create an instance everytime as a workaround and declare an abstract property, but that's not what I want. I want to enforce the declaration of the string at compile-time, just to be sure.

No, you can't. I would suggest you make your base class abstract, with an abstract property which you can fetch when you want. Each child class can then implement the property just by returning a constant if it wants. The downside is that you can't use this within static methods in the base class - but those aren't associated with the child classes anyway.
(It also allows child classes to customise the property per instance as well, if necessary... but that's rarely an actual problem.)
If this doesn't do enough for you, you might want to consider a parallel type hierarchy. Basically polymorphism simply doesn't happen in a type-specific way in .NET; only in an instance-specific way.
If you still want to do this and fetch it with reflection, I suggest you just write unit tests to ensure that the relevant constants are defined. When you get beyond what the type system can describe, that's often the best you can do.

Make an abstract property with only a get. That's what I think you could do to enforce a class has a value. Then you can just return a constant in the property.
Example:
Base class:
public abstract string MyConst { get; }
Derived class:
public override string MyConst {
get { return "constant"; }
}

Here is how I made mine work. I used Attribute as others have suggested.
public class ObjectAttribute : Attribute
{
public int ObjectSize { get; set; }
public ObjectAttribute(int objectSize)
{
this.ObjectSize = objectSize;
}
}
public abstract class BaseObject
{
public static int GetObjectSize<T>() where T : IPacket
{
ObjectAttribute[] attributes = (ObjectAttribute[])typeof(T).GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ObjectAttribute), false);
return attributes.Length > 0 ? attributes[0].ObjectSize : 0;
}
}
[ObjectAttribute(15)]
public class AObject : BaseObject
{
public string Code { get; set; }
public int Height { get; set; }
}
[ObjectAttribute(25)]
public class BObject : BaseObject
{
public string Code { get; set; }
public int Weight { get; set; }
}
If you would like instance access to the attribute just add it to the base abstract class.
public abstract class BaseObject
{
public static int GetObjectSize<T>() where T : IPacket
{
ObjectAttribute[] attributes = (ObjectAttribute[])typeof(T).GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ObjectAttribute), false);
return attributes.Length > 0 ? attributes[0].ObjectSize : 0;
}
public int ObjectSize
{
get
{
ObjectAttribute[] attributes = (ObjectAttribute[])GetType().GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ObjectAttribute), false);
return attributes.Length > 0 ? attributes[0].ObjectSize : 0;
}
}
}
Usage of the constants
int constantValueA = AObject.GetObjectSize<AObject>();
int constantValueB = BObject.GetObjectSize<BObject>();
AObject aInstance = new AObject();
int instanceValueA = aInstance.ObjectSize;

New idea
Here's a sort of weird idea: instead of using inheritance directly, you create a separate class to provide a constant value for every type deriving from some type T. The constructor for this type uses reflection to verify that every derived type has indeed been supplied a value.
public abstract class Constant<T, TConstant>
{
private Dictionary<Type, TConstant> _constants;
protected Constant()
{
_constants = new Dictionary<Type, TConstant>();
// Here any class deriving from Constant<T, TConstant>
// should put a value in the dictionary for every type
// deriving from T, using the DefineConstant method below.
DefineConstants();
EnsureConstantsDefinedForAllTypes();
}
protected abstract void DefineConstants();
protected void DefineConstant<U>(TConstant constant) where U : T
{
_constants[typeof(U)] = constant;
}
private void EnsureConstantsDefinedForAllTypes()
{
Type baseType = typeof(T);
// Here we discover all types deriving from T
// and verify that each has a key present in the
// dictionary.
var appDomain = AppDomain.CurrentDomain;
var assemblies = appDomain.GetAssemblies();
var types = assemblies
.SelectMany(a => a.GetTypes())
.Where(t => baseType.IsAssignableFrom(t));
foreach (Type t in types)
{
if (!_constants.ContainsKey(t))
{
throw new Exception(
string.Format("No constant defined for type '{0}'.", t)
);
}
}
}
public TConstant GetValue<U>() where U : T
{
return _constants[typeof(U)];
}
}
Basic example:
public class BaseType
{
public static Constant<BaseType, string> Description { get; private set; }
static BaseType()
{
Description = new BaseTypeDescription();
}
}
public class DerivedType : BaseType
{ }
internal sealed class BaseTypeDescription : Constant<BaseType, string>
{
public BaseTypeDescription() : base()
{ }
protected override DefineConstants()
{
DefineConstant<BaseType>("A base type");
DefineConstant<DerivedType>("A derived type");
}
}
Now I have code that allows me to do this:
var description = BaseType.Description;
// returns "A base type"
string baseTypeDescription = description.GetValue<BaseType>();
// returns "A derived type"
string derivedTypeDescription = description.GetValue<DerivedType>();
Original answer
You may not like it, but the closest way to accomplish this is by declaring an abstract read-only (no set) property.
If you've got an instance of your subclass, then this can work just as well as a constant, even though it is technically instance-level (it will just be the same for all instances of the given class).
Consider, for instance, IList.IsReadOnly. In most cases this is actually a property that tells you about the underlying class implementation, as opposed to any state specific to a particular instance. (It may be an interface member as opposed to an abstract class member, but it's the same idea.)
If you are trying to access it statically, well... then you're out of luck. But in this case I fail to see how you'd obtain the value without using reflection anyway. Maybe that's your intention; I don't know.

You could have a static method in the base class called, for instance "Register", that is passed a Type and a constant value, with the intention being that it is called by the class constructors of the subtypes. Then, add a check in all of your base class constructors that the object being constructed is of a registered type.
abstract class Base
{
private static Dictionary<Type, string> _registry = new Dictionary<Type, string>();
protected static void Register(Type t, string constVal)
{
_registry.Add(t, constVal);
}
protected Base()
{
if(!_registry.ContainsKey(this.GetType()))
throw new NotSupportedException("Type must have a registered constant");
}
public string TypeConstant
{
get
{
return _registry[this.GetType()];
}
}
}
class GoodSubtype : Base
{
static GoodSubtype()
{
Base.Register(typeof(GoodSubtype), "Good");
}
public GoodSubtype()
: base()
{
}
}
class Badsubtype : Base
{
public Badsubtype()
: base()
{
}
}
And then elsewhere, you can construct GoodSubtype instances, but trying to construct a Badsubtype gets an exception. I think a runtime error at construction is the soonest you can get an error with this type of scheme.
(You'd want to use ConcurrentDictionary for your registry if threading is involved)

There's one other method that hasn't been covered and it uses the new modifier to hide consts values in the base class. In a way, it's similar to Nap's solution, but doesn't allow per-instance access and therefore doesn't allow for polymorphic access within the base class. This solution is only useful if you want to have constant value defined but wish to have the option of changing it to different values in different subclasses.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("BaseClass.MyConst = {0}, ClassA.MyConst = {1}, ClassB.MyConst = {2}", BaseClass.MyConst, ClassA.MyConst, ClassB.MyConst);
Console.ReadKey();
}
class BaseClass
{
public const int MyConst = 1;
}
class ClassA : BaseClass
{
public new const int MyConst = 2;
}
class ClassB : BaseClass
{
}