We Keep Coding

How to define a Class which is accessible in all classes in C#?

Am new to C#, but have a plenty of experience of VB.net, now my issue is that there are no modules in C# and i need to define a class which is accessible in all classes and i don't know how to do it.
For example I have a "classProject" and I need to make it accessible everywhere, so in vb.net , I will define it in module like below.
Module ModuleMain
Public tProject As New ClassProject
End Module
Now, I need to do same in C#.
Thanks in advance.

You can do this in your case:
namespace MyProject
{
public static class classProject
{
int myIntvar = 0;
string myStringvar = "test";
}
}
And you can use this static class in your other classes like:
public class Test
{
int intTest = classProject.myIntvar; //will be 0
string stringTest = classProject.myStringvar; // will be test
}
You can use the variables in the static class since a static variable shares the value of it among all instances of the class. When you create multiple instances of classProject class, the variables myIntvar and myStringvar are shared across all of other classes in your project. Thus, at any given point of time, there will be only one integer and one string value contained in the respective variable's.

It sounds like you're looking for a static class. You can reference the access modifiers here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/access-modifiers

I think you need to extends your other classes to class father (ClassProject) And you can access to it with youur children classes.

//[access modifier] - [class] - [identifier]
public class Customer
{
// Fields, properties, methods and events go here...
}
see more

C# use static class properties as if they were namespaced?

I am trying to create a class to hold all my global constants, e.g.:
namespace MyProj
{
public static class Constants
{
public const string MY_STRING = "this needs to be used ad nauseum";
}
}
This works great. However, the result is that in code I have to always type:
doSomethingWith(Constants.MY_STRING);
When what I really want to be able to do is go (something like):
using MyProj.Constants;
doSomethingWith(MY_STRING);
How can I achieve this?

Add static to your using:
using static MyProj.Constants;
Details here.

c# use base type generic parameter type name in derived class [duplicate]

I want to create an alias for a class name. The following syntax would be perfect:
public class LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionsOrDomainSpecificName
{
...
}
public class MyName = LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionOrDomainSpecificName;
but it won't compile.
Example
Note This example is provided for convenience only. Don't try to solve this particular problem by suggesting changing the design of the entire system. The presence, or lack, of this example doesn't change the original question.
Some existing code depends on the presence of a static class:
public static class ColorScheme
{
...
}
This color scheme is the Outlook 2003 color scheme. i want to introduce an Outlook 2007 color scheme, while retaining the Outlook 2003 color scheme:
public static class Outlook2003ColorScheme
{
...
}
public static class Outlook2007ColorScheme
{
...
}
But i'm still faced with the fact that the code depends on the presence of a static class called ColorScheme. My first thought was to create a ColorScheme class that I will inherit from either Outlook2003 or Outlook2007:
public static class ColorScheme : Outlook2007ColorScheme
{
}
but you cannot inherit from a static class.
My next thought was to create the static ColorScheme class, but make Outlook2003ColorScheme and Outlook2007ColorScheme classes non-static. Then a static variable in the static ColorScheme class can point to either "true" color scheme:
public static class ColorScheme
{
private static CustomColorScheme = new Outlook2007ColorScheme();
...
}
private class CustomColorScheme
{
...
}
private class Outlook2008ColorScheme : CustomColorScheme
{
...
}
private class Outlook2003ColorScheme : CustomColorScheme
{
...
}
but that would require me to convert a class composed entirly of readonly static Colors into overridable properties, and then my ColorScheme class would need to have the 30 different property getters thunk down into the contained object.
That's just too much typing.
So my next thought was to alias the class:
public static ColorScheme = Outlook2007ColorScheme;
But that doesn't compile.
How can I alias a static class into another name?
Update: Can someone please add the answer "You cannot do this in C#", so I can mark that as the accepted answer. Anyone else wanting the answer to the same question will find this question, the accepted answer, and a number of workarounds that might, or might not, be useful.
I just want to close this question out.

You can’t. The next best thing you can do is have using declarations in the files that use the class.
For example, you could rewrite the dependent code using an import alias (as a quasi-typedef substitute):
using ColorScheme = The.Fully.Qualified.Namespace.Outlook2007ColorScheme;
Unfortunately this needs to go into every scope/file that uses the name.
I therefore don't know if this is practical in your case.

You can make an alias for your class by adding this line of code:
using Outlook2007ColorScheme = YourNameSpace.ColorScheme;

You cannot alias a class name in C#.
There are things you can do that are not aliasing a class name in C#.
But to answer the original question: you cannot alias a class name in C#.
Update: People are confused why using doesn't work. Example:
Form1.cs
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.BackColor = ColorScheme.ApplyColorScheme(this.BackColor);
}
ColorScheme.cs
class ColorScheme
{
public static Color ApplyColorScheme(Color c) { ... }
}
And everything works. Now i want to create a new class, and alias ColorScheme to it (so that no code needs to be modified):
ColorScheme.cs
using ColorScheme = Outlook2007ColorScheme;
class Outlook2007ColorScheme
{
public static Color ApplyColorScheme(Color c) { ... }
}
Ohh, i'm sorry. This code doesn't compile:
My question was how to alias a class in C#. It cannot be done. There are things i can do that are not aliasing a class name in C#:
change everyone who depends on ColorScheme to using ColorScheme instead (code change workaround because i cannot alias)
change everyone who depends on ColorScheme to use a factory pattern them a polymorphic class or interface (code change workaround because i cannot alias)
But these workarounds involve breaking existing code: not an option.
If people depend on the presence of a ColorScheme class, i have to actually copy/paste a ColorScheme class.
In other words: i cannot alias a class name in C#.
This contrasts with other object oriented languages, where i could define the alias:
ColorScheme = Outlook2007ColorScheme
and i'd be done.

You want a (Factory|Singleton), depending on your requirements. The premise is to make it so that the client code doesn't have to know which color scheme it is getting. If the color scheme should be application wide, a singleton should be fine. If you may use a different scheme in different circumstances, a Factory pattern is probably the way to go. Either way, when the color scheme needs to change, the code only has to be changed in one place.
public interface ColorScheme {
Color TitleBar { get; }
Color Background{ get; }
...
}
public static class ColorSchemeFactory {
private static ColorScheme scheme = new Outlook2007ColorScheme();
public static ColorScheme GetColorScheme() { //Add applicable arguments
return scheme;
}
}
public class Outlook2003ColorScheme: ColorScheme {
public Color TitleBar {
get { return Color.LightBlue; }
}
public Color Background {
get { return Color.Gray; }
}
}
public class Outlook2007ColorScheme: ColorScheme {
public Color TitleBar {
get { return Color.Blue; }
}
public Color Background {
get { return Color.White; }
}
}

try this:
using ColorScheme=[fully qualified].Outlook2007ColorScheme

I'm adding this comment for users finding this long after OP accepted their "answer".
Aliasing in C# works by specifying the class name using it's fully qualified namespace. One defined, the alias name can be used within it's scope.
Example.
using aliasClass = Fully.Qualified.Namespace.Example;
//Example being the class in the Fully.Qualified.Namespace
public class Test{
public void Test_Function(){
aliasClass.DoStuff();
//aliasClass here representing the Example class thus aliasing
//aliasClass will be in scope for all code in my Test.cs file
}
}
Apologies for the quickly typed code but hopefully it explains how this should be implemented so that users aren't mislead into believing it cannot be done in C#.

Aliasing the way that you would like to do it will not work in C#. This is because aliasing is done through the using directive, which is limited to the file/namespace in question. If you have 50 files that use the old class name, that will mean 50 places to update.
That said, I think there is an easy solution to make your code change as minimal as possible. Make the ColorScheme class a facade for your calls to the actual classes with the implementation, and use the using in that file to determine which ColorScheme you use.
In other words, do this:
using CurrentColorScheme = Outlook2007ColorScheme;
public static class ColorScheme
{
public static Color ApplyColorScheme(Color c)
{
return CurrentColorScheme.ApplyColorScheme(c);
}
public static Something DoSomethingElse(Param a, Param b)
{
return CurrentColorScheme.DoSomethingElse(a, b);
}
}
Then in your code behind, change nothing:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.BackColor = ColorScheme.ApplyColorScheme(this.BackColor);
}
You can then update the values of ColorScheme by updating one line of code (using CurrentColorScheme = Outlook2008ColorScheme;).
A couple concerns here:
Every new method or property definition will then need to be added in two places, to the ColorScheme class and to the Outlook2007ColorScheme class. This is extra work, but if this is true legacy code, it shouldn't be a frequent occurence. As a bonus, the code in ColorScheme is so simple that any possible bug is very obvious.
This use of static classes doesn't seem natural to me; I probably would try to refactor the legacy code to do this differently, but I understand too that your situation may not allow that.
If you already have a ColorScheme class that you're replacing, this approach and any other could be a problem. I would advise that you rename that class to something like ColorSchemeOld, and then access it through using CurrentColorScheme = ColorSchemeOld;.

I suppose you can always inherit from the base class with nothing added
public class Child : MyReallyReallyLongNamedClass {}
UPDATE
But if you have the capability of refactoring the class itself: A class name is usually unnecessarily long due to lack of namespaces.
If you see cases as ApiLoginUser, DataBaseUser, WebPortalLoginUser, is usually indication of lack of namespace due the fear that the name User might conflict.
In this case however, you can use namespace alias ,as it has been pointed out in above posts
using LoginApi = MyCompany.Api.Login;
using AuthDB = MyCompany.DataBase.Auth;
using ViewModels = MyCompany.BananasPortal.Models;
// ...
AuthDB.User dbUser;
using ( var ctxt = new AuthDB.AuthContext() )
{
dbUser = ctxt.Users.Find(userId);
}
var apiUser = new LoginApi.Models.User {
Username = dbUser.EmailAddess,
Password = "*****"
};
LoginApi.UserSession apiUserSession = await LoginApi.Login(apiUser);
var vm = new ViewModels.User(apiUserSession.User.Details);
return View(vm);
Note how the class names are all User, but in different namespaces. Quoting PEP-20: Zen of Python:
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Hope this helps

Is it possible to change to using an interface?
Perhaps you could create an IColorScheme interface that all of the classes implement?
This would work well with the factory pattern as shown by Chris Marasti-Georg

It's a very late partial answer - but if you define the same class 'ColorScheme', in the same namespace 'Outlook', but in separate assemblies, one called Outlook2003 and the other Outlook2007, then all you need to do is reference the appropriate assembly.

The best way I've found to simulate alias in C# is inheritance.
Create a new class that inherits from the original class:
public class LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionsOrDomainSpecificName
{
...
}
public class MyName
: LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionOrDomainSpecificName
{
}
The only thing that you would need to be careful is the constructor. You need to provide a a constructor for MyName class.
public class MyName
: LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionOrDomainSpecificName
{
public MyName(T1 param1, T2 param2) : base(param1, param2) {}
}
In this example I'm using T1 and T2 as generic types, since I don't know the constructor for your LongClassNameOrOneThatContainsVersionOrDomainSpecificName class.
Beware, though, that this is not alias. Doing this to you application might run into some issues or problems. You might need to create some extra code to check for types, or even overload some operators.

Get name of property static as a string [duplicate]

I am getting into C# and I am having this issue:
namespace MyDataLayer
{
namespace Section1
{
public class MyClass
{
public class MyItem
{
public static string Property1{ get; set; }
}
public static MyItem GetItem()
{
MyItem theItem = new MyItem();
theItem.Property1 = "MyValue";
return theItem;
}
}
}
}
I have this code on a UserControl:
using MyDataLayer.Section1;
public class MyClass
{
protected void MyMethod
{
MyClass.MyItem oItem = new MyClass.MyItem();
oItem = MyClass.GetItem();
someLiteral.Text = oItem.Property1;
}
}
Everything works fine, except when I go to access Property1. The intellisense only gives me "Equals, GetHashCode, GetType, and ToString" as options. When I mouse over the oItem.Property1, Visual Studio gives me this explanation:
MemberMyDataLayer.Section1.MyClass.MyItem.Property1.getcannot be accessed with an instance reference, qualify it with a type name instead
I am unsure of what this means, I did some googling but wasn't able to figure it out.

In C#, unlike VB.NET and Java, you can't access static members with instance syntax. You should do:
MyClass.MyItem.Property1
to refer to that property or remove the static modifier from Property1 (which is what you probably want to do). For a conceptual idea about what static is, see my other answer.

You can only access static members using the name of the type.
Therefore, you need to either write,
MyClass.MyItem.Property1
Or (this is probably what you need to do) make Property1 an instance property by removing the static keyword from its definition.
Static properties are shared between all instances of their class, so that they only have one value. The way it's defined now, there is no point in making any instances of your MyItem class.

I had the same issue - although a few years later, some may find a few pointers helpful:
Do not use ‘static’ gratuitously!
Understand what ‘static’ implies in terms of both run-time and compile time semantics (behavior) and syntax.
A static entity will be automatically constructed some time before
its first use.
A static entity has one storage location allocated, and that is
shared by all who access that entity.
A static entity can only be accessed through its type name, not
through an instance of that type.
A static method does not have an implicit ‘this’ argument, as does an
instance method. (And therefore a static method has less execution
overhead – one reason to use them.)
Think about thread safety when using static entities.
Some details on static in MSDN:
Static Classes in C#
Static Constructors in C#

This causes the error:
MyClass aCoolObj = new MyClass();
aCoolObj.MyCoolStaticMethod();
This is the fix:
MyClass.MyCoolStaticMethod();
Explanation:
You can't call a static method from an instance of an object. The whole point of static methods is to not be tied to instances of objects, but instead to persist through all instances of that object, and/or to be used without any instances of the object.

No need to use static in this case as thoroughly explained. You might as well initialise your property without GetItem() method, example of both below:
namespace MyNamespace
{
using System;
public class MyType
{
public string MyProperty { get; set; } = new string();
public static string MyStatic { get; set; } = "I'm static";
}
}
Consuming:
using MyType;
public class Somewhere
{
public void Consuming(){
// through instance of your type
var myObject = new MyType();
var alpha = myObject.MyProperty;
// through your type
var beta = MyType.MyStatic;
}
}

cannot be accessed with an instance reference
It means you're calling a STATIC method and passing it an instance. The easiest solution is to remove Static, eg:
public static void ExportToExcel(IEnumerable data, string sheetName)
{

Remove the static in the function you are trying to call. This fixed the problem for me.

I got here googling for C# compiler error CS0176, through (duplicate) question Static member instance reference issue.
In my case, the error happened because I had a static method and an extension method with the same name. For that, see Static method and extension method with same name.
[May be this should have been a comment. Sorry that I don't have enough reputation yet.]

I know this is an old thread, but I just spent 3 hours trying to figure out what my issue was. I ordinarily know what this error means, but you can run into this in a more subtle way as well. My issue was my client class (the one calling a static method from an instance class) had a property of a different type but named the same as the static method. The error reported by the compiler was the same as reported here, but the issue was basically name collision.
For anyone else getting this error and none of the above helps, try fully qualifying your instance class with the namespace name. ..() so the compiler can see the exact name you mean.

Check whether your code contains a namespace which the right most part matches your static class name.
Given the a static Bar class, defined on namespace Foo, implementing a method Jump or a property, chances are you are receiving compiler error because there is also another namespace ending on Bar. Yep, fishi stuff ;-)
If that's so, it means your using a Using Bar; and a Bar.Jump() call, therefore one of the following solutions should fit your needs:
Fully qualify static class name with according namepace, which result on Foo.Bar.Jump() declaration. You will also need to remove Using Bar; statement
Rename namespace Bar by a diffente name.
In my case, the foollowing compiler error occurred on a EF (Entity Framework) repository project on an Database.SetInitializer() call:
Member 'Database.SetInitializer<MyDatabaseContext>(IDatabaseInitializer<MyDatabaseContext>)' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead MyProject.ORM
This error arouse when I added a MyProject.ORM.Database namespace, which sufix (Database), as you might noticed, matches Database.SetInitializer class name.
In this, since I have no control on EF's Database static class and I would also like to preserve my custom namespace, I decided fully qualify EF's Database static class with its namepace System.Data.Entity, which resulted on using the following command, which compilation succeed:
System.Data.Entity.Database.SetInitializer<MyDatabaseContext>(MyMigrationStrategy)
Hope it helps

YourClassName.YourStaticFieldName
For your static field would look like:
public class StaticExample
{
public static double Pi = 3.14;
}
From another class, you can access the staic field as follows:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
double radius = 6;
double areaOfCircle = 0;
areaOfCircle = StaticExample.Pi * radius * radius;
Console.WriteLine("Area = "+areaOfCircle);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}

C# Extend class by adding properties [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Does C# have extension properties?
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Is it possible in C# to extend a class not by adding only functions but properties. Ex: i have a standard DLL library I am relying on and the vendor does not want to modify it.
Already throughout the code I have used the DataCell class extensively and only now realized that I need to add an extra property to it, as creating a new extension class that inherits from this class just does not look like it would work + a lot of rewriting.
DataCell [metadata]
public class DataCell : Message
{
public int Field1;
public int Field2;
public DataCell()
{
..
}
..
}
Basically I want to add a public int Flags; to this class. So I can do now without rewriting anything, (new DataCell).Flags = 0x10;

First of all, you should probably reconsider your approach.
But if all else fails, here is how you can sort of add a property to a sealed class:
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
namespace DataCellExtender
{
#region sample 3rd party class
public class DataCell
{
public int Field1;
public int Field2;
}
#endregion
public static class DataCellExtension
{
//ConditionalWeakTable is available in .NET 4.0+
//if you use an older .NET, you have to create your own CWT implementation (good luck with that!)
static readonly ConditionalWeakTable<DataCell, IntObject> Flags = new ConditionalWeakTable<DataCell, IntObject>();
public static int GetFlags(this DataCell dataCell) { return Flags.GetOrCreateValue(dataCell).Value; }
public static void SetFlags(this DataCell dataCell, int newFlags) { Flags.GetOrCreateValue(dataCell).Value = newFlags; }
class IntObject
{
public int Value;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var dc = new DataCell();
dc.SetFlags(42);
var flags = dc.GetFlags();
Console.WriteLine(flags);
}
}
}
Please don't do this unless you really must. Future maintainers of this code may have some strong words for you if there's a cleaner solution that you skipped in favor of this slightly hacky approach.

Well you can certainly extend a class and only add fields/properties to it (although I'd discourage the use of public fields as per your sample). However, unless other code uses your new class, the fields won't exist in the objects created. For example, if other code has:
DataCell cell = new DataCell();
then that won't have your Field1 and Field2 fields.
If every instance of the base class really should have these fields, you'd be better off working out how to change the base class rather than extending it.
If you were wondering whether you could add "extension fields" in the same way as extension methods are added (e.g. public static void Foo(this DataCell cell)) then no, that's not possible.

There are two ways to add properties to an existing class
Add partial class, but this won't work for you because partial classes should be in the same assembly.
Inherit this class in a different class which as far I know would be a better solution for you.
And no you can't use a extension property like an extension method.