Whenever I read questions RE this, or a similar topic of static inheritance, the replies are usually that this is not supported (we know that), and the reason is given as being because this is a poor design and there's probably a better way to do it. I'd love to find a better way of doing it so am open to all suggestions - here's what I am trying to do.
I have a class which has no instance data. All the methods are static. Let's call this class BaseStatic. I now want a new static class (well several of course but lets stick to one) which inherits from this static class and adds some new static methods, let's call this SubStatic.
What I want consumers to be able to write is:
SubStatic.MethodFromSub();
and also
SubStatic.MethodFromBase();
I know I could also write:
BaseStatic.MethodFromBase()
explicitly but then consumers have to know which class implements which methods. I can't do this with inheritance because I can't inherit one static class from another. So what's a better way of doing it?
Now, I know I can have these classes as instance classes, and I can define all the methods as static - that will give me the behaviour I described above but leads to other problems, namely:
When I do this:SubStatic.MethodFromBase() the SubStatic static constructor is not called because the method is running in the parent static class (the parent's static constructor is called)
If one of the static parent methods needs to call another method which the sub class can override, I need a virtual static method in the sub class. Which I know I can't have.
So poor design apparently - can anyone help me redo it? I know I can use instance inheritance and take proper use of virtual methods (I've had it working this way) but client code then always has to create an instance (or I suppose some singleton).
This could serve your purpose, though I certainly would include some exception handling and accompany its implementation with a great deal of documentation as to why and how it works.
When the static constructor for Base is run (once) all assemblies that are currently loaded in the app domain are catalogued, selecting the types that derive from Base. Iterating over those, we run the static constructors. It is worth noting though, that this no longer guarantees the cctor for each implementation will be run exactly once, logic would have to be added to each of them to re-make that assertion. Moreover, types that are loaded after the cctor for Base has been run would not be initialized by calls to methods in Base
To simulate virtual methods, use the new keyword to hide the base method. You can call the base method by qualifying it with the declaring class's name (like in class B in the example)
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
namespace ConsoleApplication6
{
public class Base
{
static Base()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base cctor");
var thisType = typeof (Base);
var loadedTypes = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies().SelectMany(x => x.GetTypes());
var derivations = loadedTypes.Where(thisType.IsAssignableFrom);
foreach(var derivation in derivations)
{
RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(derivation.TypeHandle);
}
}
public static void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
}
}
public class A : Base
{
static A()
{
Console.WriteLine("A cctor");
}
}
public class B : Base
{
static B()
{
Console.WriteLine("B cctor");
}
public new static void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Bar!!");
Base.Foo();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("A:");
A.Foo();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("B:");
B.Foo();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Base:");
Base.Foo();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
EDIT
Another option lies in the CRTP (or CRGP in the C# paradigm) or curiously recurring template (generic) parameter pattern
using System;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
namespace ConsoleApplication6
{
public class Base<T>
where T : Base<T>
{
static Base()
{
RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof (T).TypeHandle);
}
public static void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Bar");
}
}
public class Base : Base<Base>
{
}
public class A : Base<A>
{
static A()
{
Console.WriteLine("A cctor");
}
}
public class B : Base<B>
{
static B()
{
Console.WriteLine("B cctor");
}
public new static void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Bar!!");
Base<B>.Foo();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("A:");
A.Foo();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("B:");
B.Foo();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Base:");
Base.Foo();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
In this case, when we call a static method on A we're really calling it on Base<A> which is different than Base<B> or Base so we can actually determine how the method was called and run the appropriate cctor.
You can achieve this by using Generics. For example you can use something like that:
public class MainStatic<T> where T : MainStatic<T>
{
public static void Foo()
{
}
static MainStatic()
{
RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof(T).TypeHandle);
}
}
public class SubStatic : MainStatic<SubStatic>
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Instance
{
public void FooBar()
{
SubStatic.Foo();
SubStatic.Bar();
}
}
Related
As i searched and got few points static class is sealed and uses private constructor internally then why in my code i am not able to access the method using the class name using System?
using System;
public sealed class ClasswithPrivateCons {
private ClasswithPrivateCons() { }
public void Printname() { Console.WriteLine("Hello world"); }
}
public class Program {
public static void Main() {
ClasswithPrivateCons.Printname(); // gives error
}
}
It would be useful if you also included the error you're getting, but in this case it's obvious: Printname is not a static method, so you can't call it without an instance of ClasswithPrivateCons(). Since that constructor is private, you can't construct those objects.
Three resolution options:
Make Printname() static; then ClasswithPrivateCons.Printname() will work
Make the constructor public; then new ClasswithNoLongerPrivateCons().Printname() will work
Add a public static factory method that calls the private constructor:
public static ClasswithPrivateCons New() { return new ClassWithPrivateCons(); }
ClassWithPrivateCons.New().Printname()
Sealed class is not static. When a class is defined as a sealed class, this just means that class cannot be inherited. You must create instance of it before use. Sealed class with private constructor doesn't automatically become a static class. Static class has behaviour like sealed, but it represents separate kind of object in OOP. "Sealed" just means that class cannot be inherited, but in any case we must create an instance. At the same time, static class can't be instantiated.
Constructor of class must be public, otherwise we could not create instance. Instance constructor not only initialize new object, it also responsible for creating new objects and getting them ready to use. Constructor, unlike ordinary method, leverages inner .NET mechanisms aimed to create new instance.
public sealed class ClasswithPrivateCons
{
public ClasswithPrivateCons() { }
public void Printname() { Console.WriteLine("Hello world"); }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ClasswithPrivateCons cl = new ClasswithPrivateCons();
cl.Printname();
}
}
Also Printname method can be declared as static. Than it may be called
ClasswithPrivateCons.Printname();
I have a program that needs to be able to interface with multiple platforms ie read/write files, read/write database or read/write web requests. The platform interface is selected from configuration and does not change while the application is running. I have a single read/write interface class which is inherited by the platform specific classes so that this is abstracted from the rest of the program.
My problem is that I have 10 classes in my framework that will need to use this interface. Instead of making multiple instances of this class, or passing a single reference to every class, I figured it would make sense to make the interface static. Unfortunately I have just learned that Interfaces cannot have static methods, static methods cannot call non-static methods and static methods cannot be abstract.
Can anyone show me another method of approaching this situation?
Edit:
Thanks for everyone's input, here is my solution based on the example given by Patrick Hofman (thank you!)
interface TheInterface
{
void read();
void write();
}
public class X : TheInterface
{
public void read() { //do something }
public void write() { //do something }
}
public class Y : TheInterface
{
public void read() { //do something }
public void write() { //do something }
}
public class FileAccessor
{
public static TheInterface accessor;
public static TheInterface Accessor
{
get
{
if(accessor) return accessor;
}
}
}
This can be called by any class as:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
switch (Config.interface)
{
case "X":
FileAccessor.accessor = new Lazy<X>();
case "Y":
FileAccessor.accessor = new Lazy<Y>();
default:
throw new Lazy<Exception>("Unknown interface: " + Config.interface);
}
FileAccessor.Accessor.read();
}
Indeed, interfaces, or abstract classes can't be static themselves, but the further implementation can. Also, you can use the singleton pattern to make your life easier, and allow inheritance, etc.
public class X : ISomeInterface
{
private X() { }
public static X instance;
public static X Instance
{
get
{
return instance ?? (instance = new X());
}
}
}
Or, using Lazy<T>:
public class X : ISomeInterface
{
private X() { }
public static Lazy<X> instanceLazy = new Lazy<X>(() => new X());
public static X Instance
{
get
{
return instance.Value;
}
}
}
Disclaimer: I am the author of the library described below.
I don't know if this helps you, but I have written a library (very early version yet) that allows you to define static interfaces, by defining normal interfaces and decorating their methods with an attribute named [Static], for example:
public interface IYourInterface
{
[Static]
void DoTheThing();
}
(Note that you don't explicitly add this interface to your implementations.)
Once you have defined the interface, you can instantiate it from within your code with any valid implementation you choose:
return typeof(YourImplementation).ToStaticContract<IYourInterface>();
If the methods can't be found in YourImplementation, this call fails at runtime with an exception.
If the methods are found and this call is successful, then the client code can polymorphically call your static methods like this:
IYourInterface proxy = GetAnImplementation();
proxy.DoTheThing();
You can make a Static Class which has Variable of your Interface.
public static class StaticClass
{
public static ISomeInterface Interface;
}
Now you can access the Instance from everywhere in your Framwork
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StaticClass.Interface = new SomeClass();
}
I have an Interface:
public interface IMessager
{
void ShowMessage();
}
Is there any way to implement this interface using extension methods?
public static class Extensions
{
public static void ShowMessage(this MyClass e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Extension");
}
}
and a class that implement it:
public class MyClass:IMessager
{
public void ShowMessage()
{
ShowMessage(); // I expect that program write "Extension" in console
}
}
But when I run the program I get the System.StackOverflowException.
The code you posted is just a method calling itself recursively (hence the StackOverflowException).
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish but to answer your question
Is there any way to implement this interface using extension methods?
No.
To be a bit more pragmatic about this though, if your aim is to only write your method once you have a few options:
1. Call the extension explicitly
public class MyClass:IMessager
{
public void ShowMessage()
{
Extensions.ShowMessage(this);
}
}
although as pointed out in comments, this basically defeats the point of using the extension method. Additionally there is still "boiler-plate code" such that every time you implement your interface you have to call the static method from within the method (not very DRY)
2. Use an abstract class instead of an interface
public abstract class MessengerBase
{
public void ShowMethod() { /* implement */ }
}
public class MyClass : MessengerBase {}
...
new MyClass().ShowMethod();
This issue with this though is that you can't inherit from multiple classes.
3. Use extension on the interface
public interface IMessenger { /* nothing special here */ }
public class MyClass : IMessenger { /* also nothing special */ }
public static class MessengerExtensions
{
public static void ShowMessage(this IMessenger messenger)
{
// implement
}
}
...
new MyClass().ShowMessage();
The base class user should access the original method
class A
public init()
The derived class user should aceess ONLY the derived method.
class B
public init(int info)
I cannot use "override" bc there's a different signature.
What options do I have so that the derived class user does not see two methods.
Notes.
All in all I just need two classes that share some code. Inheritance is not a must.
But simplicity for the user of B is a priority.
This is a big code smell (and violates some basic OOP tenets) and, to the best of my knowledge, can not be done in any language. In OOP, an instance of B is an instance of A; this is polymorphism. So if A has a public method named init accepting no parameters, then so does B.
What are you trying to do this for?
Edit: Now that you've added the edit that states that inheritance is not a must, just use composition to share code. Give B a private instance of A, for example.
According to the Liskov principle you simply cannot do that, because it would violate this principle. The best thing you can to is override init() in the derived class and make it throw an exception every time it's invoked, stating that the user should use init(int info) and rely on the test to catch the errors.
Why you can't simple replace the init() method or even make it protected?
The Liskov principle states (rephrased) that where an instance of class A is required, an isntance of class B extends A can be passed.
If a method expects A and wants to call init() on it and you pass B (which extends A) to it with a protected init() the method will fail. This is the reason why the code will not even compile.
What you're asking for is impossible, due to the nature of the type system. Any instance of B can be thought of as an A, so you can call any of A's methods (including Init()). The best you can do is overload Init() in B and throw an exception to catch this at runtime.
public class B
{
void Init()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
Contrary to some answers/comments here, what you are asking for would have a real use if it existed:
class Derived : Base
{
This can be seen by considering the workaround:
class Derived
{
private Base _base = new Base();
In other words, it's not really a base class at all, but a hidden part of the implementation.
The downside with this workaround is: what Base has an abstract method that you have to supply? You have to write this:
class Derived
{
class ActualDerived : Base
{
// override abstract method(s)
}
private Base _base = new ActualDerived();
This is the whole point of private inheritance (as found in C++) - it's for situations when you want to inherit the implementation but not the "interface" (in the informal sense).
But in C#, it's not available.
Presumabely A and B have something in common. Can you factor that out into a different base class?
public class Base
{
... common stuff ...
}
public class A : Base
{
public void Init()
{
}
}
public class B : Base
{
public void Init(int info)
{
}
}
if you need polymorphism then references to Base or, better yet, Thomas' interface are the way to go.
Instead of inheritance, use an interface as a "middle man":
public interface IAllThatYouNeed
{
public void DoSomeStuff();
}
public class A : IAllThatYouNeed
{
public void Init() {
// do stuff
}
}
public class B : IAllThatYouNeed
{
public void Init(int info) {
// do stuff
}
}
it looks like it's not yet possible
i tried to do something like this:
public class B : A
{
private override void Init() { }
public void Init(int x)
{ }
}
but Init() it's still visible from the A class
There is no perfect solution here. Some possible ways to do it:
An approach would be to make A.Init() virtual, override it in B and make it throw a NotImplementedException/InvalidOperationException.
Init() stays visible, but the user finds out very quickly that it is not to be used (make it explicit that Init(int info) is to be used in the XML documentation and in the message of the exception).
If you don't care about the inheritance part and just want to use the functionalities of class A in class B, don't have B deriving from A and make B instantiate A and use its functionalities.
Edit:
You can use an interface implementing the common operations in order to retain inheritance while avoiding to implement Init() in B:
public interface IOperations
{
void DoStuff();
void Foo();
}
public class A : IOperations
{
public void Init()
{
// Do class A init stuff
}
#region IOperations Members
public void DoStuff()
{
// ...
}
public void Foo()
{
// ...
}
#endregion
}
public class B : IOperations
{
A _operations = new A();
public void Init(int initData)
{
_operations.Init();
// Do class B init stuff
}
#region IOperations Members
public void DoStuff()
{
_operations.DoStuff();
}
public void Foo()
{
_operations.Foo();
}
#endregion
}
This can be made even better by using a factory:
public static class OperationsFactory
{
public static IOperations CreateOperations()
{
A result = new A();
result.Init();
return result;
}
public static IOperations CreateOperations(int initData)
{
B result = new B();
result.Init(initData);
return result;
}
}
This way instantiation code is well encapsulated, the difference between the two Init() methods is hidden from the user code.
Coming from a C++ background, I've run into a snag with overloading based on a specific instance of a generic type. The following doesn't work since only once instance of the code for the Foo<T> class is ever generated, so inside the Method, the type of this is simply Foo<T>, not Foo<A> or Foo<B> as I'd hoped. In C++ I'm used to templates being instantiated as unique types.
using System.Collections.Generic;
class A
{
// Concrete class
}
class B
{
// Concrete class
}
class Bar
{
public void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a) {} // do some A related stuff
public void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b) {} // do some B related stuff
public void OverloadedMethod(OtherFoo of) {} // do some other stuff
public void VisitFoo(FooBase fb) { fb.Method(this); }
}
abstract class FooBase
{
public abstract void Method(Bar b);
}
class Foo<T> : FooBase
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
// Doesn't compile here
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class OtherFoo : FooBase
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<FooBase> ListOfFoos = new List<FooBase>();
ListOfFoos.Add(new OtherFoo());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo<A>());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo<B>());
Bar b = new Bar();
foreach (FooBase fb in ListOfFoos)
b.VisitFoo(fb);
// Hopefully call each of the Bar::Overloaded methods
}
}
Is there a way to get something like this to work in C#? I'd rather not have to duplicate the code in Foo as separate classes for every type I want to use it for.
Edit:
Hopefully this is a little clearer.
I now have a genuinely complete piece of code which demonstrates the problem. Note to OP: please try compiling your code before posting it. There were a bunch of things I had to do to get this far. It's good to make it as easy as possible for other people to help you. I've also removed a bunch of extraneous bits. OtherFoo isn't really relevant here, nor is FooBase.
class A {}
class B {}
class Bar
{
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a) { }
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b) { }
}
class Foo<T>
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
public void Method()
{
// Doesn't compile here
Bar.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
Yes, this doesn't compile. What did you expect it to do, exactly? Bear in mind that the overload resolution is performed at compile time, not execution time. As fallen888 says, you could cast and call the appropriate overloaded method - but which of the two overloads would you expect the compiler to pick otherwise? What do you want it to do with Foo<string> instead of Foo<A> or Foo<B>?
This all goes to demonstrate that .NET generics are indeed significantly different from C++ templates, of course...
I haven't tried it but it seems you should be able to achieve what you want by making A & B visitable (e.g. with the acyclic visitor pattern).
This works for the static case. Dealing with instance functions would be a bit more complicated. This post from Jon Skeet might provide a reasonable way to deal with instance methods.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var testA = new Foo<A>();
testA.Method();
var testB = new Foo<B>();
testB.Method();
Console.ReadLine();
var testString = new Foo<string>(); //Fails
testString.Method();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class A { }
class B { }
class Bar
{
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<A> a)
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
public static void OverloadedMethod(Foo<B> b)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
class Foo<T>
{
static Foo()
{
overloaded = (Action<Foo<T>>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Action<Foo<T>>), typeof(Bar).GetMethod("OverloadedMethod", new Type[] { typeof(Foo<T>) }));
}
public void Method()
{
overloaded(this);
}
private static readonly Action<Foo<T>> overloaded;
}
Edit: I'm not sure that you can complete this as you're attempting. I've tried all sorts of tricks to attempt to get this to work and can't get it to compile. The best I can do is to pull the method call outside of my Generic class. If your method call is outside, then you can specifically define what T is in the generic. However, inside the method, at compile time, the compiler doesn't know what T will be so it doesn't know which overloaded method to call. The only way I can see around this is to use a switch to determine the type of T and manually specify the overload to call.
The best I can do is this, which isn't quite what you're after, but it could be used to a similar effect:
class Stuff<T>
{
public T value { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void DummyFunc(Stuff<int> inst)
{
Console.WriteLine("Stuff<int>: {0}", inst.value.ToString());
}
static void DummyFunc(Stuff<string> inst)
{
Console.WriteLine("Stuff<string>: {0}", inst.value);
}
static void DummyFunc(int value)
{
Console.WriteLine("int: {0}", value.ToString());
}
static void DummyFunc(string value)
{
Console.WriteLine("string: {0}", value);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var a = new Stuff<string>();
a.value = "HelloWorld";
var b = new Stuff<int>();
b.value = 1;
var c = "HelloWorld";
var d = 1;
DummyFunc(a);
DummyFunc(b);
DummyFunc(c);
DummyFunc(d);
}
}
and got output:
Stuff<string>: HelloWorld
Stuff<int>: 1
string: HelloWorld
int: 1
I've got four overloaded functions referencing two referencing generic classes (one for int and one for string) and two referencing regular types (one for int and one for string) and it all works okay... is this what you're after?
Edit: The problem doesn't seem to be with the calling of the overloaded methods, it has to do with your foreach which is trying to convert all items in the list to the same type as the first in order to reference the overloaded method. The first item that doesn't conform to that exact definition will cause your compile to fail.
I was hoping to find an easier way to do this but for now I'm going with this:
Replace Foo<T> class with these classes:
abstract class Foo<T> : FooBase
{
// Class that deals with As and Bs in an identical fashion.
}
class Foo_A : Foo<A>
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
class Foo_B : Foo<B>
{
public override void Method(Bar b)
{
// Doesn't compile here
b.OverloadedMethod(this);
}
}
And change the instantiations to
List<FooBase> ListOfFoos = new List<FooBase>();
ListOfFoos.Add(new OtherFoo());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo_A());
ListOfFoos.Add(new Foo_B());
This at least doesn't require dublicating the code in Foo<T>, and just requires me to forward the constructors.