I'm working on some MonoTouch code that I derived from one of the samples (this is not a MonoTouch specific question) and the sample code declares a private class inside another class. I've not seen private classes used much in c# and I'm at a loss as to when it might make sense. I can see how a class that is only referenced within another class could be declared private but isn't this going to cause more grief than it's worth? Doesn't this break a number of the SOLID principles?
Single Responsibility - broken?
Open/Closed - broken?
Liskoff Substitution - maybe ok?
Interface Segregation - broken?
Dependency Inversion - broken?
Right now I'm finding it confusing just trying to navigate the source because of the private class definition. I guess this could be mitigated somewhat by declaring a partial class to contain the private class and separating them into separate files that way but is this really a good approach?
Usually, nested types (either class or struct, including enumerations) are used for some kind of contextual data and/or behavior, which doesn't have any sense without its context.
E.g., you could make nested types for some interop API, when you don't want to provide access to that API from external code, or you're using some kind of helper data container, which provides functionality, useful only for surrounding class.
So, even making these types internal can bring confusion to other developers (especially, where a single project is being edited by several people).
I don't see, how SOLID is broken here - nesting the type is just a limiting of type scope. It is not an extending of functionality of the surrounding class.
I've used private classes in situations where an API says "you must implement and provide to us an implementation of this interface when we ask you for it" and there is no other use or consumer of that class other than the use of the API interface.
In this situation, the interface provides public or cross-functional access so there is no need for access to the implementation.
Why would the SRP be broken? You separate a responsibility that is only accessed inside a class into a nested class.
Most other principles do not apply to private members or private nested classes.
I'm not sure but I think Single Resposibilty can be broken by nested classes, since a class can now have more resasons to change. The definition is not very clear at Single Resposibilty... Anyway I think ms does also use nested classes in .net, so maybe c# is missing some features in terms of encapsulation here. I think nested classes can be fixed with not doing nested classes and writing a analyzer. Nested classes are often used to get access to private members of the wrapping class.
Related
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.
I was reading OOPs Concepts from internet using articles.
In one of article, I have read following about abstraction:
If we have a method named "CalculatePrice" inside the "Billing" class,
we are not concerned about the calculations inside the
"CalculatePrice" method. We just pass the necessary parameters and get
the output. We hide the implementation of "Calculate Price".
so my question is : In C#, we are using dlls and namespace and calls the specific methods. can we say that, dlls and namespaces are the concept of Abstractions ??
Thanks
No.
You should generally just think of dll-files and namespaces as ways to organize your projects.
The abstraction of CalculatePrice consists simply of the "hiding" of it's logic inside the method. When another piece of code calls the method, it does not care what happens inside it - it is only interested in the result.
Abstractions in C# (and .Net in general) are made using things like Classes, Interfaces, Abstract Classes, and method and properties that are defined and/or implemented in these.
Your focus should be on these concepts, and on how they are used together in different "patterns" to solve various types of problems.
To expand just a little on your example: If CalculatePrice was defined in an interface, then calling code would "talk to" that interface, without caring about what was behind it. An implementation of that interface - the code that actually performs the logic - could be anything. It could change, and keep changing, as long as it fulfills the requirements (the "contract") defined in the interface, since that would allow the calling code to keep using it.. and that is how abstraction works in C#.
Interesting that there are four answers all saying "no". In reality, the answer is "sometimes". If the implementation of CalculatePrice relies on another class, which is marked as internal, then its assembly does form part of the abstraction, since internal classes are only accessible to other classes in that assembly.
Namespaces in .NET do not form part of any abstraction though. In other languages they can, as internal can be tied to namespaces, but that is not how .NET languages work.
Such information hiding is the most basic form of abstraction though. C#'s most powerful abstraction tools are interfaces, support for dependency injection and its treatment of methods as values. If you are interested in understanding more about abstraction in C#, they are the three areas to focus on.
so my question is : In C#, we are using dlls and namespace and calls the specific methods. can we say that, dlls and namespaces are the concept of Abstractions ??
No.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
I can see their advantage in coordination of a developing team, or code that might be further developed by others.
But if not, is there a reason to use them at all? What would happen if I omit them?
Abstract – I'll be able to instantiate it. No problem. If it doesn't make sense – I won't.
Interface – I have that functionality declared in all classes deriving from it anyway.
Note: I'm not asking what they are. I'm asking whether they're helpful for anything but coordination.
Both are what I call contracts and can be used in the following fashion by an individual developer:
Abstract
Allows for polymophism of differing derived implementations.
Allows one to create base functionality which can be dictated or not that the derived class be required to implement.
Allows for a default operation to be runtime consumed if the derived does not implement or required to implement.
Provides a consistency across derived objects which a base class pointer can utilize without having to have the actual derived; hence allows generic operations on a derived object from a base class reference similar to an Interface in runtime operation.
Interface
Allows a generic pattern of usage as a defacto contract of operation(s).
This usage is can be targetted to the process in hand and allows for the
surgically precise operations for that contract.
Used to help with
factory patterns (its the object returned), mocking of data during
unit tests and the ability to replace an existing class (say from a
factory returning the interface) with a different object and it
doesn't cause any consumer of the factory any pain of refactoring due to the adherence of the interface contract.
Provides a pattern of usage which can be easily understood away from the static of the rest of the class's implementation.
Long story short are they required to get a job done? No.
But if you are into designing systems which will have a lifespan of more than one cycle, the upfront work by said architect will pay off in the long run whether on a team or by an individual.
++Update
I do practice what I preach and when handing off a project to other developers it was nice to say
Look at the interface IProcess which all the primary business classes adhere to. That process defines a system of goals which can help you understand the purpose and the execution of the business logic in a defined way.
While maintaining and adding new functionality to the project the interfaces actually helped me remember the flow and easily add new business logic into the project.
I think if you're not coordinating with others, it does two things
helps keep your from doing weird things to your own code. Imagine
your write a class, and use it in multiple projects. You may evolve
it in one project so that it is unrecognizable from it's cousin in
another project. Having an abstract class or interface makes you
think twice about changing the function signatures.
it gives you flexibility going forward - plenty of classic examples here. Use
the generic form of the thing you're trying to accomplish, and if
you decide you need a different kind later (streamreaders are a
great example, right?) you can more easily implement it later.
Abstract - you can instantiate a child of it, but what is more important, it can has its own non abstract methods and fields.
Interface - more "rough" one in regard of abstract, but in .NET you can have multiple inheritance. So by defining interface you can lead consumer of your interface(s) to subscribe to different contracts(interfaces), so present different "shapes" of specified type.
There are many reasons to use either construct even if you are not coordinating with anyone. The main use is that both actually help express the developper intent, which may help you later figure out why you choose the design you actually chose. They also may allow for further extensibility.
Abstract class allow you to define one common implementation that will be shared across many derived classes while delegating some of the behavior to the child classes. It allows the DRY (don't repeat yourself) principle to avoid having the same code repeated everywhere.
Interfaces expresses that your class implements one specific contract. This has a very useful uses within the framework, among which:
Use of library functionality that necessitate the implementation of some Interface. Examples are IDisposable, IEquatable, IEnumerable...
Use of constraints in generics.
Allow mocking of interfaces (if you do unit testing) whithout having to instanciate a real object.
Use of COM objects
I'm working with a 3rd party c# class that has lots of great methods and properties - but as time has gone by I need to extend that class with methods and properties of my own. If it was my code I would just use that class as my base class and add my own properties and method on top - but this class has an internal constructor. (In my opinion it was short sited to make the constructor internal in the first place - why limit the ability to subclass?)
The only thing I could think of was to create method / properties on my class that simply called into theirs - but it's acres of code and, well, it just doesn't "feel" right.
Is there any way to use this class a base class?
You ask: "Why limit the ability to subclass?"
Because designing for inheritance is tricky, particularly if you're designing for other developers to inherit from your class. As Josh Bloch says in Effective Java, you should design for inheritance or prohibit it. In my view, unless you have a good reason to design for inheritance, you shouldn't do so speculatively.
Does the class implement an interface which you could also implement (possibly by proxying most calls back to an instance of the original)? There's often no really elegant answer here - and the best solution will depend on the exact situation, including what you're trying to add to the class.
If you're not adding any more state - just convenience methods, effectively - then extension methods may work well for you. But they don't change what data an object is capable of storing, so if you need to add your own specialised data, that won't work.
Sounds like a perfect application for extension methods:
MSDN extension method docs
"Extension methods enable you to "add" methods to existing types without creating a new derived type, recompiling, or otherwise modifying the original type. Extension methods are a special kind of static method, but they are called as if they were instance methods on the extended type. For client code written in C# and Visual Basic, there is no apparent difference between calling an extension method and the methods that are actually defined in a type."
If the class has an internal constructor, and there are no public constructors, then that suggests that the designers did not intend for it to be subclassed. In that case, you can use encapsulation, or you can use extension methods.
Only if your class lives in the same assembly as the class you want to inherit from. An internal constructor limits the concrete implementations of the abstract class to the assembly defining the class. A class containing an internal constructor cannot be instantiated outside of the assembly.
Resharper has a nice feature to create delegating members.
Here is a sample of what you can do with it. It takes a couple of seconds.
I will not discuss whether you can build your own Facade around that 3rd party class. Previous authors are right, the library could be designed in the way that will not allow this. Suppose they have some coupled classes that have singletons that should be initialized in specific order or something like this - there may be a lot of design mistakes (or features) that 3rd party developers never care about, because they do not suppose that you will use their library in that way.
But OK, lets suppose that building a facade is not an impossible task, and you have in fact only one problem - there are too many methods you have to write wrappers around, and it is not good to do this manually.
I see 3 solutions to address exactly that problem
1) I suppose that new "dynamic" types of .NET 4.0 will allow you to workaround that problem without having to write "acres of code"
You should incapsulate an instance of 3rd party class into your class as a privare member with dynamic keyword
Your class should be derived from Dynamic or implement IDynamicObject interface. You will have to implement GetMember/SetMember functions that will forward all calls to the encapsulated instance of 3rd party class
Well, c# 4.0 is a future, Let's see on other solutions:
2) Do not write code manually if you have significant number of public methods (say more then 100). I would write a little console app that uses reflection and finds all public members and then automatically generates code to call encapsulated instance. For example
public type MethodName(params)
{
this.anInstanceOf3rdPartyClass.MethodName(params);
}
3) You can do the same as 2, but with the help of existing reflection tools, for example RedGate .NET Reflector. It will help you to list all classes and methods signatures. Then, paste all this in Word and a simple VB macro will let you generate the same code as you could do in 2.
Remark: As soon as you are not copying the code, but only copying method signatures, that are publicly available, I don't think you will violate the license agreement, but anyway it worth to re-check
I am developing a set of classes that implement a common interface. A consumer of my library shall expect each of these classes to implement a certain set of static functions. Is there anyway that I can decorate these class so that the compiler will catch the case where one of the functions is not implemented.
I know it will eventually be caught when building the consuming code. And I also know how to get around this problem using a kind of factory class.
Just curious to know if there is any syntax/attributes out there for requiring static functions on a class.
Ed Removed the word 'interface' to avoid confusion.
No, there is no language support for this in C#. There are two workarounds that I can think of immediately:
use reflection at runtime; crossed fingers and hope...
use a singleton / default-instance / similar to implement an interface that declares the methods
(update)
Actually, as long as you have unit-testing, the first option isn't actually as bad as you might think if (like me) you come from a strict "static typing" background. The fact is; it works fine in dynamic languages. And indeed, this is exactly how my generic operators code works - it hopes you have the static operators. At runtime, if you don't, it will laugh at you in a suitably mocking tone... but it can't check at compile-time.
No. Basically it sounds like you're after a sort of "static polymorphism". That doesn't exist in C#, although I've suggested a sort of "static interface" notion which could be useful in terms of generics.
One thing you could do is write a simple unit test to verify that all of the types in a particular assembly obey your rules. If other developers will also be implementing the interface, you could put that test code into some common place so that everyone implementing the interface can easily test their own assemblies.
This is a great question and one that I've encountered in my projects.
Some people hold that interfaces and abstract classes exist for polymorphism only, not for forcing types to implement certain methods. Personally, I consider polymorphism a primary use case, and forced implementation a secondary. I do use the forced implementation technique fairly often. Typically, it appears in framework code implementing a template pattern. The base/template class encapsulates some complex idea, and subclasses provide numerous variations by implementing the abstract methods. One pragmatic benefit is that the abstract methods provide guidance to other developers implementing the subclasses. Visual Studio even has the ability to stub the methods out for you. This is especially helpful when a maintenance developer needs to add a new subclass months or years later.
The downside is that there is no specific support for some of these template scenarios in C#. Static methods are one. Another one is constructors; ideally, ISerializable should force the developer to implement the protected serialization constructor.
The easiest approach probably is (as suggested earlier) to use an automated test to check that the static method is implemented on the desired types. Another viable idea already mentioned is to implement a static analysis rule.
A third option is to use an Aspect-Oriented Programming framework such as PostSharp. PostSharp supports compile-time validation of aspects. You can write .NET code that reflects over the assembly at compile time, generating arbitrary warnings and errors. Usually, you do this to validate that an aspect usage is appropriate, but I don't see why you couldn't use it for validating template rules as well.
Unfortunately, no, there's nothing like this built into the language.
While there is no language support for this, you could use a static analysis tool to enforce it. For example, you could write a custom rule for FxCop that detects an attribute or interface implementation on a class and then checks for the existence of certain static methods.
The singleton pattern does not help in all cases. My example is from an actual project of mine. It is not contrived.
I have a class (let's call it "Widget") that inherits from a class in a third-party ORM. If I instantiate a Widget object (therefore creating a row in the db) just to make sure my static methods are declared, I'm making a bigger mess than the one I'm trying to clean up.
If I create this extra object in the data store, I've got to hide it from users, calculations, etc.
I use interfaces in C# to make sure that I implement common features in a set of classes.
Some of the methods that implement these features require instance data to run. I code these methods as instance methods, and use a C# interface to make sure they exist in the class.
Some of these methods do not require instance data, so they are static methods. If I could declare interfaces with static methods, the compiler could check whether or not these methods exist in the class that says it implements the interface.
No, there would be no point in this feature. Interfaces are basically a scaled down form of multiple inheritance. They tell the compiler how to set up the virtual function table so that non-static virtual methods can be called properly in descendant classes. Static methods can't be virtual, hence, there's no point in using interfaces for them.
The approach that gets you closer to what you need is a singleton, as Marc Gravell suggested.
Interfaces, among other things, let you provide some level of abstraction to your classes so you can use a given API regardless of the type that implements it. However, since you DO need to know the type of a static class in order to use it, why would you want to enforce that class to implement a set of functions?
Maybe you could use a custom attribute like [ImplementsXXXInterface] and provide some run time checking to ensure that classes with this attribute actually implement the interface you need?
If you're just after getting those compiler errors, consider this setup:
Define the methods in an interface.
Declare the methods with abstract.
Implement the public static methods, and have the abstract method overrides simply call the static methods.
It's a little bit of extra code, but you'll know when someone isn't implementing a required method.