We Keep Coding

Is there a better way to create Class than this? [duplicate]

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
For instance I'm able to implement the missing multiple inheritance pattern using interfaces and three classes like that:
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class First:IFirst
{
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class Second:ISecond
{
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst, ISecond
{
First first = new First();
Second second = new Second();
public void FirstMethod() { first.FirstMethod(); }
public void SecondMethod() { second.SecondMethod(); }
}
Every time I add a method to one of the interfaces I need to change the class FirstAndSecond as well.
Is there a way to inject multiple existing classes into one new class like it is possible in C++?
Maybe there is a solution using some kind of code generation?
Or it may look like this (imaginary c# syntax):
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst from First, ISecond from Second
{ }
So that there won't be a need to update the class FirstAndSecond when I modify one of the interfaces.
EDIT
Maybe it would be better to consider a practical example:
You have an existing class (e.g. a text based TCP client based on ITextTcpClient) which you do already use at different locations inside your project. Now you feel the need to create a component of your class to be easy accessible for windows forms developers.
As far as I know you currently have two ways to do this:
Write a new class that is inherited from components and implements the interface of the TextTcpClient class using an instance of the class itself as shown with FirstAndSecond.
Write a new class that inherits from TextTcpClient and somehow implements IComponent (haven't actually tried this yet).
In both cases you need to do work per method and not per class. Since you know that we will need all the methods of TextTcpClient and Component it would be the easiest solution to just combine those two into one class.
To avoid conflicts this may be done by code generation where the result could be altered afterwards but typing this by hand is a pure pain in the ass.

Consider just using composition instead of trying to simulate Multiple Inheritance. You can use Interfaces to define what classes make up the composition, eg: ISteerable implies a property of type SteeringWheel, IBrakable implies a property of type BrakePedal, etc.
Once you've done that, you could use the Extension Methods feature added to C# 3.0 to further simplify calling methods on those implied properties, eg:
public interface ISteerable { SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; } }
public interface IBrakable { BrakePedal brake { get; set; } }
public class Vehicle : ISteerable, IBrakable
{
public SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; }
public BrakePedal brake { get; set; }
public Vehicle() { wheel = new SteeringWheel(); brake = new BrakePedal(); }
}
public static class SteeringExtensions
{
public static void SteerLeft(this ISteerable vehicle)
{
vehicle.wheel.SteerLeft();
}
}
public static class BrakeExtensions
{
public static void Stop(this IBrakable vehicle)
{
vehicle.brake.ApplyUntilStop();
}
}
public class Main
{
Vehicle myCar = new Vehicle();
public void main()
{
myCar.SteerLeft();
myCar.Stop();
}
}

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other languages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"
MI is a useful concept, the un-answered questions are ones like:- "What do you do when you have multiple common base classes in the different superclasses?
Perl is the only language I've ever worked with where MI works and works well. .Net may well introduce it one day but not yet, the CLR does already support MI but as I've said, there are no language constructs for it beyond that yet.
Until then you are stuck with Proxy objects and multiple Interfaces instead :(

I created a C# post-compiler that enables this kind of thing:
using NRoles;
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class RFirst : IFirst, Role {
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class RSecond : ISecond, Role {
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond : Does<RFirst>, Does<RSecond> { }
You can run the post-compiler as a Visual Studio post-build-event:
C:\some_path\nroles-v0.1.0-bin\nutate.exe "$(TargetPath)"
In the same assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.As<RFirst>().FirstMethod();
fas.As<RSecond>().SecondMethod();
In another assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.FirstMethod();
fas.SecondMethod();

You could have one abstract base class that implements both IFirst and ISecond, and then inherit from just that base.

With C# 8 now you practically have multiple inheritance via default implementation of interface members:
interface ILogger
{
void Log(LogLevel level, string message);
void Log(Exception ex) => Log(LogLevel.Error, ex.ToString()); // New overload
}
class ConsoleLogger : ILogger
{
public void Log(LogLevel level, string message) { ... }
// Log(Exception) gets default implementation
}

This is along the lines of Lawrence Wenham's answer, but depending on your use case, it may or may not be an improvement -- you don't need the setters.
public interface IPerson {
int GetAge();
string GetName();
}
public interface IGetPerson {
IPerson GetPerson();
}
public static class IGetPersonAdditions {
public static int GetAgeViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) { // I prefer to have the "ViaPerson" in the name in case the object has another Age property.
IPerson person = getPerson.GetPersion();
return person.GetAge();
}
public static string GetNameViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) {
return getPerson.GetPerson().GetName();
}
}
public class Person: IPerson, IGetPerson {
private int Age {get;set;}
private string Name {get;set;}
public IPerson GetPerson() {
return this;
}
public int GetAge() { return Age; }
public string GetName() { return Name; }
}
Now any object that knows how to get a person can implement IGetPerson, and it will automatically have the GetAgeViaPerson() and GetNameViaPerson() methods. From this point, basically all Person code goes into IGetPerson, not into IPerson, other than new ivars, which have to go into both. And in using such code, you don't have to be concerned about whether or not your IGetPerson object is itself actually an IPerson.

In my own implementation I found that using classes/interfaces for MI, although "good form", tended to be a massive over complication since you need to set up all that multiple inheritance for only a few necessary function calls, and in my case, needed to be done literally dozens of times redundantly.
Instead it was easier to simply make static "functions that call functions that call functions" in different modular varieties as a sort of OOP replacement. The solution I was working on was the "spell system" for a RPG where effects need to heavily mix-and-match function calling to give an extreme variety of spells without re-writing code, much like the example seems to indicate.
Most of the functions can now be static because I don't necessarily need an instance for spell logic, whereas class inheritance can't even use virtual or abstract keywords while static. Interfaces can't use them at all.
Coding seems way faster and cleaner this way IMO. If you're just doing functions, and don't need inherited properties, use functions.

If you can live with the restriction that the methods of IFirst and ISecond must only interact with the contract of IFirst and ISecond (like in your example)... you can do what you ask with extension methods. In practice, this is rarely the case.
public interface IFirst {}
public interface ISecond {}
public class FirstAndSecond : IFirst, ISecond
{
}
public static MultipleInheritenceExtensions
{
public static void First(this IFirst theFirst)
{
Console.WriteLine("First");
}
public static void Second(this ISecond theSecond)
{
Console.WriteLine("Second");
}
}
///
public void Test()
{
FirstAndSecond fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.First();
fas.Second();
}
So the basic idea is that you define the required implementation in the interfaces... this required stuff should support the flexible implementation in the extension methods. Anytime you need to "add methods to the interface" instead you add an extension method.

Yes using Interface is a hassle because anytime we add a method in the class we have to add the signature in the interface. Also, what if we already have a class with a bunch of methods but no Interface for it? we have to manually create Interface for all the classes that we want to inherit from. And the worst thing is, we have to implement all methods in the Interfaces in the child class if the child class is to inherit from the multiple interface.
By following Facade design pattern we can simulate inheriting from multiple classes using accessors. Declare the classes as properties with {get;set;} inside the class that need to inherit and all public properties and methods are from that class, and in the constructor of the child class instantiate the parent classes.
For example:
namespace OOP
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Child somechild = new Child();
somechild.DoHomeWork();
somechild.CheckingAround();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Father
{
public Father() { }
public void Work()
{
Console.WriteLine("working...");
}
public void Moonlight()
{
Console.WriteLine("moonlighting...");
}
}
public class Mother
{
public Mother() { }
public void Cook()
{
Console.WriteLine("cooking...");
}
public void Clean()
{
Console.WriteLine("cleaning...");
}
}
public class Child
{
public Father MyFather { get; set; }
public Mother MyMother { get; set; }
public Child()
{
MyFather = new Father();
MyMother = new Mother();
}
public void GoToSchool()
{
Console.WriteLine("go to school...");
}
public void DoHomeWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("doing homework...");
}
public void CheckingAround()
{
MyFather.Work();
MyMother.Cook();
}
}
}
with this structure class Child will have access to all methods and properties of Class Father and Mother, simulating multiple inheritance, inheriting an instance of the parent classes. Not quite the same but it is practical.

Multiple inheritance is one of those things that generally causes more problems than it solves. In C++ it fits the pattern of giving you enough rope to hang yourself, but Java and C# have chosen to go the safer route of not giving you the option. The biggest problem is what to do if you inherit multiple classes that have a method with the same signature that the inheritee doesn't implement. Which class's method should it choose? Or should that not compile? There is generally another way to implement most things that doesn't rely on multiple inheritance.

If X inherits from Y, that has two somewhat orthogonal effects:
Y will provide default functionality for X, so the code for X only has to include stuff which is different from Y.
Almost anyplace a Y would be expected, an X may be used instead.
Although inheritance provides for both features, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where either could be of use without the other. No .net language I know of has a direct way of implementing the first without the second, though one could obtain such functionality by defining a base class which is never used directly, and having one or more classes that inherit directly from it without adding anything new (such classes could share all their code, but would not be substitutable for each other). Any CLR-compliant language, however, will allow the use of interfaces which provide the second feature of interfaces (substitutability) without the first (member reuse).

i know i know
even though its not allowed and so on, sometime u actualy need it so for the those:
class a {}
class b : a {}
class c : b {}
like in my case i wanted to do this
class b : Form (yep the windows.forms)
class c : b {}
cause half of the function were identical and with interface u must rewrite them all

Since the question of multiple inheritance (MI) pops up from time to time, I'd like to add an approach which addresses some problems with the composition pattern.
I build upon the IFirst, ISecond,First, Second, FirstAndSecond approach, as it was presented in the question. I reduce sample code to IFirst, since the pattern stays the same regardless of the number of interfaces / MI base classes.
Lets assume, that with MI First and Second would both derive from the same base class BaseClass, using only public interface elements from BaseClass
This can be expressed, by adding a container reference to BaseClass in the First and Second implementation:
class First : IFirst {
private BaseClass ContainerInstance;
First(BaseClass container) { ContainerInstance = container; }
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
}
...
Things become more complicated, when protected interface elements from BaseClass are referenced or when First and Second would be abstract classes in MI, requiring their subclasses to implement some abstract parts.
class BaseClass {
protected void DoStuff();
}
abstract class First : IFirst {
public void FirstMethod() { DoStuff(); DoSubClassStuff(); }
protected abstract void DoStuff(); // base class reference in MI
protected abstract void DoSubClassStuff(); // sub class responsibility
}
C# allows nested classes to access protected/private elements of their containing classes, so this can be used to link the abstract bits from the First implementation.
class FirstAndSecond : BaseClass, IFirst, ISecond {
// link interface
private class PartFirst : First {
private FirstAndSecond ContainerInstance;
public PartFirst(FirstAndSecond container) {
ContainerInstance = container;
}
// forwarded references to emulate access as it would be with MI
protected override void DoStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
protected override void DoSubClassStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoSubClassStuff(); }
}
private IFirst partFirstInstance; // composition object
public FirstMethod() { partFirstInstance.FirstMethod(); } // forwarded implementation
public FirstAndSecond() {
partFirstInstance = new PartFirst(this); // composition in constructor
}
// same stuff for Second
//...
// implementation of DoSubClassStuff
private void DoSubClassStuff() { Console.WriteLine("Private method accessed"); }
}
There is quite some boilerplate involved, but if the actual implementation of FirstMethod and SecondMethod are sufficiently complex and the amount of accessed private/protected methods is moderate, then this pattern may help to overcome lacking multiple inheritance.

Different property value for contracts

I have two interfaces implemented by one main class. How can i refactor my code in a way that on implementing each contract, the methods of each contract has a different value for a parameter such as DatabaseName.
Example :
Class1 Implements Interface1,Interface2
Interface1.GetData() has DatabaseName set to Database 1
Interface2.GetData() has DatabaseName set to Database 2
I can configure those value in the methods GetData() but i want a cleaner way of doing it.
Any pattern recommendation be that DI ,Domain driven ,even basic inheritance example which accomplishes the above is what i am looking for.

It sounds like all you need is explicit interface implementation:
public class Class1 : Interface1, Interface2
{
// Note the lack of access modifier here. That's important!
Data Interface1.GetData()
{
// Implementation for Interface1
}
Data Interface2.GetData()
{
// Implementation for Interface2
}
}
Obviously the two methods can call a common method with a parameter to specify the database name or similar.

Refactoring is usually motivated by noticing a code smell and the very fact that you ended up in a situation where you have to implement 2 abstraction which expose similar functionality is the code smell.
Without having more understanding of the problem I might not be able to provide you a conclusive answer but with limited understanding this is what I would propose. Have 2 different concrete implementation each implementing one interface and have a factory which would be injected to client and make the client make the deliberate decision which one of these implementation is needed. In case these concrete classes share common functionality you can always abstract that into a common parent class.
public interface ISQLReader
{
string GetData();
}
public interface IOracleReader
{
string GetData();
}
public abstract class Reader
{
protected void CommonFunctionaility()
{
}
}
public class MSSQLReader : Reader, ISQLReader
{
public string GetData()
{
return "MSSQL";
}
}
public class OracleReader : Reader, IOracleReader
{
public string GetData()
{
return "Oracle";
}
}
public interface IReaderFactory
{
OracleReader CreateOracleReader();
MSSQLReader CreateMSSQLReader();
}
public class ReaderFactory : IReaderFactory
{
public MSSQLReader CreateMSSQLReader() => new MSSQLReader();
public OracleReader CreateOracleReader() => new OracleReader();
}
public class ReaderClient
{
private IReaderFactory _factory;
public ReaderClient(IReaderFactory factory)
{
this._factory = factory;
}
}
Explicit interface implementation is technique that should restrict usage of the functionality until the client has made and explicit cast there by making a deliberate decision.

Change/Swap base class at runtime with another base class

Sounds like silly idea but I was wondering if it's possible somehow.
Is it possible to change the base class of a derived class at runtime? Of course, there are lot of ifs and buts and the the question of why would someone do it and its a bad design probably and all that.
Keeping all those aside (even though they might be perfectly valid), let's say, just for kicks or to show your nerdiness, is it possible in C# or any language for that matter?
So something like:
public class baseOriginal {
public string justAProperty;
}
public class baseSwapped {
public int sillyNumber;
}
public class derivedClass : baseOriginal {
public bool iAmDumb;
}
void Main() {
baseOriginal derived = new derivedClass ();
Console.WriteLine(derived.justAProperty);
baseSwapped derivedSwapped = (??);
Console.WriteLine(derivedSwapped.sillyNumber);
}

It isn't possible in C#. Probably what you want is more of a prototype-based solution commonly found in dynamic languages like JavaScript where you can "extend" the functionality of the object by adding to how it's defined.
But to accomplish what your code hints at doing, you can have the swappable classes inherit from a common ancestor class. That way you can assign instances of each to their decendents.
public class baseClassAncestor{
}
public class baseOriginal:baseClassAncestor {
public string justAProperty;
}
public class baseSwapped:baseClassAncestor {
public int sillyNumber;
}
public class derivedClass : baseOriginal {
public bool iAmDumb;
}

You can do one time base class swap by loading different assemblies that implement base class BEFORE using derived class. But this approach will not make your exact code working as you will not be able to compile that - but moving access to methods of different base classes to separate functions could be made working.
You add UnionBase class that contains all possible methods/properties from all base classes so you can compile your Main code against the assembly with this class. Than at run time you load assembly that has contains your particular base class.
Usual warning: You need to have very good reasons and understanding for going this route. I.e. existing external code is a reason to consider such approach.
"Don't do it at home, performed on a closed course by trained professional".

One more possible workaround could be implemented using some AOP solution that is based on compile-time weaving, i.e. PostSharp, which is able to seamlessly inject new methods and interfaces to existing types as well as modify (intercept) existing ones.

There is actually a good reason where you may want to swap the base class. Let say you want to modify the base class but you don't wan't to perturb the current code base as it is shared among other teams. Let say there are 10+ derived class that inherits from base. You could create 10+ custom derived classes to override the base class but that is a lot of work. Here is what you do. The key to the problem is to create an interface and a base proxy class.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IActionable action = new Derived<Base1>();
action.open();
action = new Derived<Base2>();
action.open();
}
}
// Proxybase is a fake base class. ProxyBase will point to a real base1 or
// base2
public class Derived<T>:ProxyBase,IActionable
{
public Derived():base(typeof(T))
// the open function is not overriden in this case allowing
// the base implementation to be used
}
// this looks like the real base class but it is a fake
// The proxy simply points to the implementation of base1 or base2 instead
public abstract class ProxyBase: IActionable
{
IActionable obj;
public ProxyBase(Type type,params object[] args)
{
obj = (IActionable)Activator.CreateInstance(type,args);
}
public virtual void open()
{
obj.open();
}
}
// notice base1 and base2 are NOT abstract in this case
// consider this the original implementation of the base class
public class Base1: IActionable
{
public virtual void open()
{
Console.WriteLine("base1 open");
}
}
// here base2 acquired the functionality of base1 and hides base1's open
function
// consider this implementation the new one to replace the original one
public class Base2: Base1, IActionable
{
public new virtual void open()
{
Console.WriteLine("base2 open");
}
}
public interface IActionable
{
void open();
}
The result would be as follows
base1 open
base2 open
UPDATE:
Although this answer works, the reality is that inheritance introduces coupling which makes this exercise difficult at best. Also, in a practical scenario, your requirements may lead you to want to derive from multiple base class which is not possible in c#. If you want to interchange the base class you are best to use the bridge design pattern (which in fact avoids inheritance altogether thus avoiding the coupling).

The closest thing I can think of is the following:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736.aspx
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ExampleClass ec = new ExampleClass();
// The following line causes a compiler error if exampleMethod1 has only
// one parameter.
//ec.exampleMethod1(10, 4);
dynamic dynamic_ec = new ExampleClass();
// The following line is not identified as an error by the
// compiler, but it causes a run-time exception.
dynamic_ec.exampleMethod1(10, 4);
// The following calls also do not cause compiler errors, whether
// appropriate methods exist or not.
dynamic_ec.someMethod("some argument", 7, null);
dynamic_ec.nonexistentMethod();
}
class ExampleClass
{
public ExampleClass() { }
public ExampleClass(int v) { }
public void exampleMethod1(int i) { }
public void exampleMethod2(string str) { }
}
I have no idea if the dynamic language runtime can do what you want it to do.
Closest you could get would be to
derive from both types by defining at
least one as an interface, then
casting derived from one to the other.
I would have to agree, based on the example this suggestion would satisfy what he wants to do, it also is a better design then what he actually wants to do.

Closest you could get would be to derive from both types by defining at least one as an interface, then casting derived from one to the other.

C# - Can someone please show me a very simple example of Interfaces [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I cannot get my head around how to use interfaces and why they are needed. Can someone please show me a simple example?

interface IFlyable
{
void Fly();
}
class Bird : IFlyable
{
public void Fly() { }
}
class Plane : IFlyable
{
public void Fly() { }
}
List<IFlyable> things = GetBirdInstancesAndPlaneInstancesMixed();
foreach(IFlyable item in things)
{
item.Fly();
}
Bird and Plane have no common base class except Object, but you can see using the same interface we can deal with them grouply in our program, because they have the same "feature": Fly.

public interface ISpeaks
{
string Speak();
}
public class Dog : Mammal, ISpeaks
{
public string Speak() { return "Woof!"; }
}
public class Person : Mammal, ISpeaks
{
public string Speak() { return "Hi!"; }
}
//Notice Telephone has a different abstract class
public class Telephone : Appliance, ISpeaks
{
public Person P { get; set; }
public Telephone(Person p)
{
P = p;
}
public string Speak() { return P.Speak(); }
}
[Test]
public void Test_Objects_Can_Speak()
{
List<ISpeaks> thingsThatCanSpeak = new List<ISpeaks>();
//We can add anything that implements the interface to the list
thingsThatCanSpeak.Add(new Dog());
thingsThatCanSpeak.Add(new Person());
thingsThatCanSpeak.Add(new Telephone(new Person()));
foreach(var thing in thingsThatCanSpeak)
{
//We know at compile time that everything in the collection can speak
Console.WriteLine(thing.Speak());
}
}
This is useful because we can code against the interface rather than implementation and because we can use multiple interfaces on a single class, we are more flexible than if we used an Abstract class.

Interfaces are somehow class definition alike, a sort of contract between the interface and the class implementing it.
An interface contains only the signatures of methods, properties, events or indexers. A class or struct that implements the interface must implement the members of the interface that are specified in the interface definition.
A .NET class cannot use multi-inheritance. As such, we rely on interfaces, and a class can implement as much interfaces as you wish. On the contrary, a class inheritance has to be single. For instance:
public class Customer : Person, Company {
}
This code is not allowed in any .NET languages that I know (C#/VB.NET).
To counter this lack, if we may say so, we rely on interfaces.
public interface IPerson {
string Name
string Address
string StateProvince
string ZipPostalCode
string Country
long PhoneNumber
}
public interface ICompany {
string CreditTerm
string BillingAddress
string ShippingAddress
string ContactName
long ContactPhoneNumber
long FaxNumber
}
public class Customer : IPerson, ICompany {
// Properties implementations here.
}
In this way, interfaces are like a workaround somehow to multi-inheritance.
On the other hand, interfaces can be used as a contract for methods. Let's say you got a method that take an ICompany as an input parameter. You are now sure to have the properties defined in the ICompany interface to perform your work within the method.
public BillCompany(ICompany company) {
// Bill company here...
}
Then, your Customer class correspond to what you are expecting, since it implements the ICompany interface.
Let's make another class, whose definition would only implement the IPerson interface.
public class Individual : IPerson {
// Interface implementation here...
}
Then, your BillCompany() method could not accept an instance of the Individual class, as it doesn't show requirements (properties, etc.) for a company.
In short, interfaces are a good way to bind by contract your methods to what will be accepted, like inheritance.
There are indeed some precautions to take while working with Interfaces, a change to an interface will break your code, as an enforcing rule to implement the new member within all implementing classes, which class inheritance does not.
Does this help?

I like this blog post that I read the other day: http://simpleprogrammer.com/2010/11/02/back-to-basics-what-is-an-interface/
Many people, myself included, have created interfaces that have a 1 to 1 mapping to the class they are representing but this is not always a good thing and that article explains why.

An interface is useful when you have a given contract you want an object to fulfill but you don't really care about how they fulfill it. That's an implementation detail left to the class itself.
So let's say you have a method that's job is to process save requests. It does not perform the actual act of saving, it just processes the requests. As a result, it can take a List<ICanSave>, where ICanSave is an interface. The objects in that list can be any type that implements that interface. It can be a mix, or it can contain just one type. You're just concerned that it implements the interface.
public interface ICanSave
{
void Save();
}
In your method, you might have something simple like
public void SaveItems(List<ICanSave> items)
{
foreach (var item in items)
{
item.Save();
}
}
How are those items being saved? You don't care! That, again, is an implementation detail for the class implementing the interface. You just want whatever class that enters the method to have that ability.
You could have a class that implements the interface that persists data to the file system. Another might save to a database. Another may call some external service. Etc. That's left for the author of the class to decide. You might even have a stubbed class for a unit test that does nothing at all.
That's just one use-case scenario, there are many others, several in the BCL. IEnumerable<T> is a good one, it is implemented by things such as ICollection<T> and IList<T>, which are in turn implemented by concrete types such as Array and List<T>. It's the interface which makes many of the programming constructs you may be accustomed to useful, such as LINQ. LINQ doesn't care about the actual implementation* of the class, it just wants to be able to enumerate it and perform the proper filtering and/or projection.
IDisposable is another good BCL example. You want to know that a class needs to clean up after itself. What specifically it needs to clean up is left up to the class, but by nature of it implementing IDisposable, you know it needs to clean up after itself, so you preferrably wrap its use in a using statement or you manually ensure that you call .Dispose once you've finished working with the object.
*LINQ actually does optimize for some interfaces.

Simple example of interface Animal with two implementation of class animal (you have an unique description for animal and many implementation in class dog, cat...)
public interface IAnimal
{
string GetDescription();
}
class Cat : IAnimal
{
public string GetDescription()
{
return "I'm a cat";
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Cat myCat = new Cat();
Console.WriteLine(myCat.GetDescription());
}
}

"I've got a bunch of classes here that I want to treat the same way, for a certain amount of functionality."
So, you write a contract.
Real-world example: I'm writing a wizard. It has a bunch of pages, some of which (but not all) are UserControls. They all need a common set of operations, so the controlling class can treat them all the same. So I have an IPage interface that they all implement, with operations like initializing the page, saving the user's choices, et cetera. In my controller, I simply have a List, and don't have to know what page does what; I simply call the interface's Save()s and Initialize()s.

Here is the main points of Interface,
1.We can call same method using different classes with different out put of same methods.
Simple Example:
class Mango : abc
{
public static void Main()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello Interfaces");
Mango refDemo = new Mango();
refDemo.mymethod();
Orange refSample = new Orange();
refSample.mymethod();
}
public void mymethod()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("In Mango : mymethod");
}
}
interface abc
{
void mymethod();
}
class Orange : abc
{
public void mymethod()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("In Orange : mymethod");
}
}
2.can call same method using same interface with different classes.
class Mango : abc
{
public static void Main()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello Interfaces");
abc refabc = new Mango();
refabc.mymethod();
abc refabd = new Orange();
refabd.mymethod();
Console.ReadLine();
}
public void mymethod()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("In Mango : mymethod");
}
}
interface abc
{
void mymethod();
}
class Orange : abc
{
public void mymethod()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("In Orange : mymethod");
}
}

Well from MSDN, "An interface defines a contract. A class or struct that implements an interface must adhere to its contract."
On this page, there are several examples of what an interface looks like, how a class inherits from an interface and a full blown example of how to implement an interface.
Hope this helps out some.

Multiple Inheritance in C#

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
For instance I'm able to implement the missing multiple inheritance pattern using interfaces and three classes like that:
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class First:IFirst
{
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class Second:ISecond
{
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst, ISecond
{
First first = new First();
Second second = new Second();
public void FirstMethod() { first.FirstMethod(); }
public void SecondMethod() { second.SecondMethod(); }
}
Every time I add a method to one of the interfaces I need to change the class FirstAndSecond as well.
Is there a way to inject multiple existing classes into one new class like it is possible in C++?
Maybe there is a solution using some kind of code generation?
Or it may look like this (imaginary c# syntax):
public class FirstAndSecond: IFirst from First, ISecond from Second
{ }
So that there won't be a need to update the class FirstAndSecond when I modify one of the interfaces.
EDIT
Maybe it would be better to consider a practical example:
You have an existing class (e.g. a text based TCP client based on ITextTcpClient) which you do already use at different locations inside your project. Now you feel the need to create a component of your class to be easy accessible for windows forms developers.
As far as I know you currently have two ways to do this:
Write a new class that is inherited from components and implements the interface of the TextTcpClient class using an instance of the class itself as shown with FirstAndSecond.
Write a new class that inherits from TextTcpClient and somehow implements IComponent (haven't actually tried this yet).
In both cases you need to do work per method and not per class. Since you know that we will need all the methods of TextTcpClient and Component it would be the easiest solution to just combine those two into one class.
To avoid conflicts this may be done by code generation where the result could be altered afterwards but typing this by hand is a pure pain in the ass.

Consider just using composition instead of trying to simulate Multiple Inheritance. You can use Interfaces to define what classes make up the composition, eg: ISteerable implies a property of type SteeringWheel, IBrakable implies a property of type BrakePedal, etc.
Once you've done that, you could use the Extension Methods feature added to C# 3.0 to further simplify calling methods on those implied properties, eg:
public interface ISteerable { SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; } }
public interface IBrakable { BrakePedal brake { get; set; } }
public class Vehicle : ISteerable, IBrakable
{
public SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; }
public BrakePedal brake { get; set; }
public Vehicle() { wheel = new SteeringWheel(); brake = new BrakePedal(); }
}
public static class SteeringExtensions
{
public static void SteerLeft(this ISteerable vehicle)
{
vehicle.wheel.SteerLeft();
}
}
public static class BrakeExtensions
{
public static void Stop(this IBrakable vehicle)
{
vehicle.brake.ApplyUntilStop();
}
}
public class Main
{
Vehicle myCar = new Vehicle();
public void main()
{
myCar.SteerLeft();
myCar.Stop();
}
}

Since multiple inheritance is bad (it makes the source more complicated) C# does not provide such a pattern directly. But sometimes it would be helpful to have this ability.
C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other languages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"
MI is a useful concept, the un-answered questions are ones like:- "What do you do when you have multiple common base classes in the different superclasses?
Perl is the only language I've ever worked with where MI works and works well. .Net may well introduce it one day but not yet, the CLR does already support MI but as I've said, there are no language constructs for it beyond that yet.
Until then you are stuck with Proxy objects and multiple Interfaces instead :(

I created a C# post-compiler that enables this kind of thing:
using NRoles;
public interface IFirst { void FirstMethod(); }
public interface ISecond { void SecondMethod(); }
public class RFirst : IFirst, Role {
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); }
}
public class RSecond : ISecond, Role {
public void SecondMethod() { Console.WriteLine("Second"); }
}
public class FirstAndSecond : Does<RFirst>, Does<RSecond> { }
You can run the post-compiler as a Visual Studio post-build-event:
C:\some_path\nroles-v0.1.0-bin\nutate.exe "$(TargetPath)"
In the same assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.As<RFirst>().FirstMethod();
fas.As<RSecond>().SecondMethod();
In another assembly you use it like this:
var fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.FirstMethod();
fas.SecondMethod();

You could have one abstract base class that implements both IFirst and ISecond, and then inherit from just that base.

With C# 8 now you practically have multiple inheritance via default implementation of interface members:
interface ILogger
{
void Log(LogLevel level, string message);
void Log(Exception ex) => Log(LogLevel.Error, ex.ToString()); // New overload
}
class ConsoleLogger : ILogger
{
public void Log(LogLevel level, string message) { ... }
// Log(Exception) gets default implementation
}

This is along the lines of Lawrence Wenham's answer, but depending on your use case, it may or may not be an improvement -- you don't need the setters.
public interface IPerson {
int GetAge();
string GetName();
}
public interface IGetPerson {
IPerson GetPerson();
}
public static class IGetPersonAdditions {
public static int GetAgeViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) { // I prefer to have the "ViaPerson" in the name in case the object has another Age property.
IPerson person = getPerson.GetPersion();
return person.GetAge();
}
public static string GetNameViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) {
return getPerson.GetPerson().GetName();
}
}
public class Person: IPerson, IGetPerson {
private int Age {get;set;}
private string Name {get;set;}
public IPerson GetPerson() {
return this;
}
public int GetAge() { return Age; }
public string GetName() { return Name; }
}
Now any object that knows how to get a person can implement IGetPerson, and it will automatically have the GetAgeViaPerson() and GetNameViaPerson() methods. From this point, basically all Person code goes into IGetPerson, not into IPerson, other than new ivars, which have to go into both. And in using such code, you don't have to be concerned about whether or not your IGetPerson object is itself actually an IPerson.

In my own implementation I found that using classes/interfaces for MI, although "good form", tended to be a massive over complication since you need to set up all that multiple inheritance for only a few necessary function calls, and in my case, needed to be done literally dozens of times redundantly.
Instead it was easier to simply make static "functions that call functions that call functions" in different modular varieties as a sort of OOP replacement. The solution I was working on was the "spell system" for a RPG where effects need to heavily mix-and-match function calling to give an extreme variety of spells without re-writing code, much like the example seems to indicate.
Most of the functions can now be static because I don't necessarily need an instance for spell logic, whereas class inheritance can't even use virtual or abstract keywords while static. Interfaces can't use them at all.
Coding seems way faster and cleaner this way IMO. If you're just doing functions, and don't need inherited properties, use functions.

If you can live with the restriction that the methods of IFirst and ISecond must only interact with the contract of IFirst and ISecond (like in your example)... you can do what you ask with extension methods. In practice, this is rarely the case.
public interface IFirst {}
public interface ISecond {}
public class FirstAndSecond : IFirst, ISecond
{
}
public static MultipleInheritenceExtensions
{
public static void First(this IFirst theFirst)
{
Console.WriteLine("First");
}
public static void Second(this ISecond theSecond)
{
Console.WriteLine("Second");
}
}
///
public void Test()
{
FirstAndSecond fas = new FirstAndSecond();
fas.First();
fas.Second();
}
So the basic idea is that you define the required implementation in the interfaces... this required stuff should support the flexible implementation in the extension methods. Anytime you need to "add methods to the interface" instead you add an extension method.

Yes using Interface is a hassle because anytime we add a method in the class we have to add the signature in the interface. Also, what if we already have a class with a bunch of methods but no Interface for it? we have to manually create Interface for all the classes that we want to inherit from. And the worst thing is, we have to implement all methods in the Interfaces in the child class if the child class is to inherit from the multiple interface.
By following Facade design pattern we can simulate inheriting from multiple classes using accessors. Declare the classes as properties with {get;set;} inside the class that need to inherit and all public properties and methods are from that class, and in the constructor of the child class instantiate the parent classes.
For example:
namespace OOP
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Child somechild = new Child();
somechild.DoHomeWork();
somechild.CheckingAround();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Father
{
public Father() { }
public void Work()
{
Console.WriteLine("working...");
}
public void Moonlight()
{
Console.WriteLine("moonlighting...");
}
}
public class Mother
{
public Mother() { }
public void Cook()
{
Console.WriteLine("cooking...");
}
public void Clean()
{
Console.WriteLine("cleaning...");
}
}
public class Child
{
public Father MyFather { get; set; }
public Mother MyMother { get; set; }
public Child()
{
MyFather = new Father();
MyMother = new Mother();
}
public void GoToSchool()
{
Console.WriteLine("go to school...");
}
public void DoHomeWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("doing homework...");
}
public void CheckingAround()
{
MyFather.Work();
MyMother.Cook();
}
}
}
with this structure class Child will have access to all methods and properties of Class Father and Mother, simulating multiple inheritance, inheriting an instance of the parent classes. Not quite the same but it is practical.

Multiple inheritance is one of those things that generally causes more problems than it solves. In C++ it fits the pattern of giving you enough rope to hang yourself, but Java and C# have chosen to go the safer route of not giving you the option. The biggest problem is what to do if you inherit multiple classes that have a method with the same signature that the inheritee doesn't implement. Which class's method should it choose? Or should that not compile? There is generally another way to implement most things that doesn't rely on multiple inheritance.

If X inherits from Y, that has two somewhat orthogonal effects:
Y will provide default functionality for X, so the code for X only has to include stuff which is different from Y.
Almost anyplace a Y would be expected, an X may be used instead.
Although inheritance provides for both features, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where either could be of use without the other. No .net language I know of has a direct way of implementing the first without the second, though one could obtain such functionality by defining a base class which is never used directly, and having one or more classes that inherit directly from it without adding anything new (such classes could share all their code, but would not be substitutable for each other). Any CLR-compliant language, however, will allow the use of interfaces which provide the second feature of interfaces (substitutability) without the first (member reuse).

i know i know
even though its not allowed and so on, sometime u actualy need it so for the those:
class a {}
class b : a {}
class c : b {}
like in my case i wanted to do this
class b : Form (yep the windows.forms)
class c : b {}
cause half of the function were identical and with interface u must rewrite them all

Since the question of multiple inheritance (MI) pops up from time to time, I'd like to add an approach which addresses some problems with the composition pattern.
I build upon the IFirst, ISecond,First, Second, FirstAndSecond approach, as it was presented in the question. I reduce sample code to IFirst, since the pattern stays the same regardless of the number of interfaces / MI base classes.
Lets assume, that with MI First and Second would both derive from the same base class BaseClass, using only public interface elements from BaseClass
This can be expressed, by adding a container reference to BaseClass in the First and Second implementation:
class First : IFirst {
private BaseClass ContainerInstance;
First(BaseClass container) { ContainerInstance = container; }
public void FirstMethod() { Console.WriteLine("First"); ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
}
...
Things become more complicated, when protected interface elements from BaseClass are referenced or when First and Second would be abstract classes in MI, requiring their subclasses to implement some abstract parts.
class BaseClass {
protected void DoStuff();
}
abstract class First : IFirst {
public void FirstMethod() { DoStuff(); DoSubClassStuff(); }
protected abstract void DoStuff(); // base class reference in MI
protected abstract void DoSubClassStuff(); // sub class responsibility
}
C# allows nested classes to access protected/private elements of their containing classes, so this can be used to link the abstract bits from the First implementation.
class FirstAndSecond : BaseClass, IFirst, ISecond {
// link interface
private class PartFirst : First {
private FirstAndSecond ContainerInstance;
public PartFirst(FirstAndSecond container) {
ContainerInstance = container;
}
// forwarded references to emulate access as it would be with MI
protected override void DoStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoStuff(); }
protected override void DoSubClassStuff() { ContainerInstance.DoSubClassStuff(); }
}
private IFirst partFirstInstance; // composition object
public FirstMethod() { partFirstInstance.FirstMethod(); } // forwarded implementation
public FirstAndSecond() {
partFirstInstance = new PartFirst(this); // composition in constructor
}
// same stuff for Second
//...
// implementation of DoSubClassStuff
private void DoSubClassStuff() { Console.WriteLine("Private method accessed"); }
}
There is quite some boilerplate involved, but if the actual implementation of FirstMethod and SecondMethod are sufficiently complex and the amount of accessed private/protected methods is moderate, then this pattern may help to overcome lacking multiple inheritance.