Related
I would like to ask what are the risks of having something as follows:
abstract public class HtmlTemplateBuilder
{
HtmlSource source;
protected HtmlTemplateBuilder()
{
LoadTemplates();
}
public abstract void LoadTemplates();
}
The risk is if a derived class derives from the derived class:
DerivedClass2 -> #DerivedClass1 -> HtmlTemplateBuilder
This can be solved by sealing #DerviedClass1, but are there any more risks or better practices for implementing this functionality?
Thanks
The situation in which this pattern bit me is as follows: at some later stage you want to add a specialized HtmlTemplateBuilder, which can load different templates based on some criteria unknown to the class itself (maybe you decide you want some cool templates on a specific day of the year). That is:
public class SpecialHtmlTemplateBuilder : HtmlTemplateBuilder
{
private bool someCondition;
public override void LoadTemplates()
{
if (someCondition)
{
LoadTemplatesSet1();
}
else
{
LoadTemplatesSet2();
}
}
}
But how are you going to pass someCondition to the class? The following won't work:
public class SpecialHtmlTemplateBuilder : HtmlTemplateBuilder
{
private bool someCondition;
public SpecialHtmlTemplateBuilder (bool someCondition)
{
this.someCondition = someCondition;
}
// ...
}
because the assignment of this.someCondition will be done after calling the base constructor, i.e., after LoadTemplates() is called. Note that sealing derived classes does not solve this problem.
The way to solve this is as #Rahul Misra described: add an explicit Initialize method and call that after the constructor.
Have a look at this link which explains the perils with simple easy to understand examples
https://blogs.msmvps.com/peterritchie/2012/04/25/virtual-method-call-from-constructor-what-could-go-wrong/
I would remove the call to LoadTemplates from constructor and call Initialise on it when the templates actually need to be loaded and used.
abstract public class HtmlTemplateBuilder
{
HtmlSource source;
object locker = new object();
private bool initialised;
protected HtmlTemplateBuilder()
{
}
protected void Initialise()
{
lock (locker)
{
if(initialised)
{
LoadTemplates();
initialised = true;
}
}
}
public abstract void LoadTemplates();
}
As you can see in the code below, the DoStuff() method is getting called before the Init() one during the construction of a Child object.
I'm in a situation where I have numerous child classes. Therefore, repeating a call to the DoStuff() method directly after Init() in the constructor of each child wouldn't be an elegant solution.
Is there any way I could create some kind of post constructor in the parent class that would be executed after the child's constructor? This way, I could call to the DoStuff() method there.
If you have any other design idea which could solve my problem, I'd like to hear it too!
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
DoStuff();
}
protected abstract void DoStuff();
}
class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
// DoStuff is called here before Init
// because of the preconstruction
{
Init();
}
private void Init()
{
// needs to be called before doing stuff
}
protected override void DoStuff()
{
// stuff
}
}
If you have a complex logic for constructing your objects then consider FactoryMethod pattern.
In your case I would implement it as a simple
public static Parent Construct(someParam)
method that takes some parameter and based on it decides which child class to instantiate.
You can remove your DoStuff() method call from the constructor and call it inside Construct() on the new instance.
Also, you should avoid virtual/abstract method calls in the constructors. See this question for more details: Virtual member call in a constructor
Let me introduce a general solution using some C# features. Note that this solution does not require you to use a factory pattern or invoke anything after constructing the object, and it works on any class with just implementing an interface with a single method.
First we declare an interface that our classes will have to implement:
public interface IInitialize {
void OnInitialize();
}
Next we add a static extension class for this interface, and add the Initialize method:
public static class InitializeExtensions
{
public static void Initialize<T>(this T obj) where T: IInitialize
{
if (obj.GetType() == typeof(T))
obj.OnInitialize();
}
}
Now, if we need a class and all of its descendants to call an initializer right after the object is fully constructed, all we need to do is implement IInitialize and append a line in the constructor:
public class Parent : IInitialize
{
public virtual void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("Parent");
}
public Parent()
{
this.Initialize();
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
{
this.Initialize();
}
public override void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("Child");
}
}
public class GrandChild : Child
{
public GrandChild()
{
this.Initialize();
}
public override void OnInitialize()
{
Console.WriteLine("GrandChild");
}
}
The trick is that when a derived class calls the extension method Initialize, that will suppress any calls not made from the actual class.
How about this:
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
Init();
DoStuff();
}
protected abstract void DoStuff();
protected abstract void Init();
}
class Child : Parent
{
public Child()
{
}
protected override void Init()
{
// needs to be called before doing stuff
}
protected override void DoStuff()
{
// stuff
}
}
As others have mentioned, you should use a Factory Pattern.
public class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
}
public virtual void PostConstructor()
{
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
public override void PostConstructor()
{
base.PostConstructor();
// Your code here
}
}
public void FactoryMethod<T>() where T : Parent
{
T newobject = new T();
newobject.PostConstructor();
}
I would strongly suggest use Factory like a pattern.
If it's possible:
1. Push all your childs and abstract class into separate assembly.
2. Declare ctors of childs like internal methods, so no one out of that assembly is can construct them just by calling ctor.
3. Implement the Factory class to construct for caller specified objects type, which obviuoly will forse calling of abstract DoStuff() method after actual creation of anobject, but before returning it to caller.
Good thing about this is that: It will give you also additional level of abstraction, so if in the future you will need some more functions call or any other type of logical complexity, what you will need, is just add them into your Factory class.
That is.
Regards
In WPF applications, you can postpone the invokation of DoStuff() with the help of Dispatcher:
abstract class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(this.DoStuff));
}
private void DoStuff()
{
// stuff, could also be abstract or virtual
}
}
However, it is not guaranteed that DoStuff() will be called immediately after the constructor.
Correction: As per this answer, you can't determine when the base class's constructor is invoked during construction of the subclass.
E.g. This doesn't work:
public Child()
// DoStuff is called here after Init
// because of the overridden default constructor
{
Init();
base();
}
So, yes, as others have noted, if sequence of events matters, then the base class needs to be able to accommodate that by declaring abstract methods in order, or (better yet) by having the child class's implementation of DoStuff represent the sequence of events:
protected override void DoStuff()
{
Init();
base.DoStuff();
}
DoStuff is abstract. Just call Init from the top of DoStuff.
class MyBase
{
public MyBase()
{
//... do something
// finally call post constructor
PostConstructor<MyBase>();
}
public void PostConstructor<T>( )
{
// check
if (GetType() != typeof(T))
return;
// info
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Post constructor : " + GetType());
}
}
class MyChild : MyBase
{
public MyChild()
{
// ... do something
// ... call post constructor
PostConstructor<MyChild>();
}
}
How about...
public MyClass()
{
Dispatcher.UIThread.Post(RunAfterConstructor);
}
I also tried with Task.Run but that didn't work reliably.
Rather than using an abstract method, which would require you to implement the method in all descendant classes, you might try:
public class Parent
{
public Parent()
{
PostConstructor();
}
protected virtual void PostConstructor()
{
}
}
public class Child : Parent
{
protected override void PostConstructor()
{
base.PostConstructor();
/// do whatever initialization here that you require
}
}
public class ChildWithoutOverride
{
/// not necessary to override PostConstructor
}
// Cannot change source code
class Base
{
public virtual void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Base.");
}
}
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SpecialDerived sd = new SpecialDerived();
sd.Say();
}
}
The result is:
Called from Special Derived.
Called from Derived. /* this is not expected */
Called from Base.
How can I rewrite SpecialDerived class so that middle class "Derived"'s method is not called?
UPDATE:
The reason why I want to inherit from Derived instead of Base is Derived class contains a lot of other implementations. Since I can't do base.base.method() here, I guess the best way is to do the following?
// Cannot change source code
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
CustomSay();
base.Say();
}
protected virtual void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
/*
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
*/
protected override void CustomSay()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
}
}
Just want to add this here, since people still return to this question even after many time. Of course it's bad practice, but it's still possible (in principle) to do what author wants with:
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
var ptr = typeof(Base).GetMethod("Say").MethodHandle.GetFunctionPointer();
var baseSay = (Action)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Action), this, ptr);
baseSay();
}
}
This is a bad programming practice, and not allowed in C#. It's a bad programming practice because
The details of the grandbase are implementation details of the base; you shouldn't be relying on them. The base class is providing an abstraction overtop of the grandbase; you should be using that abstraction, not building a bypass to avoid it.
To illustrate a specific example of the previous point: if allowed, this pattern would be yet another way of making code susceptible to brittle-base-class failures. Suppose C derives from B which derives from A. Code in C uses base.base to call a method of A. Then the author of B realizes that they have put too much gear in class B, and a better approach is to make intermediate class B2 that derives from A, and B derives from B2. After that change, code in C is calling a method in B2, not in A, because C's author made an assumption that the implementation details of B, namely, that its direct base class is A, would never change. Many design decisions in C# are to mitigate the likelihood of various kinds of brittle base failures; the decision to make base.base illegal entirely prevents this particular flavour of that failure pattern.
You derived from your base because you like what it does and want to reuse and extend it. If you don't like what it does and want to work around it rather than work with it, then why did you derive from it in the first place? Derive from the grandbase yourself if that's the functionality you want to use and extend.
The base might require certain invariants for security or semantic consistency purposes that are maintained by the details of how the base uses the methods of the grandbase. Allowing a derived class of the base to skip the code that maintains those invariants could put the base into an inconsistent, corrupted state.
You can't from C#. From IL, this is actually supported. You can do a non-virt call to any of your parent classes... but please don't. :)
The answer (which I know is not what you're looking for) is:
class SpecialDerived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.Say();
}
}
The truth is, you only have direct interaction with the class you inherit from. Think of that class as a layer - providing as much or as little of it or its parent's functionality as it desires to its derived classes.
EDIT:
Your edit works, but I think I would use something like this:
class Derived : Base
{
protected bool _useBaseSay = false;
public override void Say()
{
if(this._useBaseSay)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Of course, in a real implementation, you might do something more like this for extensibility and maintainability:
class Derived : Base
{
protected enum Mode
{
Standard,
BaseFunctionality,
Verbose
//etc
}
protected Mode Mode
{
get; set;
}
public override void Say()
{
if(this.Mode == Mode.BaseFunctionality)
base.Say();
else
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived");
}
}
Then, derived classes can control their parents' state appropriately.
Why not simply cast the child class to a specific parent class and invoke the specific implementation then? This is a special case situation and a special case solution should be used. You will have to use the new keyword in the children methods though.
public class SuperBase
{
public string Speak() { return "Blah in SuperBase"; }
}
public class Base : SuperBase
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Base"; }
}
public class Child : Base
{
public new string Speak() { return "Blah in Child"; }
}
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
Child childObj = new Child();
Console.WriteLine(childObj.Speak());
// casting the child to parent first and then calling Speak()
Console.WriteLine((childObj as Base).Speak());
Console.WriteLine((childObj as SuperBase).Speak());
}
}
public class A
{
public int i = 0;
internal virtual void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("A test");
}
}
public class B : A
{
public new int i = 1;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("B test");
}
}
public class C : B
{
public new int i = 2;
public new void test()
{
Console.WriteLine("C test - ");
(this as A).test();
}
}
You can also make a simple function in first level derived class, to call grand base function
My 2c for this is to implement the functionality you require to be called in a toolkit class and call that from wherever you need:
// Util.cs
static class Util
{
static void DoSomething( FooBase foo ) {}
}
// FooBase.cs
class FooBase
{
virtual void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
// FooDerived.cs
class FooDerived : FooBase
{
override void Do() { ... }
}
// FooDerived2.cs
class FooDerived2 : FooDerived
{
override void Do() { Util.DoSomething( this ); }
}
This does require some thought as to access privilege, you may need to add some internal accessor methods to facilitate the functionality.
In cases where you do not have access to the derived class source, but need all the source of the derived class besides the current method, then I would recommended you should also do a derived class and call the implementation of the derived class.
Here is an example:
//No access to the source of the following classes
public class Base
{
public virtual void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Base");}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void method1(){ Console.WriteLine("In Derived");}
public void method2(){ Console.WriteLine("Some important method in Derived");}
}
//Here should go your classes
//First do your own derived class
public class MyDerived : Base
{
}
//Then derive from the derived class
//and call the bass class implementation via your derived class
public class specialDerived : Derived
{
public override void method1()
{
MyDerived md = new MyDerived();
//This is actually the base.base class implementation
MyDerived.method1();
}
}
As can be seen from previous posts, one can argue that if class functionality needs to be circumvented then something is wrong in the class architecture. That might be true, but one cannot always restructure or refactor the class structure on a large mature project. The various levels of change management might be one problem, but to keep existing functionality operating the same after refactoring is not always a trivial task, especially if time constraints apply. On a mature project it can be quite an undertaking to keep various regression tests from passing after a code restructure; there are often obscure "oddities" that show up.
We had a similar problem in some cases inherited functionality should not execute (or should perform something else). The approach we followed below, was to put the base code that need to be excluded in a separate virtual function. This function can then be overridden in the derived class and the functionality excluded or altered. In this example "Text 2" can be prevented from output in the derived class.
public class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from Base");
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
base.Foo();
Console.WriteLine("Text 1");
WriteText2Func();
Console.WriteLine("Text 3");
}
protected virtual void WriteText2Func()
{
Console.WriteLine("Text 2");
}
}
public class Special : Derived
{
public override void WriteText2Func()
{
//WriteText2Func will write nothing when
//method Foo is called from class Special.
//Also it can be modified to do something else.
}
}
There seems to be a lot of these questions surrounding inheriting a member method from a Grandparent Class, overriding it in a second Class, then calling its method again from a Grandchild Class. Why not just inherit the grandparent's members down to the grandchildren?
class A
{
private string mystring = "A";
public string Method1()
{
return mystring;
}
}
class B : A
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
class C : B
{
// this inherits Method1() naturally
}
string newstring = "";
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
newstring = a.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = b.Method1();// returns "A"
newstring = c.Method1();// returns "A"
Seems simple....the grandchild inherits the grandparents method here. Think about it.....that's how "Object" and its members like ToString() are inherited down to all classes in C#. I'm thinking Microsoft has not done a good job of explaining basic inheritance. There is too much focus on polymorphism and implementation. When I dig through their documentation there are no examples of this very basic idea. :(
I had the same problem as the OP, where I only wanted to override a single method in the middle Class, leaving all other methods alone. My scenario was:
Class A - base class, DB access, uneditable.
Class B : A - "record type" specific functionality (editable, but only if backward compatible).
Class C : B - one particular field for one particular client.
I did very similar to the second part of the OP posting, except I put the base call into it's own method, which I called from from Say() method.
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Derived.");
BaseSay();
}
protected virtual void BaseSay()
{
base.Say();
}
}
class SpecialDerived : Derived
{
public override void Say()
{
Console.WriteLine("Called from Special Derived.");
base.BaseSay();
}
}
You could repeat this ad infinitum, giving, for example SpecialDerived a BaseBaseSay() method if you needed an ExtraSpecialDerived override to the SpecialDerived.
The best part of this is that if the Derived changes its inheritance from Base to Base2, all other overrides follow suit without needing changes.
If you want to access to base class data you must use "this" keyword or you use this keyword as reference for class.
namespace thiskeyword
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
I i = new I();
int res = i.m1();
Console.WriteLine(res);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class E
{
new public int x = 3;
}
public class F:E
{
new public int x = 5;
}
public class G:F
{
new public int x = 50;
}
public class H:G
{
new public int x = 20;
}
public class I:H
{
new public int x = 30;
public int m1()
{
// (this as <classname >) will use for accessing data to base class
int z = (this as I).x + base.x + (this as G).x + (this as F).x + (this as E).x; // base.x refer to H
return z;
}
}
}
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.
It's weird that this is the first time I've bumped into this problem, but:
How do you define a constructor in a C# interface?
Edit
Some people wanted an example (it's a free time project, so yes, it's a game)
IDrawable
+Update
+Draw
To be able to Update (check for edge of screen etc) and draw itself it will always need a GraphicsDeviceManager. So I want to make sure the object has a reference to it. This would belong in the constructor.
Now that I wrote this down I think what I'm implementing here is IObservable and the GraphicsDeviceManager should take the IDrawable...
It seems either I don't get the XNA framework, or the framework is not thought out very well.
Edit
There seems to be some confusion about my definition of constructor in the context of an interface. An interface can indeed not be instantiated so doesn't need a constructor. What I wanted to define was a signature to a constructor. Exactly like an interface can define a signature of a certain method, the interface could define the signature of a constructor.
You can't. It's occasionally a pain, but you wouldn't be able to call it using normal techniques anyway.
In a blog post I've suggested static interfaces which would only be usable in generic type constraints - but could be really handy, IMO.
One point about if you could define a constructor within an interface, you'd have trouble deriving classes:
public class Foo : IParameterlessConstructor
{
public Foo() // As per the interface
{
}
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
// Yikes! We now don't have a parameterless constructor...
public Bar(int x)
{
}
}
As already well noted, you can't have constructors on an Interface. But since this is such a highly ranked result in Google some 7 years later, I thought I would chip in here - specifically to show how you could use an abstract base class in tandem with your existing Interface and maybe cut down on the amount of refactoring needed in the future for similar situations. This concept has already been hinted at in some of the comments but I thought it would be worth showing how to actually do it.
So you have your main interface that looks like this so far:
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
Now create an abstract class with the constructor you want to enforce. Actually, since it's now available since the time you wrote your original question, we can get a little fancy here and use generics in this situation so that we can adapt this to other interfaces that might need the same functionality but have different constructor requirements:
public abstract class MustInitialize<T>
{
public MustInitialize(T parameters)
{
}
}
Now you'll need to create a new class that inherits from both the IDrawable interface and the MustInitialize abstract class:
public class Drawable : MustInitialize<GraphicsDeviceManager>, IDrawable
{
GraphicsDeviceManager _graphicsDeviceManager;
public Drawable(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
: base (graphicsDeviceManager)
{
_graphicsDeviceManager = graphicsDeviceManager;
}
public void Update()
{
//use _graphicsDeviceManager here to do whatever
}
public void Draw()
{
//use _graphicsDeviceManager here to do whatever
}
}
Then just create an instance of Drawable and you're good to go:
IDrawable drawableService = new Drawable(myGraphicsDeviceManager);
The cool thing here is that the new Drawable class we created still behaves just like what we would expect from an IDrawable.
If you need to pass more than one parameter to the MustInitialize constructor, you can create a class that defines properties for all of the fields you'll need to pass in.
A very late contribution demonstrating another problem with interfaced constructors. (I choose this question because it has the clearest articulation of the problem). Suppose we could have:
interface IPerson
{
IPerson(string name);
}
interface ICustomer
{
ICustomer(DateTime registrationDate);
}
class Person : IPerson, ICustomer
{
Person(string name) { }
Person(DateTime registrationDate) { }
}
Where by convention the implementation of the "interface constructor" is replaced by the type name.
Now make an instance:
ICustomer a = new Person("Ernie");
Would we say that the contract ICustomer is obeyed?
And what about this:
interface ICustomer
{
ICustomer(string address);
}
You can't.
Interfaces define contracts that other objects implement and therefore have no state that needs to be initialized.
If you have some state that needs to be initialized, you should consider using an abstract base class instead.
I was looking back at this question and I thought to myself, maybe we are aproaching this problem the wrong way. Interfaces might not be the way to go when it concerns defining a constructor with certain parameters... but an (abstract) base class is.
If you create a base class with a constructor on there that accepts the parameters you need, every class that derrives from it needs to supply them.
public abstract class Foo
{
protected Foo(SomeParameter x)
{
this.X = x;
}
public SomeParameter X { get; private set }
}
public class Bar : Foo // Bar inherits from Foo
{
public Bar()
: base(new SomeParameter("etc...")) // Bar will need to supply the constructor param
{
}
}
It is not possible to create an interface that defines constructors, but it is possible to define an interface that forces a type to have a paramerterless constructor, though be it a very ugly syntax that uses generics... I am actually not so sure that it is really a good coding pattern.
public interface IFoo<T> where T : new()
{
void SomeMethod();
}
public class Foo : IFoo<Foo>
{
// This will not compile
public Foo(int x)
{
}
#region ITest<Test> Members
public void SomeMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
#endregion
}
On the other hand, if you want to test if a type has a paramerterless constructor, you can do that using reflection:
public static class TypeHelper
{
public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Object o)
{
return HasParameterlessConstructor(o.GetType());
}
public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Type t)
{
// Usage: HasParameterlessConstructor(typeof(SomeType))
return t.GetConstructor(new Type[0]) != null;
}
}
Hope this helps.
One way to solve this problem i found is to seperate out the construction into a seperate factory. For example I have an abstract class called IQueueItem, and I need a way to translate that object to and from another object (CloudQueueMessage). So on the interface IQueueItem i have -
public interface IQueueItem
{
CloudQueueMessage ToMessage();
}
Now, I also need a way for my actual queue class to translate a CloudQueueMessage back to a IQueueItem - ie the need for a static construction like IQueueItem objMessage = ItemType.FromMessage. Instead I defined another interface IQueueFactory -
public interface IQueueItemFactory<T> where T : IQueueItem
{
T FromMessage(CloudQueueMessage objMessage);
}
Now I can finally write my generic queue class without the new() constraint which in my case was the main issue.
public class AzureQueue<T> where T : IQueueItem
{
private IQueueItemFactory<T> _objFactory;
public AzureQueue(IQueueItemFactory<T> objItemFactory)
{
_objFactory = objItemFactory;
}
public T GetNextItem(TimeSpan tsLease)
{
CloudQueueMessage objQueueMessage = _objQueue.GetMessage(tsLease);
T objItem = _objFactory.FromMessage(objQueueMessage);
return objItem;
}
}
now I can create an instance that satisfies the criteria for me
AzureQueue<Job> objJobQueue = new JobQueue(new JobItemFactory())
hopefully this helps someone else out someday, obviously a lot of internal code removed to try to show the problem and solution
One way to solve this problem is to leverage generics and the new() constraint.
Instead of expressing your constructor as a method/function, you can express it as a factory class/interface. If you specify the new() generic constraint on every call site that needs to create an object of your class, you will be able to pass constructor arguments accordingly.
For your IDrawable example:
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
public interface IDrawableConstructor<T> where T : IDrawable
{
T Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager);
}
public class Triangle : IDrawable
{
public GraphicsDeviceManager Manager { get; set; }
public void Draw() { ... }
public void Update() { ... }
public Triangle(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
Manager = manager;
}
}
public TriangleConstructor : IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>
{
public Triangle Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Triangle(manager);
}
}
Now when you use it:
public void SomeMethod<TBuilder>(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
where TBuilder: IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>, new()
{
// If we need to create a triangle
Triangle triangle = new TBuilder().Construct(manager);
// Do whatever with triangle
}
You can even concentrate all creation methods in a single class using explicit interface implementation:
public DrawableConstructor : IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>,
IDrawableConstructor<Square>,
IDrawableConstructor<Circle>
{
Triangle IDrawableConstructor<Triangle>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Triangle(manager);
}
Square IDrawableConstructor<Square>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Square(manager);
}
Circle IDrawableConstructor<Circle>.Construct(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
{
return new Circle(manager);
}
}
To use it:
public void SomeMethod<TBuilder, TShape>(GraphicsDeviceManager manager)
where TBuilder: IDrawableConstructor<TShape>, new()
{
// If we need to create an arbitrary shape
TShape shape = new TBuilder().Construct(manager);
// Do whatever with the shape
}
Another way is by using lambda expressions as initializers. At some point early in the call hierarchy, you will know which objects you will need to instantiate (i.e. when you are creating or getting a reference to your GraphicsDeviceManager object). As soon as you have it, pass the lambda
() => new Triangle(manager)
to subsequent methods so they will know how to create a Triangle from then on. If you can't determine all possible methods that you will need, you can always create a dictionary of types that implement IDrawable using reflection and register the lambda expression shown above in a dictionary that you can either store in a shared location or pass along to further function calls.
The generic factory approach still seems ideal. You would know that the factory requires a parameter, and it would just so happen that those parameters are passed along to the constructor of the object being instantiated.
Note, this is just syntax verified pseudo code, there may be a run-time caveat I'm missing here:
public interface IDrawableFactory
{
TDrawable GetDrawingObject<TDrawable>(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
where TDrawable: class, IDrawable, new();
}
public class DrawableFactory : IDrawableFactory
{
public TDrawable GetDrawingObject<TDrawable>(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
where TDrawable : class, IDrawable, new()
{
return (TDrawable) Activator
.CreateInstance(typeof(TDrawable),
graphicsDeviceManager);
}
}
public class Draw : IDrawable
{
//stub
}
public class Update : IDrawable {
private readonly GraphicsDeviceManager _graphicsDeviceManager;
public Update() { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public Update(GraphicsDeviceManager graphicsDeviceManager)
{
_graphicsDeviceManager = graphicsDeviceManager;
}
}
public interface IDrawable
{
//stub
}
public class GraphicsDeviceManager
{
//stub
}
An example of possible usage:
public void DoSomething()
{
var myUpdateObject = GetDrawingObject<Update>(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
var myDrawObject = GetDrawingObject<Draw>(null);
}
Granted, you'd only want the create instances via the factory to guarantee you always have an appropriately initialized object. Perhaps using a dependency injection framework like AutoFac would make sense; Update() could "ask" the IoC container for a new GraphicsDeviceManager object.
You could do this with generics trick, but it still is vulnerable to what Jon Skeet wrote:
public interface IHasDefaultConstructor<T> where T : IHasDefaultConstructor<T>, new()
{
}
Class that implements this interface must have parameterless constructor:
public class A : IHasDefaultConstructor<A> //Notice A as generic parameter
{
public A(int a) { } //compile time error
}
The purpose of an interface is to enforce a certain object signature. It should explicitly not be concerned with how an object works internally. Therefore, a constructor in an interface does not really make sense from a conceptual point of view.
There are some alternatives though:
Create an abstract class that acts as a minimal default implementation.
That class should have the constructors you expect implementing classes
to have.
If you don't mind the overkill, use the AbstractFactory pattern and
declare a method in the factory class interface that has the required
signatures.
Pass the GraphicsDeviceManager as a parameter to the Update and Draw methods.
Use a Compositional Object Oriented Programming framework to pass the GraphicsDeviceManager into the part of the object that requires it. This is a pretty experimental solution in my opinion.
The situation you describe is not easy to handle in general. A similar case would be entities in a business application that require access to the database.
you don't.
the constructor is part of the class that can implement an interface. The interface is just a contract of methods the class must implement.
It would be very useful if it were possible to define constructors in interfaces.
Given that an interface is a contract that must be used in the specified way. The following approach might be a viable alternative for some scenarios:
public interface IFoo {
/// <summary>
/// Initialize foo.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Classes that implement this interface must invoke this method from
/// each of their constructors.
/// </remarks>
/// <exception cref="InvalidOperationException">
/// Thrown when instance has already been initialized.
/// </exception>
void Initialize(int a);
}
public class ConcreteFoo : IFoo {
private bool _init = false;
public int b;
// Obviously in this case a default value could be used for the
// constructor argument; using overloads for purpose of example
public ConcreteFoo() {
Initialize(42);
}
public ConcreteFoo(int a) {
Initialize(a);
}
public void Initialize(int a) {
if (_init)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
_init = true;
b = a;
}
}
One way to force some sort of constructor is to declare only Getters in interface, which could then mean that the implementing class must have a method, ideally a constructor, to have the value set (privately) for it.
While you can't define a constructor signature in an interface, I feel it's worth mentioning that this may be a spot to consider an abstract class. Abstract classes can define unimplemented (abstract) method signatures in the same way as an interface, but can also have implemented (concrete) methods and constructors.
The downside is that, because it is a type of class, it cannot be used for any of the multiple inheritance type scenarios that an interface can.
I use the following pattern to make it bulletproof.
A developer who derives his class from the base can't accidentally create a public accessible constructor
The final class developer are forced to go through the common create method
Everything is type-safe, no castings are required
It's 100% flexible and can be reused everywhere, where you can define your own base
class.
Try it out you can't break it without making modifications to the base classes (except
if you define an obsolete flag without error flag set to true, but even then you end up with a warning)
public abstract class Base<TSelf, TParameter>
where TSelf : Base<TSelf, TParameter>, new()
{
protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead";
public static TSelf Create(TParameter parameter)
{
var me = new TSelf();
me.Initialize(parameter);
return me;
}
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected Base()
{
}
protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public abstract class BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>: Base<TSelf, TConfig>
where TSelf : BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>, new()
{
public TConfig Config { get; private set; }
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithConfig()
{
}
protected override void Initialize(TConfig parameter)
{
this.Config = parameter;
}
}
public class MyService : BaseWithConfig<MyService, (string UserName, string Password)>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public MyService()
{
}
}
public class Person : Base<Person, (string FirstName, string LastName)>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage,true)]
public Person()
{
}
protected override void Initialize((string FirstName, string LastName) parameter)
{
this.FirstName = parameter.FirstName;
this.LastName = parameter.LastName;
}
public string LastName { get; private set; }
public string FirstName { get; private set; }
}
[Test]
public void FactoryTest()
{
var notInitilaizedPerson = new Person(); // doesn't compile because of the obsolete attribute.
Person max = Person.Create(("Max", "Mustermann"));
Assert.AreEqual("Max",max.FirstName);
var service = MyService.Create(("MyUser", "MyPassword"));
Assert.AreEqual("MyUser", service.Config.UserName);
}
EDIT:
And here is an example based on your drawing example that even enforces interface abstraction
public abstract class BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
where TSelf : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithAbstraction()
{
}
protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead";
public static TInterface Create(TParameter parameter)
{
var me = new TSelf();
me.Initialize(parameter);
return me;
}
protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public abstract class BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter> : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
where TSelf : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
{
protected TParameter Parameter { get; private set; }
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected BaseWithParameter()
{
}
protected sealed override void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
{
this.Parameter = parameter;
this.OnAfterInitialize(parameter);
}
protected virtual void OnAfterInitialize(TParameter parameter)
{
}
}
public class GraphicsDeviceManager
{
}
public interface IDrawable
{
void Update();
void Draw();
}
internal abstract class Drawable<TSelf> : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, IDrawable, GraphicsDeviceManager>, IDrawable
where TSelf : Drawable<TSelf>, IDrawable, new()
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
protected Drawable()
{
}
public abstract void Update();
public abstract void Draw();
}
internal class Rectangle : Drawable<Rectangle>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public Rectangle()
{
}
public override void Update()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
public override void Draw()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
}
internal class Circle : Drawable<Circle>
{
[Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
public Circle()
{
}
public override void Update()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
public override void Draw()
{
GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
// TODo manager
}
}
[Test]
public void FactoryTest()
{
// doesn't compile because interface abstraction is enforced.
Rectangle rectangle = Rectangle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
// you get only the IDrawable returned.
IDrawable service = Circle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
}