We Keep Coding

Overrideable property that can be accessed both by instance and by class

I have an inheritance tree with a bunch of different classes. Each of these classes has some static properties that I need acces to from time to time. Sometimes I need the property of a particular class, and sometimes I need the property of the specific class some polymorphic instance turns out to be.
This would be easy in, say, Java (I think). Just make a bunch of static fields (can these be overriden? I'm not sure). But in C#, non-static fields can ONLY be accessed via an instance (naturally), and static fields can ONLY be accessed via their corresponding class (unnaturally).
And, you can't "overload" by, er, staticity. If a class has a static and a non static Foo, doing instance.Foo fails because it is unclear to the compiler which Foo you're referring to even though it's impossible you're referring to the static one since it's disallowed.
Ok, I'll provide some code. Say I have this:
class Base
{
public static readonly string Property = "Base";
}
class Child1 : Base
{
public static readonly new string Property = "Child 1";
}
class Child2 : Base
{
public static readonly new string Property = "Child 2";
}
And then, somewhere:
public void SomeMethod(Base instance)
{
System.Console.WriteLine(instance.Property); // This doesn't work.
}
And somewhere else:
public void SomeOtherMethod()
{
System.Console.WriteLine(Child2.Property);
}
I want something like that, that actually works.

As Peter Duniho said, this can be done with reflection.
For example, these can be defined within the base class:
public const string Property = "Base";
public virtual string InstanceProperty
{
get
{
return (string)this.GetType()
.GetField("Property", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Static)
.GetValue(null);
}
}
And then each derived class just has to redefine Property using the new keyword.

I think the best you'll do in C# is something like this:
public class BaseClass
{
public virtual string InstanceProperty
{
get { return StaticProperty; }
}
public static string StaticProperty
{
get { return "BaseClass"; }
}
}
public class Derived1Base : BaseClass
{
public override string InstanceProperty
{
get { return StaticProperty; }
}
public new static string StaticProperty
{
get { return "Derived1Base"; }
}
}
public class Derived1Derived1Base : Derived1Base
{
}
public class Derived2Base : BaseClass
{
public override string InstanceProperty
{
get { return StaticProperty; }
}
public new static string StaticProperty
{
get { return "Derived2Base"; }
}
}

How to Get Base Class Instance from a Derived Class

I don't know if this is possible, but I am trying to get the Base Class instance from a Derived Class. In C#, I can use the base keyword to access properties and methods of the Base Class (of course), but I want to use base itself. Attempting to do so results in a "Use of keyword 'base' is not valid in this context" error.
Example Code
public class SuperParent
{
public int SPID;
public SuperParent()
{
}
}
public class SubChild : SuperParent
{
public SubChild(int pSPID)
{
base.SPID = pSPID;
}
public int BaseSPID
{
get
{
SuperParent sp = base;
return sp.SPID;
}
}
}

If you're working with an instance of the derived class, there is no base instance.
An example:
class A
{
public void Foo() { ... }
}
class B : A
{
public void Bar() { ... }
}
What is not possible within B:
public void Bar()
{
// Use of keyword base not valid in this context
var baseOfThis = base;
}
You can do something like this:
public void Bar()
{
base.Foo();
}
And you can add another method like
public A GetBase()
{
return (A)this;
}
And then you can
public void Bar()
{
var baseOfThis = GetBase();
// equal to:
baseOfThis = (A)this;
}
So this GetBase() method is probably what you want.
The punchline is: If you have an instance of B, it inherits all properties and the non-overriden behaviour of A, but it does not consist of an instance of B which holds an (hidden but automatic) reference to an instance of A. You can cast your B instance to A, but it remains to be an instance of B.

Well you not provide code for your question, but i supsect you want something like
class Base
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("base");
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("derived");
}
//// bad
//public Base MyBase
//{
// get
// {
// return base; // Use of keyword 'base' is not valid in this context
// }
//}
// work but...
public Base MyBase
{
get
{
return (Base)this;
}
}
}
But keep in mind that MyBase is really of type Derived
new Derived().MyBase.Foo(); // output "derived"

the problem hasn't been explained as clearly as it could. however, typically, you may be better to use an abstract base class and methods and then override the required methods. you can then use the base.method as required in this case (otherwise you'll have just spun up an instance of the derived class).
public abstract class foo {
public virtual void bar(){..}
}
public class footwo : foo {
public override void bar(){
// do somethng else OR:
return base.bar();
}
}
}

The derived instance IS the base instance. It's just one object instance in memory.
example:
public class A : B
{
}
var thing = new A();
thing is an instance of an A, and is also an instance of a B.
You could for example, write this line:
B thing2 = thing;

Point 1: if you want to create the base class instance within child class than it does not worth. You already have public things accessible in child.
Point 2: If you have initialized child class and now want to get base class "instance" then how can you get that if it's not initialized(Because now the base class instance is not present in the physical memory, and there is just child class instance there)?

I interpreted what they were asking a bit differently than the other answers here so I figured I would offer my $0.02.
// Create a "Parent" class that has some attributes.
public class Parent
{
public string attribute_one { get; set; }
public string attribute_two { get; set; }
public string attribute_three { get; set; }
}
// Define a class called "Child" that inherits the
// attributes of the "Parent" class.
public class Child : Parent
{
public string attribute_four { get; set; }
public string attribute_five { get; set; }
public string attribute_six { get; set; }
}
// Create a new instance of the "Child" class with
// all attributes of the base and derived classes.
Child child = new Child {
attribute_one = "interesting";
attribute_two = "strings";
attribute_three = "to";
attribute_four = "put";
attribute_five = "all";
attribute_six = "together";
};
// Create an instance of the base class that we will
// populate with the derived class attributes.
Parent parent = new Parent();
// Using reflection we are able to get the attributes
// of the base class from the existing derived class.
foreach(PropertyInfo property in child.GetType().BaseType.GetProperties())
{
// Set the values in the base class using the ones
// that were set in the derived class above.
property.SetValue(parent, property.GetValue(child));
}
The result is a new object populated with the base class properties of the child class.

class Parent
{
private Parent _parent;
public Parent()
{
_parent = this;
}
protected Parent GetParent()
{
return _parent;
}
}
class Child : Parent
{
private Parent _parent;
public Child()
{
_parent = base.GetParent();
}
}

How can I wrap static properties of a base class so that they return a sub class object?

Say I have code out there like this:
public class Base // I cannot change this class
{
public string Something { get; private set; }
public string Otherthing { get; set; }
public static Base StaticPreSet
{
get { return new Base { Something = "Some", Otherthing = "Other"}; }
}
public static Base StaticPreSet2
{
get { return new Base { Something = "Some 2", Otherthing = "Other 2"}; }
}
}
public class SubClass : Base // I can change this class all I want.
{
public string MoreData { get; set; }
// How can I wrap the PreSets here so that they return SubClass objects?
// Something like this:
public static SubClass MyWrappedPreset
{
get
{
// Code here to call the base preset and then use it as the
// base of my SubClass instance.
}
}
}
What makes this complicated is the Something property. It has a private setter. So I can't set it in the subclass. The only way it can be set is is via the preset properties.
Is there a way to wrap the StaticPreSet property in my SubClass so that it will return an object of type SubClass?

// I cannot change this base class.
Given that you can't change the base class, there is no way to cause it to change behavior (ie: return a different class at runtime).
If you could influence the design of the base class static methods, you could redesign it in a way to be flexible enough to provide this functionality. However, without changing it, this won't work.
Edit in response to edit:
You could create a new static method that does what you are showing, like so:
public static SubClass MyWrappedPreset
{
get
{
// Code here to call the base preset and then use it as the
// base of my SubClass instance.
Base baseInstance = Base.StaticPreSet;
SubClass sc = new SubClass(baseInstance); // Create a new instance from your base class
return sc;
}
}
However, this provides a completely new, unrelated property - you'd have to access it via SubClass.MyWrappedPreset, not the Base class.

Static fields in a class "have nothing to do with it".
Basically, except access to private static fields, id doesn't matter in which class you put them - they behave the same.
If you inherit a class, and you declare another static field with the same name of a static field on the base class, you will simply 'hide' it. Example for you:
using System;
public class Base // I cannot change this class
{
public string Something { get; set; }
public string Otherthing { get; set; }
public static Base StaticPreSet
{
get { return new Base { Something = "Some", Otherthing = "Other"}; }
}
public static Base StaticPreSet2
{
get { return new Base { Something = "Some 2", Otherthing = "Other 2"}; }
}
}
public class SubClass : Base // I can change this class all I want.
{
public string MoreData { get; set; }
public static SubClass StaticPreSet2
{
get { return new SubClass { Something = "inherited", Otherthing=""}; }
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(SubClass.StaticPreSet2.Something);
}
}
Will write "inherited".

Creating read-only versions of classes in a complex object structure

In my current project I need to be able to have both editable and read-only versions of classes. So that when the classes are displayed in a List or PropertGrid the user is not able to edit objects they should not be allowed to.
To do this I'm following the design pattern shown in the diagram below. I start with a read-only interface (IWidget), and then create an edtiable class which implements this interface (Widget). Next I create a read-only class (ReadOnlyWidget) which simply wraps the mutable class and also implements the read only interface.
I'm following this pattern for a number of different unrelated types. But now I want to add a search function to my program, which can generate results that include any variety of types including both mutable and immutable versions. So now I want to add another set of interfaces (IItem, IMutableItem) that define properties which apply to all types. So IItem defines a set of generic immutable properties, and IMutableItem defines the same properties but editable. In the end a search will return a collection of IItems, which can then later be cast to more specific types if needed.
Yet, I'm not sure if I'm setting up the relationships to IMutable and IItem correctly. Right now I have each of the interfaces (IWidget, IDooHickey) inheriting from IItem, and then the mutable classes (Widget, DooHickey) in addition also implement IMutableItem.
Alternatively, I was also thinking I could then set IMutableItem to inherit from IItem, which would hide its read-only properties with new properties that have both get and set accessors. Then the mutable classes would implement IMutableItem, and the read-only classes would implement IItem.
I'd appreciate any suggestions or criticisms regarding any of this.
Class Diagram
Code
public interface IItem
{
string ItemName { get; }
}
public interface IMutableItem
{
string ItemName { get; set; }
}
public interface IWidget:IItem
{
void Wiggle();
}
public abstract class Widget : IWidget, IMutableItem
{
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
//wiggle a little
}
}
public class ReadOnlyWidget : IWidget
{
private Widget _widget;
public ReadOnlyWidget(Widget widget)
{
this._widget = widget;
}
public void Wiggle()
{
_widget.Wiggle();
}
public string ItemName
{
get {return _widget.ItemName; }
}
}
public interface IDoohickey:IItem
{
void DoSomthing();
}
public abstract class Doohickey : IDoohickey, IMutableItem
{
public void DoSomthing()
{
//work it, work it
}
public string ItemName
{
get;
set;
}
}
public class ReadOnlyDoohickey : IDoohickey
{
private Doohickey _doohicky;
public ReadOnlyDoohickey(Doohickey doohicky)
{
this._doohicky = doohicky;
}
public string ItemName
{
get { return _doohicky.ItemName; }
}
public void DoSomthing()
{
this._doohicky.DoSomthing();
}
}

Is it OK to create another object when you need a readonly copy? If so then you can use the technique in the included code. If not, I think a wrapper is probably your best bet when it comes to this.
internal class Test
{
private int _id;
public virtual int ID
{
get
{
return _id;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
private string _name;
public virtual string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
set
{
if (ReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot set properties on a readonly instance.");
}
}
}
public bool ReadOnly { get; private set; }
public Test(int id = -1, string name = null)
: this(id, name, false)
{ }
private Test(int id, string name, bool readOnly)
{
ID = id;
Name = name;
ReadOnly = readOnly;
}
public Test AsReadOnly()
{
return new Test(ID, Name, true);
}
}

I would suggest that for each main class or interface, there be three defined classes: a "readable" class, a "changeable" class, and an "immutable" class. Only the "changeable" or "immutable" classes should exist as concrete types; they should both derive from an abstract "readable" class. Code which wants to store an object secure in the knowledge that it never changes should store the "immutable" class; code that wants to edit an object should use the "changeable" class. Code which isn't going to write to something but doesn't care if it holds the same value forever can accept objects of the "readable" base type.
The readable version should include public abstract methods AsChangeable(), AsImmutable(), public virtual method AsNewChangeable(), and protected virtual method AsNewImmutable(). The "changeable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return this, and AsImmutable to return AsNewImmutable(). The "immutable" classes should define AsChangeable() to return AsNewChangeable() and AsImmutable() to return this.
The biggest difficulty with all this is that inheritance doesn't work terribly well if one tries to use class types rather than interfaces. For example, if one would like to have an EnhancedCustomer class which inherits from BasicCustomer, then ImmutableEnhancedCustomer should inherit from both ImmutableBasicCustomer and ReadableEnhancedCustomer, but .net doesn't allow such dual inheritance. One could use an interface IImmutableEnhancedCustomer rather than a class, but some people would consider an 'immutable interace' to be a bit of a smell since there's no way a module that defines an interface in such a way that outsiders can use it without also allowing outsiders to define their own implementations.

Abandon hope all ye who enter here!!!
I suspect that in the long run your code is going to be very confusing. Your class diagram suggests that all properties are editable (or not) in a given object. Or are your (I'm)mutable interfaces introducing new properties that are all immutable or not, separate from the "core"/inheriting class?
Either way I think you're going to end up with playing games with property name variations and/or hiding inherited properties
Marker Interfaces Perhaps?
Consider making all properties in your classes mutable. Then implement IMutable (I don't like the name IItem) and IImutable as a marker interfaces. That is, there is literally nothing defined in the interface body. But it allows client code to handle the objects as a IImutable reference, for example.
This implies that either (a) your client code plays nice and respects it's mutability, or (b) all your objects are wrapped by a "controller" class that enforces the given object's mutability.

Could be too late :-), but the cause "The keyword 'new' is required on property because it hides property ..." is a bug in Resharper, no problem with the compiler. See the example below:
public interface IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { get; }
}
public interface IEntity : IEntityReadOnly
{
int Prop { set; }
}
public class Entity : IEntity
{
public int Prop { get; set; }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var entity = new Entity();
(entity as IEntity).Prop = 2;
Assert.AreEqual(2, (entity as IEntityReadOnly).Prop);
}
}
Same for the case without interfaces. The only limitation, you can't use auto-properties
public class User
{
public User(string userName)
{
this.userName = userName;
}
protected string userName;
public string UserName { get { return userName; } }
}
public class UserUpdatable : User
{
public UserUpdatable()
: base(null)
{
}
public string UserName { set { userName = value; } }
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var user = new UserUpdatable {UserName = "George"};
Assert.AreEqual("George", (user as User).UserName);
}
}

Overriding fields or properties in subclasses

I have an abstract base class and I want to declare a field or a property that will have a different value in each class that inherits from this parent class.
I want to define it in the baseclass so I can reference it in a base class method - for example overriding ToString to say "This object is of type property/field".
I have got three ways that I can see of doing this, but I was wondering - what is the best or accepted way of doing this? Newbie question, sorry.
Option 1:
Use an abstract Property and override it on the inherited classes. This benefits from being enforced (you have to override it) and it is clean. But, it feels slightly wrong to return a hard-code value rather than encapsulate a field and it is a few lines of code instead of just. I also have to declare a body for "set" but that is less important (and there is probably a way to avoid that which I am not aware of).
abstract class Father
{
abstract public int MyInt { get; set;}
}
class Son : Father
{
public override int MyInt
{
get { return 1; }
set { }
}
}
Option 2
I can declare a public field (or a protected field) and explicitly override it in the inherited class. The example below will give me a warning to use "new" and I can probably do that, but it feels wrong and it breaks the polymorphism, which was the whole point. Doesn't seem like a good idea...
abstract class Mother
{
public int MyInt = 0;
}
class Daughter : Mother
{
public int MyInt = 1;
}
Option 3
I can use a protected field and set the value in the constructor. This seems pretty tidy but relies on me ensuring the constructor always sets this and with multiple overloaded constructors there is always a chance some code path won't set the value.
abstract class Aunt
{
protected int MyInt;
}
class Niece : Aunt
{
public Niece()
{
MyInt = 1;
}
}
It's a bit of a theoretical question and I guess the answer has to be option 1 as it is the only safe option but I am just getting to grips with C# and wanted to ask this of people with more experience.

Of the three solutions only Option 1 is polymorphic.
Fields by themselves cannot be overridden. Which is exactly why Option 2 returns the new keyword warning.
The solution to the warning is not to append the “new” keyword, but to implement Option 1.
If you need your field to be polymorphic you need to wrap it in a Property.
Option 3 is OK if you don’t need polymorphic behavior. You should remember though, that when at runtime the property MyInt is accessed, the derived class has no control on the value returned. The base class by itself is capable of returning this value.
This is how a truly polymorphic implementation of your property might look, allowing the derived classes to be in control.
abstract class Parent
{
abstract public int MyInt { get; }
}
class Father : Parent
{
public override int MyInt
{
get { /* Apply formula "X" and return a value */ }
}
}
class Mother : Parent
{
public override int MyInt
{
get { /* Apply formula "Y" and return a value */ }
}
}

Option 2 is a non-starter - you can't override fields, you can only hide them.
Personally, I'd go for option 1 every time. I try to keep fields private at all times. That's if you really need to be able to override the property at all, of course. Another option is to have a read-only property in the base class which is set from a constructor parameter:
abstract class Mother
{
private readonly int myInt;
public int MyInt { get { return myInt; } }
protected Mother(int myInt)
{
this.myInt = myInt;
}
}
class Daughter : Mother
{
public Daughter() : base(1)
{
}
}
That's probably the most appropriate approach if the value doesn't change over the lifetime of the instance.

You could do this
class x
{
private int _myInt;
public virtual int myInt { get { return _myInt; } set { _myInt = value; } }
}
class y : x
{
private int _myYInt;
public override int myInt { get { return _myYInt; } set { _myYInt = value; } }
}
virtual lets you get a property a body that does something and still lets sub-classes override it.

option 2 is a bad idea. It will result in something called shadowing; Basically you have two different "MyInt" members, one in the mother, and the other in the daughter. The problem with this, is that methods that are implemented in the mother will reference the mother's "MyInt" while methods implemented in the daughter will reference the daughter's "MyInt". this can cause some serious readability issues, and confusion later down the line.
Personally, I think the best option is 3; because it provides a clear centralized value, and can be referenced internally by children without the hassle of defining their own fields -- which is the problem with option 1.

You could define something like this:
abstract class Father
{
//Do you need it public?
protected readonly int MyInt;
}
class Son : Father
{
public Son()
{
MyInt = 1;
}
}
By setting the value as readonly, it ensures that the value for that class remains unchanged for the lifetime of the object.
I suppose the next question is: why do you need it?

If you are building a class and you want there to be a base value for the property, then use the virtual keyword in the base class. This allows you to optionally override the property.
Using your example above:
//you may want to also use interfaces.
interface IFather
{
int MyInt { get; set; }
}
public class Father : IFather
{
//defaulting the value of this property to 1
private int myInt = 1;
public virtual int MyInt
{
get { return myInt; }
set { myInt = value; }
}
}
public class Son : Father
{
public override int MyInt
{
get {
//demonstrating that you can access base.properties
//this will return 1 from the base class
int baseInt = base.MyInt;
//add 1 and return new value
return baseInt + 1;
}
set
{
//sets the value of the property
base.MyInt = value;
}
}
}
In a program:
Son son = new Son();
//son.MyInt will equal 2

You can go with option 3 if you modify your abstract base class to require the property value in the constructor, you won't miss any paths. I'd really consider this option.
abstract class Aunt
{
protected int MyInt;
protected Aunt(int myInt)
{
MyInt = myInt;
}
}
Of course, you then still have the option of making the field private and then, depending on the need, exposing a protected or public property getter.

I'd go with option 3, but have an abstract setMyInt method that subclasses are forced to implement. This way you won't have the problem of a derived class forgetting to set it in the constructor.
abstract class Base
{
protected int myInt;
protected abstract void setMyInt();
}
class Derived : Base
{
override protected void setMyInt()
{
myInt = 3;
}
}
By the way, with option one, if you don't specify set; in your abstract base class property, the derived class won't have to implement it.
abstract class Father
{
abstract public int MyInt { get; }
}
class Son : Father
{
public override int MyInt
{
get { return 1; }
}
}

I did this...
namespace Core.Text.Menus
{
public abstract class AbstractBaseClass
{
public string SELECT_MODEL;
public string BROWSE_RECORDS;
public string SETUP;
}
}
namespace Core.Text.Menus
{
public class English : AbstractBaseClass
{
public English()
{
base.SELECT_MODEL = "Select Model";
base.BROWSE_RECORDS = "Browse Measurements";
base.SETUP = "Setup Instrument";
}
}
}
This way you can still use fields.

The example implementation when you want to have an abstract class with implementation. Subclasses must:
Parameterize the implementation of an abstract class.
Fully inherit the implementation of the abstract class;
Have your own implementation.
In this case, the properties that are necessary for the implementation should not be available for use except for the abstract class and its own subclass.
internal abstract class AbstractClass
{
//Properties for parameterization from concrete class
protected abstract string Param1 { get; }
protected abstract string Param2 { get; }
//Internal fields need for manage state of object
private string var1;
private string var2;
internal AbstractClass(string _var1, string _var2)
{
this.var1 = _var1;
this.var2 = _var2;
}
internal void CalcResult()
{
//The result calculation uses Param1, Param2, var1, var2;
}
}
internal class ConcreteClassFirst : AbstractClass
{
private string param1;
private string param2;
protected override string Param1 { get { return param1; } }
protected override string Param2 { get { return param2; } }
public ConcreteClassFirst(string _var1, string _var2) : base(_var1, _var2) { }
internal void CalcParams()
{
//The calculation param1 and param2
}
}
internal class ConcreteClassSecond : AbstractClass
{
private string param1;
private string param2;
protected override string Param1 { get { return param1; } }
protected override string Param2 { get { return param2; } }
public ConcreteClassSecond(string _var1, string _var2) : base(_var1, _var2) { }
internal void CalcParams()
{
//The calculation param1 and param2
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string var1_1 = "val1_1";
string var1_2 = "val1_2";
ConcreteClassFirst concreteClassFirst = new ConcreteClassFirst(var1_1, var1_2);
concreteClassFirst.CalcParams();
concreteClassFirst.CalcResult();
string var2_1 = "val2_1";
string var2_2 = "val2_2";
ConcreteClassSecond concreteClassSecond = new ConcreteClassSecond(var2_1, var2_2);
concreteClassSecond.CalcParams();
concreteClassSecond.CalcResult();
//Param1 and Param2 are not visible in main method
}