We Keep Coding

C# cast polymorphic object into specific type without knowing what that 'specific type' is

Thanks ahead, community!
As the title describes, I would like to cast an object that is in parent type to a child type, which is actually a child type, whilst this 'specific type' cannot be known until runtime.
Lets say I have following data holder:
public class Holder {}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
}
And this Holder (not Holder<T>) will be given to some script at runtime.
I need to cast this Holder into Holder<T> (eg, Holder<string>), so that I can access the Value : T.
For now, I can just mannually add casting cases and their coresponding methods to process it, but time by time there will be more types that goes into this Holder<T>, and it would become imposible to manage in this way.
Is there a way to accomplish this objective?
This Holder must not be flattened, as it is being used in a context as below:
public class SomeNode
{
protected Holder holder;
}
public class SomeNode<T> : SomeNode
{
public SomeNode<T>()
{
holder = new Holder<T>();
}
}
I have no clue how to approach this, nor a search keyword to catch a hint about this.
Automatic suggestions came up before posting seems not my case, which were:
C# Create (or cast) objects of a specific type at runtime
C# Accessing generic Method without knowing specific type
Edit
Thanks to #W.F., I could start searching with an effective keyword 'dynamic object', and I ended up finding System.Reflection as my desired soultion.
It looks like as belows and currently it solves my immediate issue:
holder.GetType().GetProperty("GetValue").Invoke(holder, null);
But as pointed out by #OlivierJacot-Descombes, my structure and a way of using it is breaking a purpose of polymorphism. Therefore I still need a better solution, which would do a job I am looking for and also not breaking polymorphism.
Possible walkaround that comes in my head is that, first, create a method GetValue() in Holder, and also create class that inherits from Holder to implement this method:
public class Holder
{
public virtual string GetValue() => "";
}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
}
public class FloatHolder : Holder<float> //for example
{
public override string GetValue() => Value.ToString();
}
Second, change node structure like:
public class SomeNode
{
protected Holder holder;
}
public class SomeNode<T> : SomeNode {}
public class FloatNode : SomeNode<float>
{
public FloatNode()
{
holder = new FloatHolder();
}
}
Then, I can do like:
public class EchoNode : SomeNode
{
public void Tick()
{
Console.WriteLine(holder.GetValue());
}
}
Seems like too many classes are being created, but it also seems not breaking polymorphism.
Looking for further advices. Again, Thanks!
Edit#2
I already said this in the comment, but for better readability, I write this here as well.
Both Dynamic Object and System.Reflection were easy and fitting solutions which I was looking for, but they weren't best solutions in general.
At the beginning I was misinterpreting #OlivierJacot-Descombes 's answer. He was overall pointing out two impediments: first, my class structure is breaking polymorphism, and second, reflection is slow (and later I noticed, dynamic object as well). I didn't catch the last bit at first so I went through a long way.
Moreover, turned out, I couldn't use dynamic object for my project context, as I am not using normal C# but a Unity C#. Technically I can, but they don't blend well.
Thankfully, my revised solution was acceptable. Therefore I decided to select #OlivierJacot-Descombes 's post as an answer. But I hope, still, people would approach and leave me an good advices.
Thank you all.

If you need to cast to a specific type, you are doing polymorphism wrong. Of course you could do something like this:
switch (holder)
{
case Holder<string> stringHolder:
DoStringThing(stringHolder.Value);
break;
case Holder<int> intHolder:
DoIntThing(intHolder.Value);
break;
...
}
See also: Switch statements with patterns.
However, the idea behind polymorphism is to be able to do things without having to know the specific type. Therefore, re-design the holder classes and have them do the type specific thing themselves:
public abstract class Holder
{
public abstract void DoThing();
}
public abstract class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public abstract T Value { get; }
}
Some examples of specific types:
public class StringHolder : Holder<string>
{
public StringHolder(string value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override string Value { get; }
public override void DoThing()
{
Console.WriteLine($"String of length {Value.Length} is \"{Value}\"");
}
}
public class IntHolder : Holder<int>
{
public IntHolder(int value)
{
Value = value;
}
public override int Value { get; }
public override void DoThing()
{
Console.WriteLine($"The integer {Value} is {(Value % 2 == 0 ? "even" : "odd")}");
}
}
Now you can simply write
holder.DoThing();
... without having to cast.
Update
Your edited question indeed shows a polymorphic version.
Here I want to present another approach which merges Holder and Holder<T> in a single class through the use of interfaces.
public interface IHolder
{
object Value { get; set; }
}
public interface IHolder<T> : IHolder
{
new T Value { get; set; } // The new keyword hides the inherited property.
}
public class Holder<T> : IHolder<T>
{
object IHolder.Value
{
get => Value; // Returns T Holder<T>.Value as object.
set => Value = value is T t ? t : default; // Sets T Holder<T>.Value.
}
public T Value { get; set; }
}
Holder<T> now implements a "neutral" Value property declared in IHolder based on the object type. Since it implements it explicitly (i.e., instead of public object Value we write object IHolder.Value), this property is hidden, unless it is accessed through the interface. This allows you, for example, to declare a List<IHolder> and to retrieve different kinds of Holder<T> values with list[i].Value as object.
But you have a variable Holder<float> floatHolder, you can get the strongly typed float value.
Note that this still allows you do derive more specific types like class FloatHolder : Holder<float>, but it might not even be necessary.
If you intend to work only with derived types, you can mark Holder<T> as abstract and also all the members that must be implemented by the deriving classes. This makes it impossible to create an instance of Holder<T> with new and also allows you to declare abstract methods without body.

community! It's a good question. That was interesting.
I think this is simple solve for this question.
We just need to create a simple constructor like below
public class Holder
{
public string SomeData; // just example data
public Holder()
{
}
public Holder(Holder someData)
{
SomeData = someData.SomeData;
}
}
public class Holder<T> : Holder
{
public T Value;
public Holder(Holder a, T t = default)
:base(a)
{
Value = t;
}
}
public class Programm
{
void Main()
{
var h = new Holder();
var g = new Holder<string>(h);
}
}

Abstract classes and accessors

Main Question:
I have a reference type (object/class) where I would like to specify accessors' implementation details, but I don't want the type to be instantiable, only extendible.
Abstract Classes don't allow bodies to the accessors of Properties as far as I understand, so that makes it trouble some for me.
How would I go about this in the most 'correct' and elegant manner?
Second question:
I would also like functionality for overloading accessors if there is a way? One reason is that I have an enum Property, which I want to be settable by using its value (int) or its enum reference type.

Abstract Classes don't allow bodies to the accessors of Properties as far as I understand
Yes they do... this is perfectly legal
abstract class MyBaseClass
{
private int _myProperty;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return _myProperty; }
set { _myProperty = value; }
}
}
Perhaps you're confusing abstract classes and interfaces; interfaces can declare members, but they can't provide an implementation for those members.

Abstract Classes don't allow bodies to the accessors of Properties as
far as I understand, so that makes it trouble some for me.
yes they do;
public abstract class Foo
{
public string Prop
{
get { return "yesTheyDo"; }
}
}
are you marking them abstract?

I think this should do what you want:
public abstract class MyParentClass
{
public enum MyEnum
{
one,
two,
three
}
private MyEnum _enumeration;
public string Name { get; private set; }
public MyEnum Enumeration { get { return this._enumeration; } }
public void SetEnumeration(string value)
{
// ... do something
}
public void SetEnumeration(MyEnum value)
{
// ... do something
}
}
There are two overloaded methods for setting the Enumeration property and some methods have their bodies declared whilst the whole class cannot be instantiated.
Hope that helps :)

You can define the body of methods and properties inside of an abstract class. The abstract part of it essentially just prevents it from being instantiated. To accomplish this, you would write the property as normal:
public string Name
{
get { return "SomeName"; }
}
As an example. As for allowing overloading of accessors, you could do one of the following:
// By setting this as 'virtual' you can allow classes that inherit from this to override the functionality if they so wish
public virtual string Name
{
get { return "SomeName"; }
}
// or
public virtual string GetName()
{
return "SomeName";
}
One tip: if you are wanting the functionality to be overridden and accessible only to classes that inherit the abstract class, use the protected keyword:
protected virtual void DoSomething() { }

Correct to use an implementation instead of the abstraction or change implementation?

I have a situation where I have 2 Activity objects (let's say empty and scheduled activity, not controlled by me) that share a couple of behaviors, like the person who booked the activity, the room where that activity takes place, activity type, subject etc.
I created two wrappers objects (EmptyWrapper and ScheduledWrapper) that have a super class ActivityWrapper that implements some methods common to both childs and has some abstract methods/properties for the child wrappers to respond accordingly. They are very much alike in behavior but there is one crucial difference, you can only schedule activities if it is an empty slot! The structure is something like this (very simplified code):
public class EmptyWrapper : AppWrapper
{
EmptySlot _emptySlot;
public EmptySlotWrapper(EmptySlot emptySlot) : base()
{
this._emptySlot = emptySlot;
}
public override string Id
{
get { return _emptySlot.AgendaId; }
}
public override string Room;
{
get{ return _emptySlot.Room;}
}
public override string Person
{
get{ return _emptySlot.Person;}
}
public override string AppType;
{
get{ return "Empty";}
}
public override bool IsAppSlot()
{
return false;
}
public override bool IsEmptySlot()
{
return true;
}
public override bool CanPerformOperations()
{
return true;
}
public void ReserveApp(ObjWithActivityInfo actObj)
{
(...)
}
}
The ActivityWrapper is similar but the object wrapped around is different, the bools return true for IsAppSlot, false for IsEmptySlot and false for CanPerformOperations and there is no ReserveApp() method.
Next is the base class:
public abstract class AppWrapper
{
public abstract string Collaborator { get; }
public abstract string Room { get; }
public abstract string AppType { get;}
public AppWrapper()
{ }
public abstract bool IsAppSlot();
public abstract bool IsEmptySlot();
public abstract bool CanPerformOperations();
public virtual string GetTextToShow()
{
return Person + " - " + Room;
}
(...)
}
In my code I wanted to reference only the ActivityWrapper, because for the general operations (show the info and appearance) I don't need the implementations. The problem rises when I need to book activities for empty slots. In that point, in my code, I cast the AppointmentWrapper to the EmptyWrapper and reserve the slot for the activity (it is still an EmptySlot but it's reserved to the selected activity), otherwise, if the cast was unsucessful I don't do anything because it was not the correct Activity Type.
Is this correct, or should I implement the ReserveActivity() method in both wrappers and have the ActivityWrapper do nothing?
Or should I do this in another way? Maybe to alter the structure of the classes?
Sorry for the long text.

There is no point in adding a function to a class that does not require it. It would defeat the point of your inheritance.
I'd do a safe cast ...
var i = obj as theClass
and then test for null. I'd use a bit of linq to select all o the objects that have the property you defined to indicate what type they are set to true.
You could do it the other way and save yourself the cast and test, but it means the design is less obvious to an outsider.
I think its a matter of taste but prefer the way you did it. I am not sure i like the bool properties to identify the type though. What if you inherit off the base class again? Besides you can cast to identify the type - which with a deeper object structure may be more useful.
I agree with your desire to work with a collection of the abstract class though.

In the several occasions that I had to deal with a similiar problem, I tend to think that it's really more elegant to create Interfaces for recognizing common functionailty for several objects then to create abstract methods which the inheriting classes will implement the way you mentioned.
e.g.
public interface IAppSlotContainer
{
void relevant_Method_When_ObjectIsAppSlot();
}
public interface IEmptySlotContainer
{
void relevant_Method_When_ObjectIsEmptySlot();
}
public class EmptyWrapper : AppWrapper, IAppSlotContainer, IEmptySlotContainer
{
public EmptyWrapper(EmptySlot emptySlot) : base()
{
this._emptySlot = emptySlot;
}
public override string Id
{
get { return _emptySlot.AgendaId; }
}
public void relevant_Method_When_ObjectIsEmptySlot()
{
}
public void relevant_Method_When_ObjectIsAppSlot()
{
}
}
Then instead of overwriting the abstract method "IsEmpty" and implementing it as "return true", just check whether the object is an instance of IEmptySlotContainer, cast it to that interface, and execute the interface related command.
it is far more generic and elegant for my taste...
Hope this helps...

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);
}
}

Please explain the utility of abstract methods in C#

Just the 5 minute overview would be nice....

public abstract class MyBaseController {
public void Authenticate() { var r = GetRepository(); }
public abstract void GetRepository();
}
public class ApplicationSpecificController {
public override void GetRepository() { /*get the specific repo here*/ }
}
This is just some dummy code that represents some real world code I have (for brevity this is just sample code)
I have 2 ASP MVC apps that do fairly similar things.
Security / Session logic (along with other things) happens the same in both.
I've abstracted the base functionality from both into a new library that they both inherit. When the base class needs things that can only be obtained from the actual implementation I implement these as abstract methods. So in my above example I need to pull user information from a DB to perform authentication in the base library. To get the correct DB for the application I have an abstract GetRepository method that returns the repository for the application. From here the base can call some method on the repo to get user information and continue on with validation, or whatever.
When a change needs to be made to authentication I now only need to update one lib instead of duplicating efforts in both. So in short if you want to implement some functionality but not all then an abstract class works great. If you want to implement no functionality use an interface.

Just look at the Template Method Pattern.

public abstract class Request
{
// each request has its own approval algorithm. Each has to implement this method
public abstract void Approve();
// refuse algorithm is common for all requests
public void Refuse() { }
// static helper
public static void CheckDelete(string status) { }
// common property. Used as a comment for any operation against a request
public string Description { get; set; }
// hard-coded dictionary of css classes for server-side markup decoration
public static IDictionary<string, string> CssStatusDictionary
}
public class RequestIn : Request
{
public override void Approve() { }
}
public class RequestOut : Request
{
public override void Approve() { }
}

Use of abstract method is very common when using the Template Method Pattern. You can use it to define the skeleton of an algorithm, and have subclasses modify or refine certain steps of the algorithm, without modifying its structure.
Take a look at a "real-world" example from doFactory's Template Method Pattern page.

The .NET Stream classes are a good example. The Stream class includes basic functionality that all streams implement and then specific streams provide specific implementations for the actual interaction with I/O.

The basic idea, is to have the abstract class to provide the skeleton and the basic functionality and just let the concrete implementation to provide the exact detail needed.
Suppose you have an interface with ... +20 methods, for instance, a List interface.
List {interface }
+ add( object: Object )
+ add( index:Int, object: Object )
+ contains( object: Object ): Bool
+ get( index : Int ): Object
+ size() : Int
....
If someone need to provide an implementation for that list, it must to implement the +20 methods every time.
An alternative would be to have an abstract class that implements most of the methods already and just let the developer to implement a few of them.
For instance
To implement an unmodifiable list, the programmer needs only to extend this class and provide implementations for the get(int index) and size() methods
AbstractList: List
+ get( index: Int ) : Object { abstract }
+ size() : Int { abstract }
... rest of the methods already implemented by abstract list
In this situation: get and size are abstract methods the developer needs to implement. The rest of the functionality may be already implemented.
EmptyList: AbstractList
{
public overrride Object Get( int index )
{
return this;
}
public override int Size()
{
return 0;
}
}
While this implementation may look absurd, it would be useful to initialize a variable:
List list = new EmptyList();
foreach( Object o: in list ) {
}
to avoid null pointers.

Used it for a home-made version of Tetris where each type Tetraminos was a child class of the tetramino class.

For instance, assume you have some classes that corresponds to rows in your database. You might want to have these classes to be considered to be equal when their ID is equal, because that's how the database works. So you could make the ID abstract because that would allow you to write code that uses the ID, but not implement it before you know about the ID in the concrete classes. This way, you avoid to implement the same equals method in all entity classes.
public abstract class AbstractEntity<TId>
{
public abstract TId Id { get; }
public override void Equals(object other)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(other,null))
return false;
if (other.GetType() != GetType() )
return false;
var otherEntity = (AbstractEntity<TId>)other;
return Id.Equals(otherEntity.Id);
}
}

I'm not a C# guy. Mind if I use Java? The principle is the same. I used this concept in a game. I calculate the armor value of different monsters very differently. I suppose I could have them keep track of various constants, but this is much easier conceptually.
abstract class Monster {
int armorValue();
}
public class Goblin extends Monster {
int armorValue() {
return this.level*10;
}
}
public class Golem extends Monster {
int armorValue() {
return this.level*this.level*20 + enraged ? 100 : 50;
}
}

You might use an abstract method (instead of an interface) any time you have a base class that actually contains some implementation code, but there's no reasonable default implementation for one or more of its methods:
public class ConnectionFactoryBase {
// This is an actual implementation that's shared by subclasses,
// which is why we don't want an interface
public string ConnectionString { get; set; }
// Subclasses will provide database-specific implementations,
// but there's nothing the base class can provide
public abstract IDbConnection GetConnection() {}
}
public class SqlConnectionFactory {
public override IDbConnection GetConnection() {
return new SqlConnection(this.ConnectionString);
}
}

An example
namespace My.Web.UI
{
public abstract class CustomControl : CompositeControl
{
// ...
public abstract void Initialize();
protected override void CreateChildControls()
{
base.CreateChildControls();
// Anything custom
this.Initialize();
}
}
}