We Keep Coding

What is the name of this bad practice / anti-pattern?

I'm trying to explain to my team why this is bad practice, and am looking for an anti-pattern reference to help in my explanation. This is a very large enterprise app, so here's a simple example to illustrate what was implemented:
public void ControlStuff()
{
var listOfThings = LoadThings();
var listOfThingsThatSupportX = new string[] {"ThingA","ThingB", "ThingC"};
foreach (var thing in listOfThings)
{
if(listOfThingsThatSupportX.Contains(thing.Name))
{
DoSomething();
}
}
}
I'm suggesting that we add a property to the 'Things' base class to tell us if it supports X, since the Thing subclass will need to implement the functionality in question. Something like this:
public void ControlStuff()
{
var listOfThings = LoadThings();
foreach (var thing in listOfThings)
{
if (thing.SupportsX)
{
DoSomething();
}
}
}
class ThingBase
{
public virtual bool SupportsX { get { return false; } }
}
class ThingA : ThingBase
{
public override bool SupportsX { get { return true; } }
}
class ThingB : ThingBase
{
}
So, it's pretty obvious why the first approach is bad practice, but what's this called? Also, is there a pattern better suited to this problem than the one I'm suggesting?

Normally a better approach (IMHO) would be to use interfaces instead of inheritance
then it is just a matter of checking whether the object has implemented the interface or not.

I think the anti-pattern name is hard-coding :)
Whether there should be a ThingBase.supportsX depends at least somewhat on what X is. In rare cases that knowledge might be in ControlStuff() only.
More usually though, X might be one of set of things in which case ThingBase might need to expose its capabilities using ThingBase.supports(ThingBaseProperty) or some such.

IMO the fundamental design principle at play here is encapsulation. In your proposed solution you have encapsulated the logic inside of the Thing class, where as in the original code the logic leaks out into the callers.
It also violates the Open-Closed principle, since if you want to add new subclasses that support X you now need to go and modify anywhere that contains that hard-coded list. With your solution you just add the new class, override the method and you're done.

Don't know about a name (doubt such exists) but think of each "Thing" as a car - some cars have Cruise Control system and others do not have.
Now you have fleet of cars you manage and want to know which have cruise control.
Using the first approach is like finding list of all car models which have cruise control, then go car by car and search for each in that list - if there it means the car has cruise control, otherwise it doesn't have. Cumbersome, right?
Using the second approach means that each car that has cruise control come with a sticker saying "I has cruise control" and you just have to look for that sticker, without relying on external source to bring you information.
Not very technical explanation, but simple and to the point.

There is a perfectly reasonable situation where this coding practice makes sense. It might not be an issue of which things actually support X (where of course an interface on each thing would be better), but rather which things that support X are ones that you want to enable. The label for what you see is then simply configuration, presently hard-coded, and the improvement on this is to move it eventually to a configuration file or otherwise. Before you persuade your team to change it I would check this is not the intention of the code you have paraphrased.

The Writing Too Much Code Anti-Pattern. It makes it harder to read and understand.
As has been pointed out already it would be better to use an interface.
Basically the programmers are not taking advantage of Object-Oriented Principles and instead doing things using procedural code. Every time we reach for the 'if' statement we should ask ourselves if we shouldn't be using an OO concept instead of writing more procedural code.

It is just a bad code, it does not have a name for it (it doesn't even have an OO design). But the argument could be that the first code does not fallow Open Close Principle. What happens when list of supported things change? You have to rewrite the method you're using.
But the same thing happens when you use the second code snippet. Lets say the supporting rule changes, you'd have to go to the each of the methods and rewrite them. I'd suggest you to have an abstract Support Class and pass different support rules when they change.

I don't think it has a name but maybe check the master list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern knows? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_code probably looks the closer.
I think that your example probably doesn't have a name - whereas your proposed solution does it is called Composite.
http://www.dofactory.com/Patterns/PatternComposite.aspx

Since you don't show what the code really is for it's hard to give you a robust sulotion. Here is one that doesn't use any if clauses at all.
// invoked to map different kinds of items to different features
public void BootStrap
{
featureService.Register(typeof(MyItem), new CustomFeature());
}
// your code without any ifs.
public void ControlStuff()
{
var listOfThings = LoadThings();
foreach (var thing in listOfThings)
{
thing.InvokeFeatures();
}
}
// your object
interface IItem
{
public ICollection<IFeature> Features {get;set;}
public void InvokeFeatues()
{
foreach (var feature in Features)
feature.Invoke(this);
}
}
// a feature that can be invoked on an item
interface IFeature
{
void Invoke(IItem container);
}
// the "glue"
public class FeatureService
{
void Register(Type itemType, IFeature feature)
{
_features.Add(itemType, feature);
}
void ApplyFeatures<T>(T item) where T : IItem
{
item.Features = _features.FindFor(typof(T));
}
}

I would call it a Failure to Encapsulate. It's a made up term, but it is real and seen quite often
A lot of people forget that encasulation is not just the hiding of data withing an object, it is also the hiding of behavior within that object, or more specifically, the hiding of how the behavior of an object is implemented.
By having an external DoSomething(), which is required for the correct program operation, you create a lot of issues. You cannot reasonably use inheritence in your list of things. If you change the signature of the "thing", in this case the string, the behavior doesn't follow. You need to modify this external class to add it's behaviour (invoking DoSomething() back to the derived thing.
I would offer the "improved" solution, which is to have a list of Thing objects, with a method that implements DoSomething(), which acts as a NOOP for the things that do nothing. This localizes the behavior of the thing within itself, and the maintenance of a special matching list becomes unnecessary.

If it were one string, I might call it a "magic string". In this case, I would consider "magic string array".

I don't know if there is a 'pattern' for writing code that is not maintainable or reusable. Why can't you just give them the reason?

In order to me the best is to explain that in term of computational complexity. Draw two chart showing the number of operation required in term of count(listOfThingsThatSupportX ) and count(listOfThings ) and compare with the solution you propose.

Instead of using interfaces, you could use attributes. They would probably describe that the object should be 'tagged' as this sort of object, even if tagging it as such doesn't introduce any additional functionality. I.e. an object being described as 'Thing A' doesn't mean that all 'Thing A's have a specific interface, it's just important that they are a 'Thing A'. That seems like the job of attributes more than interfaces.

Are Interfaces Compatible With Polymorphism

I am having trouble with the concept of interfaces interacting with polymorphic types (or even polymorphic interfaces). I'm developing in C# and would appreciate answers staying close to this definition, although i think that still gives plenty of room for everyone to put forth an answer.
Just as an example, let's say you want to make a program to paint things. You define an interface for the actor that Paints, and you define an interface for the subject which is painted, Furthermore you have some subjects which can be painted in a more specific way.
interface IPainter {
void paint(IPaintable paintable);
}
interface IPaintable {
void ApplyBaseLayer(Color c);
}
interface IDecalPaintable : IPaintable {
void ApplyDecal(HatchBrush b);
}
I can imagine making a painter similar to the following:
class AwesomeDecalPainter : IPainter
{
public void paint(IPaintable paintable) {
IDecalPaintable decalPaintable = (IDecalPaintable)paintable;
decalPaintable.ApplyBaseLayer(Color.Red);
decalPaintable.ApplyDecal(new HatchBrush(HatchStyle.Plaid, Color.Green));
}
}
Of course this will throw if paintable does not implement IDecalPaintable. It immediately introduces a coupling between the IPainter implementation and the IPaintable that it operates on. However I also don't think it makes sense to say that AwesomeDecalPainter is not an IPainter just because it's use is limited to a subset of the IPaintable domain.
So my question is really four-fold:
Are interface compatible with
polymorphism at all?
Is it good
design to implement an IPainter that
can operate on IDecalPaintable?
What about if it can exclusively operate
on IDecalPaintable?
Is there any literature or source code that
exemplifies how interfaces and polymorphic types
should interact?

The interface of a class is meant as a tool for the "user" of that class. An interface is a public presentation for the class, and it should advertise, to anyone considering to use it, what methods and constants are available and accessible from the outside. So, as it name suggests, it always sits between the user and the class implementing it.
On the other hand, an abstract class is a tool aimed at helping the "implementor" of the classes that extend it. It is an infrastructure that can impose restrictions and guidelines about what the concrete classes should look like. From a class design perspective, abstract classes are more architecturally important than interfaces. In this case, the implementor sits between the abstract class and the concrete one, building the latter on top of the former.
So to answer your question simply, Interface is a "contract" for the code to respect. When uused this way, it applies more to inheritance that polymorphism.
Abstract classes, they define a 'type'. And when the concrete sub classes use abstract classes and redefine methods, add new ones etc ... there you see polymorphism in action.
I know this post may confuse you more, it didn't make sense to me until I learned design patterns. With a few simple patterns under your belt you will better understand the role of each object and how inheritance, polymorphism and encapsulation play hand in hand to build cleanly designed applications.
Good-Luck

Interfaces are not only compatible with polymorphism--they're essential to it. Part of the idea you seem to be missing is that if one has an interface like IPaintable, the expectation is that every object that implements it will provide some default method of being painted, typically encapsulating other methods which would configure the object in some useful fashion.
For example, an IPaintable interface might define a paint method:
void Paint(ICanvas canvas);
Note that the Paint method says nothing about what should be painted, nor what color, nor anything else. Various paintable objects would expose properties to control such things. A Polygon method, for example, might dispose OutlineColor and FillColor properties, along with a SetVertices() method. A routine that wants to paint a whole lot of objects could accept an IEnumerable(Of IPaintable) and simply call Paint on all of them, without having to know anything about how they'll be painted. The fact that an object is painted by calling Paint with no parameters other than the canvas upon which it should be painted in no way prevents the Paint method from doing all sorts of fancy gradient fills, texture mapping, ray tracing, or other graphical effects. The code which is commanding the painting would know nothing of such things, but the IPaintable objects themselves would hold all the information they needed and thus wouldn't need the calling code to supply it.

The problem is really that you have defined a vague interface, a contract is a more proper term. It's like you go into McDonalds and just order a burger:
interface Resturant
{
Burger BuyBurger();
}
The person taking your order will look a bit confused for a while, but eventually he/she will serve you any burger since you don't specify what you want.
Same thing here. Do you really just want to define that something is paintable? If you ask me, it's like asking for trouble. Always try to make interfaces as specific as possible. It's always better to have several small specific interfaces than a large general one.
But let's go back to your example. In your case, all classes only have to be able to paint something. Therefore I would add another more specific interface:
interface IPainter
{
void Paint(IPaintable paintable);
}
interface IDecalPainter : IPainter
{
void Paint(IDecalPaintable paintable);
}
interface IPaintable
{
void ApplyBaseLayer(Color c);
}
interface IDecalPaintable : IPaintable
{
void ApplyDecal(HatchBrush b);
}
class AwesomeDecalPainter : IDecalPainter
{
public void Paint(IPaintable paintable)
{
IDecalPaintable decalPaintable = paintable as IDecalPaintable;
if (decalPaintable != null)
Paint(decalPaintable);
else
paintable.ApplyBaseLayer(Color.Red);
}
public void Paint(IDecalPaintable paintable)
{
paintable.ApplyBaseLayer(Color.Red);
paintable.ApplyDecal(new HatchBrush(HatchStyle.Plaid, Color.Green));
}
}
I would recommend that you read about the SOLID principles.
Update
A more sound interface implementation
interface IPaintingContext
{
//Should not be object. But my System.Drawing knowledge is limited
object DrawingSurface { get; set; }
}
interface IPaintable
{
void Draw(IPaintingContext context);
}
class AwesomeDecal : IPaintable
{
public void Draw(IPaintingContext paintable)
{
// draw decal
}
}
class ComplexPaintableObject : IPaintable
{
public ComplexPaintableObject(IEnumerable<IPaintable> paintable)
{
// add background, border
}
}
Here you can create as complex painting items as possible. They are now aware what they paint on, or what other paintables are used on the same surface.

Am I understanding your question correctly?
I think your question is whether interface can exercise the essentials of inheritance ?
(ie. child interface inheriting from parent interface).
1) if that's the case, syntactically sure, why not?
2) as for the practicability, it may be of little value because, your child interfaces are not essentially reusing anything from your parent interface.

Good Case For Interfaces

I work at a company where some require justification for the use of an Interface in our code (Visual Studio C# 3.5).
I would like to ask for an Iron Clad reasoning that interfaces are required for. (My goal is to PROVE that interfaces are a normal part of programming.)
I don't need convincing, I just need a good argument to use in the convincing of others.
The kind of argument I am looking for is fact based, not comparison based (ie "because the .NET library uses them" is comparison based.)
The argument against them is thus: If a class is properly setup (with its public and private members) then an interface is just extra overhead because those that use the class are restricted to public members. If you need to have an interface that is implemented by more than 1 class then just setup inheritance/polymorphism.

Code decoupling. By programming to interfaces you decouple the code using the interface from the code implementing the interface. This allows you to change the implementation without having to refactor all of the code using it. This works in conjunction with inheritance/polymorphism, allowing you to use any of a number of possible implementations interchangeably.
Mocking and unit testing. Mocking frameworks are most easily used when the methods are virtual, which you get by default with interfaces. This is actually the biggest reason why I create interfaces.
Defining behavior that may apply to many different classes that allows them to be used interchangeably, even when there isn't a relationship (other than the defined behavior) between the classes. For example, a Horse and a Bicycle class may both have a Ride method. You can define an interface IRideable that defines the Ride behavior and any class that uses this behavior can use either a Horse or Bicycle object without forcing an unnatural inheritance between them.

The argument against them is thus: If
a class is properly setup (with its
public and private members) then an
interface is just extra overhead
because those that use the class are
restricted to public members. If you
need to have an interface that is
implemented by more than 1 class then
just setup inheritance/polymorphism.
Consider the following code:
interface ICrushable
{
void Crush();
}
public class Vehicle
{
}
public class Animal
{
}
public class Car : Vehicle, ICrushable
{
public void Crush()
{
Console.WriteLine( "Crrrrrassssh" );
}
}
public class Gorilla : Animal, ICrushable
{
public void Crush()
{
Console.WriteLine( "Sqqqquuuuish" );
}
}
Does it make any sense at all to establish a class hierarchy that relates Animals to Vehicles even though both can be crushed by my giant crushing machine? No.

In addition to things explained in other answers, interfaces allow you simulate multiple inheritance in .NET which otherwise is not allowed.
Alas as someone said
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand.

To enable unit testing of the class.
To track dependencies efficiently (if the interface isn't checked out and touched, only the semantics of the class can possibly have changed).
Because there is no runtime overhead.
To enable dependency injection.
...and perhaps because it's friggin' 2009, not the 70's, and modern language designers actually have a clue about what they are doing?
Not that interfaces should be thrown at every class interface: just those which are central to the system, and which are likely to experience significant change and/or extension.

Interfaces and abstract classes model different things. You derive from a class when you have an isA relationship so the base class models something concrete. You implement an interface when your class can perform a specific set of tasks.
Think of something that's Serializable, it doesn't really make sense (from a design/modelling point of view) to have a base class called Serializable as it doesn't make sense to say something isA Serializable. Having something implement a Serializable interface makes more sense as saying 'this is something the class can do, not what the class is'

Interfaces are not 'required for' at all, it's a design decision. I think you need to convince yourself, why, on a case-by-case basis, it is beneficial to use an interface, because there IS an overhead in adding an interface. On the other hand, to counter the argument against interfaces because you can 'simply' use inheritance: inheritance has its draw backs, one of them is that - at least in C# and Java - you can only use inheritance once(single inheritance); but the second - and maybe more important - is that, inheritance requires you to understand the workings of not only the parent class, but all of the ancestor classes, which makes extension harder but also more brittle, because a change in the parent class' implementation could easily break the subclasses. This is the crux of the "composition over inheritance" argument that the GOF book taught us.

You've been given a set of guidelines that your bosses have thought appropriate for your workplace and problem domain. So to be persuasive about changing those guidelines, it's not about proving that interfaces are a good thing in general, it's about proving that you need them in your workplace.
How do you prove that you need interfaces in the code you write in your workplace? By finding a place in your actual codebase (not in some code from somebody else's product, and certainly not in some toy example about Duck implementing the makeNoise method in IAnimal) where an interface-based solution is better than an inheritance-based solution. Show your bosses the problem you're facing, and ask whether it makes sense to modify the guidelines to accommodate situations like that. It's a teachable moment where everyone is looking at the same facts instead of hitting each other over the head with generalities and speculations.
The guideline seems to be driven by a concern about avoiding overengineering and premature generalisation. So if you make an argument along the lines of we should have an interface here just in case in future we have to..., it's well-intentioned, but for your bosses it sets off the same over-engineering alarm bells that motivated the guideline in the first place.
Wait until there's a good objective case for it, that goes both for the programming techniques you use in production code and for the things you start arguments with your managers about.

Test Driven Development
Unit Testing
Without interfaces producing decoupled code would be a pain. Best practice is to code against an interface rather than a concrete implementation. Interfaces seem rubbish at first but once you discover the benefits you'll always use them.

You can implement multiple interfaces. You cannot inherit from multiple classes.
..that's it. The points others are making about code decoupling and test-driven development don't get to the crux of the matter because you can do those things with abstract classes too.

Interfaces allow you to declare a concept that can be shared amongst many types (IEnumerable) while allowing each of those types to have its own inheritance hierarchy.
In this case, what we're saying is "this thing can be enumerated, but that is not its single defining characteristic".
Interfaces allow you to make the minimum amount of decisions necessary when defining the capabilities of the implementer. When you create a class instead of an interface, you have already declared that your concept is class-only and not usable for structs. You also make other decisions when declaring members in a class, such as visibility and virtuality.
For example, you can make an abstract class with all public abstract members, and that is pretty close to an interface, but you have declared that concept as overridable in all child classes, whereas you wouldn't have to have made that decision if you used an interface.
They also make unit testing easier, but I don't believe that is a strong argument, since you can build a system without unit tests (not recommended).

If your shop is performing automated testing, interfaces are a great boon to dependency injection and being able to test a unit of software in isolation.

The problem with the inheritance argument is that you'll either have a gigantic god class or a hierarchy so deep, it'll make your head spin. On top of that, you'll end up with methods on a class you don't need or don't make any sense.
I see a lot of "no multiple inheritance" and while that's true, it probably won't phase your team because you can have multiple levels of inheritance to get what they'd want.
An IDisposable implementation comes to mind. Your team would put a Dispose method on the Object class and let it propagate through the system whether or not it made sense for an object or not.

An interface declares a contract that any object implementing it will adhere to. This makes ensuring quality in code so much easier than trying to enforce written (not code) or verbal structure, the moment a class is decorated with the interface reference the requirements/contract is clear and the code won't compile till you've implemented that interface completely and type-safe.
There are many other great reasons for using Interfaces (listed here) but probably don't resonate with management quite as well as a good, old-fashioned 'quality' statement ;)

Well, my 1st reaction is that if you've to explain why you need interfaces, it's a uphill battle anyways :)
that being said, other than all the reasons mentioned above, interfaces are the only way for loosely coupled programming, n-tier architectures where you need to update/replace components on the fly etc. - in personal experience however that was too esoteric a concept for the head of architecture team with the result that we lived in dll hell - in the .net world no-less !

Please forgive me for the pseudo code in advance!
Read up on SOLID principles. There are a few reasons in the SOLID principles for using Interfaces. Interfaces allow you to decouple your dependancies on implementation. You can take this a step further by using a tool like StructureMap to really make the coupling melt away.
Where you might be used to
Widget widget1 = new Widget;
This specifically says that you want to create a new instance of Widget. However if you do this inside of a method of another object you are now saying that the other object is directly dependent on the use of Widget. So we could then say something like
public class AnotherObject
{
public void SomeMethod(Widget widget1)
{
//..do something with widget1
}
}
We are still tied to the use of Widget here. But at least this is more testable in that we can inject the implementation of Widget into SomeMethod. Now if we were to use an Interface instead we could further decouple things.
public class AnotherObject
{
public void SomeMethod(IWidget widget1)
{
//..do something with widget1
}
}
Notice that we are now not requiring a specific implementation of Widget but instead we are asking for anything that conforms to IWidget interface. This means that anything could be injected which means that in the day to day use of the code we could inject an actual implementation of Widget. But this also means that when we want to test this code we could inject a fake/mock/stub (depending on your understanding of these terms) and test our code.
But how can we take this further. With the use of StructureMap we can decouple this code even more. With the last code example our calling code my look something like this
public class AnotherObject
{
public void SomeMethod(IWidget widget1)
{
//..do something with widget1
}
}
public class CallingObject
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
IWidget widget1 = new Widget();
new AnotherObject().SomeMethod(widget1);
}
}
As you can see in the above code we removed the dependency in the SomeMethod by passing in an object that conforms to IWidget. But in the CallingObject().AnotherMethod we still have the dependency. We can use StructureMap to remove this dependency too!
[PluginFamily("Default")]
public interface IAnotherObject
{
...
}
[PluginFamily("Default")]
public interface ICallingObject
{
...
}
[Pluggable("Default")]
public class AnotherObject : IAnotherObject
{
private IWidget _widget;
public AnotherObject(IWidget widget)
{
_widget = widget;
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
//..do something with _widget
}
}
[Pluggable("Default")]
public class CallingObject : ICallingObject
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IAnotherObject>().SomeMethod();
}
}
Notice that no where in the above code are we instantiating an actual implementation of AnotherObject. Because everything is wired for StructurMap we can allow StructureMap to pass in the appropriate implementations depending on when and where the code is ran. Now the code is truely flexible in that we can specify via configuration or programatically in a test which implementation we want to use. This configuration can be done on the fly or as part of a build process, etc. But it doesn't have to be hard wired anywhere.

Appologies as this doesn't answer your question regarding a case for Interfaces.
However I suggest getting the person in question to read..
Head First Design Patterns
-- Lee

I don't understand how its extra overhead.
Interfaces provide flexibility, manageable code, and reusability. Coding to an interface you don't need to worry about the concreted implementation code or logic of the certain class you are using. You just expect a result. Many class have different implementation for the same feature thing (StreamWriter,StringWriter,XmlWriter)..you do not need to worry about how they implement the writing, you just need to call it.

Can I force subclasses to override a method without making it abstract?

I have a class with some abstract methods, but I want to be able to edit a subclass of that class in the designer. However, the designer can't edit the subclass unless it can create an instance of the parent class. So my plan is to replace the abstract methods with stubs and mark them as virtual - but then if I make another subclass, I won't get a compile-time error if I forget to implement them.
Is there a way to mark the methods so that they have to be implemented by subclasses, without marking them as abstract?

Well you could do some really messy code involving #if - i.e. in DEBUG it is virtual (for the designer), but in RELEASE it is abstract. A real pain to maintain, though.
But other than that: basically, no. If you want designer support it can't be abstract, so you are left with "virtual" (presumably with the base method throwing a NotImplementedException).
Of course, your unit tests will check that the methods have been implemented, yes? ;-p
Actually, it would probably be quite easy to test via generics - i.e. have a generic test method of the form:
[Test]
public void TestFoo() {
ActualTest<Foo>();
}
[Test]
public void TestBar() {
ActualTest<Bar>();
}
static void ActualTest<T>() where T : SomeBaseClass, new() {
T obj = new T();
Assert.blah something involving obj
}

You could use the reference to implementation idiom in your class.
public class DesignerHappy
{
private ADesignerHappyImp imp_;
public int MyMethod()
{
return imp_.MyMethod()
}
public int MyProperty
{
get { return imp_.MyProperty; }
set { imp_.MyProperty = value; }
}
}
public abstract class ADesignerHappyImp
{
public abstract int MyMethod();
public int MyProperty {get; set;}
}
DesignerHappy just exposes the interface you want but forwards all the calls to the implementation object. You extend the behavior by sub-classing ADesignerHappyImp, which forces you to implement all the abstract members.
You can provide a default implementation of ADesignerHappyImp, which is used to initialize DesignerHappy by default and expose a property that allows you to change the implementation.

Note that "DesignMode" is not set in the constructor. It's set after VS parses the InitializeComponents() method.

I know its not quite what you are after but you could make all of your stubs in the base class throw the NotImplementedException. Then if any of your subclasses have not overridden them you would get a runtime exception when the method in the base class gets called.

The Component class contains a boolean property called "DesignMode" which is very handy when you want your code to behave differently in the designer than at runtime. May be of some use in this case.

As a general rule, if there's no way in a language to do something that generally means that there's a good conceptual reason not to do it.
Sometimes this will be the fault of the language designers - but not often. Usually I find they know more about language design than I do ;-)
In this case you want a un-overridden virtual method to throw a compile time exception (rather and a run time one). Basically an abstract method then.
Making virtual methods behave like abstract ones is just going to create a world of confusion for you further down the line.
On the other hand, VS plug in design is often not quite at the same level (that's a little unfair, but certainly less rigour is applied than is at the language design stage - and rightly so). Some VS tools, like the class designer and current WPF editors, are nice ideas but not really complete - yet.
In the case that you're describing I think you have an argument not to use the class designer, not an argument to hack your code.
At some point (maybe in the next VS) they'll tidy up how the class designer deals with abstract classes, and then you'll have a hack with no idea why it was coded that way.
It should always be the last resort to hack your code to fit the designer, and when you do try to keep hacks minimal. I find that it's usually better to have concise, readable code that makes sense quickly over Byzantine code that works in the current broken tools.

To use ms as an example...
Microsoft does this with the user control templates in silverlight. #if is perfectly acceptable and it is doubtful the the tooling will work around it anytime soon. IMHO

Why does C# not provide the C++ style 'friend' keyword? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
The C++ friend keyword allows a class A to designate class B as its friend. This allows Class B to access the private/protected members of class A.
I've never read anything as to why this was left out of C# (and VB.NET). Most answers to this earlier StackOverflow question seem to be saying it is a useful part of C++ and there are good reasons to use it. In my experience I'd have to agree.
Another question seems to me to be really asking how to do something similar to friend in a C# application. While the answers generally revolve around nested classes, it doesn't seem quite as elegant as using the friend keyword.
The original Design Patterns book uses it regularly throughout its examples.
So in summary, why is friend missing from C#, and what is the "best practice" way (or ways) of simulating it in C#?
(By the way, the internal keyword is not the same thing, it allows all classes within the entire assembly to access internal members, while friend allows you to give a certain class complete access to exactly one other class)

On a side note.
Using friend is not about violating the encapsulation, but on the contrary it's about enforcing it. Like accessors+mutators, operators overloading, public inheritance, downcasting, etc., it's often misused, but it does not mean the keyword has no, or worse, a bad purpose.
See Konrad Rudolph's message in the other thread, or if you prefer see the relevant entry in the C++ FAQ.

Having friends in programming is more-or-less considered "dirty" and easy to abuse. It breaks the relationships between classes and undermines some fundamental attributes of an OO language.
That being said, it is a nice feature and I've used it plenty of times myself in C++; and would like to use it in C# too. But I bet because of C#'s "pure" OOness (compared to C++'s pseudo OOness) MS decided that because Java has no friend keyword C# shouldn't either (just kidding ;))
On a serious note: internal is not as good as friend but it does get the job done. Remember that it is rare that you will be distributing your code to 3rd party developers not through a DLL; so as long as you and your team know about the internal classes and their use you should be fine.
EDIT Let me clarify how the friend keyword undermines OOP.
Private and protected variables and methods are perhaps one of the most important part of OOP. The idea that objects can hold data or logic that only they can use allows you to write your implementation of functionality independent of your environment - and that your environment cannot alter state information that it is not suited to handle. By using friend you are coupling two classes' implementations together - which is much worse then if you just coupled their interface.

For info, another related-but-not-quite-the-same thing in .NET is [InternalsVisibleTo], which lets an assembly designate another assembly (such as a unit test assembly) that (effectively) has "internal" access to types/members in the original assembly.

In fact, C# gives possibility to get same behavior in pure OOP way without special words - it's private interfaces.
As far as question What is the C# equivalent of friend? was marked as duplicate to this article and no one there propose really good realization - I will show answer on both question here.
Main idea was taking from here: What is a private interface?
Let's say, we need some class which could manage instances of another classes and call some special methods on them. We don't want to give possibility to call this methods to any other classes. This is exactly same thing what friend c++ keyword do in c++ world.
I think good example in real practice could be Full State Machine pattern where some controller update current state object and switch to another state object when necessary.
You could:
The easiest and worst way to make Update() method public - hope
everyone understand why it's bad.
Next way is to mark it as internal. It's good enough if you put your
classes to another assembly but even then each class in that assembly
could call each internal method.
Use private/protected interface - and I followed this way.
Controller.cs
public class Controller
{
private interface IState
{
void Update();
}
public class StateBase : IState
{
void IState.Update() { }
}
public Controller()
{
//it's only way call Update is to cast obj to IState
IState obj = new StateBase();
obj.Update();
}
}
Program.cs
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//it's impossible to write Controller.IState p = new Controller.StateBase();
//Controller.IState is hidden
var p = new Controller.StateBase();
//p.Update(); //is not accessible
}
}
Well, what about inheritance?
We need to use technique described in Since explicit interface member implementations cannot be declared virtual and mark IState as protected to give possibility to derive from Controller too.
Controller.cs
public class Controller
{
protected interface IState
{
void Update();
}
public class StateBase : IState
{
void IState.Update() { OnUpdate(); }
protected virtual void OnUpdate()
{
Console.WriteLine("StateBase.OnUpdate()");
}
}
public Controller()
{
IState obj = new PlayerIdleState();
obj.Update();
}
}
PlayerIdleState.cs
public class PlayerIdleState: Controller.StateBase
{
protected override void OnUpdate()
{
base.OnUpdate();
Console.WriteLine("PlayerIdleState.OnUpdate()");
}
}
And finally example how to test class Controller throw inheritance:
ControllerTest.cs
class ControllerTest: Controller
{
public ControllerTest()
{
IState testObj = new PlayerIdleState();
testObj.Update();
}
}
Hope I cover all cases and my answer was useful.

You should be able to accomplish the same sorts of things that "friend" is used for in C++ by using interfaces in C#. It requires you to explicitly define which members are being passed between the two classes, which is extra work but may also make the code easier to understand.
If somebody has an example of a reasonable use of "friend" that cannot be simulated using interfaces, please share it! I'd like to better understand the differences between C++ and C#.

With friend a C++ designer has precise control over whom the private* members are exposed to. But, he's forced to expose every one of the private members.
With internal a C# designer has precise control over the set of private members he’s exposing. Obviously, he can expose just a single private member. But, it will get exposed to all classes in the assembly.
Typically, a designer desires to expose only a few private methods to selected few other classes. For example, in a class factory pattern it may be desired that class C1 is instantiated only by class factory CF1. Therefore class C1 may have a protected constructor and a friend class factory CF1.
As you can see, we have 2 dimensions along which encapsulation can be breached. friend breaches it along one dimension, internal does it along the other. Which one is a worse breach in the encapsulation concept? Hard to say. But it would be nice to have both friend and internal available. Furthermore, a good addition to these two would be the 3rd type of keyword, which would be used on member-by-member basis (like internal) and specifies the target class (like friend).
* For brevity I will use "private" instead of "private and/or protected".
- Nick

You can get close to C++ "friend" with the C# keyword "internal".

Friend is extremely useful when writing unit test.
Whilst that comes at a cost of polluting your class declaration slightly, it's also a compiler-enforced reminder of what tests actually might care about the internal state of the class.
A very useful and clean idiom I've found is when I have factory classes, making them friends of the items they create which have a protected constructor. More specifically, this was when I had a single factory responsible for creating matching rendering objects for report writer objects, rendering to a given environment. In this case you have a single point of knowledge about the relationship between the report-writer classes (things like picture blocks, layout bands, page headers etc.) and their matching rendering objects.

C# is missing the "friend" keyword for the same reason its missing deterministic destruction. Changing conventions makes people feel smart, as if their new ways are superior to someone else' old ways. It's all about pride.
Saying that "friend classes are bad" is as short-sighted as other unqualified statements like "don't use gotos" or "Linux is better than Windows".
The "friend" keyword combined with a proxy class is a great way to only expose certain parts of a class to specific other class(es). A proxy class can act as a trusted barrier against all other classes. "public" doesn't allow any such targeting, and using "protected" to get the effect with inheritance is awkward if there really is no conceptual "is a" relationship.

This is actually not an issue with C#. It's a fundamental limitation in IL. C# is limited by this, as is any other .Net language that seeks to be verifiable. This limitation also includes managed classes defined in C++/CLI (Spec section 20.5).
That being said I think that Nelson has a good explanation as to why this is a bad thing.

Stop making excuses for this limitation. friend is bad, but internal is good? they are the same thing, only that friend gives you more precise control over who is allowed to access and who isn't.
This is to enforce the encapsulation paradigm? so you have to write accessor methods and now what? how are you supposed to stop everyone (except the methods of class B) from calling these methods? you can't, because you can't control this either, because of missing "friend".
No programming language is perfect. C# is one of the best languages I've seen, but making silly excuses for missing features doesn't help anyone. In C++, I miss the easy event/delegate system, reflection (+automatic de/serialization) and foreach, but in C# I miss operator overloading (yeah, keep telling me that you didn't need it), default parameters, a const that cannot be circumvented, multiple inheritance (yeah, keep telling me that you didn't need it and interfaces were a sufficient replacement) and the ability to decide to delete an instance from memory (no, this is not horribly bad unless you are a tinkerer)

I will answer only "How" question.
There are so many answers here, however I would like to propose kind of "design pattern" to achieve that feature. I will use simple language mechanism, which includes:
Interfaces
Nested class
For example we have 2 main classes: Student and University. Student has GPA which only university allowed to access. Here is the code:
public interface IStudentFriend
{
Student Stu { get; set; }
double GetGPS();
}
public class Student
{
// this is private member that I expose to friend only
double GPS { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
PrivateData privateData;
public Student(string name, double gps) => (GPS, Name, privateData) = (gps, name, new PrivateData(this);
// No one can instantiate this class, but Student
// Calling it is possible via the IStudentFriend interface
class PrivateData : IStudentFriend
{
public Student Stu { get; set; }
public PrivateData(Student stu) => Stu = stu;
public double GetGPS() => Stu.GPS;
}
// This is how I "mark" who is Students "friend"
public void RegisterFriend(University friend) => friend.Register(privateData);
}
public class University
{
var studentsFriends = new List<IStudentFriend>();
public void Register(IStudentFriend friendMethod) => studentsFriends.Add(friendMethod);
public void PrintAllStudentsGPS()
{
foreach (var stu in studentsFriends)
Console.WriteLine($"{stu.Stu.Name}: stu.GetGPS()");
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var Technion = new University();
var Alex = new Student("Alex", 98);
var Jo = new Student("Jo", 91);
Alex.RegisterFriend(Technion);
Jo.RegisterFriend(Technion);
Technion.PrintAllStudentsGPS();
Console.ReadLine();
}

There is the InternalsVisibleToAttribute since .Net 3 but I suspect they only added it to cater to test assemblies after the rise of unit testing. I can't see many other reasons to use it.
It works at the assembly level but it does the job where internal doesn't; that is, where you want to distribute an assembly but want another non-distributed assembly to have privileged access to it.
Quite rightly they require the friend assembly to be strong keyed to avoid someone creating a pretend friend alongside your protected assembly.

I have read many smart comments about "friend" keyword & i agree what it is useful thing, but i think what "internal" keyword is less useful, & they both still bad for pure OO programming.
What we have? (saying about "friend" I also saying about "internal")
is using "friend" makes code less pure regarding to oo?
yes;
is not using "friend" makes code better?
no, we still need to make some private relationships between classes, & we can do it only if we break our beautiful encapsulation, so it also isn`t good, i can say what it even more evil than using "friend".
Using friend makes some local problems, not using it makes problems for code-library-users.
the common good solution for programming language i see like this:
// c++ style
class Foo {
public_for Bar:
void addBar(Bar *bar) { }
public:
private:
protected:
};
// c#
class Foo {
public_for Bar void addBar(Bar bar) { }
}
What do you think about it? I think it the most common & pure object-oriented solution. You can open access any method you choose to any class you want.

I suspect it has something to do with the C# compilation model -- building IL the JIT compiling that at runtime. i.e.: the same reason that C# generics are fundamentally different to C++ generics.

you can keep it private and use reflection to call functions. Test framework can do this if you ask it to test a private function

I used to regularly use friend, and I don't think it's any violation of OOP or a sign of any design flaw. There are several places where it is the most efficient means to the proper end with the least amount of code.
One concrete example is when creating interface assemblies that provide a communications interface to some other software. Generally there are a few heavyweight classes that handle the complexity of the protocol and peer peculiarities, and provide a relatively simple connect/read/write/forward/disconnect model involving passing messages and notifications between the client app and the assembly. Those messages / notifications need to be wrapped in classes. The attributes generally need to be manipulated by the protocol software as it is their creator, but a lot of stuff has to remain read-only to the outside world.
It's just plain silly to declare that it's a violation of OOP for the protocol / "creator" class to have intimate access to all of the created classes -- the creator class has had to bit munge every bit of data on the way up. What I've found most important is to minimize all the BS extra lines of code the "OOP for OOP's Sake" model usually leads to. Extra spaghetti just makes more bugs.
Do people know that you can apply the internal keyword at the attribute, property, and method level? It's not just for the top level class declaration (though most examples seem to show that.)
If you have a C++ class that uses the friend keyword, and want to emulate that in a C# class:
1. declare the C# class public
2. declare all the attributes/properties/methods that are protected in C++ and thus accessible to friends as internal in C#
3. create read only properties for public access to all internal attributes and properties
I agree it's not 100% the same as friend, and unit test is a very valuable example of the need of something like friend (as is protocol analyzer logging code). However internal provides the exposure to the classes you want to have exposure, and [InternalVisibleTo()] handles the rest -- seems like it was born specifically for unit test.
As far as friend "being better because you can explicitely control which classes have access" -- what in heck are a bunch of suspect evil classes doing in the same assembly in the first place? Partition your assemblies!

The friendship may be simulated by separating interfaces and implementations. The idea is: "Require a concrete instance but restrict construction access of that instance".
For example
interface IFriend { }
class Friend : IFriend
{
public static IFriend New() { return new Friend(); }
private Friend() { }
private void CallTheBody()
{
var body = new Body();
body.ItsMeYourFriend(this);
}
}
class Body
{
public void ItsMeYourFriend(Friend onlyAccess) { }
}
In spite of the fact that ItsMeYourFriend() is public only Friend class can access it, since no one else can possibly get a concrete instance of the Friend class. It has a private constructor, while the factory New() method returns an interface.
See my article Friends and internal interface members at no cost with coding to interfaces for details.

Some have suggested that things can get out of control by using friend. I would agree, but that doesn't lessen its usefulness. I'm not certain that friend necessarily hurts the OO paradigm any more than making all your class members public. Certainly the language will allow you to make all your members public, but it is a disciplined programmer that avoids that type of design pattern. Likewise a disciplined programmer would reserve the use of friend for specific cases where it makes sense. I feel internal exposes too much in some cases. Why expose a class or method to everything in the assembly?
I have an ASP.NET page that inherits my own base page, that in turn inherits System.Web.UI.Page. In this page, I have some code that handles end-user error reporting for the application in a protected method
ReportError("Uh Oh!");
Now, I have a user control that is contained in the page. I want the user control to be able to call the error reporting methods in the page.
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError("Uh Oh");
It can't do that if the ReportError method is protected. I can make it internal, but it is exposed to any code in the assembly. I just want it exposed to the UI elements that are part of the current page (including child controls). More specifically, I want my base control class to define the exact same error reporting methods, and simply call methods in the base page.
protected void ReportError(string str) {
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError(str);
}
I believe that something like friend could be useful and implemented in the language without making the language less "OO" like, perhaps as attributes, so that you can have classes or methods be friends to specific classes or methods, allowing the developer to provide very specific access. Perhaps something like...(pseudo code)
[Friend(B)]
class A {
AMethod() { }
[Friend(C)]
ACMethod() { }
}
class B {
BMethod() { A.AMethod() }
}
class C {
CMethod() { A.ACMethod() }
}
In the case of my previous example perhaps have something like the following (one can argue semantics, but I'm just trying to get the idea across):
class BasePage {
[Friend(BaseControl.ReportError(string)]
protected void ReportError(string str) { }
}
class BaseControl {
protected void ReportError(string str) {
MyBasePage bp = Page as MyBasePage;
bp.ReportError(str);
}
}
As I see it, the friend concept has no more risk to it than making things public, or creating public methods or properties to access members. If anything friend allows another level of granularity in accessibility of data and allows you to narrow that accessibility rather than broadening it with internal or public.

If you are working with C++ and you find your self using friend keyword, it is a very strong indication, that you have a design issue, because why the heck a class needs to access the private members of other class??

B.s.d.
It was stated that, friends hurts pure OOness. Which I agree.
It was also stated that friends help encapsulation, which I also agree.
I think friendship should be added to the OO methodology, but not quite as it in C++. I'd like to have some fields/methods that my friend class can access, but I'd NOT like them to access ALL my fields/methods. As in real life, I'd let my friends access my personal refrigerator but I'd not let them to access my bank account.
One can implement that as followed
class C1
{
private void MyMethod(double x, int i)
{
// some code
}
// the friend class would be able to call myMethod
public void MyMethod(FriendClass F, double x, int i)
{
this.MyMethod(x, i);
}
//my friend class wouldn't have access to this method
private void MyVeryPrivateMethod(string s)
{
// some code
}
}
class FriendClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
C1 c = new C1();
c.MyMethod(this, 5.5, 3);
}
}
That will of course generate a compiler warning, and will hurt the intellisense. But it will do the work.
On a side note, I think that a confident programmer should do the testing unit without accessing the private members. this is quite out of the scope, but try to read about TDD.
however, if you still want to do so (having c++ like friends) try something like
#if UNIT_TESTING
public
#else
private
#endif
double x;
so you write all your code without defining UNIT_TESTING and when you want to do the unit testing you add #define UNIT_TESTING to the first line of the file(and write all the code that do the unit testing under #if UNIT_TESTING). That should be handled carefully.
Since I think that unit testing is a bad example for the use of friends, I'd give an example why I think friends can be good. Suppose you have a breaking system (class). With use, the breaking system get worn out and need to get renovated. Now, you want that only a licensed mechanic would fix it. To make the example less trivial I'd say that the mechanic would use his personal (private) screwdriver to fix it. That's why mechanic class should be friend of breakingSystem class.

The friendship may also be simulated by using "agents" - some inner classes. Consider following example:
public class A // Class that contains private members
{
private class Accessor : B.BAgent // Implement accessor part of agent.
{
private A instance; // A instance for access to non-static members.
static Accessor()
{ // Init static accessors.
B.BAgent.ABuilder = Builder;
B.BAgent.PrivateStaticAccessor = StaticAccessor;
}
// Init non-static accessors.
internal override void PrivateMethodAccessor() { instance.SomePrivateMethod(); }
// Agent constructor for non-static members.
internal Accessor(A instance) { this.instance = instance; }
private static A Builder() { return new A(); }
private static void StaticAccessor() { A.PrivateStatic(); }
}
public A(B friend) { B.Friendship(new A.Accessor(this)); }
private A() { } // Private constructor that should be accessed only from B.
private void SomePrivateMethod() { } // Private method that should be accessible from B.
private static void PrivateStatic() { } // ... and static private method.
}
public class B
{
// Agent for accessing A.
internal abstract class BAgent
{
internal static Func<A> ABuilder; // Static members should be accessed only by delegates.
internal static Action PrivateStaticAccessor;
internal abstract void PrivateMethodAccessor(); // Non-static members may be accessed by delegates or by overrideable members.
}
internal static void Friendship(BAgent agent)
{
var a = BAgent.ABuilder(); // Access private constructor.
BAgent.PrivateStaticAccessor(); // Access private static method.
agent.PrivateMethodAccessor(); // Access private non-static member.
}
}
It could be alot simpler when used for access only to static members.
Benefits for such implementation is that all the types are declared in the inner scope of friendship classes and, unlike interfaces, it allows static members to be accessed.