I have an abstract class with an abstract property that is set to have both Get and Set. I know I'll always want to be able to get this property from derived classes but there are some cases where it doesn't make sense to set this property in certain types of derived classes.
I can't just omit the Set accessor in a derived class (see code example below). I could override the set accessor in a derived classes to do nothing with the values passed by the user. But is there another way that actually make the property in a specific derived class read only? Ultimately I'm displaying these properties in a property grid and I don't want the user to be entering values into a field that is going to do nothing. Maybe I just attribute the property as read only in specific derived classes?
Also I'd really really rather not mess with any of the type descriptor stuff to get properties to display correctly in a property grid, such as overriding ICustomTypeDescriptor.
public abstract class MyClass
{
public abstract string MyProperty
{
get;
set;
}
}
public abstract class MyDerivedClass
{
public override string MyProperty
{
//VS complains that the Set accessor is missing
get;
}
}
You should not do this. What you are saying by defining your getter and setter in the abstract class is "you must implement this if you want to inherit from me." Then you are asking, "how can I made a derived class ignore this rule."
The answer is that if you have a situation that every derived class needs a getter, put that in the abstract class and let the derived class decide if they will implement a setter or not by leaving it out of the abstract class.
Or alternatively, you can create two more classes that derive from the initial abstract class, one that implement the setter and one that does not and then have your derived class generalize the one of those that makes sense, but that is overkill I think.
look like you searching for
[ReadOnly(true)] attribute
this will show to property grid your property, as readonly.
but in your class you can use it as usual property (with read and write possibilities)
You should use abstract not override:
public abstract class MyClass
{
public abstract string MyProperty
{
get;
set;
}
}
public abstract class MyDerivedClass
{
public abstract string MyProperty
{
get;
}
}
but like #JP wrote, you shouldn't do this.
Related
I'm not really sure what looks better or when do I really use in abstract classes and properties, or when to use non abstract properties. I'll try to make a simple example. Let's say I have this:
abstract class Human
{
public GenderType Gender { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Date Born { get; set; }
public bool IsNerd { get; set; }
abstract public void Speak();
abstract public void Sleep();
abstract public void AnoyingPeopleOnStackOverflow();
//... so on
}
class Peter : Human
{
//Peter is special, he got a second name
//But thats all, everything else is the same as like on other humans
public string SecondName { get; set; }
//...override abstract stuff
}
Is this alright? As I understood, I don't have to use an abstract property if I dont want to override it. And in this situation it would be ok, just the methods like Speak, Sleep and so on should be abstract.
Now, if this is ok, when would or should I use an abstract property?
Use an abstract property when you have no default implementation and when derived classes must implement it.
Use a virtual property when you have an implementation in the base class but want to allow overriding.
Use the override keyword to override a member. Mark the member as sealed override if it should not be overridden again.
Don't mark the property as abstract or virtual if you don't want it to be overridden.
Use the new keyword to hide a non-abstract, non-virtual member (this is rarely a good idea).
How to: Define Abstract Properties
I find that abstract properties often occur in a design which implies that they will have type-specific logic and/or side effects. You are basically saying, "here is a data point that all subclasses must have, but I don't know how to implement it". However, properties which contain a large amount of logic and/or cause side effects may not be desirable. This is an important consideration, though there is no fixed right/wrong way to do it.
See:
Should Properties have Side Effects
CA1024: Use properties where appropriate
Personally, I find that I use abstract methods frequently but abstract properties rarely.
I know what I want them to do, I don't care how they do it: Interface.
I know what I want them to do, I don't care how they do some of it, but I've firm ideas on how they'll (or at least most of them) do other bits: Abstract class.
I know what I want them to do, and how most of them will do it: Concrete class with virtual members.
You can have other cases such as e.g. an abstract class with no abstract members (you can't have an instance of one, but what functionality it offers, it offers completely), but they're rarer and normally come about because a particular hierarchy offers itself cleanly and blatantly to a given problem.
(Incidentally, I wouldn't think of a Peter as a type of Human, but of each peter as an instance of human who happens to be called Peter. It's not really fair to pick on example code in this way, but when you're thinking about this sort of issue it's more pertinent than usual).
Abstract members are simply virtual members that you have to override. You use this for something that has to be implemented, but can't be implemented in the base class.
If you want to make a virtual property, and want that it has to be overridden in the class that inherits your class, then you would make it an abstract property.
If you for example have an animal class, its ability to breathe would not be possible to detemine just from the information that it's an animal, but it's something that is pretty crucial:
public abstract class Animal {
public abstract bool CanBreathe { get; }
}
For a fish and a dog the implementation would be different:
public class Dog : Animal {
public override bool CanBreathe { get { return !IsUnderWater; } }
}
public class Fish : Animal {
public override bool CanBreathe { get { return IsUnderWater; } }
}
Use abstract when all sub-classes have to implement the method/property. If there's no need for each and every sub-class to implement it, then don't use it.
As for your example, if SecondName is not required for each person, then there's no need to make an abstract property in the base class. If on the other hand, every person does need a second name, then make it an abstract property.
Example of correct usage of an abstract property:
public class Car
{
public abstract string Manufacturer { get; }
}
public class Odyssey : Car
{
public override string Manufacturer
{
get
{
return "Honda";
}
}
}
public class Camry : Car
{
public override string Manufacturer
{
get
{
return "Toyota";
}
}
}
Making Maker abstract is correct because every car has a manufacturer and needs to be able to tell the user who that maker is.
An abstract property would be used where you want the class to always expose the property, but where you can't pin down the implemetation of that property - leaving it up to/forcing the inheriting class to do so.
There's an example here, where the abstract class is named Shape, and it exposes an abstract Area property. You can't implement the Area property in the base class, as the formula for area will change for each type of shape. All shapes have an area (of some sort), so all shapes should expose the property.
Your implementation itself looks just fine. Was trying to think of a sensible example of an abstract property for a Human, but couldn't think of anything reasonable.
I have a class
abstract class EmployeeBase
{
}
I want that this EmployeeBase should not be used as a property in any of my other classes. Only a class derived from EmployeeBase can be used to declare a property in any other class. Is it possible to achieve that? If so, how?
You can get close to this this by making EmployeeBase a protected subclass of the class you wish to derive from:
public class OuterClass
{
protected abstract class EmployeeBase { /*...*/ }
}
However, keep in mind this will prevent any properties of type EmployeeBase from being exposed as public or internal, since you can't expose an object with a less exposed type, since any consuming code wouldn't know the signature of the object. EDIT You could, however, expose them by interface or other base type.
While you can restrict inheritance from EmployeeBase by making all constructors internal, restricting use of a type is not well supported in C#, and raises many questions about what exactly you're trying to do.
You cannot create instance of abstract class so there will be no variable or property created as EmployeeBase
You have to inherit from EmployeeBase so I believe your problem is already solved ;)
public abstract class EmployeeBase{}
public class Employee: EmployeeBase{}
class SomeClass
{
public EmployeeBase Employee { get; set; }
SomeClass()
{
Employee = new Employee(); // OOP in play :)
Employee = new EmployeeBase(); // Error CS0144
// Cannot create an instance of the abstract class or interface 'EmployeeBase'
}
}
I am having a hard time implementing a property in C# that only has a getter in the abstract base class, but where I need to introduce a setter in one of the derived classes.
Update: For a shorter explanation of a generalized example of this question, see this question. The selected answer has explained why this is currently impossible to do in C#, however, in my mind no satisfactory solution has yet been provided.
An overview of my class diagram is shown below:
My objective is that the two classes TextElementStatic and TextElementReferenceSource should have a Text property with both getters and setters, while the class TextElementReferenceTarget should have a Text property with only a getter. I'm constantly using ITextElement while referencing all of these objects, and I need to ensure that the ITextElement interface only has a getter. Also, the base class TextElement implements a lot of common code, so all classes need to inherit from that class.
My current code looks like this:
Interface: ITextElement
public interface ITextElement
{
string Text { get; }
}
Interface: ITextElementUpdatable
public interface ITextElementUpdatable : ITextElement
{
new string Text { get; set; }
}
Abstract class: TextElement (This is where my problem is, explained below)
public abstract class TextElement : ITextElement
{
// I want to mark this 'abstract', but that causes my problem
public virtual string Text
{
get
{
// NOTE: This should never be called
Debug.Fail("Called virtual Text getter that should never be called");
return default(string);
}
}
}
Abstract class: TextElementUpdatable
public abstract class TextElementUpdatable : TextElement, ITextElementUpdatable
{
// Should have both a getter and a setter
public new virtual string Text { get; set; }
}
Class: TextElementStatic
public class TextElementStatic : TextElementUpdatable
{
// Should have both a getter and a setter
// No Text property declaration
// Inherits Text property from TextElementUpdatable
}
Class: TextElementReferenceSource
public class TextElementReferenceSource : TextElementUpdatable
{
// Should have both a getter and a setter
public override string Text
{
get { return _internalobject.Text; }
set { _internalobject.Text = value; }
}
}
Class: TextElementReferenceTarget
public class TextElementReferenceTarget : TextElement
{
// Should ONLY have a getter
public override string Text
{
get { return _internalobject.Text; }
}
}
So, my issue is: I really want to declare the Text property in the base class TextElement abstract, because it should always be implemented in the derived classes (both TextElementUpdatable, TextElementReferenceSource and TextElementReferenceTarget implements this property). However, if I try to convert the property to public abstract string Text { get; }, then I receive an error in TextElementUpdatable specifying that
TextElementUpdatable.Text hides the inherited property TextElement.Text
Further, if I change the property in TextElementUpdatable from new to override the error message is replaced by:
Cannot override because TextElement.Text does not have an overridable set accessor
Now, I could go back to TextElement and change the property to public virtual string Text { get; private set; } and call it a day, since that method should never be called anyway (which is basically the solution I have now). However, if I or someone create another derived class later on, I want to force me/them to implement the Text-property, hence I would rather mark it abstract than provide a virtual implementation.
Any suggestions on how I can do this the right way - even if it should involve a lot of refactoring?
I know that I could separate the two objectives her, providing one inherited Text property with only a getter, and then introduce a SetText() method in the ITextElementUpdatable interface. However, I'm wondering whether it is possible to find a good solution with properties only.
Another similar question, but without any answers I've been able to use: C# - What should I do when every inherited class needs getter from base class, but setter only for ONE inherited class
It is really an exciting desing problem, but.. You have to use the new keyword what is not a good practice. Try to avoid them.
Of course, property names can be the same in the interfaces, but if both implemented by a class (and one of the props defined without a setter), we have to implement them explicitelly. We have to accept that these properties "conflict".
You could introduce abstract methods:
public abstract class TextElement : ITextElement
{
public string Text { get { return GetText(); } }
protected abstract string GetText();
}
public abstract class TextElementUpdatable : TextElement, ITextElementUpdatable
{
string ITextElementUpdatable.Text
{
get { return GetText(); }
set { SetText(value); }
}
protected abstract void SetText(string text);
}
It can be a bit confusing that you use the same property in your hierarchy with different meanings. Maybe the implementation of ITextElement.get_Text and ITextElementUpdatable.get_Text will diverge later - the interfaces define two independent behavior, and we do not use basic types all the time, like string.
So my suggestion is that you should have a property in ITextElement for read only purpose, and another property in ITextElementUpdatable with different name. In this manner, your methods can be defined as abstract, of course.
There is a class that I want to create as abstract but I can't because that class's base class is ActiveReports and as soon as I make it abstract the sub-reports are no longer designable. (Interestingly the base class itself IS designable but not it's children).
I know that I cannot declare class members as abstract without first declaring the class as abstract.
In this case what is the NEXT BEST way to do this. At this point I made the members virtual and added comments to each one. Where it made sense I also declared a member as protected rather than public. But is there some other best way that would REQUIRE that these members be overridden at compile-time rather than run-time?
If you were in this situation how would you do it?
EDIT
Let me explain further. I can create a class (lets call it MyReportsBase) that inherits from ActiveReports. (I do that using add new and choose the ActiveReports type) Then ActiveReports provides a property of the report object in MyReportsBase (in design time properties) called MasterClass. Once I set that property to true then I can then create new reports and inherit from MyReportsBase instead of directly from ActiveReports. (The way you do that is by create add new ActiveReports but then edit the code in the code-behind to inherit from MyReportsBase instead of ActiveReports).
That is all well and good and it all works perfectly well. However, my requirement is that MyUpwardBase would HAVE to be inherited (declared abstract with a few abstract members). And I CAN go in the code-behind and set the abstract modifier on the base class. And even then I can design MyReportsBase. However, at that point, all of the reports that I inherited from MyReportsBase are no longer designable. Attempting to open the derived reports in the designer throws an error about how the designer cannot open the base class because it is declared as abstract.
All of this is to just clarify the question. Right now the Interface suggestion is making the most sense to me.
EDIT 2
An Interface doesn't really do it for me either for this reason. The base classes "abtract-but-aren't-abstract" members HAVE To be present in my base classes because I have virtual and public members that depend on them. And in my case, because I cannot declare the class as abstract, I have to have an implementation for those members.
As soon as I provide an implementation for those members then all of my inheriting classes ALSO have the implementation and the Interface doesn't complain at compile time. I thought by removing the virtual modifier from those members that the compiler would require them but it did not behave that way.
I am beginning to think that my solution (document the members well) is the best solution.
Why are the base classes of a abstract class that also has a baseclass not designable?
public class Base
{
public int SomeInt { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseChild : Base
{
public abstract string Value { get; set; }
}
public class ChildChild : BaseChild
{
public override string Value { get; set; }
}
Works. Or did I misunderstood?
var child = new ChildChild { SomeInt = 3, Value = "asd" };
you dont want to use interface ?
class A: ActiveReport
{
// some public methods to share between all childs
}
interface IReport
{
// some required method
}
Class B: A, IReport
{
}
Class C: A, IReport
{
}
.
.
.
Why is it that the following is legal C#:
public interface ISomeInterface
{
int SomeProperty
{
get;
}
}
public class SomeClassImplementingInterface : ISomeInterface
{
public int SomeProperty
{
get { return 32; }
protected set {}
}
}
but this is not:
public abstract class SomeAbstractClass
{
public abstract int SomeProperty
{
get;
}
}
public class SomeClassExtendingAbstractClass : SomeAbstractClass
{
public override int SomeProperty
{
get { return 32; }
protected set {}
}
}
The latter results in the following compile-time error:
'InterfaceAbstractTest.SomeClassExtendingAbstractClass.SomeProperty.set':
cannot override because
'InterfaceAbstractTest.SomeAbstractClass.SomeProperty' does not have
an overridable set accessor InterfaceAbstractTest
What is the reasoning for not disallowing the latter whilst allowing the former?
Because a caller using the interface only cares that an implementer of the interface at least implements the interface's definition, as #davisoa states, whereas SomeAbstractClass in your example defines a public contract which states exactly the type, accessibility, and (for properties) readability/writability of members.
If you use reflection to get the PropertyInfo of SomeProperty (from either the base or child class), it needs to resolve that information from somewhere. Allowing the child class to change the readability/writability would be as much of a contract violation as a change in return type or argument list.
Imagine for instance:
SomeAbstractClass sc = new SomeClassExtendingAbstractClass();
PropertyInfo pi = sc.GetType().GetProperty("SomeProperty");
Console.Out.WriteLine(pi.CanWrite); // What should be printed here?
This is because the Interface implementation is making a promise that there will be a property SomeProperty that you can "Get".
The abstract class implementation is making a promise that it's child classes will provide an implementation of a property SomeProperty with a public get method.
In the end, the base class is defining something that must be overridden, whereas the interface is defining a contract.
This is by design. I am quoting from the C# language specs:
An overriding property declaration must specify the exact same
accessibility modifiers, types and name as the inherited property, if
the inherited property has only a single accessor (i.e.,... ready only
or write-only), the overriding property must include only that
accessor.
The reason behind that decesion could be because the interfaces are more flexibly type of contracts than abstract classes. Interfaces cares only about the least common denominator rather than the whole implementation. I think there are good reasons to choose one design over the other.
You're trying to override a set operator that doesn't exist. Either define a set portion of the property in the abstract class, or don't try to define one in the concrete class. Since you have the set as protected in the concrete class, my guess is what you want to do is make a protected set operator in the abstract definition.
What is necessary is to both override the existing property and shadow it with a new read-write one. Unfortunately, .net does not provide any means of both overriding and shadowing a member within a single class. The best one can do is probably to have the abstract base class define a concrete non-virtual read-only property whose getter calls an abstract function. A derived class can then shadow the property with a non-virtual read-write function which calls the same function in its getter, and a new abstract or virtual function in its setter.