Develop Reference

Namespace vs nesting class [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Class.Class vs Namespace.Class for top level general use class libraries?
(7 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I am considering these two scenarios:
class StructuralCase
{
class Structure
{
...
}
class Material
{
...
}
class Forces
{
...
}
}
and
namespace StructuralCase
{
class Structure
{
...
}
class Material
{
...
}
class Forces
{
...
}
}
The thing is that inside "StructuralCase" I won't be declaring any instance variables, e.g., it will function as a "parent" for the rest of classes.
This lead me to consider converting StructuralClass to a namespace. What do you think about that? Is there any hard rule?

What you have are two different things.
First scenario class example:
You have an internal class with 3 nested private classes
In your second scenario namespace example:
You have 3 internal independent classes with no nesting.
If the classes should only be used within StructuralCase use the first example, otherwise if the classes are independent and have no relationship then the namespace is the way forward.

Generally, you want to use a namespace, if only because it enables using statements - otherwise you have to refer to the class by all nested classes (except inside the parent class itself, of course). Thus in case 1, outside reference would have to say
StructuralCase.Structure s = ...
instead of
using StructuralCase;
// ...
Structure s = ...
Functionally the only real reason to make a nested class is
So that the nested type has access to nonpublic members of the parent type. If this is a concern over API surface, see instead internal
So that the subclass isn't accessible outside the parent class, such as a specific struct used for results of a specific query
So that the child class can share some Generic Parameters from the parent class, such as factory classes which need the same generic parameters

I would just use Namespace, because you don't all the overhead of a class.
A class has more structure, variables, and methods, and offers layers of inheritance, but if you don't need them, don't use Class.

Accessing a private method from another class

I have two repository classes (RepositoryFactory and BaseRepository) implementing different interfaces within the same project. The BaseRepository class has a private method that would be now needed also in the other class, with the same implementation.
Instead of duplicate the method in order to keep it private, I was thinking to a possible alternative, although so far I could not find a good solution since by definition a private method has scope only in its own class.
Using inheritance and change the method to "protected" would also not be an option, since the two classes are not linked semantically. I cannot use a public property giving back the result of the method since the return type is void.

You can use reflection. Here's an example:
MethodInfo privMethod = objInstance.GetType().GetMethod("PrivateMethodName", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
privMethod.Invoke(objInstance, new object[] { methodParameters });

It's not possible to do what you want in C#. The closest you can have is internal, which makes the member visible to an entire assembly. It might also be possible to make the two classes private and nested inside another class, but this isn't always appropriate.
Mads Torgersen, who works on C#, has this to say about it:
I've seen a number of proposals trying to grapple with some notion of "class set accessibility." The complication of course is that, unlike existing accessibilities, there is not already a natural group (everyone, assembly, derived classes, single class) to tie it to, so even with another accessibility modifier you still also need syntax (or something) to define the group.
There are several ways to slice it. I haven't seen a proposal that is obviously right, but I think the problem is relevant, and I will take this up with the design team.
(source)

You can, but it looks awkward. This takes advantage of nested classes being able to access private stuff from the containing class. However, even if something is possible doesn't mean you should do it. If you just change the modifier to internal you get the same behavior and since the two classes are coupled together then it makes sense to ship them in the same assembly, so internal modifier is the correct answer.
public class BaseRepository
{
public sealed class RepositoryFactory
{
public static BaseRepository Create()
{
var repo = new BaseRepository();
repo.MethodRequiredByRepositoryFactory();
return repo;
}
}
private void MethodRequiredByRepositoryFactory() { }
}

Reference
Possible by using reflection
Create a console application in Visual Studio.
Add 2 namespaces
2.1. System
2.2. System.Reflection
Now create a class and inside that class create one method that will be private as follows:

C# static class why use? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When to Use Static Classes in C#
I set my classes as static a lot, but I am not sure when use static or not, or what's the difference it makes to use it or not.
can anybody explain please?

Making a class static just prevents people from trying to make an instance of it. If all your class has are static members it is a good practice to make the class itself static.

If a class is declared as static then the variables and methods need to be declared as static.
A class can be declared static, indicating that it contains only static members. It is not possible to create instances of a static class using the new keyword. Static classes are loaded automatically by the .NET Framework common language runtime (CLR) when the program or namespace containing the class is loaded.
Use a static class to contain methods that are not associated with a particular object. For example, it is a common requirement to create a set of methods that do not act on instance data and are not associated to a specific object in your code. You could use a static class to hold those methods.
->The main features of a static class are:
They only contain static members.
They cannot be instantiated.
They are sealed.
They cannot contain Instance Constructors or simply constructors as we know that they are associated with objects and operates on data when an object is created.
Example
static class CollegeRegistration
{
//All static member variables
static int nCollegeId; //College Id will be same for all the students studying
static string sCollegeName; //Name will be same
static string sColegeAddress; //Address of the college will also same
//Member functions
public static int GetCollegeId()
{
nCollegeId = 100;
return (nCollegeID);
}
//similarly implementation of others also.
} //class end
public class student
{
int nRollNo;
string sName;
public GetRollNo()
{
nRollNo += 1;
return (nRollNo);
}
//similarly ....
public static void Main()
{
//Not required.
//CollegeRegistration objCollReg= new CollegeRegistration();
//<ClassName>.<MethodName>
int cid= CollegeRegistration.GetCollegeId();
string sname= CollegeRegistration.GetCollegeName();
} //Main end
}

Static classes can be useful in certain situations, but there is a potential to abuse and/or overuse them, like most language features.
As Dylan Smith already mentioned, the most obvious case for using a static class is if you have a class with only static methods. There is no point in allowing developers to instantiate such a class.
The caveat is that an overabundance of static methods may itself indicate a flaw in your design strategy. I find that when you are creating a static function, its a good to ask yourself -- would it be better suited as either a) an instance method, or b) an extension method to an interface. The idea here is that object behaviors are usually associated with object state, meaning the behavior should belong to the object. By using a static function you are implying that the behavior shouldn't belong to any particular object.
Polymorphic and interface driven design are hindered by overusing static functions -- they cannot be overriden in derived classes nor can they be attached to an interface. Its usually better to have your 'helper' functions tied to an interface via an extension method such that all instances of the interface have access to that shared 'helper' functionality.
One situation where static functions are definitely useful, in my opinion, is in creating a .Create() or .New() method to implement logic for object creation, for instance when you want to proxy the object being created,
public class Foo
{
public static Foo New(string fooString)
{
ProxyGenerator generator = new ProxyGenerator();
return (Foo)generator.CreateClassProxy
(typeof(Foo), new object[] { fooString }, new Interceptor());
}
This can be used with a proxying framework (like Castle Dynamic Proxy) where you want to intercept / inject functionality into an object, based on say, certain attributes assigned to its methods. The overall idea is that you need a special constructor because technically you are creating a copy of the original instance with special added functionality.

What are reasons why one would want to use nested classes? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Why/when should you use nested classes in .net? Or shouldn't you?
(14 answers)
Closed 10 years ago.
In this stackoverflow answer a commenter mentioned that "private nested classes" can be quite useful so I was reading about them in articles such as this one which tend to explain how nested classes function technically, but not why you would use them.
I suppose I would use private nested classes for little helper classes that belong to a larger class, but often I will need a helper class from another class and so I would just have to take the extra effort to (1) make the nested class non-nested or (2) make it public and then access it with the outer-class prefix on it, which both seems to be extra work without any added-value for having the nested class in the first place. Hence in general I really don't see a use case for nested classes, other than perhaps to keep classes a bit more organized into groups, but I that also goes against the one-class-per-file clarity that I have come to enjoy.
In what ways do you use nested classes to make your code more manageable, readable, efficient?

You've answered your own question. Use nested classes when you need a helper class that is meaningless outside the class; particularly when the nested class can make use of private implementation details of the outer class.
Your argument that nested classes are useless is also an argument that private methods are useless: a private method might be useful outside of the class, and therefore you'd have to make it internal. An internal method might be useful outside of the assembly, and therefore you'd make it public. Therefore all methods should be public. If you think that's a bad argument, then what is different about you making the same argument for classes instead of methods?
I make nested classes all the time because I am frequently in the position of needed to encapsulate functionality in a helper that makes no sense outside of the class, and can use private implementation details of the outer class. For example, I write compilers. I recently wrote a class SemanticAnalyzer that does semantic analysis of parse trees. One of its nested classes is LocalScopeBuilder. Under what circumstances would I need to build a local scope when I am not analyzing the semantics of a parse tree? Never. That class is entirely an implementation detail of the semantic analyzer. I plan to add more nested classes with names like NullableArithmeticAnalyzer and OverloadResolutionAnalyzer that are also not useful outside of the class, but I want to encapsulate rules of the language in those specific classes.
People also use nested classes to build things like iterators, or comparators - things that make no sense outside of the class and are exposed via a well-known interface.
A pattern I use quite frequently is to have private nested classes that extend their outer class:
abstract public class BankAccount
{
private BankAccount() { }
// Now no one else can extend BankAccount because a derived class
// must be able to call a constructor, but all the constructors are
// private!
private sealed class ChequingAccount : BankAccount { ... }
public static BankAccount MakeChequingAccount() { return new ChequingAccount(); }
private sealed class SavingsAccount : BankAccount { ... }
and so on. Nested classes work very well with the factory pattern. Here BankAccount is a factory for various types of bank account, all of which can use the private implementation details of BankAccount. But no third party can make their own type EvilBankAccount that extends BankAccount.

Returning an interface to the caller whose implementation you want to hide.
public class Outer
{
private class Inner : IEnumerable<Foo>
{
/* Presumably this class contains some functionality which Outer needs
* to access, but which shouldn't be visible to callers
*/
}
public IEnumerable<Foo> GetFoos()
{
return new Inner();
}
}

Private helper classes is a good example.
For instance, state objects for background threads. There is no compelling reason to expose those types. Defining them as private nested types seems a quite clean way to handle the case.

I use them when two bound values (like in a hash table) are not enough internally, but are enough externally. Then i create a nested class with the properties i need to store, and expose only a few of them through methods.
I think this makes sense, because if no one else is going to use it, why create an external class for it? It just doesn't make sense to.
As for one class per file, you can create partial classes with the partial keyword, which is what I usually do.

One compelling example I've run into recently is the Node class of many data structures. A Quadtree, for example, needs to know how it stores the data in its nodes, but no other part of your code should care.

I've found a few cases where they've been quite handy:
Management of complex private state, such as an InterpolationTriangle used by an Interpolator class. The user of the Interpolator doesn't need to know that it's implemented using Delauney triangulation and certainly doesn't need to know about the triangles, so the data structure is a private nested class.
As others have mentioned, you can expose data used by the class with an interface without revealing the full implementation of a class. Nested classes can also access private state of the outer class, which allows you to write tightly coupled code without exposing that tight coupling publicly (or even internally to the rest of the assembly).
I've run into a few cases where a framework expects a class to derive from some base class (such as DependencyObject in WPF), but you want your class to inherit from a different base. It's possible to inter-operate with the framework by using a private nested class that descends from the framework base class. Because the nested class can access private state (you just pass it the parent's 'this' when you create it), you can basically use this to implement a poor man's multiple inheritance via composition.

I think others have covered the use cases for public and private nested classes well.
One point I haven't seen made was an answer your concern about one-class-per-file. You can solve this by making the outer class partial, and move the inner class definition to a separate file.
OuterClass.cs:
namespace MyNameSpace
{
public partial class OuterClass
{
// main class members here
// can use inner class
}
}
OuterClass.Inner.cs:
namespace MyNameSpace
{
public partial class OuterClass
{
private class Inner
{
// inner class members here
}
}
}
You could even make use of Visual Studio's item nesting to make OuterClass.Inner.cs a 'child' of OuterClass.cs, to avoid cluttering your solution explorer.

One very common pattern where this technique is used is in scenarios where a class returns an interface or base class type from one of its properties or methods, but the concrete type is a private nested class. Consider the following example.
public class MyCollection : IEnumerable
{
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return new MyEnumerator();
}
private class MyEnumerator
{
}
}

I usually do it when I need a combination of SRP (Single Responsibility Principal) in certain situations.
"Well, if SRP is your goal, why not split them into different classes?" You will do this 80% of the time, but what about situations where the classes you create are useless to the outside world? You don't want classes that only you will use to clutter your assembly's API.
"Well, isn't that what internal is for?" Sure. For about 80% of these cases. But what about internal classes who must access or modify the state of public classes? For example, that class which was broken up into one or more internal classes to satisfy your SRP streak? You would have to mark all the methods and properties for use by these internal classes as internal as well.
"What's wrong with that?" Nothing. For about 80% of these cases. Of course, now you're cluttering the internal interface of your classes with methods/properties that are only of use to those classes which you created earlier. And now you have to worry about other people on your team writing internal code won't mess up your state by using those methods in ways that you hadn't expected.
Internal classes get to modify the state of any instance of the type in which they are defined. So, without adding members to the definition of your type, your internal classes can work on them as needed. Which, in about 14 cases in 100, will be your best bet to keep your types clean, your code reliable/maintainable, and your responsibilities singular.

They are really nice for, as an example, an implementation of the singleton pattern.
I have a couple of places where I am using them to "add" value, as well. I have a multi-select combobox where my internal class stores the state of the checkbox and the data item as well. no need for the world to know about/use this internal class.

Private anonymous nested classes are essential for event handlers in the GUI.
If some class is not part of the API another class exports, it must be made private. Otherwise you are exposing more than you intend. The "million dollar bug" was an example of this. Most programmers are too slack about this.
Peter

The question is tagged C# so I'm not sure this is of interest, but in COM you can use inner classes to implement interfaces when a class C++ implements multiple COM interfaces... essentially you use it for composition rather than multiple-inheritance.
Additionally in MFC and perhaps other technologies you might need your control/dialog to have a drop-target class, which makes little sense other than as a nested class.

If it is necessary for an object to return some abstract information about its state, a private nested class may be suitable. For example, if an Fnord supports "save context" and "restore context" methods, it may be useful to have the "save context" function return an object of type Fnord.SavedContext. Type access rules aren't always the most helpful; for example, it seems difficult to allow Fnord to access properties and methods of a Fnord.SavedContext without making such properties and methods visible to outsiders. On the other hand, one could have Fnord.CreateSaveContext simply create a New Fnord.SaveContext with the Fnord as a parameter (since Fnord.SaveContext can access the internals of Fnord), and Fnord.LoadContextFrom() can call Fnord.SaveContext.RestoreContextTo().

C# share code between classes

In Visual Studio 2008 using C#, what is the best way to share code across multiple classes and source files?
Inheritance is not the solution as the classes already have a meaningful hierarchy.
Is there some neat feature that's like a C include file that let's you insert code anywhere you want in another class?
EDIT:
ok, i guess we need a concrete example...
There are several hundred classes in the domain with a well thought out class heirarchy. Now, many of these classes need to print. There is a utility printer class that handles the printing. Let's say there are 3 different print methods that are dependent on the class that is being printed. The code that calls the print method (6 lines) is what I'm trying to avoid copying and pasting across all the different client class pages.
It'd be nice if people wouldn't assume they knew more about the domain that the op - especially when they specifically mention techniques that don't fit...

If you have functionality that you use frequently in classes that represent very different things, in my experience that should fall into just a few categories:
Utilities (e.g. string formatting, parsing, ...)
Cross-cutting concerns (logging, security enforcement, ...)
For utility-type functionality you should consider creating separate classes, and referencing the utility classes where needed in the business class.
public class Validator
{
public bool IsValidName(string name);
}
class Patient
{
private Validator validator = new Validator();
public string FirstName
{
set
{
if (validator.IsValidName(value)) ... else ...
}
}
}
For cross-cutting concerns such as logging or security, I suggest you investigate Aspect-Oriented Programming.
Regarding the PrintA vs. PrintB example discussed in other comments, it sounds like an excellent case for the Factory Pattern. You define an interface e.g. IPrint, classes PrintA and PrintB that both implement IPrint, and assign an instance of IPrint based on what the particular page needs.
// Simplified example to explain:
public interface IPrint
{
public void Print(string);
}
public class PrintA : IPrint
{
public void Print(string input)
{ ... format as desired for A ... }
}
public class PrintB : IPrint
{
public void Print(string input)
{ ... format as desired for B ... }
}
class MyPage
{
IPrint printer;
public class MyPage(bool usePrintA)
{
if (usePrintA) printer = new PrintA(); else printer = new PrintB();
}
public PrintThePage()
{
printer.Print(thePageText);
}
}

You can't just load in code that you'd like to have added into a class in C# via a preprocessor directive like you would in C.
You could, however, define an interface and declare extension methods for that interface. The interface could then be implemented by your classes, and you can call the extension methods on those classes. E.g.
public interface IShareFunctionality { }
public static class Extensions
{
public static bool DoSomething(this IShareFunctionality input)
{
return input == null;
}
}
public class MyClass : Object, IShareFunctionality
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
if(this.DoSomething())
throw new Exception("Impossible!");
}
}
This would allow you to reuse functionality, but you cannot access the private members of the class like you would be able to if you could, say, hash include a file.
We might need some more concrete examples of what you want to do though?

A C# utility class will work. It acts like a central registry for common code (or like the VB.NET Module construct) - it should contain code that's not specific to any class otherwise it should have been attached to the relevant class.
You don't want to start copying source code around if you don't have to because that would lead to code update problems considering the duplication.
As long as the source doesn't need to retain state, then use a static class with static method.
static public class MySharedMembers {
static public string ConvertToInvariantCase(string str) {
//...logic
}
// .... other members
}

If the classes are in the same namespace, there's no need for an include analog. Simply call the members of the class defined in the other function.
If they're not in the same namespace, add the namespace of the classes you want to use in the usings directives and it should work the same as above.
I'm confused by the question: it seems you need to work on your basic OO understanding.

Checkout extension methods: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx

I don't know of a way to include portions of files but one thing we do frequently is to add an existing file and "link" it from its current location. For example, we have an assemblyInfo.cs file that every project refers to from a solution directory. We change it once and all the projects have the same info because they're referring to the same file.
Otherwise, suggestions about refactoring "common" routines in a common.dll are the best thing I've come up with in .Net.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "meaningful" structure already, but this sounds like a place where you could use base class implementation. Though not as "verbose" as C++ multiple inheritance, you might get some benefit out of using chained base class implementation to reuse common functions.
You can preserve class hierarchy, at least visually and override behavior as needed.

Pull out the repetitive code into services. The repetitive code is a clue that there might be some room for refactoring.
For example, create a "PrintingService" which contains the logic needed to print. You can then have the classes that need to print have a dependency on this service (either via the constructor or a parameter in a method which requires the service).
Another tip i have along these lines is to create interfaces for base functionality and then use the interfaces to code against. For example, i had bunch of report classes which the user could either fax, email, or print. Instead of creating methods for each, i created a service for each, had them implement an interface that had a single method of Output(). I could then pass each service to the same method depending on what kind of output the user wanted. When the customer wanted to use eFax instead of faxing through the modem, it was just a matter of writing a new service that implemented this same interface.

To be honest I can't think of anything like includes in Visual C#, nor why you would want that feature. That said, partial classes can do something like it sounds what you want, but using them maybe clashes against your "classes already have a meaningful hierarchy" requirement.

You have many options, TT, extension method, delegate, and lambda