I'm creating a modular type system were one application(host) loads other modules in to a common UI interface, I have also created an API for this and is available for other users to use.
The API in some instances uses interfaces and abstract classes to force the client using the API to implement the specific methods.
I cannot use interfaces for everything as there are some things were I require putting in my own body so the end user does not need to implement all the unnecessary events and methods himself. EG: So I handle the size changing events myself then pass him the size to a function he implements from called SizeChanged were he can handle his program from the size change.
Abstract classes are what I really want to use but I cannot because the controls the user has may need the x:Name specified in XAML and will recieve the error:
The type ... cannot have a Name attribute. Values types and types without a default constructor can be used as items within ResourceDictionary.
The error occurs because an instance of it needs to be created:
Inherited Window can not have a name?
The only solution available to me that I know of is to use a regular class with virtual methods that can be overridden and that does work fine but it does not force the user to implement my methods that are required.
Is there anything I can do cleanly such as any public implementable or something?
This is the structure:
API:
IContext -> ContextControl -> (Abstract methods)
Module DLL
ContextControl(API) -> AppContextControl(Override methods)
Host Application pull's AppContextControl
I know I can tell the module dev to implement an interface as well as this ContextControl that constrains them to implement the interfaces but it would be much more professional for the compiler to tell them.
In the dev module if I instead of inheriting from ContextControl I implement IContext then I lose all the default bodys and the module dev gotta implement a lot lot more.
Cheers.
The two ways you've described - interfaces and abstract classes - are (as I'm sure you know) the recommended ways to do what you're describing, at least, if you want to enforce the implementation at compile-time.
The only other way I'm aware of is to provide a default implementation that throws a NotImplementedException(). That'll give you a run-time error, but nothing at compile-time, unfortunately.
This may or may not be applicable in your specific situation, but another possible way to get around your limitation is to use a Strategy pattern.
Instead of having the user override members, have them pass in parameters containing the functionality to the constructor. This could either be as delegates or as specific classes you create for the purpose.
Can't you use a combination of inheritance and interfaces? In other words, create virtual methods for the methods that can be overridden and use interfaces to implement methods that must be overridden?
I recently have a similar problem (dnt know it will help in your case). where i have to generate errors at compile time instead of Runtime, with generic functionality. the approach i used was combination of Generics and Interfaces. Examples are...
1) Enum Ex:(C# String enums)
Problem was to set things so that i dnt have to implement every code throughout the project and force Constructor.
public abstract class EnumEx<T> where T : EnumEx<T>
{
private readonly string _displayValue;
private readonly string _value;
protected static ReadOnlyCollection<T> EnumExs;
protected EnumEx(string displayValue, string value)
{
_displayValue = displayValue;
_value = value;
}
public string DisplayValue
{
get { return _displayValue; }
}
public static T FromString(string option)
{
foreach (var enumEx in EnumExs.Where(enumEx => enumEx._value == option))
{
return enumEx;
}
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("Exception in EnumEX FromString({0})", option));
return null;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return _value ?? string.Empty;
}
}
2) Deep Copy(Generic method to create deep copy of all elements in a collection) + Editable Implementation IEditableObject over custom List
public abstract class CloneAbleBase<T> : ObservableObjectEx, ICloneable, IEditableObject
where T : DataBase<T>, new()
{
protected T CurrentData = new T();
private T _backupData;
private bool _isInEditMode;
public object Clone()
{
var dataObject = (CloneAbleBase<T>) MemberwiseClone();
dataObject.CurrentData = CurrentData.Copy();
return dataObject;
}
public void BeginEdit()
{
if (_isInEditMode) return;
_backupData = CurrentData.Copy();
_isInEditMode = true;
}
public void EndEdit()
{
if (!_isInEditMode) return;
_backupData = default(T);
_isInEditMode = false;
RaisePropertyChanged(string.Empty);
}
public void CancelEdit()
{
if (!_isInEditMode) return;
CurrentData = _backupData;
RaisePropertyChanged(string.Empty);
}
}
In similar way you can create base class for your Window or any control, where you need functionality some sort of generic functionality..
An alternative i can see in your very specific situation is to use interfaces (which, as you said, won't let you inject your own code) and then inherit from the actual type the end user provides and passed in as an interface and inject your own code there at runtime
For example you load all classes implementing IMyPlugin defined as such
public interface IMyPlugin{
void MyEndUserMethod();
void YourMethod();
}
User implements a class that inherits from it
public class UserClass:IMyPlugin{
....
}
You want to force your own code instead of YourMethod, then generate a class at runtime that inherits from UserClass and in YourMethod create your own code and call (or not, depending on your need) base on it. Call base on all other method where the user is to provide the implementation.
This is a bit more work for you but it hides all the uglyness from the end user, simply forcing him to implement the interface. For less uglyness make that interface into 2 interface
public interface IPlugin : IUserPlugin,ICreatorPlugin
And be clear to your users that while the classes must implement IPlugin anything from ICreatorPlugin can be left empty.
An even better solution would be to only expose IUserPlugin and do even more work on your side (your runtime class inherits from the user class AND ICreatorPlugin, and then use duck typing to make it into IPlugin).
I have a class with a public property, that I want to restrict access to _for_some_modules_.
(The modules that use this class reside in different assemblies, so internal does not help.)
My first thought was to subclass, and make the derived property accessor private or protected, but this is not possible. The derived property has to have the same access rights. (See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75e8y5dd.aspx)
Any suggestions? I assume it is a common task to make a more restricted variant of a class?
Thanks!
You can use the InternalsVisibleToAttribute to make the internal members of the class visible to other assemblies (as many as you like). The documentation page has an example.
I assume it is a common task to make a
more restricted variant of a class?
This is not a common task since it violates the Liskov substitution principle - you can't use the sub class the same way as you would use the base class in regards to the property you restrict access to. You should consider refactoring your class hierarchy.
You could solve the problem through composition - make the class A internal only and write a public wrapper class that has a member of type A and delegates and controls access to the A's properties / methods.
Making more restricted subclasses is actually not common because it would break consumers of the base class that assumed they had access to the public members. In general, your classes should start out restrictive and get less so as they specialize, not vice-versa.
The concept you're looking for is called a "friend" class in other languages, but C# (purposely) doesn't implement them. The InternalsVisibleToAttribte is as close as it gets, but that is applied at the assembly level, so it may not work for you.
Without more information on why you are trying to restrict access this way, it's hard to give any good general-purpose alternatives. The access modifiers like public/private/etc aren't designed to be a security mechanism, since Reflection will get you access to read/write everything regardless. They're more of a hint to the consumers as to what is safe to use -- public members will usually remain stable across new versions, while private (implementation-detail) members are more likely to change.
You can always do something like this:
class MyBaseClass
{
protected string MyRestrictedProperty { get; set; }
}
class MyClass : MyBaseClass
{
public string MyPublicProperty
{
get { return MyRestrictedProperty; }
set { MyRestrictedProperty = value; }
}
}
I want to do the following
public abstract class MyAbstractClass
{
public static abstract int MagicId
{
get;
}
public static void DoSomeMagic()
{
// Need to get the MagicId value defined in the concrete implementation
}
}
public class MyConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass
{
public static override int MagicId
{
get { return 123; }
}
}
However I can't because you can't have static abstract members.
I understand why I can't do this - any recommendations for a design that will achieve much the same result?
(For clarity - I am trying to provide a library with an abstract base class but the concrete versions MUST implement a few properties/methods themselves and yes, there are good reasons for keeping it static.)
You fundamentally can't make DoSomeMagic() work with the current design. A call to MyConcreteClass.DoSomeMagic in source code will be translated into MyAbstractClasss.DoSomeMagic in the IL. The fact that it was originally called using MyConcreteClass is lost.
You might consider having a parallel class hierarchy which has the same methods but virtual - then associate each instance of the original class with an instance of the class containing the previously-static members... and there should probably only be one instance of each of those.
Would the Singleton pattern work perhaps? A link to the MSDN article describing how to implement a singleton in C#:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650316.aspx
In your particular example, the Singelton instance could extend an abstract base class with your MagicId in it.
Just a thought :)
I would question that there are "good reasons" for making the abstract members static.
If your thinking is that these members might reflect some property of the derived class itself rather than a given instance, this does not necessarily mean the members should be static.
Consider the IList.IsFixedSize property. This is really a property of the kind of IList, not any particular instance (i.e., any T[] is going to be fixed size; it will not vary from one T[] to another). But still it should be an instance member. Why? Because since multiple types may implement IList, it will vary from one IList to another.
Consider some code that takes any MyAbstractClass (from your example). If this code is designed properly, in most cases, it should not care which derived class it is actually dealing with. What matters is whatever MyAbstractClass exposes. If you make some abstract members static, basically the only way to access them would be like this:
int magicId;
if (concreteObject is MyConcreteClass) {
magicId = MyConcreteClass.MagicId;
} else if (concreteObject is MyOtherConcreteClass) {
magicId = MyOtherConcreteClass.MagicId;
}
Why such a mess? This is much better, right?
int magicId = concreteObject.MagicId;
But perhaps you have other good reasons that haven't occurred to me.
Your best option is to use an interface with MagicId only using a setter
public interface IMagic
{
int MagicId { get; }
}
By the nature of Static meaning there can only be one (yes like Highlander) you can't override them.
Using an interface assumes your client will implement the contract. If they want to have an instance for each or return the value of a Static variable it is up to them.
The good reason for keeping things static would also mean you do NOT need to have it overridden in the child class.
Not a huge fan of this option but...
You could declare the property static, not abstract, virtual and throw a NotImplementedException which returns an error message that the method has to be overridden in a derived class.
You move the error from compile time to run time though which is kinda ugly.
Languages that implement inheritance of static members do it through metaclasses (that is, classes are also objects, and these objects have a metaclass, and static inheritance exists through it). You can vaguely transpose that to the factory pattern: one class has the magic member and can create objects of the second class.
That, or use reflection. But you can't ensure at compile-time that a derived class implements statically a certain property.
Why not just make it a non-static member?
Sounds like a Monostate, perhaps? http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MonostatePattern
The provider pattern, used by the ASP.NET membership provider, for example, might be what you're looking for.
You cannot have polymorphic behavior on static members, so you'll have a static class whose members delegate to an interface (or abstract class) field that will encapsulate the polymorphic behaviors.
I have a class Bar with a private field containing the reference type Foo. I would like to expose Foo in a public property, but I do not want the consumers of the property to be able to alter Foo... It should however be alterable internally by Bar, i.e. I can't make the field readonly.
So what I would like is:
private _Foo;
public Foo
{
get { return readonly _Foo; }
}
...which is of course not valid. I could just return a clone of Foo (assumming that it is IClonable), but this is not obvious to the consumer. Should I change the name of the property to FooCopy?? Should it be a GetCopyOfFoo method instead? What would you consider best practice? Thanks!
It sounds like you're after the equivalent of "const" from C++. This doesn't exist in C#. There's no way of indicating that consumers can't modify the properties of an object, but something else can (assuming the mutating members are public, of course).
You could return a clone of the Foo as suggested, or possibly a view onto the Foo, as ReadOnlyCollection does for collections. Of course if you could make Foo an immutable type, that would make life simpler...
Note that there's a big difference between making the field readonly and making the object itself immutable.
Currently, the type itself could change things in both ways. It could do:
_Foo = new Foo(...);
or
_Foo.SomeProperty = newValue;
If it only needs to be able to do the second, the field could be readonly but you still have the problem of people fetching the property being able to mutate the object. If it only needs to do the first, and actually Foo is either already immutable or could be made immutable, you can just provide a property which only has the "getter" and you'll be fine.
It's very important that you understand the difference between changing the value of the field (to make it refer to a different instance) and changing the contents of the object that the field refers to.
Unfortunately, there's no easy way around this in C# at the moment. You could extract the "read only part" of Foo in an interface and let your property return that instead of Foo.
Making a copy, a ReadOnlyCollection, or having Foo be immutable are usually the three best routes, as you've already speculated.
I sometimes favor methods instead of properties whenever I'm doing anything more significant than simply returning the underlying field, depending on how much work is involved. Methods imply that something is going on and raise more of a flag for consumers when they're using your API.
"Cloning" the Foo objects you receive and give back out is a normal practice called defensive copying. Unless there is some unseen side-effect to cloning that will be visible to the user, there is absolutely no reason to NOT do this. It is often the only way to protect your classes' internal private data, especially in C# or Java, where the C++ idea of const is not available. (IE, it must be done in order to properly create truly immutable objects in these two languages.)
Just to clarify, possible side effects would be things like your user (reasonably) expecting that the original object be returned, or some resource being held by Foo that will not be cloned correctly. (In which case, what is it doing implementing IClonable?!)
If you don't want anyone to mess with your state...don't expose it! As others have said, if something needs to view your internal state, provide an immutable representation of it. Alternatively, get clients to tell you to do something (Google for "tell don't ask"), instead of doing it themselves.
To clarify Jon Skeet's comment you can make a view, that is an immutable wrapper class for the mutable Foo. Here's an example:
class Foo{
public string A{get; set;}
public string B{get; set;}
//...
}
class ReadOnlyFoo{
Foo foo;
public string A { get { return foo.A; }}
public string B { get { return foo.B; }}
}
You can actually reproduce the behaviour of C++ const in C# - you just have to do it manually.
Whatever Foo is, the only way the caller can modify its state is by calling methods on it or setting properties.
For example, Foo is of type FooClass:
class FooClass
{
public void MutateMyStateYouBadBoy() { ... }
public string Message
{
get { ... }
set { ... }
}
}
So in your case, you're happy for them to get the Message property, but not set it, and you're definitely not happy about them calling that method.
So define an interface describing what they're allowed to do:
interface IFooConst
{
public string Message
{
get { ... }
}
}
We've left out the mutating method and only left in the getter on the property.
Then add that interface to the base list of FooClass.
Now in your class with the Foo property, you have a field:
private FooClass _foo;
And a property getter:
public IFooConst Foo
{
get { return _foo; }
}
This basically reproduces by hand precisely what the C++ const keyword would do automatically. In psuedo-C++ terms, a reference of type const Foo & is like an automatically generated type that only includes those members of Foo that were marked as const members. Translating this into some theoretical future version of C#, you'd declare FooClass like this:
class FooClass
{
public void MutateMyStateYouBadBoy() { ... }
public string Message
{
get const { ... }
set { ... }
}
}
Really all I've done is merged the information in IFooConst back into FooClass, by tagging the one safe member with a new const keyword. So in a way, adding a const keyword wouldn't add much to the language besides a formal approach to this pattern.
Then if you had a const reference to a FooClass object:
const FooClass f = GetMeAFooClass();
You would only be able to call the const members on f.
Note that if the FooClass definition is public, the caller could cast an IFooConst into a FooClass. But they can do that in C++ too - it's called "casting away const" and involves a special operator called const_cast<T>(const T &).
There's also the issue of interfaces not being very easy to evolve between versions of your product. If a third party may implement an interface you define (which they are free to do if they can see it), then you can't add new methods to it in future versions without requiring others to recompile their code. But that's only a problem if you are writing an extensible library for others to build on. Maybe a built-in const feature would solve this problem.
I was thinking about similar security things. There is probably a way. Quite clear but not short. The general idea is quite simple. However I always found some ways around so never tested it. But you could check it - maybe it will work for you.
This is pseudo code, but I hope idea behind it is clear
public delegate void OnlyRuller(string s1, string s2);
public delegate void RullerCoronation(OnlyRuller d);
class Foo {
private Foo();
public Foo(RullerCoronation followMyOrders) {
followMyOrders(SetMe);
}
private SetMe(string whatToSet, string whitWhatValue) {
//lot of unclear but private code
}
}
So in class which creates this property you have access to SetMe method, but it's still private so except for creator Foo looks unmutable.
Still for anything bigger than few properties this will probably became soon super mess - that's why I always preferred other ways of encapsulation. However if it's super important for you to not allow the client to change Foo, than this is one alternative.
However, as I said, this is only theory.
Why was C# designed this way?
As I understand it, an interface only describes behaviour, and serves the purpose of describing a contractual obligation for classes implementing the interface that certain behaviour is implemented.
If classes wish to implement that behavour in a shared method, why shouldn't they?
Here is an example of what I have in mind:
// These items will be displayed in a list on the screen.
public interface IListItem {
string ScreenName();
...
}
public class Animal: IListItem {
// All animals will be called "Animal".
public static string ScreenName() {
return "Animal";
}
....
}
public class Person: IListItem {
private string name;
// All persons will be called by their individual names.
public string ScreenName() {
return name;
}
....
}
Assuming you are asking why you can't do this:
public interface IFoo {
void Bar();
}
public class Foo: IFoo {
public static void Bar() {}
}
This doesn't make sense to me, semantically. Methods specified on an interface should be there to specify the contract for interacting with an object. Static methods do not allow you to interact with an object - if you find yourself in the position where your implementation could be made static, you may need to ask yourself if that method really belongs in the interface.
To implement your example, I would give Animal a const property, which would still allow it to be accessed from a static context, and return that value in the implementation.
public class Animal: IListItem {
/* Can be tough to come up with a different, yet meaningful name!
* A different casing convention, like Java has, would help here.
*/
public const string AnimalScreenName = "Animal";
public string ScreenName(){ return AnimalScreenName; }
}
For a more complicated situation, you could always declare another static method and delegate to that. In trying come up with an example, I couldn't think of any reason you would do something non-trivial in both a static and instance context, so I'll spare you a FooBar blob, and take it as an indication that it might not be a good idea.
My (simplified) technical reason is that static methods are not in the vtable, and the call site is chosen at compile time. It's the same reason you can't have override or virtual static members. For more details, you'd need a CS grad or compiler wonk - of which I'm neither.
For the political reason, I'll quote Eric Lippert (who is a compiler wonk, and holds a Bachelor of Mathematics, Computer science and Applied Mathematics from University of Waterloo (source: LinkedIn):
...the core design principle of static methods, the principle that gives them their name...[is]...it can always be determined exactly, at compile time, what method will be called. That is, the method can be resolved solely by static analysis of the code.
Note that Lippert does leave room for a so-called type method:
That is, a method associated with a type (like a static), which does not take a non-nullable “this” argument (unlike an instance or virtual), but one where the method called would depend on the constructed type of T (unlike a static, which must be determinable at compile time).
but is yet to be convinced of its usefulness.
Most answers here seem to miss the whole point. Polymorphism can be used not only between instances, but also between types. This is often needed, when we use generics.
Suppose we have type parameter in generic method and we need to do some operation with it. We dont want to instantinate, because we are unaware of the constructors.
For example:
Repository GetRepository<T>()
{
//need to call T.IsQueryable, but can't!!!
//need to call T.RowCount
//need to call T.DoSomeStaticMath(int param)
}
...
var r = GetRepository<Customer>()
Unfortunately, I can come up only with "ugly" alternatives:
Use reflection
Ugly and beats the idea of interfaces and polymorphism.
Create completely separate factory class
This might greatly increase the complexity of the code. For example, if we are trying to model domain objects, each object would need another repository class.
Instantiate and then call the desired interface method
This can be hard to implement even if we control the source for the classes, used as generic parameters. The reason is that, for example we might need the instances to be only in well-known, "connected to DB" state.
Example:
public class Customer
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
//do work...
}
}
in order to use instantination for solving the static interface problem we need to do the following thing:
public class Customer: IDoSomeStaticMath
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
//dummy instance
public Customer() { IsDummy = true; }
int DoSomeStaticMath(int a) { }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
if(!IsDummy)
{
//do work...
}
}
}
This is obviously ugly and also unnecessary complicates the code for all other methods. Obviously, not an elegant solution either!
I know it's an old question, but it's interesting. The example isn't the best. I think it would be much clearer if you showed a usage case:
string DoSomething<T>() where T:ISomeFunction
{
if (T.someFunction())
...
}
Merely being able to have static methods implement an interface would not achieve what you want; what would be needed would be to have static members as part of an interface. I can certainly imagine many usage cases for that, especially when it comes to being able to create things. Two approaches I could offer which might be helpful:
Create a static generic class whose type parameter will be the type you'd be passing to DoSomething above. Each variation of this class will have one or more static members holding stuff related to that type. This information could supplied either by having each class of interest call a "register information" routine, or by using Reflection to get the information when the class variation's static constructor is run. I believe the latter approach is used by things like Comparer<T>.Default().
For each class T of interest, define a class or struct which implements IGetWhateverClassInfo<T> and satisfies a "new" constraint. The class won't actually contain any fields, but will have a static property which returns a static field with the type information. Pass the type of that class or struct to the generic routine in question, which will be able to create an instance and use it to get information about the other class. If you use a class for this purpose, you should probably define a static generic class as indicated above, to avoid having to construct a new descriptor-object instance each time. If you use a struct, instantiation cost should be nil, but every different struct type would require a different expansion of the DoSomething routine.
None of these approaches is really appealing. On the other hand, I would expect that if the mechanisms existed in CLR to provide this sort of functionality cleanly, .net would allow one to specify parameterized "new" constraints (since knowing if a class has a constructor with a particular signature would seem to be comparable in difficulty to knowing if it has a static method with a particular signature).
Short-sightedness, I'd guess.
When originally designed, interfaces were intended only to be used with instances of class
IMyInterface val = GetObjectImplementingIMyInterface();
val.SomeThingDefinedinInterface();
It was only with the introduction of interfaces as constraints for generics did adding a static method to an interface have a practical use.
(responding to comment:) I believe changing it now would require a change to the CLR, which would lead to incompatibilities with existing assemblies.
To the extent that interfaces represent "contracts", it seems quiet reasonable for static classes to implement interfaces.
The above arguments all seem to miss this point about contracts.
Interfaces specify behavior of an object.
Static methods do not specify a behavior of an object, but behavior that affects an object in some way.
Because the purpose of an interface is to allow polymorphism, being able to pass an instance of any number of defined classes that have all been defined to implement the defined interface... guaranteeing that within your polymorphic call, the code will be able to find the method you are calling. it makes no sense to allow a static method to implement the interface,
How would you call it??
public interface MyInterface { void MyMethod(); }
public class MyClass: MyInterface
{
public static void MyMethod() { //Do Something; }
}
// inside of some other class ...
// How would you call the method on the interface ???
MyClass.MyMethod(); // this calls the method normally
// not through the interface...
// This next fails you can't cast a classname to a different type...
// Only instances can be Cast to a different type...
MyInterface myItf = MyClass as MyInterface;
Actually, it does.
As of Mid-2022, the current version of C# has full support for so-called static abstract members:
interface INumber<T>
{
static abstract T Zero { get; }
}
struct Fraction : INumber<Fraction>
{
public static Fraction Zero { get; } = new Fraction();
public long Numerator;
public ulong Denominator;
....
}
Please note that depending on your version of Visual Studio and your installed .NET SDK, you'll either have to update at least one of them (or maybe both), or that you'll have to enable preview features (see Use preview features & preview language in Visual Studio).
See more:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/tutorials/static-virtual-interface-members
https://blog.ndepend.com/c-11-static-abstract-members/
https://khalidabuhakmeh.com/static-abstract-members-in-csharp-10-interfaces#:~:text=Static%20abstract%20members%20allow%20each,like%20any%20other%20interface%20definition.
Regarding static methods used in non-generic contexts I agree that it doesn't make much sense to allow them in interfaces, since you wouldn't be able to call them if you had a reference to the interface anyway. However there is a fundamental hole in the language design created by using interfaces NOT in a polymorphic context, but in a generic one. In this case the interface is not an interface at all but rather a constraint. Because C# has no concept of a constraint outside of an interface it is missing substantial functionality. Case in point:
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values)
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
Here there is no polymorphism, the generic uses the actual type of the object and calls the += operator, but this fails since it can't say for sure that that operator exists. The simple solution is to specify it in the constraint; the simple solution is impossible because operators are static and static methods can't be in an interface and (here is the problem) constraints are represented as interfaces.
What C# needs is a real constraint type, all interfaces would also be constraints, but not all constraints would be interfaces then you could do this:
constraint CHasPlusEquals
{
static CHasPlusEquals operator + (CHasPlusEquals a, CHasPlusEquals b);
}
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values) where T : CHasPlusEquals
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
There has been lots of talk already about making an IArithmetic for all numeric types to implement, but there is concern about efficiency, since a constraint is not a polymorphic construct, making a CArithmetic constraint would solve that problem.
Because interfaces are in inheritance structure, and static methods don't inherit well.
What you seem to want would allow for a static method to be called via both the Type or any instance of that type. This would at very least result in ambiguity which is not a desirable trait.
There would be endless debates about whether it mattered, which is best practice and whether there are performance issues doing it one way or another. By simply not supporting it C# saves us having to worry about it.
Its also likely that a compilier that conformed to this desire would lose some optimisations that may come with a more strict separation between instance and static methods.
You can think of the static methods and non-static methods of a class as being different interfaces. When called, static methods resolve to the singleton static class object, and non-static methods resolve to the instance of the class you deal with. So, if you use static and non-static methods in an interface, you'd effectively be declaring two interfaces when really we want interfaces to be used to access one cohesive thing.
To give an example where I am missing either static implementation of interface methods or what Mark Brackett introduced as the "so-called type method":
When reading from a database storage, we have a generic DataTable class that handles reading from a table of any structure. All table specific information is put in one class per table that also holds data for one row from the DB and which must implement an IDataRow interface. Included in the IDataRow is a description of the structure of the table to read from the database. The DataTable must ask for the datastructure from the IDataRow before reading from the DB. Currently this looks like:
interface IDataRow {
string GetDataSTructre(); // How to read data from the DB
void Read(IDBDataRow); // How to populate this datarow from DB data
}
public class DataTable<T> : List<T> where T : IDataRow {
public string GetDataStructure()
// Desired: Static or Type method:
// return (T.GetDataStructure());
// Required: Instantiate a new class:
return (new T().GetDataStructure());
}
}
The GetDataStructure is only required once for each table to read, the overhead for instantiating one more instance is minimal. However, it would be nice in this case here.
FYI: You could get a similar behavior to what you want by creating extension methods for the interface. The extension method would be a shared, non overridable static behavior. However, unfortunately, this static method would not be part of the contract.
Interfaces are abstract sets of defined available functionality.
Whether or not a method in that interface behaves as static or not is an implementation detail that should be hidden behind the interface. It would be wrong to define an interface method as static because you would be unnecessarily forcing the method to be implemented in a certain way.
If methods were defined as static, the class implementing the interface wouldn't be as encapsulated as it could be. Encapsulation is a good thing to strive for in object oriented design (I won't go into why, you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented). For this reason, static methods aren't permitted in interfaces.
Static classes should be able to do this so they can be used generically. I had to instead implement a Singleton to achieve the desired results.
I had a bunch of Static Business Layer classes that implemented CRUD methods like "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" for each entity type like "User", "Team", ect.. Then I created a base control that had an abstract property for the Business Layer class that implemented the CRUD methods. This allowed me to automate the "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" operations from the base class. I had to use a Singleton because of the Static limitation.
Most people seem to forget that in OOP Classes are objects too, and so they have messages, which for some reason c# calls "static method".
The fact that differences exist between instance objects and class objects only shows flaws or shortcomings in the language.
Optimist about c# though...
OK here is an example of needing a 'type method'. I am creating one of a set of classes based on some source XML. So I have a
static public bool IsHandled(XElement xml)
function which is called in turn on each class.
The function should be static as otherwise we waste time creating inappropriate objects.
As #Ian Boyde points out it could be done in a factory class, but this just adds complexity.
It would be nice to add it to the interface to force class implementors to implement it. This would not cause significant overhead - it is only a compile/link time check and does not affect the vtable.
However, it would also be a fairly minor improvement. As the method is static, I as the caller, must call it explicitly and so get an immediate compile error if it is not implemented. Allowing it to be specified on the interface would mean this error comes marginally earlier in the development cycle, but this is trivial compared to other broken-interface issues.
So it is a minor potential feature which on balance is probably best left out.
The fact that a static class is implemented in C# by Microsoft creating a special instance of a class with the static elements is just an oddity of how static functionality is achieved. It is isn't a theoretical point.
An interface SHOULD be a descriptor of the class interface - or how it is interacted with, and that should include interactions that are static. The general definition of interface (from Meriam-Webster): the place or area at which different things meet and communicate with or affect each other. When you omit static components of a class or static classes entirely, we are ignoring large sections of how these bad boys interact.
Here is a very clear example of where being able to use interfaces with static classes would be quite useful:
public interface ICrudModel<T, Tk>
{
Boolean Create(T obj);
T Retrieve(Tk key);
Boolean Update(T obj);
Boolean Delete(T obj);
}
Currently, I write the static classes that contain these methods without any kind of checking to make sure that I haven't forgotten anything. Is like the bad old days of programming before OOP.
C# and the CLR should support static methods in interfaces as Java does. The static modifier is part of a contract definition and does have meaning, specifically that the behavior and return value do not vary base on instance although it may still vary from call to call.
That said, I recommend that when you want to use a static method in an interface and cannot, use an annotation instead. You will get the functionality you are looking for.
Static Methods within an Interface are allowed as of c# 9 (see https://www.dotnetcurry.com/csharp/simpler-code-with-csharp-9).
I think the short answer is "because it is of zero usefulness".
To call an interface method, you need an instance of the type. From instance methods you can call any static methods you want to.
I think the question is getting at the fact that C# needs another keyword, for precisely this sort of situation. You want a method whose return value depends only on the type on which it is called. You can't call it "static" if said type is unknown. But once the type becomes known, it will become static. "Unresolved static" is the idea -- it's not static yet, but once we know the receiving type, it will be. This is a perfectly good concept, which is why programmers keep asking for it. But it didn't quite fit into the way the designers thought about the language.
Since it's not available, I have taken to using non-static methods in the way shown below. Not exactly ideal, but I can't see any approach that makes more sense, at least not for me.
public interface IZeroWrapper<TNumber> {
TNumber Zero {get;}
}
public class DoubleWrapper: IZeroWrapper<double> {
public double Zero { get { return 0; } }
}
As per Object oriented concept Interface implemented by classes and
have contract to access these implemented function(or methods) using
object.
So if you want to access Interface Contract methods you have to create object. It is always must that is not allowed in case of Static methods. Static classes ,method and variables never require objects and load in memory without creating object of that area(or class) or you can say do not require Object Creation.
Conceptually there is no reason why an interface could not define a contract that includes static methods.
For the current C# language implementation, the restriction is due to the allowance of inheritance of a base class and interfaces. If "class SomeBaseClass" implements "interface ISomeInterface" and "class SomeDerivedClass : SomeBaseClass, ISomeInterface" also implements the interface, a static method to implement an interface method would fail compile because a static method cannot have same signature as an instance method (which would be present in base class to implement the interface).
A static class is functionally identical to a singleton and serves the same purpose as a singleton with cleaner syntax. Since a singleton can implement an interface, interface implementations by statics are conceptually valid.
So it simply boils down to the limitation of C# name conflict for instance and static methods of the same name across inheritance. There is no reason why C# could not be "upgraded" to support static method contracts (interfaces).
An interface is an OOPS concept, which means every member of the interface should get used through an object or instance. Hence, an interface can not have static methods.
When a class implements an interface,it is creating instance for the interface members. While a static type doesnt have an instance,there is no point in having static signatures in an interface.