I was recently coming up with some rather funky singleton work and discovered that I can access a protected static member from any unique inherited type using the same base of inheritance where generics are used. An example of what I'm talking about is as follows:
public abstract class Class<T>
{
protected static int number = 5;
public void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine(number);
}
}
public class ClassA : Class<ClassA>
{
}
public class ClassB : Class<ClassB>
{
public ClassB()
{
number = 1;
}
}
public class ClassC : Class<ClassC>
{
public ClassC()
{
number = ClassA.number;//I don't want to be able to see "number"
}
}
Since generics are in use here, each unique inheriting type gets its own "number" (which is what I want). But I don't like that I can access "number" from other types inheriting the same base type when generics are used. Is there a way to fix this? And also why does this happen (I understand why it happens with inheritance without generics, but it doesn't seem right that it happens with generics)?
I don't like that I can access "number" from other classes inheriting the same base class when generics are used. Is there a way to fix this?
The only true fix is to declare separate private static variables for each class. This will keep you from being able see the number variable in one class type from any other class type.
public abstract class Class<T>
{
private static int number = 5;
public void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine(number);
}
}
public class ClassA : Class<ClassA>
{
}
public class ClassB : Class<ClassB>
{
private static int number;
public ClassB()
{
number = 1;
}
}
public class ClassC : Class<ClassC>
{
private static int number;
public ClassC()
{
number = 123; // Cannot see ClassA.number because it is private to `Class<T>`
}
}
The side effect is being caused by declaring the variable protected static and using it with inheritance. It is unclear why you would attempt to do that when the behavior you are after is that of a private static field.
You can use the private modifier to make the static member invisible to descendents. Use protected only if you want the descendants to be able to access it. It makes no difference generic vs. non.
public abstract class Class<T>
{
private static int number = 5; //Private now
public void Print()
{
Console.WriteLine(number); //Works
}
}
public class ClassA : Class<ClassA>
{
//No number
}
public class ClassB : Class<ClassB>
{
public ClassB()
{
number = 1; //Will not compile
}
}
public class ClassC : Class<ClassC>
{
public ClassC()
{
number = ClassA.number;//Will not compile
}
}
If you want the static variable to be accessible only to some descendants and not others, define the variable in the first class in the inheritance chain that needs access:
public abstract class Class<T>
{
}
public class ClassA : Class<ClassA>
{
static private int number = 7;
}
public class ClassB : Class<ClassB>
{
static private int number = 7;
public ClassB()
{
ClassA.number = 5; //Does not compile
ClassB.number = 6;
}
}
public class ClassC : Class<ClassC>
{
static private int number = 7;
public ClassC()
{
Console.WriteLine(ClassA.number); //Does not compile
Console.WriteLine(ClassB.number); //Does not compile
Console.WriteLine(ClassC.number); //Compiles
}
}
You cannot define something in an ancestor class and remove it from a descendant.
Related
I have a class Foo, which is a base class for a lot other classes such as Bar and Baz, and I want to do some calculation within Foo using the static members in Bar and Baz, as shown below:
public class Foo{
public result1 {
get{
return field1;
}
}
}
public class Bar : Foo{
public const int field1 = 5;
}
public class Baz : Foo{
public const int field1 = 10;
}
The only solution I can think of is wrap all the fields in a container, add an extra identifier for each object, and use a function to return the fields, like so
Bar : Foo{
public readonly int id = 0;
public static Wrapper wrapper;
}
public Wrapper GetWrapper(int id){
switch(id){
case 0:
return Bar.wrapper;
}
}
However, as you can see, I need to maintain one additional class and function, and I'd rather not to fragment my code. Is there any alternative?
Edit
What you are asking for, i.e. accessing a static or const value in a subclass from a base class is technically possible, but doing so will violate the principals of good SOLID OO design. Also, since you will need an instance of a specific subclass in order to be able to 'reason over' the type of the subclass in order to obtain the appropriate field1, there's little point approaching this problem statically.
Instead, the common, cleaner, approach here is to use subtype polymorphicism which will allow a calling method in the base class, or a method in an external class altogether, to access the appropriate value for 'field1' based on the subclass. This allows control over the value returned to remain inside the appropriate subclasses (i.e. as per your words, the code won't become "fragmented").
Alternative solution using subclass polymorphicism (recommended)
A subclass polymorphic approach (i.e. with the virtual/abstract and override keywords) will allow you to encapsulate the retrieval of a value (or object) which is customizable for each subclass. Here, the abstraction remains conceptually at "give me an integer value", and then the sub-class-specific implementations of 'how' to return the value can be abstracted (hidden) from the caller. Also, by marking the base property as abstract, you will force all subclasses to implement the property, so that the requirement to provide a value isn't forgotten about.
i.e. I would recommend a polymorphic approach like this:
public abstract class Foo
{
public abstract int Result { get; }
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
// This is implementation specific. Hide it.
private const int field1 = 5;
public override int Result
{
get { return field1; }
}
}
public class Baz : Foo
{
public override int Result
{
// No need for this implementation to be a constant ...
get { return TheResultOfAReallyComplexCalculationHere(); }
}
}
If there are no other reusable concrete methods on the base class Foo, then you could also model the abstraction as an interface, with the same effect:
public interface IFoo
{
int Result { get; }
}
Approaching this problem without polymorphicism (Not recommended)
Any compile-time attempt to access static fields on subclasses will typically require code somewhere to switch (or map) on the actually type of the subclass instance, e.g.:
public class Foo
{
public int result1
{
get
{
switch(this.GetType().Name)
{
case "Bar":
return Bar.field1;
case "Baz":
return Baz.field1;
default:
return 0;
}
}
}
public void MethodRequiringValueFromSubclass()
{
Console.WriteLine(result1);
}
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
public const int field1 = 5;
}
public class Baz : Foo
{
public const int field1 = 10;
}
The problem here is that the Open and Closed principal is violated, as each time a new sub class is added, the result1 method would need to be changed to accomodate the new class.
I'd suggest to use abstract function rather that using static member.
public abstract class Foo{
public result1 {
get{
return get_field1();
}
}
protected abstract int get_field1();
}
public class Bar : Foo{
public const int field1 = 5;
protected override int get_field1() { return field1;}
}
public class Baz : Foo{
public const int field1 = 10;
protected override int get_field1() { return field1;}
}
You either add constructor parameter to your Foo class which can be passed from inheritors, thus you don't need extra classes also you'll have less coupling
public class Foo
{
private readonly int _field1;
public Foo(int field1)
{
_field1 = field1;
}
}
or you can use it exactly from inheritors type as static/const members are members of class type
public class Foo
{
public result1
{
get
{
return Bar.field1;
}
}
}
but this gives your code less flexibility and more coupling.
Also you have an option by using virtual properties which you can implement in derrived classes and use in base:
public class Foo
{
public virtual int Field { get { return 0; } }
}
Instead of making Foo abstract as other answers suggested you can use virtual and override result1 in each child class
public class Foo
{
public virtual int result1 { get; }
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
public const int field1 = 5;
public override int result1
{
get { return field1; }
}
}
public class Baz : Foo
{
public const int field1 = 10;
public override int result1
{
get { return field1; }
}
}
If you want default result1 to return something else than 0 you can give it another value
public class Foo
{
public virtual int result1 { get; } = -1;
}
I always feel like a jerk when I answer my own question... Yet didn't see what I was expecting so I might as well just share what I've got after a night of mind boggling.
The reason I don't want to make the calculation abstract/virtual is because there are many subclasses and the formula is the same for all of them. I just refuse to type the same code 10-20 times repeatedly.
Couldn't make the static fields non static either, as they should be accessible at a class level plus they can get big, and they are the same for all instances.
The only solution I can come up that minimizes code fragment is something like this
public class Foo {
public class Wrapper {
Fields...
}
public Wrapper wrapper; // reference
public int result1 { get; }
}
public class Bar : Foo {
public static Wrapper subclassWrapper; // put in the implementation
public Bar() : base(){
wrapper = subclassWrapper;
}
}
So each instance now needs to hold an extra reference, however I don't need to keep a function. The wrapper is kept within the base class so it is less fragmented.
I have a class A, and a class AStore. My requirement is to prevent all other methods from initializing an instance of class A, which they should get an instance from AStore. In addition, I also need to access the member functions of A from the instance.
Factory pattern is not suitable for this problem as the constructor of A is still public. Ideally, it should throw compilation error when calling the constructor of class A while having access to its member functions.
Can I get C# solutions to this?
For restricting others to create an instance of class A you can use a private constructor and a static factory method to get the instance of that class.
public class A
{
private A(){}
public static A GetInstance()
{
return new A();
}
public void MemberFunctionOfA()
{
// blah blah...
}
}
To enforce instance creation of A only via Astore you can use protected modifier and derive AStore from A. That way, only AStore will have access to its protected members like 'constructor' or 'factory method':
public class Astore : A
{
public A GetInstanceOfA()
{
return base.GetInstance();
}
}
public class A
{
protected A() { }
protected A GetInstance()
{
return new A();
}
public void MemberFunctionOfA()
{
// blah blah...
}
}
//Usage
public class ConsumerClass
{
public void Test()
{
var a = new A(); // Compile error
a = new Astore().GetInstanceOfA();
a.MemberFunctionOfA();
}
}
But there're still chances that another class say 'UnWantedStore' can derive from A and serve instance of A.
Another approach is moving AStore and A classes to the dedicated project and make constructor of A class internal.
// Project A
namespace ProjectA
{
public class A
{
public int PropertyOne { get; set; }
public string PropertyTwo { get; set; }
internal A() {}
}
public class AStore
{
public A CreateA()
{
//internal constructor can be used
return A();
}
}
}
// Project ConsumerOfA
namespace ConsumerOfA
{
public static void UseA()
{
var store = new AStore();
var instanceOfA = store.CreateA();
// have access to the A's public members
}
}
With this approach you will get perfect encapsulation you trying to achive.
Abstract classes to the rescue!
Indeed, there's yet another possible approach! I've never used it but it might work in your scenario. See the following code sample:
public abstract class A
{
public string Text { get; set; }
public string SayHello() => "hello world!";
}
public class AStore
{
private class AInternal : A {}
public void DoStuff()
{
A a = new AInternal();
a.Text = "whatever";
string helloText = a.SayHello();
}
}
Let's explain the approach:
Class A is abstract, therefore it can't be instantiated.
Class AStore implements a private nested class called AInternal which just inherits A to let AStore members be able to instantiate A. Since AInternal is private, no other class than AStore can instantiate AInternal!
Class AStore can access public A members because AInternal inherits A!
You can do this with reflection too:
public class ClassA
{
// The constructor(s) have to be private
private ClassA() { }
// Whatever other code you want
}
public class ClassB
{
public static ClassA GetClassAInstance()
{
// Use reflection to get the private default constructor
ConstructorInfo constructor = typeof(ClassA).GetConstructor(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance, null, new Type[] { }, null);
ClassA instance = constructor.Invoke(new object[] { }) as ClassA;
return instance;
}
}
You can find more information on the GetConstructor method here.
With the abstract following class:
public abstract class A
{
public static string MyMethod()
{
return "a";
}
}
Why can't I built this derived abstract class:
public class B<T> where T : A
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); // not allowed
var S2 = T.MyMethod(); // not allowed
}
}
I don't understand why since MyMethod will be available in type T.
There are two misconceptions in your question that collectively prevent both your attempts from working.
First your B class is not in any way derived from the A class, you have only said that it takes a generic parameter that must inherit from A.
Second as the user #recursive pointed out, static methods do not participate in inheritance so MyMethod would only ever be available as A.MyMethod()
You can make at least your first attempt work if you remove the static modifier and make B inherit from A instead of using generics.
// Removed the static modifier
public abstract class A
{
public string MyMethod()
{
return "a";
}
}
// Made B inherit directly from A
public class B : A
{
public void AnotherMethod()
{
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); //base technically isn't required
}
}
Aside from the fact that A.MyMethod is static, which clearly will not work since anything static does not take part in inheritance, even if you made it not static it still will not work. For example, this will not work either:
public abstract class A {
public string MyMethod() {
return "a";
}
}
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod() {
var S1 = base.MyMethod(); // Line 1
var S2 = T.MyMethod(); // Line 2
}
}
Why?
You are saying where T : A which means that type T has to be a derived type from A. Your class B<T is not a derived type of A so Line 1 will not work.
But why is Line 2 not working?
T is a type and if T is inheriting A, then objects of type T will be able to do that. If you changed it like this, then it will work:
public abstract class A {
public string MyMethod() {
return "a";
}
}
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod(T t) {
t.MyMethod();
}
}
public class C : A {
}
public class BClosed : B<C> {
public void Foo(C c) {
c.MyMethod();
this.AnotherMethod(c);
}
}
In the above code, C derives A which was your restriction. Then BClosed closes the generic type saying T is C so now you can call MyMethod of A and AnotherMethod of your generic.
Also, when you have a generic class you should use the generic type otherwise I do not see the use. So this is useless since it has no generic code:
public class B<T> where T : A {
public void AnotherMethod() {
}
}
I had a question on C# generics. I wish to store a generic type variable in my abstract class without declaring that type outside the class.
Below is the code sample. Please note that I do not wish to make the Param classes exposed outside the Calc class.
Thanks in advance.
- Dutta.
abstract class Base { }
abstract class Calc<T> where T : Base
{
protected Param Member; /* how can this be a made a generic declaration
* WITHOUT declaring this class like,
* class Calc<T, P>
* where T : Base
* where P : Param */
protected Calc(Param p)
{
this.Member = p;
}
protected abstract class Param { }
}
class MyBase : Base { }
class MyCalc : Calc<MyBase>
{
public MyCalc() : base(new MyParam()) { }
public void doSomething()
{
base.Member.A++; // fails on compilation
}
private class MyParam : Calc<MyBase>.Param
{
public int A;
public MyParam() { this.A = 0; }
}
}
You just need to cast it to the new type, because no matter what, the variable Member was declared as Param and it will always be accessed as Param:
((MyParam)base.Member).A++;
Secondly, you can fix up your MyParam class by changing from this:
MyParam : Calc<MyBase>.Param
To this:
MyParam : Param
Because Param is already Calc<MyBase> through generics and inheritance.
Thraka's answer is correct: if you don't want to use generics you need to cast. Just to add to it, in case what you're really trying to do looks something like this. Here's a set of classes that you can expose from your library, which will not be extensible by clients (unless they're running with full trust and can use reflection etc.!!) but which can be used in a type-safe way.
public abstract class SupportedPaymentMethod
{
protected internal SupportedPaymentMethod() { }
}
public sealed class Check : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public int CheckNumber { get; private set; }
public Check(int checkNumber)
: base()
{
CheckNumber = checkNumber;
}
}
public sealed class CreditCard : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public CreditCard()
: base()
{ }
}
public abstract class Payment<T>
where T : SupportedPaymentMethod
{
public T Method { get; private set; }
protected internal Payment(T method)
{
Method = method;
}
}
public sealed CheckPayment : Payment<Check>
{
public CheckPayment(Check check)
: base(check)
{ }
}
public sealed CreditCardPayment : Payment<CreditCard>
{
public CreditCardPayment(CreditCard creditCard)
: base(creditCard)
{ }
}
Clients (i.e. code outside of your class library's assembly) will be able to instantiate a CheckPayment or a CreditCardPayment, but they will not be able to create a new class deriving from Payment<T>. So, it will not be possible for clients to create a CheatingPaymentMethod : Payment<Cheating>, for example. :)
Calls like your intended call to base.Member.A++ will now work:
var checkPayment = new CheckPayment(new Check(123456));
var checkNumber = checkPayment.Method.CheckNumber; // Success! :)
I know that syntactically and conceptually the concepts of "virtual" and "static" members are diametrically opposed, but I'm trying to push the envelope a bit and see if there's a way to achieve the following:
Let's say I have an abstract class Animal, which has a property NumberOfLegs. My Cat class should have NumberOfLegs defined as 4, while Spider should have 8 legs. I would want to have code like this (obviously the code below will not compile):
public abstract class Animal {
public static abstract int NumberOfLegs { get; }
public void Walk() {
// do something based on NumberOfLegs
}
}
public class Cat : Animal {
public static override int NumberOfLegs { get { return 4; } }
}
public class Spider : Animal {
public static override int NumberOfLegs { get { return 8; } }
}
I want it to be static, because it's not dependent on instance; it's dependent only on the subclass type.
How would you do this?
I think the best compromise for you is to create a constant in each class for the number of legs. A constant is basically a static member which is readonly, which for this example makes sense, otherwise make it static.
Next, I would define an abstract Property for the Animal class and override it each subclass. This would allow inheritance and polymorphism to work, but each instance of the class would still reference the same value.
public abstract class Animal
{
public abstract int NumberOfLegs { get; }
public void Walk()
{
// do something based on NumberOfLegs
}
}
public class Cat : Animal
{
private const int NumLegs = 4;
public override int NumberOfLegs { get { return NumLegs; } }
}
public class Spider : Animal
{
private const int NumLegs = 8;
public override int NumberOfLegs { get { return NumLegs; } }
}
As far as not being to override static methods, I know it isn't what you want to hear but that's not possible. First of all, you use static members like Animal.Legs or Cat.Legs by specifying the class and not from an instance of the object. Therefore, if you define it as static, you won't even have access on it from an instance of the class, and there is no idea of polymorphism either (i.e. a function accepting a generic "Animal" cannot get how many legs it has and have it call the correct Property). If you are interested in how this works I suggest you read about Virtual Tables