Develop Reference

Can I call a static method that lives on a base class with a reference the the class implementing that base class (in C#)?

I'm having a hard time phrasing the question which is also making it hard for me to search for answers.
Here's a contrived scenario that mimics what I'd like to do:
void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(TestClassA.MyPropertyName());
Console.WriteLine(TestClassB.MyPropertyName());
var speaker = new TestSpeaker();
speaker.Speak<TestClassA>();
speaker.Speak<TestClassB>();
}
public class TestSpeaker {
public void Speak<T>() where T : BaseClass<T> {
Console.WriteLine(/* I want to call T.MyPropertyName() here */);
}
}
public class TestClassA : BaseClass<TestClassA> {
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class TestClassB : BaseClass<TestClassB> {
public string OtherPropertyName { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BaseClass<T> {
public static string MyPropertyName(){
return typeof(T).GetProperties().Single().Name;
}
}
The Console right now would read:
Name
OtherPropertyName
I'd like to replace my commented out code so that it would read:
Name
OtherPropertyName
Name
OtherPropertyName

if you change your Writeline to
Console.WriteLine(BaseClass<T>.MyPropertyName());
you will get what you want

Why use a static function in a base class to retrieve information about a derived class? In any case, you could implement a member function to wrap the static call:
public static string MyStaticFunction() => return "whatever";
public string MyMemberFunction() => MyStaticFunction();
But in your scenario, perhaps you should simply declare an abstract property (or function) meant to return the value you're looking for and override it in derived classes:
Base:
public abstract string MyPropertyName { get; }
Derived:
public override string MyPropertyName => nameof(OtherPropertyName); // or more complex logic
And yet another possible solution would be to pass the information to the base class's constructor as a string (or property expression should you be so inclined):
Base:
public string MyPropertyName { get; init; }
public BaseClass(string propertyName)
{
MyPropertyName = propertyName; // maybe validate that the property exists
}
Derived:
public MyTestClassB() : BaseClass(nameof(OtherPropertyName)) {}

How to prevent calling constructor of one class while having access to its member functions in C#?

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.

Base class used as an abstract method's parameter?

I'm trying to setup some classes like:
public abstract class AnimalBase {
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
public AnimalBase(string speciesName) {
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
public abstract void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals);
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName) {
this.CopyFrom(new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName));
}
public override void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
public void Cripple() {
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public class MammalDefaultClass : AnimalDefaultClass {
public bool WalksUpright { get; private set; }
public MammalDefaultClass(string speciesName) {
using (var dataStore = theoreticalFactory.GetDataStore()) {
this.WalksUpright = dataStore[speciesName].WalksUpright;
}
}
}
Obviously that's not quite what I'm trying to accomplish, but the idea is:
Several classes (Mammal, Fish, Insect, etc) which inherit from an abstract base (Animal).
Each child class has a corresponding class it can use (in this case to populate mutable default values) as a parameter for a method which was defined as abstract in the base class.
Each of those corresponding classes (MammalDefaultClass, FishDefaultClass, InsectDefaultClass, etc) inherit from a common base class (AnimalDefaultClass).
Those AnimalDefaultClass derivatives exist because each class of Animal will have different properties, but by definition there will always be a class capable of getting those values for any Animal.
My problem is:
That overridden version of CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass) isn't being recognized as a valid override of the abstract CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass), even though MammalDefaultClass inherits from AnimalDefaultClass
Is it possible to specify a base class as an abstract member's parameter? Is there a simple* workaround? Or is this whole thing just laid out wrong?
-edit: my resolution-
After playing around some with MWB and sza's suggestions, I ended up having each subclass implement the method using the base parameter and then cast the input as appropriate, something like:
public class Mammal : AnimalBase {
...
// implements the abstract method from the base class:
public override void CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.CopyFrom((MammalDefaultClass)defaultVals);
}
public void CopyFrom(MammalDefaultClass defaultVals) {
this.WalksUpright = defaultVals.WalksUpright;
}
}
This solution forces me to always implement a CopyFrom(AnimalDefaultClass) , which was the point of the putting the abstract method in the base class in the first place.

I think you can try Abstract Factory pattern. Basically you want to handle some construction logic during the creating the object, and for each different subtype of the Product, you can do differently.
public abstract class AnimalBase
{
public string SpeciesName { get; private set; }
protected AnimalBase(string speciesName)
{
this.SpeciesName = speciesName;
}
}
public class Mammal : AnimalBase
{
public bool WalksUpright { get; set; }
public Mammal(string speciesName) : base(speciesName)
{
}
public void Cripple()
{
this.WalksUpright = false;
}
}
public interface IAnimalFactory<T> where T : AnimalBase
{
T CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName);
}
public class MammalFactory: IAnimalFactory<Mammal>
{
public Mammal CreateAnAnimal(string speciesName)
{
var mammal = new Mammal(speciesName);
var mammalDefault = new MammalDefaultClass(speciesName);
mammal.WalksUpright = mammalDefault.WalksUpright;
return mammal;
}
}
And when you want to create a sub-typed object, you can do e.g.
var mammalFactory = new MammalFactory();
var bunny = mammalFactory.CreateAnAnimal("Bunny");

So it turns out that even though MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, you cannot override a function that takes an AnimalDefaultClass with one that takes a MammalDefaultClass.
Consider this block of code:
public class Dinosaur : AnimalDefaultClass;
Dinosaur defaultDinosaur;
public void makeDinosaur(AnimalDefaultClass adc)
{
adc.CopyFrom(defaultDinosaur);
}
MammalDefaultClass m;
makeDinosaur(m);
In this case MammalDefaultClass is a subclass of AnimalDefaultClass, so m can be passed to makeDinosaur as adc. Furthermore the CopyFrom for an AnimalDefaultClass only needs another AnimalDefault class, so I can pass in a dinosaur. But that class is actually a Mammal, and so needs a MammalDefaultClass, which dinosaur is not.
The work around would be to take the original type signature and throw an error if the argument is the wrong type (similar to how arrays act in Java).

Setting value to a field in the derived class

using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(new B("MyName").Name);
}
}
abstract class A
{
public A(string name)
{
this.GetType().GetField("Name").SetValue(this, name);
}
}
class B : A
{
public B(string name)
: base(name)
{
}
public string Name
{
set;
get;
}
}
}
Is it possible to do something like that?

I can't stress how very, very, very bad this is. You are creating an inverse coupling that is convoluted, confusing and contrived, severely lacking in clarity, failing best practices and object oriented principals, which is going to create a maintenance and management nightmare for people implementing derivatives of your abstract class. Do the right thing!!
abstract class A
{
protected A(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public abstract string Name
{
get;
protected set;
}
}
class B: A
{
public B(string name) : base(name)
{
}
private string m_name;
public override string Name
{
get { return "B Name: " + m_name; }
protected set
{
m_name = value;
}
}
}

It is possible, but i wouldn´t recommend to do that. The problem is that your base class knows to much about the class that are derived from it.
When you derive a class from your abstract base class that does not define the property Name you get an Exception on runtime.
If you expect that each class, that is derived from your base class, has a property Name, then it would be easier to define the Property Name in your abstract base class and set the property with you constructor.

It's really bad form to do that. Generally you should just call a method like 'SetPossibleData()', and force all children to implement it in a fashion they decide.
Why do you need to do this?

Use GetProperty() Method,
public A(string name)
{
this.GetType().GetProperty("Name").SetValue(this,name,null);
}

It would be really straight forward if every class initializes the fields and properties it defines. Why does B expect the base class initialize its Name?
abstract class A
{
public A()
{
}
}
class B : A
{
// I know, its trivial, but it does the same ...
public B(string name) : base()
{
Name = name;
}
public string Name { set; get; }
}
The only thing I could think of why you wrote this code is that the base class has some logic to initialize the field. Straight forward would be to let the derived class call the logic, but initialize the field itself:
abstract class A
{
public A()
{
}
protected string GenerateName(string someArg)
{
// complicated logic to generate the name
}
}
class B : A
{
public B(string someArg) : base()
{
Name = base.GenerateName(someArg);
}
public string Name { set; get; }
}

How do I create clone of object in base class?

I need a method that creates an empty clone of an object in a base class? For instance:
public class ChildClass : ParentClass
{
public ChildClass()
{
}
}
public class ParentClass
{
public SomeMethod()
{
// I want to create an instance of the ChildClass here
}
}
Up until now, we have an abstract method defined in the parent class. And, all of the child classes implement them. But, the implementation is the same for all, just a different type.
public class ChildClass : ParentClass
{
public ChildClass()
{
}
public ParentClass CreateEmpty()
{
return new ChildClass();
}
}
public class ParentClass
{
public SomeMethod()
{
// I want to create an instance of the ChildClass here
ParentClass empty = CreateEmpty();
}
public abstract ParentClass CreateEmpty();
}
Is there any way to do this from the parent class so that I don't have to keep implementing the same logic for each different child class? Note that there may be more levels of inheritance (i.e. ChildChildClass : ChildClass : ParentClass).

If using reflection isn't a problem to you, you could do it using Activator class:
//In parent class
public ParentClass CreateEmpty()
{
return (ParentClass)Activator.CreateInstance(this.GetType());
}
This will return empty object of the type you want. Notice that this method does not need to be virtual.
On the other hand, I think that your current approach is perfectly fine, few more lines of code aren't so bad.

You can make a deep clone of the object using the binary serializer.
EDIT: Just noticed the word "empty" next to clone (which I thought was an oxymoron). Leaving this response up anyhow hoping it will help others that find this question because they are looking to do a regular clone.

This is somewhat experimental. I don't know whether this will lead to a cyclic dependency. Haven't touched C# for some months.
public class ParentClass<T> where T : ParentClass<T>, new() { // fixed
public ParentClass() {
var x = new T(); // fixed, was T.new()
}
}
public class ChildClass : ParentClass<ChildClass> {
public ChildClass() { }
}
Otherwise go for the ReflectionCode by Ravadre.

I'm using the following pattern.
Pros:
This pattern secure the type-safety of cloning in private and public sides of classes.
The output class will be always correct.
You never forgot override the "clone" method. The "MyDerivedClass" never returns another class than the "MyDerivedClass".
Cons:
For one class, you need create one interface and two classes (prototype and final)
Sample:
// Common interface for cloneable classes.
public interface IPrototype : ICloneable {
new IPrototype Clone();
}
// Generic interface for cloneable classes.
// The 'TFinal' is finaly class (type) which should be cloned.
public interface IPrototype<TFinal> where TFinal : IPrototype<TFinal> {
new TFinal Clone();
}
// Base class for cloneable classes.
// The 'TFinal' is finaly class (type) which should be cloned.
public abstract class PrototypeBase<TFinal> : IPrototype<TFinal> where TFinal : PrototypeBase<TFinal> {
public TFinal Clone() {
TFinal ret = this.CreateCloneInstance();
if ( null == ret ) {
throw new InvalidOperationException( "Clone instance was not created." );
}
this.FillCloneInstance( ret );
return ret;
}
// If overriden, creates new cloned instance
protected abstract TFinal CreateCloneInstance();
// If overriden, fill clone instance with correct values.
protected abstract void FillCloneInstance( TFinal clone );
IPrototype IPrototype.Clone() { return this.Clone(); }
object ICloneable.Clone() { return this.Clone(); }
}
// Common interface for standalone class.
public interface IMyStandaloneClass : IPrototype<IMyStandaloneClass> {
string SomeText{get;set;}
string SomeNumber{get;set;}
}
// The prototype class contains all functionality exception the clone instance creation.
public abstract class MyStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> : PrototypeBase<TFinal>, IMyStandaloneClass where TFinal : MyStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> {
public string SomeText {get; set;}
public int SomeNumber {get; set}
protected override FillCloneInstance( TFinal clone ) {
// Now fill clone with values
clone.SomeText = this.SomeText;
clone.SomeNumber = this.SomeNumber;
}
}
// The sealed clas contains only functionality for clone instance creation.
public sealed class MyStandaloneClass : MyStandaloneClassPrototype<MyStandaloneClass> {
protected override MyStandaloneClass CreateCloneInstance() {
return new MyStandaloneClass();
}
}
public interface IMyExtendedStandaloneClass : IMyStandaloneClass, IPrototype<IMyExtendedStandaloneClass> {
DateTime SomeTime {get; set;}
}
// The extended prototype of MyStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal>.
public abstract class MyExtendedStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> : MyStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> where TFinal : MyExtendedStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> {
public DateTime SomeTime {get; set;}
protected override FillCloneInstance( TFinal clone ) {
// at first, fill the base class members
base.FillCloneInstance( clone );
// Now fill clone with values
clone.SomeTime = this.SomeTime;
}
}
public sealed class MyExtendedStandaloneClass : MyExtendedStandaloneClassPrototype<TFinal> {
protected override MyExtendedStandaloneClass CreateCloneInstance() {
return new MyExtendedStandaloneClass
}
}