Develop Reference

c# composition and multiple inheritance design

I'm having troubles thinking of the design for my assignment.
for the assignment I would have 2 inheritance hierarchies and I would need to mimic multiple inheritance functionalities and the cross product so robotDog, robotBigDog, robotSmallDog, attackRobotDog, etc... it seems just doing multiple inheritance would end up being 9 different class files which is probably not the best approach.
for instance:
public class dog{
public virtual void bark{ Console.WriteLine("woof")};
}
public class bigDog : dog{
public override void bark{ Console.WriteLine("WOOF")};
}
public class smallDog : dog{
public override void bark{ Console.WriteLine("arf arf")};
}
public class robot{
public virtual void action{ Console.WriteLine("moves")}
}
public class attackRobot : robot{
public virtual void action{ Console.WriteLine("attacks")}
}
public class serviceRobot : robot{
public virtual void action{ Console.WriteLine("serves")}
}
I was instead thinking of doing a double composition of one class containing a dog and a robot because smallDog and bigDog can stand in for dog and attackRobot and serviceRobot can stand in for robot.
public class robotDog{
dog myDog;
robot myRobot;
public robotDog(dog typeDog, robot typeRobot){
myDog = typeDog;
myRobot = typeRobot;
}
.
. various functionality
.
}
is it a practical design to use double composition and also have a constructor that ask for a dog and robot? Or is there a different way to think/approach this?

You can not have multiple inheritance in C#, but you can have multiple interfaces.
You can use interfaces to define what a dog and a robot look like, create some different flavours of dog and robot, then combined them into a RobotDog class that has some defaults that can be overridden, i.e.
using System;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
public interface IDog
{
void bark();
}
public interface IRobot
{
void action();
}
public class dog : IDog
{
public virtual void bark() { Console.WriteLine("woof"); }
}
public class bigDog : dog
{
public override void bark() { Console.WriteLine("WOOF"); }
}
public class smallDog : dog
{
public override void bark() { Console.WriteLine("arf arf"); }
}
public class robot : IRobot
{
public virtual void action() { Console.WriteLine("buzz, click"); }
}
public class attackRobot : robot
{
public override void action() { Console.WriteLine("attacks"); }
}
public class serviceRobot : robot
{
public override void action() { Console.WriteLine("attacks"); }
}
public interface IRobotDog : IDog, IRobot
{
IDog dog { get; set; }
IRobot robot { get; set; }
}
public class RobotDog : IRobotDog
{
public IDog dog { get; set; }
public IRobot robot { get; set; }
public RobotDog()
{
dog = new dog();
robot = new robot();
}
public RobotDog(IDog dogType)
{
dog = dogType;
robot = new robot();
}
public RobotDog(IRobot robotType)
{
dog = new dog();
robot = robotType;
}
public RobotDog(IDog dogType, IRobot robotType)
{
dog = dogType;
robot = robotType;
}
public void bark() { dog.bark(); }
public void action() { robot.action(); }
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
RobotDog robotDog = new RobotDog();
robotDog.bark();
robotDog.action();
robotDog = new RobotDog(new bigDog(), new attackRobot());
robotDog.bark();
robotDog.action();
robotDog = new RobotDog(new bigDog());
robotDog.bark();
robotDog.action();
robotDog = new RobotDog(new attackRobot());
robotDog.bark();
robotDog.action();
robotDog = new RobotDog();
robotDog.dog = new bigDog();
robotDog.bark();
robotDog.action();
}
}
}

I would like to expand just a bit from what Xavier has offered. An interface is nothing more than a "contract". In its simplest form, any class that inherits an interface MUST declare the functions / methods / properties within it. So this way, any other object attempting to rely on its defined exposed components knows that it can, and they wont be missing. Now, you as the developer can implement that however you want and even have an empty function, provided the function actually exists but otherwise does nothing.
public interface IDog
{
void bark();
}
public interface IRobot
{
void action();
}
First, just simple dog or robot. Notice each implements their respective "REQUIRED" methods from the interface.
public class Dog : IDog
{
public void bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof");
}
}
public class Robot : IRobot
{
public void action()
{
Console.Write("Activate jet pack, fly");
}
}
Notice below, the robotic dog never has an actual Dog or Robot class of its own. However, it DOES implement both individual requirements of each interface respectively into one major class of both.
public class RoboticDog : IDog, IRobot
{
public void bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof -beep- woof");
}
public void action()
{
Console.Write("Activate jet pack, flying with fur");
}
}
Now, lets see how they operate individually.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
object testDog = new Dog();
object testRobot = new Robot();
object testBoth = new RoboticDog();
WhatCanIDo(testDog);
WhatCanIDo(testRobot);
WhatCanIDo(testBoth);
}
public void WhatCanIDo( object theThing )
{
// Here I am checking if the object is of a class type
// the inherits from IDog. If so, I can type-cast it as such
// and then call its "bark()" method as required to exist from interface.
if (theThing is IDog)
((IDog)theThing).bark();
// likewise if the object has interface of an IRobot
if (theThing is IRobot)
((IRobot)theThing).action();
}

I created a small console application for you with some small tips on how to catch when you need an interface over a base class, or vice-versa.
using System;
namespace ConsoleApp6
{
class Program
{
interface IWalkable
{
void Walk(int xAxis, int yAxis);
}
class Robot : IWalkable
{
public int RobotId { get; set; }
public Robot(int robotId)
{
RobotId = robotId;
Console.Write("Robot created! \n");
}
public void Walk(int xAxis, int yAxis)
{
Console.WriteLine("Im walking beep boop");
Console.WriteLine("*walks*");
Console.WriteLine($"Ended up in X: {xAxis} y:{yAxis}");
}
}
class BadRobot : Robot
{
public BadRobot(int robotId) : base(robotId)
{
}
}
class Dog : IWalkable
{
public Dog()
{
Console.Write("Dog created! \n");
}
public void Walk(int xAxis, int yAxis)
{
Console.WriteLine("Im walking, roof roof");
Console.WriteLine("*walks*");
Console.WriteLine($"Ended up in X: {xAxis} y:{yAxis}");
}
public virtual void Breath()
{
Console.WriteLine("I breath normal");
}
}
class BadDog : Dog
{
public override void Breath()
{
Console.WriteLine("I breath normal");
Console.WriteLine("But then I bark, because im bad");
}
//I can't "extend" an interface
//but I can extend a virtual method from the base class
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//three tips over inheritance
//1. If you want to abstract some *behavior*, you probably want an interface:
//for example here, both dogs and robots can walk. They are going to do that
//on their own way, so each need their own proper implementation,
//but the actions is the same thus, the interface
// An interface is meant to group objects over shared functionality
//so for example I can later do something like this
var dog = new Dog();
var badDog = new BadDog();
var badRobot = new BadRobot(1);
// these function doesn't care if its a dog or a robot
void WalkOverThere(IWalkable walkable)
{
//some other code...
walkable.Walk(5, 10);
}
//The key here is that the object pass over parameter implements the IWalk interface
WalkOverThere(badDog);
WalkOverThere(badRobot);
//Please notice that for each class that inherits "IWalkable"
//There will be a new implementation, so in this case, if
//all the robots inherit from the class robot, all will walk the same way
//In that, I cannot extend, or modify how that method is performed in the base
//class from the child class
//2. Now, the case is different when we talk about some functionality that could change
//for any child implementation of the base class. Think about the breath functionality
//A robot can't breathe, but a dog does. And given that every dog breaths differently
//it makes sense to create and virtual method, that means that I can reconfigure how
//the breath method behaves. For example:
dog.Breath();
badDog.Breath();
//3. Another thing that is useful to take into account is that
//whenever I can't create a given object without some piece of information,
//it makes sense to create the necessity of that data in the constructor.
//take for example in this code that I cannot create a robot without a valid int robotId
//This practice enforces me to create a robot like:
//var robot = new Robot(100); where 100 is the id
//var robot = new Robot(); the compile would not allow that
}
}
}

Decorator pattern for a Customer class

Suppose I have a Customer class. A customer can have multiple kinds of loyalty points. For one promotion, the customer may be collecting Rewards. In another, the customer may be collecting Miles. And there is no fixed number of kinds of loyalty points that the Customer is built for. I am sure this is a common use case. Is the decorator pattern a good fit given below sample code?
public interface ICustomer
{
void Display();
}
public class SimpleCustomer : ICustomer
{
public void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am simple customer");
}
}
public abstract class CustomerDecorator : ICustomer
{
protected ICustomer customer;
public CustomerDecorator(ICustomer customer)
{
this.customer = customer ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("customer");
}
public abstract void Display();
}
public class RewardsDecorator : CustomerDecorator
{
private int rewards;
public RewardsDecorator(ICustomer customer, int rewards) : base(customer)
{
this.rewards = rewards;
}
public override void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("Now I have " + rewards.ToString() + " rewards");
}
}
public class MilesDecorator : CustomerDecorator
{
private int miles;
public MilesDecorator(ICustomer customer, int miles) : base(customer)
{
this.miles = miles;
}
public override void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("Now I have " + miles.ToString() + " miles");
}
}

Don't think Decorator pattern does what you want it to do. Decorator adds new functionalities on top of the original class. A typical wiki example would say, we can add scroll bar, menu bar, overlays and other UI components on top of canvas. So to make a proper browser window, so you will have:
public class Canvas
public class ScrollableCanvas
public class OverlayedCanvas
etc.
So that we add more functionalities to the original Canvas.
To solve your problem, you should have something like:
public abstract class LoyaltyProgramAccount {...}
public class RewardAccount extends LoyaltyProgramAccount {...}
public class MilesAccount extends LoyaltyProgramAccount {...}
And then add a registery-ish enum:
public enum LoyaltyProgramTypes {
miles,
reward,
}
and then let user be:
public class Customer {
private List<LoyaltyProgramTypes, LoyaltyProgramAccount> accounts;
public void openAccount(LoyaltyProgramTypes type, LoyaltyProgramAccount account) {
accounts.put(type, account);
}
...
}

I do not think that Decorator is the pattern you are looking for.
Besides, your code does not seem to be an implementation of the Decorator pattern. You do not add any functionality to the only function. You just override it. But adding to the existing function is what the Decorator pattern is all about.
My approach would be state / strategy pattern. There are different kinds of rewards. And a customer has one or more of them. These rewards may share a common interface and provide different implementations. The customer (or a subclass or compound object RewardedCustomer) should hold a list or map of these rewards.

I would use the visitor pattern, this is pretty ideal for your situation. This will allow you nicely separate the rewards calculations for you different customer types and run operations against all supported rewards types.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MilesCustomer customer = new MilesCustomer();
ICustomerVisitor<int> visitor = new MilesCalculation(10);
var miles = customer.Visit(visitor);
visitor = new RewardsCalucation(100);
var rewards = customer.Visit(visitor);
}
}
public interface ICustomerVisitor<T>
{
T Visit(SimpleCustomer cusomter);
T Visit(RewardsCustomer cusomter);
T Visit(MilesCustomer cusomter);
}
public abstract class Customer
{
public Customer()
{
TotalMoneySpent = 10;
}
public int TotalMoneySpent { get; private set; }
public abstract T Visit<T>(ICustomerVisitor<T> visitor);
public virtual void Display()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am simple customer");
}
}
public class RewardsCalucation : ICustomerVisitor<int>
{
private int _rewardsPerDollar;
public RewardsCalucation(int rewardsPerDollar) => _rewardsPerDollar = rewardsPerDollar;
public int Visit(SimpleCustomer cusomter)
{
return 0;
}
public int Visit(RewardsCustomer cusomter)
{
return cusomter.TotalMoneySpent * _rewardsPerDollar;
}
public int Visit(MilesCustomer cusomter)
{
return 0;
}
}
public class MilesCalculation : ICustomerVisitor<int>
{
private int _milesPerDollar;
public MilesCalculation(int milesPerDollar) => _milesPerDollar = milesPerDollar;
public int Visit(SimpleCustomer cusomter)
{
return 0;
}
public int Visit(RewardsCustomer cusomter)
{
return 0;
}
public int Visit(MilesCustomer cusomter)
{
return cusomter.TotalMoneySpent * _milesPerDollar;
}
}
public class SimpleCustomer : Customer
{
public override T Visit<T>(ICustomerVisitor<T> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class RewardsCustomer : Customer
{
public override T Visit<T>(ICustomerVisitor<T> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}
public class MilesCustomer : Customer
{
public override T Visit<T>(ICustomerVisitor<T> visitor)
{
return visitor.Visit(this);
}
}

Superclass behaviour doesn't apply as expected to the Penguin object

Any thoughts on why altitude is not 5 at the end of this program?
So I have a Penguin class deriving from Birds, and in Birds class I have a check on whether the birds is flightless, and based on that I reset the given altitude to 0 or keep the provided altitude.
Supposing penguins can fly (isFlightless=false), Penguin.ArrangeBirdInPatterns(p); should trigger the ArrangeBirdInTheSky, which it does, and then the altitude should be the one I provided (=5), not zero.
My VS crashed and I'm using online fiddlers, hard to debug.
using System;
public class Bird {
public double altitude;
public bool isFlightless;
public virtual void setLocation(double longitude, double latitude) {
}
public virtual void setAltitude(double altitude) {
this.altitude = altitude;
}
public void ArrangeBirdOnGround()
{
setAltitude(0);
}
public void ArrangeBirdInTheSky()
{
setAltitude(altitude);
}
public static void ArrangeBirdInPatterns(Bird b)
{
if(b.isFlightless)
{
b.ArrangeBirdOnGround();
}
else
{
b.ArrangeBirdInTheSky();
}
}
};
public class Penguin : Bird
{
public override void setAltitude(double altitude) {
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Bird p = new Penguin();
p.setAltitude(5);
p.isFlightless = false;
Penguin.ArrangeBirdInPatterns(p);
Console.WriteLine(p.altitude); //// returns 0. why not 5
}
}
Also, why can't I call it like: ArrangeBirdInPatterns(p); if I remove static from the ArrangeBirdInPatterns definition?

You're calling Penguin's setAltitude, which does nothing.
The type of p is Bird, but the type of the value contained there is Penguin, which overrides Bird.setAltitude, so that's what gets called.
You can look into the differences between virtual, override, and new keywords for more info on the different ways to subclass.

Passing instances of a class without knowing the Type

I want to know how to pass down instances of objects without knowing the Type that they are. I'd like to know this because if I have a 100 animal types, then I don't want to have a 100 if statements or a switch. I have provided a snippet, which is an example of what I want to basically achieve. Right now it obviously doesn't work where I put the comments at.
using System.IO;
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Program
{
Dictionary<string, dynamic> myAnimals = new Dictionary<string, dynamic>();
Program(){
myAnimals.Add("Maggie", new Dog("Maggie"));
myAnimals["Maggie"].bark();
myAnimals.Add("Whiskers", new Cat("Whiskers"));
myAnimals["Whiskers"].meow();
animalClinic clinic = new animalClinic();
clinic.cureAnimal(myAnimals["Whiskers"]);
}
static void Main()
{
new Program();
}
}
class Dog{
string name;
public Dog(string n){
name = n;
}
public void bark(){
Console.WriteLine("\"Woof Woof\" - " + name);
}
}
class Cat{
string name;
public Cat(string n){
name = n;
}
public void meow(){
Console.WriteLine("\"Meow Meow\" - " + name);
}
}
class animalClinic(){
public void cureAnimal(object animal){ //This is where I need some help.
if(animal.name == "Maggie"){ //I know I can use 'animal.GetType() == ...' That isn't the point.
Console.WriteLine("We heal fine dogs!"); //The point is to access various methods within the object.
}else{//I know it kind of beats the point of Type-Safety, but this is only an example and another way to do this is perfectly fine with me.
Console.WriteLine("Eww a cat!")
}
}
}
If anyone knows an alternative solution to this, then please go ahead and share!
Thanks.
EDIT: I think you'll also need to reference the animal instead of just passing it down.

This is what polymorphism is for:
public interface IAnimal
{
string name {get;set;}
void speak();
void cure();
}
public class Dog : IAnimal
{
public Dog (string n)
{
name = n;
}
public string name {get;set;}
public void bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("\"Woof Woof\" - " + name);
}
public void speak() { bark(); }
public void cure()
{
Console.WriteLine("We heal fine dogs!");
}
}
public class Cat : IAnimal
{
public Cat(string n)
{
name = n;
}
public string name {get;set;}
public void meow()
{
Console.WriteLine("\"Meow Meow\" - " + name);
}
public void speak() { meow(); }
public void cure()
{
Console.WriteLine("Eww a cat!");
}
}
class Program
{
static Dictionary<string, IAnimal> myAnimals = new Dictionary<string, IAnimal>();
static void Main()
{
myAnimals.Add("Maggie", new Dog("Maggie"));
myAnimals["Maggie"].speak();
myAnimals.Add("Whiskers", new Cat("Whiskers"));
myAnimals["Whiskers"].speak();
animalClinic clinic = new animalClinic();
clinic.cureAnimal(myAnimals["Whiskers"]);
}
}
public class animalClinic
{
public void cureAnimal(IAnimal animal)
{
animal.cure();
}
}

Create an interface (contains definitions for a group of related functionalities that a class or a struct can implement) called IAnimal which contains a Description property which returns "We heal fine dogs!" for your Dog class etc. Each of your concrete animal classes implement this interface meaning you can just call the Description property in your cureAnimal method.

Use polymorphism.
public abstract class Animal
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public abstract void Cure();
}
public class AnimalClinic
{
public void CureAnimal(Animal animal)
{
animal.Cure();
}
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
public override void Cure()
{
Console.WriteLine("We heal fine dogs!");
}
}
If you want to define the Cure logic inside of the AnimalClinic class like you do now, you might have to perform conditional execution of some sort.
This conditional execution does not have to be as unwieldy as a massive if statement or even a switch. You can research alterantive solutions to if statements here on SO. In fact, Joel Coehoorn has supplied one.

I believe the best option here is to use the strategy design pattern. Perfectly explained here http://www.dofactory.com/net/strategy-design-pattern
An example for your case is provided by ByteBlast and Joel Coehoorn's answers

Advise on abstraction

I am working on some code whereby I have an abstract class that has a few core properties and a Run(int index) method. I then create new types that inherit this. These new types can have multiple methods that can be called according to the index passed in.
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public abstract void Run(int index);
}
public class Class1 : BaseClass
{
public override void Run(int index)
{
if (index == 0)
{
MethodA();
}
else if (index == 1)
{
MethodB();
}
}
private void MethodA()
{
//do stuff
}
private void MethodB()
{
//do stuff
}
}
I'm just wondering is there a better way to do this. These types and methods would be called from a UI, - a menu click for example. So I might have a class1 and a class2. Class1 might have 3 methods so I could call run(0) ... run(2) on it. Class2 might just have one internal method so I would just call run(0). Maybe I would need to keep a collection of ints with each class I guess as a map to methods. Might also have to add a string to this collection to hold a friendly name for menu items etc..
Can you think of a way to implement this type of mapping while maintaining as much abstraction as possible? Is there a better way to go about this that my current idea?

One way:
You could use an interface instead:
public interface IRunnableSomething {
void Run();
}
public class MyRunnableA :IRunnableSomething
{
public void Run() {
// do stuff
}
}
public class MyRunnableB :IRunnableSomething
{
public void Run() {
// do stuff
}
}
Then in your main class...
public override void Run(IRunnable runnable)
{
runnable.Run();
}
Example of calling it:
myInstanceOfMainClass.Run(new MyRunnableA());
This seems fitting, since you already know what index you were passing in with your original version. This just moves it from int based to interface based (less code too in the end).

Let me explain a bit further so. Here's a slightly more verbose version of what I am trying to do. You can see here that my abstract class has the list of indexes for pointing at the right method in derived classes, and you can see where I am loading types and creating menu items in a UI. I am using this ItemPointer list and passing around ItemPointers to tag properties etc. It all feels a bit wrong somehow.
I wish for the whole thing to be extensible. I might want to add a Class2, Class3 etc all inheriting BaseClass. I might also want to create plugins using BaseClass. Any derived class will have at least one but runable method but will likely have many. So Class1 here is just an example. Does this help explain myself? please go easy on me, I'm learning and that's why I am asking here.
Is what I'm doing here awful? or is it ok? or is there a better way? I guess that's my question. If there is a better way, I'd really appreciate an example. Many thanks to all for the help. It is much appreciated.
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public List<ItemPointer> ItemPointers = new List<ItemPointer>();
public abstract void Run(int index);
}
public class ItemPointer
{
public int Index { get; set; }
public string ClassType { get; set; }
public string UIDescription { get; set; }
}
public class Class1 : BaseClass
{
public Class1()
{
ItemPointers.Add(new ItemPointer { Index = 0, ClassType = this.GetType().Name, UIDescription = "MethodA Description" });
ItemPointers.Add(new ItemPointer { Index = 1, ClassType = this.GetType().Name, UIDescription = "MethodB Description" });
}
public override void Run(int index)
{
if (index == 0)
{
MethodA();
}
else if (index == 1)
{
MethodB();
}
}
private void MethodA()
{
//do stuff
}
private void MethodB()
{
//do stuff
}
}
public class UIForm
{
private List<BaseClass> _baseClasses;
//Formload events load all baseclass types (including plugins via reflection during form init etc. Then call loadUIitems
private void LoadUIItems()
{
foreach (BaseClass bc in _baseClasses)
{
foreach (var p in bc.ItemPointers)
{
ToolStripMenuItem t = new ToolStripMenuItem(p.UIDescription);
t.Click += new EventHandler(WorkerMenu_Click);
t.Tag = p;
actionsToolStripMenuItem.DropDownItems.Add(t);
}
}
}
void WorkerMenu_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ToolStripMenuItem t = (ToolStripMenuItem)sender;
ItemPointer p = (ItemPointer)t.Tag;
foreach (BaseClass bc in _baseClasses)
{
if (bc.GetType().Name == p.ClassType)
{
bc.Run(p.Index);
}
}
}
}

In your position I might be inclined to try do something like this:
void Main()
{
var a = new Class1();
var b = new Class2();
try
{
a.Run("Foo");
b.Run("Bar", "Yoda");
b.Run("Bat"); // throws exception
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine (ex.Message);
}
}
class Base
{
public void Run(string commandName, params object[] args)
{
var method = this.GetType().GetMethod(commandName);
if(method != null)
method.Invoke(this, args);
else
throw new Exception("the command " + commandName + " does not exist on " + this.GetType().Name);
}
}
class Class1 : Base
{
public void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine ("I am foo");
}
}
class Class2 : Base
{
public void Bar(string str)
{
Console.WriteLine ("I am {0}", str);
}
}
Output:
I am foo
I am Yoda
the command Bat does not exist on Class2