I'm working on a personal project and I've run into an issue.
I have object a couple of objects that have the same properties, methods, etc. The only things that differ are their names, values of properties, and the implementation of the methods. They also need common default implementation of methods. So right away, an interface is out of the question.
So I created a base class with the properties and "default" methods. But this base class needs to be abstract. The methods are virtual so they can be overridden.
The reason I need them to be static is that objects will be properties of other objects.
So, for example, the objects referenced above are (for sake of simplicity) objX, objY, objZ. They are derived from their base, objW.
objContainer is a completely unrelated object, but it has a property of type objW, which is an instance of either objX, objY, objZ.
objX, objY, and objZ will never change. Their properties will all be readonly. So multiple objects of instance objContainer will have objX, objY, or objZ.
public class objContainer1
{
objW processor = new objY;
}
public class objContainer2
{
objW processor = new objY;
}
How do I go about doing this? I wanted to keep them static so I don't have multiple instances of the same objects, when all of them are the exact same, really.
Do I use a singleton? Factory pattern?
I'm lost as to which direction to go with this (if any). Maybe I'm overthinking it and there's a very simple solution/
You want to use static classes sparingly. There are obvious downsides to static classes, such as the inability to take advantage of the polymorphic nature of class inheritance since you can't inherit from a static class. The only time you want to use a static class, really, is when you have something like a set of related tools that you want to make available across your application and for which you don't need to maintain any state. Think of the System.Math class, for example: a set of math functions that you can use anywhere in your application. Having an instance of that class doesn't really make any sense, and it would be rather cumbersome and unnecessary.
I would suggest sticking to non-static classes and creating instances of those classes. If you should only ever have one instance of your class, then you should use a singleton, as you suggested.
Related
I have a static class. I can modify it and make it extends interface\abstract class.
It contains
lots of readonly and consts members.
staic methods.
In order to make this code testable, I want to
Separate it to DTO and Manager.
Abstract each of them. But how to do this as the classes are static?
In my opinion there are two things static classes are good for:
providing global functions/algorithms (that should not depend on state - a.k.a pure functions)
hold global data
If you model the methods in there so that they are pure you can test those right away. Global data (your constants and read-only members) on the other hand don't need to be testet as they should be produced by said methods.
So if your static methods use the global data from your class just refactor them to include this data as parameters into the method, overload those with simple wrappers feeding your global data and test the new - now pure - functions. Take care to include things like database-data or system-times (DateTime.Now) and similar side-effect data into your methods as well.
If the parameterlist gets to big refactor the method into a class where some/most of the parameters are encapsulated into the new classes fields - always remember the S from SOLID (single responsibility) - only clutter everything into a "MyStaticGlobals"-class/singelton if you test the parts in seperation.
One option is to convert over from used a static class to a regular class. In your main application you add a singleton so that the same instance is used from everywhere, so the singletone effectively turns a instance into a global. But in testing you can create an instance on demand.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When to Use Static Classes in C#
I will write code in which I need class which holds methods only. I thought it is good idea to make class static. Some senior programmer argue that do not use static class. I do not find any good reason why not to use static class. Can someone knows in C# language there is any harm in using static class. Can static class usage required more memory than creating object of class? I will clear that my class do not have single field and hence property too.
For further information I will explain code also.
We have product in which we need to done XML handling for chart settings. We read object from XML file in class Library which holds chart related properties. Now I have two Layers first is product second class Library and XML related operations. Actually senior programmers want independent class to read and write XML. I make this class static.
In another situation I have class of chartData. In that class I want methods like whether Line of Axis,series of chart is valid or not. Also whether color of chart stores in ARGB format or plain color name. They do not want those methods in same project. Now can I make class static or create object.
If your class does not have to manage state then there is absolutely no reason to not declare it static.
In C# some classes even have to be static like the ones that have extension methods.
Now if there's a chance that it requires state in the future, it's better to not declare it as static as if you change it afterwards, the consumers will need to change their code too.
One concern is that statics can be harder (not impossible) to test in some situations
The danger of static classes is that they often become God Objects. They know too much, they do too much, and they're usually called "Utilities.cs".
Also, just because your class holds methods only doesn't mean that you can't use a regular class, but it depends on what your class does. Does it have any state? Does it persist any data that's being modified in your methods?
Having static classes is not bad, but could make you think why you have those methods there. Some things to keep in mind about that:
if the methods manage behavior for classes you have in your project, you could just add the methods to those classes directly:
//doing this:
if(product.IsValid()) { ... }
//instead of:
if(ProductHelper.IsValid(product)) { ... }
if the methods manage behavior for classes you can't modify, you could use extension methods (that by the end of the day are static! but it adds syntactic sugar)
public static bool IsValid( this Product product ) { ... }
//so you can do:
if(product.IsValid()) { ... }
if the methods are coupled to external services you may want to mock, using a non-static class with virtual methods or implementing an interface will let you replace the instance with a mock one whenever you need to use it:
//instead of:
StaticService.Save(product);
//you can do:
public IService Service {get;set;}
...
Service.Save(product);
//and in your tests:
yourObject.Service = new MockService(); //MockService inherits from your actual class or implements the same IService interface
by the other hand, having the logic in non-static classes will let you make use of polymorphism and replace the instance with another one that extends the behavior.
finally, having the logic in non-static classes will let you use IoC (inversion of control) and proxy-based AOP. If you don't know about that, you could take a look at frameworks like Spring.net, Unity, Castle, Ninject, etc. Just for giving you an example of what you could do with this: you can make all the classes implementing IService log their methods, or check some security constraints, or open a database connection and close it when the method ends; everything without adding the actual code to the class.
Hope it helps.
It depends on the situation when to use static classes or not. In the general case you create static classes when you do not need to manage state. So for example, Math.cs, or Utility.cs - where you have basic utility functions - eg string formatting, etc.
Another scenario where you want to use static is when you expect the class to not be modified alot. When the system grows and you find that you have to modify this static class alot then its best to remove the static keyword. If not then you will miss out on some benefits of OOD - eg polymorphism, interfaces - For example you could find that I need to change a specific method in a static class, but since you can't override a static method, then you might have to 'copy and paste' with minor changes.
Some senior programmer argue that do not use static class.
Tell him he is a traineee, not even a junior. Simple. The static keyword is there for a reason. if your class only has methods without keeping state - and those cases exist - then putting them into a static class is valid. Point.
Can someone knows in C# language there is any harm in using static class.
No. The only valid argument is that your design isbroken (i.e. the class should not be static and keep state). But if you really have methods that do not keep state - and those cases exist, like the "Math" class - then sorry, this is a totally valid approach. There are no negatives.
This question already has answers here:
Why/when should you use nested classes in .net? Or shouldn't you?
(14 answers)
Closed 10 years ago.
In this stackoverflow answer a commenter mentioned that "private nested classes" can be quite useful so I was reading about them in articles such as this one which tend to explain how nested classes function technically, but not why you would use them.
I suppose I would use private nested classes for little helper classes that belong to a larger class, but often I will need a helper class from another class and so I would just have to take the extra effort to (1) make the nested class non-nested or (2) make it public and then access it with the outer-class prefix on it, which both seems to be extra work without any added-value for having the nested class in the first place. Hence in general I really don't see a use case for nested classes, other than perhaps to keep classes a bit more organized into groups, but I that also goes against the one-class-per-file clarity that I have come to enjoy.
In what ways do you use nested classes to make your code more manageable, readable, efficient?
You've answered your own question. Use nested classes when you need a helper class that is meaningless outside the class; particularly when the nested class can make use of private implementation details of the outer class.
Your argument that nested classes are useless is also an argument that private methods are useless: a private method might be useful outside of the class, and therefore you'd have to make it internal. An internal method might be useful outside of the assembly, and therefore you'd make it public. Therefore all methods should be public. If you think that's a bad argument, then what is different about you making the same argument for classes instead of methods?
I make nested classes all the time because I am frequently in the position of needed to encapsulate functionality in a helper that makes no sense outside of the class, and can use private implementation details of the outer class. For example, I write compilers. I recently wrote a class SemanticAnalyzer that does semantic analysis of parse trees. One of its nested classes is LocalScopeBuilder. Under what circumstances would I need to build a local scope when I am not analyzing the semantics of a parse tree? Never. That class is entirely an implementation detail of the semantic analyzer. I plan to add more nested classes with names like NullableArithmeticAnalyzer and OverloadResolutionAnalyzer that are also not useful outside of the class, but I want to encapsulate rules of the language in those specific classes.
People also use nested classes to build things like iterators, or comparators - things that make no sense outside of the class and are exposed via a well-known interface.
A pattern I use quite frequently is to have private nested classes that extend their outer class:
abstract public class BankAccount
{
private BankAccount() { }
// Now no one else can extend BankAccount because a derived class
// must be able to call a constructor, but all the constructors are
// private!
private sealed class ChequingAccount : BankAccount { ... }
public static BankAccount MakeChequingAccount() { return new ChequingAccount(); }
private sealed class SavingsAccount : BankAccount { ... }
and so on. Nested classes work very well with the factory pattern. Here BankAccount is a factory for various types of bank account, all of which can use the private implementation details of BankAccount. But no third party can make their own type EvilBankAccount that extends BankAccount.
Returning an interface to the caller whose implementation you want to hide.
public class Outer
{
private class Inner : IEnumerable<Foo>
{
/* Presumably this class contains some functionality which Outer needs
* to access, but which shouldn't be visible to callers
*/
}
public IEnumerable<Foo> GetFoos()
{
return new Inner();
}
}
Private helper classes is a good example.
For instance, state objects for background threads. There is no compelling reason to expose those types. Defining them as private nested types seems a quite clean way to handle the case.
I use them when two bound values (like in a hash table) are not enough internally, but are enough externally. Then i create a nested class with the properties i need to store, and expose only a few of them through methods.
I think this makes sense, because if no one else is going to use it, why create an external class for it? It just doesn't make sense to.
As for one class per file, you can create partial classes with the partial keyword, which is what I usually do.
One compelling example I've run into recently is the Node class of many data structures. A Quadtree, for example, needs to know how it stores the data in its nodes, but no other part of your code should care.
I've found a few cases where they've been quite handy:
Management of complex private state, such as an InterpolationTriangle used by an Interpolator class. The user of the Interpolator doesn't need to know that it's implemented using Delauney triangulation and certainly doesn't need to know about the triangles, so the data structure is a private nested class.
As others have mentioned, you can expose data used by the class with an interface without revealing the full implementation of a class. Nested classes can also access private state of the outer class, which allows you to write tightly coupled code without exposing that tight coupling publicly (or even internally to the rest of the assembly).
I've run into a few cases where a framework expects a class to derive from some base class (such as DependencyObject in WPF), but you want your class to inherit from a different base. It's possible to inter-operate with the framework by using a private nested class that descends from the framework base class. Because the nested class can access private state (you just pass it the parent's 'this' when you create it), you can basically use this to implement a poor man's multiple inheritance via composition.
I think others have covered the use cases for public and private nested classes well.
One point I haven't seen made was an answer your concern about one-class-per-file. You can solve this by making the outer class partial, and move the inner class definition to a separate file.
OuterClass.cs:
namespace MyNameSpace
{
public partial class OuterClass
{
// main class members here
// can use inner class
}
}
OuterClass.Inner.cs:
namespace MyNameSpace
{
public partial class OuterClass
{
private class Inner
{
// inner class members here
}
}
}
You could even make use of Visual Studio's item nesting to make OuterClass.Inner.cs a 'child' of OuterClass.cs, to avoid cluttering your solution explorer.
One very common pattern where this technique is used is in scenarios where a class returns an interface or base class type from one of its properties or methods, but the concrete type is a private nested class. Consider the following example.
public class MyCollection : IEnumerable
{
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
{
return new MyEnumerator();
}
private class MyEnumerator
{
}
}
I usually do it when I need a combination of SRP (Single Responsibility Principal) in certain situations.
"Well, if SRP is your goal, why not split them into different classes?" You will do this 80% of the time, but what about situations where the classes you create are useless to the outside world? You don't want classes that only you will use to clutter your assembly's API.
"Well, isn't that what internal is for?" Sure. For about 80% of these cases. But what about internal classes who must access or modify the state of public classes? For example, that class which was broken up into one or more internal classes to satisfy your SRP streak? You would have to mark all the methods and properties for use by these internal classes as internal as well.
"What's wrong with that?" Nothing. For about 80% of these cases. Of course, now you're cluttering the internal interface of your classes with methods/properties that are only of use to those classes which you created earlier. And now you have to worry about other people on your team writing internal code won't mess up your state by using those methods in ways that you hadn't expected.
Internal classes get to modify the state of any instance of the type in which they are defined. So, without adding members to the definition of your type, your internal classes can work on them as needed. Which, in about 14 cases in 100, will be your best bet to keep your types clean, your code reliable/maintainable, and your responsibilities singular.
They are really nice for, as an example, an implementation of the singleton pattern.
I have a couple of places where I am using them to "add" value, as well. I have a multi-select combobox where my internal class stores the state of the checkbox and the data item as well. no need for the world to know about/use this internal class.
Private anonymous nested classes are essential for event handlers in the GUI.
If some class is not part of the API another class exports, it must be made private. Otherwise you are exposing more than you intend. The "million dollar bug" was an example of this. Most programmers are too slack about this.
Peter
The question is tagged C# so I'm not sure this is of interest, but in COM you can use inner classes to implement interfaces when a class C++ implements multiple COM interfaces... essentially you use it for composition rather than multiple-inheritance.
Additionally in MFC and perhaps other technologies you might need your control/dialog to have a drop-target class, which makes little sense other than as a nested class.
If it is necessary for an object to return some abstract information about its state, a private nested class may be suitable. For example, if an Fnord supports "save context" and "restore context" methods, it may be useful to have the "save context" function return an object of type Fnord.SavedContext. Type access rules aren't always the most helpful; for example, it seems difficult to allow Fnord to access properties and methods of a Fnord.SavedContext without making such properties and methods visible to outsiders. On the other hand, one could have Fnord.CreateSaveContext simply create a New Fnord.SaveContext with the Fnord as a parameter (since Fnord.SaveContext can access the internals of Fnord), and Fnord.LoadContextFrom() can call Fnord.SaveContext.RestoreContextTo().
I was told by my colleague based on one of my classes (it is an instance class) that if you have no fields in your class (backing fields), just make all methods static in the class or make the class a singleton so that you don't have to use the keyword new for calling methods in this BL class.
I assume this is common and good practice? Basic OOP? I just want to see people's opinion on that.
I think basically he's saying since there's no state, no need for the methods to be instance methods.
I'm not sure about making it a singleton every time as an option in this case...is that some sort of pattern or good advice he's giving me?
Here's the class I'm talking about (please do not repost any of this code in this thread, this is private): http://www.elbalazo.net/post/class.txt
There is very little downside to calling new and constructing a class reference, especially if the class has no state. Allocations are fast in .NET, so I wouldn't use this alone as a justification for a class to be static.
Typically, I feel a class should be made static if the class has no specific context - if you're using the class just as a placeholder for "utility" methods or non-context specific operations, then it makes sense to be a static class.
If that class has a specific need for context, and a meaning in a concrete sense, then it probably does not justify being static, even if it has no state (although this is rare). There are times where the class purpose is defined by its reference itself, which provides "state" of a sort (the reference itself) without any local variables.
That being said, there is a big difference between a static class and a singleton. A singleton is a different animal - you want to use it when you need an instance, but only one instance, of the class to be created. There is state in a singleton, but you are using this pattern to enforce that there is only a single copy of the state. This has a very different meaning, and I would highly recommend avoiding using a singleton just to prevent needing to "call new".
There's no absolute rule for when a class should be static. It may have no state, but you may need it for reference equality or locking. Classes should be static when their purpose fits it being implemented as a static class. You shouldn't follow hard-and-fast rules in these situations; use what you 'feel' is right.
Having no state makes it a candidate for static-ness, but look at what it's being used for before arbitarily refactoring it.
A lack of state alone is no reason to make methods static. There are plenty of cases where a stateless class should still have instance methods. For example, any time you need to pass specific implementations of some logic between routines, it's much easier to do it with classes that have instance methods, as it allows us to use interfaces:
interface IConnectionProvider
{
object GetConnectedObject();
}
We could have a dozen implementations of the above, and pass them into routines that require an IConnectionProvider. In that case, static is a very clumsy alternative.
There's nothing wrong with having to use new to use a method in a stateless class.
As long as you don't need to create any abstraction from your class then static methods are fine. If your class needs to be mocked or implement any sort of interface then you're better off making the class a singleton, since you cannot mock static methods on classes. You can have a singleton implement an interface and can inherit instance methods from a singleton whereas you cannot inherit static methods.
We generally use singletons instead of static methods to allow our classes to be abstracted easily. This has helped in unit testing many times since we've run into scenarios where we wanted to mock something and could easily do so since the behavior was implemented as instance methods on a singleton.
Utility classes are often composed of independant methods that don't need state. In that case it is good practice to make those method static. You can as well make the class static, so it can't be instantiated.
With C# 3, you can also take advantage of extension methods, that will extend other classes with those methods. Note that in that case, making the class static is required.
public static class MathUtil
{
public static float Clamp(this float value, float min, float max)
{
return Math.Min(max, Math.Max(min, value));
}
}
Usage:
float f = ...;
f.Clamp(0,1);
I can think of lots of reasons for a non-static class with no members. For one, it may implement an interface and provide/augment behavior of another. For two, it may have virtual or abstract methods that allow customization. Basically using 'static' methods is procedural programming at it's worst and is contrary to object-oriented design.
Having said that, often small utilities routines are best done with a procedural implementation so don't shy away if it make sense. Consider String.IsNullOrEmpty() a great example of a procedural static routine that provides benefit in not being a method. (the benefit is that it can also check to see if the string is null)
Another example on the other side of the fence would be a serialization routine. It doesn't need any members per-say. Suppose it has two methods Write(Stream,Object) and object Read(Stream). It's not required that this be an object and static methods could suffice; however, it make sense to be an object or interface. As an object I could override it's behavior, or later change it's implementation so that it cached information about the object types it serialized. By making it an object to begin with you do not limit yourself.
Most of the time it's OK to make the class static. But a better question is why do you have a class without state?
There are very rare instances where a stateless class is good design. But stateless classes break object oriented design. They are usually a throwback to functional decomposition (all the rage before object oriented techniques became popular). Before you make a class static, ask yourself whether the data that it is working on should be included int he class or whether all of the functionality in the utility class shouldn't be broken up between other classes that may or may not already exist.
Make sure that you have a good reason to make class static.
According to Framework Design Guidelines:
Static classes should be used only as
supporting classes for the
object-oriented core of the framework.
DO NOT treat static classes as a miscellaneous bucket.
There should be a clear charter for
the class.
Static Class, Static Methods and Singleton class are three different concepts. Static classes and static methods are usually used to implement strictly utility classes or making them stateless and hence thread-safe and conncurrently usable.
Static classes need not be Singletons. Singleton means there is only one instance of a class, which is otherwise instantiable. It is most often used to encapsulate the physical world representation of a truly single instance of a resource, such as a single database pool or a single printer.
Coming back to your colleague's suggestion -- I tend to agree it is a sound advice. There is no need to instantiate a class if the methods are made static, when they can be static. It makes the caller code more readable and the called methods more easily usable.
It sounds like you're talking about a strictly Utility class, in which case there's really no reason to have seperate instances.
Make those utility methods static. You can keep the class as a regular object if you'd like (to allow for the future addition of instance methods/state information).
In OOP languages like C# or VB.NET, if I make the properties or methods in a super class protected I can't access them in my Form - they can only be accessed in my class that inherits from that super class.
To access those properties or methods I need to make them public, which defeats encapsulation, or re-write them into my class, which defeats inheritance.
What is the right way to do this?
If you have code which needs to ask an Class to perform a specific operation but the class does not present your code with a means to do that then the Class doesn't fulfill you codes requirements.
Its bit like saying I've got a Car (Automobile) that has a protected steering wheel so I can't access it. The car is no use to me.
Either make those members Public (or at least internal) and use them or ditch the class and use one that gives your consuming code the features it needs.
Perhaps what you are really looking for is an interface. The interface contains the members your code needs and you implement that interface on your class. The advantage here is that your class can determine that the members are being accessed via this Interface rather than an inheriting subclass.
"need to make them public which defeats encapsulation"
Don't conflate good design with the icky visibility rules. The visibility rules are confusing. There are really two orthogonal kinds of visibility -- subclass and client. It's not perfectly clear why we'd ever conceal anything from our subclasses. But we can, with private.
Here's what's important. Encapsulation does not mean hiding. Protected and private are not an essential part of good encapsulation. You can do good design with everything being public (that's the way Python works, for example).
The protected/private stuff is -- mostly -- about intellectual property management: are you willing to commit (in a legally binding, "see-you-in-court-if-it-doesn't-work" way) to an interface? If your software development involves lawyers, then you care about adding protect and private to the things you're not committed to.
If you don't have to cope with lawyers, consider doing encapsulation right but leave everything public.
Sorry, it's not clear what you mean by "in my Form" - what is the relationship between your Form and your two classes? If your classes are controls in the same project, and you want to access properties from the form, you should use the 'internal' keyword.
There are at least three ways you can limit who can use some particular instance method of particular class instances:
Define the method as `protected`, `internal`, or `private`. In the first case, an instance method will only be usable from within derived-class methods of the same instance; in the second case, all classes within the assembly will have access to those methods, but classes outside won't; in the third case, no outside classes, even derived ones in the same assembly, will have access, unless their code is nested within the declaring class.
Define the method as `public`, but have the classes that create instances keep them private and never expose them to the outside world. Anyone wanting to invoke an instance method on an object has to have an instance to invoke it on. If a class holds instances but never exposes direct references to them, the only instance methods that can ever be used on those instances will be those which the holding classes uses itself.
Define the method as `public`, but have a constructor which accepts a location into which one or more delegates to private methods may be stored. Code with access to those delegates will be able to call the methods referred to thereby, but other code will not (except by using Reflection in ways which I think are only usable in full-trust scenarios).
If Reflection in non-full-trust scenarios would allow unbound delegates to be bound to arbitrary object instances, one could use nested classes to reinforce #3 so that one would have to access private fields to gain illegitimate access to the private functions; that would definitely be forbidden outside full-trust scenarios.