Develop Reference

c# abstract classes -- "one or the other" alternate functions

Here's one, I have an abstract class like this...
public abstract class SpaceshipManager
{
...
public abstract void BuildWith(ParseObject po);
// "Or ..."
public abstract void BuildWith(string label);
...
}
The sense is, the derived classes must implement BuildWith a ParseObject, "OR", they can implement BuildWith using a string.
Now, at the moment I just do this ...
public abstract void BuildWith(object data);
Which is fine - but is there a better way?
Another way to look at it, you could have two methods
BuildKeidranType()
BuildBastionType()
The concept is that derived classes have to implement at least one of these.
Is there any such thing in c#?

You could use generics:
public abstract class SpaceshipManager<T>
{
public abstract void BuildWith(T source);
}
public class StringBuilderSpaceshipManager : SpaceshipManager<ParseObject> { ... }

Well there is nothing like that in c#. Generics could have given you a way out.
But seeing that you are deriving from MonoBehavior, i am assuming it's Unity you are working with, where there are constraints like the class name must be same as the file name etc. etc. which don't give too many options for generic behaviors. So avoiding generic classes and focusing on generic methods.
The following is a very crude example using generics just for fun and might not be much better than your current example where you take the parameter as an object. Nevertheless here goes:
public abstract class SpaceshipManager: MonoBehaviour
{
public void BuildWith<T>(T po)
{
if (ValidateBuildParam<T>())
{
Build<T>(po);
}
}
protected abstract bool ValidateBuildParam<T>();
protected abstract void Build<T>(T type);
}
public class DerivedA : SpaceshipManager
{
protected override void Build<T>(T po)
{
//Build here
}
protected override bool ValidateBuildParam<T>()
{
return (typeof(T) != typeof(ParseObject)) ? false : true;
}
}
public class DerivedB : SpaceshipManager
{
protected override void Build<T>(T po)
{
//Build here
}
protected override bool ValidateBuildParam<T>()
{
return (typeof(T) != typeof(string)) ? false : true;
}
}
Now there are some drawbacks like the following usage wont be incorrect:
SpaceshipManager spMan = new DerivedA();
spMan.BuildWith<int>(5);
This will compile and run but would build nothing. So it would be good if you change the return type of BuildWith, return null if Validation fails or a bool true or false

No, there's no such thing.
If the derived class implemented only one of the overloads, how would the caller know which one is implemented?

NO, such things which you are asking is not available in c#. In c# there is interface but you would have to implement all of the methods in derived class because if you would implement one of those caller would get confused.

As others have already told you, you cannot define abstract methods as optional to be implemented somehow.
If possible, I would suggest defining some kind of common type that can serve as input for the BuildWith method. For example, can the label string also be represented as a ParseObject? If not, can you think of some common abstraction for the two?
If the answer to both of these is no, that I would pose that these two methods probably shouldn't be overloads in the first place.
If the answer is yes, then you can make only one of these methods abstract:
public abstract class SpaceshipManager : MonoBehaviour
{
public abstract void BuildWith(ParseObject po);
public void BuildWith(string label)
{
// Static method or constructor here to represent label as a ParseObject.
BuildWith(ParseObject.FromLabel(label))
}
}
In this example, ParseObject is the common abstraction. It could also be another class or interface however.
Depending on the situation, the generics option that #Lee posted could also be a good solution, perhaps combined with a non-generic base type:
abstract class SpaceshipManager<T> : SpaceshipManager
{
public abstract void BuildWith(T source);
}
abstract class SpaceshipManager
{
// Other methods here
}
If neither of these solutions work for you, you could always make the method(s) virtual instead and override the behavior if needed, but it's somewhat doubtful that this design makes sense in your situation.

You can implement two Interfaces. IBuildWithFromString and IBuildWithFromParseObject. Then you can query which Interface is implemented by trying to cast to this Interface and in case of successand you can call the appropriate method.

Letting only the abstract class know about its inheritors

I am making a payment system for my site. Users can select one of several payment providers to pay, but all should behave in the same way. I thought to represent this behavior like this:
public abstract class PaymentProvider {
private static var methods = Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider> AllPaymentProviders
{
get {return methods;}
}
public abstract pay();
}
public class PaymentProviderPaypal : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
public class PaymentProviderWorldpay : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
You are supposed to use this by writing PaymentProvider.AllPaymentProviders["key"].pay(). The idea is that the functions using this class don't need to know about how the underlying payment provider is implemented, they just need to know the key.
However, at the moment, if you have access to the PaymentProvider class, you also have access to the inheriting classes. Its possible to instantiate a new copy of the inheriting classes, and make use of them in an unexpected way. I want to encapsulate the inheriting classes so that only the abstract PaymentProvider knows about them.
How should I do this? Different protection levels like protected don't work here - In Java, protected means that only other classes in the namespace can use that class, but in C# it means something else.
Do I have the right idea here? Or should I use a different method?

A couple of options spring to mind:
Put this in a separate assembly from the client code, and make the implementations abstract
Put the implementations inside the PaymentProvider class as private nested classes. You can still separate the source code by making PaymentProvider a partial class - use one source file per implementation
The first option is likely to be the cleanest if you don't mind separating the clients from the implementation in terms of assemblies.
Note that both of these are still valid options after the change proposed by Jamiec's answer - the "visibility" part is somewhat orthogonal to the inheritance part.
(As an aside, I hope the method is really called Pay() rather than pay() :)

Your inheritance heirachy is a bit wonky, I would be tempted to do it a similar but crucially different way.
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay()
}
// Implementations of IPaymentProvider for PaypalPaymentProvider & WorldpayPaymentProvider
public static class PaymentHelper
{
private static var providers = Dictionary<String,IPaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static void Pay(string provider)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay();
}
}
Then the usage would be something like PaymentHelper.Pay("paypal").
Obviously if there is more data to provide to the Pay method this can be added to both the interface, and the helper. for example:
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay(double amount);
}
public static void Pay(string provider, double amount)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay(amount);
}

Force base method call

Is there a construct in Java or C# that forces inheriting classes to call the base implementation? You can call super() or base() but is it possible to have it throw a compile-time error if it isn't called? That would be very convenient..
--edit--
I am mainly curious about overriding methods.

There isn't and shouldn't be anything to do that.
The closest thing I can think of off hand if something like having this in the base class:
public virtual void BeforeFoo(){}
public void Foo()
{
this.BeforeFoo();
//do some stuff
this.AfterFoo();
}
public virtual void AfterFoo(){}
And allow the inheriting class override BeforeFoo and/or AfterFoo

Not in Java. It might be possible in C#, but someone else will have to speak to that.
If I understand correctly you want this:
class A {
public void foo() {
// Do superclass stuff
}
}
class B extends A {
public void foo() {
super.foo();
// Do subclass stuff
}
}
What you can do in Java to enforce usage of the superclass foo is something like:
class A {
public final void foo() {
// Do stuff
...
// Then delegate to subclass
fooImpl();
}
protected abstract void fooImpl();
}
class B extends A {
protected void fooImpl() {
// Do subclass stuff
}
}
It's ugly, but it achieves what you want. Otherwise you'll just have to be careful to make sure you call the superclass method.
Maybe you could tinker with your design to fix the problem, rather than using a technical solution. It might not be possible but is probably worth thinking about.
EDIT: Maybe I misunderstood the question. Are you talking about only constructors or methods in general? I assumed methods in general.

The following example throws an InvalidOperationException when the base functionality is not inherited when overriding a method.
This might be useful for scenarios where the method is invoked by some internal API.
i.e. where Foo() is not designed to be invoked directly:
public abstract class ExampleBase {
private bool _baseInvoked;
internal protected virtual void Foo() {
_baseInvoked = true;
// IMPORTANT: This must always be executed!
}
internal void InvokeFoo() {
Foo();
if (!_baseInvoked)
throw new InvalidOperationException("Custom classes must invoke `base.Foo()` when method is overridden.");
}
}
Works:
public class ExampleA : ExampleBase {
protected override void Foo() {
base.Foo();
}
}
Yells:
public class ExampleB : ExampleBase {
protected override void Foo() {
}
}

I use the following technique. Notice that the Hello() method is protected, so it can't be called from outside...
public abstract class Animal
{
protected abstract void Hello();
public void SayHello()
{
//Do some mandatory thing
Console.WriteLine("something mandatory");
Hello();
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
protected override void Hello()
{
Console.WriteLine("woof");
}
}
public class Cat : Animal
{
protected override void Hello()
{
Console.WriteLine("meow");
}
}
Example usage:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var animals = new List<Animal>()
{
new Cat(),
new Dog(),
new Dog(),
new Dog()
};
animals.ForEach(animal => animal.SayHello());
Console.ReadKey();
}
Which produces:

You may want to look at this (call super antipatern) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_super

If I understand correctly you want to enforce that your base class behaviour is not overriden, but still be able to extend it, then I'd use the template method design pattern and in C# don't include the virtual keyword in the method definition.

No. It is not possible. If you have to have a function that does some pre or post action do something like this:
internal class Class1
{
internal virtual void SomeFunc()
{
// no guarantee this code will run
}
internal void MakeSureICanDoSomething()
{
// do pre stuff I have to do
ThisCodeMayNotRun();
// do post stuff I have to do
}
internal virtual void ThisCodeMayNotRun()
{
// this code may or may not run depending on
// the derived class
}
}

I didn't read ALL the replies here; however, I was considering the same question. After reviewing what I REALLY wanted to do, it seemed to me that if I want to FORCE the call to the base method that I should not have declared the base method virtual (override-able) in the first place.

Don't force a base call. Make the parent method do what you want, while calling an overridable (eg: abstract) protected method in its body.

Don't think there's any feasible solution built-in. I'm sure there's separate code analysis tools that can do that, though.

EDIT Misread construct as constructor. Leaving up as CW since it fits a very limited subset of the problem.
In C# you can force this behavior by defining a single constructor having at least one parameter in the base type. This removes the default constructor and forces derived types to explcitly call the specified base or they get a compilation error.
class Parent {
protected Parent(int id) {
}
}
class Child : Parent {
// Does not compile
public Child() {}
// Also does not compile
public Child(int id) { }
// Compiles
public Child() :base(42) {}
}

In java, the compiler can only enforce this in the case of Constructors.
A constructor must be called all the way up the inheritance chain .. ie if Dog extends Animal extends Thing, the constructor for Dog must call a constructor for Animal must call a constructor for Thing.
This is not the case for regular methods, where the programmer must explicitly call a super implementation if necessary.
The only way to enforce some base implementation code to be run is to split override-able code into a separate method call:
public class Super
{
public final void doIt()
{
// cannot be overridden
doItSub();
}
protected void doItSub()
{
// override this
}
}
public class Sub extends Super
{
protected void doItSub()
{
// override logic
}
}

I stumbled on to this post and didn't necessarily like any particular answer, so I figured I would provide my own ...
There is no way in C# to enforce that the base method is called. Therefore coding as such is considered an anti-pattern since a follow-up developer may not realize they must call the base method else the class will be in an incomplete or bad state.
However, I have found circumstances where this type of functionality is required and can be fulfilled accordingly. Usually the derived class needs a resource of the base class. In order to get the resource, which normally might be exposed via a property, it is instead exposed via a method. The derived class has no choice but to call the method to get the resource, therefore ensuring that the base class method is executed.
The next logical question one might ask is why not put it in the constructor instead? The reason is that it may be an order of operations issue. At the time the class is constructed, there may be some inputs still missing.
Does this get away from the question? Yes and no. Yes, it does force the derived class to call a particular base class method. No, it does not do this with the override keyword. Could this be helpful to an individual looking for an answer to this post, maybe.
I'm not preaching this as gospel, and if individuals see a downside to this approach, I would love to hear about it.

On the Android platform there is a Java annotation called 'CallSuper' that enforces the calling of the base method at compile time (although this check is quite basic). Probably the same type of mechanism can be easily implemented in Java in the same exact way. https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/annotation/CallSuper

Implementing few methods of a interface class-C#

Is it possible in C# to have a class that implement an interface that has 10 methods declared but implementing only 5 methods i.e defining only 5 methods of that interface??? Actually I have an interface that is implemented by 3 class and not all the methods are used by all the class so if I could exclude any method???
I have a need for this. It might sound as a bad design but it's not hopefully.
The thing is I have a collection of User Controls that needs to have common property and based on that only I am displaying them at run time. As it's dynamic I need to manage them for that I'm having Properties. Some Properties are needed by few class and not by all. And as the control increases this Properties might be increasing so as needed by one control I need to have in all without any use. just the dummy methods. For the same I thought if there is a way to avoid those methods in rest of the class it would be great. It sounds that there is no way other than having either the abstract class or dummy functions :-(

You can make it an abstract class and add the methods you don't want to implement as abstract methods.
In other words:
public interface IMyInterface
{
void SomeMethod();
void SomeOtherMethod();
}
public abstract class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
// Really implementing this
public void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
}
// Derived class must implement this
public abstract void SomeOtherMethod();
}
If these classes all need to be concrete, not abstract, then you'll have to throw a NotImplementedException/NotSupportedException from inside the methods. But a much better idea would be to split up the interface so that implementing classes don't have to do this.
Keep in mind that classes can implement multiple interfaces, so if some classes have some of the functionality but not all, then you want to have more granular interfaces:
public interface IFoo
{
void FooMethod();
}
public interface IBar()
{
void BarMethod();
}
public class SmallClass : IFoo
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
}
public class BigClass : IFoo, IBar
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
public void BarMethod() { ... }
}
This is probably the design you really should have.

Your breaking the use of interfaces. You should have for each common behaviour a seperate interface.

That is not possible. But what you can do is throw NotSupportedException or NotImplementedException for the methods you do not want to implement. Or you could use an abstract class instead of an interface. That way you could provide a default implementation for methods you choose not to override.
public interface IMyInterface
{
void Foo();
void Bar();
}
public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
public void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
}
public void Bar()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
Or...
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyBaseClass.Foo");
}
public virtual void Bar()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class MyClass : MyBaseClass
{
public override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyClass.Foo");
}
}

While I agree with #PoweRoy, you probably need to break your interface up into smaller parts you can probably use explicit interfaces to provider a cleaner public API to your interface implementations.
Eg:
public interface IPet
{
void Scratch();
void Bark();
void Meow();
}
public class Cat : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
public void Meow()
{
Console.WriteLine("Mew mew mew!");
}
void IPet.Bark()
{
throw NotSupportedException("Cats don't bark!");
}
}
public class Dog : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
void IPet.Meow()
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Dogs don't meow!");
}
public void Bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof! Woof!");
}
}
With the classes defined above:
var cat = new Cat();
cat.Scrach();
cat.Meow();
cat.Bark(); // Does not compile
var dog = new Dog();
dog.Scratch();
dog.Bark();
dog.Meow(); // Does not compile.
IPet pet = new Dog();
pet.Scratch();
pet.Bark();
pet.Meow(); // Compiles but throws a NotSupportedException at runtime.
// Note that the following also compiles but will
// throw NotSupportedException at runtime.
((IPet)cat).Bark();
((IPet)dog).Meow();

You can simply have the methods you don't want to impliment trow a 'NotImplementedException'. That way you can still impliment the interface as normal.

No, it isn't. You have to define all methods of the interface, but you are allowed to define them as abstract and leave the implementation to any derived class. You can't compile a class that says that implements an interface when in fact it doesn't.

Here is a simple stupid example of what I meant by different interfaces for different purposes. There is no interface for common properties as it would complicate example. Also this code lacks of many other good stuff (like suspend layout) to make it more clear. I haven't tried to compile this code so there might be a lot of typos but I hope that idea is clear.
interface IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
//check box that controls whether current control is visible
CheckBox VisibleCheckBox {get;}
}
class MySuperDuperUserControl : UserControl, IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
private readonly CheckBox _visibleCheckBox = new CheckBox();
public CheckBox VisibleCheckBox
{
get { return _visibleCheckBox; }
}
//other important stuff
}
//somewhere else
void BuildSomeUi(Form f, ICollection<UserControl> controls)
{
//Add "configuration" controls to special panel somewhere on the form
Panel configurationPanel = new Panel();
Panel mainPanel = new Panel();
//do some other lay out stuff
f.Add(configurationPanel);
f.Add(mainPanel);
foreach(UserControl c in controls)
{
//check whether control is configurable
IConfigurableOptionalControl configurableControl = c as IConfigurableVisibilityControl;
if(null != configurableControl)
{
CheckBox visibleConfigCB = configurableControl.VisibleCheckBox;
//do some other lay out stuff
configurationPanel.Add(visibleConfigCB);
}
//do some other lay out stuff
mainPanel.Add(c);
}
}

Let your Interface be implemented in an abstract class. The abstract class will implement 5 methods and keep remaining methods as virtual. All your 3 classes then should inherit from the abstract class. This was your client-code that uses 3 classes won't have to change.

I want to add dynamically the control to my form as I have that as my requirement. I found the code from here. I edited it as I needed. So I have the IService class that has the common properties. This is implemented by the User Controls. Which are shown at runtime in different project. Hmmm for that I have different common interface that has properties which are used by the project for displaying the controls. Few controls need some extra methods or peoperties for instance to implement a context menu based on user selection at runtime. i.e the values are there in the project which will be passed as the properties to the control and it will be displayed. Now this menu is there only for one control rest of them don't have this. So I thought if there is a way to not to have those methods in all class rather than one class. But it sounds that I need to either go for dummy methods or abstract class. hmmm dummy methods would be more preferable to me than the abstract class :-(

By implementing one of the SOLID principle which is "Interface Segregation Principle" in which Interface is broken into mutiple interfaces.

Apart from the above excellent suggestions on designing interfaces, if you really need to have implementation of some of the methods,an option is to use 'Extension methods'. Move the methods that need implementation outside of your interface. Create another static class that implements these as static methods with the first parameter as 'this interfaceObject'. This is similar to extension methods used in LINQ for IEnumerable interface.
public static class myExtension {
public static void myMethod( this ImyInterface obj, ... ) { .. }
...
}

C# - using polymorphism in classes I didn't write

What is the best way to implement polymorphic behavior in classes that I can't modify? I currently have some code like:
if(obj is ClassA) {
// ...
} else if(obj is ClassB) {
// ...
} else if ...
The obvious answer is to add a virtual method to the base class, but unfortunately the code is in a different assembly and I can't modify it. Is there a better way to handle this than the ugly and slow code above?

Hmmm... seems more suited to Adapter.
public interface ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
void DoWhatYouWant();
}
public class MyA : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassA _actualA;
public MyA( ClassA actualA )
{
_actualA = actualA;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualA.DoWhatADoes();
}
}
public class MyB : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassB _actualB;
public MyB( ClassB actualB )
{
_actualB = actualB;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualB.DoWhatBDoes();
}
}
Seems like a lot of code, but it will make the client code a lot closer to what you want. Plus it'll give you a chance to think about what interface you're actually using.

Check out the Visitor pattern. This lets you come close to adding virtual methods to a class without changing the class. You need to use an extension method with a dynamic cast if the base class you're working with doesn't have a Visit method. Here's some sample code:
public class Main
{
public static void Example()
{
Base a = new GirlChild();
var v = new Visitor();
a.Visit(v);
}
}
static class Ext
{
public static void Visit(this object b, Visitor v)
{
((dynamic)v).Visit((dynamic)b);
}
}
public class Visitor
{
public void Visit(Base b)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void Visit(BoyChild b)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a boy!");
}
public void Visit(GirlChild g)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a girl!");
}
}
//Below this line are the classes you don't have to change.
public class Base
{
}
public class BoyChild : Base
{
}
public class GirlChild : Base
{
}

I would say that the standard approach here is to wrap the class you want to "inherit" as a protected instance variable and then emulate all the non-private members (method/properties/events/etc.) of the wrapped class in your container class. You can then mark this class and its appropiate members as virtual so that you can use standard polymorphism features with it.
Here's an example of what I mean. ClosedClass is the class contained in the assembly whose code to which you have no access.
public virtual class WrapperClass : IClosedClassInterface1, IClosedClassInterface2
{
protected ClosedClass object;
public ClosedClass()
{
object = new ClosedClass();
}
public void Method1()
{
object.Method1();
}
public void Method2()
{
object.Method2();
}
}
If whatever assembly you are referencing were designed well, then all the types/members that you might ever want to access would be marked appropiately (abstract, virtual, sealed), but indeed this is unfortunately not the case (sometimes you can even experienced this issue with the Base Class Library). In my opinion, the wrapper class is the way to go here. It does have its benefits (even when the class from which you want to derive is inheritable), namely removing/changing the modifier of methods you don't want the user of your class to have access to. The ReadOnlyCollection<T> in the BCL is a pretty good example of this.

Take a look at the Decorator pattern. Noldorin actually explained it without giving the name of the pattern.
Decorator is the way of extending behavior without inheriting. The only thing I would change in Noldorin's code is the fact that the constructor should receive an instance of the object you are decorating.

Extension methods provide an easy way to add additional method signatures to existing classes. This requires the 3.5 framework.
Create a static utility class and add something like this:
public static void DoSomething(this ClassA obj, int param1, string param2)
{
//do something
}
Add a reference to the utility class on the page, and this method will appear as a member of ClassA. You can overload existing methods or create new ones this way.