I have an abstract base class:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public double CommonMethodForAllSubClasses(double parameter)
{
//common implementation
return 0;
}
public abstract double MethodThatMustBeDefinedInSubClasses(double parameter);
}
And a class hierarchy under it.
I want to make, in another assembly, an Extension class for Base class and its subclasses. I thought to do it with a static class with a methods which receive as parameter:
public static Method(this BaseClass, ...)
But I want this static Method to be defined for all subclasses from BaseClass. I know I can't do a static abstract method but I want to avoid to implement these methods in the class itself... And it would be very good that the compiler "tells me" that these methods must be redefined for sub-classes.
But I want this static Method to be defined for all subclasses from BaseClass.
Your extension method would be callable from instance of derived class. But I guess that's not what you meant.
And it would be very good that the compiler "tells me" that these methods must be redefined for sub-classes.
Implementing it as a regular abstract method on the base class is the only way to achieve that.
Is this what you want?
public abstract class BaseClass
{
protected abstract void MethodThatMustBeDefinedInSubClasses();
}
public class ChildClass : BaseClass
{
protected override void MethodThatMustBeDefinedInSubClasses()
{
Console.WriteLine("Do");
}
}
public static class BaseClassExtensions
{
public static void DoExtension(this BaseClass foo) { }
public static void DoExtension(this ChildClass bar) {}
}
You can specify the extension method for every derived class in the hierarchy and provide a specific implementation for it.
About the "compiler telling you" about a extension method, I think that's not possible, because the extension method is just "syntactic sugar". The extension method can be used like this:
var foo = new BaseClass();
foo.DoExtension();
But actually is just like a normal static class:
var foo = new BaseClass();
BaseClassExtensions.DoSomething(foo);
And the compiler cannot warning you that you should make a static class with a method that should accept a specific type.
Related
Lets say I have a Base Class:
public class Base{
}
I have a class Derived that inherits from Base Class:
public class Derived: Base{
}
Is it possible to write an extension method, for a List<T> of classes, that inherit only from the Base class, something like this:
public static string F(this List<Base> baseClass){
return "This class inherits from Base Class";
}
The extension method should work for List<Base> and List<Derived>. But it doesn't for me.
public static string F<T>(this List<T> baseClass)
where T : Base
{
return "This class inherits from Base Class";
}
The method must be generic because List<Derived> is not a subtype of List<Base> (and not a supertype either).
If IEnumerable is enough for you and this was an interface or delegate method I think you could solve this with covariance, too.
I have a class M and many derived classes A:M, B:M, C:M
The derived classes A,B,C are obviously different, else they were not been declared.
M implements a member that needs to know the type of the calling class.
So, today I'm using an abstract member in M and individually override in each dervied class.
In M:
public abstract Do() {};
In A:
public override void Do()
{
DoMore<A>();
}
In B:
public override void Do()
{
DoMore<B>();
}
In C:
public override void Do()
{
DoMore<C>();
}
Is there a way to implement Do() in M just once for all derived classes ? Something like:
In M:
public Do<T>() {
DoMore<T>();
}
This does not work because DoMore() is casting on the derived class.
If you make the base class generic, you can make it "aware" of its derived type:
public class M<T>
{
public Do<T>()
{
DoMore<T>();
}
}
public class A : M<A> {...}
public class B : M<B> {...}
public class C : M<C> {...}
It will be possible in case you create the
DoMore method in the base class and make it abstract and override
in the child class so that appropriate method is called
but more or less it will be the
same as overriding Do method which you have just move to parent class and made it non abstract.
I'm a bit confused at some code I recently came across. Here is a snippet. First of the Abstract Class Definition and then of the Class that inherits from it:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
protected static void MapEntityToModel(string paramOne, List<TypeDef> types)
{
// Some Logic Here
}
protected static void MapModelToEntity(ModelType model, ResultType result)
{
// Some Logic Here
}
}
public class BaseExtension : BaseClass
{
public static ViewModel MapModelToViewModel(Model m)
{
var result = new ViewModel();
// Some Logic Here
return result;
}
public static List<ViewModel> MapModelsToViewModels(List<TModel> models)
{
return models.Select(m => MapModelToViewModel(m)).ToList();
}
public static Model MapViewModelToModel(ViewModel v)
{
var result = new Model();
// Some Logic Here
return result;
}
}
So my understanding and usage of an Abstract Class has always been that any abstract methods within an Abstract Class must be overridden in the inherited Classes. If a method within an Abstract Class is not declared abstract, the derived Class can create an instance of itself within a method and directly call the non-abstract method of the Abstract Class.
But in either case the methods of the Abstract Class are used in the Derived Class. However, given the previous code snippets the Derived Class has no directly mapped signature or usage.
What then is the purpose of the Abstract Class in this particular scenario and why does it compile without error? I obviously am missing some concept of the Abstract Class and its appropriate implementation.
So my understanding and usage of an Abstract Class has always been that any abstract methods within an Abstract Class must be overridden in the inherited Classes
That is true, but the methods are not abstract, they are concrete (and static). Only virtual or abstract instance methods can be overridden.
What then is the purpose of the Abstract Class in this particular scenario and why does it compile without error?
Since the class has no abstract methods or properties I do not see why it is abstract, other than the author doesn't instances created for some reason.
static methods are not part of instances of the class
when you are saying a class is abstract you are saying that you cannot create instances of it.
Abstract on those classes serves no purpose apart from highlighting that creating instances of them is pointless as all methods are static anyway.
Also inheriting from them seems a little pointless as nothing is inherited - all the members are static.
You may as well have only the inherited class and make the base class an empty interface and move the static methods in it into the inherited class (an interface is in effect an abstract class with no method implementations - but you would normally have what are in effect abstract method definitions though)
abstract class a
{
public abstract string look();
public static string lookStatic()
{
return "look";
}
}
class b : a
{
public override string look()
{
return "look member";
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(b.lookStatic());
var test = new b();
Console.WriteLine(test.look());
var c = (a) test;
Console.WriteLine(c.look());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
I am working on a small project and I came across that problem.
The project output is a library containing an interface. I would like to implement that interface and seal the functions in it like this if possible:
public interface ITest
{
void SomeMethod();
}
class A : ITest
{
public sealed override SomeMethod()
{
}
}
The idea is to have the interface available to everyone and have some specialized class that implements it. The exception is that I want to make sure that if someone create a specialized class of type A, he/she won't be able to change the method's behavior.
The problem is you can't put the "override" keyword in there since the method isn't declared as "virtual" in the interface. And you can't declare it as "virtual" in the interface since it's not allowed. And you can't remove the "override" keyword since it's needed by "sealed".
Any workaround or brainstorming idea would be welcome, but if someone can come up with a solution that includes an interface, I'd be really happy to learn it!
Thanks!
EDIT: Forget this question! Like Ani said, I forgot that by default method in C# are sealed. Seems like it's always good to go back to the basics once in a while...
I may have completely misunderstood the question, but if your intention is to seal the method in A, you can just do:
class A : ITest
{
public void SomeMethod() { ... }
}
Unlike Java, methods in C# are sealed by default. Subclasses of A won't be able to override the method since it hasn't been marked virtual.
On the other hand, if your intention is to mark the method 'almost sealed' in the interface, so that it forces upon an implementing class to immediately seal it, that isn't possible. It isn't (and shouldn't be) the business of the interface to dictate such details of implementation - an interface is meant to represent a specification.
Use an abstract base class with internal visibility. This base class is not visible outside of the library but allows you to seal the method and the class still implements the interface.
public interface ITest
{
void SomeMethod();
}
internal abstract class SuperA : ITest
{
public abstract void SomeMethod();
}
class A : SuperA
{
public sealed override void SomeMethod()
{
}
}
Your understanding of sealed keyword is incorrect. As a method modifier, sealed is used to prevent a virtual method(defined in the base class) to be override in the next generation of derived classes. For example:
class Base
{
public virtual void M() { }
}
class Derived : Base
{
public sealed override void M() { }
}
class A : Derived
{
public override void M() { } //compile error, M is sealed in Derived
}
Developers can always use new modifier to define a method with the same name in the derived class, that hides the one defined in the base class.
if someone create a specialized class
of type A, he/she won't be able to
change the method's behavior.
If "specialized class" means a class derived from A, the answer is: he can always hide the method in A, but he can't change the method's behavior.
Why not use an abstract class like below.
Haven't tested it but this should work?
public abstract class Test
{
public virtual void SomeMethod() {}
//OR
public abstract void SomeMethod();//MSDN says:
//an abstract method is implicitly virtual
}
class A : Test
{
public sealed override SomeMethod()
{
}
}
Methods in C# are sealed by default.. Here is a sample
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
A obj = new A();
obj.SomeMethod();
b ss = new b();
ss.SomeMethod();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public interface ITest { void SomeMethod(); }
class A : ITest { public void SomeMethod() {
Console.WriteLine("SomeMethod Called from Class A object");
} }
class b : A
{
//public override void SomeMethod()
//{
// Console.WriteLine("Called from Class B Object");
//}
}
I am creating an object structure and I want all sub classes of the base to be forced to implement a method.
The only ways I could think of doing it were:
An abstract class - Would work but the base class has some useful helper functions that get used by some of the sub classes.
An interface - If applied to just the base class then the sub classes don't have to implement the function only the base class does.
Is this even possible?
N.B. This is a .NET 2 app.
You can have abstract methods in a class with other methods that are implemented. The advantage over an interface is that you can include some code with your class and have the new object be forced to fill in the details for the abstract methods.
public abstract class YourClass
{
// Your class implementation
public abstract void DoSomething(int x, int y);
public void DoSomethingElse(int a, string b)
{
// You can implement this here
}
}
An abstract class - Would work but the
base class has some useful helper
functions that get used by some of the
sub classe
An abstract class doesn't require all functions it provides to be abstract.
abstract class Base {
public void Foo() {} // Ordinary method
public virtual void Bar() {} // Can be overridden
public abstract void Xyz(); // This one *must* be overridden
}
Note that if you replace public with protected, the marked method will be only visible to base classes and subclasses.
An interface - If applied to just the
base class then the sub classes don't
have to implement the function only
the base class does.
This is not entirely correct. If the base class is abstract, you can mark methods that belong to the interface as abstract, and force the implementation in the subclasses.
That brings an option you didn't mention: to use both. You have an IFoo interface, and a FooBase abstract base class the implements it, or part of it. This provides subclasses with a "default" implementation of the interface (or part of it), and also lets you inherit from something else and still implement the interface, or if you want to implement the interface but not inherit the base class implementation. An example might help:
// Your interface
interface IFoo { void A(); void B; }
// A "default" implementation of that interface
abstract class FooBase : IFoo
{
public abstract void A();
public void B()
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
// A class that implements IFoo by reusing FooBase partial implementation
class Foo : FooBase
{
public override void A()
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
}
// This is a different class you may want to inherit from
class Bar
{
public void C()
{
Console.WriteLine("C");
}
}
// A class that inherits from Bar and implements IFoo
class FooBar : Bar, IFoo
{
public void A()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foobar.A");
}
public void B()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foobar.B");
}
}
Yes, and if all the classes you need to do this for are logically subclasses of an existing abstract base class, then add an abstract method to the base class... This is better than an interface because it allows you to add implementation later (by changing abstract base class method to virtual method with a default implementation), if/when it turns out that, say, eight of ten derived classes will have the same implementation, and say, only two of them differ...
EDIT: (based on thread in comments below) The base class must be declared as abstract to do this... You can't have an abstract method in a non-abstract class because a non-abstract class can be instantiated, and if an instance of it was created, there wouldbe NO implementation for that method. So this is illegal. By declaring the base as abstract, you inhibit instantiation of the class. Then, only non-abstract derived classes can be instantiated, where, (because the base method is abstract) you MUST add an implementation for that method.
And full worker sample with params (.netcore 2.2):
class User{
public string Name = "Fen";
}
class Message{
public string Text = "Ho";
}
// Interface
interface IWorkerLoop
{
// Working with client message
string MessageWorker(string msg);
}
// AbstractWorkerLoop partial implementation
public abstract class AbstractWorkerLoop : IWorkerLoop
{
public User user;
public Message msg;
// Append session object to loop
public abstract AbstractWorkerLoop(ref User user, ref Message msg){
this.user = user;
this.msg = msg;
}
public abstract string MessageWorker(string msg);
}
// Worker class
public class TestWorkerLoop : AbstractWorkerLoop
{
public TestWorkerLoop(ref User user, ref Message msg) : base(user, msg){
this.user = user;
this.msg = msg;
}
public override string MessageWorker(string msg){
// Do something with client message
return "Works";
}
}