Develop Reference

Is there another way to change the return type of a static method of an abstract class based on the derived class type in C#?

Edit: The main purpose of this question is to gain a deeper understanding of C# and OOP in general. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to solve a specific problem with this code, but instead just trying to understand how everything works.
I have a way to do this, but I'm wondering if there is another way to do it.
public abstract class ModelBase
{
private const string ERROR = "Error";
public string Status { get; set; }
public string StatusDescription { get; set; }
public static T Error<T>(string errorDescription)
where T : ModelBase, new()
{
var model = new T
{
Status = ERROR,
StatusDescription = errorDescription
};
return model;
}
}
And then to call it:
return ModelBase.Error<ApplicationInit>("Failed to retrieve application segment.");
Where "ApplicationInit" is a derived class of ModelBase.
What would be super cool is if instead, I could call:
return ApplicationInit.Error("Failed to retrieve application segment.");
...And the code would be able to just tell what the derived class is.
IDK, maybe that's not possible...

No. When you declare a static method, there is only one version* of it. The call ModelBase.Error<ApplicationInit>("") and the call ApplicationInit.Error<ApplicationInit>("") will both compile to the exact same bytecode, and a good set of analyzers will flag the latter with a warning.
You can shadow Error with a new static method in ApplicationInit, but that would be a manual process for each new subclass. There is no way^ to generalize it more than you already have.
* A generic method can produce different bytecode for different type parameters, but all such methods are static members of ModelBase, and not any subclass.
^ You could write a source generator to generate these static methods, but that is a lot more work than just using the generic ModelBase.Error<T> method directly.

List with Multiple Generic Objects (Covariance Issue)

I've been trying to get this solved, and have looked at the similar issues, but am not getting the proper solution here.
I am using a Generic class to hold configuration for an export
public class SpreadsheetConfiguration<T> where T : class
{
public IEnumerable<T> ExportData {get; set;}
// More stuff here
}
I have a situation where I need a list of these, which might not be of the same type, for example like this
public byte[] ExportMultipleSheets(IEnumerable<SpreadsheetConfiguration<object>> toExport)
But I cannot for the life of me, figure out how to make this work and I've looked at the other routes above with regards to making an ISpreadsehetConfiguration or otherwise.
This is for an OpenSource project here: https://github.com/IowaComputerGurus/netcore.utilities.spreadsheet
I know I'm missing something, but I've tried all of the above, and still not get to a final usage where I can still do
var toExport = new SpreadsheetConfiguration<MyOtherClass>();
As it fails to convert

If your class is supposed to have a setter on that IEnumerable<T> then it cannot be covariant. Covariance is read-only, contravariance is write-only. If you need both and also need a collection of such configurations, then your design is flawed.
If you are willing to have only get access on that property, then you first need to make an interface for your class, since variance works on generic interfaces only:
public interface ISpreadsheetConfiguration<out T> where T : class
{
IEnumerable<T> ExportData { get; }
}
public class SpreadsheetConfiguration<T> : ISpreadsheetConfiguration<T> where T : class
{
public IEnumerable<T> ExportData {get; set;}
}
Notice the out keyword in the interface's type parameter declaration - it means that ISpreadsheetConfiguration<T> is covariant in T.
Now you can do this:
public byte[] ExportMultipleSheets(IEnumerable<ISpreadsheetConfiguration<object>> toExport);
var toExport = new ISpreadsheetConfiguration<object>[]
{
new SpreadsheetConfiguration<MyOtherClass>(),
new SpreadsheetConfiguration<CompletelyDifferentClass>()
};
ExportMultipleSheets(toExport);
More on variance and why covariance cannot work with a type that allows both reads and writes with type T here.

Automatically updated collection of collections in c#

I have several classes that exhibit a inheritance structure:
public class BaseClass
{
Guid ID {get;set;}
}
public class LeafType : BaseClass{ /* omitted */}
public class OtherLeafType : BaseClass{ /* omitted */}
public class Node : BaseClass
{
public List<LeafType> FirstLeaves {get;set;}
public List<OtherLeafType > SecondLeaves {get;set;}
public ???? AllLeaves {get;} //Returns all items in both FirstLeaves and SecondLeaves
}
In the example above, Node has two collections, whose elements derive from BaseClass. Does .Net have a collection that can combine these two collections and automatically update when either FirstLeaves or SecondLeaves changes? I have found the class System.Windows.Data.CompositeCollection, but it is in PresentationFramework, which to me indicates that it is intended for UI purposes. My class Node lives in an assembly that has nothing to do with the UI, so CompositeCollection looks like a bad fit. Is there any other class that would serve a similar purpose?
Update 1: Looking at the answers so far, it seems that my question was not clearly formulated: CompositeCollection Enables multiple collections and items to be displayed as a single list, but I was wondering if the .Net framework supplies a type with similar functionality that is not related to the GUI. If not, then I will roll my own solution, which looks very much like the answer by #Erik Madsen

I recommend using an iterator. It's not a collection but can converted to a collection via Linq's ToList() extension method.
The iterator provides a live view of the collection contents. You'll need to test what happens if the underlying collections are mutated while you're iterating through the IEnumerable. But generally this is considered bad practice.
public IEnumerable<BaseClass> AllLeaves
{
get
{
foreach (LeafType firstLeaf in FirstLeaves)
{
yield return firstLeaf;
}
foreach (OtherLeafType secondLeaf in SecondLeaves)
{
yield return secondLeaf;
}
}
}
public List<BaseClass> AllLeavesList()
{
return AllLeaves.ToList();
}

I believe concating one list to another may not work in your case as they are declared as different classes (even though they inherit the Base class). I would return a newly combined list.
public List<BaseClass> AllLeaves
{
get
{
List<BaseClass> l = new List<BaseClass>();
l.AddRange(FirstLeaves);
l.AddRange(SecondLeaves);
return l;
}
}

When should I use params Object[] versus Dictionary<String, Object>?

I'm defining an API as an interface which we'll call IFoo and I want to define a method Bar()
This method Bar() will take one required argument and then some arbitrary number of other arguments. The interpretation of these other arguments will be up to implementors of IFoo
For this scenario is it more appropriate to define my interface using params or using Dictionary<String, Object> e.g.
public interface IFoo
{
bool Bar(String id, params Object[] params);
}
Or
public interface IFoo
{
bool Bar(String id, Dictionary<String, Object> params);
}
It seems like the former is easier for users to invoke but the latter is more explicit in its intentions since with the former you'd have to specify the parameters in a specific order for the implementation to interpret them properly while with the latter you are essentially doing named parameters.
So questions:
Which form should I be using (and why?) - is one of these considered best practice over another?
Are there specific advantages to one style versus the other that I should be aware of? Is one of these considered a code smell?
Is there an alternative pattern that would achieve the same thing in a different/nicer way?
For the record I am aware of named parameters in .Net 4.0 but this code needs to be compilable on .Net 3.5 so can't use any .Net 4.0+ functionality
Edit
Just to add more detail on what my IFoo and Bar() methods are actually representing because someone asked.
IFoo represents some storage subsystem and Bar() is actually a create operation. Depending on the storage subsystem Bar() could require no parameters other than the ID or it could require many parameters.
Edit 2
So in response to #Kirk Woll's comment and #Fernando's answers here's more information.
I will likely never invoke IFoo.Bar() myself, this interface is part of an open source framework. 3rd party devs will be implementing IFoo and end users will be invoking specific instances of it, the point of having IFoo at all is to make it easier for users to migrate their applications between storage subsystems because they can code to interfaces rather than specific implementations as far as humanly possible.
In the simplest case the underlying storage subsystem only has one form of store so no parameters will be required other then the ID. In the complex case the storage subsystem may allow multiple types of store and each type of store may permit arbitrarily complex set of configuration parameters e.g. index size, persistence, transaction behavior, indexing strategy, security and ACL considerations etc.
I agree with #Fernando that maybe something more polymorphic may make sense, maybe polymorphism combined with generics and type restrictions may be best e.g.
public interface IFoo
{
bool Bar<T>(T parameters) where T : IBarConfig;
}
public interface IBarConfig
{
String ID { get; set; }
}
Then with an implementation like so:
public class MyFoo
{
bool Bar<T>(T config) where T : MyBarConfig
{
//Implementation
}
}
public class MyBarConfig : IBarConfig
{
public String ID { get; set; }
public long IndexSegmentSize { get; set; }
//Etc...
}
This is off the top of my head so not sure if it is actually legal to define Bar() in MyFoo with a different type restriction then the interface it implements?

You need to decide if you need to search or be able to retrieve an Object from the params collection/Array.
When using Object[] params, There is no indexing on the Objects. You need to iterate the whole collection to find an item (by its key).
When using a Dictionary<String, Object>, your Objects are indexed by their key, and its always easy to search/query by the key.
Depending on your need, you need to decide your Approach.
Dictionary is faster for searches, but there is an overhead to create the indexes.

The dictionary approach has another problem: typos. You'll probably need to define a lot of constants to use as keys to avoid this problem.
Why not going for a polymorphic solution?
public interface IFoo {
void Bar(FooData data);
}
public abstract class FooData {
public int Id {get;set;}
}
public class MyFooData1 : FooData {
public string SomeProperty {get;set;}
//...
}
public class MyFoo : IFoo {
public void Bar(FooData data) {
var myData = (MyFooData1)data;
//...
}
}
public class MyFooData2 : FooData {
public int SomeOtherProperty {get;set;}
//...
}
public class MyFoo2 : IFoo {
public void Bar(FooData data) {
var myData = (MyFooData2)data;
//...
}
}
You'll end up with more smaller classes, but they are easy to test and extend.
Update
#RobV you can't change the type restriction if you're implementing an interface, but, if you put your type parameter at the interface declaration, you may accomplish what you're trying to do:
public interface IFoo<T> where T : IBarConfig {
void Bar(T parameters);
}
public class MyBarConfig: IBarConfig {
public String ID { get; set; }
public long IndexSegmentSize { get; set; }
}
public class MyFoo : IFoo<MyBarConfig> {
public void Bar(MyBarConfig config) {
//Implementation
}
}

params provide easier to write/read code compared to Dictionary if you need to write them inline. I.e. imaging constructing dictionary for every call to String.Format - code will be unreadable. On other hand if you already have dictionary of parameter - ok to use it.
I would recommend to reconsider API and see if you can accept IEnumerable, or even better IEnumerable<T> as arguments. Unfortunately with such generic IFoo name of sample it is not possible to see if such approach would work.

Which form should I be using (and why?) - is one of these considered best practice over another? ---> You should use the second one, because it's a lot less error prone than the second one.
Regarding the alternative pattern, there is surely a way to implement this in a nicer way. Can you tell us what your problem actually is? instead of using IFoo and Bar? I can't suggest anything else unless I know exactly what you are trying to do, and why...

The fact that you mention optional parameters makes me think the IDictionary<string,object> approach would be better - that's your best approach to give that kind of interface in .Net 3.5. You could just ask for object and do something like what MVC does for htmlAttributes (using reflection to turn the anonymous object into an IDictionary<string,object>).
The scenario where I'd prefer the params object[] approach are ones where trying to give them names in every situation would just be weird/impossible, like for string.format.

Generics and inheritance... Getting around having to specify the <T> type?

Well, I've had to rewrite this as I've been down voted five times for giving too much detail... Go figure!
class BaseModel
{
public T[] Get<T>()
{
// return array of T's
}
public T Find<T>(object param)
{
// return T based on param
}
public T New<T>()
{
// return a new instance of T
}
}
class BaseRow
{
private BaseModel _model;
public BaseRow(SqlDataReader rdr, BaseModel model)
{
// populate properties of inheriting type using rdr column values
}
public void Save()
{
// calls _model.Save(this);
}
}
I currently have a number of classes that inherit the BaseModel class. Each of the methods exposed by BaseModel will return an instance, or an array of instances of a type that inherits the BaseRow class.
At the moment, when calling the exposed methods on the BaseModel via an inheriting class, i.e.
using(DeviceModel model = new DeviceModel())
{
DeviceRow row = model.Find<DeviceRow>(1);
DeviceRow[] rows = model.Get<DeviceRow>();
DeviceRow newRow = model.New<DeviceRow>();
}
I have to specify the type (a class that inherits the BaseRow class), as the methods in BaseModel/BaseRow do not know/care what type they are, other than they inherit from BaseRow.
What I would like to do is find a way to remove the need to specify the without having to replicate code in every class that inherits BaseModel, i.e.
class DeviceModel : BaseModel
{
public DeviceRow Find(object param)
{
return this.Find<DeviceRow>(param);
}
}
Note: Unfortunately I am unable to implement or use any third party solutions. That said, I have tried using Castle Active Record/nHibernate and to be honest, they are very big and heavy for what should be a very simple system.
Hopefully I haven't provided "too much" detail. If I have, please let me know.
Thanks

If I were you, I'd suggest making BaseModel a generic class. In a situation of "can't win either way", the code you've removed to make others happy might have told me more about what you're doing (not a criticism by any stretch - I appreciate your position).
class BaseModel<T>
{
public virtual T[] Get()
{
// return array of T's
}
public virtual T Find(object param)
{
// return T based on param
}
public virtual T New()
{
// return a new instance of T
}
}
That's your base, and then you have inheritors like:
class DeviceModel : BaseModel<Device>
{
public override Device New()
{
return new Device();
}
}
Now, any generic operations you define in DeviceModel will default to returning or using strongly typed Device. Notice the virtual methods in the BaseModel class. In the base class methods, you might provide some basic operations predicated upon using T's or something. In sub-classes, you can define more specific, strongly typed behavior.
I'd also comment that you might want to pull back a little and consider the relationship of BaseModel and BaseRow. It appears that you're defining a parallel inheritance hierarchy, which can tend to be a code smell (this is where more of your code might have come in handy -- I could be wrong about how you're using this). If your ongoing development prospects are that you're going to need to add a FooRow every time you add a FooModel, that's often a bad sign.