Related
What are the differences in implementing interfaces implicitly and explicitly in C#?
When should you use implicit and when should you use explicit?
Are there any pros and/or cons to one or the other?
Microsoft's official guidelines (from first edition Framework Design Guidelines) states that using explicit implementations are not recommended, since it gives the code unexpected behaviour.
I think this guideline is very valid in a pre-IoC-time, when you don't pass things around as interfaces.
Could anyone touch on that aspect as well?
Implicit is when you define your interface via a member on your class. Explicit is when you define methods within your class on the interface. I know that sounds confusing but here is what I mean: IList.CopyTo would be implicitly implemented as:
public void CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
and explicitly as:
void ICollection.CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
The difference is that implicit implementation allows you to access the interface through the class you created by casting the interface as that class and as the interface itself. Explicit implementation allows you to access the interface only by casting it as the interface itself.
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); // Declared as concrete class
myclass.CopyTo //invalid with explicit
((IList)myClass).CopyTo //valid with explicit.
I use explicit primarily to keep the implementation clean, or when I need two implementations. Regardless, I rarely use it.
I am sure there are more reasons to use/not use explicit that others will post.
See the next post in this thread for excellent reasoning behind each.
Implicit definition would be to just add the methods / properties, etc. demanded by the interface directly to the class as public methods.
Explicit definition forces the members to be exposed only when you are working with the interface directly, and not the underlying implementation. This is preferred in most cases.
By working directly with the interface, you are not acknowledging,
and coupling your code to the underlying implementation.
In the event that you already have, say, a public property Name in
your code and you want to implement an interface that also has a
Name property, doing it explicitly will keep the two separate. Even
if they were doing the same thing I'd still delegate the explicit
call to the Name property. You never know, you may want to change
how Name works for the normal class and how Name, the interface
property works later on.
If you implement an interface implicitly then your class now exposes
new behaviours that might only be relevant to a client of the
interface and it means you aren't keeping your classes succinct
enough (my opinion).
In addition to excellent answers already provided, there are some cases where explicit implementation is REQUIRED for the compiler to be able to figure out what is required. Take a look at IEnumerable<T> as a prime example that will likely come up fairly often.
Here's an example:
public abstract class StringList : IEnumerable<string>
{
private string[] _list = new string[] {"foo", "bar", "baz"};
// ...
#region IEnumerable<string> Members
public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (string s in _list)
{ yield return s; }
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerable Members
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
#endregion
}
Here, IEnumerable<string> implements IEnumerable, hence we need to too. But hang on, both the generic and the normal version both implement functions with the same method signature (C# ignores return type for this). This is completely legal and fine. How does the compiler resolve which to use? It forces you to only have, at most, one implicit definition, then it can resolve whatever it needs to.
ie.
StringList sl = new StringList();
// uses the implicit definition.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString = sl.GetEnumerator();
// same as above, only a little more explicit.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString2 = ((IEnumerable<string>)sl).GetEnumerator();
// returns the same as above, but via the explicit definition
IEnumerator enumerableStuff = ((IEnumerable)sl).GetEnumerator();
PS: The little piece of indirection in the explicit definition for IEnumerable works because inside the function the compiler knows that the actual type of the variable is a StringList, and that's how it resolves the function call. Nifty little fact for implementing some of the layers of abstraction some of the .NET core interfaces seem to have accumulated.
Reason #1
I tend to use explicit interface implementation when I want to discourage "programming to an implementation" (Design Principles from Design Patterns).
For example, in an MVP-based web application:
public interface INavigator {
void Redirect(string url);
}
public sealed class StandardNavigator : INavigator {
void INavigator.Redirect(string url) {
Response.Redirect(url);
}
}
Now another class (such as a presenter) is less likely to depend on the StandardNavigator implementation and more likely to depend on the INavigator interface (since the implementation would need to be cast to an interface to make use of the Redirect method).
Reason #2
Another reason I might go with an explicit interface implementation would be to keep a class's "default" interface cleaner. For example, if I were developing an ASP.NET server control, I might want two interfaces:
The class's primary interface, which is used by web page developers; and
A "hidden" interface used by the presenter that I develop to handle the control's logic
A simple example follows. It's a combo box control that lists customers. In this example, the web page developer isn't interested in populating the list; instead, they just want to be able to select a customer by GUID or to obtain the selected customer's GUID. A presenter would populate the box on the first page load, and this presenter is encapsulated by the control.
public sealed class CustomerComboBox : ComboBox, ICustomerComboBox {
private readonly CustomerComboBoxPresenter presenter;
public CustomerComboBox() {
presenter = new CustomerComboBoxPresenter(this);
}
protected override void OnLoad() {
if (!Page.IsPostBack) presenter.HandleFirstLoad();
}
// Primary interface used by web page developers
public Guid ClientId {
get { return new Guid(SelectedItem.Value); }
set { SelectedItem.Value = value.ToString(); }
}
// "Hidden" interface used by presenter
IEnumerable<CustomerDto> ICustomerComboBox.DataSource { set; }
}
The presenter populates the data source, and the web page developer never needs to be aware of its existence.
But's It's Not a Silver Cannonball
I wouldn't recommend always employing explicit interface implementations. Those are just two examples where they might be helpful.
To quote Jeffrey Richter from CLR via C#
(EIMI means Explicit Interface Method Implementation)
It is critically important for you to
understand some ramifications that
exist when using EIMIs. And because of
these ramifications, you should try to
avoid EIMIs as much as possible.
Fortunately, generic interfaces help
you avoid EIMIs quite a bit. But there
may still be times when you will need
to use them (such as implementing two
interface methods with the same name
and signature). Here are the big
problems with EIMIs:
There is no documentation explaining how a type specifically
implements an EIMI method, and there
is no Microsoft Visual Studio
IntelliSense support.
Value type instances are boxed when cast to an interface.
An EIMI cannot be called by a derived type.
If you use an interface reference ANY virtual chain can be explicitly replaced with EIMI on any derived class and when an object of such type is cast to the interface, your virtual chain is ignored and the explicit implementation is called. That's anything but polymorphism.
EIMIs can also be used to hide non-strongly typed interface members from basic Framework Interfaces' implementations such as IEnumerable<T> so your class doesn't expose a non strongly typed method directly, but is syntactical correct.
I use explicit interface implementation most of the time. Here are the main reasons.
Refactoring is safer
When changing an interface, it's better if the compiler can check it. This is harder with implicit implementations.
Two common cases come to mind:
Adding a function to an interface, where an existing class that implements this interface already happens to have a method with the same signature as the new one. This can lead to unexpected behavior, and has bitten me hard several times. It's difficult to "see" when debugging because that function is likely not located with the other interface methods in the file (the self-documenting issue mentioned below).
Removing a function from an interface. Implicitly implemented methods will be suddenly dead code, but explicitly implemented methods will get caught by compile error. Even if the dead code is good to keep around, I want to be forced to review it and promote it.
It's unfortunate that C# doesn't have a keyword that forces us to mark a method as an implicit implementation, so the compiler could do the extra checks. Virtual methods don't have either of the above problems due to required use of 'override' and 'new'.
Note: for fixed or rarely-changing interfaces (typically from vendor API's), this is not a problem. For my own interfaces, though, I can't predict when/how they will change.
It's self-documenting
If I see 'public bool Execute()' in a class, it's going to take extra work to figure out that it's part of an interface. Somebody will probably have to comment it saying so, or put it in a group of other interface implementations, all under a region or grouping comment saying "implementation of ITask". Of course, that only works if the group header isn't offscreen..
Whereas: 'bool ITask.Execute()' is clear and unambiguous.
Clear separation of interface implementation
I think of interfaces as being more 'public' than public methods because they are crafted to expose just a bit of the surface area of the concrete type. They reduce the type to a capability, a behavior, a set of traits, etc. And in the implementation, I think it's useful to keep this separation.
As I am looking through a class's code, when I come across explicit interface implementations, my brain shifts into "code contract" mode. Often these implementations simply forward to other methods, but sometimes they will do extra state/param checking, conversion of incoming parameters to better match internal requirements, or even translation for versioning purposes (i.e. multiple generations of interfaces all punting down to common implementations).
(I realize that publics are also code contracts, but interfaces are much stronger, especially in an interface-driven codebase where direct use of concrete types is usually a sign of internal-only code.)
Related: Reason 2 above by Jon.
And so on
Plus the advantages already mentioned in other answers here:
When required, as per disambiguation or needing an internal interface
Discourages "programming to an implementation" (Reason 1 by Jon)
Problems
It's not all fun and happiness. There are some cases where I stick with implicits:
Value types, because that will require boxing and lower perf. This isn't a strict rule, and depends on the interface and how it's intended to be used. IComparable? Implicit. IFormattable? Probably explicit.
Trivial system interfaces that have methods that are frequently called directly (like IDisposable.Dispose).
Also, it can be a pain to do the casting when you do in fact have the concrete type and want to call an explicit interface method. I deal with this in one of two ways:
Add publics and have the interface methods forward to them for the implementation. Typically happens with simpler interfaces when working internally.
(My preferred method) Add a public IMyInterface I { get { return this; } } (which should get inlined) and call foo.I.InterfaceMethod(). If multiple interfaces that need this ability, expand the name beyond I (in my experience it's rare that I have this need).
In addition to the other reasons already stated, this is the situation in which a class is implementing two different interfaces that have a property/method with the same name and signature.
/// <summary>
/// This is a Book
/// </summary>
interface IBook
{
string Title { get; }
string ISBN { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is a Person
/// </summary>
interface IPerson
{
string Title { get; }
string Forename { get; }
string Surname { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is some freaky book-person.
/// </summary>
class Class1 : IBook, IPerson
{
/// <summary>
/// This method is shared by both Book and Person
/// </summary>
public string Title
{
get
{
string personTitle = "Mr";
string bookTitle = "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
// What do we do here?
return null;
}
}
#region IPerson Members
public string Forename
{
get { return "Lee"; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return "Oades"; }
}
#endregion
#region IBook Members
public string ISBN
{
get { return "1-904048-46-3"; }
}
#endregion
}
This code compiles and runs OK, but the Title property is shared.
Clearly, we'd want the value of Title returned to depend on whether we were treating Class1 as a Book or a Person. This is when we can use the explicit interface.
string IBook.Title
{
get
{
return "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
}
}
string IPerson.Title
{
get
{
return "Mr";
}
}
public string Title
{
get { return "Still shared"; }
}
Notice that the explicit interface definitions are inferred to be Public - and hence you can't declare them to be public (or otherwise) explicitly.
Note also that you can still have a "shared" version (as shown above), but whilst this is possible, the existence of such a property is questionable. Perhaps it could be used as a default implementation of Title - so that existing code would not have to be modified to cast Class1 to IBook or IPerson.
If you do not define the "shared" (implicit) Title, consumers of Class1 must explicitly cast instances of Class1 to IBook or IPerson first - otherwise the code will not compile.
If you implement explicitly, you will only be able to reference the interface members through a reference that is of the type of the interface. A reference that is the type of the implementing class will not expose those interface members.
If your implementing class is not public, except for the method used to create the class (which could be a factory or IoC container), and except for the interface methods (of course), then I don't see any advantage to explicitly implementing interfaces.
Otherwise, explicitly implementing interfaces makes sure that references to your concrete implementing class are not used, allowing you to change that implementation at a later time. "Makes sure", I suppose, is the "advantage". A well-factored implementation can accomplish this without explicit implementation.
The disadvantage, in my opinion, is that you will find yourself casting types to/from the interface in the implementation code that does have access to non-public members.
Like many things, the advantage is the disadvantage (and vice-versa). Explicitly implementing interfaces will ensure that your concrete class implementation code is not exposed.
An implicit interface implementation is where you have a method with the same signature of the interface.
An explicit interface implementation is where you explicitly declare which interface the method belongs to.
interface I1
{
void implicitExample();
}
interface I2
{
void explicitExample();
}
class C : I1, I2
{
void implicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I1.implicitExample()");
}
void I2.explicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I2.explicitExample()");
}
}
MSDN: implicit and explicit interface implementations
Every class member that implements an interface exports a declaration which is semantically similar to the way VB.NET interface declarations are written, e.g.
Public Overridable Function Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
Although the name of the class member will often match that of the interface member, and the class member will often be public, neither of those things is required. One may also declare:
Protected Overridable Function IFoo_Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
In which case the class and its derivatives would be allowed to access a class member using the name IFoo_Foo, but the outside world would only be able to access that particular member by casting to IFoo. Such an approach is often good in cases where an interface method will have specified behavior on all implementations, but useful behavior on only some [e.g. the specified behavior for a read-only collection's IList<T>.Add method is to throw NotSupportedException]. Unfortunately, the only proper way to implement the interface in C# is:
int IFoo.Foo() { return IFoo_Foo(); }
protected virtual int IFoo_Foo() { ... real code goes here ... }
Not as nice.
The previous answers explain why implementing an interface explicitly in C# may be preferrable (for mostly formal reasons). However, there is one situation where explicit implementation is mandatory: In order to avoid leaking the encapsulation when the interface is non-public, but the implementing class is public.
// Given:
internal interface I { void M(); }
// Then explicit implementation correctly observes encapsulation of I:
// Both ((I)CExplicit).M and CExplicit.M are accessible only internally.
public class CExplicit: I { void I.M() { } }
// However, implicit implementation breaks encapsulation of I, because
// ((I)CImplicit).M is only accessible internally, while CImplicit.M is accessible publicly.
public class CImplicit: I { public void M() { } }
The above leakage is unavoidable because, according to the C# specification, "All interface members implicitly have public access." As a consequence, implicit implementations must also give public access, even if the interface itself is e.g. internal.
Implicit interface implementation in C# is a great convenience. In practice, many programmers use it all the time/everywhere without further consideration. This leads to messy type surfaces at best and leaked encapsulation at worst. Other languages, such as F#, don't even allow it.
One important use of explicit interface implementation is when in need to implement interfaces with mixed visibility.
The problem and solution are well explained in the article C# Internal Interface.
For example, if you want to protect leakage of objects between application layers, this technique allows you to specify different visibility of members that could cause the leakage.
I've found myself using explicit implementations more often recently, for the following practical reasons:
Always using explicit from the starts prevents having any naming collisions, in which explicit implementation would be required anyways
Consumers are "forced" to use the interface instead of the implementation (aka not "programming to an implementation") which they should / must do anyways when you're using DI
No "zombie" members in the implementations - removing any member from the interface declaration will result in compiler errors if not removed from the implementation too
Default values for optional parameters, as well constraints on generic arguments are automatically adopted - no need to write them twice and keep them in sync
I'm hoping someone here can explain what incorrect assumptions I'm making. In C# 4.0, I have 2 interfaces and a class that implements them both. In a method I declare a variable with the type of the first interface, instantiate it using the class that implements both interfaces and can somehow cast it successfully to the second interface like in the following code:
public interface IFirstInterface
{
void Method1();
}
public interface ISecondInterface
{
void Method2();
}
public class InterfaceImplementation : IFirstInterface, ISecondInterface
{
public void Method1() { }
public void Method2() { }
}
public class SomeClass
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
IFirstInterface first = new InterfaceImplementation();
first.Method1();
// Shouldn't the next line return null?
ISecondInterface second = first as ISecondInterface;
// second is not null and the call to Method2() works fine
second.Method2();
}
}
I'm trying to understand why the casting is successful. Yes, the class implements both interfaces, but I would think that since the first variable is declared as IFirstInterface (which doesn't inherit from ISecondInterface), the casting should still fail.
I've also tried restructuring my code in other ways, such as not using 'as', but the cast is still successful.
What am I missing?
From your example, you should be good by testing type type before calling any of the functionality. The first creation will create a fully qualified "InterfaceImplementation" that supports both interfaces. However, you are putting it into a declared type of only the first interface. So from the "first" object's perspective, it only cares about anything associated as an IFirstInterface implementation.
Now, on to you second... Even though you've created the object, you can still ask... By the way... are you also a Second Interface? If so, do this...
IFirstInterface first = new InterfaceImplementation();
if( first is ISecondInterface )
// typecast since the second interface is legit, then call it's method 2
((ISecondInterface)first).Method2();
The actual type of the instance first points to implements both interface. So obviously both Method1 and Method2 are available on the object.
The static type of first only lets you access Method1. The static type of second only lets you access Method2. I you declare a reference to the object using either of the interfaces, you just select to view the instance as an object fulfilling the selected contract (the interface).
As InterfaceImplementation implements both interfaces, you have the option of referring to the instance using either of the interfaces.
If you look from the concrete object's point of view, you can say "I'm a IFirstInterface, but I'm also a ISecondInterface". Is that what you mean? The question you described, would end up in casting just inside a inheritance/implementation chain.
The only thing you're missing is that that's exactly how it's meant to be, and that's a useful feature, not a problem. When casting, you can think of the code as basically saying, "I don't care what I knew this object's type was, I want to see if it can be converted to type T". In this case, since the underlying object is of type InterfaceImplementation, regardless of the fact that it's currently known as an IFirstInterface, the answer is that yes, it can be converted to an ISecondInterface.
Welcome to polymorphism. The object first is always going to be an instance of InterfaceImplementation. How you choose to reference it doesn't affect what the object truly "is." This is how the concept of abstraction works as a whole.
This really indicates a design flaw. The client sort of knows that both interfaces are implemented by the same object. For you example that's fine but if those interfaces were implemented separately, you wouldn't be able to jump form the first to the second one. Ideally it would be better to have some kind of query interface where you could go from one type to the other.
How can I prevent inheritance of some methods or properties in derived classes?!
public class BaseClass : Collection
{
//Some operations...
//Should not let derived classes inherit 'Add' method.
}
public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public void DoSomething(int Item)
{
this.Add(Item); // Error: No such method should exist...
}
}
The pattern you want is composition ("Has-a"), not inheritance ("Is-a"). BaseClass should contain a collection, not inherit from collection. BaseClass can then selectively choose what methods or properties to expose on its interface. Most of those may just be passthroughs that call the equivalent methods on the internal collection.
Marking things private in the child classes won't work, because anyone with a base type variable (Collection x = new DerivedClass()) will still be able to access the "hidden" members through the base type.
If "Is-a" vs "Has-a" doesn't click for you, think of it in terms of parents vs friends. You can't choose your parents and can't remove them from your DNA, but you can choose who you associate with.
You can't, in this instance inheritance is the wrong tool for the job. Your class needs to have the collection as a private member, then you can expose as much or as little of it as you wish.
Trying to hide a public member of a class in a derived class is generally a bad thing(*). Trying to hide it as a means of ensuring it won't be called is even worse, and generally won't work anyhow.
There isn't any standardized idiomatic means I know of to prevent a parent class' protected member from being accessed in a sub-derived type, but declaring a new public useless member of a clearly-useless kind would be one approach. The simplest such thing would be an empty class. For example, if class Foo declares an empty public class called MemberwiseClone, derivatives of Foo will be unable to call MemberwiseClone--probably a good thing if MemberwiseClone would break the invariants of class Foo.
(*) The only situation where it is appropriate is when a public method of a derived class returns a more specialized type than the corresponding method in the base class (e.g. a CarFactory.Produce() method may return a Car, while the FordExplorerFactory.Produce() method may return a FordExplorer (which derives from car). Someone who calls Produce() on what they think is a CarFactory (but happens to be a FordExplorerFactory) will get a Car (which happens to be a FordExplorer), but someone who calls Produce() on what is known at compile time to be a FordExplorerFactory will get a result that's known at compile time to be a FordExplorer.
Ok so I'm currently working with a set of classes that I don't have control over in some pretty generic functions using these objects. Instead of writing literally tens of functions that essentially do the same thing for each class I decided to use a generic function instead.
Now the classes I'm dealing with are a little weird in that the derived classes share many of the same properties but the base class that they are derived from doesn't. One such property example is .Parent which exists on a huge number of derived classes but not on the base class and it is this property that I need to use.
For ease of understanding I've created a small example as follows:
class StandardBaseClass {} // These are simulating the SMO objects
class StandardDerivedClass : StandardBaseClass {
public object Parent { get; set; }
}
static class Extensions
{
public static object GetParent(this StandardDerivedClass sdc) {
return sdc.Parent;
}
public static object GetParent(this StandardBaseClass sbc)
{
throw new NotImplementedException("StandardBaseClass does not contain a property Parent");
}
// This is the Generic function I'm trying to write and need the Parent property.
public static void DoSomething<T>(T foo) where T : StandardBaseClass
{
object Parent = ((T)foo).GetParent();
}
}
In the above example calling DoSomething() will throw the NotImplemented Exception in the base class's implementation of GetParent(), even though I'm forcing the cast to T which is a StandardDerivedClass.
This is contrary to other casting behaviour where by downcasting will force the use of the base class's implementation.
I see this behaviour as a bug. Has anyone else out there encountered this?
I see this behaviour as a bug.
This behavior is correct. Since your method DoSomething is constraining T to StandardBaseClass, you only have access to the specific methods of StandardBaseClass, not any methods or properties of a derived class. Since StandardBaseClass does not have a Parent property, this is invalid, and should be invalid, by design.
There are two potential options here - You can use reflection to pull out the Parent property, or use C# 4's dynamic type, and treat this as a dynamic object. Both bypass the standard type checking in the compiler, however, so will require you to do extra type checking at runtime to verify that the Parent property exists.
Create an interface that contains the Parent property. Have each class that has a Parent property implement that interace. You will then be able to create a generic method that accepts a parameter of type IHaveParent, and it will do the right thing.
For anyone that is interested an succinct answer to this situation is answered by Stephen Cleary on msdn here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-AU/csharpgeneral/thread/95833bb3-fbe1-4ec9-8b04-3e05165e20f8?prof=required
To me this is a divergence in the class hierarchy. By this this I mean that either the base class has parent, or the derived classes with Parent are derived from an abstract child of the base.
Lol as John says, an interface as opposed to an abstract class is sufficient too.
You idea won't work because the compiler can never guarantee that the base class actually would have such a property. And it won't just select the "right" one based on if it has it or not.
The only way you can do this is using reflection and then test at runtime if the requested property exists on the inspected class. You have to judge yourself if that is a viable way to do for your project (reflection is slow and requires maximum rights).
This is correct, as the compiler only knows that it can bind to your type as a StandardBaseClass. The binding is not done at runtime (where it could potentially decide to use the StandardDerivedClass overload.
If you know that it's a StandardDerivedClass, then why not just cast it as such?
object Parent = ((StandardDerivedClass)foo).Parent;
It's a bit ugly, but you can accomplish this using a Registration system, where you register delegates for different possible derived classes that expose the 'shared' property/method and then use something like a Dictionary<Type,Func<SomeT>> to store the delegates. If you know all of the derived types ahead of time and don't have to load plug-ins or the like, you can also use the classic ugly if/else-if structure. Either way you're basically creating your own substitute for what should have been supported by the virtual method table.
Why was C# designed this way?
As I understand it, an interface only describes behaviour, and serves the purpose of describing a contractual obligation for classes implementing the interface that certain behaviour is implemented.
If classes wish to implement that behavour in a shared method, why shouldn't they?
Here is an example of what I have in mind:
// These items will be displayed in a list on the screen.
public interface IListItem {
string ScreenName();
...
}
public class Animal: IListItem {
// All animals will be called "Animal".
public static string ScreenName() {
return "Animal";
}
....
}
public class Person: IListItem {
private string name;
// All persons will be called by their individual names.
public string ScreenName() {
return name;
}
....
}
Assuming you are asking why you can't do this:
public interface IFoo {
void Bar();
}
public class Foo: IFoo {
public static void Bar() {}
}
This doesn't make sense to me, semantically. Methods specified on an interface should be there to specify the contract for interacting with an object. Static methods do not allow you to interact with an object - if you find yourself in the position where your implementation could be made static, you may need to ask yourself if that method really belongs in the interface.
To implement your example, I would give Animal a const property, which would still allow it to be accessed from a static context, and return that value in the implementation.
public class Animal: IListItem {
/* Can be tough to come up with a different, yet meaningful name!
* A different casing convention, like Java has, would help here.
*/
public const string AnimalScreenName = "Animal";
public string ScreenName(){ return AnimalScreenName; }
}
For a more complicated situation, you could always declare another static method and delegate to that. In trying come up with an example, I couldn't think of any reason you would do something non-trivial in both a static and instance context, so I'll spare you a FooBar blob, and take it as an indication that it might not be a good idea.
My (simplified) technical reason is that static methods are not in the vtable, and the call site is chosen at compile time. It's the same reason you can't have override or virtual static members. For more details, you'd need a CS grad or compiler wonk - of which I'm neither.
For the political reason, I'll quote Eric Lippert (who is a compiler wonk, and holds a Bachelor of Mathematics, Computer science and Applied Mathematics from University of Waterloo (source: LinkedIn):
...the core design principle of static methods, the principle that gives them their name...[is]...it can always be determined exactly, at compile time, what method will be called. That is, the method can be resolved solely by static analysis of the code.
Note that Lippert does leave room for a so-called type method:
That is, a method associated with a type (like a static), which does not take a non-nullable “this” argument (unlike an instance or virtual), but one where the method called would depend on the constructed type of T (unlike a static, which must be determinable at compile time).
but is yet to be convinced of its usefulness.
Most answers here seem to miss the whole point. Polymorphism can be used not only between instances, but also between types. This is often needed, when we use generics.
Suppose we have type parameter in generic method and we need to do some operation with it. We dont want to instantinate, because we are unaware of the constructors.
For example:
Repository GetRepository<T>()
{
//need to call T.IsQueryable, but can't!!!
//need to call T.RowCount
//need to call T.DoSomeStaticMath(int param)
}
...
var r = GetRepository<Customer>()
Unfortunately, I can come up only with "ugly" alternatives:
Use reflection
Ugly and beats the idea of interfaces and polymorphism.
Create completely separate factory class
This might greatly increase the complexity of the code. For example, if we are trying to model domain objects, each object would need another repository class.
Instantiate and then call the desired interface method
This can be hard to implement even if we control the source for the classes, used as generic parameters. The reason is that, for example we might need the instances to be only in well-known, "connected to DB" state.
Example:
public class Customer
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
//do work...
}
}
in order to use instantination for solving the static interface problem we need to do the following thing:
public class Customer: IDoSomeStaticMath
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
//dummy instance
public Customer() { IsDummy = true; }
int DoSomeStaticMath(int a) { }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
if(!IsDummy)
{
//do work...
}
}
}
This is obviously ugly and also unnecessary complicates the code for all other methods. Obviously, not an elegant solution either!
I know it's an old question, but it's interesting. The example isn't the best. I think it would be much clearer if you showed a usage case:
string DoSomething<T>() where T:ISomeFunction
{
if (T.someFunction())
...
}
Merely being able to have static methods implement an interface would not achieve what you want; what would be needed would be to have static members as part of an interface. I can certainly imagine many usage cases for that, especially when it comes to being able to create things. Two approaches I could offer which might be helpful:
Create a static generic class whose type parameter will be the type you'd be passing to DoSomething above. Each variation of this class will have one or more static members holding stuff related to that type. This information could supplied either by having each class of interest call a "register information" routine, or by using Reflection to get the information when the class variation's static constructor is run. I believe the latter approach is used by things like Comparer<T>.Default().
For each class T of interest, define a class or struct which implements IGetWhateverClassInfo<T> and satisfies a "new" constraint. The class won't actually contain any fields, but will have a static property which returns a static field with the type information. Pass the type of that class or struct to the generic routine in question, which will be able to create an instance and use it to get information about the other class. If you use a class for this purpose, you should probably define a static generic class as indicated above, to avoid having to construct a new descriptor-object instance each time. If you use a struct, instantiation cost should be nil, but every different struct type would require a different expansion of the DoSomething routine.
None of these approaches is really appealing. On the other hand, I would expect that if the mechanisms existed in CLR to provide this sort of functionality cleanly, .net would allow one to specify parameterized "new" constraints (since knowing if a class has a constructor with a particular signature would seem to be comparable in difficulty to knowing if it has a static method with a particular signature).
Short-sightedness, I'd guess.
When originally designed, interfaces were intended only to be used with instances of class
IMyInterface val = GetObjectImplementingIMyInterface();
val.SomeThingDefinedinInterface();
It was only with the introduction of interfaces as constraints for generics did adding a static method to an interface have a practical use.
(responding to comment:) I believe changing it now would require a change to the CLR, which would lead to incompatibilities with existing assemblies.
To the extent that interfaces represent "contracts", it seems quiet reasonable for static classes to implement interfaces.
The above arguments all seem to miss this point about contracts.
Interfaces specify behavior of an object.
Static methods do not specify a behavior of an object, but behavior that affects an object in some way.
Because the purpose of an interface is to allow polymorphism, being able to pass an instance of any number of defined classes that have all been defined to implement the defined interface... guaranteeing that within your polymorphic call, the code will be able to find the method you are calling. it makes no sense to allow a static method to implement the interface,
How would you call it??
public interface MyInterface { void MyMethod(); }
public class MyClass: MyInterface
{
public static void MyMethod() { //Do Something; }
}
// inside of some other class ...
// How would you call the method on the interface ???
MyClass.MyMethod(); // this calls the method normally
// not through the interface...
// This next fails you can't cast a classname to a different type...
// Only instances can be Cast to a different type...
MyInterface myItf = MyClass as MyInterface;
Actually, it does.
As of Mid-2022, the current version of C# has full support for so-called static abstract members:
interface INumber<T>
{
static abstract T Zero { get; }
}
struct Fraction : INumber<Fraction>
{
public static Fraction Zero { get; } = new Fraction();
public long Numerator;
public ulong Denominator;
....
}
Please note that depending on your version of Visual Studio and your installed .NET SDK, you'll either have to update at least one of them (or maybe both), or that you'll have to enable preview features (see Use preview features & preview language in Visual Studio).
See more:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/tutorials/static-virtual-interface-members
https://blog.ndepend.com/c-11-static-abstract-members/
https://khalidabuhakmeh.com/static-abstract-members-in-csharp-10-interfaces#:~:text=Static%20abstract%20members%20allow%20each,like%20any%20other%20interface%20definition.
Regarding static methods used in non-generic contexts I agree that it doesn't make much sense to allow them in interfaces, since you wouldn't be able to call them if you had a reference to the interface anyway. However there is a fundamental hole in the language design created by using interfaces NOT in a polymorphic context, but in a generic one. In this case the interface is not an interface at all but rather a constraint. Because C# has no concept of a constraint outside of an interface it is missing substantial functionality. Case in point:
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values)
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
Here there is no polymorphism, the generic uses the actual type of the object and calls the += operator, but this fails since it can't say for sure that that operator exists. The simple solution is to specify it in the constraint; the simple solution is impossible because operators are static and static methods can't be in an interface and (here is the problem) constraints are represented as interfaces.
What C# needs is a real constraint type, all interfaces would also be constraints, but not all constraints would be interfaces then you could do this:
constraint CHasPlusEquals
{
static CHasPlusEquals operator + (CHasPlusEquals a, CHasPlusEquals b);
}
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values) where T : CHasPlusEquals
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
There has been lots of talk already about making an IArithmetic for all numeric types to implement, but there is concern about efficiency, since a constraint is not a polymorphic construct, making a CArithmetic constraint would solve that problem.
Because interfaces are in inheritance structure, and static methods don't inherit well.
What you seem to want would allow for a static method to be called via both the Type or any instance of that type. This would at very least result in ambiguity which is not a desirable trait.
There would be endless debates about whether it mattered, which is best practice and whether there are performance issues doing it one way or another. By simply not supporting it C# saves us having to worry about it.
Its also likely that a compilier that conformed to this desire would lose some optimisations that may come with a more strict separation between instance and static methods.
You can think of the static methods and non-static methods of a class as being different interfaces. When called, static methods resolve to the singleton static class object, and non-static methods resolve to the instance of the class you deal with. So, if you use static and non-static methods in an interface, you'd effectively be declaring two interfaces when really we want interfaces to be used to access one cohesive thing.
To give an example where I am missing either static implementation of interface methods or what Mark Brackett introduced as the "so-called type method":
When reading from a database storage, we have a generic DataTable class that handles reading from a table of any structure. All table specific information is put in one class per table that also holds data for one row from the DB and which must implement an IDataRow interface. Included in the IDataRow is a description of the structure of the table to read from the database. The DataTable must ask for the datastructure from the IDataRow before reading from the DB. Currently this looks like:
interface IDataRow {
string GetDataSTructre(); // How to read data from the DB
void Read(IDBDataRow); // How to populate this datarow from DB data
}
public class DataTable<T> : List<T> where T : IDataRow {
public string GetDataStructure()
// Desired: Static or Type method:
// return (T.GetDataStructure());
// Required: Instantiate a new class:
return (new T().GetDataStructure());
}
}
The GetDataStructure is only required once for each table to read, the overhead for instantiating one more instance is minimal. However, it would be nice in this case here.
FYI: You could get a similar behavior to what you want by creating extension methods for the interface. The extension method would be a shared, non overridable static behavior. However, unfortunately, this static method would not be part of the contract.
Interfaces are abstract sets of defined available functionality.
Whether or not a method in that interface behaves as static or not is an implementation detail that should be hidden behind the interface. It would be wrong to define an interface method as static because you would be unnecessarily forcing the method to be implemented in a certain way.
If methods were defined as static, the class implementing the interface wouldn't be as encapsulated as it could be. Encapsulation is a good thing to strive for in object oriented design (I won't go into why, you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented). For this reason, static methods aren't permitted in interfaces.
Static classes should be able to do this so they can be used generically. I had to instead implement a Singleton to achieve the desired results.
I had a bunch of Static Business Layer classes that implemented CRUD methods like "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" for each entity type like "User", "Team", ect.. Then I created a base control that had an abstract property for the Business Layer class that implemented the CRUD methods. This allowed me to automate the "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" operations from the base class. I had to use a Singleton because of the Static limitation.
Most people seem to forget that in OOP Classes are objects too, and so they have messages, which for some reason c# calls "static method".
The fact that differences exist between instance objects and class objects only shows flaws or shortcomings in the language.
Optimist about c# though...
OK here is an example of needing a 'type method'. I am creating one of a set of classes based on some source XML. So I have a
static public bool IsHandled(XElement xml)
function which is called in turn on each class.
The function should be static as otherwise we waste time creating inappropriate objects.
As #Ian Boyde points out it could be done in a factory class, but this just adds complexity.
It would be nice to add it to the interface to force class implementors to implement it. This would not cause significant overhead - it is only a compile/link time check and does not affect the vtable.
However, it would also be a fairly minor improvement. As the method is static, I as the caller, must call it explicitly and so get an immediate compile error if it is not implemented. Allowing it to be specified on the interface would mean this error comes marginally earlier in the development cycle, but this is trivial compared to other broken-interface issues.
So it is a minor potential feature which on balance is probably best left out.
The fact that a static class is implemented in C# by Microsoft creating a special instance of a class with the static elements is just an oddity of how static functionality is achieved. It is isn't a theoretical point.
An interface SHOULD be a descriptor of the class interface - or how it is interacted with, and that should include interactions that are static. The general definition of interface (from Meriam-Webster): the place or area at which different things meet and communicate with or affect each other. When you omit static components of a class or static classes entirely, we are ignoring large sections of how these bad boys interact.
Here is a very clear example of where being able to use interfaces with static classes would be quite useful:
public interface ICrudModel<T, Tk>
{
Boolean Create(T obj);
T Retrieve(Tk key);
Boolean Update(T obj);
Boolean Delete(T obj);
}
Currently, I write the static classes that contain these methods without any kind of checking to make sure that I haven't forgotten anything. Is like the bad old days of programming before OOP.
C# and the CLR should support static methods in interfaces as Java does. The static modifier is part of a contract definition and does have meaning, specifically that the behavior and return value do not vary base on instance although it may still vary from call to call.
That said, I recommend that when you want to use a static method in an interface and cannot, use an annotation instead. You will get the functionality you are looking for.
Static Methods within an Interface are allowed as of c# 9 (see https://www.dotnetcurry.com/csharp/simpler-code-with-csharp-9).
I think the short answer is "because it is of zero usefulness".
To call an interface method, you need an instance of the type. From instance methods you can call any static methods you want to.
I think the question is getting at the fact that C# needs another keyword, for precisely this sort of situation. You want a method whose return value depends only on the type on which it is called. You can't call it "static" if said type is unknown. But once the type becomes known, it will become static. "Unresolved static" is the idea -- it's not static yet, but once we know the receiving type, it will be. This is a perfectly good concept, which is why programmers keep asking for it. But it didn't quite fit into the way the designers thought about the language.
Since it's not available, I have taken to using non-static methods in the way shown below. Not exactly ideal, but I can't see any approach that makes more sense, at least not for me.
public interface IZeroWrapper<TNumber> {
TNumber Zero {get;}
}
public class DoubleWrapper: IZeroWrapper<double> {
public double Zero { get { return 0; } }
}
As per Object oriented concept Interface implemented by classes and
have contract to access these implemented function(or methods) using
object.
So if you want to access Interface Contract methods you have to create object. It is always must that is not allowed in case of Static methods. Static classes ,method and variables never require objects and load in memory without creating object of that area(or class) or you can say do not require Object Creation.
Conceptually there is no reason why an interface could not define a contract that includes static methods.
For the current C# language implementation, the restriction is due to the allowance of inheritance of a base class and interfaces. If "class SomeBaseClass" implements "interface ISomeInterface" and "class SomeDerivedClass : SomeBaseClass, ISomeInterface" also implements the interface, a static method to implement an interface method would fail compile because a static method cannot have same signature as an instance method (which would be present in base class to implement the interface).
A static class is functionally identical to a singleton and serves the same purpose as a singleton with cleaner syntax. Since a singleton can implement an interface, interface implementations by statics are conceptually valid.
So it simply boils down to the limitation of C# name conflict for instance and static methods of the same name across inheritance. There is no reason why C# could not be "upgraded" to support static method contracts (interfaces).
An interface is an OOPS concept, which means every member of the interface should get used through an object or instance. Hence, an interface can not have static methods.
When a class implements an interface,it is creating instance for the interface members. While a static type doesnt have an instance,there is no point in having static signatures in an interface.