Develop Reference

Is it better practice to retain an extra reference to a subclass or cast to a subclass to call methods specific to that subclass?

I have a system where an object can take a generic configuration object (think flyweight pattern). I also have a subclass which takes a subclassed configuration object.
In order to access properties that are specific to the subclass configuration object, is it better to maintain a second reference to the subclass or cast to the subclass?
e.g.
class Base {
public BaseConf Conf;
public Base(BaseConf C) {
Conf = C;
}
}
class Derived : Base {
public DerivedConf DerConf; //Create an extra reference, no casting
public Derived(DerivedConf DC) : base(DC) {
DerConf = DC;
}
public void PrintName() {
Console.WriteLine(DerConf.Name);
}
}
class BaseConf {
public BaseConf() {}
}
class DerivedConf : BaseConf {
public string Name;
public DerivedConf(string n) : base() {
Name = n;
}
}
vs.
class Base {
public BaseConf Conf;
public Base(BaseConf C) {
Conf = C;
}
}
class Derived : Base {
public Derived(DerivedConf DC) : base(DC) {}
public void PrintName() {
DerivedConf DerConf = Conf as DerivedConf; //Cast, no extra reference
Console.WriteLine(DerConf.Name);
}
}
class BaseConf {
public BaseConf() {}
}
class DerivedConf : BaseConf {
public string Name;
public DerivedConf(string n) : base() {
Name = n;
}
}
Both have an identical output

I wouldn't want to do either of those and you can get around both by making the Base take a generic, like so:
class Base<T> where T : BaseConf
{
public T Conf;
public Base(T C)
{
Conf = C;
}
}
class Derived : Base<DerivedConf>
{
public Derived(DerivedConf DC) : base(DC)
{
}
public void PrintName()
{
Console.WriteLine(Conf.Name);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var derived = new Derived(new DerivedConf("Foo"));
derived.PrintName(); // Foo
}

Variance for interface tree structure

I am struggling to cast in a tree hierarchy structure below is an example of the class hierarchy structure I would really appreciate if someone can point me in the right direction.
I am unable to cast
var myobj2 = (IR<JB>)JR;
Classes:
public class BASEA{ }
public class B: BASEA{ }
public class C: B{ }
public interface IR<T> { }
public abstract class JR<T> : IR<T> where T : B
{ public abstract void SetRule(); }
public class Action: JB<C>
{
public override void SetRule()
{
//Logic
}
}
public static class RuleLib
{
public static void ApplyTest<T>(T obj, IR<T> JB) where T:B
{
var myobj2 = (IR<JB>)JR; //=> does not cast!
}
}
public class Test
{
[Test]
public void demo()
{
var obj = new B();
var action = new Action();
RuleLib.ApplyRule(obj,action);
}
}

For this to work, your IRule interface needs to be covariant. The example given here shows the following covariance:
IEnumerable<Derived> d = new List<Derived>();
IEnumerable<Base> b = d;
This is basically exactly what you're doing. So in your code all you need to do is write
public interface IRule<out T> { ... }
instead of
public interface IRule<T> { ... }
This makes it so that you can cast from an IRule<U> to IRule<V> where U is a subclass of V (e.g. casting from IRule<ShiftAction> to IRule<Job>).

C# cast generic T in abstract class<T> to dynamic

This is what I want to do in C# (within class Helper - without generic arguments),
List<AbstractClass<dynamic>> data;
public void Add<T>(AbstractClass<T> thing)
{
this.data.Add((AbstractClass<dynamic>) thing);
}
This helper class would take and work with AbstractClass<> objects and give back AbstractClass<> of specific generic type. AbstractClass<T> contains many functions which return T / take in T like public T Invoke().
For Helper class T cannot be known beforehand. The Add<T>(.. thing) function is not in a class of type T.
To be used like this in Helper class's functions,
foreach(var c in data.Where(x => ...))
{
// public T Invoke() { ... } function within AbstractClass<T>
var b = c.Invoke();
// logic
}
This also fails,
List<AbstractClass<object>> data;
public void Add<T>(AbstractClass<T> thing)
{
this.data.Add((AbstractClass<object>) thing);
}
Now I think I can have,
List<dynamic> data; // or List<object> data;
public void Add<T>(AbstractClass<T> thing)
{
this.data.Add(thing);
}
but I want the constraint that List named data has only elements of type like
ConcreteClass : AbstractClass<OtherClass>
So we would know that there is an public T Invoke() function but we do not know what it returns. This is helpful to avoid mistakes of say misspelling Invocke and only knowing at run-time.
I want to avoid casting to dynamic every time to invoke functions that give back generic type T

To do what you want to do you are going to need to use a Contravariant interface
public class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var m = new Helper();
m.Add(new ConcreteClass());
m.Process();
}
class Helper
{
List<IAbstractClass<OtherClassBase>> data = new List<IAbstractClass<OtherClassBase>>();
public void Add(IAbstractClass<OtherClassBase> thing)
{
this.data.Add(thing);
}
public void Process()
{
foreach(var c in data.Where(x => x.ShouldBeProcessed()))
{
var b = c.Invoke();
Console.WriteLine(b.Question);
var castData = b as OtherClass;
if (castData != null)
Console.WriteLine(castData.Answer);
}
}
}
public interface IAbstractClass<out T>
{
bool ShouldBeProcessed();
T Invoke();
}
abstract class AbstractClass<T> : IAbstractClass<T>
{
public bool ShouldBeProcessed()
{
return true;
}
public abstract T Invoke();
}
class ConcreteClass : AbstractClass<OtherClass>
{
public override OtherClass Invoke()
{
return new OtherClass();
}
}
class OtherClassBase
{
public string Question { get { return "What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?"; } }
}
class OtherClass : OtherClassBase
{
public int Answer { get { return 42; } }
}
}
You do not need to tell Add what kind of class you are passing it, all that matters is it derives from the type specified. You could do public void Add(IAbstractClass<object> thing) and every class would work, but Invoke() would only return objects inside the foreach loop.
You need to figure out what is the most derived class you want Invoke() to return and that is what you set as the type in the list.

Maybe this will work for you:
public class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var m1 = new Helper<OtherClass>();
m1.Add(new ConcreteClass());
var m2 = new Helper<int>();
m2.Add(new ConcreteClass2());
}
class Helper<T>
{
List<AbstractClass<T>> data = new List<AbstractClass<T>>();
public void Add<T1>(T1 thing) where T1 : AbstractClass<T>
{
this.data.Add(thing);
}
}
class AbstractClass<T> { }
class OtherClass { }
class ConcreteClass : AbstractClass<OtherClass> { }
class ConcreteClass2 : AbstractClass<int> { }
}

How to create an abstract method with a parameter of type of implementing class

I have got a abstract class with an abstract method taking a parameter of the type of the implementing class. I can achieve this by generics like this:
abstract class Clazz<T>
{
public abstract void CopyFrom(Clazz<T> source);
}
class MyClass : Clazz<MyClass>
{
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz<MyClass>)
{
// implementation
}
}
Unfortunately I need in one of the implementing classes a list of Clazz<T> elements.
So how can I achieve this?
Of cause List<Clazz<T>> does not work.
List<Clazz<MyClass>> is too restrictive.
Removing the generics and the abstract method does work (my current solution), but this way I could forget to implement the CopyFrom() method in one of the implementing classes.
Edit: Here comes a more detailed example:
I've got an abstract class:
abstract class Clazz<T>
{
public abstract void CopyFrom(Clazz<T> source);
// ...
}
And a derived class:
class MyDerivedClass : Clazz<MyDerivedClass >
{
public string Text;
private readonly List<MySubClass> _list = new List<MySubClass>();
public override void CopyFrom(MyDerivedClass source)
{
Text = source.Text;
}
private List<Clazz> GetAllItems()
{
List<Clazz> list = new List<Clazz>();
list.Add(this);
list.AddRange(_list);
}
private class MySubClass : Clazz<MySubClass>
{
public int Number;
public override void CopyFrom(MySubClass source)
{
Number = source.Number;
}
}
}
There are several other deriving classes, the GetAllItems() Method is only needed in MyDerivedClass.

would this suffice? without more details it is hard to tell.
interface ICopyMaker
{
void CopyFrom(ICopyMaker source);
}
abstract class Clazz<T> : ICopyMaker
{
public abstract void CopyFrom(Clazz<T> source);
void ICopyMaker.CopyFrom(ICopyMaker source)
{
var src = source as Clazz<T>;
if (src == null) return; // know how to copy only from the instances of the same type
CopyFrom(src);
}
}
class MyClass : Clazz<MyClass>
{
private List<ICopyMaker> _list = new List<ICopyMaker>();
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz<MyClass> c)
{
//implementation
}
}

You can make the respective method generic, too, and introduce a constraint that takes T into account. If I understand well what you want to achieve, you can do this:
abstract class Clazz<T>
{
public abstract void CopyFrom(Clazz<T> source);
public abstract void ProcessList<TDescendant>(List<TDescendant> list)
where TDescendant : Clazz<T>;
}
class MyClass : Clazz<MyClass>
{
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz<MyClass> source)
{
// implementation
}
public override void ProcessList<TDescendant>(List<TDescendant> list)
{
// implementation
}
}
You can also easily include list processing in a descendant, like this:
class MyOtherClass : Clazz<MyOtherClass>
{
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz<MyOtherClass> source)
{
// implementation
}
// this list processing is inherited
public override void ProcessList<TDescendant>(List<TDescendant> list)
{
// implementation
}
// this list processing is specific to this descendant only
public void ProcessMyClassList<TDescendant>(List<TDescendant> list)
where TDescendant : Clazz<TMyClass>
{
// implementation
}
}
Then use can declare a descendant of MyClass, which in turn is a Clazz<T>, T being MyClass:
class MyDescendant : MyClass
{
}
The following works:
List<MyDescendant> list = new List<MyDescendant>();
new MyClass().ProcessList(list);
In case of MyOtherClass, the situation is a little bit different. ProcessMyClassList accepts a list of Clazz<T> or its descendants; however, not those related to MyOtherClass but to the good-ol' MyClass. This code works:
List<MyDescendant> list = new List<MyDescendant>();
new MyOtherClass().ProcessMyClassList(list); // this works
But the following won't compile:
List<MyOtherClass> list = new List<MyOtherClass>();
new MyOtherClass().ProcessList(list); // this works
new MyOtherClass().ProcessMyClassList(list); // this doesn't

Thank's everyone for your answers, but I think I have figured out a solution I can live with:
I will remove the generics and add a typecheck, like in the solution from anikiforov:
Abstract class:
abstract class Clazz
{
public abstract void CopyFrom(Clazz source);
}
And the derived class:
class MyDerivedClass : Clazz
{
public string Text;
private List<MyNestedClass> _list;
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz source)
{
var src = source as MyDerivedClass;
if (src == null) return;
Text = src.Text;
}
public List<Clazz> GetAllItems()
{
var list = new List<Clazz>();
list.Add(this);
list.AddRange(_list);
return list;
}
class MyNestedClass : Clazz
{
public int Number;
public override void CopyFrom(Clazz source)
{
var src = source as MyNestedClass;
if (src == null) return;
Number = src.Number;
}
}
}

In C#, do you need to call the base constructor?

In C#, if I have an inherited class with a default constructor, do I have to explicitly call the base class' constructor or will it be implicitly called?
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass()
{
// ... some code
}
}
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public MyClass() // Do I need to put ": base()" here or is it implied?
{
// ... some code
}
}

You do not need to explicitly call the base constructor, it will be implicitly called.
Extend your example a little and create a Console Application and you can verify this behaviour for yourself:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MyClass foo = new MyClass();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("BaseClass constructor called.");
}
}
class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public MyClass()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyClass constructor called.");
}
}
}

It is implied, provided it is parameterless. This is because you need to implement constructors that take values, see the code below for an example:
public class SuperClassEmptyCtor
{
public SuperClassEmptyCtor()
{
// Default Ctor
}
}
public class SubClassA : SuperClassEmptyCtor
{
// No Ctor's this is fine since we have
// a default (empty ctor in the base)
}
public class SuperClassCtor
{
public SuperClassCtor(string value)
{
// Default Ctor
}
}
public class SubClassB : SuperClassCtor
{
// This fails because we need to satisfy
// the ctor for the base class.
}
public class SubClassC : SuperClassCtor
{
public SubClassC(string value) : base(value)
{
// make it easy and pipe the params
// straight to the base!
}
}

It's implied for base parameterless constructors, but it is needed for defaults in the current class:
public class BaseClass {
protected string X;
public BaseClass() {
this.X = "Foo";
}
}
public class MyClass : BaseClass
{
public MyClass()
// no ref to base needed
{
// initialise stuff
this.X = "bar";
}
public MyClass(int param1, string param2)
:this() // This is needed to hit the parameterless ..ctor
{
// this.X will be "bar"
}
public MyClass(string param1, int param2)
// :base() // can be implied
{
// this.X will be "foo"
}
}

It is implied.

A derived class is built upon the base class. If you think about it, the base object has to be instantiated in memory before the derived class can be appended to it. So the base object will be created on the way to creating the derived object. So no, you do not call the constructor.

AFAIK, you only need to call the base constructor if you need to pass down any values to it.

You don’t need call the base constructor explicitly it will be implicitly called, but sometimes you need pass parameters to the constructor in that case you can do something like:
using System;
namespace StackOverflow.Examples
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
NewClass foo = new NewClass("parameter1","parameter2");
Console.WriteLine(foo.GetUpperParameter());
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
interface IClass
{
string GetUpperParameter();
}
class BaseClass : IClass
{
private string parameter;
public BaseClass (string someParameter)
{
this.parameter = someParameter;
}
public string GetUpperParameter()
{
return this.parameter.ToUpper();
}
}
class NewClass : IClass
{
private BaseClass internalClass;
private string newParameter;
public NewClass (string someParameter, string newParameter)
{
this.internalClass = new BaseClass(someParameter);
this.newParameter = newParameter;
}
public string GetUpperParameter()
{
return this.internalClass.GetUpperParameter() + this.newParameter.ToUpper();
}
}
}
Note: If someone knows a better solution please tells me.