Develop Reference

How to require an implementation of an abstract class in C#?

I want to build a class that would have a property, in which there is an instance of a class, which implements an abstract class. Here's and example.
public class MyClass {
public MyDerivedClassA derived;
public void mainClassUtility () {
derived.foo();
}
}
public abstract class MyAbstractBaseClass {
public abstract void foo();
}
public class MyDerivedClassA : MyAbstractBaseClass {
public override void foo(){
return;
}
}
public class MyDerivedClassB : MyAbstractBaseClass
{
public override void foo()
{
return;
}
}
Basically, I want to make sure the object I'm using is derived from an abstract class and implements all the methods I will need to use. There will be many implementations of the abstract class and depending on the current state of the program, MyClass might be using different implementations of the ABC. I want to write the program in a way, that no matter what implementation of the ABC is currently being used, there is a way to call it's methods by MyClass. What would be the best solution to this problem?

Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, you're pretty much there. Have MyClass expect a property of the abstract base class and you should be all set.
using System;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
var myClassOne = new MyClass(new MyDerivedClassA());
var myClassTwo = new MyClass(new MyDerivedClassB());
myClassOne.mainClassUtility();
myClassTwo.mainClassUtility();
}
public class MyClass
{
public MyAbstractBaseClass Derived;
public MyClass(MyAbstractBaseClass derived)
{
Derived = derived;
}
public void mainClassUtility ()
{
Derived.foo();
}
}
public abstract class MyAbstractBaseClass
{
public abstract void foo();
}
public class MyDerivedClassA : MyAbstractBaseClass
{
public override void foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am MyDerivedClassA");
return;
}
}
public class MyDerivedClassB : MyAbstractBaseClass
{
public override void foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am MyDerivedClassB");
return;
}
}
}

How to require an implementation of an abstract class in C#?
You can not instantiate a abstract class - and thus can not use it for most cases. Except as variable/argument/generic type argument. You need to make a concrete (non-abstract) class that inherits from it. You can only use the abstract class as a variable/argument type. To guarantee that only stuff that inherits from it can be used there.
Basically, I want to make sure the object I'm using is derived from an abstract class and implements all the methods I will need to use.
Then use the abstract class as type argument. It means only instaces of the abstract class (of wich there can be no instance) or instances of classes that inherit from it (that somebody else writes) can be used at that place.
Note that Abstract classes and Interfaces overlap in nearly all uses. There is a miriad small differences, but I do not think they mater. The only big difference I can see, is one of exclusivity:
a class can implement as many Interfaces as it wants.
You can only inherit from one abstract class. that means it is for a primary, exclusive purpose. That way you prevent some dumb ideas, like someone trying to make a Windows Form that is also a DBConnection.

C# Deriving a class from more than one abstract class

I created two abstract classes and tried to create a class that inherits from both. But I get an error message.
abstract class AbstractClassOne
{
public abstract void ShowMessage();
public abstract void DisplayName();
}
abstract class AbstractClassTwo
{
public abstract void ShowMessage();
public abstract void DisplayPlace();
}
class DerivedClass : AbstractClassOne, AbstractClassTwo // here under AbstractClassTwo it shows the error "cannot have multiple base classes:"
{
}
So a class can only derive from one abstract class?
If can derive from more than one abstract class, then what happens if both classes define the same method, as is the case above (abstract class one and two both have a method showmessage(), so which one will be in the derived class)?

Multiple inheritance is not allowed by C# but it is allowed by C++.
To answer your question regarding the ShowMessage() method that is a known problem in c++ with multiple inheritance called "The Diamond Problem". see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_inheritance
So basically you will have to excitability state to which method you are refereeing when calling it e.g. ParentA::ShowMessage()
if you want to have a type that is polymorphic to 2 other types than you should create two separate interfaces and implement them. and if you want to reuse the same methods than you will have to use compositions.
Interfaces example:
public interface ISomeInterface
{
public void ShowMessage();
public void DisplayName();
}
public class ClassOne : ISomeInterface
{
public void ShowMessage()
{
//implementation
}
public void DisplayName()
{
//implementation
}
}
public class ClassTwo : ISomeInterface
{
public void ShowMessage()
{
//implementation
}
public void DisplayPlace()
{
//implementation
}
}
Interface with reusable Show Message Method using composition:
public class ClassTwo : ISomeInterface
{
private ISomeInterface _MyPrivateReusableComponent = new ClassOne();
public void ShowMessage()
{
_MyPrivateReusableComponent.ShowMessage()
}
public void DisplayPlace()
{
_MyPrivateReusableComponent.DisplayName()
//implementation
}
}

In C# it's not allowed to inherit from more than one class. To do what you want here, you need to use interfaces.
abstract class AbstractClassOne
{
public abstract void ShowMessage();
public abstract void DisplayName();
}
Interface IClassTwo
{
void ShowMessage();
void DisplayPlace();
}
class DerivedClass : AbstractClassOne, IClassTwo
{
}

You can't inherit from more than one class (abstract or otherwise), but in your case the abstract classes are pretty much interfaces, so you can turn them into interfaces and inherit from them (you can inherit from any number of interfaces).

No, abstract class whether having all abstract methods or only some, makes no difference as far as inheritance in concerned. you can inherit only one class (in C#) and as many interfaces as you want.

Make base method required in derived class

I am in the process of building some classes, and i have a method in the base class that needs to be included in the deriving classes implementation of the method.
How do i get this performed?
For Example:
public class base{
public base(){}
public void Method(base val){
//Logic implementation
}
}
public class derive:base{
public derive():base(){}
public void Method(derive val){
base.Method(val);
//Logic implementation
}
}

Since you want actual functionality in the base class and augment that functionality in the derived class I would suggest having a public method in the base class that can be called which in turn calls an abstract method that is implemented in the derived class:
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(){}
public void Method(int val)
{
//base class logic here
//now call DoSomething implementation
DoSomething(val);
//some other base class logic here
}
protected abstract void DoSomething(int val);
}
public class Derived : BaseClass
{
protected override void DoSomething(int val)
{
//other logic
}
}
This pattern is known as a Template method pattern or Non-Virtual Interface (NVI) pattern.

Make the method abstract.
public class base{
public base(){}
public abstract void Method(base val);
}
In the derived class you need to mark the method with override
public override void Method(derive val){
If you want to create a default implementation in the base class you mark the method virtual instead of abstract, but then you can not demand that derived classes implement that method.

Sealing an interface after implementing it

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");
//}
}

How to force sub classes to implement a method

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";
}
}