I have an interesting problem that I keep circling around, but I never seem to quiet find a solution.
I tend to be a defensive programmer, so I try to write code that prevents problems from happening rather than reacting to problems once they've occurred. To that end, I have the following situation. Take the following code:
public class Base {}
public Interface IBase {}
public class Derived : Base, IBase {}
public class Derived2 : Base, IBase {}
...
public class DerivedN : Base, IBase {}
public class X : Base {}
public class Y : IBase {}
I need to pass a list of objects that derive from Base and implement IBase to a collection, and I need to make sure that only objects that have both are added to the list. Additionally, there can be an arbitrary number of classes that have both, so I cannot use the derived classes as constraints.
If I make the list of type Base, then I could add a Y object. If I make it of type IBase, then objects of type X can be added (neither of which are permitted).
I could, of course create my own generic collection class that has both types and has constraints for both. But, I don't want to have to do this for all possible collection types, and it's a lot of effort to duplicate all that functionality (even if you just forward the method calls to a contained class).
I could also create a BaseWithIBase class, which derives from both Base and IBase, and use that as my collection type, but I really don't want to force another abstraction if I don't have to.
I don't want this to be a runtime check, so walking the tree and throwing exceptions is not acceptable.
Can anyone suggest a better approach to this problem?
NOTE: Base and IBase are not related, just pointing out they are both base items of different types.
EDIT:
It seems that everyone wants to insist that "you don't need to do that" and that it's "not OOP". Nothing could be further from the truth. I was attempting to remove the specific from the question to prevent these kinds of questions and comments, so I will include my real situation.
The code is an implement of a Windows Service framework, based on the .NET Frameworks ServiceProcess.ServiceBase class. I am adding my own framework on top of this, that is intended to be heavily Dependency Injection based, and highly testable.
The collection must contain objects that derive from both ServiceBase and IService. IService is my framework extension that is used in my code, and for testing. It is basically just this:
public interface IService
{
void Start();
void Stop();
}
In addition, I have a number of other interfaces:
public interface IRestartableService
{
void Restart();
}
public interface IConfigurableService
{
void Configure();
}
etc.. etc.. and a service may look like this:
public class MyService : ServiceBase, IService, IConfigurableService {}
My code requires IService, Windows requires ServiceBase, thus both are needed because I work with IService, and windows works with ServiceBase. I only require IService, the other interfaces are optional.
You can create your own wrapper collection simply:
// TODO: Work out which collection interfaces you want to implement
public class BaseList
{
// Or use List<IBase>, if that's how you'll be using it more often.
private List<Base> list = new List<Base>();
public void Add<T>(T item) where T : Base, IBase
{
list.Add(item);
}
}
By using a generic method with both constraints, you can be sure that Add can only be called with an appropriate type argument.
You could have two methods to expose the data as IEnumerable<T> - one returning IEnumerable<IBase> (using Cast<T>) and one returning IEnumerable<Base>... that would let you use LINQ on either type, but not both at the same time of course.
I suspect you may find this awkward elsewhere, however - you may find yourself littering your code with generic methods which you wouldn't typically need. While there may well be a good reason for wanting both the class part and the interface part, it would be worth taking a step back and considering whether they're really both necessary. Is there something extra you could add to the interface so that you could do away with the class constraint, for example?
There is no good answer to your question because the design itself is not really fitting OOP as implemented in C#/.NET.
If you absolutely need a collection where each element statically provides two independent interfaces, either a wrapper collection or some wrapper class like Wrapper<TFirst, TSecond, T> : IBoth<TFirst, TSecond> would solve your problem.
Example:
public interface IBoth<TFirst, TSecond> {
TFirst AsFirst();
TSecond AsSecond();
}
public class Wrapper<T, TFirst, TSecond> : IBoth<TFirst, TSecond>
where T : TFirst, TSecond
{
private readonly T _value;
public Wrapper(T value) {
_value = value;
}
public TFirst AsFirst() {
return _value;
}
public TSecond AsSecond() {
return _value;
}
}
However the real question is why do you need that. Not to say that standard OOP model is perfect, but quite often a problem can be solved much easier if original design decisions are reviewed.
Another option is to completely ignore ServiceBase in most of the code and create a ServiceBaseAdapter for communication with the code that is not interface friendly. Such adapter can just call your interface methods when its method are called.
Try something like this:
List<object> collection = new List<object>();
foreach(var obj in collection.OfType<Base>().OfType<IBase>())
{
// Do what ever you want
}
Related
I think I have a very naive question here that I didn't knew before that it was even possible. Forgive me if my title question is a bit vague because I don't even know how to describe it. Here is the code that looks weird to me.
public interface IMyInterface
{
void ImplementMe();
}
public class StandAlone
{
public void ImplementMe()
{
Console.writeline("It works!");
}
}
public class SubClass : StandAlone, IMyInterface
{
// no need to implement IMyInterface here but it still work!!!
}
IMyInterface myInterface = new SubClass();
myInterface.ImplementMe(); // Output : "It works!"
I just want to know the following :
What is the right term to describe this approach?
What is the practical benefit of this kind of approach?
What kind of problem it tries to solve? or What scenario this will be applicable?
Well, first case that comes to my mind - when you don't own source code of StandAlone class, but later you decided to introduce interface which describes behavior of StandAlone class. E.g. for unit-testing (it's not best practice to mock code which you don't own, but sometimes it might be helpful) or you want to provide alternative implementation of StandAlone behavior in some cases. So either you have no options for unit-testing such code:
public class SUT
{
private readonly StandAlone dependency;
public SUT(StandAlone dependency)
{
this.dependency = dependency;
}
// ...
}
But if you'll introduce interface, you can actually switch to dependency from IMyInterface instead of StandAlone. And provide SubClass as implementation of interface with zero efforts.
public class SUT
{
private readonly IMyInterface dependency;
public SUT(IMyInterface dependency)
{
this.dependency = dependency;
}
// ...
}
But SubClass does implement the IMyInterface - it has all the required public members with the right signatures. There's no specific terminology since there's nothing weird about it.
In fact, some languages take this even further, and allow you to cast any object to an interface, as long as the class has the right members (and in yet more flexible languages, even if it doesn't).
The main benefit is again the same as any other way to use interfaces - it allows you to abstract the implementation away from the interface. It's just a shortcut to having to do an explicit interface implementation, something like:
class SubClass : BaseClass, IInterface
{
void IInterface.MyMethod()
{
base.MyMethod();
}
}
You might think that you could just implement the interface in the base class, but there's plenty of reasons why you wouldn't:
You don't want to maintain a public interface for the base class, it's just an internal class that shouldn't be exposed outside.
You don't have a way to change the base class to include the interface, so if you want to keep an inheritance chain, you must subclass and add the interface to the subclass.
The inferface contains some members that aren't contained in the BaseClass.
You'll probably find a couple more reasons if you try.
But the main point is: why not? You need a reason to do something (expand the definition of the base class instead of just the subclass). Adding abstraction everywhere along your codebase is rarely beneficial - you're trying to find a good trade-off between clarity of intent and clarity of implementation. An interface on a base class might help or hinder that.
One legitimate use of this pattern (Outside of simply the original programmer should have put the interface on the base class) could be that Standalone is in a 3rd party (or inaccessible) assembly, and IMyInterface was written in your own code to provide a Facade.
Consider this;
Your app wants to provide some functionality. You define an interface with method ImplementMe.
Standalone is in ThirdParty.dll and provides this exact method name (Perhaps you modelled your interface on that method name on purpose)
You subclass Standalone within your own code in order to implement your functionality.
Maybe you have a second way of implementing ImplementMe for which you have your onw class implementing your own interface. (public class MyOwnImplemetation : IMyInterface {... })
You could then use DI to instantiate the correct implementation of StandAlone or MyOwnImplemetation but treat them both as IMyInterface.
Not all classes are direct implementations of interfaces.
For example, let's put a good sample based on a simple class inheritance:
public class Person
{
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public class Employee : Person
{
}
Now, let's imagine that we need to store uniquely-identifiable objects in some common store where we don't care about the entities' types but just about they're uniquely-identifiable.
BTW, we consider that persons shouldn't be stored within such store, because they're not valid entities within our organization but they're just there to improve code reusability and don't repeat ourselves.
So we define an interface like this:
public interface ICanBeUniquelyIdentifiable
{
Guid Id { get; set; }
}
...and we don't implement it on Person but we do so on Employee:
// Now an employee is an actual object that can be uniquely identifiable,
// and this isn't true because Person has an Id property, but because
// Employee fulfills the contract!
public class Employee : Person, ICanBeUniquelyIdentifiable
{
}
Background
I would say that your reasoning should be that you implement interfaces where they really matter to be implemented, and reusability shouldn't be the key point when implementing interfaces.
Actually, you should implement interfaces on objects which should be accepted on some API and you just need a subset of the full type of a given object.
Assume this hypothetical situation:
I have a hierarchy of classes:
public class MyBase : System.Windows.Forms.TreeNode
{
public virtual void Init() {...}
}
Now I want to allow third parties to use MyBase to develop their derived classes like these:
public class Drv1 : MyBase { public override void Init() {...} }
public class Drv2 : MyBase { public override void Init() {...} }
I want my application be able to use Drv1 and Drv2 as plug-ins.
Now, my questions are:
Is it incorrect (or bad practice) to use classes (instead of interfaces) to set up plug-in mechanism?
Did I make a mistake I didn't use interfaces to provide THIRD-PARTIES with an interface? (because I want to persuade others to develop plug-ins for my app)
If answer of question 2 is YES, how could I use interfaces (because MyBase is derived from TreeNode) ? (this answer is critical for me)
Many thanks in advance.
Im using following rules:
If there is any code required in base then go for class.
If you need only structure or you need to "inherit" more than one class, use interfaces.
If you need both, features and multiple inheritance use both.
Its really depends what you do with that classes later on.
In your case you should be using base class as virtual method has some code in it, and you inherit from class that is 3rd party for you.
But once your business classes should use different implementation of that class then its worth of adding interfaces and use it in IoC or something.
I think going for Interfaces for only sake of it is not correct approach.
Is it incorrect (or bad practice) to use classes (instead of interfaces) to set up plug-in mechanism?
Neither C# or .NET has anything that labels this as incorrect. They describe under what circumstances your code will continue to work, and when it won't. Bad practice is a matter of opinion, but there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
If answer of question 2 is YES, how could I use interfaces (because MyBase is derived from TreeNode) ? (this answer is critical for me)
If your callers need to provide a type that is derived from TreeNode, and you wish to use an interface, then you can.
public interface IMyInterface {
void Init() {...}
}
You cannot require classes implementing IMyInterface to derive from TreeNode, but you do not need to: you can ensure that the only way this gets exposed to your own application is via a generic registration method, where the generic type constraints do force the type to both derive from TreeNode and implement this interface:
public void RegisterTreeNode<T>() where T : TreeNode, IMyInterface {...}
If plugins are able to call RegisterTreeNode<Drv1>(), you're assured at compile time that it's going to match your requirements. You may of course use a different method signature, possibly one that deals with individual instances of the TreeNode class, it's the type constraints that are key here. If a caller attempts
class X : IMyInterface { public void Init() {...} }
and then
RegisterTreeNode<X>();
the compiler will simply reject this. The plugin may create instances of this X itself, but if your application never sees them, they cannot cause any harm.
Then third parties can do:
public class Drv1 : TreeNode, IMyInterface { ... }
public class Drv2 : TreeNode, IMyInterface { ... }
or even
public class Drv3 : SuperTreeNode, IMyInterface { ... }
where SuperTreeNode is derived from the standard TreeNode.
This is probably the main benefit of using an interface here: it's compatible with existing classes which provide additional functionality on top of the standard TreeNode.
This cuts both ways: the main benefit of using a common base class here, rather than an interface, would be that your own code can provide additional functionality.
P.S.: Depending on what you're after, it may also be possible to decouple this, to make your base class / interface responsible for creating TreeNode objects, rather than deriving from TreeNode. The general rule that favours this approach is called "composition over inheritance", and worth reading up on. It may or may not be a good fit for your particular use case.
I'm looking for a way to get wildcards to work in .NET generics.
My code is as follows:
private class Rule<TSource, TSelected> where TSource : class where TSelected : class
{
// stuff in here
}
I want to be able to create a List<> of Rules where the TSource will be the same but the TSelected may be different.
You need to make a contravariant generic interface IRule<TSource, in TSelected> and make a list of that, where in addition TSelected is going to be constrained to some meaningful class. Constraining to any reference type as in your existing code will compile, but you won't be able to do anything meaningful with anything that has to do with TSelected.
At this time there is no other way to use variant generics (unless of course you go into reflection mode with List<dynamic> or something equivalent), so if this solution does not work for you you will need to redesign.
If I read your question right, I think you'd have to do this:
public interface ISelected
{
// ISelected interface
}
// A TSelected implementation
public class Implementation1: ISelected { }
// Another
public class Implementation2 : ISelected { }
// our Rule
private class Rule<TSource, TSelected> where TSource : class where TSelected ISelected
{
}
If the TSelected classes has the same super-class, you can just make a list of Rule<TSource, TSelectedSuperClass>. I believe you can use typeof (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/58918ffs(v=vs.71).aspx) to get the exact subclass after reading the TSelected object again.
Alternatively you can make a container class to contain both and also store the exact types.
An interface could do it instead of a super class. If the Selected share implementation however, I prefer an abstract class.
A while back I wanted to create my own data mapper that would be much simpler than your average ORM. In doing so I found the need to have access to the type information of inheriting classes in my base class. My first thought was reflection, but it's too slow (if you use reflection though, check out Fasterflect as it 'almost' eliminates the performance problems of reflection).
So I turned to a solution that I later found out had it's own name: The Curiously Recurring Template Pattern. This mostly solved my problem, but learning how to correctly implement this pattern was a little challenging. The two main questions I had to solve were:
1) How can I let my consuming code work with my generic objects without needing to know the generic parameters the objects were created with?
2) How can I inherit static fields in C#?
The challenging part was actually figuring out the questions. Once I realized what I needed to do, solving these questions was pretty easy. If you find yourself in need of the CRTP, you will likely find yourself needing to answer these questions... they seem to go hand in hand.
Working with generics without knowing the generic parameter types
When using the CRTP it's good to have a non-generic base class (abstract if possible, but that's not too important) that your 'base' generic class inherits from. Then you can make abstract (or virtual) functions on your non-generic base class and allow consuming code to work with your objects without having to know the generic parameters. For example:
abstract class NonGenBase
{
public abstract void Foo();
}
class GenBase<T>: NonGenBase
{
public override void Foo()
{
// Do something
}
}
Now consuming code that has no knowledge of what T is supposed to be can still call the Foo() procedure on your objects by treating them as instances of the base class.
How to solve the static field inheritance problem
When using the CRTP to solve a problem, it's often beneficial to provide access to static fields in inheriting classes. The problem is that C# doesn't allow inheriting classes to have access to those static fields, except through the type name... which often seems to defeat the purpose in this situation. You may not be able to think of a clear example of what I'm talking about and explaining one is beyond the scope of this answer, but the solution is simple so just tuck it away in your knowledgebase and when you find a need for it you'll be glad it's there :)
class GenBase<T>: NonGenBase
{
static object _someResource;
protected object SomeResource { get { return _someResource; } }
}
This 'simulates' inheritance of static fields. Keep in mind, however, that static fields on a generic class are not scoped across all your generic implementations. Each generic implementation has its own instance of the static field. If you want a single static field that is available to all the implementations, then you simply need to add it to your non-generic base class.
How can I inherit static fields in C#?
I know it's been a long time since you asked this, but, note that in the .NET 6 Preview, you can put static abstract members on an interface. (IIRC, this feature won't be in the release for .NET 6, it will be in preview status until .NET 7).
So, you can do something like this:
public interface IBoundedCollection
{
public static abstract int MaximumItemCount { get; }
}
public abstract class BaseCollection
{
public abstract int Count { get; }
public abstract int GetMaximumItemCount();
public abstract BaseCollection CreateUntypedCopy();
}
public abstract class BoundedCollection<TDerived> : BaseCollection
where TDerived : BoundedCollection<TDerived>, IBoundedCollection
{
public override int GetMaximumItemCount() => TDerived.MaximumItemCount;
public abstract TDerived CreateTypedCopy();
public override BaseCollection CreateUntypedCopy()
=> CreateTypedCopy();
}
public class LimitTenCollection : BoundedCollection<LimitTenCollection>, IBoundedCollection
{
public static int MaximumItemCount => 10;
public override int Count { get; }
public override LimitTenCollection CreateTypedCopy() => new LimitTenCollection();
}
Note the following:
You can work with BaseCollection without working with type arguments. For example, you can use Count, GetMaximumItemCount(), and CreateUntypedCopy().
BoundedCollection<TDerived> can provide the implementation for MaximumItemCount since TDerived is constrained to IBoundedCollection
Is there a way?
I need all types that implement a specific interface to have a parameterless constructor, can it be done?
I am developing the base code for other developers in my company to use in a specific project.
There's a proccess which will create instances of types (in different threads) that perform certain tasks, and I need those types to follow a specific contract (ergo, the interface).
The interface will be internal to the assembly
If you have a suggestion for this scenario without interfaces, I'll gladly take it into consideration...
Not to be too blunt, but you've misunderstood the purpose of interfaces.
An interface means that several people can implement it in their own classes, and then pass instances of those classes to other classes to be used. Creation creates an unnecessary strong coupling.
It sounds like you really need some kind of registration system, either to have people register instances of usable classes that implement the interface, or of factories that can create said items upon request.
You can use type parameter constraint
interface ITest<T> where T: new()
{
//...
}
class Test: ITest<Test>
{
//...
}
Juan Manuel said:
that's one of the reasons I don't understand why it cannot be a part of the contract in the interface
It's an indirect mechanism. The generic allows you to "cheat" and send type information along with the interface. The critical thing to remember here is that the constraint isn't on the interface that you are working with directly. It's not a constraint on the interface itself, but on some other type that will "ride along" on the interface. This is the best explanation I can offer, I'm afraid.
By way of illustration of this fact, I'll point out a hole that I have noticed in aku's code. It's possible to write a class that would compile fine but fail at runtime when you try to instantiate it:
public class Something : ITest<String>
{
private Something() { }
}
Something derives from ITest<T>, but implements no parameterless constructor. It will compile fine, because String does implement a parameterless constructor. Again, the constraint is on T, and therefore String, rather than ITest or Something. Since the constraint on T is satisfied, this will compile. But it will fail at runtime.
To prevent some instances of this problem, you need to add another constraint to T, as below:
public interface ITest<T>
where T : ITest<T>, new()
{
}
Note the new constraint: T : ITest<T>. This constraint specifies that what you pass into the argument parameter of ITest<T> must also derive from ITest<T>.
Even so this will not prevent all cases of the hole. The code below will compile fine, because A has a parameterless constructor. But since B's parameterless constructor is private, instantiating B with your process will fail at runtime.
public class A : ITest<A>
{
}
public class B : ITest<A>
{
private B() { }
}
Juan,
Unfortunately there is no way to get around this in a strongly typed language. You won't be able to ensure at compile time that the classes will be able to be instantiated by your Activator-based code.
(ed: removed an erroneous alternative solution)
The reason is that, unfortunately, it's not possible to use interfaces, abstract classes, or virtual methods in combination with either constructors or static methods. The short reason is that the former contain no explicit type information, and the latter require explicit type information.
Constructors and static methods must have explicit (right there in the code) type information available at the time of the call. This is required because there is no instance of the class involved which can be queried by the runtime to obtain the underlying type, which the runtime needs to determine which actual concrete method to call.
The entire point of an interface, abstract class, or virtual method is to be able to make a function call without explicit type information, and this is enabled by the fact that there is an instance being referenced, which has "hidden" type information not directly available to the calling code. So these two mechanisms are quite simply mutually exclusive. They can't be used together because when you mix them, you end up with no concrete type information at all anywhere, which means the runtime has no idea where to find the function you're asking it to call.
So you need a thing that can create instances of an unknown type that implements an interface. You've got basically three options: a factory object, a Type object, or a delegate. Here's the givens:
public interface IInterface
{
void DoSomething();
}
public class Foo : IInterface
{
public void DoSomething() { /* whatever */ }
}
Using Type is pretty ugly, but makes sense in some scenarios:
public IInterface CreateUsingType(Type thingThatCreates)
{
ConstructorInfo constructor = thingThatCreates.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);
return (IInterface)constructor.Invoke(new object[0]);
}
public void Test()
{
IInterface thing = CreateUsingType(typeof(Foo));
}
The biggest problem with it, is that at compile time, you have no guarantee that Foo actually has a default constructor. Also, reflection is a bit slow if this happens to be performance critical code.
The most common solution is to use a factory:
public interface IFactory
{
IInterface Create();
}
public class Factory<T> where T : IInterface, new()
{
public IInterface Create() { return new T(); }
}
public IInterface CreateUsingFactory(IFactory factory)
{
return factory.Create();
}
public void Test()
{
IInterface thing = CreateUsingFactory(new Factory<Foo>());
}
In the above, IFactory is what really matters. Factory is just a convenience class for classes that do provide a default constructor. This is the simplest and often best solution.
The third currently-uncommon-but-likely-to-become-more-common solution is using a delegate:
public IInterface CreateUsingDelegate(Func<IInterface> createCallback)
{
return createCallback();
}
public void Test()
{
IInterface thing = CreateUsingDelegate(() => new Foo());
}
The advantage here is that the code is short and simple, can work with any method of construction, and (with closures) lets you easily pass along additional data needed to construct the objects.
Call a RegisterType method with the type, and constrain it using generics. Then, instead of walking assemblies to find ITest implementors, just store them and create from there.
void RegisterType<T>() where T:ITest, new() {
}
I don't think so.
You also can't use an abstract class for this.
I would like to remind everyone that:
Writing attributes in .NET is easy
Writing static analysis tools in .NET that ensure conformance with company standards is easy
Writing a tool to grab all concrete classes that implement a certain interface/have an attribute and verifying that it has a parameterless constructor takes about 5 mins of coding effort. You add it to your post-build step and now you have a framework for whatever other static analyses you need to perform.
The language, the compiler, the IDE, your brain - they're all tools. Use them!
No you can't do that. Maybe for your situation a factory interface would be helpful? Something like:
interface FooFactory {
Foo createInstance();
}
For every implementation of Foo you create an instance of FooFactory that knows how to create it.
You do not need a parameterless constructor for the Activator to instantiate your class. You can have a parameterized constructor and pass all the parameters from the Activator. Check out MSDN on this.