My winform application contains usercontrols and forms.
Each usercontrol inherits a base usercontrol and each form inherits a base form.
The base usercontrol and the base form contain exactly the same properties and methods because what I want is to manage security and language settings at one single place.
This solution is working but I would like all my controls (usercontrols and forms) to inherit a unique base control in order to have these methods at one single place.
Is there a way to achieve this ?
Thanks !
Inheriting in this case doesn't make much sense from an OO perspective.
I suggest creating "SecurityManager" and "LanguageManager" classes and using them from your base form & usercontrol. They will have a clear role and let you control the logic from a single place.
I've run into this issue before. Unfortunately, since C# doesn't support multiple inheritance, your BaseForm and BaseUserControl cannot inherit from BaseFunctions, and Form and UserControl (respectively).
The work around I use is to create a IBaseFunctions interface with the methods needed and place the functionality in a helper class.
You still have a lot of copy-pasta, but at least it's just the wrapping and not the needed logic.
ex:
public interface IBaseFunctions
{
IUser GetCurrentUser();
void ShowMessage(String message);
}
public class BaseFunctionsHelper : IBaseFunctions
{
public IUser GetCurrentUser()
{
// Get Current User
}
public void ShowMessage(String message)
{
// Show message
}
}
public class BaseForm : Form, IBaseFunctions
{
private readonly IBaseFunctions _helper = new BaseFunctionsHelper();
public IUser GetCurrentUser()
{
return _helper.GetCurrentUser();
}
public void ShowMessage(String message)
{
return _helper.ShowMessage(message);
}
}
public class BaseControl : UserControl, IBaseFunctions
{
private readonly IBaseFunctions _helper = new BaseFunctionsHelper();
public IUser GetCurrentUser()
{
return _helper.GetCurrentUser();
}
public void ShowMessage(String message)
{
return _helper.ShowMessage(message);
}
}
Related
I have a C# Windows Forms Application form1.cs with a Class Library (DLL) called class1.cs. Now on the UI side I do the following:
using System;
...
using System.Windows.Forms;
using ClassLibrary1;
namespace UI
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
MyLibraryClass mlc = null;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
mlc = new MyLibraryClass(this);
}
public void aMethod() {
Console.Write("Test");
}
}
}
In the Class Library I take the Form reference and want to call the method within, but I don't have access to it:
...
using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace ClassLibrary1
{
public class MyLibraryClass
{
private Form _form;
public MyLibraryClass(Form form)
{
this._form = form;
this._form.aMethod(); //Not working!
}
}
}
The reason as I understand it is that my ClassLibrary1 only knows Form but not Form1 and hence cannot call methods from Form1. The problem is, the UI knows the Class Library but not the other way around, since that would create a ring dependency as you certainly know. But how can I solve this problem?
Instead depeding of Form you can create an interface.
public interface IMyInterface {
void aMethod();
}
Form1 will implement the interface we created
public partial class Form1 : Form, IMyInterface
{
MyLibraryClass mlc = null;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
mlc = new MyLibraryClass(this);
}
public void aMethod() {
Console.Write("Test");
}
}
In MyLibraryClass now you will depend on the interface not the form. This way MyLibraryClass can use any form that respect the contract and we make sure that in MyClassLibrary will never be passed any intruder form.
public class MyLibraryClass
{
private IMyInterface _form;
public MyLibraryClass(IMyInterface form)
{
this._form = form;
this._form.aMethod(); // now is work :)
}
}
Notes:
The interface will be created in Class Library project (where MyClassLibrary is created).
I recommend you to take a look on SOLID principles.
Circular dependencies are something you will want to avoid whenever possible, but let's assume you still need this.
The easiest solution would be to put the MyLibraryClass and Form1 in the namespace, so you can replace the Form type parameter with a Form1. If you want to keep things nicely separate however, you will have to add a new type.
In you library you would have to add an interface that contains that method.
public interface IMyInterface
{
void aMethod();
}
If you then change the parameter to an IMyInterface instead, you have access to that method. If you need access to normal Form methods or the aMethod is always the same, you could opt for an abstract class that inherits from Form too.
Depend upon Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions
public interface IMethod
{
void aMethod();
}
public partial class Form1 : Form,IMethod
public MyLibraryClass(IMethod form)
{
this._form = form;
this._form.aMethod();
}
If you can, you should enforce statically the Form1 class in the argument list:
public MyLibraryClass(Form1 form)
{
// ...
}
If you cannot (which is often the case when several assemblies are used) you should test and cast dynamically:
public MyLibraryClass(Form form)
{
if (form is Form1)
{
(form as Form1).aMethod();
}
}
BUT YOU REALLY SHOULD honor the DIP (Dependency inversion principle), instead: depend from abstractions. Implement an interface and depend from that instead of Form1.
But if you've had the issue in the first place, you probably haven't cleared out for yourself how dependencies are organized between assemblies or, worse, don't know exactly why some answers propose to use interfaces.
Read the link above to know more about why, because your problem really is not about HOW but WHY.
I have several UserControls that are sharing some common properties. Example:
private List<MyObject> Sample
{
get
{
return Session["MyObject"] as List<MyObject>;
}
set
{
Session["MyObject"] = value;
}
}
I want to share this to all user controls inside my project. (Not to other projects in a solution, of course). What I'm trying to do is create a separate class and inherit from that class. Something like:
public class SampleBase : Web.UI.UserControl
{
protected List<MyObject> Sample
{
get
{
return Session["MyObject"] as List<MyObject>;
}
set
{
Session["MyObject"] = value;
}
}
}
And then my control can inherit those values by deriving from that class:
partial class myControl : SampleBase
One problem I encounter is that I cannot derive from base if control already has something inherited:
partial class myControl : SomethingELSE
Otherwise it works fine, but I'm not sure if it is a good approach and I'm looking for suggestions.
If my understanding is correct, you only want to get rid of the inheritance hierarchy of your User Controls
Another approach would be using Extension Methods
For example:
Interface to mark your USerControls
public interface IMyUserControlMark { }
Extensions
public static class MyUserClassExtensions
{
public static List<object> GetSampleData(this IMyUserControlMark myUserControl)
{
if (HttpContext.Current.Session["MyObject"] == null)
{
return Enumerable.Empty<object>().ToList();
}
return HttpContext.Current.Session["MyObject"] as List<object>;
}
public static void SetSampleData(this IMyUserControlMark myUserControl, List<object> myObject)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session["MyObject"] = myObject;
}
}
User control
public partial class Content1 : System.Web.UI.UserControl, IMyUserControlMark
{
...
}
public partial class Content2 : System.Web.UI.UserControl, IMyUserControlMark
{
....
}
Now you will be able to call your extension methods from within your UserControl or from the ASPX code behind like this:
From the UserControl
var myObject = this.GetSampleData();
this.SetSampleData(myObject);
From the ASPX code behind
var myObject = this.uc1.GetSampleData();
this.uc1.SetSampleData(myObject);
This is a classic example where you need to "favor composition over inheritance".
Instead of inheriting from the class, you hold a reference to an instance of the class. Then you provide simple pass-through code to access the methods/properties of the class.
So, for your example:
public class SomeBehavior
{
public List<MyObject> Sample
{
get { return Session["MyObject"] as List<MyObject>; }
set { Session["MyObject"] = value; }
}
}
public class MyControl : UserControl
{
private SomeBehavior _someBehavior;
public MyControl()
{
_someBehavior = new SomeBehavior();
}
public List<MyObject> Sample
{
get { return _someBehavior.Sample; }
set { _someBehavior.Sample = value; }
}
}
Another option is to allow access to the behavior class directly:
public class MyControl : UserControl
{
public SomeBehavior SomeBehavior { get; private set; }
public MyControl()
{
SomeBehavior = new SomeBehavior();
}
}
The advantage of this is that you don't have to write the pass-through code. The disadvantage is that it violates the Law of Demeter, which says that you should "only talk to your immediate friends". If you do it this way, other classes that use MyControl need to know about SomeBehavior. Following the Law Of Demeter can improve maintainability and adaptability of your code, but it comes at a cost of lots of pass-through code.
Apart from previous solutions, maybe it's time for applying some MVC/MVP pattern?
For web forms there is a great framework called WebFormsMVP: link
In the library there is a mechanism called Cross Presenter Messaging thanks to which you can share a data between your controls using the publish/subscribe pattern.
For better explanation look here and here
I suggest to give the library a chance :)
In C# you can inherit from only one class and implement multiple interfaces.
This is allowed:
partial class myControl : SampleBase
partial class myControl : SampleBase, Interface1
partial class myControl : SampleBase, Interface1, Interface2, Interface3
This is NOT allowed:
partial class myControl : SomethingELSE, SampleBase
Try making SomethingELSE inherit from SampleBase if it satisfies your design. If not, then I suggest encapsulating SampleBase as a property of each control that needs it as it also suggested #DanM.
How can I call aspx content page methods from usercontrol?
Probably the cleanest solution is to extract an interface containing the methods that must be called from the UserControl, and then pass the interface from the page to the control, e.g:
public interface ISomeService
{
void Method1();
bool Method2();
}
public class MyContentPage : Page, ISomeService
{
void Method1() { ... }
bool Method2() { ... }
override OnLoad(...)
{
TheUserControl.SetService(this as ISomeService);
}
}
public class MyUserControl : UserControl
{
public void SetService(ISomeService service)
{
_service = service;
}
private void SomeOtherMethod()
{
_service.Method1();
}
}
Another variation would be to simply require the page containing the user control to implement the required interface. This makes the SetService() method unneeded:
public class MyUserControl : UserControl
{
private void SomeOtherMethod()
{
// page must implement ISomeService, throws an exception otherwise
(Page as ISomeService).Method1();
}
}
You are most likely creating a very bad design at this point. If it needs to have access to its parent, it probably shouldn't be a UserControl. Are you sure you can't just add an event handler to your usercontrol that the parent page calls on certain events?
That said, your UserControl will have the .Page property you can cast to get your parent page. Again, it's probably a very bad idea and you should revisit your design.
Is it possible in C# to have a class that implement an interface that has 10 methods declared but implementing only 5 methods i.e defining only 5 methods of that interface??? Actually I have an interface that is implemented by 3 class and not all the methods are used by all the class so if I could exclude any method???
I have a need for this. It might sound as a bad design but it's not hopefully.
The thing is I have a collection of User Controls that needs to have common property and based on that only I am displaying them at run time. As it's dynamic I need to manage them for that I'm having Properties. Some Properties are needed by few class and not by all. And as the control increases this Properties might be increasing so as needed by one control I need to have in all without any use. just the dummy methods. For the same I thought if there is a way to avoid those methods in rest of the class it would be great. It sounds that there is no way other than having either the abstract class or dummy functions :-(
You can make it an abstract class and add the methods you don't want to implement as abstract methods.
In other words:
public interface IMyInterface
{
void SomeMethod();
void SomeOtherMethod();
}
public abstract class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
// Really implementing this
public void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
}
// Derived class must implement this
public abstract void SomeOtherMethod();
}
If these classes all need to be concrete, not abstract, then you'll have to throw a NotImplementedException/NotSupportedException from inside the methods. But a much better idea would be to split up the interface so that implementing classes don't have to do this.
Keep in mind that classes can implement multiple interfaces, so if some classes have some of the functionality but not all, then you want to have more granular interfaces:
public interface IFoo
{
void FooMethod();
}
public interface IBar()
{
void BarMethod();
}
public class SmallClass : IFoo
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
}
public class BigClass : IFoo, IBar
{
public void FooMethod() { ... }
public void BarMethod() { ... }
}
This is probably the design you really should have.
Your breaking the use of interfaces. You should have for each common behaviour a seperate interface.
That is not possible. But what you can do is throw NotSupportedException or NotImplementedException for the methods you do not want to implement. Or you could use an abstract class instead of an interface. That way you could provide a default implementation for methods you choose not to override.
public interface IMyInterface
{
void Foo();
void Bar();
}
public class MyClass : IMyInterface
{
public void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Foo");
}
public void Bar()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
Or...
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public virtual void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyBaseClass.Foo");
}
public virtual void Bar()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class MyClass : MyBaseClass
{
public override void Foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("MyClass.Foo");
}
}
While I agree with #PoweRoy, you probably need to break your interface up into smaller parts you can probably use explicit interfaces to provider a cleaner public API to your interface implementations.
Eg:
public interface IPet
{
void Scratch();
void Bark();
void Meow();
}
public class Cat : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
public void Meow()
{
Console.WriteLine("Mew mew mew!");
}
void IPet.Bark()
{
throw NotSupportedException("Cats don't bark!");
}
}
public class Dog : IPet
{
public void Scratch()
{
Console.WriteLine("Wreck furniture!");
}
void IPet.Meow()
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Dogs don't meow!");
}
public void Bark()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof! Woof!");
}
}
With the classes defined above:
var cat = new Cat();
cat.Scrach();
cat.Meow();
cat.Bark(); // Does not compile
var dog = new Dog();
dog.Scratch();
dog.Bark();
dog.Meow(); // Does not compile.
IPet pet = new Dog();
pet.Scratch();
pet.Bark();
pet.Meow(); // Compiles but throws a NotSupportedException at runtime.
// Note that the following also compiles but will
// throw NotSupportedException at runtime.
((IPet)cat).Bark();
((IPet)dog).Meow();
You can simply have the methods you don't want to impliment trow a 'NotImplementedException'. That way you can still impliment the interface as normal.
No, it isn't. You have to define all methods of the interface, but you are allowed to define them as abstract and leave the implementation to any derived class. You can't compile a class that says that implements an interface when in fact it doesn't.
Here is a simple stupid example of what I meant by different interfaces for different purposes. There is no interface for common properties as it would complicate example. Also this code lacks of many other good stuff (like suspend layout) to make it more clear. I haven't tried to compile this code so there might be a lot of typos but I hope that idea is clear.
interface IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
//check box that controls whether current control is visible
CheckBox VisibleCheckBox {get;}
}
class MySuperDuperUserControl : UserControl, IConfigurableVisibilityControl
{
private readonly CheckBox _visibleCheckBox = new CheckBox();
public CheckBox VisibleCheckBox
{
get { return _visibleCheckBox; }
}
//other important stuff
}
//somewhere else
void BuildSomeUi(Form f, ICollection<UserControl> controls)
{
//Add "configuration" controls to special panel somewhere on the form
Panel configurationPanel = new Panel();
Panel mainPanel = new Panel();
//do some other lay out stuff
f.Add(configurationPanel);
f.Add(mainPanel);
foreach(UserControl c in controls)
{
//check whether control is configurable
IConfigurableOptionalControl configurableControl = c as IConfigurableVisibilityControl;
if(null != configurableControl)
{
CheckBox visibleConfigCB = configurableControl.VisibleCheckBox;
//do some other lay out stuff
configurationPanel.Add(visibleConfigCB);
}
//do some other lay out stuff
mainPanel.Add(c);
}
}
Let your Interface be implemented in an abstract class. The abstract class will implement 5 methods and keep remaining methods as virtual. All your 3 classes then should inherit from the abstract class. This was your client-code that uses 3 classes won't have to change.
I want to add dynamically the control to my form as I have that as my requirement. I found the code from here. I edited it as I needed. So I have the IService class that has the common properties. This is implemented by the User Controls. Which are shown at runtime in different project. Hmmm for that I have different common interface that has properties which are used by the project for displaying the controls. Few controls need some extra methods or peoperties for instance to implement a context menu based on user selection at runtime. i.e the values are there in the project which will be passed as the properties to the control and it will be displayed. Now this menu is there only for one control rest of them don't have this. So I thought if there is a way to not to have those methods in all class rather than one class. But it sounds that I need to either go for dummy methods or abstract class. hmmm dummy methods would be more preferable to me than the abstract class :-(
By implementing one of the SOLID principle which is "Interface Segregation Principle" in which Interface is broken into mutiple interfaces.
Apart from the above excellent suggestions on designing interfaces, if you really need to have implementation of some of the methods,an option is to use 'Extension methods'. Move the methods that need implementation outside of your interface. Create another static class that implements these as static methods with the first parameter as 'this interfaceObject'. This is similar to extension methods used in LINQ for IEnumerable interface.
public static class myExtension {
public static void myMethod( this ImyInterface obj, ... ) { .. }
...
}
I need to add shared functionality to both Forms and UserControls. Since multiple inheritance isn't supported in .net I wonder how I best tackle this?
The shared functionality is a dictionary that is filled by the form or usercontrol and then processed.
Regards
public class SharedFunctionality
{
public void ImportantToCallThisOnLoad();
}
public class MyForm : Form
{
SharedFunctionality mySharedFunctionality = new SharedFunctionality();
public void OnLoad()
{
mySharedFunctionality.ImportantToCallThisOnLoad();
}
}
public class MyControl : Control
{
SharedFunctionality mySharedFunctionality = new SharedFunctionality();
public void OnLoad()
{
mySharedFunctionality.ImportantToCallThisOnLoad();
}
}
Instead of having the Forms & UserControls inherit from a base class can you encapsulate the logic inside of a self contained object so that each form will new up? Then you can limit in the base class just the instantion and interaction with this object which hopefuly is minimal so having it done twice isn't a big deal.