Develop Reference

Is there another way to change the return type of a static method of an abstract class based on the derived class type in C#?

Edit: The main purpose of this question is to gain a deeper understanding of C# and OOP in general. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to solve a specific problem with this code, but instead just trying to understand how everything works.
I have a way to do this, but I'm wondering if there is another way to do it.
public abstract class ModelBase
{
private const string ERROR = "Error";
public string Status { get; set; }
public string StatusDescription { get; set; }
public static T Error<T>(string errorDescription)
where T : ModelBase, new()
{
var model = new T
{
Status = ERROR,
StatusDescription = errorDescription
};
return model;
}
}
And then to call it:
return ModelBase.Error<ApplicationInit>("Failed to retrieve application segment.");
Where "ApplicationInit" is a derived class of ModelBase.
What would be super cool is if instead, I could call:
return ApplicationInit.Error("Failed to retrieve application segment.");
...And the code would be able to just tell what the derived class is.
IDK, maybe that's not possible...

No. When you declare a static method, there is only one version* of it. The call ModelBase.Error<ApplicationInit>("") and the call ApplicationInit.Error<ApplicationInit>("") will both compile to the exact same bytecode, and a good set of analyzers will flag the latter with a warning.
You can shadow Error with a new static method in ApplicationInit, but that would be a manual process for each new subclass. There is no way^ to generalize it more than you already have.
* A generic method can produce different bytecode for different type parameters, but all such methods are static members of ModelBase, and not any subclass.
^ You could write a source generator to generate these static methods, but that is a lot more work than just using the generic ModelBase.Error<T> method directly.

How to define virtual method with return type which is not void in C#

This might sound like a dumb question, but I need to write a virtual method that is being overridden by inherited class. I don't need the virtual method to have any code, since this method is fully dependent on inherited class, therefore all code will be in the override methods.
However, the method has a return type that is not void. If I keep the virtual method empty it would give me an error "no all path return a value".
The only solution I came up with was to implement the virtual method with returning a dummy empty string, but I don't feel this is the best way. Is there any other way to define a virtual method with return type?
Edit:
Even most answers were correct in their own way, they did not help in my case, therefore I am adding snippets of the code which shows why I need to create instance of the base class, and why I can't use interface, or abstract:
//base class
public class Parser
{
public virtual string GetTitle()
{
return "";
}
}
//sub class
public class XYZSite : Parser
{
public override string GetTitle()
{
//do something
return title;
}
}
// in my code I am trying to create a dynamic object
Parser siteObj = new Parser();
string site = "xyz";
switch (site)
{
case "abc":
feedUrl = "www.abc.com/rss";
siteObj = new ABCSite();
break;
case "xyz":
feedUrl = "www.xzy.com/rss";
siteObj = new XYZSite();
break;
}
//further work with siteObj, this is why I wanted to initialize it with base class,
//therefore it won't break no matter what inherited class it was
siteObj.GetTitle();
I know the way I cast Parser object to Site object doesn't seem very optimal, but this is the only way it worked for me, so Please feel free to correct any thing you find wrong in my code.
Edit (Solution)
I followed the advice of many of replies by using interface and abstract. However it only worked for me when I changed the base class to abstract along with all its methods, and inherited the base class from the interface, and then inherited the sub classes from the base class. That way only I could make sure that all classes have the same methods, which can help me generate variant object in runtime.
Public interface IParser
{
string GetTitle();
}
Public abstract class Parser : IParser
{
public abstract string GetTitle();
}
Public class XYZ : Parser
{
public string GetTitle();
{
//actual get title code goes here
}
}
//in my web form I declare the object as follows
IParser siteObj = null;
...
//depending on a certain condition I cast the object to specific sub class
siteObj = new XYZ();
...
//only now I can use GetTitle method regardless of type of object
siteObj.GetTitle();
I am giving the credit to CarbineCoder since he was the one who put enough effort to take me the closest to the right solution. Yet I thank everyone for the contribution.

You can throw NotImplementedException instead of returning object:
public virtual object Method()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
But if you are not implementing anything in virtual method you can create abstract instead of virtual:
public abstract object Method();
Edit:
Another option is to create interface for it.
public interface IMethods
{
object Method();
}
And make your classes children of this interface.

you need to use abstract here. The abstract modifier indicates that the thing being modified has a missing or incomplete implementation.
public abstract returntype MethodName();
But as you say, 'since this method is fully dependent on inherited class, therefore all code will be in the override methods', than if you are really going to override the functionality of the method in inherited class, why do you care if the method returns dummy or stuff? (e.g: you can make it virtual and get going)
Edit: as you cannot mark class as abstract, you can use virtual method instead.
public virtual returntype MethodName()
{
.....
return xyz;
}
(just for info: An abstract member is implicitly virtual. and abstract is sort of pure virtual. so you need virtual, instead of pure virtual)

Since other answers have discussed about abstract/virtual implementation, I am suggesting my own version.
There is a contradiction in your requirement.
You want a base class which is not an abstract but it has a method which is not implemented. Don't you think this unimplemented method will make the class incomplete and end up making it an abstract one even though you haven't explicitly said so?
So lets assume your class will never be an abstract class and its perfectly reasonable to have it as a normal class. Does it make sense to remove this method from the class altogether and move it to an interface?
Can you try extracting this method and put it into an interface.
interface NewInterface
{
string NewMethod();
}
public BaseClass
{
...
}
public DerivedClass : BaseClass, NewInterface
{
public string NewMethod
{
...
}
}
If you can do this, then you need not have to worry about the base class being abstract/ having NotImplemented exception, only downside is every derived class should implement this interface, but thats the point of making the base class non-abstract.
I don't see any problem in implementing Abstract BaseClass/ Interface for your approach. Both are supposed to be the solution for your problem.
//Parser siteObj = new Parser(); - Dont initialize it here,
//your are initializing it once more below
NewIterface siteObj;
string site = "xyz";
switch (site)
{
case "abc":
feedUrl = "www.abc.com/rss";
siteObj = new ABCSite();
break;
case "xyz":
feedUrl = "www.xzy.com/rss";
siteObj = new XYZSite();
break;
}

Why would you mask a base class member?

I have just learned how to mask a base class member (using new) but am missing the point as to why I would want to do that. Does masking provide us with a certain level of protection as is the case in using encapsulation? Please advise.

You will very rarely use "new" to mask a base class member.
It's mainly used for the cases where the derived class had the member first, and then it was added to the base class --- the same name for a different purpose. The new is there to that you acknowledge that you know you are using it differently. When a base member is added in C++, it just silently merges the existing method into the inheritance chain. In C#, you will have to choose between new and override, to show you know what is happening.

It's not just used for masking. It actually breaks the inheritance chain, so if you call the base class method, the method in the derived class will not be called (just the one in the base class).
You're essentially creating a new method that has nothing to do with the base class method. Hence the "new" keyword.
Keeping that in mind the "new" keyword can be used if you want to define a method with the same signature as a base type method, but having a different return type.

The only valid safe examples that I've come across is being more specific with return types or providing a set accessor on a property. I'm not saying those are the only ones, but that's all I've found.
For example, suppose you have a very simple base that looks like this:
public abstract class Base
{
public string Name { get; protected set; }
public Base(string name)
{ Name = name; }
}
You could have a derived that looks more like this:
public class Derived : Base
{
public new string Name
{
get { return base.Name; }
set { base.Name = value; }
}
public Derived(string name) : base(name)
{ }
}
Assuming business rules allows this one specific Derived to have a changeable name, I believe this is acceptable. The problem with new is that it changes behavior depending on what type the instance is viewed as. For example, if I were to say:
Derived d = new Derived("Foo");
d.Name = "Bar";
Base b = d;
b.Name = "Baz"; // <-- No set available.
In this trivial example, we're fine. We are overriding the behavior with new, but not in a breaking way. Changing return types requires a bit more finesse. Namely, if you use new to change a return type on a derived type, you shouldn't allow that type to be set by the base. Check out this example:
public class Base
{
public Base(Base child)
{ Child = child; }
public Base Child { get; private set; }
}
public class Derived
{
public Derived(Derived child) : base(child)
{ }
public new Derived Child
{ get { return (Derived)base.Child; } }
}
If I could set Child on the Base class, I could have a casting problem in the Derived class. Another example:
Derived d = new Derived(someDerivedInstance);
Base b = d;
var c = b.Child; // c is of type Base
var e = d.Child; // e is of type Derived
I can't break any business rules by treating all of my Derived classes as Bases, it's just convenient to not type check and cast.

I have just learned how to mask a base class member (using new)
FYI this feature is usually called "hiding" rather than "masking". I think of "masking" as clearing bits in a bit array.
am missing the point as to why I would want to do that.
Normally you don't want to. For some reasons to use and not use this feature, see my article on the subject from 2008:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/05/21/method-hiding-apologia.aspx
Does masking provide us with a certain level of protection as is the case in using encapsulation?
No, it does not.

What you are referring to is called Name Hiding. It is mostly a convenience feature. If you are inheriting from a class for which you do not control the source using new will let you change the behavior of a method even if it wasn't declared as virtual (or completely change the signature if it is virtual). The new keyword simply suppresses a compiler warning. You are basically informing the compiler that you are intentionally hiding the method from a parent class.
Delphi had the reintroduce keyword for the same reason.
What does this buy you other than a suppressed warning? Not a whole lot. You can't access the new method from a parent class. You can access it from an interface if your child class directly implements the interface (as apposed to inheriting it from its parent class). You can still call the parent class' member from the child. Any additional descendants of your class will inherit the new member rather than the one in the parent.

This is actually called member hiding. There are a couple of common scenarios where this can be appropriately used.
It allows you to work around versioning issues in which either the base or derived class author unwittingly creates a member name that collides with an existing identifier.
It can be used to simulate covariance on return types.
Regarding the first point...it is possible that an author of a base class could later add a member with the same name as an exisiting member in a derived class. The base class author may not have an knowledge of the derived classes and thus there is no expectation that she should avoid name collisions. C# supports the independent evolution of class hierarchies using the hiding mechanisms.
Regarding the second point...you may want a class to implement an interface that dictates a certain method signature and so you are locked into returning instances of a certain type only while at the same time you have subclassed that type and would really like for callers to see the concrete type instead. Consider this example.
public interface IFoo { }
public class ConcreteFoo { }
public abstract class Base
{
private IFoo m_Foo;
public Base(IFoo x) { m_Foo = x; }
public IFoo Foo { get { return m_Foo; } }
}
public class Derived
{
public Derived(ConcreteFoo x) : base(x) { }
public new ConcreteFoo Foo { get { return (ConcreteFoo)base.Foo; } }
}

How to make 2 incompatible types, but with the same members, interchangeable?

Yesterday 2 of the guys on our team came to me with an uncommon problem. We are using a third-party component in one of our winforms applications. All the code has already been written against it. They then wanted to incorporate another third-party component, by the same vender, into our application. To their delight they found that the second component had the exact same public members as the first. But to their dismay, the 2 components have completely separate inheritance hierarchies, and implement no common interfaces. Makes you wonder... Well, makes me wonder.
An example of the problem:
Incompatible Types http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/f9f6b862f1.png
public class ThirdPartyClass1
{
public string Name
{
get
{
return "ThirdPartyClass1";
}
}
public void DoThirdPartyStuff ()
{
Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass1 is doing its thing.");
}
}
public class ThirdPartyClass2
{
public string Name
{
get
{
return "ThirdPartyClass2";
}
}
public void DoThirdPartyStuff ()
{
Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass2 is doing its thing.");
}
}
Gladly they felt copying and pasting the code they wrote for the first component was not the correct answer. So they were thinking of assigning the component instant into an object reference and then modifying the code to do conditional casts after checking what type it was. But that is arguably even uglier than the copy and paste approach.
So they then asked me if I can write some reflection code to access the properties and call the methods off the two different object types since we know what they are, and they are exactly the same. But my first thought was that there goes the elegance. I figure there has to be a better, graceful solution to this problem.

My first question was, are the 2 third-party component classes sealed? They were not. At least we have that.
So, since they are not sealed, the problem is solvable in the following way:
Extract a common interface out of the coinciding members of the 2 third-party classes. I called it Icommon.
public interface ICommon
{
string Name
{
get;
}
void DoThirdPartyStuff ();
}
Then create 2 new classes; DerivedClass1 and DerivedClass2 that inherit from ThirdPartyClass1 and ThirdPartyClass2 respectively. These 2 new classes both implement the ICommon interface, but are otherwise completely empty.
public class DerivedClass1
: ThirdPartyClass1, ICommon
{
}
public class DerivedClass2
: ThirdPartyClass2, ICommon
{
}
Now, even though the derived classes are empty, the interface is satisfied by the base classes, which is where we extracted the interface from in the first place.
The resulting class diagram looks like this.
alt text http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/988cadf318.png
So now, instead of what we previously had:
ThirdPartyClass1 c1 = new ThirdPartyClass1 ();
c1. DoThirdPartyStuff ();
We can now do:
ICommon common = new DerivedClass1 ();
common. DoThirdPartyStuff ();
And the same can be done with DerivedClass2.
The result is that all our existing code that referenced an instance of ThirdPartyClass1 can be left as is, by just swapping out the ThirdPartyClass1 reference for a ICommon reference. The ICommon reference could then be given an instance of DerivedClass1 or DerivedClass2, which of course in turn inherits from ThirdPartyClass1 and ThirdPartyClass2 respectively. And all just works.
I do not know if there is a specific name for this, but to me it looks like a variant of the adaptor pattern.
Perhaps we could have solve the problem with the dynamic types in C# 4.0, but that would have not had the benefit of compile-time checking.
I would be very interested to know if anybody else has another elegant way of solving this problem.

If you're using .Net 4 you can avoid having to do alot of this as the dynamic type can help with what you want. However if using .Net 2+ there is another (different way) of achieving this:
You can use a duck typing library like the one from Deft Flux to treat your third party classes as if they implemented an interface.
For example:
public interface ICommonInterface
{
string Name { get; }
void DoThirdPartyStuff();
}
//...in your code:
ThirdPartyClass1 classWeWishHadInterface = new ThirdPartyClass1()
ICommonInterface classWrappedAsInterface = DuckTyping.Cast<ICommonInterface>(classWeWishHadInterface);
classWrappedAsInterface.DoThirdPartyStuff();
This avoids having to build derived wrapper classes manually for all those classes - and will work as long as the class has the same members as the interface

What about some wrappers?
public class ThirdPartyClass1 {
public string Name {
get {
return "ThirdPartyClass1";
}
}
public void DoThirdPartyStuff() {
Console.WriteLine("ThirdPartyClass1 is doing its thing.");
}
}
public interface IThirdPartyClassWrapper {
public string Name { get; }
public void DoThirdPartyStuff();
}
public class ThirdPartyClassWrapper1 : IThirdPartyClassWrapper {
ThirdPartyClass1 _thirdParty;
public string Name {
get { return _thirdParty.Name; }
}
public void DoThirdPartyStuff() {
_thirdParty.DoThirdPartyStuff();
}
}
...and the same for ThirdPartyClass2, then you use the wrapper interface in all your methods.

Add an interface. You could add one wrapper (that implements the interface) for each of the 3rd parties.
Anyway, if you have the code of those 3rd parties, you could skip the wrapper thing and directly implement the interface. I'm quite sure you don't have the source, though.

What are some real-world examples of abstract new/virtual/override/abstract keywords?

I'm moving from PHP to C#.
In PHP it was simple and straightforward to use abstract classes to create a "cascading override" pattern, basically "the base class method will take care of it unless the inheriting class has a method with the same signature".
In C#, however, I just spent about 20 minutes trying out various combinations of the keywords new, virtual, abstract, and override in the base and inheriting classes until I finally got the right combination which does this simple cascading override pattern.
So even those the code below works the way I want it, these added keywords suggest to me that C# can do much more with abstract classes. I've looked up examples of these keywords and understand basically what they do, but still can't imagine a real scenario in which I would use them other than this simple "cascading override" pattern. What are some real world ways that you implement these keywords in your day-to-day programming?
code that works:
using System;
namespace TestOverride23433
{
public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string[] dataTypeIdCodes = { "line", "wn" };
for (int index = 0; index < dataTypeIdCodes.Length; index++)
{
DataType dataType = DataType.Create(dataTypeIdCodes[index]);
Console.WriteLine(dataType.GetBuildItemBlock());
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public abstract class DataType
{
public static DataType Create(string dataTypeIdCode)
{
switch (dataTypeIdCode)
{
case "line":
return new DataTypeLine();
case "wn":
return new DataTypeWholeNumber();
default:
return null;
}
}
//must be defined as virtual
public virtual string GetBuildItemBlock()
{
return "GetBuildItemBlock executed in the default datatype class";
}
}
public class DataTypeLine : DataType
{
public DataTypeLine()
{
Console.WriteLine("DataTypeLine just created.");
}
}
public class DataTypeWholeNumber : DataType
{
public DataTypeWholeNumber()
{
Console.WriteLine("DataTypeWholeNumber just created.");
}
//new public override string GetBuildItemBlock() //base method is erroneously executed
//public override string GetBuildItemBlock() //gets error "cannot override inherited member because it is not marked virtual, abstract, or override"
public override string GetBuildItemBlock()
{
return "GetBuildItemBlock executed in the WHOLENUMBER class.";
}
}
}

virtual/override is the core polymorphism pair; sounds like you've already cracked these
abstract is like virtual, but there is no sensible base implementation; use-cases: perhaps a Stream, where it is necessary for the actual implementation to do something with the bytes. This forces the class to be abstract
new should usually be avoided; it breaks polymorphism... the most common case is to re-expose with a more specific signature / return-type (perhaps in a sealed class, since it doesn't get prettier up the chain...) - see SqlConnection.CreateCommand (vs DbConnection.CreateCommand), or (perhaps more notably) IEnumerator<T>.Current (vs IEnumerator.Current)

It appears you have already figured out virtual and override from your example, so:
'abstract' can also be applied on members instead of 'virtual', in which case you do not specify an implementation for the method (';' directly after the signature). This forces all concrete descendants to implement the method.
'new' has nothing to do with inheritance, but can instead be used in a descendant class on a member to hide a member in the base class that has the exact same signature.
In a nutshell ;)

Further to the other answers.
Overrride for when you wish to allow child classes to perform their own processing, no processing or even just call the parent class processing for a function. An override or virtual function does not have to be implemented in descendent classes.
Abstract when you don't wish to perform any processing in your base class but want that method to be implemented by any inheriting class. (Best when the inheriting class behaviour can differ drastically). If a class contains nothing but abstract methods then it is effectively an interface type. A function specified as abstract MUST be implemented in the child class (the compiler will throw an error if not).