I have static variables and methods in a class. Will they be inherited in derived classes or not?
For example:
class A
{
public static int x;
public static void m1()
{
some code
}
}
class B:A
{
B b=new B();
b.m1(); // will it be correct or not, or will I have to write
// new public voim1(); or public void m1();
b.x=20; // will it be correct or not?
}
The static members will be available in the derived class, but you can't access them using an instance reference. Either you access them directly:
m1();
x = 20;
or by using the name of the class:
A.m1();
A.x = 20;
The static members will be available, but you won't be able to reference them on the instance. Instead, reference using the type.
E.g.
class B:A
{
public void Foo()
{
A.m1();
A.x=20;
}
}
Static members are available, but you won't be able to reference them on the instance. Hence you must use the class prefix of the superclass. A.m1().
This is in direct contrast to the Java language where you can access static methods and fields using instance references.
A static member is not associated with an instance because its a Class variable or a Class method, you can access it using the class name. It is usually used to retain general Class information for example number of instances created and etc.
Related
Can I access the internal variables outside the class?
If I have an internal variable like this:
Class Example
{
internal string CommonHome = "C:/myfile/";
}
How to access this CommonHome from outside the class or another class?
There is any possible way for accessing this?
internal variable are accessible in current dll only.
You can have look at msdn for this => link
Here is some code snippets from there.
public class BaseClass
{
internal static int intM = 0;
}
public class TestAccess
{
static void Main()
{
BaseClass myBase = new BaseClass(); // Ok.
BaseClass.intM = 444; // CS0117
}
}
You can access the internal members within the assembly you declared them in other classes. Since your inter data member is instance member you need to create instance of Example in a class you want CommonHome
Example ex = new Example();
string s = ex.CommonHome;
You probably need to give type of CommonHome which is string I guess
Class Example
{
internal string CommonHome = "C:/myfile/";
}
You better use property for CommonHome instead of public data member as you may need to apply some business rule later to this. This is a very good post about the properties, Why Properties Matter.
Class Example
{
internal string CommonHome { get; set; }
internal Example()
{
CommonHome = "C:/myfile/";
}
}
The internal keyword is an access modifier for types and type members.
Internal types or members are accessible only within files in the same
assembly, MSDN.
You can read more about access modifiers here.
What's the difference between static classes, and static methods? I want to learn the differences, and when I might use one vs. the other.
For example, I have a class like this:
static class ABC
{
public int a;
public void function_a()
{
a = 10;
}
}
and another class like this:
class DEF
{
public static int a;
public static void function_a()
{
a= 10;
}
}
I have used the second type of class many times, and I know the usage. What's the usage of the first example?
Your first example will not compile, a static class must have all static members.
The difference between just using some static methods and a static class is that you are telling the compiler that the class cannot be instantiated. The second example you can create an object of the DEF class even though there are no instance methods in it. The ABC class cannot be instantiated with the new operator (will get a compile-time error).
When to Use Static Classes
Suppose you have a class CompanyInfo that contains the following methods to get information about the company name and address.
C#
class CompanyInfo
{
public string GetCompanyName() { return "CompanyName"; }
public string GetCompanyAddress() { return "CompanyAddress"; }
//...
}
These methods do not need to be attached to a specific instance of the class. Therefore, instead of creating unnecessary instances of this class, you can declare it as a static class, like this:
C#
static class CompanyInfo
{
public static string GetCompanyName() { return "CompanyName"; }
public static string GetCompanyAddress() { return "CompanyAddress"; }
//...
}
Use a static class as a unit of organization for methods not associated with particular objects. Also, a static class can make your implementation simpler and faster because you do not have to create an object in order to call its methods. It is useful to organize the methods inside the class in a meaningful way, such as the methods of the Math class in the System namespace.
Why we can't use base keyword to use base class methods in static methods?
Both are available at compile time.
class A
{
public virtual void Func(int a=4){
Console.WriteLine(" A Class: "+a);
}
}
class B : A
{
public new void Func(int a = 12)
{
Console.WriteLine(" B Class: "+ a);
}
}
class C : B
{
public static void Func()
{
base.Func(); // why not ????
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
B ob = new C();
ob.Func();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Because base keyword is referring to the base class of the current class instance. But you do not have a current instance in static methods - they are static not instance.
You will be able to call B.Func() if you made the Func() method static in class B.
The C# Language Specification states in section 10.6.4 Override methods (emphasis mine):
A compile-time error occurs unless all of the following are true for an override declaration:
...
The overridden base method is a virtual, abstract, or override method. In other words, the overridden base method cannot be static or non-virtual.
Theoretically, it might be possible to look at the base class of the referenced type. After all, the inheritance relationship between classes is defined on the type, not the instance. For example, if I have class A: B, when presented with A.Foo(), the compiler could look for a static virtual method in B called Foo after looking in class A or for base in A.Foo() to return a list of static methods in B. However, I suspect this is a compiler optimization and language simplification to avoid having to handle references to a list of static methods only and the confusion it would cause.
Inside of a public class:
public static class LogReporting
I have the following method:
public void RunTimerJobs()
{
SPAdministrationWebApplication centralAdmin = SPAdministrationWebApplication.Local;
try
{
foreach (SPService service in centralAdmin.Farm.Services)
{
Guid traceGuid = new Guid("d3beda82-38f4-4bc7-874f-ad45cebc9b35");
Guid eventGuid = new Guid("3ea057b3-0391-4c33-ac8d-412aecdda97d");
var traceJob =
from jobDefinition in service.JobDefinitions
where jobDefinition.Id == traceGuid
select jobDefinition;
if (traceJob != null && traceJob.Count() == 1)
{
traceJob.First().RunNow();
}
var eventJob =
from jobDefinition in service.JobDefinitions
where jobDefinition.Id == eventGuid
select jobDefinition;
if (eventJob != null && eventJob.Count() == 1)
{
eventJob.First().RunNow();
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Loggers.SharePointLogger logger = new Loggers.SharePointLogger();
//logger.WriteTrace(ex.Message, LogProduct.MonitoringView, LogTraceSeverity.Unexpected);
}
However it will not allow me to compile citing that RunTimerJobs() "cannot declare instance members in a static class"
To my knowledge, none of the 'instance members' I declare are able to be labeled as static, so is there just a fundamental issue with the setup (i.e. a static class) or am I missing some little snippet?
Your class is static thus you cannot have any instance members because you will never instantiate the class.
To be able to use the RunTimerJobs() method you would need to create an instance of the LogReporting class, i.e.
LogReporting logReporting = new LogReporting();
logReporting.RunTimerJobs();
This obviously won't work though because your class is defined as static and you cannot create instances of it.
Either make your method static or remove the static keyword from your class declaration - depending on what you require.
I see no instance related logic in your method so it should be safe to mark it as static.
Remember
Classes can have a mixture of instance and static members as long as the class isn't marked static.
And
Only mark classes as static when you know that ALL members (properties, methods etc...) will be static as well.
The compiler's being pretty clear here. You're declaring a static class, and static classes can only contain static members. So this is okay:
public class NonStaticClass
{
public void InstanceMethod() {}
}
And this is okay:
public static class StaticClass
{
public static void StaticMethod() {}
}
But this isn't:
public static class StaticClass
{
public void InstanceMethod() {}
}
If you wanted to declare instance members, why did you declare LogReporting as a static class?
When class marked as static, then all it's members should be static (instances creation is not allowed). You can read more about static classes on msdn.
So, if you want to have instance (non-static) method, then remove static keyword from class definition:
public class LogReporting
{
public void RunTimerJobs()
{
//...
}
}
In this case you should create LogReporting instance to call your method:
LogReporting log = new LogReporting();
log.RunTimerJobs();
Another option for you - making your method static:
public static class LogReporting
{
public static void RunTimerJobs()
{
//...
}
}
In this case you don't need instance of LogReporting:
LogReporting.RunTimerJobs();
Did you try:
public static void RunTimerJobs()
For a static class, the members must also be static. If you are unable make the members static, then you must make the class non-static as well.
It's generally a good idea to use non-static classes if you can, as static classes increase the complexity of unit testing as they cannot be mocked out easily. Of course if you have a legitimate need to use a static class, then by all means do so.
The documentation on static constructors in C# says:
A static constructor is used to
initialize any static data, or to
perform a particular action that needs
performed once only. It is called
automatically before the first
instance is created or any static
members are referenced.
That last part (about when it is automatically called) threw me for a loop; until reading that part I thought that by simply accessing a class in any way, I could be sure that its base class's static constructor had been called. Testing and examining the documentation have revealed that this is not the case; it seems that the static constructor for a base class is not guaranteed to run until a member of that base class specifically is accessed.
Now, I guess in most cases when you're dealing with a derived class, you would construct an instance and this would constitute an instance of the base class being created, thus the static constructor would be called. But if I'm only dealing with static members of the derived class, what then?
To make this a bit more concrete, I thought that the code below would work:
abstract class TypeBase
{
static TypeBase()
{
Type<int>.Name = "int";
Type<long>.Name = "long";
Type<double>.Name = "double";
}
}
class Type<T> : TypeBase
{
public static string Name { get; internal set; }
}
class Program
{
Console.WriteLine(Type<int>.Name);
}
I assumed that accessing the Type<T> class would automatically invoke the static constructor for TypeBase; but this appears not to be the case. Type<int>.Name is null, and the code above outputs the empty string.
Aside from creating some dummy member (like a static Initialize() method that does nothing), is there a better way to ensure that a base type's static constructor will be called before any of its derived types is used?
If not, then... dummy member it is!
You may call static constructor explicity, so you will not have to create any methods for initialization:
System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.RunClassConstructor(typeof (TypeBase).TypeHandle);
You may call it in static constructor of derived class.
As others have noted, your analysis is correct. The spec is implemented quite literally here; since no member of the base class has been invoked and no instance has been created, the static constructor of the base class is not called. I can see how that might be surprising, but it is a strict and correct implementation of the spec.
I don't have any advice for you other than "if it hurts when you do that, don't do that." I just wanted to point out that the opposite case can also bite you:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
D.M();
}
}
class B
{
static B() { Console.WriteLine("B"); }
public static void M() {}
}
class D: B
{
static D() { Console.WriteLine("D"); }
}
This prints "B" despite the fact that "a member of D" has been invoked. M is a member of D solely by inheritance; the CLR has no way of distinguishing whether B.M was invoked "through D" or "through B".
The rules here are very complex, and between CLR 2.0 and CLR 4.0 they actually changed in subtle and interesting ways, that IMO make most "clever" approaches brittle between CLR versions. An Initialize() method also might not do the job in CLR 4.0 if it doesn't touch the fields.
I would look for an alternative design, or perhaps use regular lazy initialization in your type (i.e. check a bit or a reference (against null) to see if it has been done).
In all of my testing, I was only able to get a call to a dummy member on the base to cause the base to call its static constructor as illustrated:
class Base
{
static Base()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base static constructor called.");
}
internal static void Initialize() { }
}
class Derived : Base
{
static Derived()
{
Initialize(); //Removing this will cause the Base static constructor not to be executed.
Console.WriteLine("Derived static constructor called.");
}
public static void DoStaticStuff()
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing static stuff.");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Derived.DoStaticStuff();
}
}
The other option was including a static read-only member in the derived typed that did the following:
private static readonly Base myBase = new Base();
This however feels like a hack (although so does the dummy member) just to get the base static constructor to be called.
I almost alway regret relying on something like this. Static methods and classes can limit you later on. If you wanted to code some special behavior for your Type class later you would be boxed in.
So here is a slight variation on your approach. It is a bit more code but it will allow you to have a custom Type defined later that lets you do custom things.
abstract class TypeBase
{
private static bool _initialized;
protected static void Initialize()
{
if (!_initialized)
{
Type<int>.Instance = new Type<int> {Name = "int"};
Type<long>.Instance = new Type<long> {Name = "long"};
Type<double>.Instance = new Type<double> {Name = "double"};
_initialized = true;
}
}
}
class Type<T> : TypeBase
{
private static Type<T> _instance;
public static Type<T> Instance
{
get
{
Initialize();
return _instance;
}
internal set { _instance = value; }
}
public string Name { get; internal set; }
}
Then later when you get to adding a virtual method to Type and want a special implementation for Type you can implement thus:
class TypeInt : Type<int>
{
public override string Foo()
{
return "Int Fooooo";
}
}
And then hook it up by changing
protected static void Initialize()
{
if (!_initialized)
{
Type<int>.Instance = new TypeInt {Name = "int"};
Type<long>.Instance = new Type<long> {Name = "long"};
Type<double>.Instance = new Type<double> {Name = "double"};
_initialized = true;
}
}
My advice would be to avoid static constructors - it is easy to do. Also avoid static classes and where possible static members. I am not saying never, just sparingly. Prefer a singleton of a class to a static.
Just an idea, you can do something like this:
abstract class TypeBase
{
static TypeBase()
{
Type<int>.Name = "int";
Type<long>.Name = "long";
Type<double>.Name = "double";
}
}
class Type<T> : TypeBase
{
static Type()
{
new Type<object>();
}
public static string Name { get; internal set; }
}
class Program
{
Console.WriteLine(Type<int>.Name);
}