In .NET can a class have virtual constructor?

In .NET can a class have virtual constructor? - c#

Can a class have virtual constructor??
If yes, why it is required?

no, a class cannot have a virtual constructor.
It doesn't make sense to have a virtual constructor. The order in which objects are constructed in C# is by constructing derived classes first, so the derived constructor is always called since the class you want to call is well known at the time of construction.
The other thing is, if you actually type this code out, you can quickly see that it makes very little sense at all
If you had:
public class BaseClass
{
public virtual BaseClass()
{
}
}
and then
public class InheritedClass : BaseClass
{
//overrides baseclass constructor but why would you do this given that the
//constructor is always going to be called anyway??
public override InheritedClass()
{
}
}

A virtual method is by definition a method which is dispatched based on runtime type analysis of the receiver, not the compile-time static type analysis of the receiver.
A constructor is a method called when a new instance of a particular type is created.
Since the runtime type of a newly created object is always the same (*) as its compile-time type, there is no need for virtual constructors: the runtime dispatch would always choose the same method as the static dispatch, so why bother making a difference?
(*) This is not entirely true; there are scenarios involving COM interop in which the runtime type of a construction is not the compile-time type. Many things are weird in the world of legacy interop code.

Not directly, but the classic Gang of Four pattern Factory Method achieves what would amount to a virtual constructor of sorts, by deferring instantiation to subclasses.

No, how would it work? All constructors in the hierarchy have to be called when you derive child classes from base classes. Making a constructor virtual would imply otherwise.
Something that may be described as having virtual constructor like behaviour, is when you use the factory pattern. Imagine this scenario:
class AnimalFactory
{
virtual Animal CreateAnimal( return new Animal("Cow"); );
}
The default behaviour of this factory is to create cows. But if we create a derived class:
class DogFactory : AnimnalFactory
{
override Animal CreateAnimal( return new Animal("Dog"); );
}
We are now creating dogs. Of course this is not a true virtual constructor (which is impossible), this is virtual construction.

Declaring something virtual means that it can be overridden by a sub-class of the current class. However the constructor is called when a class is instantiated. At that time you can not be creating a subclass of the class in question so there would never be any need to declare a constructor virtual.

If we look at the definitions of the word constructor and virtual we came to a logical conclusion that a constructor can't be virtual.

Just FYI when people are asking for virtual constructors a very good pattern to look into is InversionOfControl
In .NET we have a couple of IoC containers such as ObjectBuilder, Unity, MEF, Spring.NET. In Java (with risk of showing off my Java incompetence) there's Spring, Tapestry and many others.
IMHO IoC is what makes OO deliver on its promises.

For a flexibility of construction an abstract factory can be used. Lets say we have:
class A {}
class B : A {}
with abstract construction:
class AbstractFactoryA
{
abstract A Create();
}
class AbstractFactoryB
{
override A Create() //or B if language support covariant returns
{
...
var result = new B(args)
...
return result;
}
}
and template construction:
class TemplateFactoryA
{
TemplateCreate()
{
...
InternalCreate(args)
...
}
abstract InternalCreate();
}
Constructors execution works in the form of:
ctor()
{
base.ctor()
...
}
but with exact class.
Is there an language that support abstract factory pattern hidden in syntax sugar. It can be very useful. At the end ctor is a method :)

Related

Why cannot ceate an abstract class instance but can invoke its constructor?

I know we cannot create an abstract class instance, but I cannot understand why could use base invoke the constructor of the abstract class.
abstract class Fruit
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public Fruit(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
}
class Apple : Fruit
{
public Apple(string name) : base(name) { }
}
Fruit f = new Fruit("Fruit"); // Coimple Error
Apple a = new Apple("Apple"); // Success
Dose that base keyword just invoke constructors, methods, etc?
What's the differences between create an instance and invoke a constructor?
Thanks in advance.

Only derived class (e.g. Apple) can call the constructor of its parent (abstract class) with special base word. Constructor cannot be invoked (called) directly.

I would add that the fact that an abstract class may provide a constructor doesn't mean that it's not yet abstract.
By definition, an abstract class is a class where some or none of its members don't provide a default implementation, and derived classes must provide an implementation to these members. In the other hand, since an abstract class has some of its members as just signatures - the whole abstract members -, code mustn't be able to instantiate that class.
But if a derived class - either abstract or concrete - couldn't be able to call a base abstract class constructor, abstract classes would lack polymorphic constructors and there may be no way to initialize class properties or define a default class initialization code, even if that code calls an abstract method or property.
This is why a derived class can call a parent class constructor, even if the class is abstract!
What's the differences between create an instance and invoke a
constructor?
We might try to address this question with a deep explanation with low-level details, but
I feel that it's more a conceptual issue rather than a low-level thing.
If you want a summary, calling the constructor is a part of class instantiation process. It's a method which is called once the instance has been created and initializes the instances with custom code before any other code might use that instance.
When you use base keyword in a constructor to call parent's class one, you're just chaining constructor calls from the most derived class to the base class.

Does that base keyword just invoke constructors, methods, etc?
No, use it anytime you want to explicitly invoke the parent class' methods and avoid invoking a override in the derived class. Though : base(...) syntax is exclusive to constructors, usually you would call base.method();
What are the differences between create an instance and invoke a constructor?
Creating an instance with the new operator does a number of things:
Allocates memory for the object
Initialises fields
Then finally the constructor is invoked, which will invoke base constructor first if specified.
A more in-depth explanation of the order is in this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1882778/360211 but that should be enough to explain the difference.

Creating an instance with the new keyword creates a new object and returns a reference to the object.Invoking the constructor with the base keyword won't create a reference to the object(neither it will create an actual object), it will simply execute the code in the constructor.
Take a deep look onto this answer to for more information https://stackoverflow.com/a/14453366/3789232

Is there a C# equivalent of Java's #Override?

This has been asked before, but I could not get clarity from that answer, that's why I ask again...
Let's use two examples:
class implements interface
class extends an abstract class
My feeling is that with respect to the override keyword, both samples must behave identically. What is the desired goal of override? To prevent a method being dropped in a superclass or interface without being changed in all subclasses or implementing classes. So a compile time code consistency check.
In this C# code, compiling results in error: '....RepositoryContext.getXmlDoc()': no suitable method found to override:
interface IRepositoryContext
{
XmlDocument getXmlDoc();
}
class RepositoryContext : IRepositoryContext
{
private readonly XmlDocument gXmlDoc = new XmlDocument();
public override XmlDocument getXmlDoc() // does not compile
{
return gXmlDoc;
}
}
Whereas in this C# code, compilation works without any errors or warnings:
abstract class RepositoryContextBase
{
public abstract XmlDocument getXmlDoc();
}
class RepositoryContext : RepositoryContextBase
{
private readonly XmlDocument gXmlDoc = new XmlDocument();
public override XmlDocument getXmlDoc()
{
return gXmlDoc;
}
}
Is it a valid assumption that this should not work identically, or is there a way around this, or...?

The override modifier is defined thus:
The override modifier is required to extend or modify the abstract or virtual implementation of an inherited method, property, indexer, or event.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ebca9ah3.aspx
The override keyword specifies that the method overrides an existing method implementation, which is why you don't need to specify it when you're implementing an interface directly - there is no such method to override; you're the first to implement it.
When you use the override keyword, you're essentially saying "for this class, call this method instead of the base method." This obviously doesn't apply when there is no such base method (e.g. when you are directly implementing an interface).

For virtual or abstract methods from classes, you need to insert the override keyword or it won't work at all.
For interfaces, there is no equivalent.
However, interface implementations must implement all of their base methods, so forgetting a method will usually give you a compiler error.
This makes it less important.

In the first example it's an interface you're implementing. You can't override something when you're the only implementer in the inheritance chain.
In the second example you've inherited from a concrete implementation and stated that you want to implement the abstract member and the syntax for that (albeit not literally an override as much as an implementation) is the override keyword. However, you are in fact overriding the chain you're a part of because you're implementing it.
So think of the override keyword more in relation to the fact that you're ensuring your implementation gets called instead of the base class when it's called on an instance of the inheritor.
This too explains why you must explicitly call base.Member() inside the override because you've overriden the chain.
Another OO concept to remember is that the same effect can be achieve on methods that aren't abstract or virtual. Members can in fact be hidden and you don't have to specify them with the new keyword.
With that being said it should help abstract for you the idea that these are very much just language features or maybe better said it's just syntax.

In your first example you are implementing an interface. In this case you do not have to specify the override keyword, simply remove it.

Seems like you have a misconception regarding interface implementation vs. inheritance.
Interface implementations are completely different from inheritance. With an interface, you statically (i.e. at compile time) enforce the presence of certain method signatures. Therefore, any keywords like override or the like are just plain wrong in such a context.
Inheritance on the contrary is causing runtime polymorphism through a virtual method table (basically a list of method adresses).
You can see this also from the fact that, in C#, you can implement as many interfaces as you like, whereas multiple inheritance is forbidden.

The reason is that there is a fundamental difference between implementing an interface and overriding a method.
In order to fully implement an interface, you have to provide implementations for all of methods and/or properties but those implementations do not necessarily have to be overrideable in turn. The compiler wants you to be very specific about your intentions when you create a method, because you may have one of a range of behaviours in mind, and it wants to be sure which one you mean.
The override keyword means "I am overriding the base class' implementation with this one". If when implementing an interface, there is no base implementation, then it doesn't apply. You use virtual to indicate an overrideable method with no base implementation, and omit both override and virtual otherwise.
So given this interface:
interface IFoo
{
void Bar();
}
This class implements that interface, and permits classes to inherit from it in turn and override that implementation (since unlike in e.g. Java, methods in C# are not virtual by default):
class Foo : IFoo
{
public virtual void Bar() { ... } // compiles
}
class DerivedFoo : Foo
{
public override void Bar() { ... } // compiles, and may choose to call base.Bar()
}
Whereas this class implements that interface, and does not permit overrides:
class Foo : IFoo
{
public void Bar(); // compiles
}
class DerivedFoo : Foo
{
public override void Bar() { ... } // does NOT compile; Foo.Bar() is not virtual (overrideable)
}
There are in fact more possiblities than that, including:
You can create an abstract base class which implements an interface, but only provide abstract implementations for some/all methods.
You can explicitly implement an interface method
You can seal an overriding method to prevent further overrides
You can create a new method with the same name which is unrelated to the base class' method of that name
There are more details on MSDN.
If you aren't specific enough for the compiler, it will warn you or throw an error.
Update
The reason the compiler complains in the second example above, is that you will not get polymorphic behaviour. That is, if someone has a reference to Foo and calls Bar(), they will get Foo's implementation, not DerivedFoo's. This is because Bar.Foo is not in the virtual method table. Put another way, in C#, the default when compared to Java is that all methods are final unless you say otherwise.
From your comments it sounds like you're trying to get a warning or error in the case where, in my first example above, you then change IFoo by removing the Bar method entirely. (Obviously if you just change the method signature, you'll get a suitable compile error as you'd hope.)
You can achieve this by explicitly implementing the method:
class Foo : IFoo
{
void IFoo.Bar() { ... }
}
Then if the interface changes, you will get a compile error. However, this means derived classes can no longer override Foo's implementation; if you want that behaviour as well, you need:
class Foo : IFoo
{
void IFoo.Bar() { ... }
protected /* or public */ virtual void Bar()
{
IFoo foo = this; // declare rather than cast, to get compile error not runtime exception
foo.Bar();
}
}
You will still get compile errors if you remove the method, both from your explicit and other implementation.
Bear in mind that the explicit implementation is only available to callers with a reference to an IFoo, not a Foo. But if as in the above code you do add a public method which, for example, delegates to the explicit IFoo implementation, that won't be a problem (and it doesn't have to be virtual unless you want it overrideable).
This is an approach that works; whether it's overkill is a matter of taste, but I can see the merit in removing redundant code as part of refactoring, provided the classes are not public and/or not used outside your assembly. However instead of factoring code in this fashion I'd recommend using a tool such as ReSharper which will warn you about unused methods.

Virtual methods without body

I was looking at some code in an abstract class:
public virtual void CountX(){}
public virtual void DoCalculation() { ...code}
Why should I declare an empty virtual method in an abstract class if it is not mandatory to override it in derived types?

Because if the default behaviour is to do nothing, but derived classes might want to do something. It's a perfectly valid structure.
It allows your base code to call it. You tend to see similar designs when there is "BeforeXXX" and "AfterXXX" code, at the base class this code is empty, but the method needs to be there to compile. In derived classes, this code is optional, but needs to be virtual to be overridden.
The fact that it is in an abstract class shouldn't confuse its behaviour.
An example:
abstract class Base
{
public void ProcessMessages(IMessage[] messages)
{
PreProcess(messages);
// Process.
PostProcess(messages);
}
public virtual void PreProcess(IMessage[] messages)
{
// Base class does nothing.
}
public virtual void PostProcess(IMessage[] messages)
{
// Base class does nothing.
}
}
class Derived : Base
{
public override void PostProcess(IMessage[] messages)
{
// Do something, log or whatever.
}
// Don't want to bother with pre-process.
}
If these methods (Pre, Post) were abstract, then all derived classes would need to implement them (likely as empty methods) - code litter that can be removed using empty virtual methods at the base.

As #Adam told you, there are many cases in which it makes sense. When you create an abstract class, it's because you want to create a common interface for all classes deriving from that one; however, at that level of inheritance you won't have enough information to be able to create working code for that method.
For example, if you create the class Figure, with the getArea() method, you won't be able to write code that is going to correctly calculate the area for all figures. You'll have to wait to write the code for Rectangle, or Circle (both deriving from Figure), in order to be able to write working code for them.

If it is MANDATORY to override and no default logics could be written in base class, than virtuality is wrong and method should be abstract. If the default action is to do nothing, than as Adam mentioned, making empty virtual method in base class is perfectly valid structure

When you declare the method as abstract, the inherited class has to override that method (provide an implementation). It is mandatory.
When the method is declared as virtual, the inheritor can override the method and provide an implementation other than the default.

From a design perspective this smells bad and indicates that the implementation of the design is in an immature state. If a method is not required by every class that derives a particular base class then by definition it does not belong in the base class. You will usually discover that this method is used by particular derivations of the base class and that indicates a new interface or layer of abstraction in your inheritance hierarchy.

When would you use Abstract methods over virtual methods in C#? [duplicate]

What is the difference between an abstract method and a virtual method? In which cases is it recommended to use abstract or virtual methods? Which one is the best approach?

An abstract function cannot have functionality. You're basically saying, any child class MUST give their own version of this method, however it's too general to even try to implement in the parent class.
A virtual function, is basically saying look, here's the functionality that may or may not be good enough for the child class. So if it is good enough, use this method, if not, then override me, and provide your own functionality.

An abstract function has no implemention and it can only be declared on an abstract class. This forces the derived class to provide an implementation.
A virtual function provides a default implementation and it can exist on either an abstract class or a non-abstract class.
So for example:
public abstract class myBase
{
//If you derive from this class you must implement this method. notice we have no method body here either
public abstract void YouMustImplement();
//If you derive from this class you can change the behavior but are not required to
public virtual void YouCanOverride()
{
}
}
public class MyBase
{
//This will not compile because you cannot have an abstract method in a non-abstract class
public abstract void YouMustImplement();
}

Only abstract classes can have abstract members.
A non-abstract class that inherits from an abstract class must override its abstract members.
An abstract member is implicitly virtual.
An abstract member cannot provide any implementation (abstract is called pure virtual in some languages).

You must always override an abstract function.
Thus:
Abstract functions - when the inheritor must provide its own implementation
Virtual - when it is up to the inheritor to decide

Abstract Function:
It can be declared only inside abstract class.
It contains only
method declaration not the implementation in abstract class.
It must be overridden in derived class.
Virtual Function:
It can be declared inside abstract as well as non abstract class.
It contains method implementation.
It may be overridden.

explanation: with analogies. hopefully it will help you.
Context
I work on the 21 st floor of a building. And I'm paranoid about fire. Every now and again, somewhere in the world, a fire is burning down a sky scraper. But luckily we have an instruction manual somewhere here on what to do in case of fire:
FireEscape()
Don't collect belongings
Walk to fire escape
Walk out of building
This is basically a virtual method called FireEscape()
Virtual Method
This plan is pretty good for 99% of the circumstances. It's a basic plan which works. But there is a 1% chance that the fire escape is blocked or damaged in which case you are completely screwed and you'll become toast unless you take some drastic action. With virtual methods you can do just that: you can override the basic FireEscape() plan with your own version of the plan:
Run to window
Jump out the window
Parachute safely to the bottom
In other words virtual methods provide a basic plan, which can be overriden if you need to. Subclasses can override the parent class' virtual method if the programmer deems it appropriate.
Abstract methods
Not all organisations are well drilled. Some organisations don't do fire drills. They don't have an overall escape policy. Every man is for himself. Management are only interested in such a policy existing.
In other words, each person is forced to develop his own FireEscape() method. One guy will walk out the fire escape. Another guy will parachute. Another guy will use rocket propulsion technology to fly away from the building. Another guy will abseil out. Management don't care how you escape, so long as you have a basic FireEscape() plan - if they don't you can be guaranteed OHS will come down on the organisation like a tonne of bricks. This is what is meant by an abstract method.
What's the difference between the two again?
Abstract method: sub classes are forced to implement their own FireEscape method. With a virtual method, you have a basic plan waiting for you, but can choose to implement your own if it's not good enough.
Now that wasn't so hard was it?

Abstract method:
When a class contains an abstract method, that class must be declared as abstract.
The abstract method has no implementation and thus, classes that derive from that abstract class, must provide an implementation for this abstract method.
Virtual method:
A class can have a virtual method. The virtual method has an implementation.
When you inherit from a class that has a virtual method, you can override the virtual method and provide additional logic, or replace the logic with your own implementation.
When to use what:
In some cases, you know that certain types should have a specific method, but, you don't know what implementation this method should have.
In such cases, you can create an interface which contains a method with this signature.
However, if you have such a case, but you know that implementors of that interface will also have another common method (for which you can already provide the implementation), you can create an abstract class.
This abstract class then contains the abstract method (which must be overriden), and another method which contains the 'common' logic.
A virtual method should be used if you have a class which can be used directly, but for which you want inheritors to be able to change certain behaviour, although it is not mandatory.

An abstract method is a method that must be implemented to make a concrete class. The declaration is in the abstract class (and any class with an abstract method must be an abstract class) and it must be implemented in a concrete class.
A virtual method is a method that can be overridden in a derived class using the override, replacing the behavior in the superclass. If you don't override, you get the original behavior. If you do, you always get the new behavior. This opposed to not virtual methods, that can not be overridden but can hide the original method. This is done using the new modifier.
See the following example:
public class BaseClass
{
public void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello");
}
public virtual void SayGoodbye()
{
Console.WriteLine("Goodbye");
}
public void HelloGoodbye()
{
this.SayHello();
this.SayGoodbye();
}
}
public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public new void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hi There");
}
public override void SayGoodbye()
{
Console.WriteLine("See you later");
}
}
When I instantiate DerivedClass and call SayHello, or SayGoodbye, I get "Hi There" and "See you later". If I call HelloGoodbye, I get "Hello" and "See you later". This is because SayGoodbye is virtual, and can be replaced by derived classes. SayHello is only hidden, so when I call that from my base class I get my original method.
Abstract methods are implicitly virtual. They define behavior that must be present, more like an interface does.

Abstract methods are always virtual. They cannot have an implementation.
That's the main difference.
Basically, you would use a virtual method if you have the 'default' implementation of it and want to allow descendants to change its behaviour.
With an abstract method, you force descendants to provide an implementation.

I made this simpler by making some improvements on the following classes (from other answers):
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace TestOO
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
BaseClass _base = new BaseClass();
Console.WriteLine("Calling virtual method directly");
_base.SayHello();
Console.WriteLine("Calling single method directly");
_base.SayGoodbye();
DerivedClass _derived = new DerivedClass();
Console.WriteLine("Calling new method from derived class");
_derived.SayHello();
Console.WriteLine("Calling overrided method from derived class");
_derived.SayGoodbye();
DerivedClass2 _derived2 = new DerivedClass2();
Console.WriteLine("Calling new method from derived2 class");
_derived2.SayHello();
Console.WriteLine("Calling overrided method from derived2 class");
_derived2.SayGoodbye();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class BaseClass
{
public void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello\n");
}
public virtual void SayGoodbye()
{
Console.WriteLine("Goodbye\n");
}
public void HelloGoodbye()
{
this.SayHello();
this.SayGoodbye();
}
}
public abstract class AbstractClass
{
public void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello\n");
}
//public virtual void SayGoodbye()
//{
// Console.WriteLine("Goodbye\n");
//}
public abstract void SayGoodbye();
}
public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public new void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hi There");
}
public override void SayGoodbye()
{
Console.WriteLine("See you later");
}
}
public class DerivedClass2 : AbstractClass
{
public new void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hi There");
}
// We should use the override keyword with abstract types
//public new void SayGoodbye()
//{
// Console.WriteLine("See you later2");
//}
public override void SayGoodbye()
{
Console.WriteLine("See you later");
}
}
}

Binding is the process of mapping a name to a unit of code.
Late binding means that we use the name, but defer the mapping. In other words, we create/mention the name first, and let some subsequent process handle the mapping of code to that name.
Now consider:
Compared to humans, machines are really good at searching and sorting
Compared to machines, humans are really good at invention and innovation
So, the short answer is: virtual is a late binding instruction for the machine (runtime) whereas abstract is the late binding instruction for the human (programmer)
In other words, virtual means:
“Dear runtime, bind the appropriate code to this name by doing what you do best: searching”
Whereas abstract means:
“Dear programmer, please bind the appropriate code to this name by doing what you do best: inventing”
For the sake of completeness, overloading means:
“Dear compiler, bind the appropriate code to this name by doing what you do best: sorting”.

You basically use a virtual method when you want the inheritors to extend the functionality IF they want to.
You use abstract methods when you want the inheritors to implement the functionality (and in this case they have no choice)

Virtual Method:
Virtual means we CAN override it.
Virtual Function has an implementation. When we inherit the class we
can override the virtual function and provide our own logic.
We can change the return type of Virtual function while implementing the
function in the child class(which can be said as a concept of
Shadowing).
Abstract Method
Abstract means we MUST override it.
An abstract function has no implementation and must be in an abstract class.
It can only be declared. This forces the derived class to provide the implementation of it.
An abstract member is implicitly virtual. The abstract can be called as pure virtual in some of the languages.
public abstract class BaseClass
{
protected abstract void xAbstractMethod();
public virtual void xVirtualMethod()
{
var x = 3 + 4;
}
}

I have seen in some places the abstract method is defined as below. **
"An Abstract Method must have to implement in the child class"
**
I felt it is like .
It is not necessary that an abstract method has to be implemented in a child class, if the child class is also abstract ..
1)An abstract method cant be a private method.
2)An Abstract method cant be implemented in the same abstract class.
I would say ..if we are implementing an abstract class, you must have to override the abstract methods from the base abstract class.
Because.. Implementing the abstract method is with override key word .Similar to Virtual method.
It is not necessary for a virtual method to be implemented in an inherited class.
----------CODE--------------
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
protected abstract void MyAbstractMethod();
public virtual void MyVirtualMethod()
{
var x = 3 + 4;
}
}
public abstract class myClassA : BaseClass
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
//not necessary to implement an abstract method if the child class is also abstract.
protected override void MyAbstractMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class myClassB : BaseClass
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
//You must have to implement the abstract method since this class is not an abstract class.
protected override void MyAbstractMethod()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}

Most of the above examples use code - and they are very very good. I need not add to what they say, but the following is a simple explanation that makes use of analogies rather than code/technical terms.
Simple Explanation - Explanation using analogies
Abstract Method
Think George W Bush. He says to his soldiers: "Go fight in Iraq". And that's it. All he has specified is that fighting must be done. He does not specify how exactly that will happen. But I mean, you can't just go out and "fight": what does that mean exactly? do I fight with a B-52 or my derringer? Those specific details are left to someone else. This is an abstract method.
Virtual Method
David Petraeus is high up in the army. He has defined what fight means:
Find the enemy
Neutralise him.
Have a beer afterwards
The problem is that it is a very general method. It's a good method that works, but sometimes is not specific enough. Good thing for Petraeus is that his orders have leeway and scope - he has allowed others to change his definition of "fight", according to their particular requirements.
Private Job Bloggs reads Petraeus' order and is given permission to implement his own version of fight, according to his particular requirements:
Find enemy.
Shoot him in the head.
Go Home
Have beer.
Nouri al Maliki also receives the same orders from Petraeus. He is to fight also. But he is a politician, not an infantry man. Obviously he cannot go around shooting his politican enemies in the head. Because Petraeus has given him a virtual method, then Maliki can implement his own version of the fight method, according to his particular circumstances:
Find enemy.
Have him arrested with some BS trumped up charges.
Go Home
Have beer.
IN other words, a virtual method provides boilerplate instructions - but these are general instructions, which can be made more specific by people down the army heirarchy, according to their particular circumstances.
The difference between the two
George Bush does not prove any implementation details. This must be provided by someone else. This is an abstract method.
Petraeus on the other hand does provide implementation details but he has given permission for his subordinates to override his orders with their own version, if they can come up with something better.
hope that helps.

Abstract function(method) :
● An abstract method is a method which is declared with the keyword abstract.
● It does not have body.
● It should be implemented by the derived class.
● If a method is abstract then the class should abstract.
virtual function(method) :
● A virtual method is the method which is declared with the keyword virtual and it can be overridden by the derived class method by using override keyword.
● It's up to the derived class whether to override it or not.

The answer has been provided a number of times but the the question about when to use each is a design-time decision. I would see it as good practice to try to bundle common method definitions into distinct interfaces and pull them into classes at appropriate abstraction levels. Dumping a common set of abstract and virtual method definitions into a class renders the class unistantiable when it may be best to define a non-abstract class that implements a set of concise interfaces. As always, it depends on what best suits your applications specific needs.

Abstract function cannot have a body and MUST be overridden by child classes
Virtual Function will have a body and may or may not be overridden by child classes

From general object oriented view:
Regarding abstract method: When you put an abstract method in the parent class actually your are saying to the child classes: Hey note that you have a method signature like this. And if you wanna to use it you should implement your own!
Regarding virtual function: When you put a virtual method in the parent class you are saying to the derived classes : Hey there is a functionality here that do something for you. If this is useful for you just use it. If not, override this and implement your code, even you can use my implementation in your code !
this is some philosophy about different between this two concept in General OO

An abstract function is "just" a signature, without an implementation.
It is used in an interface to declare how the class can be used.
It must be implemented in one of the derived classes.
Virtual function (method actually), is a function you declare as well, and should implemented in one of the inheritance hierarchy classes.
The inherited instances of such class, inherit the implementation as well, unless you implement it, in a lower hierarchy class.

From a C++ background, C# virtual corresponds to C++ virtual, while C# abstract methods corresponds to C++ pure virtual function

If a class derives from this abstract class, it is then forced to override the abstract member. This is different from the virtual modifier, which specifies that the member may optionally be overridden.

There are nothing call virtual class in C#.
For functions
Abstract function only have signature only,the drive class should override with functionality.
Virtual function will hold the part of functionality the drive class may or may not override it according to the requirement
You can decide with your requirement.

Abstract method doesnt have an implementation.It is declared in the parent class. The child class is resposible for implementing that method.
Virtual method should have an implementation in the parent class and it facilitates the child class to make the choice whether to use that implementation of the parent class or to have a new implementation for itself for that method in child class.

An abstract function or method is a public "operation's name" exposed by a class, its aim, along with abstract classes, is primarily provide a form of constraint in objects design against the structure that an object have to implement.
In fact the classes that inherit from its abstract class have to give an implementation to this method, generally compilers raise errors when they don't.
Using abstract classes and methods is important mostly to avoid that by focusing on implementation details when designing classes, the classes structure be too related to the implementations, so creating dependences and coupling between classes that collaborate among them.
A virtual function or method is simply a method that models a public behaviour of a class, but that we can leave free to modify it in the inheritance chain, because we think that child classes could have need to implement some specific extensions for that behaviour.
They both represent a form of polymorpfhism in object orientation paradigm.
We can use abstract methods and virtual functions together to support a good inheritance model.
We design a good abstract structure of main objects of our solution, then create basic implementations by locating those more prone to further specializations and we make these ones as virtuals, finally we specialize our basic implementations, eventyually "overriding" inherited virtual ones.

Here I am writing some sample code hoping this may be a rather tangible example to see the behaviors of the interfaces, abstract classes and ordinary classes on a very basic level. You can also find this code in github as a project if you want to use it as a demo: https://github.com/usavas/JavaAbstractAndInterfaceDemo
public interface ExampleInterface {
// public void MethodBodyInInterfaceNotPossible(){
// }
void MethodInInterface();
}
public abstract class AbstractClass {
public abstract void AbstractMethod();
// public abstract void AbstractMethodWithBodyNotPossible(){
//
// };
//Standard Method CAN be declared in AbstractClass
public void StandardMethod(){
System.out.println("Standard Method in AbstractClass (super) runs");
}
}
public class ConcreteClass
extends AbstractClass
implements ExampleInterface{
//Abstract Method HAS TO be IMPLEMENTED in child class. Implemented by ConcreteClass
#Override
public void AbstractMethod() {
System.out.println("AbstractMethod overridden runs");
}
//Standard Method CAN be OVERRIDDEN.
#Override
public void StandardMethod() {
super.StandardMethod();
System.out.println("StandardMethod overridden in ConcreteClass runs");
}
public void ConcreteMethod(){
System.out.println("Concrete method runs");
}
//A method in interface HAS TO be IMPLEMENTED in implementer class.
#Override
public void MethodInInterface() {
System.out.println("MethodInInterface Implemented by ConcreteClass runs");
// Cannot declare abstract method in a concrete class
// public abstract void AbstractMethodDeclarationInConcreteClassNotPossible(){
//
// }
}
}

Figure. — Traditional threefold classification of propositions.
In deontic logic (the study of obligation and permission), every proposition is obligatory (‘must’ operator), optional (‘may and may not’ operator), or impermissible (‘must not’ operator), and no proposition falls into more than one of these three categories.
Furthermore, the permissible (‘may’ operator) propositions are those that are obligatory or optional, the omissible (‘may not’ operator) propositions are those that are impermissible or optional, and the non-optional (‘must or must not’ operator) propositions are those that are obligatory or impermissible.
In particular, an obligatory proposition is permissible, and an impermissible proposition is omissible.
Applying those operators to the proposition ’the method is overridden’ yields the following propositions:
abstract (pure)/concrete method: the method must be overridden/may not be overridden;
virtual/real (final) method: the method may be overridden/must not be overridden.
In particular, an abstract method is virtual, and a real method is concrete.

To my understanding:
Abstract Methods:
Only the abstract class can hold abstract methods. Also the derived class need to implement the method and no implementation is provided in the class.
Virtual Methods:
A class can declare these and also provide the implementation of the same. Also the derived class need to implement of the method to override it.

How can you require a constructor with no parameters for types implementing an interface?

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.

Develop Reference

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.