Develop Reference

Multiple Classes With Same Methods

I have many classes in a project that need to all have a base set of the same constructors and 1 public method. Below is an example of this partial class:
public partial class SHIPMENT_LINE
{
private OracleConnection _rp = null;
private EntityConnection _rpe = null;
private static string _schema = "";
public SHIPMENT_LINE() { }
public SHIPMENT_LINE(BHLibrary.Configuration.ConnectionOption Environment)
{
SetConnection(Environment);
}
public void SetConnection(BHLibrary.Configuration.ConnectionOption Environment)
{
this._rp = Configuration.RPConnection(Environment);
this._rpe = Configuration.RPEntityConnection(Environment, out _schema);
}
}
I need to implement the same private variables, constructors, and the SetConnection method on each of my classes that I create. After this all exists in each class, then each class will do something different, so the classes are not all necessarily related, aside from the fact that they all have this same "Beginning."
How should I go about building each of these classes so that I do not have to implement this SetConnection method in each of the classes that I create?
Keep this in mind:
Due to other restrictions, I cannot inherit from another class in any of these classes. I can, however, use Interfaces if necessary.

I would suggest going for composition rather than inheritance...
Make each of the class implement an interface, then have another class (not related to these) which also implements the interface and has a concrete implementation of it. All the classes you've mentioned above should have an instance of this additional class and just call through to it.
Example
public partial class SHIPMENT_LINE : ISetConnection
{
private ConnectionSetter connector = new ConnectionSetter();
public void SetConnection(BHLibrary.Configuration.ConnectionOption Environment)
{
this.connector.SetConnection(Environment);
}
}
public class ConnectionSetter : ISetConnection
{
public void SetConnection(BHLibrary.Configuration.ConnectionOption Environment)
{
// Implementation
}
}

If you can't subclass then an abstract class is not a viable solution and interfaces are only going to give you the contract that your common classes conform to without any implementation.
I would suggest implementing the common functionality in a common class and using this as a private member in your other classes (I.E. composition rather than inheritance). Your other classes could all implement an interface to ensure they all have the same methods and they could just forward their calls onto the private classes implementation of the method.
E.G.
private MYClassWithCommonFunctionality xyz = new MYClassWithCommonFunctionality();
And then...
Private void MyCommonInterfaceMethod(object param)
{
// Do derived class specific stuff here...
xyz.MyCommonInterfaceMethod(param);
}
And as an added bonus and a bit of forward thinking....have the common class also share the same interface and pass an implementation of this into your other classes constructor. That way in the future you can swap the implementation for another.

If you cannot create a base class that will implement your common functionality (any reason why?) than you probably can use T4 template to generate partial class with your common methods.

Creating different types based on some criteria

I have some code in an application that I am not really thrilled about right now. I created a few classes like so:
class Base
{
// base properties ...
}
class DerivedA : Base
{
}
class DerivedB : Base
{
}
I have a method in my application that needs to create one of these objects (with more to come in the future) based on a string property that is stored in the database. Each one of these objects gets its data from slightly different places, but the way I'm doing it right now is just a big if block and it doesn't seem very maintainable:
class BaseCreator
{
Base Create(string name)
{
if (name == "DerivedA" )
return CreateDerivedA();
else if(name == "DerivedB")
return CreateDerivedB();
}
}
What are some ways I can refactor this code to be more maintainable and make it easier to add new types in the future? I am using dependency injection (Ninject) in my application if that makes any difference.

Inheritance trees are always difficult to maintain once they grow. If you know up front that the tree will be large---seriously consider using composition instead of inheritance. Especially if you're already using a DI framework, interfaces are the way to go.

I think you should use the abstract factory pattern which solves this problem.
It provides an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.
http://www.dofactory.com/Patterns/PatternAbstract.aspx
Or just a factory pattern
http://www.dotnetperls.com/factory

I will note that your if/else or switch structure is not a bad thing. The bad thing is when you have the same if/else or switch expressed multiple times.
When you have nicely decoupled your code and you are programming to the interface or abstract base rather than the concrete, know that somewhere in your application, something knows how to create the particular concrete instance that you need. This can be code, it can be configuration, it can be some container, etc. But that something has to exist. The idea is to have that something existing once.
Your approach is fine as long as this is the only method where it exists. This class' reason to exist is that it creates the concrete instances that fulfill some interface. Its reason to change is that some other concrete implementation has been added (or removed).

The general case can be solved by a bit of composition and the use of the Specification pattern:
public class Base
{
public abstract bool IsSatisfiedBy(string name);
// base properties ...
}
public class DerivedA : Base
{
public override bool IsSatisfiedBy(string name)
{
return name == "DerivedA";
}
}
public class DerivedB : Base
{
public override bool IsSatisfiedBy(string name)
{
return name == "DerivedB";
}
}
public class BaseCreator
{
private readonly IEnumerable<Base> candidates;
public BaseCreator(IEnumerable<Base> candidates)
{
this.candidates = candidates;
}
public Base Create(string name)
{
return this.candidates.First(c => c.IsSatisfiedBy(name));
}
}

If you really must use strings, you can use reflection:
object GetInstance(string typeName)
{
Type.GetType(typeName).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes).Invoke(new object[0]);
}
You could also use a dictionary:
IDictionary<string, Func<object>> TypeMap = new Dictionary<string, Func<object>>()
{
{ "TypeA", () => new TypeA() },
{ "TypeB", () => new TypeB() },
{ "TypeC", () => new TypeC() },
};
object GetInstance(string typeName)
{
return TypeMap[typeName]();
}
For others landing on this page, consider using generics, if you don't have to use strings:
T CreateInstance<T>()
where T : new()
{
return new T();
}

There isn't a general answer to this question. Abstract Factory may be correct, but it all depends on what the difference is between these implementations and how you use them.
It could well be that you should be using Template, Strategy, State or any other similar pattern. Look into them, and definitely Abstract Factory, and decide on a pattern that suits your specific scenario.

Letting only the abstract class know about its inheritors

I am making a payment system for my site. Users can select one of several payment providers to pay, but all should behave in the same way. I thought to represent this behavior like this:
public abstract class PaymentProvider {
private static var methods = Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider> AllPaymentProviders
{
get {return methods;}
}
public abstract pay();
}
public class PaymentProviderPaypal : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
public class PaymentProviderWorldpay : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
You are supposed to use this by writing PaymentProvider.AllPaymentProviders["key"].pay(). The idea is that the functions using this class don't need to know about how the underlying payment provider is implemented, they just need to know the key.
However, at the moment, if you have access to the PaymentProvider class, you also have access to the inheriting classes. Its possible to instantiate a new copy of the inheriting classes, and make use of them in an unexpected way. I want to encapsulate the inheriting classes so that only the abstract PaymentProvider knows about them.
How should I do this? Different protection levels like protected don't work here - In Java, protected means that only other classes in the namespace can use that class, but in C# it means something else.
Do I have the right idea here? Or should I use a different method?

A couple of options spring to mind:
Put this in a separate assembly from the client code, and make the implementations abstract
Put the implementations inside the PaymentProvider class as private nested classes. You can still separate the source code by making PaymentProvider a partial class - use one source file per implementation
The first option is likely to be the cleanest if you don't mind separating the clients from the implementation in terms of assemblies.
Note that both of these are still valid options after the change proposed by Jamiec's answer - the "visibility" part is somewhat orthogonal to the inheritance part.
(As an aside, I hope the method is really called Pay() rather than pay() :)

Your inheritance heirachy is a bit wonky, I would be tempted to do it a similar but crucially different way.
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay()
}
// Implementations of IPaymentProvider for PaypalPaymentProvider & WorldpayPaymentProvider
public static class PaymentHelper
{
private static var providers = Dictionary<String,IPaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static void Pay(string provider)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay();
}
}
Then the usage would be something like PaymentHelper.Pay("paypal").
Obviously if there is more data to provide to the Pay method this can be added to both the interface, and the helper. for example:
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay(double amount);
}
public static void Pay(string provider, double amount)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay(amount);
}

Generics and inheritance... Getting around having to specify the <T> type?

Well, I've had to rewrite this as I've been down voted five times for giving too much detail... Go figure!
class BaseModel
{
public T[] Get<T>()
{
// return array of T's
}
public T Find<T>(object param)
{
// return T based on param
}
public T New<T>()
{
// return a new instance of T
}
}
class BaseRow
{
private BaseModel _model;
public BaseRow(SqlDataReader rdr, BaseModel model)
{
// populate properties of inheriting type using rdr column values
}
public void Save()
{
// calls _model.Save(this);
}
}
I currently have a number of classes that inherit the BaseModel class. Each of the methods exposed by BaseModel will return an instance, or an array of instances of a type that inherits the BaseRow class.
At the moment, when calling the exposed methods on the BaseModel via an inheriting class, i.e.
using(DeviceModel model = new DeviceModel())
{
DeviceRow row = model.Find<DeviceRow>(1);
DeviceRow[] rows = model.Get<DeviceRow>();
DeviceRow newRow = model.New<DeviceRow>();
}
I have to specify the type (a class that inherits the BaseRow class), as the methods in BaseModel/BaseRow do not know/care what type they are, other than they inherit from BaseRow.
What I would like to do is find a way to remove the need to specify the without having to replicate code in every class that inherits BaseModel, i.e.
class DeviceModel : BaseModel
{
public DeviceRow Find(object param)
{
return this.Find<DeviceRow>(param);
}
}
Note: Unfortunately I am unable to implement or use any third party solutions. That said, I have tried using Castle Active Record/nHibernate and to be honest, they are very big and heavy for what should be a very simple system.
Hopefully I haven't provided "too much" detail. If I have, please let me know.
Thanks

If I were you, I'd suggest making BaseModel a generic class. In a situation of "can't win either way", the code you've removed to make others happy might have told me more about what you're doing (not a criticism by any stretch - I appreciate your position).
class BaseModel<T>
{
public virtual T[] Get()
{
// return array of T's
}
public virtual T Find(object param)
{
// return T based on param
}
public virtual T New()
{
// return a new instance of T
}
}
That's your base, and then you have inheritors like:
class DeviceModel : BaseModel<Device>
{
public override Device New()
{
return new Device();
}
}
Now, any generic operations you define in DeviceModel will default to returning or using strongly typed Device. Notice the virtual methods in the BaseModel class. In the base class methods, you might provide some basic operations predicated upon using T's or something. In sub-classes, you can define more specific, strongly typed behavior.
I'd also comment that you might want to pull back a little and consider the relationship of BaseModel and BaseRow. It appears that you're defining a parallel inheritance hierarchy, which can tend to be a code smell (this is where more of your code might have come in handy -- I could be wrong about how you're using this). If your ongoing development prospects are that you're going to need to add a FooRow every time you add a FooModel, that's often a bad sign.

Using Interface variables

I'm still trying to get a better understanding of Interfaces. I know about what they are and how to implement them in classes.
What I don't understand is when you create a variable that is of one of your Interface types:
IMyInterface somevariable;
Why would you do this? I don't understand how IMyInterface can be used like a class...for example to call methods, so:
somevariable.CallSomeMethod();
Why would you use an IMyInterface variable to do this?

You are not creating an instance of the interface - you are creating an instance of something that implements the interface.
The point of the interface is that it guarantees that what ever implements it will provide the methods declared within it.
So now, using your example, you could have:
MyNiftyClass : IMyInterface
{
public void CallSomeMethod()
{
//Do something nifty
}
}
MyOddClass : IMyInterface
{
public void CallSomeMethod()
{
//Do something odd
}
}
And now you have:
IMyInterface nifty = new MyNiftyClass()
IMyInterface odd = new MyOddClass()
Calling the CallSomeMethod method will now do either something nifty or something odd, and this becomes particulary useful when you are passing in using IMyInterface as the type.
public void ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(IMyInterface someObject)
{
someObject.CallSomeMethod();
}
Now, depending on whether you call the above method with a nifty or an odd class, you get different behaviour.
public void AnotherClass()
{
IMyInterface nifty = new MyNiftyClass()
IMyInterface odd = new MyOddClass()
// Pass in the nifty class to do something nifty
this.ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(nifty);
// Pass in the odd class to do something odd
this.ThisMethodShowsHowItWorks(odd);
}
EDIT
This addresses what I think your intended question is - Why would you declare a variable to be of an interface type?
That is, why use:
IMyInterface foo = new MyConcreteClass();
in preference to:
MyConcreteClass foo = new MyConcreteClass();
Hopefully it is clear why you would use the interface when declaring a method signature, but that leaves the question about locally scoped variables:
public void AMethod()
{
// Why use this?
IMyInterface foo = new MyConcreteClass();
// Why not use this?
MyConcreteClass bar = new MyConcreteClass();
}
Usually there is no technical reason why the interface is preferred. I usually use the interface because:
I typically inject dependencies so the polymorphism is needed
Using the interface clearly states my intent to only use members of the interface
The one place where you would technically need the interface is where you are utilising the polymorphism, such as creating your variable using a factory or (as I say above) using dependency injection.
Borrowing an example from itowlson, using concrete declaration you could not do this:
public void AMethod(string input)
{
IMyInterface foo;
if (input == "nifty")
{
foo = new MyNiftyClass();
}
else
{
foo = new MyOddClass();
}
foo.CallSomeMethod();
}

Because this:
public void ReadItemsList(List<string> items);
public void ReadItemsArray(string[] items);
can become this:
public void ReadItems(IEnumerable<string> items);
Edit
Think of it like this:
You have to be able to do this.
rather than:
You have to be this.
Essentially this is a contract between the method and it's callers.

Using interface variables is the ONLY way to allow handler methods to be written which can accept data from objects that have different base classes.
This is about as clear as anyone is going to get.

An interface is used so you do not need to worry about what class implements the interface. An example of this being useful is when you have a factory method that returns a concrete implementation that may be different depending on the environment you are running in. It also allows an API designer to define the API while allowing 3rd parties to implement the API in any way they see fit. Sun does this with it's cryptographic API's for Java.
public interface Foo {
}
public class FooFactory {
public static Foo getInstance() {
if(os == 'Windows') return new WinFoo();
else if(os == 'OS X') return new MacFoo();
else return new GenricFoo();
}
}
Your code that uses the factory only needs to know about Foo, not any of the specific implementations.

I was in same position and took me few days to figure out why do we have to use interface variable.
IDepartments rep = new DepartmentsImpl();
why not
DepartmentsImpl rep = new DepartmentsImpl();
Imagine If a class implements two interfaces that contain a member with the same signature, then implementing that member on the class will cause both interfaces to use that member as their implementation.
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
SampleClass sc = new SampleClass();
IControl ctrl = (IControl)sc;
ISurface srfc = (ISurface)sc;
// The following lines all call the same method.
sc.Paint();
ctrl.Paint();
srfc.Paint();
}
}
interface IControl
{
void Paint();
}
interface ISurface
{
void Paint();
}
class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface
{
// Both ISurface.Paint and IControl.Paint call this method.
public void Paint()
{
Console.WriteLine("Paint method in SampleClass");
}
}
// Output:
// Paint method in SampleClass
// Paint method in SampleClass
// Paint method in SampleClass
If the two interface members do not perform the same function, however, this can lead to an incorrect implementation of one or both of the interfaces.
public class SampleClass : IControl, ISurface
{
void IControl.Paint()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("IControl.Paint");
}
void ISurface.Paint()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("ISurface.Paint");
}
}
The class member IControl.Paint is only available through the IControl interface, and ISurface.Paint is only available through ISurface. Both method implementations are separate, and neither is available directly on the class. For example:
IControl c = new SampleClass();
ISurface s = new SampleClass();
s.Paint();
Please do correct me if i am wrong as i am still learning this Interface concept.

Lets say you have class Boat, Car, Truck, Plane.
These all share a common method TakeMeThere(string destination)
You would have an interface:
public interface ITransportation
{
public void TakeMeThere(string destination);
}
then your class:
public class Boat : ITransportation
{
public void TakeMeThere(string destination) // From ITransportation
{
Console.WriteLine("Going to " + destination);
}
}
What you're saying here, is that my class Boat will do everything ITransportation has told me too.
And then when you want to make software for a transport company. You could have a method
Void ProvideServiceForClient(ITransportation transportationMethod, string whereTheyWantToGo)
{
transportationMethod.TakeMeThere(whereTheyWantToGo); // Cause ITransportation has this method
}
So it doesn't matter which type of transportation they want, because we know it can TakeMeThere

This is not specific to C#,so i recommend to move to some othere flag.
for your question,
the main reason why we opt for interface is to provide a protocol between two components(can be a dll,jar or any othere component).
Please refer below
public class TestClass
{
static void Main()
{
IMyInterface ob1, obj2;
ob1 = getIMyInterfaceObj();
obj2 = getIMyInterfaceObj();
Console.WriteLine(ob1.CallSomeMethod());
Console.WriteLine(obj2.CallSomeMethod());
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static bool isfirstTime = true;
private static IMyInterface getIMyInterfaceObj()
{
if (isfirstTime)
{
isfirstTime = false;
return new ImplementingClass1();
}
else
{
return new ImplementingClass2();
}
}
}
public class ImplementingClass1 : IMyInterface
{
public ImplementingClass1()
{
}
#region IMyInterface Members
public bool CallSomeMethod()
{
return true;
}
#endregion
}
public class ImplementingClass2 : IMyInterface
{
public ImplementingClass2()
{
}
#region IMyInterface Members
public bool CallSomeMethod()
{
return false;
}
#endregion
}
public interface IMyInterface
{
bool CallSomeMethod();
}
Here the main method does not know about the classes still it is able to get different behaviour using the interface.

The purpose of the Interface is to define a contract between several objects, independent of specific implementation.
So you would usually use it when you have an Intrace ISomething, and a specific implementation
class Something : ISomething
So the Interface varialbe would come to use when you instantiate a contract:
ISomething myObj = new Something();
myObj.SomeFunc();
You should also read interface C#
Update:
I will explaing the logic of using an Interface for the variable and not the class itself by a (real life) example:
I have a generic repositor interace:
Interface IRepository {
void Create();
void Update();
}
And i have 2 seperate implementations:
class RepositoryFile : interface IRepository {}
class RepositoryDB : interface IRepository {}
Each class has an entirely different internal implementation.
Now i have another object, a Logger, that uses an already instansiated repository to do his writing. This object, doesn't care how the Repository is implemented, so he just implements:
void WriteLog(string Log, IRepository oRep);
BTW, this can also be implemented by using standard classes inheritance. But the difference between using interfaces and classes inheritance is another discussion.
For a slightly more details discussion on the difference between abstract classes and interfaces see here.

Say, for example, you have two classes: Book and Newspaper. You can read each of these, but it wouldn't really make sense for these two to inherit from a common superclass. So they will both implement the IReadable interface:
public interface IReadable
{
public void Read();
}
Now say you're writing an application that will read books and newspapers for the user. The user can select a book or newspaper from a list, and that item will be read to the user.
The method in your application that reads to the user will take this Book or Newspaper as a parameter. This might look like this in code:
public static void ReadItem(IReadable item)
{
item.Read();
}
Since the parameter is an IReadable, we know that the object has the method Read(), thus we call it to read it to the user. It doesn't matter whether this is a Book, Newspaper, or anything else that implements IReadable. The individual classes implement exactly how each item will be read by implementing the Read() method, since it will most likely be different for the different classes.
Book's Read() might look like this:
public void Read()
{
this.Open();
this.TurnToPage(1);
while(!this.AtLastPage)
{
ReadText(this.CurrentPage.Text);
this.TurnPage();
}
this.Close();
}
Newspaper's Read() would likely be a little different:
public void Read()
{
while(!this.OnBackPage)
{
foreach(Article article in this.CurrentPage.Articles)
{
ReadText(article.Text);
}
}
}
The point is that the object contained by a variable that is an interface type is guaranteed to have a specific set of methods on it, even if the possible classes of the object are not related in any other way. This allows you to write code that will apply to a variety of classes that have common operations that can be performed on them.

No, it is not possible. Designers did not provide a way. Of course, it is of common sense also. Because interface contains only abstract methods and as abstract methods do not have a body (of implementation code), we cannot create an object..
Suppose even if it is permitted, what is the use. Calling the abstract method with object does not yield any purpose as no output. No functionality to abstract methods.
Then, what is the use of interfaces in Java design and coding. They can be used as prototypes from which you can develop new classes easily. They work like templates for other classes that implement interface just like a blue print to construct a building.

I believe everyone is answering the polymorphic reason for using an interface and David Hall touches on partially why you would reference it as an interface instead of the actual object name. Of course, being limited to the interface members etc is helpful but the another answer is dependency injection / instantiation.
When you engineer your application it is typically cleaner, easier to manage, and more flexible if you do so utilizing dependency injection. It feels backwards at first if you've never done it but when you start backtracking you'll wish you had.
Dependency injection normally works by allowing a class to instantiate and control the dependencies and you just rely on the interface of the object you need.
Example:
Layer the application first. Tier 1 logic, tier 2 interface, tier 3 dependency injection. (Everyone has their own way, this is just for show).
In the logic layer you reference the interfaces and dependency layer and then finally you create logic based on only the interfaces of foreign objects.
Here we go:
public IEmployee GetEmployee(string id)
{
IEmployee emp = di.GetInstance<List<IEmployee>>().Where(e => e.Id == id).FirstOrDefault();
emp?.LastAccessTimeStamp = DateTime.Now;
return emp;
}
Notice above how we use di.GetInstance to get an object from our dependency. Our code in that tier will never know or care about the Employee object. In fact if it changes in other code it will never affect us here. If the interface of IEmployee changes then we may need to make code changes.
The point is, IEmployee emp = never really knows what the actual object is but does know the interface and how to work with it. With that in mind, this is when you want to use an interface as opposed to an object becase we never know or have access to the object.
This is summarized.. Hopefully it helps.

This is a fundamental concept in object-oriented programming -- polymorphism. (wikipedia)
The short answer is that by using the interface in Class A, you can give Class A any implementation of IMyInterface.
This is also a form of loose coupling (wikipedia) -- where you have many classes, but they do not rely explicitly on one another -- only on an abstract notion of the set of properties and methods that they provide (the interface).