Develop Reference

Best practice constructor with parameters in inherited classes

I have following easy class design, where myObject is importing for BaseClass.
public abstract class BaseClass
{
public BaseClass(myObject parameter)
{
// ...
}
}
public class ChildClass : BaseClass
{
}
My problem is now, that I want to make my program extensible by inheriting from public BaseClass. So you could create a constructor
public ChildClass() :base(new myObject()){...}
which will lead to failures. Is there a possibilty to prevent inherited classes with own constructors? I actually would like to avoid constructors for ChildClass at all. Is this possible? Then I could use a factory and provide an Initialize method. Or is this something impossible, where I simply must be aware of and check in my code=

Classes are completely responsible for their own constructors. They aren't inherited, and every class must have a constructor. So no, there's nothing you can do to "control" what constructors a base class can or can't have.

Abstraction Vs. Interface Confusion

Wait, before you start thinking, I would like to clear that I am NOT going to ask the routine differences between Interface and Abstract.
I had gone through the difference between Abstract and Interface in MSDN.
It is said :
By updating the base class, all inheriting classes are automatically updated with the change.
Interfaces, on the other hand, cannot be changed once created. If a new version of
an interface is required, you must create a whole new interface.
See this : -
Can anyone prove this using following example: -
abstract class WashingMachine
{
abstract public void Wash();
}
class Philips : WashingMachine
{
public Philips() { }
override public void Wash(){//Wash code here....}
}
class Samsung : WashingMachine
{
public Samsung() { }
override public void Wash(){//Wash code here....}
}
class Videocon : WashingMachine
{
public Videocon() { }
override public void Wash(){//Wash code here....}
}
Now, If I added following new abstract method in WashingMachine : -
abstract public void Rinse(int loadSize);
How all inheriting classes (i.e. Philips/Samsung/Videocon) will automatically get updated with the change?

They won't get updated - you still have to manually add an implementation of Rinse to each and every class that inherits from WashingMachine.
What I believe the MSDN says is that if you have a non-abstract method defined in an abstract class and you change that method, all classes that inherit from the abstract class will benefit from the change automatically.

Your concrete derived types all need to provide an implementation of any inherited abstract member...thus your types will still need to provide a Rinse implementation when you modified the base.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/sf985hc5(v=vs.71).aspx

This is a confusion programmers normally get when read difference between interface and abstract class. the line you refer is only true if the change in the abstract class is concrete. what i mean is you added a property or a method with implementation. Or if i am more specific, any change in base abstract class which does not make any concrete class abstract. Such change is possible in abstract classes and there is no way you can add such change in interface.

How all inheriting classes (i.e. Philips/Samsung/Videocon) will automatically get updated with the change?
They will suddenly become non-compileable, isn't that an update?
But I'd like to point out that there's in fact no difference between abstract method in abstract class and method in interface. Main difference lies in the fact that abstract classes can have methods with implementation and interfaces can not.
In fact, I'd say that I don't like MSDN definition and find it confusing and somewhat misleading.

c# Factory Method and protection levels problem

I have a base class and several subclasses derived from that base class. I also have a static function in the base class that takes some parameters, and instantiates and returns an appropriate subclass based on input parameters ( my factory method.)
Now here's my problem: I want to ONLY allow instantiation of the subclasses FROM the factory method. But if I set the constructors of the subclasses to be protected, the base class can't see them. Is there an access modifier I'm missing that would allow the base class to call the subclasses constructors, but not not allow any other classes to call them?
Internal doesn't look like it will work either...I want to limit access to the subclass constructors to just the base class, there are other classes in the same assembly that should be able to access the base factory method and but not directly instantiate any of the subclasses.
Hopefully there's something really simple I'm missing...
Example:
public class Base
{
public Base CreateChild(string childType)
{
if(childType == "A")
return new ChildA();
if(childType == "B")
return new ChildB();
return null;
}
}
public class ChildA
{
protected ChildA() // This doesn't work, since now base class can't call this!
{
}
}
public class ChildB
{
protected ChildB()
{
}
}

You can declare the child classes as private nested classes inside Base

Have you tried declaring the child classes within the base class?
public class Base {
protected class ChildA {}
protected class ChildB {}
}

If accessing any derived object through the base type is a valid scenario (let's say derived types only override base implementations and do not add new functionality) then the proposed solution of making the derived types nested private classes (as previous answers propose) is the best solution.
If that's not the case then I think you are falling into a case of unjustified complexity. What is the reason why code from your same assembly can not access ChildA and ChildB constructors? It is after all code you can control, so you can always choose to make / enforce via code review that he initalization is through the factory method.
I understand there is valid reasons to not let external assemblies freely instantiate objects except through a tightly controlled mechanism. In this case just marking the constructors as internal would do.
Otherwise, I'm not sure you can achieve what you are pretending without creating a specific assembly just for this base class and its derived classes. There is definitely no access modifier that would make a static method in a derived class only visible from it's base class.

How to prevent inheritance for some methods?

How can I prevent inheritance of some methods or properties in derived classes?!
public class BaseClass : Collection
{
//Some operations...
//Should not let derived classes inherit 'Add' method.
}
public class DerivedClass : BaseClass
{
public void DoSomething(int Item)
{
this.Add(Item); // Error: No such method should exist...
}
}

The pattern you want is composition ("Has-a"), not inheritance ("Is-a"). BaseClass should contain a collection, not inherit from collection. BaseClass can then selectively choose what methods or properties to expose on its interface. Most of those may just be passthroughs that call the equivalent methods on the internal collection.
Marking things private in the child classes won't work, because anyone with a base type variable (Collection x = new DerivedClass()) will still be able to access the "hidden" members through the base type.
If "Is-a" vs "Has-a" doesn't click for you, think of it in terms of parents vs friends. You can't choose your parents and can't remove them from your DNA, but you can choose who you associate with.

You can't, in this instance inheritance is the wrong tool for the job. Your class needs to have the collection as a private member, then you can expose as much or as little of it as you wish.

Trying to hide a public member of a class in a derived class is generally a bad thing(*). Trying to hide it as a means of ensuring it won't be called is even worse, and generally won't work anyhow.
There isn't any standardized idiomatic means I know of to prevent a parent class' protected member from being accessed in a sub-derived type, but declaring a new public useless member of a clearly-useless kind would be one approach. The simplest such thing would be an empty class. For example, if class Foo declares an empty public class called MemberwiseClone, derivatives of Foo will be unable to call MemberwiseClone--probably a good thing if MemberwiseClone would break the invariants of class Foo.
(*) The only situation where it is appropriate is when a public method of a derived class returns a more specialized type than the corresponding method in the base class (e.g. a CarFactory.Produce() method may return a Car, while the FordExplorerFactory.Produce() method may return a FordExplorer (which derives from car). Someone who calls Produce() on what they think is a CarFactory (but happens to be a FordExplorerFactory) will get a Car (which happens to be a FordExplorer), but someone who calls Produce() on what is known at compile time to be a FordExplorerFactory will get a result that's known at compile time to be a FordExplorer.

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.