Develop Reference

Abstract class which concrete class to use? Design issue?

I have a design issue. I am modifying existing code and where I was instantiating new class. It's giving me errors due to turning the class into a Abstract class which I can understand. It's throwing an error because you can't create instances of abstract class.
I had this code below
ExampleProcessor pro = new ExampleProcessor();
but the ExmapleProcessor class is now turned into abstract class.
public abstract class ExmapleProcessor {
public abstract void Method1();
public abstract void Method2();
}
Child classes AExampleProcessor and BExampleProcessor.
public class AExampleProcessor : ExampleProcessor
{
public override void Method1() { //do something }
public override void Method2() { //do something }
}
public class BExampleProcessor : ExampleProcessor
{
public override void Method1() { //do something }
public override void Method2() { //do something }
}
So this line is causing 42 errors "ExampleProcessor pro = new ExampleProcessor();" everywhere in my application.
I dont want to do
AExampleProcessor pro = new AExampleProcessor();
and
BExampleProcessor pro = new BExampleProcessor();
because I want my application to decide which class to use. How can I make it so it loads up the correct class?
I would like code examples please..

Create a factory:
public static class ExampleProcessorFactory
{
public static ExampleProcessor Create()
{
if(IsFullmoon)
return new ExampleProcessorA();
else
return new ExampleProcessorB();
}
}
Then replace all calls to new ExampleProcessor() with calls to ExampleProcessorFactory.Create(). Now you've encapsulated the instantiation logic and the choosing of what concrete class to instantiate into one place where you can apply any logic to decide what class to instantiate. (The logic of deciding when to use which class might benefit from some improvement to be unrelated to the full moon.)

Since you want the application to decide which concrete subclass to use, I suggest you use a Factory pattern.
That way, the client code knows only that you are using an ExampleProcessor, and the implementation details remain hidden.

Exposing different interfaces from single class

We are trying to build some kind of a layer above the DAL in order to expose an interface of a certain repository methods using generics.
For example:
public interface A
{
void Do_A();
}
public interface B
{
void Do_B();
}
public void Main()
{
Exposer<A>.Do_A();
Exposer<B>.Do_B();
}
Is it possible to do that ?

Tecnically, that isn't a "single class", since Exposer<A> is a different Type to Exposer<B>; however, ultimately, this doesn't look much different to most IoC/DI containers... if this was, say, StructureMap (purely for an example), you might consider:
container.GetInstance<A>().Do_A();
container.GetInstance<B>().Do_B();
you would, of course, need to configure the container to know where the concrete A and B implementations are coming from! Which for StructureMap is shown here, but there are plenty to choose from.
If you mean directly, then: no. You cannot have:
class Exposer<T> : T {...} // non-working code to implement the interface T
You can, however, have some class:
class Exposer : A, B {...}
and just cast:
A a = Exposer;
a.Do_A();
B b = Exposer;
b.Do_B();

A type Foo<T> cannot implement (or extend) the actual T, as T is unknown at compile time. What you could do is expose a T as a property, and invoke methods on it. However, as Ondrej wrote, the question may be a little unclear.

Are you describing IoC when you write?
Exposer<A>.Do_A();
Your Exposer class makes me think to StructureMap API:
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>().Do_A();
If you want to get rid of the keyword new and get in a generic way an instance for a specified interface, take a look to this article or check StructureMap

To choose which interface implementation you want when consuming a given class, you don't use generics, you just cast the class to the interface:
public interface A
{
void Do_A();
}
public interface B
{
void Do_B();
}
public class Exposer : A, B
{
public void Do_A() { ; }
public void Do_B() { ; }
}
public void Main()
{
// the casts are redundant here,
// because the interface implementation
// is implicit
((A)Exposer).Do_A();
((B)Exposer).Do_B();
}
If you want to exclude members that are not implementations of members of the given interface, use explicit implementation:
public class Exposer : A, B
{
void A.Do_A() { ; }
void B.Do_B() { ; }
}
public void Main()
{
// the casts are now required;
// otherwise, you'll get a compiler error
// telling you that the method is inaccessible
((A)Exposer).Do_A();
((B)Exposer).Do_B();
}

What's the difference between an abstract class, and a class with only protected constructors? (.NET)

What are all the difference between an abstract class, and a class with only protected constructor(s)? They seem to be pretty similar to me, in that you can't instantiate either one.
EDIT:
How would you create an instance in a derived class, with a base class with a protected constructor? For instance:
public class ProtectedConstructor
{
protected ProtectedConstructor()
{
}
public static ProtectedConstructor GetInstance()
{
return new ProtectedConstructor(); // this is fine
}
}
public class DerivedClass : ProtectedConstructor
{
public void createInstance()
{
ProtectedConstructor p = new ProtectedConstructor(); // doesn't compile
}
public static ProtectedConstructor getInstance()
{
return new ProtectedConstructor(); // doesn't compile
}
}

You can instantiate a class with protected constructors from within the class itself - in a static constructor or static method. This can be used to implement a singleton, or a factory-type thing.
An abstract class cannot be instantiated at all - the intent is that one or more child classes will complete the implementation, and those classes will get instantiated
Edit:
if you call ProtectedConstructor.GetInstance(); instead of new ProtectedConstructor();, it works. Maybe protected constructors can't be called this way? But protected methods certainly can.
Here is an interesting article on the topic.

Most of the time, there is little practical difference, as both are only able to be generated via a subclass.
However, marking a class abstract has two benefits:
With protected constructors, it's still possible to create an instance of the class in two ways. You can use Activator.CreateInstance with BindingFlags.NonPublic, or you can use a factory method defined in the class (or a subclass) to create an instance of the class. A class marked abstract, however, cannot be created.
You are making your intention more clear by marking the class abstract. Personally, I find this the most compelling reason to do so.

From an outside , black-box perspective, yes they are similar in that you cannot instantiate either one. However, you can never instantiate an abstract class, where you can construct a class with only protected constructors from within the class itself, or from an inheritor.

An abstract class can have abstract methods; methods that consist only of the method signature, but no body, that child classes must implement.
Seriously, not one person mentioned that yet?

Your example is flawed because in the getInstance case because you construct a ProtectedConstructor class and expect to down cast it as a DerivedClass. Instead you need a slightly more complete implementation where the derived class has a constrcutor:
public class ProtectedConstructor
{
protected ProtectedConstructor(string arg)
{
// do something with arg
}
public static ProtectedConstructor GetInstance()
{
return new ProtectedConstructor("test");
}
}
public class DerivedClass : ProtectedConstructor
{
protected DerivedClass(string arg) : base(arg)
{
}
public void createInstance()
{
DerivedClass p = new DerivedClass("test");
}
public static DerivedClass getInstance()
{
return new DerivedClass("test");
}
}
Regardless the major difference usage of abstract classes is to define abstract methods that subclasses must implement but you don't want to provide a default implementation for. For example suppose you have some kind of Thread class that has a Run method. You want to ensure that every call to Run first setups up some logging then does the real work of the thread and then stops logging. You could write an abstract Thread class like this:
public abstract Thread
{
protected Thread()
{
}
public void Run()
{
LogStart();
DoRun();
LogEnd();
}
protected abstract DoRun();
private void LogStart()
{
Console.Write("Starting Thread Run");
}
private void LogEnd()
{
Console.Write("Ending Thread Run");
}
}
public class HelloWorldThread : Thread
{
public HelloWorldThread()
{
}
protected override DoRun()
{
Console.Write("Hello World");
}
}

Another thing to consider, that I didn't see other people mention, is that your code may be maintained in the future. If the maintainer adds a public constructor to a class, then it can be instantiated. This might break your design, so you should prevent it (or design to accommodate it).
To prevent other people from making these kinds of changes, you can comment your code. Or, as other people said, use "abstract" to explicitly document your intent.

Well, the first difference that comes to mind is that an abstract class can not be instantiated, but a class with protected constructors could be instantiated throw another public method.
A common example of this might be something like the Singleton pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern

if you inherit an abstract class from another abstract class, you do not have to satisfy abstract methods, but you do with a normal class with protected ctors. Examples
public abstract class Parent
{
protected abstract void AMethod();
}
public abstract class Child: Parent
{
// does not implement AMethod, and that's ok
}
public class Child2: Parent
{
// does not implement AMethod, and that will cause a compile error
}

If your intent is to only allow static uses of the class (i.e. not to use it as a pure base class) then you should use the static keyword instead; the CLR will prevent instances of the class being created via any method including Reflection (AFAIK).

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).

C# - using polymorphism in classes I didn't write

What is the best way to implement polymorphic behavior in classes that I can't modify? I currently have some code like:
if(obj is ClassA) {
// ...
} else if(obj is ClassB) {
// ...
} else if ...
The obvious answer is to add a virtual method to the base class, but unfortunately the code is in a different assembly and I can't modify it. Is there a better way to handle this than the ugly and slow code above?

Hmmm... seems more suited to Adapter.
public interface ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
void DoWhatYouWant();
}
public class MyA : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassA _actualA;
public MyA( ClassA actualA )
{
_actualA = actualA;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualA.DoWhatADoes();
}
}
public class MyB : ITheInterfaceYouNeed
{
protected ClassB _actualB;
public MyB( ClassB actualB )
{
_actualB = actualB;
}
public void DoWhatYouWant()
{
_actualB.DoWhatBDoes();
}
}
Seems like a lot of code, but it will make the client code a lot closer to what you want. Plus it'll give you a chance to think about what interface you're actually using.

Check out the Visitor pattern. This lets you come close to adding virtual methods to a class without changing the class. You need to use an extension method with a dynamic cast if the base class you're working with doesn't have a Visit method. Here's some sample code:
public class Main
{
public static void Example()
{
Base a = new GirlChild();
var v = new Visitor();
a.Visit(v);
}
}
static class Ext
{
public static void Visit(this object b, Visitor v)
{
((dynamic)v).Visit((dynamic)b);
}
}
public class Visitor
{
public void Visit(Base b)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void Visit(BoyChild b)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a boy!");
}
public void Visit(GirlChild g)
{
Console.WriteLine("It's a girl!");
}
}
//Below this line are the classes you don't have to change.
public class Base
{
}
public class BoyChild : Base
{
}
public class GirlChild : Base
{
}

I would say that the standard approach here is to wrap the class you want to "inherit" as a protected instance variable and then emulate all the non-private members (method/properties/events/etc.) of the wrapped class in your container class. You can then mark this class and its appropiate members as virtual so that you can use standard polymorphism features with it.
Here's an example of what I mean. ClosedClass is the class contained in the assembly whose code to which you have no access.
public virtual class WrapperClass : IClosedClassInterface1, IClosedClassInterface2
{
protected ClosedClass object;
public ClosedClass()
{
object = new ClosedClass();
}
public void Method1()
{
object.Method1();
}
public void Method2()
{
object.Method2();
}
}
If whatever assembly you are referencing were designed well, then all the types/members that you might ever want to access would be marked appropiately (abstract, virtual, sealed), but indeed this is unfortunately not the case (sometimes you can even experienced this issue with the Base Class Library). In my opinion, the wrapper class is the way to go here. It does have its benefits (even when the class from which you want to derive is inheritable), namely removing/changing the modifier of methods you don't want the user of your class to have access to. The ReadOnlyCollection<T> in the BCL is a pretty good example of this.

Take a look at the Decorator pattern. Noldorin actually explained it without giving the name of the pattern.
Decorator is the way of extending behavior without inheriting. The only thing I would change in Noldorin's code is the fact that the constructor should receive an instance of the object you are decorating.

Extension methods provide an easy way to add additional method signatures to existing classes. This requires the 3.5 framework.
Create a static utility class and add something like this:
public static void DoSomething(this ClassA obj, int param1, string param2)
{
//do something
}
Add a reference to the utility class on the page, and this method will appear as a member of ClassA. You can overload existing methods or create new ones this way.