example
i have a class
using System;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
public interface INode<T>
{
T Value { get; }
}
public class A
{
public void Do1(INode<string> node) { }
public void Do2<T>(INode<T> node) { }
}
public class Programm
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A();
//now I want to pass this method to an another class as arguments
//it's OK here
var processor1 = new Proccessor(a.Do1);
//no idea how to achieve this without making class Proccessor generic type
var processor2 = new Proccessor(a.Do2);
}
}
public class Proccessor
{
//it's OK here
public Proccessor(Action<INode<string>> do1Action)
{
}
//no idea how to achieve this without making class Proccessor generic type
public Proccessor(Action<T><INode<T>> do2Action)
{
}
}
}
It looks like you're trying to pass an Action<T> to a method such that the method can then choose which T to invoke it for. That's simply not possible.
The easiest way around this is avoiding generics entirely, by making all BaseNodeViewModel<T, U> derive from a common non-generic BaseNodeViewModel type. Your OnNodeExpanded then looks like
private void OnNodeExpanded(BaseNodeViewModel node) { ... }
and it may cast node to the concrete type as needed in its implementation.
A more advanced way around this is creating a custom interface type
internal interface INodeExpanded {
void OnNodeExpanded<TNode>(BaseNodeViewModel<TNode, FolderTreeViewModel> node);
}
You can then manually create a class which implements this interface, and pass that to A instead of a delegate.
The answer to this question depends on what exactly you expect to be able to do with do2Action inside the class.
Do you to say "I want to accept and store an action that will be able to work with any INode"? Assuming that's the case, make INode covariant, and demand an Action<INode<object>>. Like so:
public interface INode<out T>
{
T Value { get; }
}
Then...
public Proccessor(Action<INode<object>> do2Action)
{
}
Now you can do:
var processor2 = new Proccessor((Action<INode<object>>)a.Do2(x));
The cast is required to disambiguate from the string overload, but if you remove the overloads and instead use distinctly named static methods to construct, you will find that this is type safe.
Note that an immense responsibility has now been pushed to a.Do2, it must be able to work with any INode whatsoever, without restriction.
You can't have a generic constructor for a non-generic class. You have at least 3 options (Asad's answer is also very good if your intentions are what he specified in his answer):
don't use generics. see hvd's answer.
make the class generic.
don't use T in the constructor, but in another method. You can have a static method that will create and return an instance of the class for you, there you can use the generic action:
public class Proccessor
{
//it's OK here
public Proccessor(Action<INode<string>> do1Action)
{
}
private Proccessor()
{
// a private constructor for the CreateProcessor static method
}
public static Proccessor CreateProccessor<T>(Action<INode<T>> do2Action)
{
var proccessor = new Proccessor();
// invoke action here
}
}
I have a class library which contain some base classes and others that are derived from them. In this class library, I'm taking advantage of polymorphism to do what I want it to do. Now in a consuming application, I want to change the behavior of some code based on the runtime type of the child classes. So assume the following:
public class Base { }
public class Child1 : Base { }
public class Child2 : Base { }
Now in the consuming application I want do something as follows (note that all of the following classes are in the consuming application and cannot be referenced in the class library):
public interface IMyInterface1 { }
public interface IMyInterface2 { }
public static class Extensions
{
public static void DoSomething(this Base myObj, Object dependency)
{
}
public static void DoSomething(this Child1 myObj, Object dependency)
{
IMyInterface1 myInterface = dependency as IMyInterface1;
if (myInterface != null)
{
//Do some Child1 specific logic here
}
}
public static void DoSomething(this Child2 myObj, Object dependency)
{
IMyInterface2 myInterface = dependency as IMyInterface2;
if (myInterface != null)
{
//Do some Child2 specific logic here
}
}
}
UPDATE:
This does not work. It always calls the extension method of the base class. Is there some other way that will allow me to do this and avoid having to explicitly check for the runtime type? The reasons is because more classes that are derived from the Base could be added and corresponding extension methods could come from some other external assembly.
Thanks in advance.
As #SLaks has already stated you cannot call the method as an extension method (even with a dynamic type) ... you can however call the static method with a dynamic type
So, although this will fail
Base base1 = new Child1();
(base1 as dynamic).DoSomething();
This will work
Base base1 = new Child1();
Extensions.DoSomething(base1 as dynamic);
No, that won't work.
Extension methods are statically dispatched, using the same mechanism as overload resolution.
If you have a variable of compile-time type Base, the compiler will always call the base extension method, regardless of the runtime type.
Instead, you can make the base extension method check the runtime type and call the appropriate other extension method.
I was looking for the same thing just now.
You could add one more method to your extension class like this:
public static void DoSomething(this Base myObj, Object dependency)
{
if(myObj.IsSubclassOf(Base))
{
// A derived class, call appropriate extension method.
DoSomething(myObj as dynamic, dependency);
}
else
{
// The object is Base class so handle it.
}
}
You don't need the if/else check if the base class is abstract (or never used in the wild):
public static void DoSomething(this Base myObj, Object dependency)
{
DoSomething(myObj as dynamic, dependency);
}
[Edit] Actually this won't work in your case as you don't implement support for all derived objects (so could still get infinite recursion). I guess you could pass something to check for recursion but the given answer is the simplest. I'll leave this here as it might spark more ideas.
Below is the minimal example showing how to mimic polymorphism with extension methods.
void Main()
{
var elements = new Base[]{
new Base(){ Name = "Base instance"},
new D1(){ Name = "D1 instance"},
new D2(){ Name = "D2 instance"},
new D3(){ Name = "D3 instance"}
};
foreach(Base x in elements){
x.Process();
}
}
public class Base{
public string Name;
}
public class D1 : Base {}
public class D2 : Base {}
public class D3 : Base {}
public static class Exts{
public static void Process(this Base obj){
if(obj.GetType() == typeof(Base)) Process<Base>(obj); //prevent infinite recursion for Base instances
else Process((dynamic) obj);
}
private static void Process<T>(this T obj) where T: Base
{
Console.WriteLine("Base/Default: {0}", obj.Name);
}
public static void Process(this D1 obj){
Console.WriteLine("D1: {0}", obj.Name);
}
public static void Process(this D2 obj){
Console.WriteLine("D2: {0}", obj.Name);
}
}
Outputs:
Base/Default: Base instance
D1: D1 instance
D2: D2 instance
Base/Default: D3 instance
If you can not use the keyword "dynamic" (older version of .NET), you can use reflection to achieve the same thing.
In place of :
Base base1 = new Child1();
Extensions.DoSomething(base1 as dynamic);
you can write :
Base base1 = new Child1();
MethodInfo method = typeof(Extensions).GetMethod("DoSomething", new System.Type[] { base1.GetType() });
if (method) {
method.Invoke(new object[] { base1 });
}
I have read through the follow SO articles
C#: How do I call a static method of a base class from a static method of a derived class?
Can I have a base class where each derived class has its own copy of a static property?
What's the correct alternative to static method inheritance?
All seem very close to my question and have good answers, but they do not seem to answer my question other than to say that I need to make the method non-static.
an example:
abstract public class baseClass
{
private static List<string> attributeNames = new List(new string {"property1","property2"});
// code for property definition and access
virtual public static bool ValidAttribtue(string attributeName)
{
if (attributeNames.Contains(attributeName))
return true;
else
return false;
}
}
class derivedA : baseClass
{
private static List<string> attributeNames = new List(new string {"property3","property4"});
// code for property definition and access
public static override bool ValidAttribute(string attributeName)
{
if (attributeNames.Contains(attributeName))
{
return true;
}
else
{
return base.ValidAttribute(attributeName);
}
}
}
class derivedB : baseClass
{
private static List<string> attributeNames = new List(new string {"property10","property11"});
// code for property definition and access
public static override bool ValidAttribute(string attributeName)
{
if (attributeNames.Contains(attributeName))
{
return true;
}
else
{
return base.ValidAttribute(attributeName);
}
}
}
derivedA would have properties 1,2,3,4 while derivedB would have properties 1,2,10,11.
The list of properties seems to be a class specific value and can not be changed at any point. I would think it then would be static.
Is my design wrong in the sense that I am trying to use static methods when they should not be?
The above example makes me think that inheritance of static methods would be needed, yet it seems that trying to do this is a design flaw. Can anyone help me to understand what is wrong with coding or structuring classes in this manner?
Is my design wrong in the sense that I am trying to use static methods when they should not be?
Yes. Aside from anything else, you're trying to declare a static method as virtual (and then override it), which isn't allowed. You're also trying to declare a class called base, when that's a keyword.
Static methods simply aren't polymorphic. The basis of polymorphism is that the execution time type of the instance involved can be different to the compile-time type of the expression, and the implementation is chosen on the basis of the execution time type. That concept doesn't make sense for static methods as there is no instance.
Now of course you can make a static method in a derived class call a static method in the base class - but there won't be any polymorphism anywhere.
As a side note, all of your methods could be written in a more readable way:
// Base class implementation
return attributeNames.Contains(attributeName);
// Derived class implementations
return attributeNames.Contains(attributeName) ||
BaseClass.ValidAttribute(attributeName);
Given
public class A
{
public static void Foo()
{
// get typeof(B)
}
}
public class B : A
{
}
Is it possible for B.Foo() to get typeof(B) in .NET 4? Note that Foo is static.
There is no difference between A.Foo() and B.Foo(). The compiler emits a call to A.Foo() in both cases. So, no, there is no way to detect if Foo was called as A.Foo() or B.Foo().
Unfortunately this isn't possible, as dtb explains.
One alternative is to make A generic like so:
public class A<T>
{
public static void Foo()
{
// use typeof(T)
}
}
public class B : A<B>
{
}
Another possibility is to make the A.Foo method generic and then provide stub methods in the derived types that then call the "base" iplementation.
I'm not keen on this pattern. It's probably only worthwhile if you absolutely need to keep the B.Foo calling convention, you can't make A itself generic, and you have lots of shared logic inside A.Foo that you don't want to repeat in your derived types.
public class A
{
protected static void Foo<T>()
{
// use typeof(T)
}
}
public class B : A
{
public static void Foo()
{
A.Foo<B>();
}
}
I have a helper class that is just a bunch of static methods and would like to subclass the helper class. Some behavior is unique depending on the subclass so I would like to call a virtual method from the base class, but since all the methods are static I can't create a plain virtual method (need object reference in order to access virtual method).
Is there any way around this? I guess I could use a singleton.. HelperClass.Instance.HelperMethod() isn't so much worse than HelperClass.HelperMethod(). Brownie points for anyone that can point out some languages that support virtual static methods.
Edit: OK yeah I'm crazy. Google search results had me thinking I wasn't for a bit there.
I don't think you are crazy. You just want to use what is impossible currently in .NET.
Your request for virtual static method would have so much sense if we are talking about generics.
For example my future request for CLR designers is to allow me to write intereface like this:
public interface ISumable<T>
{
static T Add(T left, T right);
}
and use it like this:
public T Aggregate<T>(T left, T right) where T : ISumable<T>
{
return T.Add(left, right);
}
But it's impossible right now, so I'm doing it like this:
public static class Static<T> where T : new()
{
public static T Value = new T();
}
public interface ISumable<T>
{
T Add(T left, T right);
}
public T Aggregate<T>(T left, T right) where T : ISumable<T>, new()
{
return Static<T>.Value.Add(left, right);
}
Virtual static methods don't make sense. If I call HelperClass.HelperMethod();, why would I expect some random subclass' method to be called? The solution really breaks down when you have 2 subclasses of HelperClass - which one would you use?
If you want to have overrideable static-type methods you should probably go with:
A singleton, if you want the same subclass to be used globally.
A tradition class hierarchy, with a factory or dependency injection, if you want different behavior in different parts of your application.
Choose whichever solution makes more sense in your situation.
You can achieve the same effect by just having a regular static method and then shadow it with the new keyword
public class Base
{
//Other stuff
public static void DoSomething()
{
Console.WriteLine("Base");
}
}
public class SomeClass : Base
{
public new static void DoSomething()
{
Console.WriteLine("SomeClass");
}
}
public class SomeOtherClass : Base
{
}
Then you can call the methods like so
Base.DoSomething(); //Base
SomeClass.DoSomething(); //SomeClass
SomeOtherClass.DoSomething(); //Base
Indeed, this can be done in Delphi. An example:
type
TForm1 = class(TForm)
procedure FormShow(Sender: TObject);
end;
TTestClass = class
public
class procedure TestMethod(); virtual;
end;
TTestDerivedClass = class(TTestClass)
public
class procedure TestMethod(); override;
end;
TTestMetaClass = class of TTestClass;
var
Form1: TForm1;
implementation
{$R *.dfm}
class procedure TTestClass.TestMethod();
begin
Application.MessageBox('base', 'Message');
end;
class procedure TTestDerivedClass.TestMethod();
begin
Application.MessageBox('descendant', 'Message');
end;
procedure TForm1.FormShow(Sender: TObject);
var
sample: TTestMetaClass;
begin
sample := TTestClass;
sample.TestMethod;
sample := TTestDerivedClass;
sample.TestMethod;
end;
Quite interesting. I no longer use Delphi, but I recall being able to very easily create different types of controls on a custom designer canvas using the metaclass feature: the control class, eg. TButton, TTextBox etc. was a parameter, and I could call the appropriate constructor using the actual metaclass argument.
Kind of the poor man's factory pattern :)
I come from Delphi and this is a feature among many that I sorely miss in c#. Delphi would allow you to create typed type references and you could pass the type of a derived class wherever the type of a parent class was needed. This treatment of types as objects had powerful utility. In particular allowing run time determination of meta data. I am horribly mixing syntax here but in c# it would look something like:
class Root {
public static virtual string TestMethod() {return "Root"; }
}
TRootClass = class of TRoot; // Here is the typed type declaration
class Derived : Root {
public static overide string TestMethod(){ return "derived"; }
}
class Test {
public static string Run(){
TRootClass rc;
rc = Root;
Test(rc);
rc = Derived();
Test(rc);
}
public static Test(TRootClass AClass){
string str = AClass.TestMethod();
Console.WriteLine(str);
}
}
would produce:
Root
derived
You are not crazy. What you are referring to is called Late Static Binding; it's been recently added to PHP. There's a great thread that describes it - here: When would you need to use late static binding?
a static method exists outside of an instance of a class. It cannot use any non-static data.
a virtual method will be "overwritten" by an overloaded function depending of the type of an instance.
so you have a clear contradiction between static and virtual.
This is not a problem of support, It is a concept.
Update: I was proven wrong here(see comments):
So I doubt you will find any OOP-Language which will support virtual
static methods.
There is a way to force an inheritance of "abstract static" methods from an abstract generic class. See as follow :
public abstract class Mother<T> where T : Mother<T>, new()
{
public abstract void DoSomething();
public static void Do()
{
(new T()).DoSomething();
}
}
public class ChildA : Mother<ChildA>
{
public override void DoSomething() { /* Your Code */ }
}
public class ChildB : Mother<ChildB>
{
public override void DoSomething() { /* Your Code */ }
}
Example (using the previous Mother):
public class ChildA : Mother<ChildA>
{
public override void DoSomething() { Console.WriteLine("42"); }
}
public class ChildB : Mother<ChildB>
{
public override void DoSomething() { Console.WriteLine("12"); }
}
public class Program
{
static void Main()
{
ChildA.Do(); //42
ChildB.Do(); //12
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
It's not that great since you can inherit from only one abstract class and it will ask you to be lenient with your new() implementation.
More, I think it will be costly memory-wise depending on the size of your inherited classes.
In case you have memory issue, you would have to set every properties/variables after your new in a public method which is an awful way to have default values.
I heard that Delphi suports something like this. It seems it does it by making classes object instances of a metaclass.
I've not seen it work, so I'm not sure that it works, or what's the point for that.
P.S. Please correct me if I'm wrong, since it's not my domain.
Because a virtual method uses the defined type of the instantiated object to determine which implementation to execute, (as opposed to the declared type of the reference variable)
... and static, of course, is all about not caring if there's even an instantiated instance of the class at all...
So these are incompatible.
Bottom line, is if you want to change behavior based on which subclass an instance is, then the methods should have been virtual methods on the base class, not static methods.
But, as you already have these static methods, and now need to override them, you can solve your problem by this:
Add virtual instance methods to the base class that simply delegate to the static methods, and then override those virtual instance wrapper methods (not the static ones) in each derived subclass, as appropriate...
It is actually possible to combine virtual and static for a method or a member by using the keyword new instead of virtual.
Here is an example:
class Car
{
public static int TyreCount = 4;
public virtual int GetTyreCount() { return TyreCount; }
}
class Tricar : Car
{
public static new int TyreCount = 3;
public override int GetTyreCount() { return TyreCount; }
}
...
Car[] cc = new Car[] { new Tricar(), new Car() };
int t0 = cc[0].GetTyreCount(); // t0 == 3
int t1 = cc[1].GetTyreCount(); // t1 == 4
Obviously the TyreCount value could have been set in the overridden GetTyreCount method, but this avoids duplicating the value. It is possible to get the value both from the class and the class instance.
Now can someone find a really intelligent usage of that feature?
Mart got it right with the 'new' keyword.
I actually got here because I needed this type of functionality and Mart's solution works fine. In fact I took it one better and made my base class method abstract to force the programmer to supply this field.
My scenario was as follows:
I have a base class HouseDeed. Each House type is derived from HouseDeed must have a price.
Here is the partial base HouseDeed class:
public abstract class HouseDeed : Item
{
public static int m_price = 0;
public abstract int Price { get; }
/* more impl here */
}
Now lets look at two derived house types:
public class FieldStoneHouseDeed : HouseDeed
{
public static new int m_price = 43800;
public override int Price { get { return m_price; } }
/* more impl here */
}
and...
public class SmallTowerDeed : HouseDeed
{
public static new int m_price = 88500;
public override int Price { get { return m_price; } }
/* more impl here */
}
As you can see I can access the price of the house via type SmallTowerDeed.m_price, and the instance new SmallTowerDeed().Price
And being abstract, this mechanism nags the programmer into supplying a price for each new derived house type.
Someone pointed how 'static virtual' and 'virtual' are conceptually at odds with one another. I disagree. In this example, the static methods do not need access to the instance data, and so the requirements that (1) the price be available via the TYPE alone, and that (2) a price be supplied are met.
An override method provides a new implementation of a member that is inherited from a base class. The method that is overridden by an override declaration is known as the overridden base method. The overridden base method must have the same signature as the override method.
You cannot override a non-virtual or static method. The overridden base method must be virtual, abstract, or override.
An override declaration cannot change the accessibility of the virtual method. Both the override method and the virtual method must have the same access level modifier.
You cannot use the new, static, or virtual modifiers to modify an override method.
An overriding property declaration must specify exactly the same access modifier, type, and name as the inherited property, and the overridden property must be virtual, abstract, or override.
You can use the new keyword
namespace AspDotNetStorefront
{
// This Class is need to override StudioOnlineCommonHelper Methods in a branch
public class StudioOnlineCommonHelper : StudioOnlineCore.StudioOnlineCommonHelper
{
//
public static new void DoBusinessRulesChecks(Page page)
{
StudioOnlineCore.StudioOnlineCommonHelper.DoBusinessRulesChecks(page);
}
}
}
It is possible to simulate the functionality by using the new keyword in the derived class and throwing the NotSupportedException() in the base.
public class BaseClass{
public static string GetString(){
throw new NotSupportedException(); // This is not possible
}
}
public class DerivedClassA : BaseClass {
public static new string GetString(){
return "This is derived class A";
}
}
public class DerivedClassB : BaseClass {
public static new string GetString(){
return "This is derived class B";
}
}
static public void Main(String[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(DerivedClassA.GetString()); // Prints "This is derived class A"
Console.WriteLine(DerivedClassB.GetString()); // Prints "This is derived class B"
Console.WriteLine(BaseClass.GetString()); // Throws NotSupportedException
}
Due to the fact that it is not possible to detect this condition at compile time and that IntelliSense won't suggest that such function should be implemented in the derived class, this is a potential headache.
One comment also suggested to use NotImplemetedException(). Microsoft's documentation indicates that neither of these exceptions should be handled so any of them should work.
The differences between NotSupportedException and NotImplemetedException are commented in this blog.
You will be able to soon, in C# 11!
From Tutorial: Explore C# 11 feature - static virtual members in interfaces:
C# 11 and .NET 7 include static virtual members in interfaces. This feature enables you to define interfaces that include overloaded operators or other static members.