In C#, can you make a class visible only within its own namespace without living in a different assembly? This seems useful for typical helper classes that shouldn't be used elsewhere.
(i.e. what Java calls package-private classes)
You can make the classes internal but this only prevents anyone outside of the assembly from using the class. But you still have to make a separate assembly for each namespace that you want to do this with. I'm assuming that is why you wouldn't want to do it.
Getting the C# Compiler to Enforce Namespace Visibility
There is an article here (Namespace visibility in C#) that shows a method of using partial classes as a form of "fake namespace" that you might find helpful.
The author points out that this doesn't work perfectly and he discusses the shortcomings. The main problem is that C# designers designed C# not to work this way. This deviates heavily from expected coding practices in C#/.NET, which is one of the .NET Frameworks greatest advantages.
It's a neat trick… now don't do it.
I don't think that what you want is possible.
internal is assembly (strictly speaking module) privacy. It has no effect on namespace visibility.
The only way to achieve privacy of a class from other classes within the same assembly is for a class to be an inner class.
At this point if the class is private it is invisible to anything not in that class or the outer class itself.
If protected it is visible to everyone that could see it when private but is also visible to sub classes of the outer class.
public class Outer
{
private class Hidden { public Hidden() {} }
protected class Shady { public Shady() {} }
public class Promiscuous { public Promiscuous() {} }
}
public class Sub : Outer
{
public Sub():base()
{
var h = new Hidden(); // illegal, will not compile
var s = new Shady(); // legal
var p = new Promiscuous(); // legal
}
}
public class Outsider
{
public Outsider()
{
var h = new Outer.Hidden(); // illegal, will not compile
var s = new Outer.Shady() // illegal, will not compile
var p = new Outer.Promiscuous(); // legal
}
}
In essence the only way to achieve what you desire is to use the outer class as a form of namespace and restrict within that class.
No, it is possible. You can use internal class in another assembly.
For example I have a internal string extension class that located in SharMillSoft.Core assembly, if I want use it in another assembly that name is SharpMilSoft.Extension, I must use assembly attribute like as below:
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
[assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("SharpMilSoft.Extensions")]
namespace SharpMilSoft.Core.Extensions.Strings.Public
{
internal static class SharpStringExtensions
{
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string data)
{
return string.IsNullOrEmpty(data);
}
}
}
And I use this class in SharpMilSoft.Extension assembly like as below:
namespace SharpMilSoft.Extensions.Strings
{
public static class SharpStringExtensions
{
public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this string data)
{
return Core.Extensions.Strings.Public.SharpStringExtensions.IsNullOrEmpty(data);
}
}
}
Note: Then SharpMilSoft.Extensions assembly will be friend assembly for SharpMilSoft.Core assembly
For more details about friend assembly, you can visit this link : Friend assemblies
If you have a single assembly you can define as many namespaces in that assembly as you want but no matter what modifier you apply in the IDE you will always be able to see the classes in other namespaces.
Not sure if it is directly possible, but a few good ways to fake it would be:
1) Have the classes that need this sort of stuff inherit from a single class which has the helper class as an internal class.
2) Use extension methods and then only reference the extension methods within the namespace.
Related
I have Created one ConsoleApplication to understand Access Specifiers.
Below is my code for internal, I can access this class from outside the Assembly.
namespace Assembly_1 //This is first assembly.
{
public class Base
{
//internal class
internal class B
{
public static void fnB()
{
Console.WriteLine("fnB");
}
}
}
}
namespace Assembly_2 //This is second assembly.
{
public class Derived : Assembly_1.Base
{
public class D
{
public void fnD()
{
B.fnB();//how can I access this class?
}
}
}
}
And this is where I am Accessing it.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Assembly_2.Derived.D d = new Assembly_2.Derived.D();
d.fnD();
}
}
}
My Question
Right now I can Access Class B and it's methods like fnB() in Derived.
Everything works fine. but How?
How can I access the B Class outside Assembly_1?
As I worte in the comments:
You are confusing the namespace and assembly terms.
You can read about it here:(Assemblies and Namespace)
Many namespaces can be defined in a single assembly.
If you would like to check and understand the internal modifier,
then you would have to create a new class library project (that will compile into a different assembly), define the Base class there
and add a reference to it in your main console application.
Then you will see that you don't have access to it anymore and the code will not compile.
How can I access the B Class outside Assembly_1?
Because you're confusing namespaces and assemblies. An assembly is a collection of one or more namespaces, contained within a .dll or .exe file.
See also: MSDN: Assemblies in the Common Language Runtime and Understanding and Using Assemblies and Namespaces in .NET.
What you call Assembly_1 and Assembly_2 are namespaces within the same assembly.
Because internal members are visible within the same assembly, you can use Assembly_1.B from Assembly_2.D, because both namespaces reside in the same assembly.
I have namespaces:
MyProject.Core.Db
MyProject.Core.Model
And I have classes:
MyProject.Core.Db.User
MyProject.Core.Model.User
Is it possible something like:
using MyProject.Core;
namespace MyProject.BLL
{
public class Logic
{
public static void DoSomething()
{
var userEntity = new Db.User();
var userModel = new Model.User();
}
}
}
I just want to avoid using suffixes in class names (UserModel, UserEntity).
Is it possible to do in somehow in C#?
I don't understand why people say it's not possible. Surely it is possible, you just need to be a bit more specific in the namespaces when you create the target classes (ie you can omit only the common part of the namespace):
namespace MyProject.Core.Db
{
public class User
{
}
}
namespace MyProject.Core.Model
{
public class User
{
}
}
namespace MyProject.BLL
{
public class Logic
{
public static void DoSomething()
{
var foo = new Core.Db.User();
var boo = new Core.Model.User();
}
}
}
The way you're avoiding a fully qualified name within BLL is by being inside of a common namespace with the other two.
What you're trying to achieve is not possible. The closest thing you will get is a using alias directive which looks like this:
using User = Myproject.Core.Db.User;
This will remove the need to fully qualify the path for Myproject.Core.Db.User. You will still need to specify the fully qualified path for at least one of the classes, though. You could create another alias for the other type as Servy demonstrated but at this point I would just rename the classes.
I think the real solution here is to give your classes more descriptive identifiers.
C# does support relative namespace references.
In your case, that means if you're in the namespace MyProject.Core, you can references your classes as Db.User and Model.User. But if you're in the namespace MyProject.BLL, you have to include the Core prefix (Core.Db.User and Core.Model.User).
If that's not good enough for your and you don't want to change your namespace structure, your best choice is probably to add usings to all files that use the types in question.
using DbUser = MyProject.Core.Db.User;
using ModelUser = MyProject.Core.Model.User;
One thing you can do, and we probably should do a lot more, is to specify usings relative to the current namespace. To do this, just move your usings inside the namespace declaration. It doesn't fix your stated problem, but the shorter relative paths are less brittle and your project will be easier to refactor.
namespace MyProject.Core{
using Db;
using Model;
You can add an alias for the one class that you don't import the namespace of:
using MyProject.Core.Db;
using ModelUser = MyProject.Core.Model.User;
namespace MyProject.BLL
{
public class Logic
{
public static void DoSomething()
{
var userEntity = new User();
var userModel = new ModelUser();
}
}
}
In C# it's not possible to use the example that's shown; it's simply not a supported feature.
I'm new to C# and I can't seem to find any info on this so I will ask it here.
Do classes in namespaces have to ever be declared?
using System;
public class myprogram
{
void main()
{
// The console class does not have to be declared?
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
}
}
If I'm not using a namespace then I have to declare a class
class mathstuff
{
private int numberone = 2;
private int numbertwo = 3;
public int addhere()
{
return numberone + numbertwo;
}
using System;
public class myprogram
{
void main()
{
// the class here needs to be declared.
mathstuff mymath = new mathstuff();
Console.WriteLine(mymath.addhere());
}
}
Am I understanding this correctly?
A namespace is simply a way to make clear in which context the class is living in. Think of your own name, Ralph. We have many Ralphs in this world, but one of that is you. An extra way to get rid of the ambiguity is to add your surname. So that if we have 2 Ralphs, we have a bigger chance of talking about you.
The same works for classes. If you define class AClass and you would have the need of define another class AClass there would be no way to distinguish between the two. A namespace would be that 'surname'. A way of having to classes, but still able to distinguish between the two different classes, with the same name.
To answer your question, it has nothing to do with "not having to declare". It would only be easier to write code.
For example:
using System;
public class myprogram
{
void main()
{
// the class here needs to be declared.
Console.WriteLine("blah");
}
}
Because of the using System; you don't have to declare the namespace of Console. There is only one Console available, which lives in the System namespace. If you wouldn't declare your using System; namespace then you'd need to explain where Console can be found. Like this.
System.Console.WriteLine("blah");
From MSDN:
The namespace keyword is used to declare a scope. This namespace scope lets you organize code and gives you a way to create globally unique types.
For more info check MSDN for namespace.
I think what you mean is "can you declare a class without a namespace?". Yes you can, it's referred to as the global namespace.
class BaseClass
{
}
class SubClass : global::BaseClass
{
}
However, this is very bad practice, and you should never do this in a production application.
What are the advantages-disadvantages of declaring a Delegate type within a class scope over declaring it directly within the namespace scope? I mean the following two -
namespace MyNamespace
{
public delegate string NamespaceScopeDelegate(int x, int y);
public class ClassX
{
//class members
}
}
and,
namespace YourNamespace
{
public class ClassA
{
public delegate string ClassScopeDelegate(int x, int y);
//...
//other class members
}
}
What sort of practical scenario would make me use the later one? I mean where exactly is it appropriate?
EDIT :
For the first case whenever I need to instantiate the delegate type, I can do that as -
var delegateInstance = new NamespaceScopeDelegate(MethodToPoint);
But for the second case, I must use the enclosing type name as -
var delegateInstance = new ClassA.ClassScopeDelegate(MethodToPoint);
Why would I want to do that? Does the second case provide any sort of encapsulation that I'm no aware of yet? Is there any special scenario that requires this sort of accessibility?
In your current examples, the only difference is that the second one doesn't clutter your namespace, you need to reference the class it is declared in first. You can use it to make clear that the delegate has a close relationship with the class and it is mostly used by it alone.
The following is also possible (either internal or private):
namespace YourNamespace
{
public class ClassA
{
internal/private delegate string ClassScopeDelegate(int x, int y);
//...
//other class members
}
}
By making it internal, only the same assembly can access it, and it doesn't clutter your namespace, by making it private, only the class itself may access the delegate declaration.
You need to understand that namespaces are just a nifty naming tool for your classes/delegates.
Take this code, for example:
namespace YourNamespace
{
public class ClassA
{
}
}
It produces a class with the name YourNamespace.ClassA. There isn't any actual namespace - just a class with dotted name notation.
The same is true for delegates defined inside classes.
What matters is how you wish to organize your code.
Simple as that.
What sort of practical scenario would make me use the later one?
For delegates, probably none.
From Nested Types as already mentioned in a comment:
Do not use nested types if the type is likely to be referenced outside of the declaring type. Declaration of variables and object instantiation for nested types should not be required in common scenarios. For example, an event-handler delegate that handles an event defined on a class should not be nested in the class.
I am designing a loosely-coupled structure. I want to call classes from different assemblies/namespaces via a code which is represented by a String. My design is, each of client's business rules is on different assemblies and not dependent on each other (ONE client is to ONE DLL ratio) so that when I made an update on business rules of 1 client, it would not affect the others. My attention now is on using Factory Design and using Activator.CreateInstance() Method.
This is the project setup (2+n DLL's)
namespace Foundation; // where the interfaces/abstract resides
namespace Factory; // has dependency on Foundation assembly
namespace Client1; // client1's DLL, no dependency
namespace Client2; // client2's DLL, no dependency
The UI // only referenced to the Foundation and Factory not the Clients
The actual code
namespace Foundation
{
public interface IBusinessRules
{
string GetBusinessRule();
}
}
namespace Client1 //DLL for client 1
{
public class BusinessRules : Foundation.IBusinessRules
{
public string GetBusinessRule()
{
return "Client1 Business Rule";
}
}
}
namespace Client2 //DLL for client 2
{
public class BusinessRules : Foundation.IBusinessRules
{
public string GetBusinessRule()
{
return "Client2 Business Rule";
}
}
}
namespace Factory
{
public static class Invoker<T> where T: Foundation.IBusinessRules
{
public static T FetchInstance(string clientCode)
{
return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType(clientCode));
}
}
}
//sample implementation that generates unhandled Exception
using Factory;
using Foundation;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//the parameter is maintained in the database
IBusinessRules objClient1 = Invoker<IBusinessRules>.FetchInstance("Client1");
//should call Client1.BusinessRules method
Console.WriteLine(objClient.GetBusinessRule());
Console.Read();
objClient = Invoker<IBusinessRules>.FetchInstance("Client2");
//should call Client2.BusinessRules method
Console.WriteLine(objClient.GetBusinessRule());
Console.Read();
}
Any idea why my sample doesn't work? And any suggestion to improve the design?
Thanks in advance.
How about using
Expression.Lambda
anyone?
If you use FetchInstance("Client.BusinessRules") your code works, IF everything is in the same assembly. If it's not (as per your design) you need to give an AssemblyQualifiedName.
I would do the design differently though. Keep your call with just "Client1" as Parameter but change the implementation of the Factory. Dynamically load the assembly for the given client (with Assembly.Load() or Assembly.LoadFrom()), then use clientAssembly.CreateInstance() to istantiate your type.
Edit: Crude code sample:
namespace Factory
{
public static class Invoker<T> where T: IBusinessRules
{
public static T FetchInstance(string clientCode)
{
var clientAssembly = Assembly.LoadFrom(clientCode + ".dll");
return (T)clientAssembly.CreateInstance(clientCode+".BusinessRules");
}
}
}
If you dont't know the class name in the client-dll, you have to search for an applicable Type, for example with clientAssembly.GetTypes().
Thanks to your help guys i finally Got it! I just modify the Factory
namespace Factory
{
public static class Invoker<T> where T : Foundation.IBusinessRules
{
public static T FetchInstance(string clientCode)
{
Type objType = Type.GetType(clientCode + ".BusinessRules," + clientCode);
return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(objType);
}
}
But I wonder about its effeciency (performance hit) because it uses Reflection..
You need to use the full name of the class.
for example:
Type.GetType("System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[System.String,[MyType,MyAssembly]]")
If you are loading the type from an external assembly, I would recommend using Activator.CreateInstanceFrom.
var typeReference = Activator.CreateInstanceFrom(assemblyPath, fullyQualifiedClassName);
return typeReference.Unwrap() as T;
If you want to be able to add business rules as dlls after deployment and create them at runtime, I suggest you have a business rules folder under you app, load all dlls in that app, search for all types that implement of IBusinessRules in each dll using reflection. Given that you now have handles on the types, creating one based on name would be easy and your project would scale out.
Either that, or pass the assembly qualified name of the classes to your methods.