Develop Reference

Internal Modifier on an Interface's Property

I have the following interface:
public interface IAgable {
int Age { get; internal set; }
}
I want the Age property, to be read-only for external assemblies that reference this interface, but also I want the Age property to be set on the interface's same assembly, hence the internal modifier.
This, however, seems to throw a compilation error, as accessibility modifiers may not be used on accessors in an interface.
I want the property to be called from an interface, and I want to be able to set it at an internal level. At the same time, if referenced from an outside project, I want it to be readonly.
Is this possible?

Have an internal interface that provides both a get and a set, and a public interface that provides only a get. Have the public interface extend the internal interface:
public interface IAgable
{
int Age { get; }
}
internal interface IAgableInternal : IAgable
{
int Age { set; }
}

This is not possible according to Microsoft
Interfaces declared directly within a namespace can be declared as public or internal and, just like classes and structs, interfaces default to internal access. Interface members are always public because the purpose of an interface is to enable other types to access a class or struct. No access modifiers can be applied to interface members.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173121.aspx

Try this:
public interface IAgeable {
MyAge {get;set}
}
public class MyAge:IAgeable{
public MyAge(int age){
MyAge = age;
}
int MyAge { get; internal set; }
}

Why constants are not allowed in c# interface? [duplicate]

For example, suppose I want an ICar interface and that all implementations will contain the field Year. Does this mean that every implementation has to separately declare Year? Wouldn't it be nicer to simply define this in the interface?

Though many of the other answers are correct at the semantic level, I find it interesting to also approach these sorts of questions from the implementation details level.
An interface can be thought of as a collection of slots, which contain methods. When a class implements an interface, the class is required to tell the runtime how to fill in all the required slots. When you say
interface IFoo { void M(); }
class Foo : IFoo { public void M() { ... } }
the class says "when you create an instance of me, stuff a reference to Foo.M in the slot for IFoo.M.
Then when you do a call:
IFoo ifoo = new Foo();
ifoo.M();
the compiler generates code that says "ask the object what method is in the slot for IFoo.M, and call that method.
If an interface is a collection of slots that contain methods, then some of those slots can also contain the get and set methods of a property, the get and set methods of an indexer, and the add and remove methods of an event. But a field is not a method. There's no "slot" associated with a field that you can then "fill in" with a reference to the field location. And therefore, interfaces can define methods, properties, indexers and events, but not fields.

Interfaces in C# are intended to define the contract that a class will adhere to - not a particular implementation.
In that spirit, C# interfaces do allow properties to be defined - which the caller must supply an implementation for:
interface ICar
{
int Year { get; set; }
}
Implementing classes can use auto-properties to simplify implementation, if there's no special logic associated with the property:
class Automobile : ICar
{
public int Year { get; set; } // automatically implemented
}

Declare it as a property:
interface ICar {
int Year { get; set; }
}

Eric Lippert nailed it, I'll use a different way to say what he said. All of the members of an interface are virtual and they all need to be overridden by a class that inherits the interface. You don't explicitly write the virtual keyword in the interface declaration, nor use the override keyword in the class, they are implied.
The virtual keyword is implemented in .NET with methods and a so-called v-table, an array of method pointers. The override keyword fills the v-table slot with a different method pointer, overwriting the one produced by the base class. Properties, events and indexers are implemented as methods under the hood. But fields are not. Interfaces can therefore not contain fields.

Why not just have a Year property, which is perfectly fine?
Interfaces don't contain fields because fields represent a specific implementation of data representation, and exposing them would break encapsulation. Thus having an interface with a field would effectively be coding to an implementation instead of an interface, which is a curious paradox for an interface to have!
For instance, part of your Year specification might require that it be invalid for ICar implementers to allow assignment to a Year which is later than the current year + 1 or before 1900. There's no way to say that if you had exposed Year fields -- far better to use properties instead to do the work here.

The short answer is yes, every implementing type will have to create its own backing variable. This is because an interface is analogous to a contract. All it can do is specify particular publicly accessible pieces of code that an implementing type must make available; it cannot contain any code itself.
Consider this scenario using what you suggest:
public interface InterfaceOne
{
int myBackingVariable;
int MyProperty { get { return myBackingVariable; } }
}
public interface InterfaceTwo
{
int myBackingVariable;
int MyProperty { get { return myBackingVariable; } }
}
public class MyClass : InterfaceOne, InterfaceTwo { }
We have a couple of problems here:
Because all members of an interface are--by definition--public, our backing variable is now exposed to anyone using the interface
Which myBackingVariable will MyClass use?
The most common approach taken is to declare the interface and a barebones abstract class that implements it. This allows you the flexibility of either inheriting from the abstract class and getting the implementation for free, or explicitly implementing the interface and being allowed to inherit from another class. It works something like this:
public interface IMyInterface
{
int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
public abstract class MyInterfaceBase : IMyInterface
{
int myProperty;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return myProperty; }
set { myProperty = value; }
}
}

Others have given the 'Why', so I'll just add that your interface can define a Control; if you wrap it in a property:
public interface IView {
Control Year { get; }
}
public Form : IView {
public Control Year { get { return uxYear; } } //numeric text box or whatever
}

A lot has been said already, but to make it simple, here's my take.
Interfaces are intended to have method contracts to be implemented by the consumers or classes and not to have fields to store values.
You may argue that then why properties are allowed? So the simple answer is - properties are internally defined as methods only.

Interfaces do not contain any implementation.
Define an interface with a property.
Further you can implement that interface in any class and use this class going forward.
If required you can have this property defined as virtual in the class so that you can modify its behaviour.

Beginning with C# 8.0, an interface may define a default implementation for members, including properties. Defining a default implementation for a property in an interface is rare because interfaces may not define instance data fields.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/interface-properties
interface IEmployee
{
string Name
{
get;
set;
}
int Counter
{
get;
}
}
public class Employee : IEmployee
{
public static int numberOfEmployees;
private string _name;
public string Name // read-write instance property
{
get => _name;
set => _name = value;
}
private int _counter;
public int Counter // read-only instance property
{
get => _counter;
}
// constructor
public Employee() => _counter = ++numberOfEmployees;
}

For this you can have a Car base class that implement the year field, and all other implementations can inheritance from it.

An interface defines public instance properties and methods. Fields are typically private, or at the most protected, internal or protected internal (the term "field" is typically not used for anything public).
As stated by other replies you can define a base class and define a protected property which will be accessible by all inheritors.
One oddity is that an interface can in fact be defined as internal but it limits the usefulness of the interface, and it is typically used to define internal functionality that is not used by other external code.

Specify generic type as argument param without knowing T

I'm approaching a problem while still having some ignorance regarding Generics and their proper declarations / uses. I get the premiss, but some of the ins-n-outs of generics still elude me.
Given the following code (does not compile and contains code-smell):
public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
string Name { get; }
Func<T> Extend();
}
public class UIConcern
{
public static void Register<T>(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern) where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Concerns.Add(uiConcern);
}
public static List<IUIConcern<T>> Concerns{
get {
// Logic...
}
set {
// Logic...
}
}
}
... I have a few questions:
Why do I have to specify this part public static void Register<T>(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern) where T : IUIConcernExtension
with a constraint when I have already constrained the T in the declaration public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
How can I have a property that holds a List<> of my IUIConcern<T> without knowing T other than knowing it will be derived from IUIConcernExtension?
Again, I realize this doesn't compile and is not correct, just looking to see how I can hold a list of generic items that may have many different type of IUIConcern<> elements.
Thank you!

You need to have a base interface, for instance:
public interface IUIConcern
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IUIConcern<out T> : IUIConcern where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Func<T> Extern();
}
How you would define Concerns and Register would depend on how you treat T. Alternatively if you only deal with instances where you know T, you could use a Dictionary<Type, List<IUIConcern>> to hold anything, or potentially drop the base interface and just store using object depending on what you need in your controller code.

The problem is not located at the interface, but the problem is because of your generic implementation using static methods and properties.
The answer from Guvante was correct when saying that you need to define the IUIConcernExtension, but that is of course very logical, so im assuming you have just omitted that part since it does not matter for the issue you are facing.
The problem in the code is that you have created a class that has static methods and procedures, with the generic definition not laying at class level, but at methods level, because of this, the property that has and the Method cannot assume you are always with the same type!!
Lets say you call call :
Register<string>("something", UIConcern<string>)
but before that you have already called:
Register<Type>("something", UIConcern<Type>)
How could the compiler allows you to that?! So the answer is to define the generic type at class level, with this all properties and methods will be of same .
Also you need to use a private member for your list, since you doing everything static, the correct code should be:
interface IUIConcernExtension
{
string Name { get; }
}
public interface IUIConcern<out T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
Func<T> Extend();
}
public class UIConcern<T> where T : IUIConcernExtension
{
private static List<IUIConcern<T>> _Concerns = new List<IUIConcern<T>>();
public static void Register(string concernName, IUIConcern<T> uiConcern)
{
Concerns.Add(uiConcern);
}
public static List<IUIConcern<T>> Concerns
{
get { return _Concerns; }
set { _Concerns = value; }
}
}

How do I create a method or property in C# that is public, yet not inheritable?

Here is an example. I have two classes, one inherited, and both have a function with the same name, but different arguments:
public class MyClass
{
//public class members
public MyClass()
{
//constructor code
}
public void Copy(MyClass classToCopy)
{
//copy code
}
}
public class InheritedClass : MyClass
{
//public class members
public InheritedClass():base()
{
//constructor code
}
public void Copy(InheritedClass inheritedClassToCopy)
{
//copy code
}
}
My question is how do I make the base class' copy method (MyClass.Copy) non-inheritable or non-visible in InheritedClass? I don't want to be able to do this:
MyClass a;
InheritedClass b;
b.Copy(a);
Does this make sense, or should I keep this functionality in there? Can what I'm asking even be done?

Does this make sense, or should I keep this functionality in there? Can what I'm asking even be done?
Trying to hide a public method like this when used by a base class is problematic. You're purposely trying to violate the Liskov substitution principle.

You can't do what you are wanting to do here; C# does not allow negative variance in inherited members. (almost no languages truly do, actually)
It may be that you don't want an inherited class here at all, though; what you may really want is an interface. Or... your two classes here may not have the correct relationship; perhaps they should both instead be common siblings of a third class, which is their parent.

You can use explicit interface implementation to hide this method from the inheritor. But you will need to add an interface of course and you will need to cast your type to the interface to call your method:
public interface MyInterface
{
void Copy(MyClass classToCopy)
}
public class MyClass : MyInterface
{
void MyInterface.Copy(MyClass classToCopy)
{
//copy code
}
}

This is not possible. An inherited class inherits all public and protected members, methods and properties. Using the sealed modifier with make it non-overridable, but still accessible to your inherited class.

What everyone else said, but if I am inferring your goal correctly, it is to make sure that InheritedClass users never use the MyClass method. In that case, exclude it from MyClass and make two classes that inherit it.
Make MyBaseClass abstract if it should not be instantiated (most likely).
(Edited -- you probably would want to include copy code for anything that's part of the base class in the base class)
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public MyClass()
{
//constructor code
}
protected void Copy(MyBaseClass classToCopy)
{
//copy code
}
// other methods that all inherited classes can use
}
public class MyClass: MyBaseClass
{
public MyClass():base()
{
//constructor code
}
public void Copy(MyClass myClassToCopy)
{
base.Copy(myClassToCopy);
//specific copy code for this extensions in this class
}
}
public class InheritedClass : MyBaseClass
{
public InheritedClass():base()
{
//constructor code
}
public void Copy(InheritedClass inheritedClassToCopy)
{
base.Copy(myClassToCopy);
//specific copy code for this extensions in this class
}
}

How to use a class as the base, but hide the class type publically?

I am currently just exposing the properties through a generic interface e.g.
public interface IBaseClass
{
int ID { get; set; }
}
internal class MyBaseClass : IBaseClass
{
public MyBaseClass() { }
public int ID { get; set; }
}
public class MyExposedClass : IBaseClass
{
private MyBaseClass _base = new MyBaseClass();
public int ID
{
get { return _base.ID; }
set { _base.ID = value; }
}
}
Then in my main application I can do:
IBaseClass c = new MyExposedClass();
c.ID = 12345;
But can't do:
MyBaseClass b = new MyBaseClass();
This is my desired behaviour.
However, I was just wondering if this is the correct approach? Or if there was a better way?

If you only want to prevent instantiation you could make MyBaseClass abstract (make it's constructor protected as well - it is a good design) and have MyExposedClass derive from it. If you want to completely hide the type your approach seems fine.

This look fine to me. Making small interfaces makes it easier to write decoupled code.

I don't know if this will help, but you can make your base class protected internal. This would mean that any internal class has access to it as if it were public, or any class (from within and without the assembly) can subclass the base class. It won't prevent people from implementing their own sub class though.
Alternatively, exposing through an Interface would be the best way I'd think.

For this you can opt for explicit implementation like this:
public interface IBaseClass
{
int ID { get; set; }
}
internal class MyBaseClass : IBaseClass
{
public MyBaseClass() { }
public int IBaseClass.ID { get; set; }
}
public class MyExposedClass : IBaseClass
{
private MyBaseClass _base = new MyBaseClass();
public int IBaseClass.ID
{
get { return _base.ID; }
set { _base.ID = value; }
}
}
You can refer to a similar post C# Interfaces. Implicit implementation versus Explicit implementation

Make your base class abstract.

You could expose the interface as public, implement an internal sealed implementation of that class, and use a factory approach to build instances of the desired interface. That way the client will never know when you change your implementation, or if you have multiple implementations of the same base interface plugged in the factory. You could also eliminate the set accessors in the interface and put them in the internal implementation to only expose the properties to the outside world. That way the exterior code has to make less assumptions over your implementation and you are better isolated. Please correct me if I'm having a poor/bad image of this approach.
Edit: The factory would be public and you'd need some sort of "transfer object" to pass data to the factory. That transfer object implementation would be public, together with it's interface.

Your example seems to include a poor example of taking advantage of inheritence. Since you included a single property it and couldnt come up with a better example i am guessing that its real. I would suggest in this case forget the base class and stick the property on the derived.