Develop Reference

Interface implementation without revealing the class that implements the interface

Hi how do we implement interface in a real time scenario??
This is my situation
I have made an interface IPayPal which has 2 methods
void SaleTransaction();
void VoidTransaction();
now i have a class PayPal which implements this service.
class PayPal:IPayPal{
public void SaleTransaction(){
// Implementation happens here
}
public void VoidTransaction(){
// Implementation happens here
}
}
now i have a service that requests the services from PayPal
lets say
class Service{
IPayPal pp=null;
static void Main(){
pp=new PayPal();
//Now i do not want to expose all the methods in my class PayPal
// is there any other way to just show pp.SaleOneTransaction() method?? i donot want the //PayPal class to be present in this Program..
//Please tell me how to acheive this.
}
}
i.e Please tell me a way in which i can initialise my interface class without revealing the class that implements the interface.
Thanks

I would suggest:
read about dependency injection and how it can help you resolve dependencies easily and in a loose coupled way.
the interface name "IPayPal" is not very good name IMHO. It is very specific to one payment provider. Suppose tomorrow you want to implement another payment method that is not paypal, yet you want to use the same interface. I think the name should be generic like "IPaymentProvider", and the current implementation is PayPal (but no other class using that interface should care or know about this).
good luck!

Two options:
Don't expose public methods you don't want to be called from other assemblies, pretty simply. Don't expose even internal methods you don't want to be called from other classes in the assembly.
Create a wrapper which proxies all calls:
public class PaymentProxy : IPayPal
{
private readonly IPayPal original;
public PaymentProxy(IPayPal original)
{
this.original = original;
}
public void SaleTransaction()
{
original.SaleTransaction();
}
public void VoidTransaction()
{
original.VoidTransaction();
}
}
At this point, you can create a PaymentProxy with your original "secret" object, trust that not to leak the information about it, and hand the proxy to anything. Of course, this isn't secure against reflection etc - but it does hide the prevent the implementation details from being "accidentally" used in a quick and dirty, "Well I know it'll really be a PayPal, so let's just cast to that..." hack.

You can separate 2 methods into 2 interfaces.
interface IPayPal1{
void SaleTransaction();
}
interface IPayPal2{
void VoidTransaction();
}
class PayPal:IPayPal1, IPayPal2{
void SaleTransaction(){
//
}
void VoidTransaction(){
//
}
}
class Service{
IPayPal1 pp=null;
static void Main(){
pp=new PayPal(); //you cannot access VoidTransaction here
}
}

Letting only the abstract class know about its inheritors

I am making a payment system for my site. Users can select one of several payment providers to pay, but all should behave in the same way. I thought to represent this behavior like this:
public abstract class PaymentProvider {
private static var methods = Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static Dictionary<String,PaymentProvider> AllPaymentProviders
{
get {return methods;}
}
public abstract pay();
}
public class PaymentProviderPaypal : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
public class PaymentProviderWorldpay : PaymentProvider {
public override pay() {
}
}
You are supposed to use this by writing PaymentProvider.AllPaymentProviders["key"].pay(). The idea is that the functions using this class don't need to know about how the underlying payment provider is implemented, they just need to know the key.
However, at the moment, if you have access to the PaymentProvider class, you also have access to the inheriting classes. Its possible to instantiate a new copy of the inheriting classes, and make use of them in an unexpected way. I want to encapsulate the inheriting classes so that only the abstract PaymentProvider knows about them.
How should I do this? Different protection levels like protected don't work here - In Java, protected means that only other classes in the namespace can use that class, but in C# it means something else.
Do I have the right idea here? Or should I use a different method?

A couple of options spring to mind:
Put this in a separate assembly from the client code, and make the implementations abstract
Put the implementations inside the PaymentProvider class as private nested classes. You can still separate the source code by making PaymentProvider a partial class - use one source file per implementation
The first option is likely to be the cleanest if you don't mind separating the clients from the implementation in terms of assemblies.
Note that both of these are still valid options after the change proposed by Jamiec's answer - the "visibility" part is somewhat orthogonal to the inheritance part.
(As an aside, I hope the method is really called Pay() rather than pay() :)

Your inheritance heirachy is a bit wonky, I would be tempted to do it a similar but crucially different way.
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay()
}
// Implementations of IPaymentProvider for PaypalPaymentProvider & WorldpayPaymentProvider
public static class PaymentHelper
{
private static var providers = Dictionary<String,IPaymentProvider>
{
{"paypal",new PaymentProviderPaypal()},
{"worldpay",new PaymentProviderWorldpay()}
}
public static void Pay(string provider)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay();
}
}
Then the usage would be something like PaymentHelper.Pay("paypal").
Obviously if there is more data to provide to the Pay method this can be added to both the interface, and the helper. for example:
public interface IPaymentProvider
{
void Pay(double amount);
}
public static void Pay(string provider, double amount)
{
if(!providers.Containskey(provider))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid provider: " + provider);
providers[provider].Pay(amount);
}

Limiting access to a public setter to specific objects (C#)

I'm trying to create a class (in C#) that serves as an environment for my application.
I'm trying to make the class dynamic, and send it as a parameter to entities in my application. The problem is, that I want to be able to change the properties of this environment class (public setters), but at the same time I want the classes that receive the environment to be unable to use these setters.
I can't seem to find a good way to phrase my question (which I figure is a part of the reason I can't find anything like this on Google or msdn), but to put shortly, I want to create a class with setters that are public only for some of my objects and not for all.
I'm currently amusing the following idea:
Avoiding the public setters all together, and expose the private fields using event registration.
The class will register to events in a new third object (sent as a parameter to the constructor). The methods that will be registered by the environment are not much more then setters, and so triggering these events will "allow access" to the private fields.
I'd love some ideas (seeing as I feel that mine isn't all that great), or better yet some patterns I could make use of.
Thanks in advance

Isn't "internal" sufficient for what you need?
And you could move the setters into an interface as explicit implementation. Then they are hidden from the public interface and only accessible if you cast to the interface.
And if you want to make really sure that nobody else can call it you can add some parameter to these functions where you expect a certain token object which you only give to trusted classes.
void SetX(int value, object token)
{
if(token!=correctToken)
throw new ArgumentException("wrong token");
x=value;
}

You could create a proxy, and send that proxy to your entity classes.
class MyClass
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
class MyProxyClass
{
public MyProxyClass(MyClass myClass)
{
_myClass = myClass;
}
private MyClass _myClass;
public int MyProperty
{
get { return _myClass.MyProperty; }
}
}

You could try using Friend assemblies. That will allow only the assemblies you specify to have access to your privates (snicker).

Maybe i understood something not quite well, but i think Jon had a quite similar problem which he described here. Maybe this can help you.

How about
class Callee
{
public void SetX(TypeOfCaller caller, int value)
{
}
}
class TypeOfCaller
{
public void Do()
{
Callee instance;
//..
instance.SetX(this, 5);
}
}
Doing so; you can also use Visual Studio' Find References feature! In case you want multiple types of caller; you can either opt for class hierarchy or can simply have required overloads

Why not return clones of your protected objects instead of the actual objects? Solves the problem without adding any more complexity.
public class MyService
{
private List<MyObject> _protectedObjects = new List<MyObject>();
public MyObject GetItem(int id)
{
return (MyObject)_protectedObjects.First(i => i.Id == id).Clone();
}
}
public class MyObject : ICloneable
{
//[...]
public object Clone()
{
return MemberwiseClone();
}
}

C# - Type Parameters in Constructor - No Generics

I have a class that I am trying to do unit tests on. The class is a WCF Service Class. (Making it a generics class is not my goal.)
I have a data access layer (DAL) type (called UserDAL) that is instantiated in many methods. To get these methods under test, I need to get this local variables mocked. (Each instance of UserDAL has method specific value in it, so changing it a class level variable would result in messy code, so I would rather not do that.)
What I am thinking would be nice is to overload the constructor and pass in a type to use in the local methods. The empty param constructor would still create a normal UserDAL, but the overloaded one would have a mock type that implements IUserDAL.
I am not sure of the syntax to say I want to pass in a type. Note that I am not trying to pass in a variable, but a type.
Example:
public class MyWCFClass: IMyWCFClass
{
private TypeParam _myUserDALType;
public MyWCFClass()
{
_myUserDALType = UserDAL;
}
public MyWCFClass(TypeParam myUserDALType)
{
_myUserDALType = myUserDALType;
}
//methods to use it
public MyMethod()
{
IUserDAL userDAL = new _myUserDALType();
//Call method in IUserDAL
userDAL.CreateUser();
}
// Several similar methods that all need a different UserDAL go here
.....
}
So, I don't know what kind of type TypeParam is (I made that up) or if this kind of think is even possible.
If you have a non generics solution that would be great.

What you are really looking for is Dependency Injection, but you can do this by passing in a Type argument and then using Activator.CreateInstance(Type) to create the object when you need it.
As far as doing real DI (which will make doing this testing a lot easier), I know that Spring.Net works reasonable well.

You mean Type, using Activator.CreateInstance to create instances:
public class MyWCFClass: IMyWCFClass
{
private Type _myUserDALType;
public MyWCFClass()
{
_myUserDALType = typeof(UserDAL);
}
public MyWCFClass(Type myUserDALType)
{
_myUserDALType = myUserDALType;
}
//methods to use it
public void MyMethod()
{
IUserDAL userDAL = (IUserDAL) Activator.CreateInstance(_myUserDALType );
//Call method in IUserDAL
userDAL.CreateUser();
}
}

Use a Type, and use Activator.CreateInstance to instantiate it:
private Type _myUserDALType;
IUserDAL userDAL = Activator.CreateInstance(_myUserDALType) as IUserDAL;

Your real problem is not in the generics or lack thereof. Your real problem is that MyWFCClass is calling both new and the method. As per Misko Hevery, you get the best testability by separating classes that call new from classes that implement logic. Instead of having MyWFCClass somehow know the type that you want to implement and using reflection, just pass the IUserDal object to the constructor, allowing the test harness to pass in a mock object when needed.
If, for some reason, you can't do this and you can't use generics, then you have to do it yourself. Pass a Type object to the MyWFCClass constructor, then use reflection to find and invoke the constructor you want.

If you want to pass in a type, you can use the Type object:
public class A
{
public A(Type classType)
{
object myObject = Activator.CreateInstance(...classType...);
}
}
public class B
{
...
}
public class C
{
public static void main(string[] args)
{
A a = new A(typeof(B));
}
}

Far simpler, and more consistent with other applications that have this problem, would be to extract an interface on UserDal, then you would have something more like:
public MyWCFClass() : this(new UserDAL())
{
}
public MyWCFClass(IUserDal userDAL)
{
_myUserDAL = myUserDAL;
}
This is also easier to use with dependency-injection frameworks than your proposed method, though that's certainly a secondary concern
(Edited to clarify an alternative solution based on other comments)
If your DAL is essentially worthless after use because it is mutated, take a constructor with IUserDalFactory instead, with one method Create().

If IUserDAL defines the interface that your WCF service needs to get its job done, why not just take an instance of it as a constructor parameter? And since WCF requires a default constructor, why not have that default constructor call your parameterized constructor with a default implementation?
public class MyWCFClass : IMyWCFClass
{
private readonly IUserDAL _userDAL;
public MyWCFClass()
: this(new DefaultUserDAL())
{
}
public MyWCFClass(IUserDAL userDAL)
{
_userDAL = userDAL;
}
}
If you're using a dependency injection container, you could expose it as a singleton and satisfy the parameterized constructor by using that singleton:
public MyWCFClass()
this(Container.Instance.Resolve<IUserDAL>())
{
}
With this approach, your WCF class has everything it needs to get its job done, but it is still unit-testable. Moreover, it is not responsible for creating its dependencies, which is a good thing.

In C# there is a type called "Type". With it you can create a parameter and pass in any valid type.
private void MyMethod(Type myType)
{
//Do something
}

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).