If this is the simple class on VBScript:
Class Information
'Create a private property to hold the phone number
Private strPhoneNumber
End Class
How can i use Abstract Class and Interface in VBScript?
Related
If I create a COM-visible VB.NET interface, such as:
<ComVisible(True)>
Public Interface IMyInterface
Sub MyMethod()
End Interface
Then the resulting type library will show IMyInterface inheriting IDispatch. Is there a way to inherit just IUnknown, and not IDispatch?
Use the InterfaceTypeAttribute Class like this:
<ComVisible(True), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown)> _
Public Interface IMyInterface
Sub MyMethod()
End Interface
Folks;
Code looks like:
Public Class MasterA
Inherits Underling
End Class
Public Class MasterB
Inherits Underling
End Class
Public Mustinherit Class Underling
Sub DoSomething()
Me.GetType 'Using the instance, I can get the class.
end sub
Shared function() as ???? 'How can I define the return type based on the class that inherited me?
'Me.GetType 'Won't work as this is a shared function with no instance 'Me'
End Function
End class
OK. The question is: is there a way to get at the class type from within a shared function that was inherited by another class?
What I'm building is an XML serializer/desrializer as an inheritable class so that classes that inherit it can be serilized to an XML file, and back again. Rather than writing a serializer/deserializer for each type of class I want to do this with, I'd like to just inherit the functionality.
To do that, though, requires that I be able to ascertain the clas that inherited me in the shared function.
You could get the desired behavior with a generic base class, my VB is a little rusty so you might find stray parens or brackets. This would really be the only way to get a type reference to an inheriting class in a shared base class function.
Public Mustinherit Class Underling(Of T)
Sub DoSomething()
Me.GetType 'Using the instance, I can get the class.
end sub
Shared function() As T
' GetType(T) should get the type at this point
End Function
End class
Public Class MasterA
Inherits Underling(Of MasterA)
End Class
Public Class MasterB
Inherits Underling(Of MasterB)
End Class
As a side note it does seem like a rather weird solution to handle XmlSerialization rather than through your own serializer implementation or XmlSerializer
I'm refactoring, and have run into a roadblock.
Background:
I have a base class and several inherited derived classes. The derived classes don't always need to have the same properties. If any properties are shared among the derived classes, those properties would live at the base class level ('Contents', for example).
Similarly, GoodDocument below has 'GoodThings' but would not want/need to have 'BadThings'.
I want to treat instances of both 'GoodDocument' and 'BadDocument' as type 'Document'
public mustinherit class Document
public property Contents as string
public sub new()...
end class
public class GoodDocument
inherits Document
public property GoodThings as string
public sub new()...
end class
public class BadDocument
inherits Document
public property BadThings as string
public sub new()...
end class
The 'DocumentWriter' class will also have several derived classes: ('GoodDocumentWriter' and 'BadDocumentWriter').
I need to pass around the DocumentWriter.Doc as a 'Document' to a number of other places in the code. Doc.GoodThings would only be called from within an instance of either 'GoodDocument' or 'GoodDocumentWriter'.
public mustinherit class DocumentWriter
public property Doc as Document
public sub new()...
end class
public class GoodDocumentWriter
inherits DocumentWriter
public sub new
mybase.Doc = new GoodDocument
end sub
end class
public class BadDocumentWriter
inherits DocumentWriter
public sub new
mybase.Doc = new BadDocument
end sub
end class
Question:
Is there a design pattern that allows for derived classes to have members that don't exist at the base class level?
Do all properties have to live at the base class level?
Revised
I was trying to be brief with my initial question and I made the mistake of over simplifying the situation. In short, I did realize that it should be possible to have different properties on each of the derived classes. (I typed that in a tongue-in-cheek manor and didn't mean to keep it in the final post).
I realize now that the problem that I was experiencing was really symptomatic of a larger issue which needed addressing.
It appears that I was encountering compiler complaints that could be corrected by further refactoring and looser coupling. While others answered the basic question that I posed, Ryan Gross' example really helped kick start some new ideas.
Thanks!
What you should do in this case is define the operations that can be performed on instances of Document in an interface. In your case maybe there is a WriteThings operation, so you would have:
public interface Writeable {
public sub WriteThings();
}
Then in your derived classes you would implement the method to utilize the internal data of the class. For example:
public mustinherit class Document implements Writeable
public property Contents as string
public sub new()...
public sub WriteThings();
end class
public class GoodDocument
inherits Document
public property GoodThings as string
public sub new()...
public sub WriteThings()
//Do something with GoodThings
end sub
end class
public class BadDocument
inherits Document
public property BadThings as string
public sub WriteThings()
//Do something with BadThings
end sub
public sub new()...
end class
Finally, client code that needs to call WriteThings accesses it through an interface:
public mustinherit class DocumentWriter
public property Doc as Writable
public sub new()...
public sub PerformWrite()
Doc.WriteThings();
end sub
end class
It is generally not a good idea to build several parallel class hierarchies. In this case, one DocumentWriter class should be able to write any class that implements Writeable by invoking its WriteThings method.
If all the properties live at the base class level, then I'm not sure what the point of a derived class would be. :) You'd be able to do everything with the base class.
So, yes. If something is applicable only to GoodDocument and not to Document, then it should be in GoodDocument.
To answer your question specifically:
Yes, you just create multiple layers in the inheritance hierarchy: You have a base class, and then many two “branches” (good and bad, to use your terminology). Any properties that are only relevant to either branch, you declare in the class that inherits from the base class. Those properties will only be visible to that class and any classes inheriting from it.
No, properties can be declared anywhere within your inheritance hierarchy.
This question already has answers here:
Partial Classes, LINQ, Interfaces and VB.NET
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
OK, I have to begin saying that I'm working with Visual Basic. The problem is that I have a Entity Framework object and I want to indicate that this object implements a interface, for example:
Public Interface ICatalog
Property created_at() As Date
Property id() As Long
End Interface
Those properties are allready in the object. In c# I've done this just by declaring a partial class of the object and indicates that implements that interface, but in basic is not working, I supouse that is because of the language sintaxis used to declare that a property is implementing some property of the interface, for example:
Public Property created_at() As Date Implements ICatalog.created_at
So is there any other way to accomplish this?
Take a look at this example.
Namespace MyAppDomain
Public Interface IFoo
Sub Bar()
End Interface
Public Interface IPerson
Function Gender() As String
End Interface
Public Class MyFooPerson : Implements IFoo, IPerson
Public Sub New()
End Sub
Public Sub Bar() Implements IFoo.Bar
End Sub
Public Function Gender() As String Implements IPerson.Gender
Return Nothing
End Function
End Class
End Namespace
You'll notice the MyFooPerson Class implements the IFoo Interface as well as the IPerson Interface. Each method then implements the corresponding Interface method.
Your example doesn't say whether or not the Class containing Public Property created_at() As Date Implements ICatalog.created_at is Implementing the ICatalog Interface.
I'm trying to force an inherited class to use a custom attribute. I'm creating a class library where the user who wants to create an item will do so, but be forced to add an attribute (or visual studio will automatically add the default attribute) to their inherited class. Here is what I'm hoping to achieve:
BaseClass.vb:
<CustomAttribute(10)> _
Public Class BaseClass
End Class
MyClass.vb:
<CustomAttribute(12)> _
Public Class MyClass
Inherits BaseClass
Public Sub New()
Mybase.New()
End Sub
End Class
So the thought is that much like when you mark a function as "MustOverride" and then the inherited class must override the function, I want the attribute to be "MustOverride" causing the inherited class to specify the value.
I've tried this, and it will work, but it would be much cleaner if I could use attributes:
BaseClass.vb:
Public MustInherit Class BaseClass
Public MustOverride ReadOnly Property CustomAttribute() As String
End Class
MyClass.vb:
Public Class MyClass
Inherits BaseClass
Public Sub New()
Mybase.New()
End Sub
Public Overrides ReadOnly Property CustomAttribute() As String
Get
Return "testing"
End Get
End Property
End Class
Thank you for any help you can provide.
Scott
Did you consider implementing an interface instead? I assume that you're using a base class as you want to provide some code in the base, if not then an Interface might be better depending on your other requirements:
Interface IBase
ReadOnly Property CustomAttribute() As String
End Interface
It's still very compact and when you type 'Implements IBase' in a new class Visual Studio will fill in the code for you.
There's no way in .NET to force a class to define an attribute at compile time. The best you'll be able to do is check at run-time whether the attribute was defined, and if not to throw an exception.