So to start this off; I'm a beginner in VisualBasic.Net and my classes require me to learn it. The current subject is object constructors and constructor methods. The current exercise (it's not graded or an exam) is requiring us to make a parent class with a constructor method, and a child class with a new() that calls said function. It looks a bit like this;
Protected MustInherit Class Vehicle()
Protected ReadOnly Property Serial_No As Integer
Protected Property Mileage As Integer
Protected Property Color As String
Protected Function CreateVehicle() As Object
End Function
End Class
Public Class Car
Inherits Vehicle
Public ReadOnly Property Car_Type As String
Public Sub New()
End Sub
End Class
The thing I'm having issues with is that I'm not sure how to go about it? Can't ReadOnly properties ONLY be edited in the constructor itself, and doesn't the object need to be initialized in the constructor? Is there something particular I need to add in the CreateVehicle function?
I did ask the teacher but his answer was 'just give up on it and go do something else', which is ultimately pretty unhelpful.
Edit: (added the inheritance to the child class)
So, after being asked for clarification on what I'm trying to do; the exercise itself is not entirely about doing this, but it is the thing in the exercise that I'm struggling with. The goal is to create a Car object utilizing the constructor (New()), but the constructor must call a secondary function located inside the parent class, Vehicle.
My issue is the following : I'm not sure how to go about implementing the function inside the constructor. I know how to call methods/subs/functions and how to get returns from them, but I'm not sure on how I would go about returning a ReadOnly property's values from a secondary function. Don't readonly properties become uneditable outside of the constructor?
I could always return each value separately instead of as an object, and then set the Car object's values to be equal to the return of the function, individually. But then what's the point of calling a separate function instead of just passing everything as a parameter and doing it directly in the constructor?
This is probably what your teacher is looking for:
Public MustInherit Class Vehicle
Protected ReadOnly Property Serial_No As Integer
Protected Sub New(serialNumber As Integer)
Me.Serial_No = serialNumber
End Sub
End Class
Public Class Car
Inherits Vehicle
Public ReadOnly Property Car_Type As String
Public Sub New(serialNumber As Integer, carType As String)
MyBase.New(serialNumber)
Me.Car_Type = carType
End Sub
End Class
Both constructors take in parameters so the ReadOnly properties can be set.
I can read a lot over the Internet that VB.Net Modules are the same thing as c#.Net Static Classes. I can also read that something close to a Static Class is a class which would look like this:
'NotInheritable so that no other class can be derived from it
Public NotInheritable Class MyAlmostStaticClass
'Private Creator so that it cannot be instantiated
Private Sub New()
End Sub
'Shared Members
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction() as String
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
I find this code heavy to draft, and to read. I would be much more confortable just using a Module like this:
Public Module MyEquivalentStaticClass
Public Function MyStaticFunction() as String
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
However, with a Module you loose one level of Namespace hierarchy, and the following 3 statements are equal:
'Call through the Class Name is compulsory
Dim MyVar as String = Global.MyProject.MyAlmostStaticClass.MyStaticFunction()
'Call through the Module Name is OPTIONAL
Dim MyVar as String = Global.MyProject.MyEquivalentStaticClass.MyStaticFunction()
Dim MyVar as String = Global.MyProject.MyStaticFunction()
I find this very inconvenient and this either pollutes the Intelisense, or forces me to create additionnal levels of Namespace, which then means more Module declaration, i.e., more Intelisense pollution.
Is there a workaround or is this the price to pay if you want to avoid the heavy SharedMembers-NotInheritable-PrivateNew Class declaration?
Additionnal references include the very good post by Cody Gray: https://stackoverflow.com/a/39256196/10794555
No, there is no exact equivalent to a C# static class in VB.NET. It would be nice if VB had the ability to add the Shared modifier to a class declaration, like this:
Public Shared Class Test ' This won't work, so don't try it
' Compiler only allows shared members in here
End Class
But, unfortunately, it does not. If you do that, the compiler gives you the following error:
Classes cannot be declared 'Shared'
That leaves us with the two options you listed:
Either you make a non-instantiable class containing only Shared members (without the safety of that rule being enforced by the compiler), or
Use a Module, which makes everything Shared, even though you don't explicitly say so via the Shared modifier
As you said, many people don't like the loss of the class name being required, as a sort-of extra namespace layer, so they prefer the Class with only Shared members over the Module. But, that's a matter of preference.
It's worth noting that, while you don't have to specify the module name everywhere you call its members, you can always do so if you wish:
MyModule.MyMethod()
While a "SharedMembers-NotInheritable-PrivateNew Class", as you so eloquently called it, is the closest approximation to a static class, it's only functionally equivalent. If you use reflection, you'll see that the attributes of the type are not the same. For instance, in VB:
Module MyModule
Public Sub Main()
Dim t As Type = GetType(MyClass)
End Sub
End Module
Public NotInheritable Class MyClass
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Shared Sub MyMethod()
End Sub
End Class
If you take a look at t.Attributes, you'll see that it equals Public Or Sealed. So the MyClass type is both sealed (NotInheritable) and public. However, if you do this in C#:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Type t = typeof(Test);
}
}
public static class MyClass
{
public static void MyMethod()
{ }
}
And you inspect the t.Attributes again, this time, the value is Public | Abstract | Sealed | BeforeFieldInit. That's not the same. Since you can't declare a class in VB as both NotInheritable and MustInherit at the same time, you have no chance of exactly duplicating that thing. So, while they more-or-less are equivalent, the attributes of the types are different. Now, just for fun, let's try this:
Module MyModule
Public Sub Main()
Dim t As Type = GetType(MyModule)
End Sub
End Module
Now, the t.Attributes for the module are Sealed. That's it. Just Sealed. So that's not the same either. The only way to get a true static class in VB (meaning, the type has the same attributes when inspected via reflection) is to write it in a C# class library, and then reference the library in VB.
I would be much more confortable just using a Module
So use a Module.
Module SomeModuleNameHere
Public Function MyStaticFunction() As String
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
You don't need Global.MyProject or the Module name at all, just call your function directly, from anywhere:
Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim x As String = MyStaticFunction()
Debug.Print(x)
End Sub
But if you want to, you can use the Module name, without the Global part:
Dim x As String = SomeModuleNameHere.MyStaticFunctions
The only time you must use the Module name, however, is if you have two functions with the exact same name in different modules. Then you'd have to differentiate them by using their fully qualified names.
From all the discussions held so far, and thanks to the input by Steven Doggart and comments by TnTinMn, I have come to conclude with the following broad feedbacks and guidelines.
Nota: This post refers to 'Static' Classes, whilst the Static keyword is used for C#.Net, not VB.Net. The VB equivalent is Shared, but Shared Classes are not permited with VB (only the Members). The guidelines described below are tentatives to achieve in VB something close to a C# Static Class.
Since such VB Classes cannot be Shared, they are described as 'Static'.
Nota bis: In all the examples, I purposely added a layer of Namespace (consistently called "MySpace") so that there is no confusing as to in which Namespace layer the examples sit: they are all in the MySpace layer. The MySpace layer is not compulsory and can be stripped out depending on your needs.
In general
Use a Module but do not rely on the Module name as a Namespace layer. Rather, fully integrate the path in a Namespace declaration, such as:
Namespace MySpace.MyStaticClass
Module _Module
Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
End Namespace
Then the Static 'Members' should be accessed via Global.MyProject.MySpace.MyStaticClass.MyStaticFunction()
Nota: Part of the Namespace path can be stripped depending on where
you are located. Usually, MySpace.MyStaticClass.MyStaticFunction()
will be sufficient.
Nota bis: Using _Module as the Module name will
reduce the appereance of the Module in the Intelisense dropdown, and
yet make it crystal clear this is a Module.
When wishing to encaspulate Static Classes
Under such context the general above-mentionned style would produce:
Namespace MySpace.MyStaticClass
Module _Module
Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
End Namespace
Namespace MySpace.MyStaticClass.MyStaticSubClass1
Module _Module
Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
End Namespace
Namespace MySpace.MyStaticClass.MyStaticSubClass2
Module _Module
Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Module
End Namespace
This can quickly be heavy in the sense that it requires a separate Namespace declaration for each 'encapsulated' 'Static Class'. Disadvantages include:
Heavy review because understanding the Namespace architecture/arborescence will be less intuitive: in the above example that would mean checking all the declaration which include 'MyStaticClass'.
Heavy drafting because of the additionnal Namespace declarations.
Heavy maintenance because changing a parent Namespace will require a change in several Namespace declarations: in the above example that would mean changing 'MyStaticClass' 3 times. (Right-Click/Rename is your best friend here)
An alternative is to use encapsulated Classes with Shared members:
Namespace MySpace
Public Class MyStaticClass
Public Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
Public Class MyStaticSubClass1
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
Public Class MyStaticSubClass2
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
End Class
End Namespace
Nota: As Steven Doggart pointed out in a separate post, people usually import Namespaces, but do not import Classes, so encapsulating Classes will usually "force" the reliance on the full path across encapsulated Classes : MyStaticClass.MyStaticSubClass1.
You cannot encapsulate a Module within another Module, but you could always use a mixture of a Module in which you encapsulate one or several Classes and Sub-Classes. The example below achieves something similar to the above example:
Namespace MyStaticClass
Public Module _Module
Public Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
Public Class MyStaticSubClass1
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
Public Class MyStaticSubClass2
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
End Module
End Namespace
When publishing a Class Library (DLL)
If your final product is a DLL you intend to share with a broader audience, it is recommended to put safety nets around your 'Static' Classes. Although this will not affect how the compiler will see your code, it will prevent someone else from making mistakes, or at least quickly trigger errors and assist debugging swiftly:
Make the Class NotInheritable, so that no one tries to derive a Class from a Static Class: it is typically useless to derive such Classes.
Make the New Creator statement Private, so that no one tries to instantiate the Class: the Static Class should not include any non-Static (Shared) members; if so, that is a typo and trying to instantiate the non-Shared Member will likely bring problems.
The example below achieves something similar to the above examples:
Namespace MySpace
Public NotInheritable Class MyStaticClass
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
Public NotInheritable Class MyStaticSubClass1
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
Public NotInheritable Class MyStaticSubClass2
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Public Shared Function MyStaticFunction()
Return "Something"
End Function
End Class
End Class
End Namespace
When dealing with an Extension
A <System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Extension()> can only be declared within a Module block. However the Module Name has no impact on the Extension so this topic is not really relevant here.
See link provided by Peter Macej: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/programming-guide/language-features/procedures/extension-methods
The Situation-
Have EF database entities with collections of other database entities as navigation properties all of which are not exposed outside of the project. Each of these entities are nested in base classes that allow public read and protected set access to the Db entity's property values and are the classes the business layer will work with. So these base classes also need collections of their Db entity's navigation properties.
What I have now-
I am still working on how I want the data layer to interact with with the other layers that reference it. So I have been experimenting with creating collection classes that can be set equal to a collection of Db entities and create a collection of the base class that the Db entity is nested in. The collection is then exposed outside the class though an interface as well as the base class. The interface gives access to some custom methods of collection class like accepting DTOs and prebuilt quires but would hide any Add methods.
The Problem-
I would like to create a generic base class for the collections but cant seem to find a way. I have gotten close to something workable but it was ugly and confusing. Below is an outline of what I'm working with. The narrowing operators in the entity class work well. I would rather have widening operators and narrowing operators in the base class so I could keep the New method private for the base classes but I don't want to expose the actual database entities outside the Data Layer.
Interops Namespace referenced by all projects in solution-
Public Interface IGenericEntity
End Interface
Public Interface INavigationPropertyEntity : Inherits IGenericEntity
End Interface
Public Interface IDbEntityToExposedEntityCollection(Of TEntity As IGenericEntity)
'Used to hide Add method
End Interface
Public Interface IPublicEntity
ReadOnly Property NavProps As IDbEntityToExposedEntityCollection(Of INavigationPropertyEntity)
End Interface
Data Layer project-
-Database Entities
Friend Class DbEntity1
Public Shared Narrowing Operator CType(ByVal value As DbEntity1) As NavigationPropertyEntity
Return New NavigationPropertyEntity(value)
End Operator
End Class
Friend Class DbEntity2
Public Sub New()
NavigationPropertyDbEntities = New HashSet(Of DbEntity1)
End Sub
Public Property NavigationPropertyDbEntities As ICollection(Of DbEntity1)
Public Shared Narrowing Operator CType(ByVal value As DbEntity2) As PublicEntity
Return New PublicEntity(value)
End Operator
End Class
-Exposed Base Classes
Public Class NavigationPropertyEntity : Implements INavigationPropertyEntity
Private _value As DbEntity1
Friend Sub New(value As DbEntity1)
_value = value
End Sub
End Class
Public Class PublicEntity : Implements IPublicEntity
Dim _value As DbEntity2
Friend _NavProps As DbEntityToPublicEntityCollection(Of INavigationPropertyEntity, DbEntity1, NavigationPropertyEntity)
Public ReadOnly Property NavProps As IDbEntityToExposedEntityCollection(Of INavigationPropertyEntity) Implements IPublicEntity.NavProps
Get
Return _NavProps
End Get
End Property
Friend Sub New(value As DbEntity2)
_value = value
_NavProps = new DbEntityToPublicEntityCollection(Of INavigationPropertyEntity, DbEntity1, NavigationPropertyEntity)(_value.NavigationPropertyDbEntities)
End Sub
End Class
-Entity Specific Collection
Friend Class DbEntityToPublicEntityCollection(Of IEnt As INavigationPropertyEntity, DbEnt As DbEntity1, ExpEnt As NavigationPropertyEntity)
Inherits HashSet(Of IEnt)
Implements IDbEntityToExposedEntityCollection(Of IEnt)
Public Sub New(value As HashSet(Of DbEnt))
For Each ent In value
Dim exp As NavigationPropertyEntity = ent
Dim i As INavigationPropertyEntity = exp
MyBase.Add(i)
Next
End Sub
End Class
Additional Info Edit
The main issue is being able to have a generic collection declared something like,
Friend Class DbEntityToPublicEntityCollection(Of IEnt, DbEnt as class, ExpEnt As class)
because in the New sub ExpEnt cannot be converted to DbEnt and a TryCast will just result in a runtime error.
Like I said, I tried setting up classes that are inherited by the exposed and entity classes so a new method with a parameter for the exposed class could be set up but with trying to have the interfaces in there it got unmanageable pretty quick. Then again I have not worked much with making my own generic types before so I'm not sure if this is even a proper strategy.
I'm trying to access a shared property of a class passed as a parameter to a type-parametrised procedure. The reason why I'm doing this is so I can embed the various API call endpoints (among other class-specific things) as properties within the class itself. I've read some similar SO posts but nothing is close enough to be sure that it isn’t possible (which I think is likely).
Below is the essence of the structure - there's some pseudo code towards the end:
MustInherit Class BaseClass
Shared Property Endpoint As String
End Class
Class Person
Inherits BaseClass
Property Age As Integer
Property Name As String
Sub New()
_Endpoint = "/GetPerson"
End Sub
End Class
Class Event
Inherits BaseClass
Property When As Date
Property Type As String
Sub New()
_Endpoint = "/GetEvent"
End Sub
End Class
Function Retrieve(T As BaseClass)(Id As String) As T
Dim oResp As HttpResponse = MakeGetCall(T.Endpoint, Id) <- T.Endpoint throws a compile error
Return Deserialize(Of T)(oResp.Content)
End Function
Dim oPerson As Person = Retrieve(Of Person)("123")
Dim oEvent As Event = Retrieve(Of Event)("123")
To my tiny mind, I would have thought that, since T’s base class is BaseClass which contains the property Endpoint, I’d be ok. But seemingly not.
I've tried a fair few things from here on SO and other places to overcome this to no avail. Yes, I realize I could perform some kind of endpoint look-up based on the type of T but the above represents a very clean solution and I’d like to get it to work if possible.
Any ideas?
Assuming you want EndPoint to be different for each subclass, you should use MustOverride instead of Shared...
MustInherit Class BaseClass
Public MustOverride Property EndPoint As String
End Class
Then return a constant in each subclass
Class Person
Inherits BaseClass
Public Overrides Property EndPoint As String
Get
Return "/Person"
End Get
You might want to declare EndPoint as ReadOnly too.
The small limitation is that you'll need an instance of the class to access EndPoint (since it isn't Shared). If you have a parameterless constructor, you could use (New Person).EndPoint where needed.
I have two classes to handle database operations, one for MySQL (DBMySQL), and another for SQLite (DBSQLite). The user chooses which database system to use.
The functions within the classes have the same names, but are obviously slightly different to handle the variations in databases.
I would like to refer to the chosen class by one name throughout the application. I have set a global variable DB.
In a procedure I can: Dim DB as New DBMySQL (or DBSQLite). This works within the procedure, but not globally, but I can see all the functions when coding.
If I instead use: DB = New DBMySQL, this works globally, but no class functions are displayed when coding.
Any alternatives?
Use the concept of inheritance, and create a MustInherit class with MustOverride methods and/or properties.
Public MustInherit Class AbstractDB
Public MustOverride Function MyQuery(input As Object) As Object
Public MustOverride Sub MyUpdateMethod(input As Object)
End Class
Public Class DBMySQL
Inherits AbstractDB
Public Overrides Function MyQuery(input As Object) As Object
End Function
Public Overrides Sub MyUpdateMethod(input As Object)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class DBSQLite
Inherits AbstractDB
Public Overrides Function MyQuery(input As Object) As Object
End Function
Public Overrides Sub MyUpdateMethod(input As Object)
End Sub
End Class
Then, when you want to use your classes, make your DB global variable of type AbstractDB. You could then create either DBMySql or DBSQLite and assign it to your DB variable. The method names will all be the same, because they all inherit the same base class. But each derived class must fill out the content of those methods on its own.
Dim DB as AbstractDB = New DBMySQL
You could also use an interface.
Public Interface IRepository
' common functions of MySQL and SQLLiteclasses
End Interface
Public Class MySQLRepository
Implements IRepository
End Class
Public Class SQLLiteRepository
Implements IRepository
End Class
Public Function GetDB(userChoice As String) As IRepository
If userChoice = "MySQL" Then
Return New MySQLRepository()
Else
Return New SQLLiteRepository
End if
End Function
Dim DB As IRepository = GetDB(userChoice)
This is a basic implementation of the Repository pattern. The example in the link is in C#, but, as you're probably aware, it's not easy finding examples in VB. Fortunately, there are lots of C# to VB converters.
The abstract example Sean Skelly gave should also work. You may want to research the difference between abstract classes and interfaces.