What is the difference between a class with protected constructors and a class marked as MustInherit? (I'm programming in VB.Net but it probably equally applies to c#).
The reason I ask is because I have an abstract class that I want to convert the constructors to shared/static methods. (To add some constraints).
I can't do this because it's not possible to create an instance in the shared function.
I'm thinking to just remove the MustInherit keyword. Will this make any difference?
Thanks.
ETA:
I think i've answered my question, If I remove the MustInherit keyword, I can no longer include the MustOverrides, which are very useful.
With that in mind, is there any way around my problem?
ETA2:
To clarify, I can't do the below unless I remove the MustInherit keyword?
Public MustInherit MyBaseClass
Private Sub New()
End Sub
Protected Function CreateInstance(ParmList) As MyBaseClass
If ParmList is Ok Then Return New MyBaseClass()
End Function
End Class
You can call the Protected constructor using reflection and instantiate the class but you can't instantiate an abstract class in this way. You can declare MustOverride methods in MustInherit classes but Protected constructor can enforce nothing on derived classes.
You should always declare classes that are conceptually abstract as MustInherit. Protected constructors can be useful when you are providing it along with some Public overloads to provide some more functionality to derived classes.
If the class only has a protected constructor, it is still possible to have an instance of the class which can stand on its own. It would require working around the protected constructor, such as using reflection.
If the class is marked as MustInherit, it is impossible to have an instance of that class on its own. Instances can only be created of the derived/inherited classes.
Not really sure what you want.
If you need to create an object of the abstract class, I recommend you create a private class implementation of your abstract class and return it in your CreateInstanceMethod:
Public MustInherit MyBaseClass
Private BaseClassImplementation
Inherits MyBaseClass
...
End Class
Public Function CreateInstance(paramList) as MyBaseClass
If paramList Is Ok Then Return New BaseClassImplementation
End Function
End Class
However, if you want to add some constraints to the construction, I recommend to throw exceptions:
Public MustInherit MyBaseClass
Protected Sub New(paramList)
If paramList IsNot Ok Then Thow New Exception
...
End Sub
End Class
Related
I got this error
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/visual-basic/misc/bc30387
And I wonder why.
What about if I never want to call parameterless new in both base and derived classes?
I can do that if I don't use inheritance. Why using inheritance means I can no longer do so?
To repeat the issue
What's the explanation? So NOT every classes need parameterless new but classes with inheritance must? That doesn't make sense.
What about if I never call derived class with parameter less constructor. I don't intent for the class to ever be constructed without parameter.
For example, say, I want to create a class without parameterless constructor. I can do that right.
But say I want to split the class into two. Parent and child class. I want BOTH not to ever have parameterless constructor.
It seems that I can't do that can I? If such is the case, can anyone please confirm it.
The link says that if you have an explicit constructor in your base class with parameters and no parameterless one than you cannot leave your derived class without constructor. Because VB.NET cannot create an implicit constructor for derived class.
If you don't write any constructors for both, it is perfectly valid.
public class Base
End Class
Public Class Derived
Inherits Base
End Class
However you cannot declare a derived class without an explicit constructor like below. Because VB.NET cannot determine how to initialize base class.
public class Base
Public sub New(ByVal Item As Integer)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class Derived
Inherits Base
End Class
To overcome this issue you can declare a default constructor on derived class which calls base class constructor with a default value.
public class Base
Public sub New(ByVal Item As Integer)
End Sub
End Class
Public Class Derived
Inherits Base
Public Sub New()
MyBase.New(5)
End Sub
End Class
I have a few dozen classes which all implement the same interface and many of the methods have identical implementation. I have to do a lot of copy and paste whenever I add a new class. How can I get less code duplication?
I've heard that you should put the common code in a helper class but a lot of these methods are really trivial so calling a helper method is barely any simpler than doing the actual work.
Inheritance would save re-declaring all these methods but it would make it messy for the few classes that don't have the identical implementation.
Examples:
Identical in nearly every class...
Public Sub ThingWasDeleted(ByVal deletedThing As Thing) Implements Iinterface.ThingWasDeleted
If MyThing Is deletedThing Then
MyThing = Nothing
End If
End Sub
...but occasionally different:
Public Sub ThingWasDeleted(ByVal deletedThing As Thing) Implements IInterface.ThingWasDeleted
'Do nothing
End Sub
Identical in every class but already just as simple as calling a common helper method:
Public ReadOnly Property DisplayName() As String Implements IInterface.DisplayName
Get
Return DisplayNameShared
End Get
End Property
If you put these methods in a helper class, wouldn't that make it just as messy (if not more) than having an abstract base class where you can override the base class's functionality when needed?
For example:
Public MustInherit Class BaseClass
Public ReadOnly Property DisplayName() As String
Get
Return DisplayNameShared
End Get
End Property
Public Overridable Sub ThingWasDeleted(ByVal deletedThing As Thing)
If MyThing Is deletedThing Then
MyThing = Nothing
End If
End Sub
End Class
This provide a definition of the property that all inheriting classes can use, and gives the inheriting class an option to override and create their own implementation of ThingWasDeleted.
For example:
Public Class MyClass
Inherits BaseClass
Public Overrides Sub ThingWasDeleted(ByVal deletedThing As Thing)
' Do nothing
End Sub
End Class
On the other hand, if you wrote a helper class, you'd have to define every method, and the developer (which may or may not be you) would have to know which method to change. Additionally, instead of having the option to use the existing functionality in the base (abstract) class, every class you create will have to call each of the proper helper methods.
Personally, I prefer the former option, mainly because the inheriting classes don't have to call anything to get the base functionality established in the base class, and can override what they need to on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, having them all in a helper class means you have to at least write the code to call each of the necessary helper methods in every class you have.
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
Disclaimer: I am fairly new to working with generics so I am not entirely sure if what I am trying to do even makes sense or is possible.
I have a bunch of user controls in a project. All of these user controls share a similar property so I want to move it into a base class. The only difference is the return type of the property.
I have three classes interacting in this scenario. The first class is a base type, which inherits from CompositeControl and will be inherited by other classes in my project:
Friend Class MyBaseClass(Of T As {New})
Inherits CompositeControl
Private _someProperty As T = Nothing
Protected ReadOnly Property SomeProperty As T
Get
// dumbed down for the sake of example
If _someProperty Is Nothing Then
_someProperty = New T()
End If
Return _someProperty
End Get
End Property
End Class
Then I have this control class, which inherits from MyBaseClass:
Public Class MyControlClass
Inherits MyBaseClass(Of MyReturnTypeClass)
// snip...
End Class
And finally MyReturnTypeClass which is what the base's SomeProperty should return:
Friend Class MyReturnTypeClass
Public Property AutoProperty1 As Boolean = False
Public Property AutoProperty2 As String = String.Empty
// etc
End Class
When I attempt to build the project, I get this error from MyControlClass:
Inconsistent accessibility: type argument 'MyReturnTypeClass' is less accessible than Class 'MyControlClass'.
I need MyControlClass to be Public so it can be consumed by other projects, and I also want the MyBaseClass and MyReturnTypeClass to be Friend so they cannot be seen/used by consumers. Am I just missing some special keyword somewhere or is this not possible?
You cannot inherit from a base class that is less accessible than the derived class. So for instance, this won't work:
Friend Class MyBase
End Class
Public Class MyDerived
Inherits MyBase ' Won't compile because MyBase is less accessible
End Class
Therefore, since in your example, MyBaseClass(T) has is a friend type, but you are trying to inherit from it into a public MyControlClass type. Therefore, even if you took generics and MyReturnTypeClass out of the "equation", it still wouldn't work.
However, with generics, even if no member of the public interface of the class actually uses the generic type, the type must still be at least as accessible as the derived type. For instance:
Public Class MyBase(Of T)
' T not actually used at all
End Class
Friend Class MyOtherType
End Class
Public Class MyDerived
Inherits MyBase(MyOtherType) ' Won't compile because MyOtherType is less accessible
End Class
The base class must be at least as accessible as the derived class. This is a language restriction (see here).
If you intend to avoid MyBaseClass being instantiated by consumers, consider marking it Public MustInherit instead of Friend. Hope this helps.
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.