Abstract Class Be Better Than An Interface In The Following Case?
Mar 30, 2011
I have one interface that contains four functions. I have about 20 classes that implement this interface. Throughout each class, I see a lot of duplicate code, for example, there are constants declared at the beginning that are in every class. The method implementations (logic) of the interface are mostly the same.It contains duplicate structures. Is this a case where I can eliminate a lot of duplicate classes by implementing an abstract class instead of an interface. What I am striving for is too be able to put common methods from the abstract class as non-abstract methods and then methods that need their own implementation would be marked over-ridable. Can I put consts and structures in abstract classes? If so, that would eliminate a lot of duplicate code across the classes. Is there anything else I should look out for in the classes as a sign that I probably should be use an abstract class instead of an interface.
I'd like to make sure each of the subclasses has a certain nested class whose actual fields are up to the developer.
Nesting an abstract class inside the base abs. class doesn't seem to do the trick because during actual coding, both the nested abs. class and the nested class in the subclass both are available (show up in intellisense).
Having the base class implement an interface that includes a class doesn't work since interfaces only refer to methods that can be implemented, not classes (meaning implementing the interface requires implements methods, but says nothing about classes in the interface.
understanding difference between an interface and an abstract class which has no function with implementation?which is better abstract cls or interface in term of speed, features..?
I am creating an xlsx reader / writer for my application (based on OpenXML SDK 2.0). I want to read xlsx files and store the data contained in each row in a DTO/PONO. Further I want to read the xlsx file and then modify it and save it.Now my problem is not with the OpenXML SDK, I can do what I need to do.My problem is on how to structure my components. Specifically I have problems with the polymorphism at the lowest level of a Spreadsheet, the cell.A cell in Excel/OpenXML can have different types of data associated with it. Like a Time, Date, Number, Text or Formula. These different type need to be handled differently when read/written from/to a spreadsheet.I decided to have a common interface for all subtypes like TextCell, NumberCell, DateCell etc.Now when I read the cell from the spreadsheet the Method/Factory can decide which type of cell to create.
Now because the cell is an abstract from the real implementation it does not know / does not need to know of what type it is. For writing / modifying the cell I solve this problem by calling .write(ICellWriter) on the cell I want to persist. As the cell itself knows what type of data it contains, it knows which method of ICellWriter it needs to call (static polymorpism).Writing to the xlsx file is no problem. My problem is, how do I get the data out of my cell into my DTO/PONO without resorting to type checking -> If TypeOf variable is ClassX then doesomething End If. As Methods / Properties have to have different Signatures and differentiating by only using a different return type is not allowed.The holder (collection, in this case a row of a table/spreadsheet) of the objects (refering to the cells) does not know the concrete implementations. So for writing a cell I pass it a Cellwriter. This Cellwriter has overloaded methods like Write(num as Integer), Write(text as String), Write(datum as Date). The cell object that gets this passed to it then calls the Write() method with the data type it holds. This works, as no return value is passed back.After some thinking about the problem I came to realize that it's not possible without reflection or knowledge of what type of cell I am expecting. Basically I was trying to recreate a spreadsheet or something with similar functionality and way too abstract/configurable for my needs.
I created a vb.net dll which I am using in an unmanaged c++ project.When I try to create an object of the class, I am getting an error:cannot instantiate abstract class.Why would my class be abstract? How can I modify it so that it won't be abstract?
I am developing a web app but is not satisfied with is architecture that I am following. The architecture is plain old conventional 3 tier architecture. What i want is follow some design pattern or architecture that will be help me in decoupling my code.I have idea about MVC and MVP architectures for Web App but i need different from that. I want to use OOPS concepts using abstract classes and interfaces, polymorphism etc in my app but not MVC and MVP. I dont know why?
I've been playing around with implementing an abstract base class that using reflection accomplishes SQL to Object mapping.
I did some benchmarks and decided I wanted to implement a caching strategy for the property info of the objects (to prevent future lookups on them). My first instinct was to try and implement something like this.
Public MustInherit Class BaseModel Implements IFillable Private Shared PropertyCache As List(Of PropertyInfo)
Basically, I have a custom child form class which has events that will be passed to the parent. In the custom child form, I have a declaration of a "MustInherit" class that inherits the DevExpress User Control Class.
The reason for this, is I have many user controls that derive from this base class, and the child form can have an instance of any one of these controls, and doesnt care which. The only requirement is that the child form can handle the same events from each type of control the same way.
Some watered down code snippets(still pretty long unfortunately): '''Inherited Class Public Class ChildControlInheritedClass
If i have a class called A and a class called B, if B inherits A that means A is the super class and B is the subclass. I have been asked to describe why class A is not an abstract class but as i see it class A is an abstract class A, as it has been created for Class B to use in the future, is it something to do with Class B not being able to access the fields in Class A as although they are private by default?
I have an abstract class in vb.net with two subclasses. In the abstract class I have a constuctor that looks like this:[code]I would like to create a second constructor that doesn't take any arguments and just initializes the args to default values.[code]When I attempt to create a new subclass using the second constructor the compiler complains that I'm missing two args to the constructor.Is there a reason I can't overload the constructor in the abstract class?
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 have recently come across some code that has the following. First there is a Interface with the following function Function Validate() As Boolean. That interface is then implemented in the an 'ABSTRACT' class like this. Public MustOverride Overloads Function Validate() As Boolean Implements IBusinessEntity.Validate
Question 1: Why use Overloads in the Abstract class implementation.
Question 2: The Abstract class is then inherited into a class (TestClass). In TestClass the Validate function is implemented as follows Public Overloads Overrides Function Validate() As Boolean. I understand the Overrides keyword is to insure that this is the version of the Validate that you want called and not the Abstract class version but why again use the keyword Overloads?
From what I understand you can overload a constructor of a class by simply changing the constructor signature. Also, you overload Methods and Properties of a class by using the Keyword Overloads. But why do it when your implementing an Interface method, or an Abstract Class method that's inherited.
I have an interface class (IUser) which is the interface of class User. Now, i want to put these into an IList but am confused as to how i should declare the IList:Dim userList As IList(Of IUser) = New List(Of IUser) Dim userList As IList(Of User) = New List(Of User) Dim userList As IList(Of IUser) = New List(Of User) Dim userList As IList(Of User) = New List(Of IUser) when instantiating should you always use its implementation; and when using it as a type use its interface?
And when im creating a new user should i use: Dim myUser as IUser = new User?
I'm trying to make a .dll that contains a lot of basic functionality that a program can use. Currently i am trying to use interfaces to make a lot of this functionallity independend of the program using it but i hit a snag. The Basic idea is that a programmer will create his own object using the interface discribed in my .DLL file. Then implements those functions as he likes. He can then instanciate a controller (found in the same DLL) and sends his custom object implementing the interface to that Controller. The controller can then be started and will take over all the work. I do not know what type of object is send to the controller and idealy i want to program it in such a fashion that i shouldn't care as long as the object send implements that interface.In code I am trying to achieve the following: (quite simplyfied)
.Dll: Code: Public Interface MyInterface '<----Decleration of the interfaceFunction GetData() As Integer Function SetData(Data As Integer) end interface
[code]....
this propperly. I know that the second i set the interface adaptor in the Controller VS comes nagging that it can not be converted to a "MyInterface" Class. Obviously i am doing something wrong. I can change the datatype that the controller expects to the "MyController" type but that would completely ruin the whole idea of flexibillity. I am hoping someone sees what i am trying to do and can point out where i made the thinking error.
I have an abstract class which requires a delegate to function. I pass the delegate into the constructor. Now that I have a non default constructor I need to call the abstract class's constructors from the concrete class which means that I need to use MyBase.New(...). I have included a quick example below.
Public MustInherit Class BaseClass Public Delegate Sub WorkMethod() Private _Work As WorkMethod
[code]....
I have tried to do this but I keep getting the following error: "Implicit reference to object under construction is not valid when calling another constructor".Can I not do what I am trying to do above? I initially had the delegate setup in its own setter method. But then I am creating a deceptive API because it does require a point to a method to work properly.
I need to create unit testing project for my current website. The currentw ebsite si written in VB. All unit testing examples are using interface to create mock object. My current VB class does not implment any interface. Can I add interface and implement it to my current class and functions without affecting or changing codes to any pages in my website that call the functions? For examples my current class is like:
I'm making a custom class that mocks the System.Drawing.Rectangle class because the Rectangle class doesn't have a name property. I need a name property because I am adding all of my rectangles to a collection and I need a little more info stored than just their locale and size. So I changed the _onPaint event but nothing is working out when I run the program?
Public Class Rectanglar : Inherits UserControl Public BackgroundColor As Color = Color.Blue Public Sub New(ByVal name As String, ByVal XY As Point, ByVal Widthy As Integer, ByVal Heighty As Integer)
I am trying to create a class in VB.NET which inherits a base abstract class and also implements an interface. The interface declares a string property called Description. The base class contains a string property called Description. The main class inherits the base class and implements the interface. The existence of the Description property in the base class fulfills the interface requirements. This works fine in C# but causes issues in VB.NET.
I know that an interface can contain another interface within it.But;can a class contain another class within it?Can an interface contain another interface within it?
I am trying to create a settings class.The Property Test() is a list of strings.When I add a string such as: t.test.Add("asasasAAAAA")I want it to autmatically turn lowercase. using t.test.Add(("asasasAAAAA").ToLower) will not work for what I need. [code]
I am working on a plugin architecture and after some reading I have settled on one. The host class will be implemented in C# as well as some of the plugins for that host. The issue I am having is that some of my team uses VB.net. So the question, is it possible to implement a C# (plugin)interface in VB, such that when it is dynamically loaded into the host program it will have the methods required by the interface.
