Skip to main content

Missing MI !!!

We all know C# does not offer multiple inheritance but offers arguments that programmers can live without it. It is true in almost all cases, especially all cat and animal or employee and manager projects. I have seen a few cases where if C# offered multiple inheritance, the solution would have been natural, elegant and succinct.

Imagine that I have a component (UI, non-UI, doesn't matter). You can make calls into the component, which does some interesting work for you. Imagine that the component takes an interface IComponentCallback to notify its parent. So I would do is have my parent class derive from IComponentCallback interface and pass this to the component. The code would look something like this:-

interface IComponentCallback
{
   void Callback1();
   bool Callback2();
   void Callback3(int old, int new);
}

class SomeComponent
{
   // The parent on whom callbacks are made
   private IComponentCallback _parent = null;
   
   public SomeCompoent(IComponentCallback cmpCallback)
   {
      // Imagine that callbacks would not be made      
      // if cmpCallback is null
      
      _parent = cmpCallback;
   }
   
   // Other methods in which _parent shall be used
   // for making the callbacks.
}

class Parent : IComponentCallback
{
   private SomeComponent _someComponent = null;
   
   public Parent()
   {
      _someComponent = new SomeComponent(this as IComponentCallback);
   }
   
   #region IComponentCallback methods implementation
   
   void IComponentCallback.Callback1()
   {
      // Code making use of this callback
   }
   
   bool IComponentCallback.Callback2()
   {
      // Possible code to provide some    
      return true;
   }
   
   void Callback3(int old, int new)
   {
      // Code making use of old\new
   }
   
   #endregion
}

void Main(string[] args)
{
   // .... code ...
   
   // Instantiating a parent which would create 
   // SomeComponent and establish itself as the
   // callback sink.
   Parent p = new Parent();
   
   // ... Code ...
}

This is a typical case where the instantiator is the callback sink. And this case is natural and usual. There may be cases where one class instantiates and holds the component while a different class acts as the callback sink. That... is not the topic of our discussion.

Now imagine our parent is a Form class. I am sure you might have come across this case where a Form hosts a UI or non-UI component and you want the callback sink as methods in your class so that you can update the UI directly. What follows may necessarily be the common case but I encountered it more than a few times. In our application, any parent could host the component. There were certain things common to do when processing the callback and hence we wrote a (base) class implementing IComponentCallback and which represents the component callback sink. Since C# does not support MI, any of our custom forms could not be derived from the callback sink class, since they are already derived from System.Windows.Form class.

Now it is not wise to argue that one may use delegates or that this implementation is bad or this is a corner case. I have practically encountered this a few times where the component we are talking about is from a third party. In some cases, the component was our own and implemented for callback mechanism, called plugin, whose intent is quite opposite to event notification. Most others might have "No MI in C#" in mind and would have the sink class as a member of the Form (parent). I don't see that natural but compulsion.

Anyways, a case exists, and of course you can live without MI.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Extension Methods - A Polished C++ Feature !!!

Extension Method is an excellent feature in C# 3.0. It is a mechanism by which new methods can be exposed from an existing type (interface or class) without directly adding the method to the type. Why do we need extension methods anyway ? Ok, that is the big story of lamba and LINQ. But from a conceptual standpoint, the extension methods establish a mechanism to extend the public interface of a type. The compiler is smart enough to make the method a part of the public interface of the type. Yeah, that is what it does, and the intellisense is very cool in making us believe that. It is cleaner and easier (for the library developers and for us programmers even) to add extra functionality (methods) not provided in the type. That is the intent. And we know that was exercised extravagantly in LINQ. The IEnumerable was extended with a whole lot set of methods to aid the LINQ design. Remember the Where, Select etc methods on IEnumerable. An example code snippet is worth a thousand ...

Implementing COM OutOfProc Servers in C# .NET !!!

Had to implement our COM OOP Server project in .NET, and I found this solution from the internet after a great deal of search, but unfortunately the whole idea was ruled out, and we wrapped it as a .NET assembly. This is worth knowing. Step 1: Implement IClassFactory in a class in .NET. Use the following definition for IClassFactory. namespace COM { static class Guids { public const string IClassFactory = "00000001-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; public const string IUnknown = "00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; } /// /// IClassFactory declaration /// [ComImport(), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), Guid(COM.Guids.IClassFactory)] internal interface IClassFactory { [PreserveSig] int CreateInstance(IntPtr pUnkOuter, ref Guid riid, out IntPtr ppvObject); [PreserveSig] int LockServer(bool fLock); } } Step 2: [DllImport("ole32.dll")] private static extern int CoR...

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go! CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object. void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); } Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr . As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference...