I’ve been dealing a lot lately with abstract classes that use generics. This is all good and fine because I get a lot of utility out of these classes but now it’s making for some rather ugly code down the line. For example:
abstract class ClassBase<T>
{
T Property { get; set; }
}
class MyClass : ClassBase<string>
{
OtherClass PropertyDetail { get; set; }
}
This implementation isn’t all that crazy, except when I want to reference the abstract class from a helper class and then I have to make a list of generics just to make reference to the implemented class, like this below.
class Helper
{
void HelpMe<C, T>(object Value)
where C : ClassBase<T>, new()
{
DoWork();
}
}
This is just a tame example, because I have some method calls where the list of where clauses end up being 5 or 6 lines long to handle all of the generic data. What I’d really like to do is
class Helper
{
void HelpMe<C>(object Value)
where C : ClassBase, new()
{
DoWork();
}
}
but it obviously won’t compile. I want to reference ClassBase without having to pass it a whole array of generic classes to get the function to work, but I don’t want to reference the higher level classes because there are a dozen of those. Am I the victim of my own cleverness or is there an avenue that I haven’t considered yet?
I suppose that your
HelpMemethod would be used for initializing the concreteClassBase<T>type (a guess based on the constraints). To keep the code fully generic (if you need bothTandCsomewhere in the method), you probably need to keep both of the type parameters.However, you could add a non-generic base class and then write something like this:
Then you could be to write the helper method like this:
Depending on your specific scenario, something along these lines might work and make the code a little bit simpler. However, you need to modify the base class to make this possible.