Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Yesterday I thought it would be nice to implement my own Trigger in a WPF app. I created a class MyTrigger which inherited TriggerBase. TriggerBase is a public abstract class. So inheritance isn’t a problem. But the constructors inside this class are marked internal. The compiler throws an error because the is no valid constructor. Why does anyone create a public class but marks the constructors as internal?
If you want the class to be visible, but only allow it to be subclassed within your own assembly. The subclasses may have public constuctors themselves – or they may be accessed with a factory.
I can’t comment on whether that’s a good design decision for TriggerBase in WPF, but it’s at least reasonable in some situations.