interface

问题 Let's say I have 100s of classes that implement a common interface with a method "calculate". Some of the classes will execute async (e.g. read a file), and other classes implementing the same interface will execute code that is sync (e.g. adding two numbers). What is a good way to code this, for maintenance and for performance? The posts I read so far, always recommend to make async/await methods bubble up to the callers. So if you have one operation that is async, make the caller async,

问题 I have a property called "IsSecureConnection" that is part of my object's interface. This makes sense for most implementations of the interface, however, in some implementations I would like to make the property ReadOnly. Should I omit this property from the object's interface even though it is required by all of the implementations (though slightly different on occasion)? Thanks! 回答1: It really depends on what's most readable for your clients. I can think of a couple of options: 1) The

问题 I have a List which must contain IInteract Objects. But IInteract is a generic interface which requires 2 type arguments. My main idea is iterate through a list of Objects and "Interact" one with another if they didn't interact yet. So i have this object List<IObject> WorldObjects = new List<IObject>(); and this one: private List<IInteract> = new List<IInteract>(); Except I can't compile the last line because IInteract requires 2 type arguments. But I don't know what the arguments are until I

问题 I am new to Reflection. I have seen some of the questions and tutorials. Let's assume I have one interface which's implemented by 3 classes A,B,C public interface MyInterface { doJob(); } Now using reflection I want to invoke each class Class<?> processor = Class.forName("com.foo.A"); Object myclass = processor.newInstance(); Rather than creating an Object, can't I restrict the whole process to specific type. I want to invoke only MyInterface type classes. If I pass com.foo.A it should create

问题 I have written an interface and an implementation to it and I can't really decide on the best way to handle the following problem. To make it short, let's say this is the interface: public interface Node { String getNodeName(); Node getChildByName(String name); void addChild(Node node); void removeChild(Node node); } Now if I wanted to handle exceptions, is it a good idea to make the exception as generic as possible or should I add rather specific ones? Let's say the method addChild , should

问题 I have a property that returns an interface. During debugging I can break on what was returned and while it is the interface, Visual Studio is smart enough to know the derived type that it actually is. I assume it's using reflection or something. I'm not sure. My question is, can I have that same info available to me at runtime so I can create a variable of the appropriate type and cast the interface as that? Here is what I am saying: IPreDisplay preDisplay = cb.PreDisplay; If preDisplay is a

问题 I had read that auto implemented properties cannot be read only or write only. They can only be read-write. However, while learning interfaces I came across foll. code, which creates a read only / write only and read-write type of automatic properties. Is that acceptable? public interface IPointy { // A read-write property in an interface would look like: // retType PropName { get; set; } // while a write-only property in an interface would be: // retType PropName { set; } byte Points { get;

问题 Given two interfaces: interface I1 { int Foo(); } interface I2 { void Foo(); } And a class: class Test : I1, I2 { int I1.Foo() { Console.WriteLine("I1.Foo"); return default(int); } public void Foo() { Console.WriteLine("I2.Foo"); } } How can I extend the interface I2 with I1 by keeping the methods named Foo ? I tried the following code but it doesn't compile: interface I1 { int Foo(); } interface I2 : I1 { void I2.Foo(); } class Test : I2 { /* same code */ } 回答1: It is unclear in the example

问题 I have a setup like so : IBuilder = interface(IInvokable) end; IBuilder<T: IBuilder; TOut : TWinControl> = interface(IInvokable) end; TBuilder<T: IBuilder; TOut : TWinControl> = class(TInterfacedObject, IBuilder, IBuilder<T, TOut>) end; TBuilder = class(TBuilder<TBuilder, TWinControl>) end; This kind of structure allows me to build a sugar syntax like so : TBuilder<T : IBuilder; TOut : TWinControl> = class(TInterfacedObject, IBuilder, IBuilder<T, TOut>) function Output : TOut; function Name

问题 Sorry the title is confusing, I don't know if I said it right, not sure what this thing is called... Feel free to edit it after you read the question if you want. I'm refactoring my old code when I noticed there are a lot of places where I could use the Strategy pattern. I have an inventory system, and items - There are more than one ways to add an item - Normal way, forceful way, etc. You could also swap items, again, with more than one way - So I figured those are good places to use that