Hiding methods/properties | Tech Off

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

How do I hide all methods/properties except the ones I wish to expose? When I created a test app from here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235628(VS.80).aspx and then tried to drop it into an application, it showed a myriad of choices from other classes that are part of the framework (I am assuming that is where they are coming from).

Any ideas? Thanks.

Adrian

lensman

While other methods might exist, you can always declare your own private versions of the public methods. That would effectively hide the public methods. Do not forget to use the "new" keyword or you will see messages warning you that you are hiding a inherited method. This of course is precisely what you are doing.

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to lensman

#Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:19 PM

That is INSANE! There are over 70 methods alone! And probably over 80 properties!

THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY!

In AX, nothing is exposed except what I want. Why should .NET assemblies be any different. Sad

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 7:02 AM

Expose to what? intellisense? programatically? this thread is very confusing..

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to stevo_

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 8:34 AM

Sorry if I am not making myself clear. I'm talking programatically, i.e. the interface that a using code of the .NET assembly has access to.

In an AX control, I have create the interface and that is all that is exposed. In .NET, the interface that is exposed seems to be a bit random, some public members are exposed (including anything that is inherited), but not all. Seems a bit sketchy to me. Sad

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

In reply to stevo_

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 8:34 AM

If you're creating a custom control then you shouldn't be trying to hide the methods and properties inherited from the base class -- they're needed for the control to interact with it's container and the rest of the .NET UI framework.

Are there specific methods you don't think you need?

Herbie

EDIT: Just seen you reply -- you can always create a new interface with just the methods you want programmers to see and add that the the control inheritance, after the base class inheritance. Then just tell developers to use the interface?

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Dr Herbie

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 8:56 AM

Yeah, I'm not saying that can't be done, but AX/COM is much cleaner in that you could define an interface (more than one in COM) and partition it into smaller more manageable amounts. People don't see the world by seeing every atom/quark/rock/chair interaction. Most see a chair or a rock or a quark or an atom depending on the context they want, otherwise their head would explode.

And if you ask a coder to read a book of docs when he is overloaded already, you will get a dirty look and your schedule will be extended by 50%.

It is just better to partition things to what you need when you need them, not the whole kitchen sink and IMHO is the sign of a good design.

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 9:19 AM

Ok, to bypass the problem, I just use one or more proxies (see proxy pattern), this way I can partition out the different functions into respective groups and have a fairly easy time differentiating my functions from the framework's. I still think of it as kludgey, but it seems the best I can do for now.

Thanks

Ion Todirel
buuu

Microsoft didn't done .NET Framework only for you, did they? Those classes are general purpose and are made to fill many possible scenarios, that's why there is a lot of stuff in there, if you don't like the threshold they add why don't you make your own Control class and do all the heavy lifting by yourself?

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 9:19 AM

But you can still do that in .Net. Just create an interface and implement it in your class.

littleguru
<3 Seattle

In C# (don't confuse that with .NET) by default all member fields are private. Methods and properties are public. That's the convention.

Now you could create interfaces that are then going to be implemented by your classes. You could then make the classes internal (which means only visible inside the assembly - library or .exe) and the interfaces public. The next step would be a way (a factory pattern perhaps) that allows creating instances of these classes that are returned as the interface that they implement. This allows people to create instances of the them from outside of your assembly.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 7:02 AM

A class with 70 public methods and 80 public properties is a pretty horribly designed class in the first place.

stevo_
Human after all

Also note the difference between explicit and implicit member implementations with interfaces.. I'm really not sure why you need a decorator / proxy pattern to simply make a class..

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Sven Groot

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 6:47 PM

That is what I had said in using the proxy class(es).

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to littleguru

#Sep 4th, 2008 @ 11:19 PM

I understand what you are talking about, but I just wanted to reuse the Project Templates that is available. I've played with C# in the past briefly and am looking it into detail for the last week to work on a project. I really don't have time to understand the everything all at once to generate what should amount to a simple form that I can plug into another application.

When I have time, I will figure out how to generate the form by hand and not export (that is not make public) all the unnecessary bits. But until then, I will work with what I have.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 7:05 AM

What do you need a proxy class for? Just use an interface.

EDIT: Strike that, just check my next post. It seems we've finally managed to uncover what you're trying to do and what your problem is.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 7:26 AM

Now we're getting somewhere. If I understand you, you're creating a Form inside a class library, and want to export it, but you don't want the user of the class library to have access with all the default methods of the Form class.

In that specific case I would recommend you do make a "proxy" class and keep the Form itself internal to the class library.

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Sven Groot

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 7:57 AM

That would be great, but how do I do it such that it won't break the IDE's form developer?

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 8:10 AM

I don't see how that applies. The form doesn't change (except it's no longer public), the designer doesn't care.

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Sven Groot

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 8:11 AM

Ok, I think an example is in order.

In the example, it shows that I have exposed a property called proxy that returns a proxy class object. However it is one property amongst all other properties and methods in the MyControl class.

Now what I would want (and it sound like what you are saying) is that I can create a proxy that is the only thing exposed hiding the instance of the MyControl class entirely. If that is so, then could you post an example showing how to do this? That would be grand!

Cheers.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 8:47 AM

Wait, you want to export a control, and have it be usable in the designer? Earlier you were saying you wanted to export a form (again you're mixing terminology).

In that case you must export the whole thing, including all inherited methods (Windows Forms needs them to make the control work, and the designer needs them to). .Net developers will also expect all those methods to be there. The fact that they're there is a good thing. You shouldn't hide anything, and you definitely don't need any proxy class in this case.

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Sven Groot

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 8:59 AM

Sorry, meant control, though I don't see definitions for 'control' and 'form' anywhere either.

Now, I take it that AX doesn't have these extras exposed since these are accessible though the win32 API?

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 9:14 AM

ActiveX controls and .Net custom controls are entirely different beasts. You can't really compare them at all, except that they sort of serve the same purpose.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

In reply to adrian.h

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 9:14 AM

As it happens a Form is just a speciallised Control, but that's another matter.

For what you want to do, which for your reasons seems to me is quite pointless but each to their own, I'd bodge it like this....

<BR>public interface IMyCustomControl<BR>{<BR>   bool ClickAnywhere { get; set; }<BR>}</P>
<P>public partial class UserControl1 : UserControl, IMyCustomControl<BR>{<BR>   public UserControl1()<BR>   {<BR>      InitializeComponent();<BR>   }</P>
<P>   #region IMyCustomControl Members</P>
<P>   public bool ClickAnywhere<BR>   {<BR>      get<BR>      {<BR>         throw new NotImplementedException();<BR>      }<BR>      set<BR>      {<BR>         throw new NotImplementedException();<BR>      }<BR>   }</P>
<P>   #endregion<BR>}</P>
<P> public partial class Form1 : Form<BR>  {<BR>      public Form1()<BR>      {<BR>         InitializeComponent();<BR>      }</P>
<P>      private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)<BR>      {<BR>         IMyCustomControl cc = new UserControl1();<BR>         cc.ClickAnywhere = true   //Only see the one method in intellisense<BR>         this.Controls.Add(cc as UserControl);<BR>      }<BR> }</P>
<P>

adrian.h
Would rather be camping or climbing!

In reply to Sven Groot

#Sep 5th, 2008 @ 9:16 AM

If they serve the same purpose, then you should be able to map the commonalities.