tags:

views:

111

answers:

3

I'm implementing a set of classes and corresponding interfaces where I want each class to have a set of common properties and a set of specialised properties that are specific only to that class. So, I'm considering defining interfaces along the lines of:

interface ICommon {...}  // Members common to all widgets
interface IWidget1 {...} // specialized members of widget type 1
interface IWidget2 {...} // specialized members of widget type 2

I am trying to choose between having the inheritance in the interfaces, or in the class. So, specifically, I can either do it like this:

interface IWidget1 : ICommon {...}
interface IWidget2 : ICommon {...}
class Widget1 : IWidget1 {...}
class Widget2 : IWidget2 {...}

...or like this...

class Widget1: ICommon, IWidget1 {...}
class Widget2: ICommon, IWidget2 {...}

Is there any compelling reason to go one way or the other?

Update: Would it affect the answer if the classes must be COM-visible?

+4  A: 

You should choose interface inheritance if and only if a type implementing IWidget1 must also implement ICommon. In either case, the class is going to implement both IWidget1 and ICommon separately. The only difference is that if you make IWidget1 "derive" from ICommon you enforce the fact that an IWidget1 must also be an ICommon.

A good example is IEnumerable and ICollection. Every ICollection is guaranteed to be IEnumerable, so ICollection derives from IEnumerable. If it was legal or made sense to be a collection but not be enumerable, then implementers of ICollection wouldn't have to implement IEnumerable also.

Whichever you choose will not affect COM visibility. .NET will still export the interfaces separately if I recall correctly.

Josh Einstein
Right, yes. All of the Widget types MUST implement ICommon. That's teh reason for it, to enforce its implementation in each and every widget.
Tim Long
Then yeah you definitely should have IWidget1 derive from ICommon.
Josh Einstein
+3  A: 

Use Liskov Substitution Principle to help yourself to an answer.

If IWidget1 can be substituted for all clients working in terms of ICommon1, then you could inherit IWidget1 from ICommon1. If not go with the class implementing multiple interfaces.

Gishu
Doesn't that produce the same result?
Tim Long
@Tim - can you elaborate ? What I meant was that if you can substitute an IWidget1 object for all code expecting an ICommon1 and it makes sense to have a IWidget1 entity in your domain, then you can go with the interface inheritance approach. If not, have the same class implement multiple interfaces.
Gishu
OK I see what you mean. Thanks.
Tim Long
A: 

The inheritence is dependent on the attribute/behaviour of the class or interface. If the behaviours in IWidget1 and IWidget2 include all of the behaviours in ICommon, then you can surely inherit like IWidget1 : ICommon and IWidget2 : ICommon and there is no issue regarding ComVisible. This is simply OOPS concept.

Kangkan