views:

1858

answers:

4

In an interview a while ago for a .NET position the interviewer asked me "what would you use a private interface for?".

I asked him did he mean the difference between implicit vs explicit interface implementation to which he answered no.

So I'm wondering:

  1. What he meant?
  2. What you would use a private interface for?
+8  A: 

See this link. "No," is a pretty poor answer if he was looking to find out what you knew. Sounds like someone who just wants to show how much they know.

Mark Dickinson
Hi Mark, I saw that Webpage too- isn't that just the same as an explicit interface implementation though?
RichardOD
I'm going to +1 this because it is known as private interface inheritance.
annakata
That is explicit interface implementation and the interviewer said that was NOT what he meant.
GrahamS
Not to split hairs, but the question says the interviewer, said "No," when asked if he meant the "difference" between implicit vs explicit interface implementation. Bad interviewers usually mean bad times at the job.
Mark Dickinson
True, the answer might simply be that your interviewer was a dick.
GrahamS
+1; note the last paragraph of the linked post, which explains why you would/wouldn't use it. (Yes, "when would you use x" can appropriately be answered, "in practice, not often.")
John Rudy
Which just makes it a terrible, terrible question. "When would you use this obscure technique you've almost certainly not encountered?" Correct answer: Almost never. Incorrect answer: I don't know, I've never used it. I call shenanigans.
annakata
+11  A: 

An interface could be private within another class

public class MyClass
{
    private interface IFoo
    {
     int MyProp { get; }
    }

    private class Foo : IFoo
    {
     public int MyProp { get; set; }
    }

    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
     IFoo foo = new Foo();
     return foo.MyProp;
    }
}

in terms of utility it simply hides from other code, even within the same assembly, that said interface exists. The utility of this is not terribly high in my opinion.

Explicit interface implementation is a different matter, has some very useful cases (especially when working with generics and older non generic interfaces) but I would not term it 'private interfaces' and would not say that the term is commonly used in that manner.

Using the two techniques together you can do:

public class MyClass
{
    private interface IFoo
    {
     int MyProp { get; }
    }

    public class Foo : IFoo
    {
     int IFoo.MyProp { get; set; }
    }

    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
     IFoo foo = new Foo();
     return foo.MyProp;
    }
}

public class HiddenFromMe
{
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
     MyClass.Foo foo = new MyClass.Foo();
     return foo.MyProp; // fails to compile
    }
}

This allows you to expose the nested classes in some fashion while allowing the parent class to invoke methods on them that the outside world cannot. This is a potentially useful case but is not something I would wish to use very often. Certainly it's use in an interview smacks of being a boundary case the interviewer is using because they've seen it and though it was 'interesting'

ShuggyCoUk
Though that is true, wouldn't that be one of the most useless usages of interfaces? I can't see why you would ever use such construction.
Razzie
struggling to think of much of a use case for that, or at least a use case which doesn't involve also creating a god class
annakata
That is what I interpreted the question as meaning, in which case it was just a silly question the interviewer asked!
RichardOD
I added a comment in the question about the utility (or lack thereof) I think the interviewer might have been using the wrong term for explicit interface implementation personally but that's a guess
ShuggyCoUk
Ah, just saw the comment from Graham on the other question, if it wasn't explicit implementation then I'm struggling to come up with a really good reason to use private interfaces...
ShuggyCoUk
Yeah I guess a good assumption is that he didn't know that explicit interface implementation == private interface.
RichardOD
@RichardOD: Not exactly ==. Explicit interface implementation doesn't necessarily mean that the methods implementing the interface are private. However, in private interface inheritance, they specifically are. Explicit implementation can be done with public methods of differing names (EG, "Close" being used to implement IDisposable.Dispose), with public members of the same name, or with private members. It is the latter case that truly creates the private interface inheritance -- you can't use the interface members WITHOUT casting to the interface.
John Rudy
Sorry John you're wrong about "Explicit interface implementation doesn't necessarily mean that the methods implementing the interface are private" read the linked doc in my answer specifically: "It is a compile-time error for an explicit interface member implementation to include access modifiers" and "Because explicit interface member implementations are never accessible through their fully qualified name in a method invocation or a property access, they are in a sense private. However, since they can be accessed through an interface instance, they are in a sense also public."
ShuggyCoUk
To be more specific if you have IFoo { void Do(); } and class Foo with two methods <anything> void Do(); and void IFoo.Do(); then the non explict Do method is *nothing* to do with the interface IFoo. You can invoke the method but only in the context where it is clear you have a Foo (or sub class thereof) the IFoo implementation is only called when the interface IFoo is the only way the compiler knows that Foo is a method on the object.This is one of why certain aspects of .Net use duck typing rather than force interface use...
ShuggyCoUk
...(foreach doesn't use the IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() *method*, it uses duck typing to get to a specific GetEnumerator by various rules which allow it to pick a different GetEnumerator than the IEnumerable one)
ShuggyCoUk
I stand corrected. That's what I get for reading (and worse, posting) before caffeine!
John Rudy
Coffee == good :)
ShuggyCoUk
@Shuggy- this to me is the best acceptable answer. I've finally got round to having my account merged so the answer can be accepted. In summary a really awful interview question that knocked my confidence for the rest of the interview!
RichardOD
awesome thanks :)
ShuggyCoUk
+1  A: 

Just like an inner class (which is also private) you can use a private interface in an existing class.

Gerrie Schenck
+1  A: 

I googled around a bit and found this article explaining how private interfaces can be used to provide different interfaces to different clients. This is C++ story.

I don't think this can be applied to C# tho, because the same effect IMO can be achieved with explicit interfaces and clients that cast host to appropriate interface.

Maybe somebody else can see something I missed there....

I also found this at MSDN:

Interface methods have public accessibility, which cannot be changed by the implementing type. An internal interface creates a contract that is not intended to be implemented outside the assembly that defines the interface. A public type that implements a method of an internal interface using the virtual modifier allows the method to be overridden by a derived type that is outside the assembly. If a second type in the defining assembly calls the method and expects an internal-only contract, behavior might be compromised when, instead, the overridden method in the outside assembly is executed. This creates a security vulnerability.

majkinetor