Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Does non-virtual-by-default lead us to composition-over-inheritance?
There are some design guidelines about testable code in “The Art of Unit Testing”. The first one is “Make methods virtual by default”. I’m curious to know your idea about non-virtual-by-default behavior in C#. I’ve read about Hejlsberg opinions but I think one the most important reasons could be that it may lead us to “composition over inheritance” principal.
Adding base-class (inherited) functionality to classes that you don’t control
I have a set of classes from a 3rd party library. These classes use an inheritance structure to share logic. I would like to add a layer of abstraction in the middle of their inheritance tree to add functionality to all of the children (concrete) implementations.
Adding base-class (inherited) functionality to classes that you don’t control
I have a set of classes from a 3rd party library. These classes use an inheritance structure to share logic. I would like to add a layer of abstraction in the middle of their inheritance tree to add functionality to all of the children (concrete) implementations.
Adding base-class (inherited) functionality to classes that you don’t control
I have a set of classes from a 3rd party library. These classes use an inheritance structure to share logic. I would like to add a layer of abstraction in the middle of their inheritance tree to add functionality to all of the children (concrete) implementations.
Java class to enforce an implementation of super classes’ public methods
I have the following :