 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / October 2007Interface in .NET -- mutable or not?
Hi All, It is my understanding that with .NET you can add or remove methods in your interface while still maintain binary compatibility. This is not true for COM. Does this mean that published interfaces under .NET are no longer required to be immutable? Best regards, gz If you add a method to an interface, any class that derives from it will break because it does not fully implement your interface. Does that help? -- Peter Recursion: see Recursion site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com BlogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Best regards, > gz On Oct 11, 2:45 pm, Peter Bromberg [C# MVP] <pbromb...@yahoo.yohohhoandabottleofrum.com> wrote: > If you add a method to an interface, any class that derives from it will > break because it does not fully implement your interface. Does that help? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hi Peter, I can see that. But am I supposed to change the interface even in the cases when I can? Thanks, gz > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Best regards, > gz Making any changes to an interface will break version compatibility. Well, except in VB.NET you could add a nested type in an interface and I don't think that would break anything, but I haven't tried it. Well Visual Basic 2008 supports extension methods which provides "a way to extend existing types with new functionality without changing the existing contract" Regards, Jeff > Well Visual Basic 2008 supports extension methods which provides "a way > to That's also true for C# 3.0 (=C# Version in VS 2008) Christof >Hi All, > >It is my understanding that with .NET you can add or remove methods in >your interface while still maintain binary compatibility. >This is not true for COM. The major differences between COM and .NET interfaces seem to be 1 .NET interfaces are not derived from IUnknown 2 .NET interfaces do not represent any sort of binary standard > Does this mean that published interfaces under .NET are >no longer required to be immutable? Common sense alone says no. If an interface wasn't immutable what purpose would the contract serve? regards A.G. > 2 .NET interfaces do not represent any sort of binary standard You may appreciate this (by one of the world's leading authorities on .NET). http://books.google.com/books?id=dSiuGk0RZ4gC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=juval+lowy+net +%22every+class+is+a+binary+component%22&source=web&ots=wxe6jvmsTh&sig=GEsjSwa5v WhuYHn6LwGtnv3IZcQ#PPA43,M1 >> 2 .NET interfaces do not represent any sort of binary standard > >You may appreciate this (by one of the world's leading authorities on .NET). > >http://books.google.com/books?id=dSiuGk0RZ4gC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=juval+lowy+net +%22every+class+is+a+binary+component%22&source=web&ots=wxe6jvmsTh&sig=GEsjSwa5v WhuYHn6LwGtnv3IZcQ#PPA43,M1 I'm not certain what I am supposed to be looking at, binary compatibility wasn't the question. According to MSDN unmanaged code uses binary standards to ensure type compatibility while type standards are used in managed code. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cwk974ks(vs.80).aspx or http://tinyurl.com/2d8mw4 regards A.G. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.