Comments by carlito_brigante (Top 12 by date)

So to be fully sure my thinking is really correct please tell yes or not to my two statements:

First case:
I don't know since beginning whether derived classes inheriting from abstract base class would need to control values or not so I would implement like below then if some derived class don't want to control value then don't need to override this but just use Id directly from abstract base class and that's it but if some derived class would like to control Id then need to override Id for it own and create private field _id as well

abstract class MyAbstractClass
{
protected virtual string Id { get; set;}
}


Does this what I wrote is correct thinking?


Second case:
assuming that I know all derived classes would need to control Id value then I need to implement over abstract base class like this and override Id for their own and not _id.

abstract class MyAbstractClass
{
protected string _id
protected virtual string Id { get return _id ; set _id = value;}
}


Does second way is correct way of thinking?

Thanks in advance.

you mean because they are two completely different members because my property has its own back field? That's what you want to say? I already found out that this auto property got backing field but other way its abstract. Could you explain here?



If I would like to control variable from beginning maybe then this way : to implement inside my abstract class field and property and then I can use _id and Id in derived classes or even override later in derived classes property if I would like to
view sourceprint?

protected string _id;
protected virtual string Id { get return _id; set _id = value; }


Or if from beginning I don't know if either all derived classes would like to control variable or only just 1 or 2 of them I can just leave only a property inside abstract class and override property if there is a need in some derived class to control value + create a field for it as protected also in derived class:
view sourceprint?

protected virtual string Id { get ; set; }


What about now :) ? Am I right know?

Could you tell me why this is not good in abstract? I declare property for Id which will take or set the _id assumed that is the way of OOP to access provate - this case protected field...


protected string _id;
protected internal abstract string Id { get; set; }


P.S the purpose of Cocpit i wrote eralier posts

hi there,

the target of that app is to suervising some servers within a network.
The cocpit class is abstract base class for Protocol, Server and Service all of them has similar fields and i can say they have the same structure so i decided to make Cocpit as base class for them. Heartbeatsupervisor is lets say 'engine' which takes Server and Protocol within the constructor and will do e.g ping inside StartCheck method. Icheck is simple

namespace Stormin
{
interface ICheck
{
void StartCheck();
void StopCheck();
}
}

I think to this operation tom insert i don't need the inner joni statment cause i populate combobox by plains and i populate datagrid by attribute values. I just need to make 1 + column to set value to attributes and make insert command (on button click) to tb_as_plane_attributes. The inner join will be for update when i will have to retrive this attributes which is relate with plane...