Constructor Inside Interface ?

Question

1.00/5 (2 votes)

See more:

C#

.NET

Can I able to Create a Constructor Inside my Interface Class ?

Posted 4-Aug-11 0:02am

SUCHIT S SHAH

Add a Solution

3 solutions

Solution 1

No, you cannot. Interface is only a contract, it cannot have any executable code.

Posted 4-Aug-11 0:04am

Shameel

Solution 2

It might be helpful,

interface[^]
class[^]

:)

Posted 4-Aug-11 0:06am

Mohammad A Rahman

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

BobJanova · Accepted Answer · 2011-08-04T01:19:00

Solution 3

No. (Personally I think it is a mistake that you can't specify constructor signatures in an interface ... it means that there is no general way to create an implementing class without knowing what the class is or making assumptions about available constructors.) One way round this is to specify an Initialize method.

Posted 4-Aug-11 1:19am

BobJanova

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 7-Aug-11 3:12am

There is something reasonable in your doubt. My 5. You see, I think you mean Initialize as a factory method, it will define a signature for creation of the instance. This work-around is still not perfect: when one implements this factory method, it will be implemented as an instance method, while a normal factory method would be a static one -- so, we have some redundancy, right? This is a minor, but a problem.

It would not be a theoretical problem to allow static methods in interfaces and/or constructors.
--SA