CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#oopinheritanceobjectencapsulation
adeelx
adeelx

Reputation: 605

Pass an Object, Inherit it or use direct method

I'm new to the C# and the OOP scenario and in process of building an infrastructure that'll help me better understand the OOP concepts. This is a project that I made to put my classroom knowledge to test. Can someone go over this and explain to me what would be a better approach and why?

The following are objects in my C# program:

I want the deskClerk Object to add a Customer to the Showroom object. For this I have the following choices:

  1. I can pass a Showroom object to the deskClerk and then utilise the addCustomer method inside Showroom to add a Customer.
  2. I can directly add a Customer to the Showroom since the Showroom object already has the addCustomer method.
  3. I can inherit the deskClerk object from Showroom in which case the deskClerk will be able to add to the Customer list using the addCustomer method of the Showroom.

My questions are:

Upvotes: 3

Views: 232

Answers (2)

Omar
Omar

Reputation: 16623

I like your approach to the problem. So reading your questions:

  • Each of this choices have a sound logic, so your choice depends on
    how you want to structure your objects and how you want to use them. As a programmer I reccomend you use the second one or the third one.

  • Yes, the Showroom could have an addCostumer method and in this case if you want to use the second or third choise it must have an addCostumer method if you'd like to add a Costumer to the storage.

Using the third choise here is my sample code:

class Stock { /*...*/ }
class Customer { /*...*/  }
class Order { /*...*/  }

class Showroom
{
    protected List<Stock> StockList;
    protected List<Customer> CustomerList;
    protected List<Order> OrderList;

    public Showroom()
    {
        StockList = new List<Stock>();
        CustomerList = new List<Customer>();
        OrderList = new List<Order>();
    }

    public virtual void addStock(Stock stock)
    {
        StockList.Add(stock);
    }

    public virtual void addCustomer(Customer customer)
    {
        CustomerList.Add(customer);
    }

    public virtual void addOrder(Order order)
    {
        OrderList.Add(order);
    }

    //...
}

class deskClerk : Showroom
{
    public deskClerk()
    {
        CustomerList = new List<Customer>();
    }

    public override void addCustomer(Customer customer)
    {
        CustomerList.Add(customer);
    }

    //...
}

So I can reccomend you another thing:

Every time you will work with objects give to each one his role and his tasks, and then every choise depends on the logic that you want to use. Choose the one you think will work and fit well in the context where you want to use it.

Upvotes: 1

lars-august
lars-august

Reputation: 388

You have to work out if a Customer can exist without being part on a Showroom and if a DeskClerk can float around with out being part on a Showroom.

If that's the scenraio I'd do something like this

public class Showroom {
    public DeskClerk Clerk { get; private set; }
    public List<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
    [...]
}

A desk clerk wouldn't be of much use without a showroom, so set the showroom as a dependency in its constructor:

public class DeskClerk {
    private ShowRoom { get; set; }
    public DeskClerk(ShowRoom showRoom) {
        ShowRoom = showRoom;
    }
    public Customer AddCustomer(Customer customer) {
        //do stuff with customer object
        ShowRoom.Add(customer);
        return cutomer;
    }
}

Don't think it would be correct to have 2 places to add customers, but the DeskClerk should still have the responsibility of doing so.

However, might have misundersttod your issue :-) Hope it helps!

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions