使用工厂的动态继承
我想我知道这个问题的答案，但我希望有人有一个巧妙的解决方案。我们目前使用两种下拉控件（Telerik 和.Net）。我希望将这些组合到一个控件中，但在用户友好的设计方面遇到了困难。
理想情况下，将在设计文件中创建具有 bool 属性（例如“SimpleBox”）的控件，以确定继承哪种类型的控件。然后，实例化将在代码隐藏设计文件中生成，然后构造函数将动态加载基础（这是不可能的）。对我来说，简单的解决方案是创建一个 IDropDown 接口，然后让工厂创建正确的接口。唯一真正的问题是每次都必须手动编写实例化，这很麻烦，而且根本不会加快我们的进程。
尽管这不可能直接实现，但我正在寻找一种类似于工厂的解决方案，该工厂在对象构造函数内运行，用于基于 bool 属性设置基础。
干杯
I think I know the answer to this, but I'm hoping someone has a neat solution. We are currently using two kinds of drop down controls (Telerik and .Net). I'm hoping to combine these into one control, but struggling with a user friendly design.
Ideally, the control would be created in the design file with a bool property of, say, "SimpleBox," to determine which kind of control to inherit. The instantiation would then be generated in the code-behind design file and the constructor would then dynamically load the base (which isn't possible). The easy solution would be for me to create an IDropDown interface, then have a factory create the correct one. The only real problem with this is the fact that the instantiation has to be manually written every time, which is a hassle, and does not speed up our process at all.
Although it isn't directly possible, I'm looking for a solution along the lines of a factory which is run inside the object constructor for setting the base, based on a bool property.
Cheers
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
您可能想在这里研究组合/委托而不是继承。
本质上，不是直接扩展任一类，而是创建一个扩展
Control（或类似的低级内容）并实现IDropDown的包装类，添加一个IDropDown<您想要使用的底层控制实现的 /code> 字段，并将每个感兴趣的方法调用转发到选定的实现。然而，如果有很多方法，这很快就会变得乏味。You might want to look into composition/delegation instead of inheritance here.
In essence, rather than extending either class directly, create a wrapper class that extends
Control(or something similarly low-level) and implementsIDropDown, add anIDropDownfield for the underlying control implementation you want to use, and forward every method call of interest to the selected implementation. This rapidly becomes tedious if there are a lot of methods, though.