Like other museums it is not possible to show all of our collections all of the time. Browse the pages to find out more about some of our objects and return regularly to see more historic objects from our collection. It's time to take a closer look Related pages.
Take a Closer Look Archaeology Archaeology. Social history Social history. Take a Closer Look.
The sea conjures up a lot of images—tall-masted battleships, mythical monsters, a novel by Hemingway—mostly things reminiscent of days gone by. How does all that stuff get here?
follow url While life at sea is mysterious and unknown to many, it most certainly is not a thing of the past. Today, seafaring men and women play an important part in the lives of ordinary people. Read more about the mariners SCI serves. Default Implementation Default implementation allows us to add implementation code to our interfaces. This means that we can provide method bodies for interface methods, events, indexers, and properties. In looking at default implementation, there are a few questions that we will try to answer. For example, can you provide a default for a getter or setter separately, meaning a default implementation for a getter with an abstract setter?
The short answer is no. Property Setter? Since interfaces do not have any instance members such as backing fields for properties , does it make sense to provide a default implementation for a setter? Is there a useful setter that we can provide? If they have generic type parameters, this may be a way to add functionality to classes by only noting the interface and not changing the class itself.
Guidelines for Defaults I've already seen an article with a really bad example of default implementation. The example makes assumptions about the concrete types that will be used and creates a scenario that would break implementations and make unit testing difficult. Based on this, we need to take a look at what we put into default implementations to make sure that we keep a good environment for the folks using our interfaces.
Unit Testing Now that we have code in our interfaces, how do we test it appropriately?
On the surface, it seems like we can create a mock object and go. But some interesting things may pop up once we start looking at this more closely. Access Modifiers Previously, interface members were automatically public. Now, members can have access modifiers including private, protected, internal, and public.
There are things that we will explore deeper in future articles. Public Members Public members really aren't a change since that's all we had before. But we need to take a look at how interface defaults differ from class defaults. For example, if we do not specify an access modifier on a class member, it defaults to private.
But if we do not specify an access modifier on an interface member, it defaults to public. Not a huge deal, but we need to be aware of those differences. Private Members Private members are new. These are not accessible outside of the interface itself. But private methods can be used by other members that have default implementation. Along with this, we need to take a look at what happens to our code once we start using private members. Will standard refactoring work?
Take a closer look synonyms. Top synonyms for take a closer look (other words for take a closer look) are look closer, look closely and get a closer look. Closer look synonyms. Top synonyms for closer look (other words for closer look) are closely, close and close up.
How does this affect testing? Can we treat this type of code method extraction, small pieces, etc. What are the use cases for protected members? Are they useful only when deriving interfaces from other interfaces? Also, how do these members impact the implementing classes?