So, I think the code probably explains what I'm trying to do better than I can in words, so here goes:
import abc class foo(object): __metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta @abc.abstractmethod def bar(self): pass class bar_for_foo_mixin(object): def bar(self): print "This should satisfy the abstract method requirement" class myfoo(foo, bar_for_foo_mixin): def __init__(self): print "myfoo __init__ called" self.bar() obj = myfoo()
The result:
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class myfoo with abstract methods bar
I'm trying to get the mixin class to satisfy the requirements of the abstract/interface class. What am I missing?
Inheritance is another feature of object-oriented programming where a particular class can derive from a base class. Multiple inheritance allows the extension of more than one base class in a derived class. Abstract classes do not support multiple inheritance.
A mixin is typically used with multiple inheritance. So, in that sense, there's "no difference". The detail is that a mixin is rarely useful as a standalone object.
It's common to implement mixins using abstract classes in Java, as the abstract keyword notes that the class is designed for reuse and isn't mean to be used by itself (it also obviously prevents you from using it by itself).
Yes, Python supports multiple inheritance. Like C++, a class can be derived from more than one base classes in Python. This is called Multiple Inheritance.
Shouldn't the inheritance be the other way round? In the MRO foo
currently comes before bar_for_foo_mixin
, and then rightfully complains. With class myfoo(bar_for_foo_mixin, foo)
it should work.
And I am not sure if your class design is the right way to do it. Since you use a mixin for implementing bar
it might be better not to derive from foo and just register it with the 'foo' class (i.e. foo.register(myfoo)
). But this is just my gut feeling.
For completeness, here is the documentation for ABCs.
i think (tested in similar case) that reversing the baseclasses works:
class myfoo(bar_for_foo_mixin, foo): def __init__(self): print "myfoo __init__ called" self.bar()
so in the mro() it would find a concrete version of bar() before it finds the abstract one. No idea if this is actually what happens in the background though.
Cheers, Lars
PS: the code that worked in python 2.7 (python 3 has a different way to set metaclasses) was:
class A(object): __metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta @abc.abstractmethod def do(self): pass class B(object): def do(self): print "do" class C(B, A): pass c = C()
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With