Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

public vs. internal methods on an internal class

People also ask

Can internal class have public methods?

A public member of a class or struct is a member that is accessible to anything that can access the containing type. So a public member of an internal class is effectively internal.

What is the difference between internal and public?

Internal is only available within the assembly it resides in. Public is available to any assembly referencing the one it resides in. If you can access the internal class from another assembly you either have "InternalsVisibleTo" set up, or you're not referencing the class you think you are.

What is internal method?

What Does Internal Mean? Internal, in C#, is a keyword used to declare the accessibility of a type or type member such that the access is limited to the assembly in which it is declared. An internal modifier is used to prevent the use of a public modifier, which allows access to other assemblies wherever necessary.

Can a public class inherit an internal class?

Your base class can't be less accessible then your derived class. So you can't inherit a internal class to a public class.


The internal class Foo declaration will override the accessibility of the public void Fee() method, effectively making it internal.

In this case, using internal vs. public on the methods will have the same effect. The only reason I would choose public methods vs. internal methods in a case like this would be to ease transitioning to a public class in a future version, should you choose to do so.


The only thing missing here in the answer is why would you do this?

Some libraries have a lot of classes that are not meant for the consumer of the library to touch but they must inherit interfaces marked as public. For instance I have a library with a class that inherits the IComparer interface but it is only used internally and I don't want to clutter the public aspect of my library. If I mark the implemented Compare function as internal the compiler complains that I am not implmenting the interface IComparer.

So how do I successfully implement the interface and at the same time prevent it from being accessible in the public aspect of my library? Mark the class as internal but the implemented function as public.


Actually - there is a big difference if you are using reflection; in particular, Silverlight can get very upset if you try and access internal methods via reflection, even if you would have had access. I've seen occasions when I've had to make a method public to make the code work on Silverlight, even though it works on regular .NET.

You might find the same with partial trust in regular .NET.


It would make a difference when you want your internal class to implement an interface. The method which is an implementation of some interface, would have to be Public.


You are correct, both Fee and Fi will be equally accessible.

From the CSharp Language Specification 3.0, under 3.5.2:

The accessibility domain of a nested member M declared in a type T within a program P is defined as follows (noting that M itself may possibly be a type):

• If the declared accessibility of M is public, the accessibility domain of M is the accessibility domain of T.

So, even if Fee is declared as public, it will be just as accessible as Foo (i.e. internal).


According to the msdn documentation your Foo class won't be accesible outside your assembly, so it doesn't make any difference to mark the methods as internal or public; it even doesn't make difference by using the Attribute InternalsVisibleTo


I would go with only internal methods if a class is internal. in case you change your mind and make the class public you can just do a text replace and you are done.