This article is a work in progress!

If you have been given this url, I hope you can provide some early feedback for an article that is work in progress. I may also link to an incomplete page (to help me not forget), so apologies if you've arrived here by accident.

This draft was published: August 10, 2015

Check back soon for the complete article!

The term “abstract” is thrown around often within the realms of programming. There are numerous resources that explain the various interpretations of “abstract” as well as usages thereof. It’s a term that I too commonly refer to and therefore would like to ellaborate upon. Not only to better explain the principle and usage, but also to offer tips on how to introduce abstractions into your otherwise, rotting products, and later demonstrate the benefits afforded.


A quick google reveals that the word “abstract” can be used in adjective, verb, and noun forms, each with more than one meaning. No wonder there’s some confusion!

So what is it we mean when we’re talking about abstractions?

abstract class

Of course, we have the abstract keyword which can be defined on a class declaration and the methods within. When declared against the class itself we are stating that the class must be inherited and subsequently, instances cannot be constructed for the abstract class itself.

Similarly, the abstract keyword when used with a method means that the method signature must be fulfilled by derivatives (classes inheriting from the abstract class that are not themselves abstract).

Although there is some relation, this abstract keyword is typically not what is being referred to when people mention abstractions.

So what is it?

To understand this, it may be best to examine Object-Orientated Programming. A term I’m sure you’re familar with, but in itself hosts a great deal of confusion as interpretations have emerged over the years. One of, if not the father of OOP, is Alan Kay whom described the term as follows:

OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things.


Let’s examine the first of Alan’s points, messaging. I am in agreement with Jörg W Mittag’s excellent interpretation and research.

Implementation-wise, messaging is a late-bound procedure call, and if procedure calls are late-bound, then you cannot know at design time what you are going to call

Messaging is fundamental to OO, both as metaphor and as a mechanism.

If you send someone a message, you don’t know what they do with it. The only thing you can observe, is their response

For me, this is the premise of "”abstraction”“; it should be the goal of you and the code you write. I find it fascinating that the father of OOP had this amazing vision for what he later regrets not having called “message-orientated programming”, but now so many developers barely understand the core principles.

Re-envisioned & Re-visited

Much later in the relatively short lifespan of software development, a group of engineers got together to discuss and ellaborate upon a number of concepts, and to put together guidance for both their peers and future generations. This gang of four produced what has now been refined to the 24 Creational, Behavioural, and Structural design patterns of OOP.

Then came along everyone’s favourite, Uncle Bob, delivering to us the 5 core principles in the shape of SOLID. All of these principles, relate back to abstraction, if not as predecessor to a principle, then as proponent and guidance.

It beggars belief at times just how few within our field are aware of these things. But that is not the fault of our juniors and newcomers, it is the fault of our seniors and their lack of mentoring, collaboration, and propagation of knowledge.


We now have all these little pieces of information, but still no firm grasp of what is is abstraction means. Of the many well structured definitions there are out there which describe abstractions, I’ll go with my own account:

Abstraction is the technique employed to remove unnecessary implementation detail in order to provide a relevant, clean context for consumers.

The fact that abstractions can afford us Inversion of Control we’ll ignore for now and just concentrate on the basics. How do we remove unnecessary implementation detail? Simple, we abstract the implementation. Be that by interface or by class, the process remains the same, so let’s examine this by example.

Here is an example of what is known as “tightly coupled” code:

static void Main(string[] args)
  var order = new CreateOrder();

sealed class CreateOrder
  internal void Create(string[] args)
    var parser = new ArgumentParser();
    var order = parser.ParseOrder(args);
    using (var database = new DatabaseContext())
    Logger.Information($"Order with ID {order.OrderId} has been created");

I’ve intentionally not included details about the ArgumentParser and DatabaseContext classes, but the intent is that the former parses the string[] passed into our console application, and the latter stores the order into our database. Great, right? The code is simple to read (I hope), and ignoring skipped exception handling, would probably work perfectly fine.

However, it isn’t right. It isn’t great. As you learn more about C#, .Net, and development as a whole, you’ll find there’s a million different ways you can accomplish a given task and make it work. I could have written all the code in the Main method, but does it mean I should? (If you answer yes to that, you can leave now and go back to playing flappy-birds). If you consider the above to be fairly clean, then that’s good. Not because you’re right, but because you are my target audience.

You could argue that the implementation detail has been abstracted in the above example, because we are unable to see what code is running in the ArgumentParser.ParseOrder and DatabaseContext.Store methods. However, whilst the methods do benefit from encapsulation, we have left a crucial implementation detail intact, the classes ArgumentParser and DatabaseContext themselves!


We try to keep our code clean because we typically add new features and maintain our applications. We want to be able to understand our code when we go back to it, we want to be able to find the right place to make changes, and we want the new features and maintenance to be easy.

So how do we abstract the above example?

Although there are many ways to abstract implementation detail from consumers, I’m going to provide here a pattern many will recognise. I hope it’s very obvious, so no prizes for guessing the correct answer!

sealed class CreateOrder
  private readonly ArgumentParser _parser;
  private readonly DatabaseContextFactory _databaseFactory;

  public CreateOrder(ArgumentParser parser, DatabaseContextFactory databaseFactory)
    _parser = parser;
    _databaseFactory = databaseFactory;

  internal void Create(string[] args)
    var order = _parser.ParseOrder(args);
    using (var database = _databaseFactory.CreateContext())
    Console.WriteLine($"Order with ID {order.OrderId} has been created");

Yikes, what just happened? I imagine you have many questions:

  • “where’d the static main method go?”
  • “whats this so called DatabaseContextFactory and Logger?”
  • “I was expecting interfaces… where are the interfaces!?”
  • “what on earth do I gain from making things more confusing!?”

Let’s address these, and hopefully any other questions you may have, in turn.

Composition Root

Although I’ve explained some aspects of Composition in the past, and frequently refer to Composition Root in my streams and subsequent youtube videos, I’ve never really explained this concept very well in my blog.

My friends and peers will be the first to call me out for not exactly being a fan of Mark Seemann, but he does for once have a useful article on the topic of Composition Root. Although I advise most to avoid Mark’s blog (he is clearly very clever and well versed in the industry, so draw your own conclusions!), I can’t deny the value of the linked post. Go check it out and then come back, I’ll wait…

… you’re digging into the comment section? It’s ok, I’ll be here when you get back…

Ok, so now you hopefully understand what a Composition Root is, or at least what I mean by it. You’ll have also noticed the term “Constructor Injection”, otherwise known as Dependency Injection (a method thereof) to real people. Back on topic, the reason I removed the static Main method in that last example is because it no longer concerns us. I’m not interested in arguing choice of DI Containers with anyone here, though I most definitely have a preferred method.

Whilst I’ll no longer include details of the Composition Root, it is assumed hereafter that it has been correctly re-purposed from the first example, to be the Composition Root. As an example of a composition root within a Console Application, see here. Let’s instead concern ourselves with the important stuff.

Abstract Factory

There are a couple factories presented in the core OOP Creational Patterns, plus I’m sure many spin-offs. Although it can be easy to cross the line from factory pattern to the service locator anti-pattern (intentionally not linking a certain someone’s article on the subject), factories done right are a fantastic way to achieve abstraction; particularly in the case of Disposable objects, such as implied by the using statements in the above examples.

It’s not that a DI Container couldn’t have injected the DatabaseContext for us, it’s simply that in the original example we were responsible for the allocation (and disposal) of the context. Containers will vary on their implementation (and lack thereof) disposable handling, and I don’t believe it should be their concern in a majority of cases. So, in steps the abstract factory.

Somewhat contrary to the last two paragraphs (and probably controversially), you could hook your abstract factory up to your DI container in order to maintain abstraction throughout your application. As an example of such:

private class DelegatedDatabaseContextFactory : DatabaseContextFactory
	private readonly Func<DatabaseContext> _factory;
	public DelegatedDatabaseContextFactory(Func<DatabaseContext> factory)
		_factory = factory;

	public DatabaseContext CreateContext()
		=> _factory();

As you can hopefully see, this so called implementation of the DatabaseContextFactory does nothing, simply holds a Func<T> that can actually do the work. So where does this Func<T> come from? Composition, of course! Like I said, I don’t want to argue DI Containers, but here’s an example using the new Microsoft.Framework.DependencyInjection NuGet packages:

app.UseServices(services =>
		.AddTransient<Func<DatabaseContext>>(provider => provider.GetService<DatabaseContext>)
		.AddTransient<DatabaseContextFactory, >

The somewhat controversial aspect of this approach is the naive might argue that we have turned our abstract factory (or usage thereof), into an example of service location; the very thing I forewarned against! However, that is not the case. The concerns surrounding the service location anti-pattern are that it breaks up composition. The simple act of abstracting our DI container as a delegate or Func<DatabaseContext>, in my opinion, absolves us of this issue.

Was that an Interface?

I’m sure some of you will have done a double-take at the DelegatedDatabaseContextFactory implementation. Was it inheriting from an abstract class called DatabaseContextFactory, or was it implementing the DatabaseContextFactory interface? Have you ever examined the difference between an abstract class and an interface? Uncle Bob makes some fantastic points on the subject, and similarly instigates some thought regarding hungarian notation for interfaces in his excellent book, Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship.

Although I’m clearly walking the path of “Uncle Bob Fanboi” here, I’m mature enough to research subjects and consider opposing perspectives. Without trying to further the i-in-interface debate, although I was naming my interface without the hungarian notation, picture it as an abstract class if you prefer. In both cases, we achieve our goal!

Written on August 10, 2015