I have a base class with the following (trimmed for brevity) declaration:
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public int RecordId { get; private set; }
p
The setter in MySpecificClass shouldn't be a problem, but the getter definitely is - internally, a call to an instance of MySpecificClass's Status will be making a call to itself to see which value to return which will make a call to itself to see... well. You get the idea.
I'd use a protected class variable rather than an auto-property.
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
protected string _status;
public virtual string Status
{
get { return _status; }
set { _status = value; }
}
}
public class MySpecificClass : MyBaseClass
{
public override string Status
{
get
{
if(_status == "something")
return "some status";
else
return "some other status";
}
set
{
_status = value;
}
}
}
The abstract property declaration in the base class just states: "derived classes MUST implement a property called Status, with a getter and setter". In your derived class, calling this.Status inside your getter is illegal (causes the stack overflow).
To fix this, use a property with a backing field in your derived class:
public abstract class MyBaseClass
{
public abstract string Status { get; set; }
}
public class MySpecificClass : MyBaseClass
{
private string _status;
public override string Status
{
get
{
if(this._status == "something")
return "some status";
else
return "some other status";
}
set
{
_status = value;
}
}
}
This is "By Design".
In the setter of Status you are calling this.Status = value. Status is a virtual property and hence it will bind right back to the setter of MySpecificClass.Status.
If you want to access the base property use base. instead
base.Status = value;