你不能。它偶尔会让人感到痛苦，但无论如何，使用正常的技术都无法调用它。

在一篇博客文章中，我建议静态接口只能在泛型类型约束中使用——但在我看来，它真的很方便。

如果你可以在一个接口中定义一个构造函数，那么你在派生类时就会遇到麻烦:

public class Foo : IParameterlessConstructor
{
    public Foo() // As per the interface
    {
    }
}

public class Bar : Foo
{
    // Yikes! We now don't have a parameterless constructor...
    public Bar(int x)
    {
    }
}

接口的目的是强制某个对象签名。它不应该明确地关心对象内部如何工作。因此，从概念的角度来看，接口中的构造函数并没有真正的意义。

不过也有一些替代方案:

Create an abstract class that acts as a minimal default implementation. That class should have the constructors you expect implementing classes to have. If you don't mind the overkill, use the AbstractFactory pattern and declare a method in the factory class interface that has the required signatures. Pass the GraphicsDeviceManager as a parameter to the Update and Draw methods. Use a Compositional Object Oriented Programming framework to pass the GraphicsDeviceManager into the part of the object that requires it. This is a pretty experimental solution in my opinion.

你描述的情况一般来说不容易处理。业务应用程序中需要访问数据库的实体也有类似的情况。

你不能。它偶尔会让人感到痛苦，但无论如何，使用正常的技术都无法调用它。

在一篇博客文章中，我建议静态接口只能在泛型类型约束中使用——但在我看来，它真的很方便。

如果你可以在一个接口中定义一个构造函数，那么你在派生类时就会遇到麻烦:

public class Foo : IParameterlessConstructor
{
    public Foo() // As per the interface
    {
    }
}

public class Bar : Foo
{
    // Yikes! We now don't have a parameterless constructor...
    public Bar(int x)
    {
    }
}

我回头看这个问题，心想，也许我们处理这个问题的方法是错误的。当涉及到定义带有特定参数的构造函数时，接口可能不是正确的方法……但是(抽象的)基类是。

如果在基类上创建一个构造函数，该构造函数接受所需的参数，则从基类派生的每个类都需要提供这些参数。

public abstract class Foo
{
  protected Foo(SomeParameter x)
  {
    this.X = x;
  }

  public SomeParameter X { get; private set }
}

public class Bar : Foo // Bar inherits from Foo
{
  public Bar() 
    : base(new SomeParameter("etc...")) // Bar will need to supply the constructor param
  {
  }
}

我用下面的图案使它防弹。

A developer who derives his class from the base can't accidentally create a public accessible constructor The final class developer are forced to go through the common create method Everything is type-safe, no castings are required It's 100% flexible and can be reused everywhere, where you can define your own base class. Try it out you can't break it without making modifications to the base classes (except if you define an obsolete flag without error flag set to true, but even then you end up with a warning) public abstract class Base<TSelf, TParameter> where TSelf : Base<TSelf, TParameter>, new() { protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead"; public static TSelf Create(TParameter parameter) { var me = new TSelf(); me.Initialize(parameter); return me; } [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)] protected Base() { } protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter) { } } public abstract class BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>: Base<TSelf, TConfig> where TSelf : BaseWithConfig<TSelf, TConfig>, new() { public TConfig Config { get; private set; } [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)] protected BaseWithConfig() { } protected override void Initialize(TConfig parameter) { this.Config = parameter; } } public class MyService : BaseWithConfig<MyService, (string UserName, string Password)> { [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)] public MyService() { } } public class Person : Base<Person, (string FirstName, string LastName)> { [Obsolete(FactoryMessage,true)] public Person() { } protected override void Initialize((string FirstName, string LastName) parameter) { this.FirstName = parameter.FirstName; this.LastName = parameter.LastName; } public string LastName { get; private set; } public string FirstName { get; private set; } } [Test] public void FactoryTest() { var notInitilaizedPerson = new Person(); // doesn't compile because of the obsolete attribute. Person max = Person.Create(("Max", "Mustermann")); Assert.AreEqual("Max",max.FirstName); var service = MyService.Create(("MyUser", "MyPassword")); Assert.AreEqual("MyUser", service.Config.UserName); }

编辑: 这是一个基于你的绘图示例的例子，它甚至强制了接口抽象

        public abstract class BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
        where TSelf : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
    {
        [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
        protected BaseWithAbstraction()
        {
        }

        protected const string FactoryMessage = "Use YourClass.Create(...) instead";
        public static TInterface Create(TParameter parameter)
        {
            var me = new TSelf();
            me.Initialize(parameter);

            return me;
        }

        protected virtual void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
        {

        }
    }



    public abstract class BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter> : BaseWithAbstraction<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>
        where TSelf : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, TInterface, TParameter>, TInterface, new()
    {
        protected TParameter Parameter { get; private set; }

        [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
        protected BaseWithParameter()
        {
        }
        protected sealed override void Initialize(TParameter parameter)
        {
            this.Parameter = parameter;
            this.OnAfterInitialize(parameter);
        }

        protected virtual void OnAfterInitialize(TParameter parameter)
        {
        }
    }


    public class GraphicsDeviceManager
    {

    }
    public interface IDrawable
    {
        void Update();
        void Draw();
    }

    internal abstract class Drawable<TSelf> : BaseWithParameter<TSelf, IDrawable, GraphicsDeviceManager>, IDrawable 
        where TSelf : Drawable<TSelf>, IDrawable, new()
    {
        [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
        protected Drawable()
        {
        }

        public abstract void Update();
        public abstract void Draw();
    }

    internal class Rectangle : Drawable<Rectangle>
    {
        [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
        public Rectangle()
        {
        }

        public override void Update()
        {
            GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
            // TODo  manager
        }

        public override void Draw()
        {
            GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
            // TODo  manager
        }
    }
    internal class Circle : Drawable<Circle>
    {
        [Obsolete(FactoryMessage, true)]
        public Circle()
        {
        }

        public override void Update()
        {
            GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
            // TODo  manager
        }

        public override void Draw()
        {
            GraphicsDeviceManager manager = this.Parameter;
            // TODo  manager
        }
    }


    [Test]
    public void FactoryTest()
    {
        // doesn't compile because interface abstraction is enforced.
        Rectangle rectangle = Rectangle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());

        // you get only the IDrawable returned.
        IDrawable service = Circle.Create(new GraphicsDeviceManager());
    }

创建一个定义构造函数的接口是不可能的，但可以定义一个接口，强制一个类型具有无参数构造函数，尽管它使用泛型的语法非常丑陋……实际上，我不太确定这是否是一种好的编码模式。

public interface IFoo<T> where T : new()
{
  void SomeMethod();
}

public class Foo : IFoo<Foo>
{
  // This will not compile
  public Foo(int x)
  {

  }

  #region ITest<Test> Members

  public void SomeMethod()
  {
    throw new NotImplementedException();
  }

  #endregion
}

另一方面，如果你想测试一个类型是否有无参数构造函数，你可以使用反射来做:

public static class TypeHelper
{
  public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Object o)
  {
    return HasParameterlessConstructor(o.GetType());
  }

  public static bool HasParameterlessConstructor(Type t)
  {
    // Usage: HasParameterlessConstructor(typeof(SomeType))
    return t.GetConstructor(new Type[0]) != null;
  }
}

希望这能有所帮助。