Stefan -
Thanks, I was going to mention the design issue.
munnanext -
If you have an inheritance tree that tall, you've got a design problem. You generally just don't do that without a very good reason.
Interfaces would not help in your situation, because you said: "Let's say I have some members and methods that are existing in ClassA". This is saying to me that you already have code in the methods, which then that rules out using an interface. Interfaces are a contract, meaning that it requires any class implementing that interface to have all the methods that the interface defines. The code would exist in the implementing class(es), and not in the interface itself. The interface itself consists of just method stubs -- the implementor provides the, uhhh, implementation.
In other words, an Interface guarantees that a certain set of methods will be available to callers. So if you're calling a class that implements the interface, you can blissfully assume that the method exists and just make your call.
Chip H.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first