I'm writing classes that "must be used in a specific way" (I guess all classes must...). 

For example, I create the `fooManager` class, which *requires* a call to, say, `Initialize(string,string)`. And, to push the example a little further, the class would be useless if we don't listen to it's `ThisHappened` action.

My point is, the class I'm writing requires method calls. But it will compile just fine if you don't call those methods and will end up with an empty new FooManager. At some point, it will either not work, or maybe crash, depending on the class and what it does. The programmer that implements my class would obviously look inside it and realize "Oh, I didn't call Initialize!", and it'd be fine.

But I don't like that. What I would ideally want is the code to NOT compile if the method wasn't called; I'm guessing that's simply not possible. Or something that would immediately be visible and clear.

I find myself troubled by the current approach I have here, which is the following:

Add a private boolean value in the class, and check everywhere necessary if the class is initialized ; if not, I will throw an exception saying "The class wasn't initialized, are you sure you're calling `.Initialize(string,string)`?".

I'm kind of okay with that approach, but it leads to a lot of code that is compiled and, in the end, not necessary to the end user.

Also, it's sometimes even more code when there are more methods than just an Initiliaze to call. I try to keep my classes with not too many public methods/actions, but that's not solving the problem, just keeping it reasonable.

What I'm looking for here is:

- Is my approach correct?
- Is there a better one?
- What do you guys do/advise?
- Am I trying to solve a non-issue? I've been told by colleagues it's the programmer's to check the class before trying to use it. I respectfully disagree, but that's another matter I believe.