Develop Reference

Why can methods in Java 8 interfaces not be static and final? [duplicate]

One of the most useful features of Java 8 are the new default methods on interfaces. There are essentially two reasons (there may be others) why they have been introduced:
Providing actual default implementations. Example: Iterator.remove()
Allowing for JDK API evolution. Example: Iterable.forEach()
From an API designer's perspective, I would have liked to be able to use other modifiers on interface methods, e.g. final. This would be useful when adding convenience methods, preventing "accidental" overrides in implementing classes:
interface Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
default final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
void send(String message);
}
The above is already common practice if Sender were a class:
abstract class Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
abstract void send(String message);
}
Now, default and final are obviously contradicting keywords, but the default keyword itself would not have been strictly required, so I'm assuming that this contradiction is deliberate, to reflect the subtle differences between "class methods with body" (just methods) and "interface methods with body" (default methods), i.e. differences which I have not yet understood.
At some point of time, support for modifiers like static and final on interface methods was not yet fully explored, citing Brian Goetz:
The other part is how far we're going to go to support class-building
tools in interfaces, such as final methods, private methods, protected
methods, static methods, etc. The answer is: we don't know yet
Since that time in late 2011, obviously, support for static methods in interfaces was added. Clearly, this added a lot of value to the JDK libraries themselves, such as with Comparator.comparing().
Question:
What is the reason final (and also static final) never made it to Java 8 interfaces?

This question is, to some degree, related to What is the reason why “synchronized” is not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?
The key thing to understand about default methods is that the primary design goal is interface evolution, not "turn interfaces into (mediocre) traits". While there's some overlap between the two, and we tried to be accommodating to the latter where it didn't get in the way of the former, these questions are best understood when viewed in this light. (Note too that class methods are going to be different from interface methods, no matter what the intent, by virtue of the fact that interface methods can be multiply inherited.)
The basic idea of a default method is: it is an interface method with a default implementation, and a derived class can provide a more specific implementation. And because the design center was interface evolution, it was a critical design goal that default methods be able to be added to interfaces after the fact in a source-compatible and binary-compatible manner.
The too-simple answer to "why not final default methods" is that then the body would then not simply be the default implementation, it would be the only implementation. While that's a little too simple an answer, it gives us a clue that the question is already heading in a questionable direction.
Another reason why final interface methods are questionable is that they create impossible problems for implementors. For example, suppose you have:
interface A {
default void foo() { ... }
}
interface B {
}
class C implements A, B {
}
Here, everything is good; C inherits foo() from A. Now supposing B is changed to have a foo method, with a default:
interface B {
default void foo() { ... }
}
Now, when we go to recompile C, the compiler will tell us that it doesn't know what behavior to inherit for foo(), so C has to override it (and could choose to delegate to A.super.foo() if it wanted to retain the same behavior.) But what if B had made its default final, and A is not under the control of the author of C? Now C is irretrievably broken; it can't compile without overriding foo(), but it can't override foo() if it was final in B.
This is just one example, but the point is that finality for methods is really a tool that makes more sense in the world of single-inheritance classes (generally which couple state to behavior), than to interfaces which merely contribute behavior and can be multiply inherited. It's too hard to reason about "what other interfaces might be mixed into the eventual implementor", and allowing an interface method to be final would likely cause these problems (and they would blow up not on the person who wrote the interface, but on the poor user who tries to implement it.)
Another reason to disallow them is that they wouldn't mean what you think they mean. A default implementation is only considered if the class (or its superclasses) don't provide a declaration (concrete or abstract) of the method. If a default method were final, but a superclass already implemented the method, the default would be ignored, which is probably not what the default author was expecting when declaring it final. (This inheritance behavior is a reflection of the design center for default methods -- interface evolution. It should be possible to add a default method (or a default implementation to an existing interface method) to existing interfaces that already have implementations, without changing the behavior of existing classes that implement the interface, guaranteeing that classes that already worked before default methods were added will work the same way in the presence of default methods.)

In the lambda mailing list there are plenty of discussions about it. One of those that seems to contain a lot of discussion about all that stuff is the following: On Varied interface method visibility (was Final defenders).
In this discussion, Talden, the author of the original question asks something very similar to your question:
The decision to make all interface members public was indeed an
unfortunate decision. That any use of interface in internal design
exposes implementation private details is a big one.
It's a tough one to fix without adding some obscure or compatibility
breaking nuances to the language. A compatibility break of that
magnitude and potential subtlety would seen unconscionable so a
solution has to exist that doesn't break existing code.
Could reintroducing the 'package' keyword as an access-specifier be
viable. It's absence of a specifier in an interface would imply
public-access and the absence of a specifier in a class implies
package-access. Which specifiers make sense in an interface is unclear
- especially if, to minimise the knowledge burden on developers, we have to ensure that access-specifiers mean the same thing in both
class and interface if they're present.
In the absence of default methods I'd have speculated that the
specifier of a member in an interface has to be at least as visible as
the interface itself (so the interface can actually be implemented in
all visible contexts) - with default methods that's not so certain.
Has there been any clear communication as to whether this is even a
possible in-scope discussion? If not, should it be held elsewhere.
Eventually Brian Goetz's answer was:
Yes, this is already being explored.
However, let me set some realistic expectations -- language / VM
features have a long lead time, even trivial-seeming ones like this.
The time for proposing new language feature ideas for Java SE 8 has
pretty much passed.
So, most likely it was never implemented because it was never part of the scope. It was never proposed in time to be considered.
In another heated discussion about final defender methods on the subject, Brian said again:
And you have gotten exactly what you wished for. That's exactly what
this feature adds -- multiple inheritance of behavior. Of course we
understand that people will use them as traits. And we've worked hard
to ensure that the the model of inheritance they offer is simple and
clean enough that people can get good results doing so in a broad
variety of situations. We have, at the same time, chosen not to push
them beyond the boundary of what works simply and cleanly, and that
leads to "aw, you didn't go far enough" reactions in some case. But
really, most of this thread seems to be grumbling that the glass is
merely 98% full. I'll take that 98% and get on with it!
So this reinforces my theory that it simply was not part of the scope or part of their design. What they did was to provide enough functionality to deal with the issues of API evolution.

It will be hard to find and identify "THE" answer, for the resons mentioned in the comments from #EJP : There are roughly 2 (+/- 2) people in the world who can give the definite answer at all. And in doubt, the answer might just be something like "Supporting final default methods did not seem to be worth the effort of restructuring the internal call resolution mechanisms". This is speculation, of course, but it is at least backed by subtle evidences, like this Statement (by one of the two persons) in the OpenJDK mailing list:
"I suppose if "final default" methods were allowed, they might need rewriting from internal invokespecial to user-visible invokeinterface."
and trivial facts like that a method is simply not considered to be a (really) final method when it is a default method, as currently implemented in the Method::is_final_method method in the OpenJDK.
Further really "authorative" information is indeed hard to find, even with excessive websearches and by reading commit logs. I thought that it might be related to potential ambiguities during the resolution of interface method calls with the invokeinterface instruction and and class method calls, corresponding to the invokevirtual instruction: For the invokevirtual instruction, there may be a simple vtable lookup, because the method must either be inherited from a superclass, or implemented by the class directly. In contrast to that, an invokeinterface call must examine the respective call site to find out which interface this call actually refers to (this is explained in more detail in the InterfaceCalls page of the HotSpot Wiki). However, final methods do either not get inserted into the vtable at all, or replace existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp. Line 333), and similarly, default methods are replacing existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp, Line 202). So the actual reason (and thus, the answer) must be hidden deeper inside the (rather complex) method call resolution mechanisms, but maybe these references will nevertheless be considered as being helpful, be it only for others that manage to derive the actual answer from that.

I wouldn't think it is neccessary to specify final on a convienience interface method, I can agree though that it may be helpful, but seemingly the costs have outweight the benefits.
What you are supposed to do, either way, is to write proper javadoc for the default method, showing exactly what the method is and is not allowed to do. In that way the classes implementing the interface "are not allowed" to change the implementation, though there are no guarantees.
Anyone could write a Collection that adheres to the interface and then does things in the methods that are absolutely counter intuitive, there is no way to shield yourself from that, other than writing extensive unit tests.

We add default keyword to our method inside an interface when we know that the class extending the interface may or may not override our implementation. But what if we want to add a method that we don't want any implementing class to override? Well, two options were available to us:
Add a default final method.
Add a static method.
Now, Java says that if we have a class implementing two or more interfaces such that they have a default method with exactly same method name and signature i.e. they are duplicate, then we need to provide an implementation of that method in our class. Now in case of default final methods, we can't provide an implementation and we are stuck. And that's why final keyword isn't used in interfaces.

Java's default interface methods collide with private instance methods? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Do Java 8 default methods break source compatibility?
(5 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
So as far as I know, the main idea behind the new interface default methods of Java 8 is to support Interface Evolution, i.e. extend an interface without braking existing implementations.
But what just occurred to me is that actually all these new default interface methods in the API hava a potential to break existing code. Namely, my implementation breaks if in a class I am implementing an interface X, and that interface X now has a new default method, which has the same signature than some private instance method of my class that already existed! Because in this case the compiler thinks I'm overriding the interface method while reducing its visibility, which is not allowed. So what if I have some implementation of Iterable and came up with some private forEach utility method? No when I update to Java 8 I can no longer compile.
Is it just me that is a bit shocked that Oracle actually released a not fully downwards-compatible API update? Has something like this ever happened in the past, that upgrading to a new compilation version can make some of your code no longer compile? Because if so I'm not aware of it. And what are your opinions of this?
edit: Oh, wait, what I said might have a flaw.. I mentioned the example with the Iterable#forEach method, but actually, this method takes some parameter that is also only introduced with Java 8. So there is no way that I could have defined such a method previously. Now, my next question: Could it be that ALL new default methods take some new type to guarantee they cannot collide with any pre-Java-8 existing instance method?
Cheers

Oracle had to choose between letting the language and APIs stagnate, or risk some backward incompatibilities. Yes, default methods can cause problems with existing extending interfaces and implementations. That's well known.
Has that already happened in the past? Yes: the JDBC interfaces have several times had new methods. assert was not a keyword but is one since Java 1.4, etc. enum was not a keyword before 1.5, etc.
EDIT
Examples of backward incompatibilities:
If you have an interface MyCollection extending Collection and having a method stream(), it will conflict with the new default stream() method, because it has the same signature but a different return type.
If you have an interface or class extending/implementing List<E> and having a method void sort(Comparator<E> c), it will conflict with the new default method void sort(Comparator<? super E>).

So what if I have some implementation of Iterable and came up with some private forEach utility method?
This isn't a problem because this would only overload the method. You can't have a forEach(Consumer) as this interface didn't exist before.
Is it just me that is a bit shocked that Oracle actually released a not fully downwards-compatible API update?
In each major version there is changes which could break backward compatibility, In Java 1.4, the keyword enum was added which meant if you have a variable called enum it would break.
Has something like this ever happened in the past, that upgrading to a new compilation version can make some of your code no longer compile?
Some APIs have changed, one of the oldest changes was a fix to String.hashCode() in Java 1.2.

In my opinion this Default method stuff should not be used by us Java developers. This was probably the only way to extend Existing Code without breaking the backward compatibilty.
But this is just my opinion.

What is the reason of Java 8 default method on interfaces? [duplicate]

Java 8 has included a new feature called Defender methods which allows creation of default method implementation in interface.
Now first of all this is a huge paradigm shift for all condensed programmers in Java. I viewed a JavaOne 13 presentation given by Brian Goetz where he was discussing about the new stream() and parallelStream() implementations in Collections library.
For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have just added a new method without breaking the previous versions. So he told that for catering this a new feature of Default methods was added.
public interface SimpleInterface {
public void doSomeWork();
//A default method in the interface created using "default" keyword
default public void doSomeOtherWork(){
System.out.println("DoSomeOtherWork implementation in the interface");
}
}
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client code? Or are there some other uses to it too?

Besides having the possibility of adding methods to the interface in future versions, there is the important point of allowing an interface to stay a functional interface even if it has more than one method.
A functional interface has only one non-default abstract method which can be implemented via a lambda expression. One example is the Predicate interface which has only one abstract method (test) while providing default methods for negating a Predicate or combining it with another Predicate. Without default methods these methods had to be provided in another utility class like the pre-Java 8 Collections class (as you don’t want to give up the possibility of lambda implementations for such an interface).

As you said, the main motivation was allowing the evolution of existing interfaces.
However there are reasons why you'd want to use them in brand new interfaces as well:
One such reason is methods that can easily be implemented using the other (non-default) methods of the interface. Using default methods for this reduces the need for Foo-interface/AbstractFoo-base-implementation combinations (see AbstractList for example).
While this does not create an entirely new field, it means that you can have end-user-friendly interfaces (with lots of useful methods), still keeping it simple to implement.

There was a problem with interfaces that they were not open to extension, which means if there was a need to add new method to an interface it would have broken the existing implementation of these interfaces. Thus it was imperative that all the classes implementing that interface had to provide implementation for the newly added method, even if the method was not needed. Thus interfaces were not easy to evolve.
One example that comes to mind is Java MapReduce API for Hadoop, which was changed in 0.20.0 release to favour abstract classes over interfaces, since they are easier to evolve. Which means, a new method can be added to abstract class (with default implementation), with out breaking old implementations of the class.
With the release of Java 8, it is now possible to add default method in interfaces also, thus making them easier to evolve too. With the addition of default method to an interface, addition of new method, to even an interface will not break the pre-existing code.

For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have
just added a new method without breaking the previous versions.
Yes they could have done this but Let's think from API designer perspective for e.g. Collection Library is used by some libraries like apache-commons, guava etc and which instead are used by many java projects. Now imagine just by adding one new method in Collection interface will break entire chain of projects.
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful
when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client
code? Or are there some other uses to it too?
Motivation/Need for Default Methods
API Evolution in compatible way
The initial purpose of introducing default methods was to make collections library backward compatible. This library was modelled as a deep hierarchy of interfaces, including prominent members such as Collection, List, Map, and Set. They needed to be enriched to make lambdas truly useful for everyday programming.
To make Collections library lambda rich, java architects could have
refactored them to support lambda but it was a far from a good
solution as it will break all the all existing Java deployments and
countless 3rd party libraries extending the Collections hierarchy
Instead java architects thought to introduce default methods capabilities for backward compatibility.
Use cases of Default Methods
One important use case is to aid functional thinking in java. A functional interface with default methods is a pure behaviour-only construct. It cannot hold state. This aligns your thinking with functional programming and allows you to take advantage of what the programming model has to offer
Optional Methods : There are classes in java that implement an interface but leave empty method implementations for e.g. Iterator interface. It defines hasNext and next but also the remove method. Prior to Java8 remove was ignored because the user didn't want to use that capablity. Therefore many classes implementing Iterator interface would have empty implementation of for remove which is unnecessary boiler plate code. With default methods we can provide a default implementation for such methods, so concrete classes don't need to explicitly provide an empty implementation.
Default methods helps in resolving Multiple inheritance of behaviour in java. Before Java8, there was support for Multiple inheritance of Type only and now with the help of default methods we can have multiple inheritance of behaviour.
For e.g.
Java 8 has three rules for resolving conflicts brought upon by
multiple inheritance when ambiguous:
First, an explicit method declaration in the class or a superclass takes priority over any default method declaration.
Otherwise, the method with the same signature in the most specific default providing interface is selected.
Finally, if there is still conflict, you have to explicitly override the default methods and choose which one your class should choose.
In Conclusion Default methods offer a brand new way to design objects.
References :
Java8 In Action
Functional Java: A Guide to Lambdas and Functional Programming in Java 8

default methods made possible the functional programming concept. For functional programming type code we need only one abstract method .
Also adding an method in interface will not made it compulsory for all the classes implementing an interface. Simplified the coding practise

Java 8 default methods as traits : safe?

Is it a safe practice to use default methods as a poor's man version of traits in Java 8?
Some claim it may make pandas sad if you use them just for the sake of it, because it's cool, but that's not my intention. It is also often reminded that default methods were introduced to support API evolution and backward compatibility, which is true, but this does not make it wrong or twisted to use them as traits per se.
I have the following practical use case in mind:
public interface Loggable {
default Logger logger() {
return LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass());
}
}
Or perhaps, define a PeriodTrait:
public interface PeriodeTrait {
Date getStartDate();
Date getEndDate();
default isValid(Date atDate) {
...
}
}
Admitedly, composition could be used (or even helper classes) but it seems more verbose and cluttered and does not allow to benefit from polymorphism.
So, is it ok/safe to use default methods as basic traits, or should I be worried about unforeseen side effects?
Several questions on SO are related to Java vs Scala traits; that's not the point here. I'm not asking merely for opinions either. Instead, I'm looking for an authoritative answer or at least field insight: if you've used default methods as traits on your corporate project, did it turn out to be a timebomb?

The short answer is: it's safe if you use them safely :)
The snarky answer: tell me what you mean by traits, and maybe I'll give you a better answer :)
In all seriousness, the term "trait" is not well-defined. Many Java developers are most familiar with traits as they are expressed in Scala, but Scala is far from the first language to have traits, either in name or in effect.
For example, in Scala, traits are stateful (can have var variables); in Fortress they are pure behavior. Java's interfaces with default methods are stateless; does this mean they are not traits? (Hint: that was a trick question.)
Again, in Scala, traits are composed through linearization; if class A extends traits X and Y, then the order in which X and Y are mixed in determines how conflicts between X and Y are resolved. In Java, this linearization mechanism is not present (it was rejected, in part, because it was too "un-Java-like".)
The proximate reason for adding default methods to interfaces was to support interface evolution, but we were well aware that we were going beyond that. Whether you consider that to be "interface evolution++" or "traits--" is a matter of personal interpretation. So, to answer your question about safety ... so long as you stick to what the mechanism actually supports, rather than trying to wishfully stretch it to something it does not support, you should be fine.
A key design goal was that, from the perspective of the client of an interface, default methods should be indistinguishable from "regular" interface methods. The default-ness of a method, therefore, is only interesting to the designer and implementor of the interface.
Here are some use cases that are well within the design goals:
Interface evolution. Here, we are adding a new method to an existing interface, which has a sensible default implementation in terms of existing methods on that interface. An example would be adding the forEach method to Collection, where the default implementation is written in terms of the iterator() method.
"Optional" methods. Here, the designer of an interface is saying "Implementors need not implement this method if they are willing to live with the limitations in functionality that entails". For example, Iterator.remove was given a default which throws UnsupportedOperationException; since the vast majority of implementations of Iterator have this behavior anyway, the default makes this method essentially optional. (If the behavior from AbstractCollection were expressed as defaults on Collection, we might do the same for the mutative methods.)
Convenience methods. These are methods that are strictly for convenience, again generally implemented in terms of non-default methods on the class. The logger() method in your first example is a reasonable illustration of this.
Combinators. These are compositional methods that instantiate new instances of the interface based on the current instance. For example, the methods Predicate.and() or Comparator.thenComparing() are examples of combinators.
If you provide a default implementation, you should also provide some specification for the default (in the JDK, we use the #implSpec javadoc tag for this) to aid implementors in understanding whether they want to override the method or not. Some defaults, like convenience methods and combinators, are almost never overridden; others, like optional methods, are often overridden. You need to provide enough specification (not just documentation) about what the default promises to do, so the implementor can make a sensible decision about whether they need to override it.

Preferences of abstract classes over interfaces in Java 8

Now, we know that Java 8 has introduced default and static methods in interfaces.
Interfaces were originally introduced in Java to avoid the diamond problem that occurred in C++, in multiple inheritance.
But along with the introduction of default methods in interfaces in Java 8, now, Java has also introduced the diamond problem, which it avoided in previous versions.
Default methods are not compulsorily needed to be overridden.
But when a diamond problemoccurs using interfaces, the class implementing those interfaces must override the default methods.
So now, I have three questions in my mind:
Why is the need to have default methods?
Couldn't we have multiple inheritance through classes itself, in place of having default methods in interfaces?
And what was the need to avoid diamond problem in the previous versions, if they had to introduce it in Java 8 anyway?
Any good explanation or any link for explanation?
PS I did not find any link on the internet containing any good article on this.
All they said is that an abstract class gives you more concreteness.
As in, abstract classes can have constructors but interfaces cannot.
So again, I want to know, If abstract classes are more concrete, and can have constructors,
and anyways Java has introduced the diamond problem, why should we have interfaces now? Wouldn't abstract classes be good enough as a stand alone for multiple inheritance?

No, it didn't reintroduce the diamond problem, because interfaces still can't have any state, and default methods may not be final.
So, when you choose to implement two interfaces, you still have all the freedom you want to implement the default methods, either by choosing one of the provided default implementations, or by providing your own implementation. But you'll never have a problem of inheriting conflicting state from both interfaces, or inheriting two different final methods and not being able to resolve the conflict.
So, here are the answers to your questions:
To be able to introduce new methods in existing interfaces without breaking backward compatibility: existing implementations will automatically implement these methods since their implementation is in the base interface.
No, because that would introduce a diamond problem.
Irrelevant

Regarding Point 1:
In order to support lambda expression for all collection classes, like forEach method, it was necessary to add something which will have backward compatibility.
see this video for detail Lambda Peak Under the hood

Default methods make it possible to enhance an existing interface while providing binary compatibility with former versions of the interface to existing users.
See more here https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/nogrow.html