Related
In object oriented programming, I have read that you should program to an interface not an implementation but do they mean literal interfaces (no shared code at all)?
Is it okay to program to an abstract base class that would have been an interface except that there were variables in this "interface" that all sub-classes were expected to have? Replicating a variable across sub-classes would have been an inconvenience because if I changed the name of one of the variables in one of the sub-classes I would have to change the name of that variable in all of the sub-classes.
In following the principle of "program to an interface not an implementation", is this okay or would you create another interface on top of the abstract base class and program to that interface?
You want to program to interfaces because it means lower coupling. Note that interfaces in Java are more flexible since they can be implemented by a class anywhere in the class hierarchy unlike abstract classes (as a result of single inheritance). Such flexibility means that your code is reusable to a higher degree.
The important point of "programming to an interface not an implementation" is that of the general principles mentioned above, even if they might cause some minor inconveniences.
Also, even if you program to an interface, you can always implement said interface (or parts of it) by means of abstract classes if you'd like, achieving both low coupling and code reusability at the same time.
It's always okay to program to abstract or even concrete classes, however it's better if you can avoid it.
This discussion might be helpful or this one and of course this one.
Note: C++ doesn't have interfaces. You might argue it doesn't need them.
you should program to an interface not an implementation but do they mean literal interfaces (no shared code at all)?
Possibly. Where it makes sense to do this, it can work very well. Note: in Java interfaces can have code as well.
Is it okay to program to an abstract base class that would have been an interface except that there were variables in this "interface" that all sub-classes were expected to have?
If you need fields in the implementation an abstract class can make sense. You can still use an interface as well.
Replicating a variable across sub-classes would have been an inconvenience because if I changed the name of one of the variables in one of the sub-classes I would have to change the name of that variable in all of the sub-classes.
This is where using an IDE helps. You can change a field, class, method name in all your code with one action.
is this okay or would you create another interface on top of the abstract base class and program to that interface?
You can code your implementation to an abstract class, but the users of that class should be using an interface if possible.
e.g. HashMap extends AbstractMap but implements Map. Most people would use Map not AbstractMap
I was asked a question, I wanted to get my answer reviewed here.
Q: In which scenario it is more appropriate to extend an abstract class rather than implementing the interface(s)?
A: If we are using template method design pattern.
Am I correct ?
I am sorry if I was not able to state the question clearly.
I know the basic difference between abstract class and interface.
1) use abstract class when the requirement is such that we need to implement the same functionality in every subclass for a specific operation (implement the method) and different functionality for some other operations (only method signatures)
2) use interface if you need to put the signature to be same (and implementation different) so that you can comply with interface implementation
3) we can extend max of one abstract class, but can implement more than one interface
Reiterating the question: Are there any other scenarios, besides those mentioned above, where specifically we require to use abstract class (one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on this only)?
Interface vs. Abstract class
Choosing between these two really depends on what you want to do, but luckily for us, Erich Gamma can help us a bit.
As always there is a trade-off, an interface gives you freedom with regard to the base class, an abstract class gives you the freedom to add new methods later. – Erich Gamma
You can’t go and change an Interface without having to change a lot of other things in your code, so the only way to avoid this would be to create a whole new Interface, which might not always be a good thing.
Abstract classes should primarily be used for objects that are closely related. Interfaces are better at providing common functionality for unrelated classes.
When To Use Interfaces
An interface allows somebody to start from scratch to implement your interface or implement your interface in some other code whose original or primary purpose was quite different from your interface. To them, your interface is only incidental, something that have to add on to the their code to be able to use your package. The disadvantage is every method in the interface must be public. You might not want to expose everything.
When To Use Abstract classes
An abstract class, in contrast, provides more structure. It usually defines some default implementations and provides some tools useful for a full implementation. The catch is, code using it must use your class as the base. That may be highly inconvenient if the other programmers wanting to use your package have already developed their own class hierarchy independently. In Java, a class can inherit from only one base class.
When to Use Both
You can offer the best of both worlds, an interface and an abstract class. Implementors can ignore your abstract class if they choose. The only drawback of doing that is calling methods via their interface name is slightly slower than calling them via their abstract class name.
reiterating the question: there is any other scenario besides these
mentioned above where specifically we require to use abstract class
(one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on
this only)
Yes, if you use JAXB. It does not like interfaces. You should either use abstract classes or work around this limitation with generics.
From a personal blog post:
Interface:
A class can implement multiple interfaces
An interface cannot provide any code at all
An interface can only define public static final constants
An interface cannot define instance variables
Adding a new method has ripple effects on implementing classes (design maintenance)
JAXB cannot deal with interfaces
An interface cannot extends or implement an abstract class
All interface methods are public
In general, interfaces should be used to define contracts (what is to be achieved, not how to achieve it).
Abstract Class:
A class can extend at most one abstract class
An abstract class can contain code
An abstract class can define both static and instance constants (final)
An abstract class can define instance variables
Modification of existing abstract class code has ripple effects on extending classes (implementation maintenance)
Adding a new method to an abstract class has no ripple effect on extending classes
An abstract class can implement an interface
Abstract classes can implement private and protected methods
Abstract classes should be used for (partial) implementation. They can be a mean to restrain the way API contracts should be implemented.
Interface is used when you have scenario that all classes has same structure but totally have different functionality.
Abstract class is used when you have scenario that all classes has same structure but some same and some different functionality.
Take a look the article : http://shoaibmk.blogspot.com/2011/09/abstract-class-is-class-which-cannot-be.html
There are a lot of great answers here, but I often find using BOTH interfaces and abstract classes is the best route. Consider this contrived example:
You're a software developer at an investment bank, and need to build a system that places orders into a market. Your interface captures the most general idea of what a trading system does,
1) Trading system places orders
2) Trading system receives acknowledgements
and can be captured in an interface, ITradeSystem
public interface ITradeSystem{
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
}
Now engineers working at the sales desk and along other business lines can start to interface with your system to add order placement functionality to their existing apps. And you haven't even started building yet! This is the power of interfaces.
So you go ahead and build the system for stock traders; they've heard that your system has a feature to find cheap stocks and are very eager to try it out! You capture this behavior in a method called findGoodDeals(), but also realize there's a lot of messy stuff that's involved in connecting to the markets. For example, you have to open a SocketChannel,
public class StockTradeSystem implements ITradeSystem{
#Override
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
getMarket().place(order);
#Override
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
System.out.println("Order received" + order);
private void connectToMarket();
SocketChannel sock = Socket.open();
sock.bind(marketAddress);
<LOTS MORE MESSY CODE>
}
public void findGoodDeals();
deals = <apply magic wizardry>
System.out.println("The best stocks to buy are: " + deals);
}
The concrete implementations are going to have lots of these messy methods like connectToMarket(), but findGoodDeals() is all the traders actually care about.
Now here's where abstract classes come into play. Your boss informs you that currency traders also want to use your system. And looking at currency markets, you see the plumbing is nearly identical to stock markets. In fact, connectToMarket() can be reused verbatim to connect to foreign exchange markets. However, findGoodDeals() is a much different concept in the currency arena. So before you pass off the codebase to the foreign exchange wiz kid across the ocean, you first refactor into an abstract class, leaving findGoodDeals() unimplmented
public abstract class ABCTradeSystem implements ITradeSystem{
public abstract void findGoodDeals();
#Override
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
getMarket().place(order);
#Override
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
System.out.println("Order received" + order);
private void connectToMarket();
SocketChannel sock = Socket.open();
sock.bind(marketAddress);
<LOTS MORE MESSY CODE>
}
Your stock trading system implements findGoodDeals() as you've already defined,
public class StockTradeSystem extends ABCTradeSystem{
public void findGoodDeals();
deals = <apply magic wizardry>
System.out.println("The best stocks to buy are: " + deals);
}
but now the FX whiz kid can build her system by simply providing an implementation of findGoodDeals() for currencies; she doesn't have to reimplement socket connections or even the interface methods!
public class CurrencyTradeSystem extends ABCTradeSystem{
public void findGoodDeals();
ccys = <Genius stuff to find undervalued currencies>
System.out.println("The best FX spot rates are: " + ccys);
}
Programming to an interface is powerful, but similar applications often re-implement methods in nearly identical ways. Using an abstract class avoids reimplmentations, while preserving the power of the interface.
Note: one may wonder why findGreatDeals() isn't part of the interface. Remember, the interface defines the most general components of a trading system. Another engineer may develop a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT trading system, where they don't care about finding good deals. The interface guarantees that the sales desk can interface to their system as well, so it's preferable not to entangle your interface with application concepts like "great deals".
Which should you use, abstract classes or interfaces?
Consider using abstract classes if any of these statements apply to your use case:
You want to share code among several closely related classes.
You expect that classes that extend your abstract class have many common methods or fields, or require access modifiers other than public (such as protected and private).
You want to declare non-static or non-final fields. This enables you to define methods that can access and modify the state of the object to which they belong.
Consider using interfaces if any of these statements apply to your use case:
You expect that unrelated classes would implement your interface.
For example, the interfaces Comparable and Cloneable are implemented by many unrelated classes.
You want to specify the behavior of a particular data type, but not concerned about who implements its behavior.
You want to take advantage of multiple inheritance of type.
New methods added regularly to interface by providers, to avoid issues extend Abstract class instead of interface.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/abstract.html
Things have been changed a lot in last three years with addition of new capabilities to interface with Java 8 release.
From oracle documentation page on interface:
An interface is a reference type, similar to a class, that can contain only constants, method signatures, default methods, static methods, and nested types. Method bodies exist only for default methods and static methods.
As you quoted in your question, abstract class is best fit for template method pattern where you have to create skeleton. Interface cant be used here.
One more consideration to prefer abstract class over interface:
You don't have implementation in base class and only sub-classes have to define their own implementation. You need abstract class instead of interface since you want to share state with sub-classes.
Abstract class establishes "is a" relation between related classes and interface provides "has a" capability between unrelated classes.
Regarding second part of your question, which is valid for most of the programming languages including java prior to java-8 release
As always there is a trade-off, an interface gives you freedom with regard to the base class, an abstract class gives you the freedom to add new methods later. – Erich Gamma
You can’t go and change an Interface without having to change a lot of other things in your code
If you prefer abstract class to interface earlier with above two considerations, you have to re-think now as default methods have added powerful capabilities to interfaces.
Default methods enable you to add new functionality to the interfaces of your libraries and ensure binary compatibility with code written for older versions of those interfaces.
To select one of them between interface and abstract class, oracle documentation page quote that:
Abstract classes are similar to interfaces. You cannot instantiate them, and they may contain a mix of methods declared with or without an implementation. However, with abstract classes, you can declare fields that are not static and final, and define public, protected, and private concrete methods.
With interfaces, all fields are automatically public, static, and final, and all methods that you declare or define (as default methods) are public. In addition, you can extend only one class, whether or not it is abstract, whereas you can implement any number of interfaces.
Refer to these related questions fore more details:
Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?
In summary : The balance is tilting more towards interfaces now.
Are there any other scenarios, besides those mentioned above, where specifically we require to use abstract class (one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on this only)?
Some design patterns use abstract classes (over interfaces) apart from Template method pattern.
Creational patterns:
Abstract_factory_pattern
Structural patterns:
Decorator_pattern
Behavioral patterns:
Mediator_pattern
You are not correct. There are many scenarios. It just isn't possible to reduce it to a single 8-word rule.
The shortest answer is, extend abstract class when some of the functionalities uou seek are already implemented in it.
If you implement the interface you have to implement all the method. But for abstract class number of methods you need to implement might be fewer.
In template design pattern there must be a behavior defined. This behavior depends on other methods which are abstract. By making sub class and defining those methods you actually define the main behavior. The underlying behavior can not be in a interface as interface does not define anything, it just declares. So a template design pattern always comes with an abstract class. If you want to keep the flow of the behavior intact you must extend the abstract class but don't override the main behavior.
In my opinion, the basic difference is that an interface can't contain non-abstract methods while an abstract class can.
So if subclasses share a common behavior, this behavior can be implemented in the superclass and thus inherited in the subclasses
Also, I quoted the following from "software architecture design patterns in java" book
" In the Java programming language, there is no support for multiple inheritance.
That means a class can inherit only from one single class. Hence inheritance
should be used only when it is absolutely necessary. Whenever possible, methods
denoting the common behavior should be declared in the form of a Java interface to be implemented by different implementer classes. But interfaces suffer from the limitation that they cannot provide method implementations. This means that every implementer of an interface must explicitly implement all methods declared in an interface, even when some of these methods represent the invariable part of the functionality and have exactly the same implementation in all of the implementer classes. This leads to redundant code. The following example demonstrates how the Abstract Parent Class pattern can be used in such cases without requiring redundant method implementations."
Abstract classes are different from interfaces in two important aspects
they provide default implementation for chosen methods (that is covered by your answer)
abstract classes can have state (instance variables) - so this is one more situation you want to use them in place of interfaces
This is a good question The two of these are not similar but can be use for some of the same reason, like a rewrite. When creating it is best to use Interface. When it comes down to class, it is good for debugging.
This is my understanding, hope this helps
Abstract classes:
Can have member variables that are inherited (can’t be done in interfaces)
Can have constructors (interfaces can’t)
Its methods can have any visibility (ie: private, protected, etc - whereas all interface methods are public)
Can have defined methods (methods with an implementation)
Interfaces:
Can have variables, but they are all public static final variables
constant values that never change with a static scope
non static variables require an instance, and you can’t instantiate an interface
All methods are abstract (no code in abstract methods)
all code has to be actually written in the class that implements the particular interface
Usage of abstract and interface:
One has "Is-A-Relationship" and another one has "Has-A-Relationship"
The default properties has set in abstract and extra properties can be expressed through interface.
Example: --> In the human beings we have some default properties that are eating, sleeping etc. but if anyone has any other curricular activities like swimming, playing etc those could be expressed by Interface.
Abstract classes should be extended when you want to some common behavior to get extended. The Abstract super class will have the common behavior and will define abstract method/specific behavior which sub classes should implement.
Interfaces allows you to change the implementation anytime allowing the interface to be intact.
I think the answers here are missing the main point:
Java interfaces (the question is about Java but there are similar mechanisms in other languages) is a way to partially support multiple inheritance, i.e. method-only inheritance.
It is similar to PHP's traits or Python's duck typing.
Besides that, there is nothing additional that you truly need an interface for --and you cannot instantiate a Java interface.
I have been facing so many problem using the anonymous class like I can't perform the instanceOf test neither can I implements multiple interface, so could someone please explain what I can or can not do with the anonymous class in java ?
The purpose of an anonymous inner class is to extend and instantiate an existing class or implement a single interface in one step.
Its limitations can be derived from the above:
Only one non-final class can be extended or one interface implemented.
Only final local variables of the enclosing method can be accessed. (This is due to the fact that normal local variables will be out of scope by the time any methods of the inner class will be invoked.)
You can't define a constructor. (The class has no name.)
If you need multiple interfaces, you can use a local inner class, which is like a normal inner class, with its own name, but defined within a method. I have to admit I've never seen it used in practice and I see very little reason for anyone to do so, hopefully someone will come up with an example.
Anonymous classes work whenever
you never need to refer to the class itself
you only need to extend a single class or implement a single interface
...but other than that there aren't really any significant constraints. This works fine in a lot of cases: for example, many cases when you're defining callbacks, listeners, or the like.
I am reading a book about Java and it says that you can declare the whole class as final. I cannot think of anything where I'd use this.
I am just new to programming and I am wondering if programmers actually use this on their programs. If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
First of all, I recommend this article: Java: When to create a final class
If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
A final class is simply a class that can't be extended.
(It does not mean that all references to objects of the class would act as if they were declared as final.)
When it's useful to declare a class as final is covered in the answers of this question:
Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java?
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
In some sense yes.
By marking a class as final you disable a powerful and flexible feature of the language for that part of the code. Some classes however, should not (and in certain cases can not) be designed to take subclassing into account in a good way. In these cases it makes sense to mark the class as final, even though it limits OOP. (Remember however that a final class can still extend another non-final class.)
In Java, items with the final modifier cannot be changed!
This includes final classes, final variables, and final methods:
A final class cannot be extended by any other class
A final variable cannot be reassigned another value
A final method cannot be overridden
One scenario where final is important, when you want to prevent inheritance of a class, for security reasons. This allows you to make sure that code you are running cannot be overridden by someone.
Another scenario is for optimization: I seem to remember that the Java compiler inlines some function calls from final classes. So, if you call a.x() and a is declared final, we know at compile-time what the code will be and can inline into the calling function. I have no idea whether this is actually done, but with final it is a possibility.
The best example is
public final class String
which is an immutable class and cannot be extended.
Of course, there is more than just making the class final to be immutable.
If you imagine the class hierarchy as a tree (as it is in Java), abstract classes can only be branches and final classes are those that can only be leafs. Classes that fall into neither of those categories can be both branches and leafs.
There's no violation of OO principles here, final is simply providing a nice symmetry.
In practice you want to use final if you want your objects to be immutable or if you're writing an API, to signal to the users of the API that the class is just not intended for extension.
Relevant reading: The Open-Closed Principle by Bob Martin.
Key quote:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules,
Functions, etc.) should be open for
Extension, but closed for
Modification.
The final keyword is the means to enforce this in Java, whether it's used on methods or on classes.
The keyword final itself means something is final and is not supposed to be modified in any way. If a class if marked final then it can not be extended or sub-classed. But the question is why do we mark a class final? IMO there are various reasons:
Standardization: Some classes perform standard functions and they are not meant to be modified e.g. classes performing various functions related to string manipulations or mathematical functions etc.
Security reasons: Sometimes we write classes which perform various authentication and password related functions and we do not want them to be altered by anyone else.
I have heard that marking class final improves efficiency but frankly I could not find this argument to carry much weight.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it
stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
Perhaps yes, but sometimes that is the intended purpose. Sometimes we do that to achieve bigger benefits of security etc. by sacrificing the ability of this class to be extended. But a final class can still extend one class if it needs to.
On a side note we should prefer composition over inheritance and final keyword actually helps in enforcing this principle.
final class can avoid breaking the public API when you add new methods
Suppose that on version 1 of your Base class you do:
public class Base {}
and a client does:
class Derived extends Base {
public int method() { return 1; }
}
Then if in version 2 you want to add a method method to Base:
class Base {
public String method() { return null; }
}
it would break the client code.
If we had used final class Base instead, the client wouldn't have been able to inherit, and the method addition wouldn't break the API.
A final class is a class that can't be extended. Also methods could be declared as final to indicate that cannot be overridden by subclasses.
Preventing the class from being subclassed could be particularly useful if you write APIs or libraries and want to avoid being extended to alter base behaviour.
In java final keyword uses for below occasions.
Final Variables
Final Methods
Final Classes
In java final variables can't reassign, final classes can't extends and final methods can't override.
Be careful when you make a class "final". Because if you want to write an unit test for a final class, you cannot subclass this final class in order to use the dependency-breaking technique "Subclass and Override Method" described in Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". In this book, Feathers said, "Seriously, it is easy to believe that sealed and final are a wrong-headed mistake, that they should never have been added to programming languages. But the real fault lies with us. When we depend directly on libraries that are out of our control, we are just asking for trouble."
If the class is marked final, it means that the class' structure can't be modified by anything external. Where this is the most visible is when you're doing traditional polymorphic inheritance, basically class B extends A just won't work. It's basically a way to protect some parts of your code (to extent).
To clarify, marking class final doesn't mark its fields as final and as such doesn't protect the object properties but the actual class structure instead.
TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.
One advantage of keeping a class as final :-
String class is kept final so that no one can override its methods and change the functionality. e.g no one can change functionality of length() method. It will always return length of a string.
Developer of this class wanted no one to change functionality of this class, so he kept it as final.
The other answers have focused on what final class tells the compiler: do not allow another class to declare it extends this class, and why that is desirable.
But the compiler is not the only reader of the phrase final class. Every programmer who reads the source code also reads that. It can aid rapid program comprehension.
In general, if a programmer sees Thing thing = that.someMethod(...); and the programmer wants to understand the subsequent behaviour of the object accessed through the thing object-reference, the programmer must consider the Thing class hierarchy: potentially many types, scattered over many packages. But if the programmer knows, or reads, final class Thing, they instantly know that they do not need to search for and study so many Java files, because there are no derived classes: they need study only Thing.java and, perhaps, it's base classes.
Yes, sometimes you may want this though, either for security or speed reasons. It's done also in C++. It may not be that applicable for programs, but moreso for frameworks.
http://www.glenmccl.com/perfj_025.htm
think of FINAL as the "End of the line" - that guy cannot produce offspring anymore. So when you see it this way, there are ton of real world scenarios that you will come across that requires you to flag an 'end of line' marker to the class. It is Domain Driven Design - if your domain demands that a given ENTITY (class) cannot create sub-classes, then mark it as FINAL.
I should note that there is nothing stopping you from inheriting a "should be tagged as final" class. But that is generally classified as "abuse of inheritance", and done because most often you would like to inherit some function from the base class in your class.
The best approach is to look at the domain and let it dictate your design decisions.
As above told, if you want no one can change the functionality of the method then you can declare it as final.
Example: Application server file path for download/upload, splitting string based on offset, such methods you can declare it Final so that these method functions will not be altered. And if you want such final methods in a separate class, then define that class as Final class. So Final class will have all final methods, where as Final method can be declared and defined in non-final class.
Let's say you have an Employee class that has a method greet. When the greet method is called it simply prints Hello everyone!. So that is the expected behavior of greet method
public class Employee {
void greet() {
System.out.println("Hello everyone!");
}
}
Now, let GrumpyEmployee subclass Employee and override greet method as shown below.
public class GrumpyEmployee extends Employee {
#Override
void greet() {
System.out.println("Get lost!");
}
}
Now in the below code have a look at the sayHello method. It takes Employee instance as a parameter and calls the greet method hoping that it would say Hello everyone! But what we get is Get lost!. This change in behavior is because of Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public class TestFinal {
static Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestFinal testFinal = new TestFinal();
testFinal.sayHello(grumpyEmployee);
}
private void sayHello(Employee employee) {
employee.greet(); //Here you would expect a warm greeting, but what you get is "Get lost!"
}
}
This situation can be avoided if the Employee class was made final. Just imagine the amount of chaos a cheeky programmer could cause if String Class was not declared as final.
Final class cannot be extended further. If we do not need to make a class inheritable in java,we can use this approach.
If we just need to make particular methods in a class not to be overridden, we just can put final keyword in front of them. There the class is still inheritable.
Final classes cannot be extended. So if you want a class to behave a certain way and don't someone to override the methods (with possibly less efficient and more malicious code), you can declare the whole class as final or specific methods which you don't want to be changed.
Since declaring a class does not prevent a class from being instantiated, it does not mean it will stop the class from having the characteristics of an object. It's just that you will have to stick to the methods just the way they are declared in the class.
Android Looper class is a good practical example of this.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Looper.html
The Looper class provides certain functionality which is NOT intended to be overridden by any other class. Hence, no sub-class here.
I know only one actual use case: generated classes
Among the use cases of generated classes, I know one: dependency inject e.g. https://github.com/google/dagger
Object Orientation is not about inheritance, it is about encapsulation. And inheritance breaks encapsulation.
Declaring a class final makes perfect sense in a lot of cases. Any object representing a “value” like a color or an amount of money could be final. They stand on their own.
If you are writing libraries, make your classes final unless you explicitly indent them to be derived. Otherwise, people may derive your classes and override methods, breaking your assumptions / invariants. This may have security implications as well.
Joshua Bloch in “Effective Java” recommends designing explicitly for inheritance or prohibiting it and he notes that designing for inheritance is not that easy.
I understand that neither a abstract class nor an interface can contain a method that is both abstract and static because of ambiguity problems, but is there a workaround?
I want to have either an abstract class or an interface that mandates the inclusion of a static method in all of the classes that extend/implement this class/interface. Is there a way to do this in Java? If not, this may be my final straw with Java...
EDIT 1: The context of this problem is that I have a bunch of classes, call them Stick, Ball, and Toy for now, that have a bunch of entries in a database. I want to create a superclass/interface called Fetchable that requires a static method getFetchables() in each of the classes below it. The reason the methods in Stick, Ball, and Toy have to be static is because they will be talking to a database to retrieve all of the entries in the database for each class.
EDIT 2: To those who say you cannot do this in any language, that is not true. You can certainly do this in Ruby where class methods are inherited. This is not a case of someone not getting OO, this is a case of missing functionality in the Java language. You can try to argue that you should never need to inherit static (class) methods, but that is utterly wrong and I will ignore any answers that make such points.
You have a couple of options:
Use reflection to see if the method exists and then call it.
Create an annotation for the static method named something like #GetAllWidgetsMethod.
As others have said, try to not use a static method.
There are lots of answers about 'this does'nt make sense..' but indeed I met a similar problem just yesterday.
I wanted to use inheritance with my unit tests. I have an API and several its implementations. So I need only 1 set of unit tests for all implementations but with different setUp methods which are static.
Workaround: all tests are abstract classes, with some static fields with protected access modifier. In all implementations I added static methods which set these static fields. It works rather nice, and I avoided copy and paste.
I too am dealing with this problem. For those that insist that it "doesn't make sense", I would invite you to think outside of that semantic box for a moment. The program I am working with is inherently about reflection.
Reflection, as you know, can take three orders of magnitude longer than straight-up binary function calling. That is an inevitable problem, and the software needs to port to as many machines as possible, some of which will be 32 bit and slower than my development machine to begin with. Thus, the applicability of a class to the requested operation needs to be checked via a static method, and all of the reflective methods are run at once during module booting.
Everything works, first and foremost. I've built the entire thing. The only catch is that a module can be compiled in a .class without compile time checking to see if the identifying static function exists at all, resulting in an innately useless class. Without the identifier, and its included information, for security's sake the module is not loaded.
I clearly understand the issue with the complete definition of "abstract" and "static", and understand that they don't make sense together. However, the ability to have a class method that is compiler-enforced for inclusion is lacking in Java, and as much as I like the language, I miss it. Thus, this is a human constraint on every programmer that ever works on the software, which I'm sure we can all agree is a pain.
There's a lot of 'this makes no sense' or 'this can't be because' and 'why do you want it?' (or worse: 'you don't have to want it!') in all those answers. However, these answers also indirectly give reasons why it should be possible.
It must be differentiated between the concept and the implementation.
Sure, overriding a static method makes no sense. And it also isn't what the question was about.
It was asked for a way to force implementation of a certain static method (or constant or whatever) in every derived class of an abstract class. Why this is required it the matter of the one who wants to write an appllication with Jave, and no business of anyone else.
This has nothing to do with how the compiler compiles the method and how it is done at runtime.
Why shoudl it be possible? because there are things that are class specific (and not instance specific) and therefore should be static, while they NEED to be impleented in every single subclass (or class that implements an interface).
Let's say there is an abstract class 'Being'. Now there are subclasses like 'animals' and 'plants'.
Now there are only mammals and fishes allowed for animals. This information is specific to the animals class, not to any instance nor doe sit belong to any superclass or subclass. However, this information must be provided by teh class, not an instance, because it is required to properly construct an animal instance. So it MUST be there and it CANNOT be in the instance.
In fact, Java has such a thing- Every object has a class specific field 'class'. It is class-specific, not inherited, no override and it must be there. Well the compiler creates it implicitly, but obviously the compiler CAN do it. So why not allowing this for own fields too.
After all, it is just a matter of definition how the combination 'abstract static' is interpreted when the compiler checks the intheritance chain for abstract functions.
Nobody was ever demanding that there should be an inheritance of the superclass class functions (which could still make some sense, depending on what this function actually does - after all classes inherit static functions of their superclasses, even though you might get a warning that you should access it directly when you call it by the subclass))
But to summarize: the Java language offers no way to do it at compile time while there is no reason (othe rthan plain dogmatic) to not doing so.
The only way is to write a static final function to the abstract class that tries to find the static function/field of the subclass when it is loaded (or loads all existing subclasses and checks them). If properly made, it gives a runtime error on first use. Complex and dirty but better than nothing. At least it prevents bugs where you get the information from the wrong superclass.
It won't work for interfaces, though.
A type system allows you to express some constraints among types, but it's limited. That's why javadocs are littered with constraints in human language, asking people to follow rules that the compiler cannot check.
if you want to extend it beyond what language provides natively, you can write your own static analysis tool. that is not uncommon. for example: findbug. also IDEs do that too, they checking thing beyond what language dictates. you can write a plug in to enforce that a subclass must have a static method of such signature.
in your case, it's not worth it. have javadoc in the superclass urge implementors to include a static method, that's good enough.
I'll provide a convoluted way of expressing your constraint anyway, but DO NO DO IT. people get really carried away of make everything checkable at compile time, at the price of making code unreadable.
interface WidgetEnumerator
{
List getAllWidgets();
}
public class Abs<T extends WidgetEnumerator>
{
static List getAllWidgets(Class<? extends Abs> clazz){ ... }
}
public class Sub extends Abs<SubWidgetEnumerator>
{
}
public class SubWidgetEnumerator implements WidgetEnumerator
{
public List getAllWidgets() { ... }
}
How it works: for any subclass of Abs, it is forced to provide an implementation of WidgetEnumerator. subclass author cannot forget that. Now invocation Abs.getAllWidgets(Sub.class) contains sufficient information to resolve that implementation, i.e. SubWidgetEnumerator. It is done through reflection, but it is type safe, there are no string literals involved.
I think I can give you a better answer after seeing your edits--your best bet is probably a factory pattern. (Not lovely, but better than singleton).
abstract class Widget
public static Widget[] getAllWidgetsOfType(Class widgetType) {
if(widgetType instanceof ...)
}
class Ball extends Widget
class Stick extends Widget
class Toy extends Widget
This is not a very good way to do it, but it's typical. Hibernate is the tool you would normally use to solve this problem, this is exactly what it's designed for.
The big problem is that it requires editing the base class whenever you add a new class of a given type. This can't be gotten around without reflection. If you want to use reflection, then you can implement it this way (Psuedocode, I'm not going to look up the exact syntax for the reflection, but it's not much more complex than this):
public static Widget[] getAllWidgetsOfType(Class widgetType) {
Method staticMethod=widgetType.getStaticMethod("getAllInstances");
return staticMethod.invoke();
}
This would give the solution you were asking for (to be bothered by the need to modify the base class each time you add a child class is a good instinct).
You could also make it an instance method instead of a static. It's not necessary, but you could then prototype the method (abstract) in Widget.
Again, all this is unnecessary and sloppy compared to Hibernate...
Edit: If you passed in a live "Empty" instance of a ball, stick or toy instead of it's "Class" object, you could then just call an inherited method and not use reflection at all. This would also work but you have to expand the definition of a Widget to include an "Empty" instance used as a key.
Static methods are relevant to an entire class of object, not the individual instances. Allowing a static method to be overridden breaks this dictum.
The first thing I would consider is to access your database from a non-static context. This is actually the norm for Java apps.
If you absolutely must use a static method, then have it parameterised with instance specific arguments (of a generic type) to allow the different subclasses to interact with it. Then call that single static method from you polymorphic methods.
No. You can't do that. If you're willing to compromise and make the method non-static or provide an implementation of the static method in your abstract class, you'll be able to code this in Java.
Is there a way to do this in Java?
I don't think there is a way to do this in any language. There's no point to it, since static methods belong to a class and can't be called polymorphically. And enabling polymorphic calls is the only reason for interfaces and abstract classes to exist.
Create a context interface containing your method with a name that matches your problem domain. (Name it "World" if you absolutely have to, but most of the time there's a better name)
Pass around implementation instances of the context object.
Ok, maybe my question was poorly asked, it seems like most of you didn't get what I was trying to do. Nonetheless, I have a solution that is somewhat satisfactory.
In the abstract super class, I am going to have a static method getAllWidgets(Class type). In it I'll check the class you passed it and do the correct fetching based on that. Generally I like to avoid passing around classes and using switches on stuff like this, but I'll make an exception here.
static methods can't be abstract because they aren't virtual. Therefore anywhere that calls them has to have the concrete type with the implementation. If you want to enforce that all implementations of an interface have a certain static method, then that suggests a unit test is required.
abstract class A
{
public static void foo()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("A::foo");
}
public void bar()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("A::bar");
}
}
class B extends A
{
public static void foo()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("B::foo");
}
public void bar()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("B::bar");
}
}
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.foo();
b.bar();
A a = b;
a.foo();
a.bar();
}
}
For what it is worth I know exactly what you are trying to do.
I found this article while searching for the reasons I can't do it either.
In my case I have HUNDREDS of classes that inherit from a central base base and I want simply to get a reference like this:
ValueImSearchingFor visf = StaticClass.someArbitraryValue()
I do NOT want to write/maintain someArbitraryValue() for each and every one of hundreds of the inherited classes -- I just want to write logic once and have it calc a Unique Class-Sepcific value for each and every future written class WITHOUT touching the base class.
Yes I completely get OO - I've been writing Java for about as long as it's been available.
These specific classes are more like "Definitions" as opposed to actual Objects and I don't want to instantiate one every time I just need to see what someArbitraryValue() actually is.
Think of it as a PUBLIC STATIC FINAL that allows you to run a Method ONCE to set it initially. (Kinda like you can do when you define an Enum actually...)
I'd make a WidgetCollection class with an abstract Widget inner class.
You can extend the WidgetCollection.Widget class for each of your types of Widget.
No static methods necessary.
Example (not compiled or tested):
class WidgetCollection<W extends Widget> {
Set<W> widgets = new HashSet<W>();
Set<W> getAll() {
return widgets;
}
abstract class Widget {
Widget() {
widgets.add(this);
}
abstract String getName();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
WidgetCollection<AWidget> aWidgets = new WidgetCollection<AWidget>();
a.new AWidget();
Set<AWidget> widgets = aWidgets.getAll();
}
}
class AWidget extends Widget {
String getName() {
return "AWidget";
}
}
It doesn't make sense to do what you're asking:
Why can't static methods be abstract in Java