In Go you do the following:
package main
type Interface interface {
doSomething() error
doAnotherThing() error
}
type MyImplementation struct {
Interface
}
func (i *MyImplementation) doSomething() error {
return nil
}
You can implement some methods of the interface and leave the rest to the embedded interface.
Suppose I want to do the same in Java and partly implement an interface of 20 or more methods but don't want to write out every single method and call my underlying interface.
I don't have control over the interface as it is in a library I'm using.
Is this possible in Java or do I have to write out the whole interface?
Create an abstract class, implementing the interface, to put only some common method implementations, and then create normal classes, extending the abstract class, for remaining specific methods implementations.
Something like this:
//don't touch the interface if its already there
interface Interface {
public void doSomething();
public void doAnotherThing();
}
//use abstract class for common implementations
abstract class PartialClass implements Interface{
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("doing someting in common code");
}
//no need to implement all the methods
}
//create classes for specific implementations
class MyImplementation1 extends PartialClass {
#Override
public void doAnotherThing() {
System.out.println("doing another thing in specific code");
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Interface object = new MyImplementation1();
object.doSomething();
object.doAnotherThing();
}
}
Output:
doing someting in common code
doing another thing in specific code
No you can't do that in Java.
You can implement only some methods in abstract classes but can't use those as actual implementations (You can't create them with new).
To use a non abstract class as your interface you need to write out every single method and call your underlying instance in each call.
Just as a counterpoint to this question: what is an interface in Java?
An interface is a special form of an abstract class which does not implement any methods. In Java, you create an interface like this:
interface Interface
{
void interfaceMethod();
}
Since the interface can't implement any methods, it's implied that the entire thing, including all the methods, are both public and abstract (abstract in Java terms means "not implemented by this class"). So the interface above is identical to the interface below:
public interface Interface
{
abstract public void interfaceMethod();
}
To use this interface, you simply need to implement the interface. Many classes can implement an interface, and a class can implement many interfaces:
interface InterfaceA
{
void interfaceMethodA();
}
interface InterfaceB
{
void interfaceMethodB();
}
public class ImplementingClassA
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
public void interfaceMethodA()
{
System.out.println("interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A");
}
public void interfaceMethodB()
{
System.out.println("interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A");
}
}
public class ImplementingClassB
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
public void interfaceMethodA()
{
System.out.println("interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B");
}
public void interfaceMethodB()
{
System.out.println("interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B");
}
}
Now if you wanted you could write a method like this:
public void testInterfaces()
{
ImplementingClassA u = new ImplementingClassA();
ImplementingClassB v = new ImplementingClassB();
InterfaceA w = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceA x = new ImplementingClassB();
InterfaceB y = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceB z = new ImplementingClassB();
u.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A"
u.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A"
v.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B"
v.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B"
w.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A"
x.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B"
y.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A"
z.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B"
}
However, you could never do the following:
public void testInterfaces()
{
InterfaceA y = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceB z = new ImplementingClassB();
y.interfaceMethodB(); // ERROR!
z.interfaceMethodA(); // ERROR!
}
The reason you can't do this is that y is of type interfaceA, and there is no interfaceMethodB() in interfaceA. Likewise, z is of type interfaceB and there is no interfaceMethodA() in interfaceB.
I mentioned earlier that interfaces are just a special form of an abstract class. To illustrate that point, look at the following code.
interface Interface
{
void abstractMethod();
}
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
}
You would inherit from these classes almost exactly the same way:
public class InheritsFromInterface
implements Interface
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
public class InteritsFromAbstractClass
extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
In fact, you could even change the interface and the abstract class like this:
interface Interface
{
void abstractMethod();
}
abstract public class AbstractClass
implements Interface
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
}
public class InheritsFromInterfaceAndAbstractClass
extends AbstractClass implements Interface
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
However, there are two differences between interfaces and abstract classes.
The first difference is that interfaces cannot implement methods.
interface Interface
{
public void implementedMethod()
{
System.out.println("implementedMethod()");
}
}
The interface above generates a compiler error because it has an implementation for implementedMethod(). If you wanted to implement the method but not be able to instantiate the class, you would have to do it like this:
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
public void implementedMethod()
{
System.out.println("implementedMethod()");
}
}
That's not much of an abstract class because none of its members are abstract, but it is legal Java.
The other difference between interfaces and abstract classes is that a class can inherit from multiple interfaces, but can only inherit from one abstract class.
abstract public class AbstractClassA { }
abstract public class AbstractClassB { }
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
The code above generates a compiler error, not because the classes are all empty, but because InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses is trying to inherit from two abstract classes, which is illegal. The following is perfectly legal.
interface InterfaceA { }
interface InterfaceB { }
public class InheritsFromTwoInterfaces
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{ }
The first difference between interfaces and abstract classes is the reason for the second difference. Take a look at the following code.
interface InterfaceA
{
void method();
}
interface InterfaceB
{
void method();
}
public class InheritsFromTwoInterfaces
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
void method() { System.out.println("method()"); }
}
There's no problem with the code above because InterfaceA and InterfaceB don't have anything to hide. It's easy to tell that a call to method will print "method()".
Now look at the following code:
abstract public class AbstractClassA
{
void method() { System.out.println("Hello"); }
}
abstract public class AbstractClassB
{
void method() { System.out.println("Goodbye"); }
}
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
This is exactly the same as our other example, except that because we're allowed to implement methods in abstract classes, we did, and because we don't have to implement already-implemented methods in an inheriting class, we didn't. But you may have noticed, there's a problem. What happens when we call new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().method()? Does it print "Hello" or "Goodbye"? You probably don't know, and neither does the Java compiler. Another language, C++ allowed this kind of inheritance and they resolved these issues in ways that were often very complicated. To avoid this kind of trouble, Java decided to make this "multiple inheritance" illegal.
The downside to Java's solution that the following can't be done:
abstract public class AbstractClassA
{
void hi() { System.out.println("Hello"); }
}
abstract public class AbstractClassB
{
void bye() { System.out.println("Goodbye"); }
}
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
AbstractClassA and AbstractClassB are "mixins" or classes that aren't intended to be instantiated but add functionality to the classes that they are "mixed into" through inheritance. There's obviously no problem figuring out what happens if you call new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().hi() or new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().bye(), but you can't do that because Java doesn't allow it.
(I know this is a long post, so if there are any mistakes in it please let me know and I will correct them.)
Interface is a contract. A simple example is a Tenant and Landlord which are the two parties and the contract is the Rent Agreement. Rent Agreement contains various clause which Tenants have to follow. Likewise Interface is a contact which contains various method (Declaration) which the Party has to implement (provide method bodies).Here party one is the class which implement the interface and second party is Client and the way to use and interface is having “Reference of Interface” and “Object of Implementing class”: below are 3 components:(Explained with help of example)
Component 1] Interface : The Contract
interface myInterface{
public void myMethod();
}
Component 2] Implementing Class : Party number 1
class myClass implements myInterface {
#Override
public void myMethod() {
System.out.println("in MyMethod");
}
}
Component 3] Client code : Party number 2
Client.java
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
myInterface mi = new myClass();
// Reference of Interface = Object of Implementing Class
mi.myMethod(); // this will print in MyMethod
}
}
An interface in java is a blueprint of a class. It has static constants and abstract methods only.The interface in java is a mechanism to achieve fully abstraction. There can be only abstract methods in the java interface not method body. It is used to achieve fully abstraction and multiple inheritance in Java. An interface is a collection of abstract methods. A class implements an interface, thereby inheriting the abstract methods of the interface.
An interface is not a class. Writing an interface is similar to writing a class, but they are two different concepts. A class describes the attributes and behaviors of an object. An interface contains behaviors(Abstract Methods) that a class implements.
Unless the class that implements the interface is abstract, all the methods of the interface need to be defined in the class.Since multiple inheritance is not allowed in java so interface is only way to implement multiple inheritance.
Here is an example for understanding interface
interface Printable{
void print();
}
interface Showable{
void print();
}
class testinterface1 implements Printable,Showable{
public void print(){System.out.println("Hello");}
public static void main(String args[]){
testinterface1 obj = new testinterface1();
obj.print();
}
}
Interface : System requirement service.
Description : Suppose a client needed some functionality "i.e. JDBC API" interface and some other server Apache , Jetty , WebServer they all provide implements of this.
So it bounded requirement document which service provider provided to the user who uses data-connection with these server Apache , Jetty , WebServer .
Interface is the blueprint of an class.
There is one oop's concept called Data abstraction under that there are two categories one is abstract class and other one is interface.
Abstract class achieves only partial abstraction but interface achieves full abstraction.
In interface there is only abstract methods and final variables..you can extends any number of interface and you can implement any number of classes.
If any class is implementing the interface then the class must implements the abstract methods too
Interface cannot be instantiated.
interface A() {
void print()
}
This question is 6 years old and lot of things have changed the definition of interface over the years.
From oracle documentation page ( post Java 8 release) :
In the Java programming language, 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. Interfaces cannot be instantiated—they can only be implemented by classes or extended by other interfaces.
Have a look at related SE questions for better explanation:
Is there more to an interface than having the correct methods
What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?
What it is
An interface is a reference type, just like a class is. These are the two main reference types in Java.
What it contains
An interface can contain a subset of what a normal class can contain. This includes everything that is static, both methods and variables, and non-static method declarations. It is not allowed to have non-static variables.
A declaration of a method differs from a normal method in several things; here is one as an example:
[public] [abstract] ReturnType methodName();
These declarations can be marked as public and abstract, as represented with [optional braces]. It is not necessary to do so, as it is the default. private, protected, package-private (aka. nothing) and the final modifier are not allowed and marked as a compiler error. They have not implementation, so there is a semicolon instead of curly braces.
As of Java 8, they can hold non-static methods with an implementation, these have to be marked with the default modifier. However, the same restrictions as to the other modifiers apply (adding that strictfp is now valid and abstract is no more).
What it's useful for
One of its uses is for it to be used as a face for a service. When two parties work together to form a service-requester & service-provider kind of relationship, the service provider provides the face of the service (as to what the service looks like) in the form of an interface.
One of the OOP concept is "Abstraction" which means to hide away complex working of the systems and show only what is necessary to understand the system. This helps in visualizing the working of a complex system.
This can be achieved through interface where in each module is visualized (and also implemented) to work through interface of another module
An interface is a class-like construct that contains only constants and abstract methods (Introduction to java programming, n.d.). Moreover, it can extend more than one interface for example a Superclass. Java allows only single inheritance for class extension but allows multiple extensions for
interfaces(Introduction to Java programming, n.d.) For example,
public class NewClass extends BaseClass
implements Interface1, ..., InterfaceN {
...
}
Secondly, interfaces can be used to specify the behavior of objects in a class. However, they cannot contain abstract methods. Also, an interface can inherit other interfaces using the extends keyword.
public interface NewInterface extends Interface1, ... , InterfaceN {
}
Reference
Introduction to Java Programming. Interfaces and Abstract classes (n.d). Retrieved March 10, 2017 from https://viewer.gcu.edu/7NNUKW
In general, we prefer interfaces when there are two are more implementations we have. Where Interface is acts as protocol.
Coding to interface, not implementations Coding to interface makes loosely couple.
An interface is a reference type in Java. It is similar to class. It is a collection of abstract methods. A class implements an interface, thereby inheriting the abstract methods of the interface. Along with abstract methods, an interface may also contain constants, default methods, static methods, and nested types. for more details
From the latest definition by Oracle, Interface is:
There are a number of situations in software engineering when it is
important for disparate groups of programmers to agree to a "contract"
that spells out how their software interacts. Each group should be
able to write their code without any knowledge of how the other
group's code is written. Generally speaking, interfaces are such
contracts.
For example, imagine a futuristic society where computer-controlled
robotic cars transport passengers through city streets without a human
operator. Automobile manufacturers write software (Java, of course)
that operates the automobile—stop, start, accelerate, turn left, and
so forth. Another industrial group, electronic guidance instrument
manufacturers, make computer systems that receive GPS (Global
Positioning System) position data and wireless transmission of traffic
conditions and use that information to drive the car.
The auto manufacturers must publish an industry-standard interface
that spells out in detail what methods can be invoked to make the car
move (any car, from any manufacturer). The guidance manufacturers can
then write software that invokes the methods described in the
interface to command the car. Neither industrial group needs to know
how the other group's software is implemented. In fact, each group
considers its software highly proprietary and reserves the right to
modify it at any time, as long as it continues to adhere to the
published 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. Interfaces cannot be instantiated—they
can only be implemented by classes or extended by other interfaces.
The most popular usage of interfaces is as APIs (Application Programming Interface) which are common in commercial software products. Typically, a company sells a software package that contains complex methods that another company wants to use in its own software product.
An example could be a package of digital image processing methods that are sold to companies making end-user graphics programs.
The image processing company writes its classes to implement an interface, which it makes public to its customers. The graphics company then invokes the image processing methods using the signatures and return types defined in the interface. While the image processing company's API is made public (to its customers), its implementation of the API is kept as a closely guarded secret—in fact, it may revise the implementation at a later date as long as it continues to implement the original interface that its customers have relied on.
Check out to learn more about interfaces.
In addition to what others have mentioned and by illogical comparison
it's a frame work for wrapping methods so they can be stored in
variables.
Thus on the fly you can equate the interface variable to be equal to any method or collection of methods atleast in this sense, a good reason you would usually want to do that is to escape repetitive logic that will definitely be an enemy of progress within the half life of your code at any decaying rate, be careful with the scenario below user discretion is advised.
SCENARIO
You have a game with a drawSillyThings() method in a SoulAvenger class, that has to draw some frames or sprites. Now drawSillyThings() has a list of other methods it needs to call in other to draw a metamorphed glorified-soul-ranger after user kills the grim-reaper in level 5k, i.e. drawSillyThings() needs to call either of inviteTheGrimReaper(), drawUpperCut(), drawTotalKO(), drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger(), drawDefeatAndMockery(), drawFightRecap() and drawGameOver() whenever the right situations arise during the gaming experience but all these would result in unwanted logic in drawSillyThings() which might slow the game i.e.
public static class SoulAvenger{
public SoulAvenger(){
//constructor logic
}
private void loadLevel5k(){...}
private void dontAllowUserWinOnTime(){...}
private void loadGrimReaperFight(){...}
private void drawSillyThings(){
... //unaccounted game logic
while(fighting_in_level_5k){
while(soul_ranger_has_enough_lives){
if(game_state=fight)inviteTheGrimReaper();
else if(game_state=medium_blows)drawUpperCut();
else if(game_state=heavy_blows)drawTotalKO();
else if(game_state=lost)drawDefeatAndMockery();
else if(game_state=won)drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger();
else if(game_state=end)drawFightRecap();
}else drawGameOver();
}
}
}
The problem here is the loop-nested boolean checks that have to be performed each time while the soul-ranger is still alive where as you could just have an alternative class which makes sure drawSillyThings() doesn’t need a game_state to be checked each time in order to call the right method but to do that you ‘ld need to kinda store the right method in a variable so that subsequently you can kinda variable = new method and also kinda variable.invoke(). If that wasn’t something have a look
public static class InterfaceTest{
public interface Method{
public void invoke();
}
public static void main(String[] args){
//lets create and store a method in a variable shall we
Method method_variable=new Method(){
#Override
public void invoke(){
//do something
}
};
//lets call or invoke the method from the variable in order to do something
method_variable.invoke();
//lets change the method to do something else
method_variable=new Method(){
#Override
public void invoke(){
//do something else
}
};
//lets do something else
method_variable.invoke();
}
}
This was probably what the guys at oracle had discovered was missing from Java several years before rumors of some developers planning a massive protest surfaced on the web but back to the SoulAvenger, as the gameplay occurs you would definitely just want to kinda have a variable be equated to give the right method to be invoked in drawSillyThings() in order to run things in a silly manner therefore
public static class SoulAvenger{
private interface SillyRunner{
public void run_things();
}
...//soul avenging variables
private SillyRunner silly_runner;
public SoulAvenger(int game_state){
//logic check is performed once instead of multiple times in a nested loop
if(game_state=medium_blows){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawUpperCut();
}
};
}else if(game_state=heavy_blows){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawTotalKO();
}
};
}else if(game_state=lost){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawDefeatAndMockery();
}
};
}else if(game_state=won){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger();
}
};
}else if(game_state=fight){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawFightRecap();
}
};
}
}
private void loadLevel5k(){
//an event triggered method to change how you run things to load level 5k
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
//level 5k logic
}
};
}
private void dontAllowUserWinOnTime(){
//an event triggered method to help user get annoyed and addicted to the game
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawDefeatAndMockery();
}
};
}
private void loadGrimReaperFight(){
//an event triggered method to send an invitation to the nearest grim-reaper
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
inviteTheGrimReaper();
}
};
}
private void drawSillyThings(){
...//unaccounted game logic
while(fighting_in_level_5k){
while(soul_ranger_has_enough_lives){
silly_runner.run_things();
}
}
}
}
Now the drawSillyThings() doesn’t need to perform any if logic while drawing because as the right events gets triggered the silly_runner gets equated to have its run_things() method invoke a different method thus using a variable to store and invoke a method kinda-ish although in the real gaming world(I actually mean in a console) several threads will work asynchronously to change interface variables to run different piece of code with the same call.
An interface in java is a special type of Abstract class, the Interface provided the 100% Abstraction but since the java introduce new features in java 8 the meaning of whole Interface is change. Interfaces are used to tell what should be done. But due to new features now we give implementations of methods in Interface, that changed the meaning of Interface.
In Interface the method is public abstract by default
interface Bird{
void sound();
void eat();
}
Java doesn't provide the multiple inheritances feature mean a class doesn't have two parents, but we extend multiple Interfaces in java.
An interface is a contract between the system and the external environment. More specifically to Java - a contract for a class (for a specific behavior), implemented in a form that resembles a pure abstract class.
Disclaimer: I know there are a lot of questions about polymorphism out there, but I couldn't find a suitable answer for my problem. If your Google-fu is better than mine, please forgive the dupe.
I have a model using inheritance, such as in the example below.
public abstract class Base {
// ...
}
public class ConcreteA extends Base {
private String someString;
// ...
}
public class ConcreteB extends Base {
private boolean someBool;
// ...
}
And I also have a List<Base>, which is composed of objects that are either ConcreteAs or ConcreteBs.
I need to generate a graphical view for each object in the list, but the resulting element is not the same for ConcreteAs and ConcreteBs. From the example above, the view for ConcreteA would be a text field, while the view for a ConcreteB would be a check box.
How can I achieve this using OO principles?
The problem that you have is that you somewhere return a List<Base> when the caller must know the concrete type.
Usually this is caused because one tried to make a method more generic. E.g. if someone has this service methods
public List<ConcreteA> doSomethingA(){ ... }
public List<ConcreteB> doSomethingB(){ ... }
he might think it is a better idea to introduce a superclass, Base so that both methods can be substituted by
public List<Base> doSomething(){ ... }
This is a good idea if the caller is only interessted in a Base object. This means that ConcreateA and ConcreteB have some common behavior that the caller only depends on.
But in your case it seems that the caller needs the concrete type information that is not available anymore, because of the more generic method.
So you either must preserve or reconstruct the type information.
Preserve the type by using a custom return type instead of making the method generic
public class Result {
private List<ConcreteA> concreteA;
private List<ConcreteB> concreteA;
}
public Result doSomething();
Recunstruct the type information using instanceof
Reconstruct the type information by introcucing a visitor pattern.
Not a pattern - this is what abstraction is all about. Declare a method you want all subclasses of Base to implement and each must implement it in their own way.
Obviously you would pass parameters and/or get results of the methods.
public abstract class Base {
abstract void graphicalView();
}
public class ConcreteA extends Base {
#Override
void graphicalView() {
}
}
public class ConcreteB extends Base {
#Override
void graphicalView() {
}
}
public void test() throws IOException {
List<Base> bases = new ArrayList<>();
for ( Base b : bases ) {
b.graphicalView();
}
}
I think you're looking for Visitor Design Pattern.
From Wikipedia :
In object-oriented programming and software engineering, the visitor
design pattern is a way of separating an algorithm from an object
structure on which it operates. A practical result of this separation
is the ability to add new operations to extant object structures
without modifying the structures. It is one way to follow the
open/closed principle.
In essence, the visitor allows adding new virtual functions to a
family of classes, without modifying the classes. Instead, a visitor
class is created that implements all of the appropriate
specializations of the virtual function. The visitor takes the
instance reference as input, and implements the goal through double
dispatch.
In such cases, I usually use generics something like this
public abstract class Base <T extends Shape>{
public abstract T drawShape();
}
public class ConcreatA extends Base<Circle> {
#Override
public Circle drawShape() {
return null;
}
}
public class ConcreatB extends Base<Square> {
#Override
public Square drawShape() {
return null;
}
}
So now you can use list of Shapes
Today, our team has the problem.
There is a class AClass that implements the interface AInterface. To date, we need to introduce a new entity(BClass) that would use only part of the interface A.
The first thing about which we think - split interface AInterface into 2 components (composition)
The problem is that the logic AClass->AInterface - is a model prom pattern MVC. And we extremely do not want to cut it into several interfaces.
We know that Java provides a mechanism for inheritance to extend a class or interface.
But is there any way to constrict the implementation? Or maybe exist another way?
Note : we doesn't want use UnsupportedMethodException. Our goal - clean API.
Update :
Next solution - not for us.
GOAL :
Put your restricted subset into one interface, and have the larger interface extend it. Then have A implement the child (larger) interface, and B implement the parent (smaller) one. Then both A and B implement the smaller interface, while only A implements the larger. Use the smaller interface for coding to whenever you can.
public interface AInterface {
void add();
void remove();
}
public interface ASubInterface extends AInterface {
void invalidate();
void move();
}
public class AClass implements ASubInterface { /* 4 methods */ }
public class BClass implements AInterface { /* 2 methods */ }
The very fact that you have a usecase which only requires half of the methods exposed in the original interface tells you that you can further break that interface down. If you think about the design - how do your objects behave in your usecase scenarios, will tell you how it should be designed.
Just by looking at the names of the methods you have given, I'd expect them to be 2 different interfaces where AClass implements both the interfaces while BClass only implements the second interface.
You cannot "disable" polymorphism in certain cases, it's a major feature of the Java language.
If BClass shouldn't have those methods, then it shouldn't implent the interface.
AClass does more than BClass, so it should be another type. Why would you want them to be interchangeable?
On another note, many libraries use UnsupportedMethodException (like even the Java SDK with List collections). It just needs to be documented properly. So if you need ro use that to achieve your goal, go for it.
Your needs seem a little strict but perhaps a abstract class could help.
public interface AInterface {
public void add();
public void remove();
public void invalidate();
public void move();
}
public abstract class BBase implements AInterface {
#Override
public abstract void add();
#Override
public abstract void remove();
#Override
public void invalidate() {};
#Override
public void move() {};
}
public class BClass extends BBase {
#Override
public void add() {
}
#Override
public void remove() {
}
}
Here I create a BBase which stubs out the two methods you want removed but leaves the other two abstract. BClass demonstrates how it would be used.
You can do this if you compile AClass and BClass separately. I.e. compile AClass with the full version of the interface, then modify the interface (remove the methods) and compile BClass with this modified version of the interface.
P.S. By no means this is a painless approach.
What would be the practical side of the ability to define a class within an interface in Java:
interface IFoo
{
class Bar
{
void foobar ()
{
System.out.println("foobaring...");
}
}
}
I can think of another usage than those linked by Eric P: defining a default/no-op implementation of the interface.
./alex
interface IEmployee
{
void workHard ();
void procrastinate ();
class DefaultEmployee implements IEmployee
{
void workHard () { procrastinate(); };
void procrastinate () {};
}
}
Yet another sample — implementation of Null Object Pattern:
interface IFoo
{
void doFoo();
IFoo NULL_FOO = new NullFoo();
final class NullFoo implements IFoo
{
public void doFoo () {};
private NullFoo () {};
}
}
...
IFoo foo = IFoo.NULL_FOO;
...
bar.addFooListener (foo);
...
I think this page explains one example pretty well. You would use it to tightly bind a certain type to an interface.
Shamelessly ripped off from the above link:
interface employee{
class Role{
public String rolename;
public int roleId;
}
Role getRole();
// other methods
}
In the above interface you are binding the Role type strongly to the employee interface(employee.Role).
One use (for better or worse) would be as a workaround for the fact that Java doesn't support static methods in interfaces.
interface Foo {
int[] getData();
class _ {
static int sum(Foo foo) {
int sum = 0;
for(int i: foo.getData()) {
sum += i;
}
return sum;
}
}
}
Then you'd call it with:
int sum = Foo._.sum(myFoo);
I can say without hesitation that I've never done that. I can't think of a reason why you would either. Classes nested within classes? Sure, lots of reasons to do that. In those cases I tend to consider those inner classes to be an implementation detail. Obviously an interface has no implementation details.
One place this idiom is used heavily is in XMLBeans. The purpose of that project is to take an XML Schema and generate a set of Java classes that you can use bidirectionally to work with XML documents corresponding to the schema. So, it lets you parse XML into xml beans or create the xml beans and output to xml.
In general, most of the xml schema types are mapped to a Java interface. That interface has within it a Factory that is used to generate instances of that interface in the default implementation:
public interface Foo extends XmlObject {
public boolean getBar();
public boolean isSetBar();
public void setBar(boolean bar);
public static final SchemaType type = ...
public static final class Factory {
public static Foo newInstance() {
return (Foo)XmlBeans.getContextTypeLoader().newInstance(Foo.type, null);
}
// other factory and parsing methods
}
}
When I first encountered this it seemed wrong to bind all this implementation gunk into the interface definition. However, I actually grew to like it as it let everything get defined in terms of interfaces but have a uniform way to get instances of the interface (as opposed to having another external factory / builder class).
I picked it up for classes where this made sense (particularly those where I had a great deal of control over the interface/impls) and found it to be fairly clean.
I guess you could define a class that is used as the return type or parameter type for methods within the interface. Doesn't seem particularly useful. You might as well just define the class separately. The only possible advantage is that it declares the class as "belonging" to the interface in some sense.
Google Web Toolkit uses such classes to bind 'normal' interface to asynchronous call interface:
public interface LoginService extends RemoteService {
/**
* Utility/Convenience class.
* Use LoginService.App.getInstance() to access static instance of LoginServiceAsync
*/
class App {
public static synchronized LoginServiceAsync getInstance() {
...
}
}
}
With a static class inside an interface you have the possibility to shorten a common programming fragment: Checking if an object is an instance of an interface, and if so calling a method of this interface. Look at this example:
public interface Printable {
void print();
public static class Caller {
public static void print(Object mightBePrintable) {
if (mightBePrintable instanceof Printable) {
((Printable) mightBePrintable).print();
}
}
}
}
Now instead of doing this:
void genericPrintMethod(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof Printable) {
((Printable) obj).print();
}
}
You can write:
void genericPrintMethod(Object obj) {
Printable.Caller.print(obj);
}
Doing this seems to have "Bad design decision" written all over it.
I would urge caution whenever it seems like a good idea to create a non-private nested class. You are almost certainly better off going straight for an outer class. But if you are going to create a public nested class, it doesn't seem any more strange to put it in an interface than a class. The abstractness of the outer class is not necessarily related to the abstractness of a nested class.
This approach can be used to define many classes in the same file. This has worked well for me in the past where I have many simple implementations of an interface. However, if I were to do this again, I would use an enum which implements an interface which would have been a more elegant solution.