Develop Reference

Is it mandatory utility class should be final and private constructor?

By making private constructor, we can avoid instantiating class from anywhere outside. and by making class final, no other class can extend it. Why is it necessary for Util class to have private constructor and final class ?

This is not a mandate from a functional point of view or java complication or runtime. However, it's a coding standard accepted by the wider community. Even most static code review tools, like checkstyle, check that such classes have this convention followed.
Why this convention is followed is already explained in other answers and even OP covered that, but I'd like to explain it a little further.
Mostly utility classes are a collection of methods/functions which are independent of an object instance. Those are kind of like aggregate functions as they depend only on parameters for return values and are not associated with class variables of the utility class. So, these functions/methods are mostly kept static. As a result, utility classes are, ideally, classes with only static methods. Therefore, any programmer calling these methods doesn't need to instantiate the class. However, some robo-coders (maybe with less experience or interest) will tend to create the object as they believe they need to before calling its method. To avoid that, we have 3 options:
Keep educating people to not instantiate it. (No sane person can keep doing it.)
Mark the utility class as abstract: Now robo-coders will not create the object. However, reviewers and the wider java community will argue that marking the class as abstract means you want someone to extend it. So, this is also not a good option.
Private constructor: Not protected because it'll allow a child class to instantiate the object.
Now, if someone wants to add a new method for some functionality to the utility class, they don't need to extend it: they can add a new method as each method is independent and has no chance of breaking other functionalities. So, no need to override it. Also, you are not going to instantiate it, so no need to subclass it. Better to mark it final.
In summary, instantiating a utility class (new MyUtilityClass()) does not make sense. Hence the constructors should be private. And you never want to override or extend it, so mark it final.

It's not necessary, but it is convenient. A utility class is just a namespace holder of related functions and is not meant to be instantiated or subclassed. So preventing instantiation and extension sends a correct message to the user of the class.

There is an important distinction between the Java Language, and the Java Runtime.
When the java class is compiled to bytecode, there is no concept of access restriction, public, package, protected, private are equivalent. It is always possible via reflection or bytecode manipulation to invoke the private constructor, so the jvm cannot rely on that ability.
final on the other hand, is something that persists through to the bytecode, and the guarantees it provides can be used by javac to generate more efficient bytecode, and by the jvm to generate more efficient machine instructions.
Most of the optimisations this enabled are no longer relevant, as the jvm now applies the same optimisations to all classes that are monomorphic at runtime—and these were always the most important.

By default this kind of class normally is used to aggregate functions who do different this, in that case we didn't need to create a new object

Default public access in scala

I read that there is no package-private (default in Java) in scala and use public access by default.
What are the rationale for this choice? Is it a good practice as the default public access make everything visible, hence part of the API?
This means extra typing to encapsulate the fields and methods (whether it be private, scoped private, protected, access).

In Java it’s far easier to choose ‘package-private’ as the default because it is one out of only three possibilities there.
In Scala you can choose between public access (public), package-private access with inheritance (protected[C]), package-private access without inheritance (private[C]), class-private access (private), object-private access (private[this]), inheritance access (protected), protected[this] access (whatever you may call it) and, additionally, you have some kind of file-private access modifier (sealed).
It’s hard to select a default from that other than public.
(Considering inner methods, one could also add method-private to the list…)

Scala has far more flexibility in choosing the visibility of something than Java, though some of Java visibility rules, related to nested classes are not translatable into Scala.
And, yes, there is package-private in Scala. It is written as private[package] in Scala.
The reason why Scala makes public the default is because it is the most common visibility used. The "extra typing" is actually less typing, because it is far more uncommon to make members private or protected.
One exception to that rule in Java is fields, which should be made private so one may be able to change details of implementation without breaking clients. One practical consequence of this are classes with fields and then getters and setters for each field.
In Scala, because one may be able to replace a val or a var with corresponding def, this is not needed.

This is something that gives a lot of people some trouble. I'd suggest giving this entry (actually the entire series) a read.
Immutability also prevents any of the funnies that generally occur with such access. It might be true that "there is more typing", but looking at IDEs, they are responsible for a lot of fud as any generated method by the IDE is usually public, which is not always valid either.

According to Programming Scala, it seems like the default public is mainly due to the uniform access principle, where operator overloading allow one to define the getter as field = newvalue

Java - binary compatibility of abstract class & subclasses

In Java, I define an abstract class with both concrete and abstract methods in it, and it has to be subclassed independently by third-party developers. Just to be sure: are there any changes I could make to the abstract class that are source compatible with their classes but not binary compatible? In other words: after they have compiled their subclasses, could I change the abstract class - apart from e.g. adding an abstract method to it or removing a protected method from it that is called by subclasses, which are of course source incompatible - in a way that could force them to recompile their subclasses?

If it isn't too late to change your system, I would suggest that you do that. Overriding is usually not a good way to customize functionality, as it is incredibly fragile. For example, if you later use a method name that your clients have used (which they are now unintentionally automatically overriding), then it is possible that the override will completely break the invariants of your class. A usually better way of providing customization is to give your clients an interface which is limited to just the customized behavior, and then you have a fully concrete class that depends on an instance of this interface, and delegates appropriately to the interface when it needs to use the customized behaviors. This way, your code and your client's code are completely separated, and they won't interfere with each other.

I am assuming that you are using "binary incompatibility" in the technical sense; e.g. where the classloader detects the incompatibility and refuses to load the classes.
Binary incompatibility could also be introduced if you added a visible method and declared it final, and that method collided with the signature of some existing method in a third-party subclass. However, if the method is non-final, the existing method will turn into an override of your (new) method which might cause problems ... but not binary incompatibility.
Likewise, adding new visible fields will result in hiding, may result in confusing behavior and will break object serialization. But this will not result in binary incompatibility.
In general this points to the fact that you need to consider application semantic issues as well as simple binary compatibility. And the Java type system won't help you there.
For completeness, there are a other things that you could do in your code that would break binary compatibility for the 3rd party classes:
reduce the visibility of your abstract class and/or its methods,
change the signatures of other classes used as parameter result and exception types,
change the chain of superclasses that your abstract class extends, or make an incompatible change in those classes, or
change the tree of interfaces that your abstract class implements, or make an incompatible change in those interfaces.

Sure.
You can accidently use a method name that they've used, which is now suddenly overridden, with perhaps dramatically different results.
You can add fields to the class which mess up serialization etc.

Java Interfaces/Implementation naming convention [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Interface naming in Java [closed]
(11 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
How do you name different classes / interfaces you create?
Sometimes I don't have implementation information to add to the implementation name - like interface FileHandler and class SqlFileHandler.
When this happens I usually name the interface in the "normal" name, like Truck and name the actual class TruckClass.
How do you name interfaces and classes in this regard?

Name your Interface what it is. Truck. Not ITruck because it isn't an ITruck it is a Truck.
An Interface in Java is a Type. Then you have DumpTruck, TransferTruck, WreckerTruck, CementTruck, etc that implements Truck.
When you are using the Interface in place of a sub-class you just cast it to Truck. As in List<Truck>. Putting I in front is just Hungarian style notation tautology that adds nothing but more stuff to type to your code.
All modern Java IDE's mark Interfaces and Implementations and what not without this silly notation. Don't call it TruckClass that is tautology just as bad as the IInterface tautology.
If it is an implementation it is a class. The only real exception to this rule, and there are always exceptions, could be something like AbstractTruck. Since only the sub-classes will ever see this and you should never cast to an Abstract class it does add some information that the class is abstract and to how it should be used. You could still come up with a better name than AbstractTruck and use BaseTruck or DefaultTruck instead since the abstract is in the definition. But since Abstract classes should never be part of any public facing interface I believe it is an acceptable exception to the rule. Making the constructors protected goes a long way to crossing this divide.
And the Impl suffix is just more noise as well. More tautology. Anything that isn't an interface is an implementation, even abstract classes which are partial implementations. Are you going to put that silly Impl suffix on every name of every Class?
The Interface is a contract on what the public methods and properties have to support, it is also Type information as well. Everything that implements Truck is a Type of Truck.
Look to the Java standard library itself. Do you see IList, ArrayListImpl, LinkedListImpl? No, you see List and ArrayList, and LinkedList. Here is a nice article about this exact question. Any of these silly prefix/suffix naming conventions all violate the DRY principle as well.
Also, if you find yourself adding DTO, JDO, BEAN or other silly repetitive suffixes to objects then they probably belong in a package instead of all those suffixes. Properly packaged namespaces are self documenting and reduce all the useless redundant information in these really poorly conceived proprietary naming schemes that most places don't even internally adhere to in a consistent manner.
If all you can come up with to make your Class name unique is suffixing it with Impl, then you need to rethink having an Interface at all. So when you have a situation where you have an Interface and a single Implementation that is not uniquely specialized from the Interface you probably don't need the Interface in most cases.
However, in general for maintainability, testability, mocking, it's best practice to provide interfaces. See this answer for more details.
Also Refer this interesting article by Martin Fowler on this topic of InterfaceImplementationPair

I've seen answers here that suggest that if you only have one implementation then you don't need an interface. This flies in the face of the Depencency Injection/Inversion of Control principle (don't call us, we'll call you!).
So yes, there are situations in which you wish to simplify your code and make it easily testable by relying on injected interface implementations (which may also be proxied - your code doesn't know!). Even if you only have two implementations - one a Mock for testing, and one that gets injected into the actual production code - this doesn't make having an interface superfluous. A well documented interface establishes a contract, which can also be maintained by a strict mock implementation for testing.
in fact, you can establish tests that have mocks implement the most strict interface contract (throwing exceptions for arguments that shouldn't be null, etc) and catch errors in testing, using a more efficient implementation in production code (not checking arguments that should not be null for being null since the mock threw exceptions in your tests and you know that the arguments aren't null due to fixing the code after these tests, for example).
Dependency Injection/IOC can be hard to grasp for a newcomer, but once you understand its potential you'll want to use it all over the place and you'll find yourself making interfaces all the time - even if there will only be one (actual production) implementation.
For this one implementation (you can infer, and you'd be correct, that I believe the mocks for testing should be called Mock(InterfaceName)), I prefer the name Default(InterfaceName). If a more specific implementation comes along, it can be named appropriately. This also avoids the Impl suffix that I particularly dislike (if it's not an abstract class, OF COURSE it is an "impl"!).
I also prefer "Base(InterfaceName)" as opposed to "Abstract(InterfaceName)" because there are some situations in which you want your base class to become instantiable later, but now you're stuck with the name "Abstract(InterfaceName)", and this forces you to rename the class, possibly causing a little minor confusion - but if it was always Base(InterfaceName), removing the abstract modifier doesn't change what the class was.

The name of the interface should describe the abstract concept the interface represents. Any implementation class should have some sort of specific traits that can be used to give it a more specific name.
If there is only one implementation class and you can't think of anything that makes it specific (implied by wanting to name it -Impl), then it looks like there is no justification to have an interface at all.

I tend to follow the pseudo-conventions established by Java Core/Sun, e.g. in the Collections classes:
List - interface for the "conceptual" object
ArrayList - concrete implementation of interface
LinkedList - concrete implementation of interface
AbstractList - abstract "partial" implementation to assist custom implementations
I used to do the same thing modeling my event classes after the AWT Event/Listener/Adapter paradigm.

The standard C# convention, which works well enough in Java too, is to prefix all interfaces with an I - so your file handler interface will be IFileHandler and your truck interface will be ITruck. It's consistent, and makes it easy to tell interfaces from classes.

I like interface names that indicate what contract an interface describes, such as "Comparable" or "Serializable". Nouns like "Truck" don't really describe truck-ness -- what are the Abilities of a truck?
Regarding conventions: I have worked on projects where every interface starts with an "I"; while this is somewhat alien to Java conventions, it makes finding interfaces very easy. Apart from that, the "Impl" suffix is a reasonable default name.

Some people don't like this, and it's more of a .NET convention than Java, but you can name your interfaces with a capital I prefix, for example:
IProductRepository - interface
ProductRepository, SqlProductRepository, etc. - implementations
The people opposed to this naming convention might argue that you shouldn't care whether you're working with an interface or an object in your code, but I find it easier to read and understand on-the-fly.
I wouldn't name the implementation class with a "Class" suffix. That may lead to confusion, because you can actually work with "class" (i.e. Type) objects in your code, but in your case, you're not working with the class object, you're just working with a plain-old object.

I use both conventions:
If the interface is a specific instance of a a well known pattern (e.g. Service, DAO), then it may not need an "I" (e.g UserService, AuditService, UserDao) all work fine without the "I", because the post-fix determines the meta pattern.
But, if you have something one-off or two-off (usually for a callback pattern), then it helps to distinguish it from a class (e.g. IAsynchCallbackHandler, IUpdateListener, IComputeDrone). These are special purpose interfaces designed for internal use, occasionally the IInterface calls out attention to the fact that an operand is actually an interface, so at first glance it is immediately clear.
In other cases you can use the I to avoid colliding with other commonly known concrete classes (ISubject, IPrincipal vs Subject or Principal).

TruckClass sounds like it were a class of Truck, I think that recommended solution is to add Impl suffix. In my opinion the best solution is to contain within implementation name some information, what's going on in that particular implementation (like we have with List interface and implementations: ArrayList or LinkedList), but sometimes you have just one implementation and have to have interface due to remote usage (for example), then (as mentioned at the beginning) Impl is the solution.

Why avoid the final keyword?

In java, is there ever a case for allowing a non-abstract class to be extended?
It always seems to indicate bad code when there are class hierarchies. Do you agree, and why/ why not?

There are certainly times when it makes sense to have non-final concrete classes. However, I agree with Kent - I believe that classes should be final (sealed in C#) by default, and that Java methods should be final by default (as they are in C#).
As Kent says, inheritance requires careful design and documentation - it's very easy to think you can just override a single method, but not know the situations in which that method may be called from the base class as part of the rest of the implementation.
See "How do you design a class for inheritance" for more discussion on this.

I agree with Jon and Kent but, like Scott Myers (in Effective C++), I go much further. I believe that every class should be either abstract, or final. That is, only leaf classes in any hierarchy are really apt for direct instantiation. All other classes (i.e. inner nodes in the inheritance) are “unfinished” and should consequently be abstract.
It simply makes no sense for usual classes to be further extended. If an aspect of the class is worth extending and/or modifying, the cleaner way would be to take that one class and separate it into one abstract base class and one concrete interchangeable implementation.

there a good reasons to keep your code non-final. many frameworks such as hibernate, spring, guice depend sometimes on non-final classes that they extends dynamically at runtime.
for example, hibernate uses proxies for lazy association fetching.
especially when it comes to AOP, you will want your classes non-final, so that the interceptors can attach to it.
see also the question at SO

This question is equally applicable to other platforms such as C# .NET. There are those (myself included) that believe types should be final/sealed by default and need to be explicitly unsealed to allow inheritance.
Extension via inheritance is something that needs careful design and is not as simple as just leaving a type unsealed. Therefore, I think it should be an explicit decision to allow inheritance.

Your best reference here is Item 15 of Joshua Bloch's excellent book "Effective Java", called "Design and document for inheritance or else prohibit it". However the key to whether extension of a class should be allowed is not "is it abstract" but "was it designed with inheritance in mind". There is sometimes a correlation between the two, but it's the second that is important. To take a simple example most of the AWT classes are designed to be extended, even those that are not abstract.
The summary of Bloch's chapter is that interaction of inherited classes with their parents can be surprising and unpredicatable if the ancestor wasn't designed to be inherited from. Classes should therefore come in two kinds a) classes designed to be extended, and with enough documentation to describe how it should be done b) classes marked final. Classes in (a) will often be abstract, but not always. For

I disagree. If hierarchies were bad, there'd be no reason for object oriented languages to exist. If you look at UI widget libraries from Microsoft and Sun, you're certain to find inheritance. Is that all "bad code" by definition? No, of course not.
Inheritance can be abused, but so can any language feature. The trick is to learn how to do things appropriately.

In some cases you want to make sure there's no subclassing, in other cases you want to ensure subclassing (abstract). But there's always a large subset of classes where you as the original author don't care and shouldn't care. It's part of being open/closed. Deciding that something should be closed is also to be done for a reason.

I couldn't disagree more. Class hierarchies make sense for concrete classes when the concrete classes know the possible return types of methods that they have not marked final. For instance, a concrete class may have a subclass hook:
protected SomeType doSomething() {
return null;
}
This doSomething is guarenteed to be either null or a SomeType instance. Say that you have the ability to process the SomeType instance but don't have a use case for using the SomeType instance in the current class, but know that this functionality would be really good to have in subclasses and most everything is concrete. It makes no sense to make the current class an abstract class if it can be used directly with the default of doing nothing with its null value. If you made it an abstract class, then you would have its children in this type of hierarchy:
Abstract base class
Default class (the class that could have been non-abstract, only implements the protected method and nothing else)
Other subclasses.
You thus have an abstract base class that can't be used directly, when the default class may be the most common case. In the other hierarchy, there is one less class, so that the functionality can be used without making an essentially useless default class because abstraction just had to be forced onto the class.
Default class
Other subclasses.
Now, sure, hierarchies can be used and abused, and if things are not documented clearly or classes not well designed, subclasses can run into problems. But these same problems exist with abstract classes as well, you don't get rid of the problem just because you add "abstract" to your class. For instance, if the contract of the "doSomething()" method above required SomeType to have populated x, y and z fields when they were accessed via getters and setters, your subclass would blow up regardless if you used the concrete class that returned null as your base class or an abstract class.
The general rule of thumb for designing a class hierarchy is pretty much a simple questionaire:
Do I need the behavior of my proposed superclass in my subclass? (Y/N)
This is the first question you need to ask yourself. If you don't need the behavior, there's no argument for subclassing.
Do I need the state of my proposed superclass in my subclass? (Y/N)
This is the second question. If the state fits the model of what you need, this may be a canidate for subclassing.
If the subclass was created from the proposed superclass, would it truly be an IS-A relation, or is it just a shortcut to inherit behavior and state?
This is the final question. If it is just a shortcut and you cannot qualify your proposed subclass "as-a" superclass, then inheritance should be avoided. The state and logic can be copied and pasted into the new class with a different root, or delegation can be used.
Only if a class needs the behavior, state and can be considered that the subclass IS-A(n) instance of the superclass should it be considered to inherit from a superclass. Otherwise, other options exist that would be better suited to the purpose, although it may require a little more work up front, it is cleaner in the long run.

There are a few cases where we dont want to allow to change the behavior. For instance, String class, Math.

I don't like inheritance because there's always a better way to do the same thing but when you're making maintenance changes in a huge system sometimes the best way to fix the code with minimum changes is to extend a class a little. Yes, it's usually leads to a bad code but to a working one and without months of rewriting first. So giving a maintenance man as much flexibility as he can handle is a good way to go.