Why do Java introduces some interface which has no methods defined in it? For example Cloneable, Serializable, Type and many more.
Second thing : In Class.class package there is one method defined registerNatives() without body and is called from static block but Class.class is not abstract but is final. Why so?
and Why Java need some method without body to be called from static block.?
Why do Java introduces some interface which has no methods defined in it?
This are called Tagged or Marker interface. These are not used for any use or operation. These methods are used to tag or marking a class. So that you can determine whether someclass is a child of those classes.
about the second question
If you look closely you can see the declaration is
private static native void registerNatives();
So registerNatives is a native methods.
So what is native methods. If you see this so question
The method is implemented in "native" code. That is, code that does
not run in the JVM. It's typically written in C or C++.
Native methods are usually used to interface with system calls or
libraries written in other programming languages.
So these methods are loaded from native codes. So you don't need to declare the body of the methods but still they are not abstract as they have their implementation from native codes.
Marker interface is used as a tag to inform a message to the java compiler so that it can add special behavior to the class implementing it. Java marker interface has no members in it.
The purpose of Marker interfaces is to force some kind of functionality in the classes by providing some functionality to a class if it implements the marker interface.
Read Java Marker Interface also see What is the use of marker interfaces in Java?
For the first one you are actually asking for a Marker Interface. Marker Interfaces are by design not supposed to add anything to behavior but support only polymorphic transformation of the object. e.g. Serializable makes an object capable of streaming across JVM boundaries. Marker interfaces follow the 'universal type substitution' philosophy.
For second one, you are actually asking for JNI. Java doesnot implement all its code in Java form. I mean in classes and code that follow Java syntax. Some time or the other you need to drill down to the native platform API to implement something for that API. e.g. sockets and TCP communication. It is this feature of Java that actually makes it platform independent. The JVM runtime is platform dependent as it uses platform based native methods and dll or .so libraries to implement and integrate with the platform. We as programmers call the high level Java SDK API calls.
One of the "clean" features of the Java programming language is that it mandates a separation between interfaces (pure behavior) and classes (state and behavior). Interfaces are used in Java to specify the behavior of derived classes.
Often you will come across interfaces in Java that have no behavior. In other words, they are just empty interface definitions. These are known as marker interfaces. Some examples of marker interfaces in the Java API include:
java.lang.Cloneable
java.io.Serializable
java.util.EventListener
Marker interfaces are also called "tag" interfaces since they tag all the derived classes into a category based on their purpose. For example, all classes that implement the Cloneable interface can be cloned (i.e., the clone() method can be called on them). The Java compiler checks to make sure that if the clone() method is called on a class and the class implements the Cloneable interface. For example, consider the following call to the clone() method on an object o:
SomeObject o = new SomeObject();
SomeObject ref = (SomeObject)(o.clone());
If the class SomeObject does not implement the interface Cloneable (and Cloneable is not implemented by any of the superclasses that SomeObject inherits from), the compiler will mark this line as an error. This is because the clone() method may only be called by objects of type "Cloneable." Hence, even though Cloneable is an empty interface, it serves an important purpose.
registerNatives()
native method are implemented in JVM itself.
What does the registerNatives() method do?
Why Java need some method without body to be called from static block.?
This is called from static block because we need to call this method when classes are loaded and not when it's instance is created.
In a lecture on Java, a computer science professor states that Java interfaces of a class are prototypes for public methods, plus descriptions of their behaviors.
(Source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c4I3gFYe3w #8:47)
And at 8:13 in the video he says go to discussion section with teaching assistants to learn what he means by prototype.
What does "prototype" mean in Java in the above context?
I think the use of the word prototype in this context is unfortunate, some languages like JavaScript use something called prototypical inheritance which is totally different than what is being discussed in the lecture. I think the word 'contract' would be more appropriate. A Java interface is a language feature that allows the author of a class to declare that any concrete implementations of that class will provide implementations of all methods declared in any interfaces they implement.
It is used to allow Java classes to form several is-a relationships without resorting to multiple inheritance (not allowed in Java). You could have a Car class the inherits from a Vehicle class but implements a Product interface, therefor the Car is both a Vehicle and a Product.
What does "prototype" mean in Java in the above context?
The word "prototype" is not standard Java terminology. It is not used in the JLS, and it is not mentioned in the Java Tutorial Glossary. In short there is no Java specific meaning.
Your lecturer is using this word in a broader sense rather than a Java-specific sense. In fact, his usage matches "function prototype" as described in this Wikipedia page.
Unfortunately, the "IT English" language is full of examples where a word or phrase means different (and sometimes contradictory) things in different contexts. There are other meanings for "template" that you will come across in IT. For instance:
In C++ "template" refers to what Java calls a generic class or method.
In Javascript, an object has a "template" attribute that gives the objects methods.
More generally, template-based typing is an alternative (more dynamic) way of doing OO typing.
But the fact that these meanings exist does not mean that your lecturer was wrong to refer to interface method signatures as "templates".
"prototype" is not the the best/right terminus to be used. interfaces are more like "contracts", that implementing classes have to fulfill.
The method's heads/definitions will have to be implemented in the implementing class (using implements keyword in the class head/class definition/public class xy implements ...).
I guess this naming conventions leave much room for many ideological debates.
Or the author had some sort of a mental lapsus and mapped the construct of prototypical inheritance from javascript into java in his mind somehow.
Interfaces are not prototypes for classes in Java.
In languages like C & C++, which compiles to machine code sirectly, compiler should be aware of the nature of any identifier (variable/class/functions) before they are references anywhere in the program. That mean those languages require to know the nature of the identifier to generate a machine code output that is related to it.
In simple words, C++ compiler should be aware of methods and member of a class before that class is used anywhere in the code. To accomplish that, you should define the class before the code line where it is used, or you should at least declare its nature. Declaring only the nature of a function or a class creates a 'prototype'.
In Java, an 'interface' is something like description of a class. This defines what all methods a particular kind of class should mandatory have. You can then create classes that implements those interface. Main purpose that interfaces serve in java is the possibility that a Variable declared as of a particular interface type can hold objects of any class that implements the object.
He tells it in C/C++ way, let me explain, in C++ you can define prototypes for methods at the header files of classes so that other classes can recognize these methods, also in C where there is no class concept, you can define prototypes at the beginning of file and then at somewhere in same file you can implement these prototypes, so that methods can be used even before their implementation is provided. So in Java interfaces provide pretty much same way, you can define prototypes for methods(method headers) that will be implemented by classes that implement this interface.
In a lecture on Java, a computer science professor states that:
Java interfaces of a class are:
1. are prototypes for public methods,
2. plus descriptions of their behaviors.
For 1. Is ok: - yes, they are prototypes for implemented public methods of a class.
For 2. This part could be a little bit tricky. :)
why?
we know: interface definition (contain prototypes), but doesn't define (describe) methods behavior.
computer science professor states: "... plus descriptions of their behaviors.". This is correct only if we look inside class that implements that interface (interface implementation = prototype definitions or descriptions).
Yes, a little bit tricky to understand :)
Bibliography:
Definition vs Description
Context-dependent
Name visibility - C++ Tutorials
ExtraWork:
Note: not tested, just thinking! :)
C++:
// C++ namespace just with prototypes:
// could be used like interface similar with Java?
// hm, could we then define (describe) prototypes?
// could we then inherit namespace? :)
namespace anIntf{
void politeHello(char *msg);
void bigThankYou();
}
Prototypes provide the signatures of the functions you will use
within your code. They are somewhat optional, if you can order
your code such that you only use functions that are previously
defined then you can get away without defining them
Below a prototype for a function that sums two integers is given.
int add(int a, int b);
I found this question because i have the same impression as that teacher.
In early C (and C++ i think) a function, for example "a" (something around lexic analysis or syntactic, whatever) can not be called, for example inside main, before it's declaration, because the compiler doesn't know it (yet).
The way to solve it was, either to declare it before it's usage (before main in the example), or to create a prototype of it (before main in the example) which just specifies the name, return values and parameters; but not the code of the function itself, leaving this last one for wherever now is placed even after it's called.
These prototypes are basically the contents of the include (.h) files
So I think is a way to understand interfaces or the way they say in java "a contract" which states the "header" but not the real body, in this case of a class or methods
This question already has answers here:
Why an interface can not implement another interface?
(7 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
EDIT: The simple answer to my question is that Java allows one interface to extend multiple other interfaces. This is what answers my logical question of how you group interfaces together in a common interface. This answer did not appear in the dupe question. Also the question was different, it was not about creating interface groups.
Is there a reason in Java you cannot define one interface as implementing other interfaces? The answer I've seen and been dissatisfied with is that "interfaces themselves don't contain implementation, so how could an interface implement other other interfaces?" Well, that's a weak answer in my opinion, because its more a nod to English semantics than it is logical interpretation of the scenario. The logical interpretation of the scenario is since we can define classes to implement many interfaces, why can't we define an interface that itself represents a collection of interfaces.
Suppose you have many classes that you want to each implement a large, common set of many interfaces. As it currently stands, you'd have to explicitly write out the list for each class. This means that if later you had to add another interface to your list of many, you'd have to modify each class. Having all the interfaces consolidated in one "super interface" would allow the programmer to make the change in only one place.
And before you answer "make an abstract superclass that implements the list of interfaces, and have all your subclasses extend that superclass", keep in mind you cannot assume these classes do not already extend classes. One of the whole benefits of the implements keyword is so that you can adapt a class without having to change its taxonomy, right?
I guess the long story short is: Why can't programmers define interfaces that are just groups of other interfaces? Or, maybe the better question is: If I can't define an interface as implementing other interfaces, HOW can I define interfaces that are groups of other interfaces?
For those of you that prefer code, what I'm asking is why instead of doing this...
public class Foo extends ParentClass1 implements IBar1, IBar2, IBar3{
}
public class Baz extends ParentClass2 implements IBar1, IBar2, IBar3{
}
...wouldn't it make more sense for Java to allow this:
public interface IAllBar implements IBar1, IBar2, IBar3{
}
public class Foo extends ParentClass1 implements IAllBar{
}
public class Baz extends ParentClass2 implements IAllBar{
}
That way, later, if I create IBar4 I only have to modify IAllBar.java instead of Foo.java AND Baz.java.
Edit: So according to below answers I can define IAllBar to EXTEND all those interfaces and I'll get exactly what I want. I'm glad some people are willing to read an entire post before jumping to the bottom to post mean responses.
You can define an interface that's a collection of other interfaces. Its called extending an interface. You can extend multiple interfaces.
As for why you can't define methods in an interface, it's how Java interfaces were defined. And the problem you speak of are the consequences of single inheritance.
However you will be pleased to know that in the new upcoming Java 8 there's an feature called Virtual Extension Methods which addresses the large code base problems you speak of.
Personally I think it's useful in legacy code bases for quick refactoring, but if the system is well designed you should be able to get rid of the default implementations later. And overusing this feature will only result in all the disadvantages of multiple inheritance.
Interfaces cannot be instantiated—they can only be implemented by classes or extended by other interfaces.
I believe what you should do is extend interfaces.
You could do this as shown below:
public interface ManBearPig implements Man, Bear, Pig {
//interface body
}
You could then implement ManBearPig where you need it.
The thing you need to keep in mind is that interfaces support multiple inheritance.
To understand this consider the idea that interfaces Man, Bear, and Pig might each have the method walk() included within them.
If you were to implement ManBearPig in a class and call the walk() method it would implement the walk method of Man, Bear, and pig simultaneously.
According to my understanding, your problem statement is:
How to design a Type hierarchy where a group of Classes implement same set of Interfaces and a number of behaviors exposed by the interfaces have common implementation.
This kind of design problem can be solved in Java in the following way (explaining by your example code)
public abstract class AbstractAllBar implements IBar1, IBar2, IBar3{
/* Provide implementations of methods whose behavior remains unchanges for all of it's children classes.*/
}
Now this abstract class can be extended by the classes who have common set of behaviors as defined by the abstract class AbstractAllBar.
public class ParentClass1 extends AbstractAllBar {
.......
}
public class ParentClass2 extends AbstractAllBar {
.......
}
public class Foo extends ParentClass1 {
}
public class Baz extends ParentClass2 {
}
This kind of abstract classes provide Skeleton Implementation. Examples of Skeleton Implementation can be found in Collection API. You can refer source code of AbstractList and AbstractSet to make it more clear.
I still have some confusion about this thing. What I have found till now is
(Similar questions have already been asked here but I was having some other points.)
Interface is collection of ONLY abstract methods and final fields.
There is no multiple inheritance in Java.
Interfaces can be used to achieve multiple inheritance in Java.
One Strong point of Inheritance is that We can use the code of base class in derived class without writing it again. May be this is the most important thing for inheritance to be there.
Now..
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Then why to make interfaces ?
NOTE : I have found one case in which interfaces are helpful. One example of it is like in Runnable interface we have public void run() method in which we define functionality of thread and there is built in coding that this method will be run as a separate thread. So we just need to code what to do in thread, Rest is pre-defined. But this thing also can be achieved using abstract classes and all.
Then what are the exact benefits of using interfaces? Is it really Multiple-Inheritance that we achieve using Interfaces?
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
We can't. Interfaces aren't used to achieve multiple inheritance. They replace it with safer, although slightly less powerful construct. Note the keyword implements rather than extends.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
They are not. With interfaces a single class can have several "views", different APIs or capabilities. E.g. A class can be Runnable and Callable at the same time, while both methods are effectively doing the same thing.
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Interfaces are kind-of multiple inheritance with no problems that the latter introduces (like the Diamond problem).
There are few use-cases for interfaces:
Object effectively has two identities: a Tank is both a Vehicle and a Weapon. You can use an instance of Tank where either the former or the latter is expected (polymorphism). This is rarely a case in real-life and is actually a valid example where multiple inheritance would be better (or traits).
Simple responsibilities: an instance of Tank object in a game is also Runnable to let you execute it in a thread and an ActionListener to respond to mouse events.
Callback interfaces: if object implements given callback interface, it is being notified about its life-cycle or other events.
Marker interfaces: not adding any methods, but easily accessible via instanceof to discover object capabilities or wishes. Serializable and Cloneable are examples of this.
What you are looking for are trait (like in Scala), unfortunately unavailable in Java.
Interfaces are collection of final static fields and abstract methods (Newly Java 8 added support of having static methods in an interface).
Interfaces are made in situations when we know that some task must be done, but how it should be done can vary. In other words we can say we implement interfaces so that our class starts behaving in a particular way.
Let me explain with an example, we all know what animals are. Like Lion is an animal, monkey is an animal, elephant is an animal, cow is an animal and so on. Now we know all animals do eat something and sleep. But the way each animal can eat something or sleep may differ. Like Lion eats by hunting other animals where as cow eats grass. But both eat. So we can have some pseudo code like this,
interface Animal {
public void eat();
public void sleep();
}
class Lion implements Animal {
public void eat() {
// Lion's way to eat
}
public void sleep(){
// Lion's way to sleep
}
}
class Monkey implements Animal {
public void eat() {
// Monkey's way to eat
}
public void sleep() {
// Monkey's way to sleep
}
}
As per the pseudo code mentioned above, anything that is capable of eating or sleeping will be called an animal or we can say it is must for all animals to eat and sleep but the way to eat and sleep depends on the animal.
In case of interfaces we inherit only the behaviour, not the actual code as in case of classes' inheritance.
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
Implementing interfaces is other kind of inheritance. It is not similar to the inheritance of classes as in that inheritance child class gets the real code to reuse from the base class.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
It is said because one class can implement more than one interfaces. But we need to understand that this inheritance is different than classes' inheritance.
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Implementing an interface puts compulsion on the class that it must override its all abstract methods.
Read more in my book here and here
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
Unfortunately, in colloquial usage, the word inheritance is still frequently used when a class implements an interface, although interface implementation would be a preferable term - IMO, the term inheritance should strictly be used with inheritance of a concrete or abstract class. In languages like C++ and C#, the same syntax (i.e. Subclass : Superclass and Class : Interface) is used for both class inheritance and interface implementation, which may have contributed to the spread of the misuse of the word inheritance with interfaces. Java has different syntax for extending a class as opposed to implementing an interface, which is a good thing.
Q2 If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
You can achieve the 'effect' of multiple inheritance through composition - by implementing multiple interfaces on a class, and then providing implementations for all methods, properties and events required of all the interfaces on the class. One common technique of doing this with concrete classes is by doing 'has-a' (composition) relationships with classes which implement the external interfaces by 'wiring up' the implementation to each of the internal class implementations. (Languages such as C++ do support multiple concrete inheritance directly, but which creates other potential issues like the diamond problem).
Q3 Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Interfaces allow existing classes (e.g. frameworks) to interact with your new classes without having ever 'seen' them before, because of the ability to communicate through a known interface. Think of an interface as a contract. By implementing this interface on a class, you are contractually bound to meet the obligations required of it, and once this contract is implemented, then your class should be able to be used interchangeably with any other code which consumes the interface.
Real World Example
A 'real world' example would be the legislation and convention (interface) surrounding an electrical wall socket in a particular country. Each electrical appliance plugged into the socket needs to meet the specifications (contract) that the authorities have defined for the socket, e.g. the positioning of the line, neutral and earth wires, the position and colouring of the on / off switch, and the conformance the the electrical voltage, frequency and maximum current that will be supplied through the interface when it is switched on.
The benefit of decoupling the interface (i.e. a standard wall socket) rather than just soldering wires together is that you can plug (and unplug) a fan, a kettle, a double-adapter, or some new appliance to be invented next year into it, even though this appliance didn't exist when the interface was designed. Why? Because it will conform to the requirements of the interface.
Why use interfaces?
Interfaces are great for loose coupling of classes, and are one of the mainstay's of Uncle Bob's SOLID paradigm, especially the Dependency Inversion Principle and Interface Segregation Principles.
Simply put, by ensuring that dependencies between classes are coupled only on interfaces (abstractions), and not on other concrete classes, it allows the dependency to be substituted with any other class implementation which meets the requirements of the interface.
In testing, stubs and mocks of dependencies can be used to unit test each class, and the interaction the class has with the dependency can be 'spyed' upon.
KISS
I have searched for days, nay weeks trying to understand interfaces and seem to read the same generic help; I'm not trying to disparage the contributions, but i think the light-bulb just clicked so I'm chuffed :))
I prefer to Keep It Simple Stupid, so will proffer my new found view of interfaces.
I'm a casual coder but i want to post this code i wrote in VB.NET (the principle is the same for other languages), to help others understand interfaces.
If i have it wrong, then please let others know in follow up comments.
Explanation
Three buttons on a form, clicking each one saves a different class reference to the interface variable (_data). The whole point of different class references into an interface variable, is what i didn't understand as it seemed redundant, then its power becomes evident with the msgbox, i only need to call the SAME method to perform the task i need, in this case 'GetData()', which uses the method in the class that's currently held by the interface reference variable (_data).
So however i wish to get my data (from a database, the web or a text file), it's only ever done using the same method name; the code behind that implementation...i don't care about.
It's then easy to change each class code using the interface without any dependency...this is a key goal in OO and encapsulation.
When to use
Code classes and if you notice the same verb used for methods, like 'GetData()', then it's a good candidate to implement an interface on that class and use that method name as an abstraction / interface.
I sincerely hope this helps a fellow noob with this difficult principle.
Public Class Form1
Private _data As IData = Nothing
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
_data = New DataText()
MsgBox(_data.GetData())
End Sub
Private Sub Button2_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button2.Click
_data = New DataDB()
MsgBox(_data.GetData())
End Sub
Private Sub Button3_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button3.Click
_data = New DataWeb()
MsgBox(_data.GetData())
End Sub
End Class
Public Interface IData
Function GetData() As String
End Interface
Friend Class DataText : Implements IData
Friend Function GetData() As String Implements IData.GetData
Return "DataText"
End Function
End Class
Friend Class DataDB : Implements IData
Friend Function GetData() As String Implements IData.GetData
Return "DataDB"
End Function
End Class
Friend Class DataWeb : Implements IData
Friend Function GetData() As String Implements IData.GetData
Return "DataWeb"
End Function
End Class
Old question. I'm suprised that nobody quoted the canonical sources: Java: an Overview by James Gosling, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software by the Gang of Four or Effective Java by Joshua Bloch (among other sources).
I will start with a quote:
An interface is simply a specification of a set of methods that an object responds to. It does not include any instance variables or implementation. Interfaces can be multiply-inherited (unlike classes) and they can be used in a more flexible way than the usual rigid class
inheritance structure. (Gosling, p.8)
Now, let's take your assumptions and questions one by one (I'll voluntarily ignore the Java 8 features).
Assumptions
Interface is collection of ONLY abstract methods and final fields.
Did you see the keyword abstract in Java interfaces? No. Then you should not consider an interface as a collection of abstract methods. Maybe you are misleaded by the C++ so-called interfaces, which are classes with only pure virtual methods. C++, by design, does not have (and does not need to have) interfaces, because it has mutliple inheritance.
As explained by Gosling, you should rather consider an interface as "a set of methods that an object responds to". I like to see an interface and the associated documentation as a service contract. It describes what you can expect from an object that implements that interface. The documentation should specify the pre and post-conditions (e.g. the parameters should be not null, the output is always positive, ...) and the invariants (a method that does not modify the object internal state). This contract is the heart, I think, of OOP.
There is no multiple inheritance in Java.
Indeed.
JAVA omits many rarely used, poorly understood, confusing features of C++ that in our experience bring more grief than benefit. This primarily consists of operator overloading (although it does have method overloading), multiple inheritance, and extensive automatic coercions. (Gosling, p.2)
Nothing to add.
Interfaces can be used to achieve multiple inheritance in Java.
No, simlpy because there is no multiple inheritance in Java. See above.
One Strong point of Inheritance is that We can use the code of base class in derived class without writing it again. May be this is the most important thing for inheritance to be there.
That's called "implementation inheritance". As you wrote, it's a convenient way to reuse code.
But it has an important counterpart:
parent classes often define at least part of their subclasses' physical representation. Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that "inheritance breaks encapsulation" [Sny86]. The implementation of a subclass becomes so bound up with the implementation of its parent class that any change in the parent's implementation will force the subclass to change. (GOF, 1.6)
(There is a similar quote in Bloch, item 16.)
Actually, inheritance serves also another purpose:
Class inheritance combines interface inheritance and implementation inheritance. Interface inheritance defines a new interface in terms of one
or more existing interfaces. Implementation inheritance defines a new implementation in terms of one or more existing implementations. (GOF, Appendix A)
Both use the keyword extends in Java. You may have hierarchies of classes and hierarchies of interfaces. The first ones share implementation, the second ones share obligation.
Questions
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.**
Implementation of an interface is not inheritance. It's implementation. Thus the keyword implements.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?**
No multiple inheritance in Java. See above.
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it./Then why to make interfaces ?/What are the exact benefits of using interfaces? Is it really Multiple-Inheritance that we achieve using Interfaces?
The most important question is: why would you like to have multiple-inheritance? I can think of two answers: 1. to give mutliple types to an object; 2. to reuse code.
Give mutliple types to an object
In OOP, one object may have different types. For instance in Java, an ArrayList<E> has the following types: Serializable, Cloneable, Iterable<E>, Collection<E>, List<E>, RandomAccess, AbstractList<E>, AbstractCollection<E> and Object (I hope I have not forgotten anyone). If an object has different types, various consumers will be able use it without be aware of its specificities. I need an Iterable<E> and you give me a ArrayList<E>? It's ok. But if I need now a List<E> and you give me a ArrayList<E>, it's ok too. Etc.
How do you type an object in OOP? You took the Runnable interface as an example, and this example is perfect to illustrate the answer to this question. I quote the official Java doc:
In addition, Runnable provides the means for a class to be active while not subclassing Thread.
Here's the point: Inheritance is a convenient way of typing objects. You want to create a thread? Let's subclass the Thread class. You want an object to have different types, let's use mutliple-inheritance. Argh. It doesn't exist in Java. (In C++, if you want an object to have different types, multiple-inheritance is the way to go.)
How to give mutliple types to an object then? In Java, you can type your object directly. That's what you do when your class implements the Runnable interface. Why use Runnable if your a fan of inheritance? Maybe because your class is already a subclass of another class, let's say A. Now your class has two types: A and Runnable.
With multiple interfaces, you can give multiple types to an object. You just have to create a class that implements multiple interfaces. As long as you are compliant with the contracts, it's ok.
Reuse code
This is a difficult subject; I've already quoted the GOF on breaking the encapsulation. Other answer mentionned the diamond problem. You could also think of the Single Responsibility Principle:
A class should have only one reason to change. (Robert C. Martin, Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices)
Having a parent class may give a class a reason to change, besides its own responsibilities:
The superclass’s implementation may change from release to release, and if it does, the subclass may break, even though its code has not been touched. As a consequence, a subclass must evolve in tandem with its superclass (Bloch, item 16).
I would add a more prosaic issue: I always have a weird feeling when I try to find the source code of a method in a class and I can't find it. Then I remember: it must be defined somewhere in the parent class. Or in the grandparent class. Or maybe even higher. A good IDE is a valuable asset in this case, but it remains, in my mind, something magical. Nothing similar with hierarchies of interfaces, since the javadoc is the only thing I need: one keyboard shortcut in the IDE and I get it.
Inheritance howewer has advantages:
It is safe to use inheritance within a package, where the subclass and the superclass implementations are under the control of the same programmers. It is also safe to use inheritance when extending classes specifically designed and documented for extension (Item 17: Design and document for inheritance or else prohibit it). (Bloch, item 16)
An example of a class "specifically designed and documented for extension" in Java is AbstractList.
But Bloch and GOF insist on this: "Favor composition over inheritance":
Delegation is a way of making composition as powerful for reuse as inheritance [Lie86, JZ91]. In delegation, two objects are involved in handling a request: a receiving object delegates operations to its delegate. This is analogous to subclasses deferring requests to parent classes. (GOF p.32)
If you use composition, you won't have to write the same code again and again. You just create a class that handles the duplications, and you pass an instance of this class to the classes that implements the interface. It's a very simple way to reuse code. And this helps you to follow the Single Responsibility Principle and make the code more testable. Rust and Go don't have inheritance (they don't have classes either), but I don't think that the code is more redundant than in other OOP languages.
Furthermore, if you use composition, you will find yourself naturally using interfaces to give your code the structure and the flexibility it needs (see other answers on use cases of interfaces).
Note: you can share code with Java 8 interfaces
And finally, one last quote:
During the memorable Q&A session, someone asked him [James Gosling]: "If you could do Java over again, what would you change?" "I'd leave out classes" (anywhere on the net, don't know if this is true)
This is very old question and java-8 release have added more features & power to interface.
An interface declaration can contain
method signatures
default methods
static methods
constant definitions.
The only methods that have implementations in interface are default and static methods.
Uses of interface:
To define a contract
To link unrelated classes with has a capabilities (e.g. classes implementing Serializable interface may or may not have any relation between them except implementing that interface
To provide interchangeable implementation e.g. Strategy_pattern
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
Organize helper methods in your libraries with static methods ( you can keep static methods specific to an interface in the same interface rather than in a separate class)
Have a look at this related SE question for code example to understanding the concepts better:
How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?
Coming back to your queries:
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
Interface can contain code for static and default methods. These default methods provides backward compatibility & static methods provides helper/utility functions.
You can't have true multiple inheritance in java and interface is not the way to get it. Interface can contain only constants. So you can't inherit state but you can implement behaviour.
You can replace inheritance with capability. Interface provides multiple capabilities to implementing classes.
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Refer to "uses of interface" section in my answer.
Inheritance is when one class derives from another class (which can be abstract) or an Interface. The strongest point of object oriented (inheritance) is not reuse of code (there are many ways to do it), but polymorphism.
Polymorphism is when you have code that uses the interface, which it's instance object can be of any class derived from that interface. For example I can have such a method:
public void Pet(IAnimal animal) and this method will get an object which is an instance of Dog or Cat which inherit from IAnimal. or I can have such a code:
IAnimal animal
and then I can call a method of this interface:
animal.Eat() which Dog or Cat can implement in a different way.
The main advantage of interfaces is that you can inherit from some of them, but if you need to inherit from only one you can use an abstract class as well. Here is an article which explains more about the differences between an abstract class and an interface:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/abstractsvsinterfaces.aspx
Both Methods Work (Interfaces and Multiple Inheritance).
Quick Practical Short Answer
Interfaces are better when you have several years of experience using Multiple Inheritance that have Super Classes with only method definition, and no code at all.
A complementary question may be: "How and Why to to migrate code from Abstract Classes to Interfaces".
If you are not using many abstract classes, in your application, or you don't have many experience with it, you may prefer to skip interfaces.
Dont rush to use interfaces.
Long Boring Answer
Interfaces are very similar, or even equivalent to abstract Classes.
If your code has many Abstract classes, then its time you start thinking in terms of Interfaces.
The following code with abstract classes:
MyStreamsClasses.java
/* File name : MyStreamsClasses.java */
import java.lang.*;
// Any number of import statements
public abstract class InputStream {
public void ReadObject(Object MyObject);
}
public abstract class OutputStream {
public void WriteObject(Object MyObject);
}
public abstract class InputOutputStream
imnplements InputStream, OutputStream {
public void DoSomethingElse();
}
Can be replaced with:
MyStreamsInterfaces.java
/* File name : MyStreamsInterfaces.java */
import java.lang.*;
// Any number of import statements
public interface InputStream {
public void ReadObject(Object MyObject);
}
public interface OutputStream {
public void WriteObject(Object MyObject);
}
public interface InputOutputStream
extends InputStream, OutputStream {
public void DoSomethingElse();
}
Cheers.
So. There are a lot of excellent answers here explaining in detail what an interface is. Yet, this is an example of its use, in the way one of my best colleagues ever explained it to me years ago, with what I have learned at university in the last couple of years mixed in.
An interface is a kind of 'contract'. It exposes some methods, fields and so on, that are available. It does not reveal any of its implementation details, only what it returns, and which parameters it takes. And in here lies the answer to question three, and what I feel is one of the greatest strengths of modern OOP:
"Code by addition, Not by modification" - Magnus Madsen, AAU
That's what he called it at least, and he may have it from some other place. The sample code below is written in C#, but everything shown can be done just about the same way in Java.
What we see is a class called SampleApp, that has a single field, the IOContext. IOContext is an interface.
SampleApp does not care one wit about how it saves its data, it just needs to do so, in its "doSomething()" method.
We can imagine that saving the data may have been more important than HOW it was saved at the beginning of the development process, so the developer chose to simply write the FileContext class. Later on, however, he needed to support JSON for whatever reason. So he wrote the JSONFileContext class, which inherits FileContext. This means that it is effectively an IOContext, which has the functionality of FileContext, save the replacement of FileContexts SaveData and LoadData, it still uses its 'write/read' methods.
Implementing the JSON class has been a small amount of work, comparing to writing the class, and having it just inherit IOContext.
The field of SampleApp could have been just of type 'FileContext', but that way, it would have been restricted to ever only using children of that class. By making the interface, we can even do the SQLiteContext implementation, and write to a database, SampleApp will never know or care, and when we have written the SQL lite class, we need only make one change to our code: new JSONFileContext(); instead becomes new SQLiteContext();
We still have our old implementations and can switch back to those if the need arises. We have broken nothing, and all the changes to our code are half a line, that can be changed back within the blink of an eye.
so: Code by addition, NOT by modification.
namespace Sample
{
class SampleApp
{
private IOContext context;
public SampleApp()
{
this.context = new JSONFileContext(); //or any of the other implementations
}
public void doSomething()
{
//This app can now use the context, completely agnostic of the actual implementation details.
object data = context.LoadData();
//manipulate data
context.SaveData(data);
}
}
interface IOContext
{
void SaveData(object data);
object LoadData();
}
class FileContext : IOContext
{
public object LoadData()
{
object data = null;
var fileContents = loadFileContents();
//Logic to turn fileContents into a data object
return data;
}
public void SaveData(object data)
{
//logic to create filecontents from 'data'
writeFileContents(string.Empty);
}
protected void writeFileContents(string fileContents)
{
//writes the fileContents to disk
}
protected string loadFileContents()
{
string fileContents = string.Empty;
//loads the fileContents and returns it as a string
return fileContents;
}
}
class JSONFileContext : FileContext
{
public new void SaveData(object data)
{
//logic to create filecontents from 'data'
base.writeFileContents(string.Empty);
}
public new object LoadData()
{
object data = null;
var fileContents = loadFileContents();
//Logic to turn fileContents into a data object
return data;
}
}
class SQLiteContext : IOContext
{
public object LoadData()
{
object data = null;
//logic to read data into the data object
return data;
}
public void SaveData(object data)
{
//logic to save the data object in the database
}
}
}
Interfaces
An interface is a contract defining how to interact with an object. They are useful to express how your internals intend to interact with an object. Following Dependency Inversion your public API would have all parameters expressed with interfaces. You don't care how it does what you need it to do, just that it does exactly what you need it to do.
Example: You may simply need a Vehicle to transport goods, you don't care about the particular mode of transport.
Inheritance
Inheritance is an extension of a particular implementation. That implementation may or may not satisfy a particular interface. You should expect an ancestor of a particular implementation only when you care about the how.
Example: You may need a Plane implementation of a vehicle for fast transport.
Composition
Composition can be used as an alternative to inheritance. Instead of your class extending a base class, it is created with objects that implement smaller portions of the main class's responsibility. Composition is used in the facade pattern and decorator pattern.
Example: You may create a DuckBoat (DUKW) class that implements LandVehicle and WaterVehicle which both implement Vehicle composed of Truck and Boat implementations.
Answers
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing any interface then it is inheritance ? We are not using its code.
Interfaces are not inheritance. Implementing an interface expresses that you intend for your class to operate in the way that is defined by the interface. Inheritance is when you have a common ancestor, and you receive the same behavior (inherit) as the ancestor so you do not need to define it.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritance ?
Interfaces do not achieve multiple inheritance. They express that a class may be suitable for multiple roles.
Q3. Anyhow what is the benefit of using Interfaces ? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
One of the major benefits of interfaces is to provide separation of concerns:
You can write a class that does something with another class without caring how that class is implemented.
Any future development can be compatible with your implementation without needing to extend a particular base class.
In the spirit of DRY you can write an implementation that satisfies an interface and change it while still respecting the open/closed principal if you leverage composition.
Q1. As interfaces are having only abstract methods (no code) so how can we say that if we are implementing an interface then it is inheritance? We are not using its code.
It is not equal inheritance. It is just similiar. Let me explain:
VolvoV3 extends VolvoV2, and VolvoV2 extends Volvo (Class)
VolvoV3 extends VolvoV2, and VolvoV2 implements Volvo (Interface)
line1: Volvo v = new VolvoV2();
line2: Volvo v = new VolvoV3();
If you see only line1 and line2 you can infer that VolvoV2 and VolvoV3 have the same type. You cannot infer if Volvo a superclass or Volvo is an interface.
Q2. If implementing an interface is not inheritance then How interfaces are used to achieve multiple inheritances?
Now using interfaces:
VolvoXC90 implements XCModel and Volvo (Interface)
VolvoXC95 implements XCModel and Volvo (Interface)
line1: Volvo a = new VolvoXC90();
line2: Volvo a = new VolvoXC95();
line3: XCModel a = new VolvoXC95();
If you see only line1 and line2 you can infer that VolvoXC90 and VolvoXC95 have the same type (Volvo). You cannot infer that Volvo is a superclass or Volvo is an interface.
If you see only line2 and line3 you can infer that Volvo95 implements two types, XCModel and Volvo, in Java you know that at least one has to be an interface. If this code was written in C++, for instance, they could be both classes. Therefore, multiple inheritances.
Q3. Anyhow, what is the benefit of using Interfaces? They are not having any code. We need to write code again and again in all classes we implement it.
Imagine a system where you use a VolvoXC90 class in 200 other classes.
VolvoXC90 v = new VolvoXC90();
If you need to evolve your system to launch VolvoXC95 you have to alter 200 other classes.
Now, imagine a system where you use a Volvo interface in 10,000,000 classes.
// Create VolvoXC90 but now we need to create VolvoXC95
Volvo v = new VolvoFactory().newCurrentVolvoModel();
Now, if you need to evolve your system to create VolvoXC95 models you have to alter only one class, the Factory.
It is a common sense question. If your system is composed only of few classes and have few updates use Interfaces everywhere is counterproductive. For big systems, it can save you a lot of pain and avoid risk adopting Interfaces.
I recommend you read more about S.O.L.I.D principles and read the book Effective Java. It has good lessons from experienced software engineers.
Interfaces are made so that a class will implement the functionality within the interface and behave in accordance with that interface.