Related
One of the most useful features of Java 8 are the new default methods on interfaces. There are essentially two reasons (there may be others) why they have been introduced:
Providing actual default implementations. Example: Iterator.remove()
Allowing for JDK API evolution. Example: Iterable.forEach()
From an API designer's perspective, I would have liked to be able to use other modifiers on interface methods, e.g. final. This would be useful when adding convenience methods, preventing "accidental" overrides in implementing classes:
interface Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
default final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
void send(String message);
}
The above is already common practice if Sender were a class:
abstract class Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
abstract void send(String message);
}
Now, default and final are obviously contradicting keywords, but the default keyword itself would not have been strictly required, so I'm assuming that this contradiction is deliberate, to reflect the subtle differences between "class methods with body" (just methods) and "interface methods with body" (default methods), i.e. differences which I have not yet understood.
At some point of time, support for modifiers like static and final on interface methods was not yet fully explored, citing Brian Goetz:
The other part is how far we're going to go to support class-building
tools in interfaces, such as final methods, private methods, protected
methods, static methods, etc. The answer is: we don't know yet
Since that time in late 2011, obviously, support for static methods in interfaces was added. Clearly, this added a lot of value to the JDK libraries themselves, such as with Comparator.comparing().
Question:
What is the reason final (and also static final) never made it to Java 8 interfaces?
This question is, to some degree, related to What is the reason why “synchronized” is not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?
The key thing to understand about default methods is that the primary design goal is interface evolution, not "turn interfaces into (mediocre) traits". While there's some overlap between the two, and we tried to be accommodating to the latter where it didn't get in the way of the former, these questions are best understood when viewed in this light. (Note too that class methods are going to be different from interface methods, no matter what the intent, by virtue of the fact that interface methods can be multiply inherited.)
The basic idea of a default method is: it is an interface method with a default implementation, and a derived class can provide a more specific implementation. And because the design center was interface evolution, it was a critical design goal that default methods be able to be added to interfaces after the fact in a source-compatible and binary-compatible manner.
The too-simple answer to "why not final default methods" is that then the body would then not simply be the default implementation, it would be the only implementation. While that's a little too simple an answer, it gives us a clue that the question is already heading in a questionable direction.
Another reason why final interface methods are questionable is that they create impossible problems for implementors. For example, suppose you have:
interface A {
default void foo() { ... }
}
interface B {
}
class C implements A, B {
}
Here, everything is good; C inherits foo() from A. Now supposing B is changed to have a foo method, with a default:
interface B {
default void foo() { ... }
}
Now, when we go to recompile C, the compiler will tell us that it doesn't know what behavior to inherit for foo(), so C has to override it (and could choose to delegate to A.super.foo() if it wanted to retain the same behavior.) But what if B had made its default final, and A is not under the control of the author of C? Now C is irretrievably broken; it can't compile without overriding foo(), but it can't override foo() if it was final in B.
This is just one example, but the point is that finality for methods is really a tool that makes more sense in the world of single-inheritance classes (generally which couple state to behavior), than to interfaces which merely contribute behavior and can be multiply inherited. It's too hard to reason about "what other interfaces might be mixed into the eventual implementor", and allowing an interface method to be final would likely cause these problems (and they would blow up not on the person who wrote the interface, but on the poor user who tries to implement it.)
Another reason to disallow them is that they wouldn't mean what you think they mean. A default implementation is only considered if the class (or its superclasses) don't provide a declaration (concrete or abstract) of the method. If a default method were final, but a superclass already implemented the method, the default would be ignored, which is probably not what the default author was expecting when declaring it final. (This inheritance behavior is a reflection of the design center for default methods -- interface evolution. It should be possible to add a default method (or a default implementation to an existing interface method) to existing interfaces that already have implementations, without changing the behavior of existing classes that implement the interface, guaranteeing that classes that already worked before default methods were added will work the same way in the presence of default methods.)
In the lambda mailing list there are plenty of discussions about it. One of those that seems to contain a lot of discussion about all that stuff is the following: On Varied interface method visibility (was Final defenders).
In this discussion, Talden, the author of the original question asks something very similar to your question:
The decision to make all interface members public was indeed an
unfortunate decision. That any use of interface in internal design
exposes implementation private details is a big one.
It's a tough one to fix without adding some obscure or compatibility
breaking nuances to the language. A compatibility break of that
magnitude and potential subtlety would seen unconscionable so a
solution has to exist that doesn't break existing code.
Could reintroducing the 'package' keyword as an access-specifier be
viable. It's absence of a specifier in an interface would imply
public-access and the absence of a specifier in a class implies
package-access. Which specifiers make sense in an interface is unclear
- especially if, to minimise the knowledge burden on developers, we have to ensure that access-specifiers mean the same thing in both
class and interface if they're present.
In the absence of default methods I'd have speculated that the
specifier of a member in an interface has to be at least as visible as
the interface itself (so the interface can actually be implemented in
all visible contexts) - with default methods that's not so certain.
Has there been any clear communication as to whether this is even a
possible in-scope discussion? If not, should it be held elsewhere.
Eventually Brian Goetz's answer was:
Yes, this is already being explored.
However, let me set some realistic expectations -- language / VM
features have a long lead time, even trivial-seeming ones like this.
The time for proposing new language feature ideas for Java SE 8 has
pretty much passed.
So, most likely it was never implemented because it was never part of the scope. It was never proposed in time to be considered.
In another heated discussion about final defender methods on the subject, Brian said again:
And you have gotten exactly what you wished for. That's exactly what
this feature adds -- multiple inheritance of behavior. Of course we
understand that people will use them as traits. And we've worked hard
to ensure that the the model of inheritance they offer is simple and
clean enough that people can get good results doing so in a broad
variety of situations. We have, at the same time, chosen not to push
them beyond the boundary of what works simply and cleanly, and that
leads to "aw, you didn't go far enough" reactions in some case. But
really, most of this thread seems to be grumbling that the glass is
merely 98% full. I'll take that 98% and get on with it!
So this reinforces my theory that it simply was not part of the scope or part of their design. What they did was to provide enough functionality to deal with the issues of API evolution.
It will be hard to find and identify "THE" answer, for the resons mentioned in the comments from #EJP : There are roughly 2 (+/- 2) people in the world who can give the definite answer at all. And in doubt, the answer might just be something like "Supporting final default methods did not seem to be worth the effort of restructuring the internal call resolution mechanisms". This is speculation, of course, but it is at least backed by subtle evidences, like this Statement (by one of the two persons) in the OpenJDK mailing list:
"I suppose if "final default" methods were allowed, they might need rewriting from internal invokespecial to user-visible invokeinterface."
and trivial facts like that a method is simply not considered to be a (really) final method when it is a default method, as currently implemented in the Method::is_final_method method in the OpenJDK.
Further really "authorative" information is indeed hard to find, even with excessive websearches and by reading commit logs. I thought that it might be related to potential ambiguities during the resolution of interface method calls with the invokeinterface instruction and and class method calls, corresponding to the invokevirtual instruction: For the invokevirtual instruction, there may be a simple vtable lookup, because the method must either be inherited from a superclass, or implemented by the class directly. In contrast to that, an invokeinterface call must examine the respective call site to find out which interface this call actually refers to (this is explained in more detail in the InterfaceCalls page of the HotSpot Wiki). However, final methods do either not get inserted into the vtable at all, or replace existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp. Line 333), and similarly, default methods are replacing existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp, Line 202). So the actual reason (and thus, the answer) must be hidden deeper inside the (rather complex) method call resolution mechanisms, but maybe these references will nevertheless be considered as being helpful, be it only for others that manage to derive the actual answer from that.
I wouldn't think it is neccessary to specify final on a convienience interface method, I can agree though that it may be helpful, but seemingly the costs have outweight the benefits.
What you are supposed to do, either way, is to write proper javadoc for the default method, showing exactly what the method is and is not allowed to do. In that way the classes implementing the interface "are not allowed" to change the implementation, though there are no guarantees.
Anyone could write a Collection that adheres to the interface and then does things in the methods that are absolutely counter intuitive, there is no way to shield yourself from that, other than writing extensive unit tests.
We add default keyword to our method inside an interface when we know that the class extending the interface may or may not override our implementation. But what if we want to add a method that we don't want any implementing class to override? Well, two options were available to us:
Add a default final method.
Add a static method.
Now, Java says that if we have a class implementing two or more interfaces such that they have a default method with exactly same method name and signature i.e. they are duplicate, then we need to provide an implementation of that method in our class. Now in case of default final methods, we can't provide an implementation and we are stuck. And that's why final keyword isn't used in interfaces.
I am reading the book The Java Programming Language. In the chapter which explains overriding method, it says:
Making an override method (in subclass) less accessible than it was in super class would violate the contract of the superclass ...
The text as a whole is understandable. My only question is what is contract of the superclass? What does the contract mean for a Java class?
A contract in in a Java class is similar to a contract in the real world - In non-technical terms:
It's an agreement that the class will expose certain methods, certain properties, and certain behaviors.
More technical, from here: (bold added by me)
Wouldn't it be nice if all Java classes that you use, including your
own, lived up to their promises? In fact, wouldn't it be nice if you
actually knew exactly what a given class promises? If you agree, read
on [...]
Design by Contract
The Design by Contract (DBC) software development technique ensures
high-quality software by guaranteeing that every component of a system
lives up to its expectations. As a developer using DBC, you specify
component contracts as part of the component's interface. The contract
specifies what that component expects of clients and what clients can
expect of it.
Contract of type (class, interface, enum) is the, well, the contract this type promises to comply to. It states:
what are acceptable parameters to constructor and/or methods of this type;
what you should and/or should not expect this type to be doing. For example, it may state that you shall expect this class to be thread-safe or not thread-safe;
what are invariants supported by this type. For example, type method addData(float) of MathAverage class which calculates average of its input may state that every time that your call to add(float) returns, you shall expect call to MathAverage.getAverage() to return correct average of current input.
generally speaking, your type can specify any constraint all it's subtypes must follow. For example, it may say "no method of this type must take longer than 1 second to execute".
Contract is specified in free-form in javadoc of type. There are some tools/practices to enforce execution of contracts, but they are limited, exactly because contract can be arbitrary, or, even, self-contradictory, in case of programmer's error.
Since subtyping(subclassing) can extend/modify behavior of supertype methods in arbitrary way, it may, as well, violate some parts of supertype's contract. Example of this would be extending HashMap, which accepts null values and keys, with some implementation which prohibits null values in calls to it's methods.
Other important aspect about type contract is that subtype can have stronger contract (covering subset of constraints in type's contract), but can't have weaker contract (covering superset of constraints in type's contract).
For example, if your type's method 'doX(n)' promises to take O(n) (linear) time, 'doX(n)' in subtype can take O(1) (constant) time, but can not take O(n^2) time.
It means that method overriding a method on a parent class or interface must behave in the way that the contract defines.
Otherwise the result is undefined.
A class's "Contract" is it's public interface or at least the interface if presents to classes other than itself.
This means that it includes any elements (methods, fields, constructors, etc.) that other classes can use.
The contract of a class or interface, in Java or any other OO language, generally refers to the publicly exposed methods (or functions) and properties (or fields or attributes) of that class interface along with any comments or documentation that apply to those public methods and properties.
In the case of the relationship between a class and subclass, any protected methods or properties would be considered "publicly exposed," in the sense that they are exposed to the subclass.
There is many principles that you should conform to when programming in java, or in any programming languages. The principles depend on the programming language you are using. You can know more about contract in Design by contract wikipedia page
in simple terms it means you would break the conditions of superclass if u make override code less accesible
It's an expression that comes from the idea of contracts in the "real world."
Basically, if you break your contract with a class, then it's not required to behave the way you might expect. From the other direction, it's a promise by the class that if you follow the rules it sets out, it will behave the way its API says.
One common example of a contract in Java is overriding equals() when hashCode() is overridden. Two objects that are considered equal must, by contract, have the same hash code. It's possible to write code that's syntactically correct that doesn't obey this, but it might not work properly, and that's the fault of the programmer who broke the contract.
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 is that a variable used in an Interface is PUBLIC STATIC FINAL? Why "static" in particular?
A field declared in an interface can only be a constant anyway, so why would it depend on which instance you use to access it?
Putting fields in interfaces is often poor style anyway these days. The interface is meant to reflect the capabilities of classes that implement it - which is completely orthogonal to the idea of a constant. It's certainly a nasty idea to use an interface just to declare a bunch of constants. I do occasionally find it useful to make the interface type expose constants which are simple implementations - so a filtering interface might have "ALLOW_ALL" and "ALLOW_NONE" fields, for example.
I suppose you could conceive of a scenario where implementing an interface did actually add an instance field to your class - but that would break encapsulation not only in terms of it being implicitly public, but also by specifying part of the implementation instead of the API.
Because you can not instantiate an interface. Also there cannot be any method body to use a non-static non-final variable.
Why wouldn't it be static?
It's a constant associated with the interface, rather than with any particular instance of it.
The main reason I guess is implementation detail of the VM/language.
If an interface is not allowed to have non-static variables, there's no need to allocate memory for the interface during the creation of the class. There's also no need for special naming/renaming mechanisms in case you inherit variables with the same name. The only thing you need is some table to call the correct functions when the interface is used.
In short - it makes the live of the language / VM maintainer easier. If you really want to take a look at multiple inheritance and its pitfalls and traps, read Object Oriented Software Construction by Bertrand Meyer (2nd Edition). Then you understand why the interface needs to be so simple (and yet archives most of the things multiple inheritance does).
An interface is a contract that defines the interaction between objects.
This interaction is defined by the exposed methods, not by the variables. Variables would only describe the internal working, not the interaction.
Note that variables should never be used for interaction. According to the OOP principle of encapsulation, it would be a crime to let 1 class access a variable of another class directly.
Constants (e.g.Math.PI) are the only acceptable exception. Since constants are the only kind of variables that can be accessed directly by other classes without violating the principle of encapsulation, all variables in an interface are treated as public static final variables (i.e. constants)
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.