As marker interfaces are mostly useful for just marking a class, the same thing can be achievable through annotations. For example Cloneable interface can be #Cloneable.
So is there still need for marker interfaces or can be relpaced by Annotations? Is there any advantage/disadvantage of using any of them? I mean prefer one over other?
Marker interfaces are better than annotations when they're used to define a type. For example, Serializable can be used (and should be used) as the type of an argument that must be serializable. An annotation doesn't allow doing that:
public void writeToFile(Serializable object);
If the marker interface doesn't define a type, but only meta-data, then an annotation is better.
One more thing to mention would be the cost of using annotations. To check if object is an instance of an interface one can use instanceof which is a relatively low-cost operation nowadays. Using annotations requires Java reflection calls and is far more costly.
Related
Java 8 has included a new feature called Defender methods which allows creation of default method implementation in interface.
Now first of all this is a huge paradigm shift for all condensed programmers in Java. I viewed a JavaOne 13 presentation given by Brian Goetz where he was discussing about the new stream() and parallelStream() implementations in Collections library.
For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have just added a new method without breaking the previous versions. So he told that for catering this a new feature of Default methods was added.
public interface SimpleInterface {
public void doSomeWork();
//A default method in the interface created using "default" keyword
default public void doSomeOtherWork(){
System.out.println("DoSomeOtherWork implementation in the interface");
}
}
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client code? Or are there some other uses to it too?
Besides having the possibility of adding methods to the interface in future versions, there is the important point of allowing an interface to stay a functional interface even if it has more than one method.
A functional interface has only one non-default abstract method which can be implemented via a lambda expression. One example is the Predicate interface which has only one abstract method (test) while providing default methods for negating a Predicate or combining it with another Predicate. Without default methods these methods had to be provided in another utility class like the pre-Java 8 Collections class (as you don’t want to give up the possibility of lambda implementations for such an interface).
As you said, the main motivation was allowing the evolution of existing interfaces.
However there are reasons why you'd want to use them in brand new interfaces as well:
One such reason is methods that can easily be implemented using the other (non-default) methods of the interface. Using default methods for this reduces the need for Foo-interface/AbstractFoo-base-implementation combinations (see AbstractList for example).
While this does not create an entirely new field, it means that you can have end-user-friendly interfaces (with lots of useful methods), still keeping it simple to implement.
There was a problem with interfaces that they were not open to extension, which means if there was a need to add new method to an interface it would have broken the existing implementation of these interfaces. Thus it was imperative that all the classes implementing that interface had to provide implementation for the newly added method, even if the method was not needed. Thus interfaces were not easy to evolve.
One example that comes to mind is Java MapReduce API for Hadoop, which was changed in 0.20.0 release to favour abstract classes over interfaces, since they are easier to evolve. Which means, a new method can be added to abstract class (with default implementation), with out breaking old implementations of the class.
With the release of Java 8, it is now possible to add default method in interfaces also, thus making them easier to evolve too. With the addition of default method to an interface, addition of new method, to even an interface will not break the pre-existing code.
For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have
just added a new method without breaking the previous versions.
Yes they could have done this but Let's think from API designer perspective for e.g. Collection Library is used by some libraries like apache-commons, guava etc and which instead are used by many java projects. Now imagine just by adding one new method in Collection interface will break entire chain of projects.
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful
when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client
code? Or are there some other uses to it too?
Motivation/Need for Default Methods
API Evolution in compatible way
The initial purpose of introducing default methods was to make collections library backward compatible. This library was modelled as a deep hierarchy of interfaces, including prominent members such as Collection, List, Map, and Set. They needed to be enriched to make lambdas truly useful for everyday programming.
To make Collections library lambda rich, java architects could have
refactored them to support lambda but it was a far from a good
solution as it will break all the all existing Java deployments and
countless 3rd party libraries extending the Collections hierarchy
Instead java architects thought to introduce default methods capabilities for backward compatibility.
Use cases of Default Methods
One important use case is to aid functional thinking in java. A functional interface with default methods is a pure behaviour-only construct. It cannot hold state. This aligns your thinking with functional programming and allows you to take advantage of what the programming model has to offer
Optional Methods : There are classes in java that implement an interface but leave empty method implementations for e.g. Iterator interface. It defines hasNext and next but also the remove method. Prior to Java8 remove was ignored because the user didn't want to use that capablity. Therefore many classes implementing Iterator interface would have empty implementation of for remove which is unnecessary boiler plate code. With default methods we can provide a default implementation for such methods, so concrete classes don't need to explicitly provide an empty implementation.
Default methods helps in resolving Multiple inheritance of behaviour in java. Before Java8, there was support for Multiple inheritance of Type only and now with the help of default methods we can have multiple inheritance of behaviour.
For e.g.
Java 8 has three rules for resolving conflicts brought upon by
multiple inheritance when ambiguous:
First, an explicit method declaration in the class or a superclass takes priority over any default method declaration.
Otherwise, the method with the same signature in the most specific default providing interface is selected.
Finally, if there is still conflict, you have to explicitly override the default methods and choose which one your class should choose.
In Conclusion Default methods offer a brand new way to design objects.
References :
Java8 In Action
Functional Java: A Guide to Lambdas and Functional Programming in Java 8
default methods made possible the functional programming concept. For functional programming type code we need only one abstract method .
Also adding an method in interface will not made it compulsory for all the classes implementing an interface. Simplified the coding practise
I am new to ajax and json. Recently when I tried to use ajax and json implementation in Spring mvc. I came across tutorials using annotation like
#JsonView(Views.Public.class)
And below is the view definition
public class Views {
public static class Public {}
public static class Internal extends Public {}
}
Q1. What is the importance using Views.Public.class in #JsonView as Public class has no definition?
Q2. Why #jsonview is designed in this way?
Q3. The view class does not have normal definition and also inner classes (Public and Internal) as well. What do you called such type of classes and when do you use usually? I have heard of marker interface in serialization but I have not heard like marker class.
I am asking these question because I have never learnt such coding methology in java. Is it a kind of design pattern?
#Angom The reason is a combination of things. To start, Java annotation values can have only a very limited set of types; simple primitives (int, boolean, long), Strings, Enum values, Annotation types or Classes.
So the choice of value type for logical Views is bit limited, when used with annotations. Many developers would choose Strings, but Classes actually have one nice benefit: composability. Since you can extend Classes and interfaces, you can have derived "child-views"; and checking for inclusion criteria (by Jackson) is very fast.
Now: if you only need view ids, then an empty interface or Class works just fine: you really just need the id, and possible inheritance hierarchy. There is no need to add methods or values.
It is, however, possible to use regular full classes as well, or add methods in these classes. View functionality makes no use of these; it does not care. So you could use existing classes/interfaces as View ids if you wanted to.
But since there isn't much cost to having empty classes, it is often cleaner to separate actual code and view classes.
For example : http://www.tutorialspoint.com/design_pattern/factory_pattern.htm
If I change interface shape on abstract class Shape, make concrete classes to extend Shape and Make the Shape factory return Shape abstract class typed objects. Is it still going to be a factory pattern ?
I would go with yes.
Lets look at definition of Factory method pattern:
the factory method pattern is a creational pattern which uses factory methods to deal with the problem of creating objects without specifying the exact class of object that will be created
The motivation behind this pattern is to separate object creation from the client using the object. Client should provide specification to factory but details how the object is built are abstracted away by the factory.
If this is an interface or abstract class is an implementation detail specific to situation, as long as your implementation of the factory lets you achieve the motivation behind pattern.
Consider using abstract classes if any of these statements apply to your situation:
You want to share code among several closely related classes.
You expect that classes that extend your abstract class have many common methods or fields, or require access modifiers other than public (such as protected and private).
You want to declare non-static or non-final fields. This enables you to define methods that can access and modify the state of the object to which they belong.
Consider using interfaces if any of these statements apply to your situation:
You expect that unrelated classes would implement your interface. For example, the interfaces Comparable and Cloneable are implemented by many unrelated classes.
You want to specify the behavior of a particular data type, but not concerned about who implements its behavior.
You want to take advantage of multiple inheritance of type.
In some implementations it might even make more sense to use abstract class rather then interface for the Products created by the factory. If there is shared set of features/behavior between all products then it does make sense to put these into base abstract class. This could apply even if products are built from different factories.
It boils down to: do you wish to and does it make sense to introduce coupling
between products or not?
In the end, client will get same result - Product built based upon specification, with details of construction abstracted away.
When it comes to these kind of differences, the answer can always be both yes and no. Design patterns are not any kind of precise specification, they are more like a set of best and recommended practices and their implementation varies from case to case.
In my opinion the answer is no, technically this would not be a factory pattern. And it does not have to be, as long as it solves your use case and makes the code readable and maintainable (trying to literally adhere to design patterns often leads to misusing them and to over-architecturing).
If we look at the Abstract Factory Pattern (right below the Factory Pattern in the linked page), we'll see that it is a factory for creating factories. Now suppose that we have two Shape factories that can be created by the AbstractFactory: ShapeFactory2D and ShapeFactory3D, both producing Shape objects.
If Shape were abstract class, then you would force both 2D and 3D objects to inherit the same implementation, although it might make no sense (they could be implemented in totally different ways).
So, technically, in order for this to really be a factory pattern, there must exist no assumptions about the implementation details, meaning abstract classes containing partial implementation should not be used at the factory interface level.
Of course you can have Abstract2DShape and Abstract3DShape abstract classes implementing Shape; the point is that you are able to create and use Shape without being aware whether it is a 2D or a 3D shape.
Java 8 has included a new feature called Defender methods which allows creation of default method implementation in interface.
Now first of all this is a huge paradigm shift for all condensed programmers in Java. I viewed a JavaOne 13 presentation given by Brian Goetz where he was discussing about the new stream() and parallelStream() implementations in Collections library.
For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have just added a new method without breaking the previous versions. So he told that for catering this a new feature of Default methods was added.
public interface SimpleInterface {
public void doSomeWork();
//A default method in the interface created using "default" keyword
default public void doSomeOtherWork(){
System.out.println("DoSomeOtherWork implementation in the interface");
}
}
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client code? Or are there some other uses to it too?
Besides having the possibility of adding methods to the interface in future versions, there is the important point of allowing an interface to stay a functional interface even if it has more than one method.
A functional interface has only one non-default abstract method which can be implemented via a lambda expression. One example is the Predicate interface which has only one abstract method (test) while providing default methods for negating a Predicate or combining it with another Predicate. Without default methods these methods had to be provided in another utility class like the pre-Java 8 Collections class (as you don’t want to give up the possibility of lambda implementations for such an interface).
As you said, the main motivation was allowing the evolution of existing interfaces.
However there are reasons why you'd want to use them in brand new interfaces as well:
One such reason is methods that can easily be implemented using the other (non-default) methods of the interface. Using default methods for this reduces the need for Foo-interface/AbstractFoo-base-implementation combinations (see AbstractList for example).
While this does not create an entirely new field, it means that you can have end-user-friendly interfaces (with lots of useful methods), still keeping it simple to implement.
There was a problem with interfaces that they were not open to extension, which means if there was a need to add new method to an interface it would have broken the existing implementation of these interfaces. Thus it was imperative that all the classes implementing that interface had to provide implementation for the newly added method, even if the method was not needed. Thus interfaces were not easy to evolve.
One example that comes to mind is Java MapReduce API for Hadoop, which was changed in 0.20.0 release to favour abstract classes over interfaces, since they are easier to evolve. Which means, a new method can be added to abstract class (with default implementation), with out breaking old implementations of the class.
With the release of Java 8, it is now possible to add default method in interfaces also, thus making them easier to evolve too. With the addition of default method to an interface, addition of new method, to even an interface will not break the pre-existing code.
For adding new methods in Collection interface, they could not have
just added a new method without breaking the previous versions.
Yes they could have done this but Let's think from API designer perspective for e.g. Collection Library is used by some libraries like apache-commons, guava etc and which instead are used by many java projects. Now imagine just by adding one new method in Collection interface will break entire chain of projects.
Now my question is basically that are default methods just helpful
when needed to add new methods to interface without breaking client
code? Or are there some other uses to it too?
Motivation/Need for Default Methods
API Evolution in compatible way
The initial purpose of introducing default methods was to make collections library backward compatible. This library was modelled as a deep hierarchy of interfaces, including prominent members such as Collection, List, Map, and Set. They needed to be enriched to make lambdas truly useful for everyday programming.
To make Collections library lambda rich, java architects could have
refactored them to support lambda but it was a far from a good
solution as it will break all the all existing Java deployments and
countless 3rd party libraries extending the Collections hierarchy
Instead java architects thought to introduce default methods capabilities for backward compatibility.
Use cases of Default Methods
One important use case is to aid functional thinking in java. A functional interface with default methods is a pure behaviour-only construct. It cannot hold state. This aligns your thinking with functional programming and allows you to take advantage of what the programming model has to offer
Optional Methods : There are classes in java that implement an interface but leave empty method implementations for e.g. Iterator interface. It defines hasNext and next but also the remove method. Prior to Java8 remove was ignored because the user didn't want to use that capablity. Therefore many classes implementing Iterator interface would have empty implementation of for remove which is unnecessary boiler plate code. With default methods we can provide a default implementation for such methods, so concrete classes don't need to explicitly provide an empty implementation.
Default methods helps in resolving Multiple inheritance of behaviour in java. Before Java8, there was support for Multiple inheritance of Type only and now with the help of default methods we can have multiple inheritance of behaviour.
For e.g.
Java 8 has three rules for resolving conflicts brought upon by
multiple inheritance when ambiguous:
First, an explicit method declaration in the class or a superclass takes priority over any default method declaration.
Otherwise, the method with the same signature in the most specific default providing interface is selected.
Finally, if there is still conflict, you have to explicitly override the default methods and choose which one your class should choose.
In Conclusion Default methods offer a brand new way to design objects.
References :
Java8 In Action
Functional Java: A Guide to Lambdas and Functional Programming in Java 8
default methods made possible the functional programming concept. For functional programming type code we need only one abstract method .
Also adding an method in interface will not made it compulsory for all the classes implementing an interface. Simplified the coding practise
I am aware of what marker interface is and when we need to use it. One question is still not clear to me. If a marker interface does not have any method or body, how does it work at runtime?
A marker interface doesn't "work" as such. As the name suggests, it just marks a class as being of a particular type. Some other code has to check for the existence of the marker and do something based on that information.
These days annotations often perform the same role that marker interfaces did previously.
The only useful thing you can do with it is
if (instance instanceof MyMarkerInterface) {
...
}
Marker interfaces can be replaced with annotations in many places, however a marker interfaces can still be used for
The compile time checks. You can have a method which must take an object of a class with a given marker interface(s) e.g.
public void myMethod(MyMarkerInterface MMI);
You cannot have this compile time check using an annotation alone.
BTW: You can have two interfaces using generics, but good examples are rare.
Support frameworks which depend on interface(s) to identify a component type. like OSGi.
EDIT: I use this for a Listener marker interface. A listener has methods methods marked with annotations but the methods can have any name or type. It adds a compiler time check to what would otherwise be a purely runtime linking.
public Component implements Listener {
#ListenerCallback
public void onEventOne(EventOne... eventOneBatch) { }
#ListenerCallback
public void onEventTwo(EventTwo eventTwo) { }
}
Marker interface in Java is interfaces with no field or methods or in simple word empty interface in java is called marker interface. e.g. serializable, Clonnable and Remote Interface. They are used to indicate signal or command to the compiler Or JVM. It can also be used to classify code. You can also write your own marker interface and use them to logically divide your code. Also, you can write any pre-processing operation on those class.
A marker interface tells JVM that the class being marked by marker interface to add functionality of a marker interface . Like implementing Cloneable tells JVM that this class implements Cloneable and hence JVM will have to copy it bit-wise.