Develop Reference

Java 8: Interface with static methods instead of static util class

What is best practice in Java 8 when I need a bunch of stateless utility methods. Is it right to have an interface that will not be implemented by anyone i.e. public interface Signatures and public interface Environments, or is it better to do it the old way - have public final class Signatures and public final class Environments with private constructors || enums?

The main purpose of interfaces is to provide a type and a vocabulary of operations (methods) on that type. They're useful and flexible because they allow multiple implementations, and indeed they are designed to allow implementations that are otherwise unrelated in the class hierarchy.
The question asks,
Is it right to have an interface that will not be implemented by anyone...?
This seems to me to cut against the grain of interfaces. One would have to look around the API to determine that there are no classes that implement this interface, and that there are no producers or consumers of this interface. Somebody might be confused and try to create an implementation of the interface, but of course they wouldn't get very far. While it's possible to have a "utility interface" with all static methods, this isn't as clear as the old unconstructible final class idiom. The advantage of the latter is that the class can enforce that no instances can ever be created.
If you look at the new Java 8 APIs, you'll see that the final class idiom is still used despite the ability to add static methods on interfaces.
Static methods on interfaces have been used for things like factory methods to create instances of those interfaces, or for utility methods that have general applicability across all instances of those interfaces. For example, see the Stream and Collector interfaces in java.util.stream. Each has static factories: Stream.of(), Stream.empty(), and Collector.of().
But also note that each has companion utility classes StreamSupport and Collectors. These are pure utility classes, containing only static methods. Arguably they could be merged into the corresponding interfaces, but that would clutter the interfaces, and would blur the relationship of the methods contained in the classes. For example, StreamSupport contains a family of related static methods that are all adapters between Spliterator and Stream. Merging these into Stream would probably make things confusing.

I would use the final class. Communicates to me better that it is a helper class with some utility methods. An interface definition is something I would expect to be implemented and the methods to be there to assist someone implement the interface.

In a good object oriented design, there are not many (if any) stateless utility methods.
The best technique I've come to deal with is to use state (Objects) to deal with the function.
So instead of doing
Temperature.farenheitFromCelcius(...);
I do
public class FarenheitFromCelcius implements Function<Celcius, Farenheit> {
public Farenheit apply(Celcius celcius) {
return new Farenheit(5 * celcius.getValue() / 9 + 32);
}
}
This has a few advantages. One being that it can be unloaded from memory much more easily. Another being that you can save on the number of type identifying interfaces, you can pass utility methods between methods, and a final being that you can leverage the Java type hierarchy.
The costs are minimal. Basically you have to alter how the method is applied.
public <T> R convertTemp(T temp, Function<T, R> conversion) {
return conversion.apply(temp);
}
Naturally you'd never write a full method to encapsulate an object oriented function, but I had to show an example...

Static methods in interfaces were added with two primary purposes:
In case of poor implementation in subclasses static interface methods can be used to provide checks (e.g. if a value is null).
Avoid using general utility classes (like Collections) and calling static methods through their proper interface.
So, it is a very good practice if you intend to share functionality to the corresponding classes.
update:
If you wish to build a pure collection of functions then you may want to use the abstract class with static methods and a private constructor.

in your case I would go for the final class instead of getting the fatigue that someone might implement or inherent this. For use-cases where you want a static util interface. I guess we need a final interface for that...
public final class Util {
private Util {
throw new AssertionError("Please don't invoke me");
}
public static someUtilMethod() {}
private static someHelperUtilMethod() {}
}

Abstract class vs Interface in Java

I was asked a question, I wanted to get my answer reviewed here.
Q: In which scenario it is more appropriate to extend an abstract class rather than implementing the interface(s)?
A: If we are using template method design pattern.
Am I correct ?
I am sorry if I was not able to state the question clearly.
I know the basic difference between abstract class and interface.
1) use abstract class when the requirement is such that we need to implement the same functionality in every subclass for a specific operation (implement the method) and different functionality for some other operations (only method signatures)
2) use interface if you need to put the signature to be same (and implementation different) so that you can comply with interface implementation
3) we can extend max of one abstract class, but can implement more than one interface
Reiterating the question: Are there any other scenarios, besides those mentioned above, where specifically we require to use abstract class (one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on this only)?
Interface vs. Abstract class
Choosing between these two really depends on what you want to do, but luckily for us, Erich Gamma can help us a bit.
As always there is a trade-off, an interface gives you freedom with regard to the base class, an abstract class gives you the freedom to add new methods later. – Erich Gamma
You can’t go and change an Interface without having to change a lot of other things in your code, so the only way to avoid this would be to create a whole new Interface, which might not always be a good thing.
Abstract classes should primarily be used for objects that are closely related. Interfaces are better at providing common functionality for unrelated classes.

When To Use Interfaces
An interface allows somebody to start from scratch to implement your interface or implement your interface in some other code whose original or primary purpose was quite different from your interface. To them, your interface is only incidental, something that have to add on to the their code to be able to use your package. The disadvantage is every method in the interface must be public. You might not want to expose everything.
When To Use Abstract classes
An abstract class, in contrast, provides more structure. It usually defines some default implementations and provides some tools useful for a full implementation. The catch is, code using it must use your class as the base. That may be highly inconvenient if the other programmers wanting to use your package have already developed their own class hierarchy independently. In Java, a class can inherit from only one base class.
When to Use Both
You can offer the best of both worlds, an interface and an abstract class. Implementors can ignore your abstract class if they choose. The only drawback of doing that is calling methods via their interface name is slightly slower than calling them via their abstract class name.

reiterating the question: there is any other scenario besides these
mentioned above where specifically we require to use abstract class
(one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on
this only)
Yes, if you use JAXB. It does not like interfaces. You should either use abstract classes or work around this limitation with generics.
From a personal blog post:
Interface:
A class can implement multiple interfaces
An interface cannot provide any code at all
An interface can only define public static final constants
An interface cannot define instance variables
Adding a new method has ripple effects on implementing classes (design maintenance)
JAXB cannot deal with interfaces
An interface cannot extends or implement an abstract class
All interface methods are public
In general, interfaces should be used to define contracts (what is to be achieved, not how to achieve it).
Abstract Class:
A class can extend at most one abstract class
An abstract class can contain code
An abstract class can define both static and instance constants (final)
An abstract class can define instance variables
Modification of existing abstract class code has ripple effects on extending classes (implementation maintenance)
Adding a new method to an abstract class has no ripple effect on extending classes
An abstract class can implement an interface
Abstract classes can implement private and protected methods
Abstract classes should be used for (partial) implementation. They can be a mean to restrain the way API contracts should be implemented.

Interface is used when you have scenario that all classes has same structure but totally have different functionality.
Abstract class is used when you have scenario that all classes has same structure but some same and some different functionality.
Take a look the article : http://shoaibmk.blogspot.com/2011/09/abstract-class-is-class-which-cannot-be.html

There are a lot of great answers here, but I often find using BOTH interfaces and abstract classes is the best route. Consider this contrived example:
You're a software developer at an investment bank, and need to build a system that places orders into a market. Your interface captures the most general idea of what a trading system does,
1) Trading system places orders
2) Trading system receives acknowledgements
and can be captured in an interface, ITradeSystem
public interface ITradeSystem{
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
}
Now engineers working at the sales desk and along other business lines can start to interface with your system to add order placement functionality to their existing apps. And you haven't even started building yet! This is the power of interfaces.
So you go ahead and build the system for stock traders; they've heard that your system has a feature to find cheap stocks and are very eager to try it out! You capture this behavior in a method called findGoodDeals(), but also realize there's a lot of messy stuff that's involved in connecting to the markets. For example, you have to open a SocketChannel,
public class StockTradeSystem implements ITradeSystem{
#Override
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
getMarket().place(order);
#Override
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
System.out.println("Order received" + order);
private void connectToMarket();
SocketChannel sock = Socket.open();
sock.bind(marketAddress);
<LOTS MORE MESSY CODE>
}
public void findGoodDeals();
deals = <apply magic wizardry>
System.out.println("The best stocks to buy are: " + deals);
}
The concrete implementations are going to have lots of these messy methods like connectToMarket(), but findGoodDeals() is all the traders actually care about.
Now here's where abstract classes come into play. Your boss informs you that currency traders also want to use your system. And looking at currency markets, you see the plumbing is nearly identical to stock markets. In fact, connectToMarket() can be reused verbatim to connect to foreign exchange markets. However, findGoodDeals() is a much different concept in the currency arena. So before you pass off the codebase to the foreign exchange wiz kid across the ocean, you first refactor into an abstract class, leaving findGoodDeals() unimplmented
public abstract class ABCTradeSystem implements ITradeSystem{
public abstract void findGoodDeals();
#Override
public void placeOrder(IOrder order);
getMarket().place(order);
#Override
public void ackOrder(IOrder order);
System.out.println("Order received" + order);
private void connectToMarket();
SocketChannel sock = Socket.open();
sock.bind(marketAddress);
<LOTS MORE MESSY CODE>
}
Your stock trading system implements findGoodDeals() as you've already defined,
public class StockTradeSystem extends ABCTradeSystem{
public void findGoodDeals();
deals = <apply magic wizardry>
System.out.println("The best stocks to buy are: " + deals);
}
but now the FX whiz kid can build her system by simply providing an implementation of findGoodDeals() for currencies; she doesn't have to reimplement socket connections or even the interface methods!
public class CurrencyTradeSystem extends ABCTradeSystem{
public void findGoodDeals();
ccys = <Genius stuff to find undervalued currencies>
System.out.println("The best FX spot rates are: " + ccys);
}
Programming to an interface is powerful, but similar applications often re-implement methods in nearly identical ways. Using an abstract class avoids reimplmentations, while preserving the power of the interface.
Note: one may wonder why findGreatDeals() isn't part of the interface. Remember, the interface defines the most general components of a trading system. Another engineer may develop a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT trading system, where they don't care about finding good deals. The interface guarantees that the sales desk can interface to their system as well, so it's preferable not to entangle your interface with application concepts like "great deals".

Which should you use, abstract classes or interfaces?
Consider using abstract classes if any of these statements apply to your use case:
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 use case:
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.
New methods added regularly to interface by providers, to avoid issues extend Abstract class instead of interface.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/abstract.html

Things have been changed a lot in last three years with addition of new capabilities to interface with Java 8 release.
From oracle documentation page on interface:
An interface is a reference type, similar to a class, that can contain only constants, method signatures, default methods, static methods, and nested types. Method bodies exist only for default methods and static methods.
As you quoted in your question, abstract class is best fit for template method pattern where you have to create skeleton. Interface cant be used here.
One more consideration to prefer abstract class over interface:
You don't have implementation in base class and only sub-classes have to define their own implementation. You need abstract class instead of interface since you want to share state with sub-classes.
Abstract class establishes "is a" relation between related classes and interface provides "has a" capability between unrelated classes.
Regarding second part of your question, which is valid for most of the programming languages including java prior to java-8 release
As always there is a trade-off, an interface gives you freedom with regard to the base class, an abstract class gives you the freedom to add new methods later. – Erich Gamma
You can’t go and change an Interface without having to change a lot of other things in your code
If you prefer abstract class to interface earlier with above two considerations, you have to re-think now as default methods have added powerful capabilities to interfaces.
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.
To select one of them between interface and abstract class, oracle documentation page quote that:
Abstract classes are similar to interfaces. You cannot instantiate them, and they may contain a mix of methods declared with or without an implementation. However, with abstract classes, you can declare fields that are not static and final, and define public, protected, and private concrete methods.
With interfaces, all fields are automatically public, static, and final, and all methods that you declare or define (as default methods) are public. In addition, you can extend only one class, whether or not it is abstract, whereas you can implement any number of interfaces.
Refer to these related questions fore more details:
Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?
In summary : The balance is tilting more towards interfaces now.
Are there any other scenarios, besides those mentioned above, where specifically we require to use abstract class (one is see is template method design pattern is conceptually based on this only)?
Some design patterns use abstract classes (over interfaces) apart from Template method pattern.
Creational patterns:
Abstract_factory_pattern
Structural patterns:
Decorator_pattern
Behavioral patterns:
Mediator_pattern

You are not correct. There are many scenarios. It just isn't possible to reduce it to a single 8-word rule.

The shortest answer is, extend abstract class when some of the functionalities uou seek are already implemented in it.
If you implement the interface you have to implement all the method. But for abstract class number of methods you need to implement might be fewer.
In template design pattern there must be a behavior defined. This behavior depends on other methods which are abstract. By making sub class and defining those methods you actually define the main behavior. The underlying behavior can not be in a interface as interface does not define anything, it just declares. So a template design pattern always comes with an abstract class. If you want to keep the flow of the behavior intact you must extend the abstract class but don't override the main behavior.

In my opinion, the basic difference is that an interface can't contain non-abstract methods while an abstract class can.
So if subclasses share a common behavior, this behavior can be implemented in the superclass and thus inherited in the subclasses
Also, I quoted the following from "software architecture design patterns in java" book
" In the Java programming language, there is no support for multiple inheritance.
That means a class can inherit only from one single class. Hence inheritance
should be used only when it is absolutely necessary. Whenever possible, methods
denoting the common behavior should be declared in the form of a Java interface to be implemented by different implementer classes. But interfaces suffer from the limitation that they cannot provide method implementations. This means that every implementer of an interface must explicitly implement all methods declared in an interface, even when some of these methods represent the invariable part of the functionality and have exactly the same implementation in all of the implementer classes. This leads to redundant code. The following example demonstrates how the Abstract Parent Class pattern can be used in such cases without requiring redundant method implementations."

Abstract classes are different from interfaces in two important aspects
they provide default implementation for chosen methods (that is covered by your answer)
abstract classes can have state (instance variables) - so this is one more situation you want to use them in place of interfaces

This is a good question The two of these are not similar but can be use for some of the same reason, like a rewrite. When creating it is best to use Interface. When it comes down to class, it is good for debugging.

This is my understanding, hope this helps
Abstract classes:
Can have member variables that are inherited (can’t be done in interfaces)
Can have constructors (interfaces can’t)
Its methods can have any visibility (ie: private, protected, etc - whereas all interface methods are public)
Can have defined methods (methods with an implementation)
Interfaces:
Can have variables, but they are all public static final variables
constant values that never change with a static scope
non static variables require an instance, and you can’t instantiate an interface
All methods are abstract (no code in abstract methods)
all code has to be actually written in the class that implements the particular interface

Usage of abstract and interface:
One has "Is-A-Relationship" and another one has "Has-A-Relationship"
The default properties has set in abstract and extra properties can be expressed through interface.
Example: --> In the human beings we have some default properties that are eating, sleeping etc. but if anyone has any other curricular activities like swimming, playing etc those could be expressed by Interface.

Abstract classes should be extended when you want to some common behavior to get extended. The Abstract super class will have the common behavior and will define abstract method/specific behavior which sub classes should implement.
Interfaces allows you to change the implementation anytime allowing the interface to be intact.

I think the answers here are missing the main point:
Java interfaces (the question is about Java but there are similar mechanisms in other languages) is a way to partially support multiple inheritance, i.e. method-only inheritance.
It is similar to PHP's traits or Python's duck typing.
Besides that, there is nothing additional that you truly need an interface for --and you cannot instantiate a Java interface.

Java: having files containing only general methods?

I was wondering if there was a way to have methods separated from the main and class files (like how in c you can have .c & .h with just methods that you can import into projects).
Specifically I have a 'logical exclusive or' function that I want to use across several classes and I thought it would be good practice not to have the same function repeated across several classes.

They're called function libraries and yes you can do them. The best example is java.lang.Math.
You make a final class with a private constructor, no variables, and all static methods.
public final class FuncLib {
private FuncLib() { } // prevents instantiation
public static String formatAwesomely(String foo) {
// code
}
public static int calculateScore(BaseballGameData data) {
// code
}
}

In Java, you have to shove everything into a class. The general convention is having a class named Utils (or BooleanUtils or whatever organisation / naming convention you like) and putting generic pure functions into it as static methods.
Java 5 and later have a static import feature to make using this sort of functions less verbose.

With Java being an object-oriented language you might want to think about what your goal is. Traditionally with object-oriented design, if multiple objects really do have a single common ancestor method which is common across them, in all likely hood all of those classes should be sub-classes of that class.
Example:
Think about animals, lets say we have a dog and a cat. All animals make noises. You might have a method for "makeNoise()" which both classes need. A common setup would then to have one class of "Animal" and two sub-classes which extend the "Animal" class named "Dog" and "Cat".
In this case if the "makeNoise()" method as it stands for all animals is adequate for your more specific classes, then that is fine for them to use. Additionally, perhaps a cat and a dog make a noise in the same way (from their mouth) but in the end it is a different noise (bark vs meow) and you can choose to override your "makeNoise()" method with any class specific attributes.

What is the point of "final class" in Java?

I am reading a book about Java and it says that you can declare the whole class as final. I cannot think of anything where I'd use this.
I am just new to programming and I am wondering if programmers actually use this on their programs. If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?

First of all, I recommend this article: Java: When to create a final class
If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
A final class is simply a class that can't be extended.
(It does not mean that all references to objects of the class would act as if they were declared as final.)
When it's useful to declare a class as final is covered in the answers of this question:
Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java?
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
In some sense yes.
By marking a class as final you disable a powerful and flexible feature of the language for that part of the code. Some classes however, should not (and in certain cases can not) be designed to take subclassing into account in a good way. In these cases it makes sense to mark the class as final, even though it limits OOP. (Remember however that a final class can still extend another non-final class.)

In Java, items with the final modifier cannot be changed!
This includes final classes, final variables, and final methods:
A final class cannot be extended by any other class
A final variable cannot be reassigned another value
A final method cannot be overridden

One scenario where final is important, when you want to prevent inheritance of a class, for security reasons. This allows you to make sure that code you are running cannot be overridden by someone.
Another scenario is for optimization: I seem to remember that the Java compiler inlines some function calls from final classes. So, if you call a.x() and a is declared final, we know at compile-time what the code will be and can inline into the calling function. I have no idea whether this is actually done, but with final it is a possibility.

The best example is
public final class String
which is an immutable class and cannot be extended.
Of course, there is more than just making the class final to be immutable.

If you imagine the class hierarchy as a tree (as it is in Java), abstract classes can only be branches and final classes are those that can only be leafs. Classes that fall into neither of those categories can be both branches and leafs.
There's no violation of OO principles here, final is simply providing a nice symmetry.
In practice you want to use final if you want your objects to be immutable or if you're writing an API, to signal to the users of the API that the class is just not intended for extension.

Relevant reading: The Open-Closed Principle by Bob Martin.
Key quote:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules,
Functions, etc.) should be open for
Extension, but closed for
Modification.
The final keyword is the means to enforce this in Java, whether it's used on methods or on classes.

The keyword final itself means something is final and is not supposed to be modified in any way. If a class if marked final then it can not be extended or sub-classed. But the question is why do we mark a class final? IMO there are various reasons:
Standardization: Some classes perform standard functions and they are not meant to be modified e.g. classes performing various functions related to string manipulations or mathematical functions etc.
Security reasons: Sometimes we write classes which perform various authentication and password related functions and we do not want them to be altered by anyone else.
I have heard that marking class final improves efficiency but frankly I could not find this argument to carry much weight.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it
stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
Perhaps yes, but sometimes that is the intended purpose. Sometimes we do that to achieve bigger benefits of security etc. by sacrificing the ability of this class to be extended. But a final class can still extend one class if it needs to.
On a side note we should prefer composition over inheritance and final keyword actually helps in enforcing this principle.

final class can avoid breaking the public API when you add new methods
Suppose that on version 1 of your Base class you do:
public class Base {}
and a client does:
class Derived extends Base {
public int method() { return 1; }
}
Then if in version 2 you want to add a method method to Base:
class Base {
public String method() { return null; }
}
it would break the client code.
If we had used final class Base instead, the client wouldn't have been able to inherit, and the method addition wouldn't break the API.

A final class is a class that can't be extended. Also methods could be declared as final to indicate that cannot be overridden by subclasses.
Preventing the class from being subclassed could be particularly useful if you write APIs or libraries and want to avoid being extended to alter base behaviour.

In java final keyword uses for below occasions.
Final Variables
Final Methods
Final Classes
In java final variables can't reassign, final classes can't extends and final methods can't override.

Be careful when you make a class "final". Because if you want to write an unit test for a final class, you cannot subclass this final class in order to use the dependency-breaking technique "Subclass and Override Method" described in Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". In this book, Feathers said, "Seriously, it is easy to believe that sealed and final are a wrong-headed mistake, that they should never have been added to programming languages. But the real fault lies with us. When we depend directly on libraries that are out of our control, we are just asking for trouble."

If the class is marked final, it means that the class' structure can't be modified by anything external. Where this is the most visible is when you're doing traditional polymorphic inheritance, basically class B extends A just won't work. It's basically a way to protect some parts of your code (to extent).
To clarify, marking class final doesn't mark its fields as final and as such doesn't protect the object properties but the actual class structure instead.

TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.

One advantage of keeping a class as final :-
String class is kept final so that no one can override its methods and change the functionality. e.g no one can change functionality of length() method. It will always return length of a string.
Developer of this class wanted no one to change functionality of this class, so he kept it as final.

The other answers have focused on what final class tells the compiler: do not allow another class to declare it extends this class, and why that is desirable.
But the compiler is not the only reader of the phrase final class. Every programmer who reads the source code also reads that. It can aid rapid program comprehension.
In general, if a programmer sees Thing thing = that.someMethod(...); and the programmer wants to understand the subsequent behaviour of the object accessed through the thing object-reference, the programmer must consider the Thing class hierarchy: potentially many types, scattered over many packages. But if the programmer knows, or reads, final class Thing, they instantly know that they do not need to search for and study so many Java files, because there are no derived classes: they need study only Thing.java and, perhaps, it's base classes.

Yes, sometimes you may want this though, either for security or speed reasons. It's done also in C++. It may not be that applicable for programs, but moreso for frameworks.
http://www.glenmccl.com/perfj_025.htm

think of FINAL as the "End of the line" - that guy cannot produce offspring anymore. So when you see it this way, there are ton of real world scenarios that you will come across that requires you to flag an 'end of line' marker to the class. It is Domain Driven Design - if your domain demands that a given ENTITY (class) cannot create sub-classes, then mark it as FINAL.
I should note that there is nothing stopping you from inheriting a "should be tagged as final" class. But that is generally classified as "abuse of inheritance", and done because most often you would like to inherit some function from the base class in your class.
The best approach is to look at the domain and let it dictate your design decisions.

As above told, if you want no one can change the functionality of the method then you can declare it as final.
Example: Application server file path for download/upload, splitting string based on offset, such methods you can declare it Final so that these method functions will not be altered. And if you want such final methods in a separate class, then define that class as Final class. So Final class will have all final methods, where as Final method can be declared and defined in non-final class.

Let's say you have an Employee class that has a method greet. When the greet method is called it simply prints Hello everyone!. So that is the expected behavior of greet method
public class Employee {
void greet() {
System.out.println("Hello everyone!");
}
}
Now, let GrumpyEmployee subclass Employee and override greet method as shown below.
public class GrumpyEmployee extends Employee {
#Override
void greet() {
System.out.println("Get lost!");
}
}
Now in the below code have a look at the sayHello method. It takes Employee instance as a parameter and calls the greet method hoping that it would say Hello everyone! But what we get is Get lost!. This change in behavior is because of Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public class TestFinal {
static Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestFinal testFinal = new TestFinal();
testFinal.sayHello(grumpyEmployee);
}
private void sayHello(Employee employee) {
employee.greet(); //Here you would expect a warm greeting, but what you get is "Get lost!"
}
}
This situation can be avoided if the Employee class was made final. Just imagine the amount of chaos a cheeky programmer could cause if String Class was not declared as final.

Final class cannot be extended further. If we do not need to make a class inheritable in java,we can use this approach.
If we just need to make particular methods in a class not to be overridden, we just can put final keyword in front of them. There the class is still inheritable.

Final classes cannot be extended. So if you want a class to behave a certain way and don't someone to override the methods (with possibly less efficient and more malicious code), you can declare the whole class as final or specific methods which you don't want to be changed.
Since declaring a class does not prevent a class from being instantiated, it does not mean it will stop the class from having the characteristics of an object. It's just that you will have to stick to the methods just the way they are declared in the class.

Android Looper class is a good practical example of this.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Looper.html
The Looper class provides certain functionality which is NOT intended to be overridden by any other class. Hence, no sub-class here.

I know only one actual use case: generated classes
Among the use cases of generated classes, I know one: dependency inject e.g. https://github.com/google/dagger

Object Orientation is not about inheritance, it is about encapsulation. And inheritance breaks encapsulation.
Declaring a class final makes perfect sense in a lot of cases. Any object representing a “value” like a color or an amount of money could be final. They stand on their own.
If you are writing libraries, make your classes final unless you explicitly indent them to be derived. Otherwise, people may derive your classes and override methods, breaking your assumptions / invariants. This may have security implications as well.
Joshua Bloch in “Effective Java” recommends designing explicitly for inheritance or prohibiting it and he notes that designing for inheritance is not that easy.

What is the difference between a Singleton pattern and a static class in Java? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Difference between static class and singleton pattern?
(41 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
How is a singleton different from a class filled with only static fields?

Almost every time I write a static class, I end up wishing I had implemented it as a non-static class. Consider:
A non-static class can be extended. Polymorphism can save a lot of repetition.
A non-static class can implement an interface, which can come in handy when you want to separate implementation from API.
Because of these two points, non-static classes make it possible to write more reliable unit tests for items that depend on them, among other things.
A singleton pattern is only a half-step away from static classes, however. You sort of get these benefits, but if you are accessing them directly within other classes via `ClassName.Instance', you're creating an obstacle to accessing these benefits. Like ph0enix pointed out, you're much better off using a dependency injection pattern. That way, a DI framework can be told that a particular class is (or is not) a singleton. You get all the benefits of mocking, unit testing, polymorphism, and a lot more flexibility.

Let's me sum up :)
The essential difference is: The existence form of a singleton is an object, static is not. This conduced the following things:
Singleton can be extended. Static not.
Singleton creation may not be threadsafe if it isn't implemented properly. Static not.
Singleton can be passed around as an object. Static not.
Singleton can be garbage collected. Static not.
Singleton is better than static class!
More here but I haven't realized yet :)
Last but not least, whenever you are going to implement a singleton, please consider to redesign your idea for not using this God object (believe me, you will tend to put all the "interesting" stuffs to this class) and use a normal class named "Context" or something like that instead.

A singleton can be initialized lazily, for one.

I think, significant thing is 'object' in object oriented programing. Except from few cases we should restrict to usage of static classes. That cases are:
When the create an object is meaningless. Like methods of java.lang.Math. We can use the class like an object. Because the behavior of Math class methods doesn't depend on the state of the objects to be created in this class.
Codes to be used jointly by more than one object method, the codes that do not reach the object's variables and are likely to be closed out can be static methods
Another important thing is singleton is extensible. Singleton can be extended. In the Math class, using final methods, the creation and extension of the object of this class has been avoided. The same is true for the java.lang.System class. However, the Runtime class is a single object, not a static method. In this case you can override the inheritance methods of the Runtime class for different purposes.
You can delay the creation of a Singleton object until it is needed (lazy loading). However, for static method classes, there is no such thing as a condition. If you reach any static member of the class, the class will be loaded into memory.
As a result, the most basic benefit to the static method class is that you do not have to create an object, but when used improperly, it will remove your code from being object-oriented.

The difference is language independent. Singleton is by definition: "Ensure a class has only one instance and provide a global point of access to it. " a class filled with only static fields is not same as singleton but perhaps in your usage scenario they provide the same functionality. But as JRL said lazy initiation is one difference.

At least you can more easily replace it by a mock or a stub for unit testing. But I am not a big fan of singletons for exactly the reason you are describing : it are global variables in disguise.

A singleton class will have an instance which generally is one and only one per classloader. So it can have regular methods(non static) ones and they can be invoked on that particular instance.
While a Class with only static methods, there is really no need in creating an instance(for this reason most of the people/frameworks make these kind of Util classes abstract). You will just invoke the methods on class directly.

The first thing that comes to mind is that if you want to use a class with only static methods and attributes instead of a singleton you will have to use the static initializer to properly initialise certain attributes. Example:
class NoSingleton {
static {
//initialize foo with something complex that can't be done otherwise
}
static private foo;
}
This will then execute at class load time which is probably not what you want. You have more control over this whole shebang if you implement it as a singleton. However I think using singletons is not a good idea in any case.

A singleton is a class with just one instance, enforced. That class may have state (yes I know static variables hold state), not all of the member variables or methods need be static.
A variation would be a small pool of these objects, which would be impossible if all of the methods were static.

NOTE: The examples are in C#, as that is what I am more familiar with, but the concept should apply to Java just the same.
Ignoring the debate on when it is appropriate to use Singleton objects, one primary difference that I am aware of is that a Singleton object has an instance that you can pass around.
If you use a static class, you hard-wire yourself to a particular implementation, and there's no way to alter its behavior at run-time.
Poor design using static class:
public class MyClass
{
public void SomeMethod(string filename)
{
if (File.Exists(filename))
// do something
}
}
Alternatively, you could have your constructor take in an instance of a particular interface instead. In production, you could use a Singleton implementation of that interface, but in unit tests, you can simply mock the interface and alter its behavior to satisfy your needs (making it thrown some obscure exception, for example).
public class MyClass
{
private IFileSystem m_fileSystem;
public MyClass(IFileSystem fileSystem)
{
m_fileSystem = fileSystem;
}
public void SomeMethod(string filename)
{
if (m_fileSystem.FileExists(filename))
// do something
}
}
This is not to say that static classes are ALWAYS bad, just not a great candidate for things like file systems, database connections, and other lower layer dependencies.

One of the main advantages of singletons is that you can implement interfaces and inherit from other classes. Sometimes you have a group of singletons that all provide similar functionality that you want to implement a common interface but are responsible for a different resource.

Singleton Class :
Singleton Class is class of which only single instance can exists per classloader.
Helper Class (Class with only static fields/methods) :
No instance of this class exists. Only fields and methods can be directly accessed as constants or helper methods.
These few lines from this blog describes it nicely:
Firstly the Singleton pattern is very
useful if you want to create one
instance of a class. For my helper
class we don't really want to
instantiate any copy's of the class.
The reason why you shouldn't use a
Singleton class is because for this
helper class we don't use any
variables. The singleton class would
be useful if it contained a set of
variables that we wanted only one set
of and the methods used those
variables but in our helper class we
don't use any variables apart from the
ones passed in (which we make final).
For this reason I don't believe we
want a singleton Instance because we
do not want any variables and we don't
want anyone instantianting this class.
So if you don't want anyone
instantiating the class, which is
normally if you have some kind of
helper/utils class then I use the what
I call the static class, a class with
a private constructor and only
consists of Static methods without any
any variables.