What's the point of using "abstract methods"? An abstract class cannot be instantiated, but what about the abstract methods? Are they just here to say "you have to implement me", and if we forget them, the compiler throws an error?
Does it mean something else? I also read something about "we don't have to rewrite the same code", but in the abstract class, we only "declare" the abstract method, so we will have to rewrite the code in the child class.
Can you help me understand it a bit more? I checked the other topics about "abstract class/methods" but I didn't find an answer.
Say you have three printers that you need to write drivers for, Lexmark, Canon, and HP.
All three printers will have the print() and getSystemResource() methods.
However, print() will be different for each printer, and getSystemResource() remains the same for all three printers. You also have another concern, you would like to apply polymorphism.
Since getSystemResource() is the same for all three printers, you can push this up to the super class to be implemented, and let the subclasses implement print(). In Java, this is done by making print() abstract in the super class. Note: when making a method abstract in a class, the class itself needs to be abstract as well.
public abstract class Printer{
public void getSystemResource(){
// real implementation of getting system resources
}
public abstract void print();
}
public class Canon extends Printer{
public void print(){
// here you will provide the implementation of print pertaining to Canon
}
}
public class HP extends Printer{
public void print(){
// here you will provide the implementation of print pertaining to HP
}
}
public class Lexmark extends Printer{
public void print(){
// here you will provide the implementation of print pertaining to Lexmark
}
}
Notice that HP, Canon and Lexmark classes do not provide the implementation of getSystemResource().
Finally, in your main class, you can do the following:
public static void main(String args[]){
Printer printer = new HP();
printer.getSystemResource();
printer.print();
}
Besides the reminder that you have to implement it, the big advantage is that anyone who references the object by its abstract class type (including this in the abstract class itself) can use the method.
For instance, let's say we have a class responsible for taking state and manipulating it in some way. The abstract class is going to be responsible for getting the input, converting it to a long (for instance) and combining that value with the previous value in some way -- that "some way" is the abstract method. The abstract class may look something like:
public abstract class StateAccumulator {
protected abstract long accumulate(long oldState, long newState);
public handleInput(SomeInputObject input) {
long inputLong = input.getLong();
state = accumulate(state, inputLong);
}
private long state = SOME_INITIAL_STATE;
}
Now you can define an addition accumulator:
public class AdditionAccumulator extends StateAccumulator {
#Override
protected long accumulate(long oldState, long newState) {
return oldState + newState;
}
}
Without that abstract method, the base class would have no way to say "handle this state somehow." We don't want to provide a default implementation in the base class, though, because it wouldn't mean much -- how do you define a default implementation for "someone else will implement this"?
Note that there's more than one way to skin a cat. The strategy pattern would involve declaring an interface that declares the accumulate pattern, and passing an instance of that interface to the no-longer-abstract base class. In lingo terms, that's using composition instead of inheritance (you've composed an addition aggregator out of two objects, an aggregator and an adder).
Abstract classes are classes that contain one or more abstract methods. An abstract method is a method that is declared, but contains no implementation. Abstract classes may not be instantiated, and require subclasses to provide implementations for the abstract methods. Let's look at an example of an abstract class, and an abstract method.
Suppose we were modeling the behavior of animals, by creating a class hierachy that started with a base class called Animal. Animals are capable of doing different things like flying, digging and walking, but there are some common operations as well like eating and sleeping and making noise. Some common operations are performed by all animals, but in a different way as well. When an operation is performed in a different way, it is a good candidate for an abstract method (forcing subclasses to provide a custom implementation). Let's look at a very primitive Animal base class, which defines an abstract method for making a sound (such as a dog barking, a cow mooing, or a pig oinking).
public abstract Animal {
public void sleep{
// sleeping time
}
public void eat(food)
{
//eat something
}
public abstract void makeNoise();
}
public Dog extends Animal {
public void makeNoise() {
System.out.println("Bark! Bark!");
}
}
public Cow extends Animal {
public void makeNoise() {
System.out.println("Moo! Moo!");
}
}
Note that the abstract keyword is used to denote both an abstract method, and an abstract class. Now, any animal that wants to be instantiated (like a dog or cow) must implement the makeNoise method - otherwise it is impossible to create an instance of that class. Let's look at a Dog and Cow subclass that extends the Animal class.
Now you may be wondering why not declare an abstract class as an interface, and have the Dog and Cow implement the interface. Sure you could - but you'd also need to implement the eat and sleep methods. By using abstract classes, you can inherit the implementation of other (non-abstract) methods. You can't do that with interfaces - an interface cannot provide any method implementations.
In simple word an interface should contain all abstract method but no implementation of method or we can’t define non abstract method in interface, in interface all the method should be abstract but in abstract class we can define both abstract and non abstract method, so for defining non abstract method we don’t have to define another class to implement the behavior of same object this is the advantage of abstract class over interface.
The abstract methods merely define a contract that derived classes must implement. It's is the way how you ensure that they actually always will.
So let's take for example an abstract class Shape. It would have an abstract method draw() that should draw it. (Shape is abstract, because we do not know how to draw a general shape) By having abstract method draw in Shape we guarantee that all derived classed, that actually can be drawn, for example Circle do implement draw. Later if we forget to implement draw in some class, that is derived from Shape, compiler will actually help as giving an error.
Simply speaking, declaring a class to be "abstract", you are enforcing a "contract" for the child classes which inherit it, so it provides a good way to maintain the "contract".
If all an abstract does is declare abstract methods, you are correct, it's a bit silly, and an interface would likely be superior.
But often an abstract class implements some (maybe even all) of the methods, leaving only a few as abstract. For example, AbstractTableModel. This saves rewriting a lot of code.
Another "advantage" over an interface is that an abstract class can declare fields for subclasses to use. So, if you are pretty sure that any reasonable implementation would have a String named uniqueID, you could declare it, plus relevant getters/setters, in the abstract class, saving some typing later.
Abstract methods must be overriden by any subclass that will not be abstract.
So, for example you define an abstract class Log and you force the subclasses to override that method:
public abstract class Log{
public void logError(String msg){
this.log(msg,1)
}
public void logSuccess(String msg){
this.log(msg,2)
}
public abstract void log(String msg,int level){}
}
public class ConsoleLog{
public void log(String msg,int level){
if(level=1){
System.err.println(msg)
}else{
System.out.println(msg)
}
}
}
Related
What is an "abstract class" in Java?
An abstract class is a class which cannot be instantiated. An abstract class is used by creating an inheriting subclass that can be instantiated. An abstract class does a few things for the inheriting subclass:
Define methods which can be used by the inheriting subclass.
Define abstract methods which the inheriting subclass must implement.
Provide a common interface which allows the subclass to be interchanged with all other subclasses.
Here's an example:
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("implementedMethod()"); }
final public void finalMethod() { System.out.print("finalMethod()"); }
}
Notice that "abstractMethod()" doesn't have any method body. Because of this, you can't do the following:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
// ERROR!
}
There's no method that implements abstractMethod()! So there's no way for the JVM to know what it's supposed to do when it gets something like new ImplementingClass().abstractMethod().
Here's a correct ImplementingClass.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
}
Notice that you don't have to define implementedMethod() or finalMethod(). They were already defined by AbstractClass.
Here's another correct ImplementingClass.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
}
In this case, you have overridden implementedMethod().
However, because of the final keyword, the following is not possible.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
public void finalMethod() { System.out.print("ERROR!"); }
}
You can't do this because the implementation of finalMethod() in AbstractClass is marked as the final implementation of finalMethod(): no other implementations will be allowed, ever.
Now you can also implement an abstract class twice:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
}
// In a separate file.
public class SecondImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("second abstractMethod()"); }
}
Now somewhere you could write another method.
public tryItOut()
{
ImplementingClass a = new ImplementingClass();
AbstractClass b = new ImplementingClass();
a.abstractMethod(); // prints "abstractMethod()"
a.implementedMethod(); // prints "Overridden!" <-- same
a.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
b.abstractMethod(); // prints "abstractMethod()"
b.implementedMethod(); // prints "Overridden!" <-- same
b.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
SecondImplementingClass c = new SecondImplementingClass();
AbstractClass d = new SecondImplementingClass();
c.abstractMethod(); // prints "second abstractMethod()"
c.implementedMethod(); // prints "implementedMethod()"
c.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
d.abstractMethod(); // prints "second abstractMethod()"
d.implementedMethod(); // prints "implementedMethod()"
d.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
}
Notice that even though we declared b an AbstractClass type, it displays "Overriden!". This is because the object we instantiated was actually an ImplementingClass, whose implementedMethod() is of course overridden. (You may have seen this referred to as polymorphism.)
If we wish to access a member specific to a particular subclass, we must cast down to that subclass first:
// Say ImplementingClass also contains uniqueMethod()
// To access it, we use a cast to tell the runtime which type the object is
AbstractClass b = new ImplementingClass();
((ImplementingClass)b).uniqueMethod();
Lastly, you cannot do the following:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass, SomeOtherAbstractClass
{
... // implementation
}
Only one class can be extended at a time. If you need to extend multiple classes, they have to be interfaces. You can do this:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
... // implementation
}
Here's an example interface:
interface InterfaceA
{
void interfaceMethod();
}
This is basically the same as:
abstract public class InterfaceA
{
abstract public void interfaceMethod();
}
The only difference is that the second way doesn't let the compiler know that it's actually an interface. This can be useful if you want people to only implement your interface and no others. However, as a general beginner rule of thumb, if your abstract class only has abstract methods, you should probably make it an interface.
The following is illegal:
interface InterfaceB
{
void interfaceMethod() { System.out.print("ERROR!"); }
}
You cannot implement methods in an interface. This means that if you implement two different interfaces, the different methods in those interfaces can't collide. Since all the methods in an interface are abstract, you have to implement the method, and since your method is the only implementation in the inheritance tree, the compiler knows that it has to use your method.
A Java class becomes abstract under the following conditions:
1. At least one of the methods is marked as abstract:
public abstract void myMethod()
In that case the compiler forces you to mark the whole class as abstract.
2. The class is marked as abstract:
abstract class MyClass
As already said: If you have an abstract method the compiler forces you to mark the whole class as abstract. But even if you don't have any abstract method you can still mark the class as abstract.
Common use:
A common use of abstract classes is to provide an outline of a class similar like an interface does. But unlike an interface it can already provide functionality, i.e. some parts of the class are implemented and some parts are just outlined with a method declaration. ("abstract")
An abstract class cannot be instantiated, but you can create a concrete class based on an abstract class, which then can be instantiated. To do so you have to inherit from the abstract class and override the abstract methods, i.e. implement them.
A class that is declared using the abstract keyword is known as abstract class.
Abstraction is a process of hiding the data implementation details, and showing only functionality to the user. Abstraction lets you focus on what the object does instead of how it does it.
Main things of abstract class
An abstract class may or may not contain abstract methods.There can be non abstract methods.
An abstract method is a method that is declared without an
implementation (without braces, and followed by a semicolon), like this:
ex : abstract void moveTo(double deltaX, double deltaY);
If a class has at least one abstract method then that class must be abstract
Abstract classes may not be instantiated (You are not allowed to create object of Abstract class)
To use an abstract class, you have to inherit it from another class. Provide implementations to all the abstract methods in it.
If you inherit an abstract class, you have to provide implementations to all the abstract methods in it.
Declare abstract class
Specifying abstract keyword before the class during declaration makes it abstract. Have a look at the code below:
abstract class AbstractDemo{ }
Declare abstract method
Specifying abstract keyword before the method during declaration makes it abstract. Have a look at the code below,
abstract void moveTo();//no body
Why we need to abstract classes
In an object-oriented drawing application, you can draw circles, rectangles, lines, Bezier curves, and many other graphic objects. These objects all have certain states (for ex -: position, orientation, line color, fill color) and behaviors (for ex -: moveTo, rotate, resize, draw) in common. Some of these states and behaviors are the same for all graphic objects (for ex : fill color, position, and moveTo). Others require different implementation(for ex: resize or draw). All graphic objects must be able to draw or resize themselves, they just differ in how they do it.
This is a perfect situation for an abstract superclass. You can take advantage of the similarities, and declare all the graphic objects to inherit from the same abstract parent object (for ex : GraphicObject) as shown in the following figure.
First, you declare an abstract class, GraphicObject, to provide member variables and methods that are wholly shared by all subclasses, such as the current position and the moveTo method. GraphicObject also declared abstract methods, such as draw or resize, that need to be a implemented by all subclasses but must be implemented in different ways. The GraphicObject class can look something like this:
abstract class GraphicObject {
void moveTo(int x, int y) {
// Inside this method we have to change the position of the graphic
// object according to x,y
// This is the same in every GraphicObject. Then we can implement here.
}
abstract void draw(); // But every GraphicObject drawing case is
// unique, not common. Then we have to create that
// case inside each class. Then create these
// methods as abstract
abstract void resize();
}
Usage of abstract method in sub classes
Each non abstract subclasses of GraphicObject, such as Circle and Rectangle, must provide implementations for the draw and resize methods.
class Circle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
void resize() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
}
class Rectangle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
void resize() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
}
Inside the main method you can call all methods like this:
public static void main(String args[]){
GraphicObject c = new Circle();
c.draw();
c.resize();
c.moveTo(4,5);
}
Ways to achieve abstraction in Java
There are two ways to achieve abstraction in java
Abstract class (0 to 100%)
Interface (100%)
Abstract class with constructors, data members, methods, etc
abstract class GraphicObject {
GraphicObject (){
System.out.println("GraphicObject is created");
}
void moveTo(int y, int x) {
System.out.println("Change position according to "+ x+ " and " + y);
}
abstract void draw();
}
class Circle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
System.out.println("Draw the Circle");
}
}
class TestAbstract {
public static void main(String args[]){
GraphicObject grObj = new Circle ();
grObj.draw();
grObj.moveTo(4,6);
}
}
Output:
GraphicObject is created
Draw the Circle
Change position according to 6 and 4
Remember two rules:
If the class has few abstract methods and few concrete methods,
declare it as an abstract class.
If the class has only abstract methods, declare it as an interface.
References:
TutorialsPoint - Java Abstraction
BeginnersBook - Java Abstract Class Method
Java Docs - Abstract Methods and Classes
JavaPoint - Abstract Class in Java
It's a class that cannot be instantiated, and forces implementing classes to, possibly, implement abstract methods that it outlines.
Simply speaking, you can think of an abstract class as like an Interface with a bit more capabilities.
You cannot instantiate an Interface, which also holds for an abstract class.
On your interface you can just define the method headers and ALL of the implementers are forced to implement all of them. On an abstract class you can also define your method headers but here - to the difference of the interface - you can also define the body (usually a default implementation) of the method. Moreover when other classes extend (note, not implement and therefore you can also have just one abstract class per child class) your abstract class, they are not forced to implement all of your methods of your abstract class, unless you specified an abstract method (in such case it works like for interfaces, you cannot define the method body).
public abstract class MyAbstractClass{
public abstract void DoSomething();
}
Otherwise for normal methods of an abstract class, the "inheriters" can either just use the default behavior or override it, as usual.
Example:
public abstract class MyAbstractClass{
public int CalculateCost(int amount){
//do some default calculations
//this can be overriden by subclasses if needed
}
//this MUST be implemented by subclasses
public abstract void DoSomething();
}
From oracle documentation
Abstract Methods and Classes:
An abstract class is a class that is declared abstract—it may or may not include abstract methods
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed
An abstract method is a method that is declared without an implementation (without braces, and followed by a semicolon), like this:
abstract void moveTo(double deltaX, double deltaY);
If a class includes abstract methods, then the class itself must be declared abstract, as in:
public abstract class GraphicObject {
// declare fields
// declare nonabstract methods
abstract void draw();
}
When an abstract class is subclassed, the subclass usually provides implementations for all of the abstract methods in its parent class. However, if it does not, then the subclass must also be declared abstract.
Since abstract classes and interfaces are related, have a look at below SE questions:
What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?
How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?
Get your answers here:
Abstract class vs Interface in Java
Can an abstract class have a final method?
BTW - those are question you asked recently. Think about a new question to build up reputation...
Edit:
Just realized, that the posters of this and the referenced questions have the same or at least similiar name but the user-id is always different. So either, there's a technical problem, that keyur has problems logging in again and finding the answers to his questions or this is a sort of game to entertain the SO community ;)
Little addition to all these posts.
Sometimes you may want to declare a
class and yet not know how to define
all of the methods that belong to that
class. For example, you may want to
declare a class called Writer and
include in it a member method called
write(). However, you don't know how to code write() because it is
different for each type of Writer
devices. Of course, you plan to handle
this by deriving subclass of Writer,
such as Printer, Disk, Network and
Console.
An abstract class can not be directly instantiated, but must be derived from to be usable. A class MUST be abstract if it contains abstract methods: either directly
abstract class Foo {
abstract void someMethod();
}
or indirectly
interface IFoo {
void someMethod();
}
abstract class Foo2 implements IFoo {
}
However, a class can be abstract without containing abstract methods. Its a way to prevent direct instantation, e.g.
abstract class Foo3 {
}
class Bar extends Foo3 {
}
Foo3 myVar = new Foo3(); // illegal! class is abstract
Foo3 myVar = new Bar(); // allowed!
The latter style of abstract classes may be used to create "interface-like" classes. Unlike interfaces an abstract class is allowed to contain non-abstract methods and instance variables. You can use this to provide some base functionality to extending classes.
Another frequent pattern is to implement the main functionality in the abstract class and define part of the algorithm in an abstract method to be implemented by an extending class. Stupid example:
abstract class Processor {
protected abstract int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered);
public int process(int[] values) {
int[] filtered = filterInput(values);
// do something with filtered input
}
}
class EvenValues extends Processor {
protected int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered) {
// remove odd numbers
}
}
class OddValues extends Processor {
protected int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered) {
// remove even numbers
}
}
Solution - base class (abstract)
public abstract class Place {
String Name;
String Postcode;
String County;
String Area;
Place () {
}
public static Place make(String Incoming) {
if (Incoming.length() < 61) return (null);
String Name = (Incoming.substring(4,26)).trim();
String County = (Incoming.substring(27,48)).trim();
String Postcode = (Incoming.substring(48,61)).trim();
String Area = (Incoming.substring(61)).trim();
Place created;
if (Name.equalsIgnoreCase(Area)) {
created = new Area(Area,County,Postcode);
} else {
created = new District(Name,County,Postcode,Area);
}
return (created);
}
public String getName() {
return (Name);
}
public String getPostcode() {
return (Postcode);
}
public String getCounty() {
return (County);
}
public abstract String getArea();
}
What is Abstract class?
Ok! lets take an example you known little bit about chemistry we have an element carbon(symbol C).Carbon has some basic atomic structure which you can't change but using carbon you can make so many compounds like (CO2),Methane(CH4),Butane(C4H10).
So Here carbon is abstract class and you do not want to change its basic structure however you want their childrens(CO2,CH4 etc) to use it.But in their own way
An abstract class is a class that is declared abstract — it may or may not include abstract methods. Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed.
In other words, a class that is declared with abstract keyword, is known as abstract class in java. It can have abstract(method without body) and non-abstract methods (method with body).
Important Note:-
Abstract classes cannot be used to instantiate objects, they can be used to create object references, because Java's approach to run-time Polymorphism is implemented through the use of superclass references. Thus, it must be possible to create a reference to an abstract class so that it can be used to point to a subclass object. You will see this feature in the below example
abstract class Bike{
abstract void run();
}
class Honda4 extends Bike{
void run(){
System.out.println("running safely..");
}
public static void main(String args[]){
Bike obj = new Honda4();
obj.run();
}
}
An abstract class is one that isn't fully implemented but provides something of a blueprint for subclasses. It may be partially implemented in that it contains fully-defined concrete methods, but it can also hold abstract methods. These are methods with a signature but no method body. Any subclass must define a body for each abstract method, otherwise it too must be declared abstract.
Because abstract classes cannot be instantiated, they must be extended by at least one subclass in order to be utilized. Think of the abstract class as the generic class, and the subclasses are there to fill in the missing information.
Class which can have both concrete and non-concrete methods i.e. with and without body.
Methods without implementation must contain 'abstract' keyword.
Abstract class can't be instantiated.
It do nothing, just provide a common template that will be shared for it's subclass
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Say i am implementing a simple interface like Animal. Broadly speaking, there are two ways to go about doing that:
implement the interface's method in the abstract class, and create abstract methods for any implementation specific logic needed.
implement the interface method in the concrete classes, and move the common logic in the abstract class with protected access.
I'd like to understand if-
there are any objective benefits of one way over the other in terms of design.
is it recommended to stick with just one way in a single project (code maintainability/readability).
public interface Animal {
void makeSound();
}
public abstract class BaseAnimal implements Animal {
#Override
public void makeSound() {
//do something which is common for all implementaions
doSomeImplementaionSpecificStuff();
}
public abstract void doSomeImplementaionSpecificStuff();
}
public class Dog extends BaseAnimal implements Animal {
public void doSomeImplementationSpecificStuff(){
//do something specific to a dog
}
}
public abstract class BaseAnimal implements Animal {
public void doCommonStuff() {
//any common logic that can be shared between concrete implementation goes here
}
}
public class Dog extends BaseAnimal implements Animal {
#Override
public void makeSound() {
doCommonStuff();
//do something specific to a dog
}
}
The two ways are not always interchangeable.
Your first example sets a constraint for subclass that requires to implement a specific method that is a part of the makeSound() method.
Using that way couples strongly the implementation of the subclass to which one of the parent class.
Besides, the subclass may still subclass makeSound() as it is not final.
So I would use that way only for very specific scenarios :
to define a factory method that subclass have to define because parent class relies on that (abstract factory)
to define a general algorithm and let subclass to define some specific parts of that algorithm (template method).
In the general case you want to use the code of the second example but by doing BaseAnimal a Animal too :
public abstract class BaseAnimal implements Animal {
public void doCommonStuff() {
//any common logic that can be shared between concrete implementation goes here
}
}
public class Dog extends BaseAnimal implements Animal {
#Override
public void makeSound() {
doCommonStuff();
//do something specific to a dog
}
}
Note that in Java 8, default interfaces rely you from defining the abstract class that only defines common methods :
public interface Animal {
void makeSound();
default void doCommonStuff() {
//any common logic that can be shared between concrete implementation goes here
}
Note also that exposing doCommonStuff() in the API of the abstract class is not necessarily fine. Is client should be able to call it ?
If that is an implementation detail, you could extract it into a support class (AnimalDelegate) and favor composition over inheritance by composing an AnimalDelegate into the Animal subclasses.
If there is a default common way to implement the interface that most subclasses would use, then just implement the overriden method that way in the abstract class. Any subclass that needs it that way can just leave it as is. Any subclass that needs it a completely different way can override and reimplement it entirely. Any subclasses that wants to use the default implementation but then add some stuff to it can override and then call super.makeSound() as part of the implementation.
Don't forget to document exactly what the default implementation is.
The main difference is that you can put logic in the parent class, and create a sort of default method if you don't want to implement all the method of a parent/abstract class.
The interface force you to implement all the methods no matter what.
public abstract class BaseAnimal {
public void doCommonStuff() {
System.out.println("doComon1");
}
public void doCommonStuff2() {
System.out.println("doComon1");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SuperDog superDog = new SuperDog();
superDog.doCommonStuff();
}
}
two implementation could be:
public class cat extends BaseAnimal {
#Override
public void doCommonStuff() {
//specific logic
}
#Override
public void doCommonStuff2() {
//specific logic
}
}
public class Dog extends BaseAnimal {
#Override
public void doCommonStuff() {
//specific logic
}
// don't override the doCommonStuff2() method so you have the parent implementation
}
and also, with abstract classes you can make a mix:
public class SuperDog extends BaseAnimal {
#Override
public void doCommonStuff(){
super.doCommonStuff();
System.out.println("do specific after common stuff");
}
}
The last one, can call the parent logic and also add a specific logic. With interfaces you cannot do any of those.
Think about the interface that your abstract class is providing to subclass implementors.
Document the methods that the subclass can use or override. Make sure that the docs tell the subclass implementor what he needs to know to use your base class properly.
Now:
Option 1: In almost all cases this turns out to be a bad idea, because your abstract class is assuming that subclasses will satisfy the Animal interface in a particular way, and will only need to change the bits you expect them to change. Assumptions like that turn out to be wrong eventually. If you document that doSomeImplementaionSpecificStuff, you'll usually find that all the clauses about when that method will be called and what it is expected to do will be embarrassing. That said, sometimes an abstract class like this can be useful if it is a base class that an implementor might use, and not the base class that an implementor is expected to use.
Option 2: This is OK, as long as doCommonStuff is "commonly used stuff" that a subclass implementor can choose to use or not, and not something that a subclass implementor must call, and certainly not something that the subclass implementor must call at a particular time. If you can avoid having state in that abstract class, then you might want to move that common stuff into a utility library.
In all cases the thing to remember is this: When your abstract base is used, it is the subclass implementor that is trying to implement the Animal interface. He gets to make all the decisions about how exactly that is done. Your base class is an offer to help with that in a specific way, which the subclass implementor can take or leave.
Just as a counterpoint to this question: what is an interface in Java?
An interface is a special form of an abstract class which does not implement any methods. In Java, you create an interface like this:
interface Interface
{
void interfaceMethod();
}
Since the interface can't implement any methods, it's implied that the entire thing, including all the methods, are both public and abstract (abstract in Java terms means "not implemented by this class"). So the interface above is identical to the interface below:
public interface Interface
{
abstract public void interfaceMethod();
}
To use this interface, you simply need to implement the interface. Many classes can implement an interface, and a class can implement many interfaces:
interface InterfaceA
{
void interfaceMethodA();
}
interface InterfaceB
{
void interfaceMethodB();
}
public class ImplementingClassA
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
public void interfaceMethodA()
{
System.out.println("interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A");
}
public void interfaceMethodB()
{
System.out.println("interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A");
}
}
public class ImplementingClassB
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
public void interfaceMethodA()
{
System.out.println("interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B");
}
public void interfaceMethodB()
{
System.out.println("interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B");
}
}
Now if you wanted you could write a method like this:
public void testInterfaces()
{
ImplementingClassA u = new ImplementingClassA();
ImplementingClassB v = new ImplementingClassB();
InterfaceA w = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceA x = new ImplementingClassB();
InterfaceB y = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceB z = new ImplementingClassB();
u.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A"
u.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A"
v.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B"
v.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B"
w.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation A"
x.interfaceMethodA();
// prints "interfaceA, interfaceMethodA, implementation B"
y.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation A"
z.interfaceMethodB();
// prints "interfaceB, interfaceMethodB, implementation B"
}
However, you could never do the following:
public void testInterfaces()
{
InterfaceA y = new ImplementingClassA();
InterfaceB z = new ImplementingClassB();
y.interfaceMethodB(); // ERROR!
z.interfaceMethodA(); // ERROR!
}
The reason you can't do this is that y is of type interfaceA, and there is no interfaceMethodB() in interfaceA. Likewise, z is of type interfaceB and there is no interfaceMethodA() in interfaceB.
I mentioned earlier that interfaces are just a special form of an abstract class. To illustrate that point, look at the following code.
interface Interface
{
void abstractMethod();
}
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
}
You would inherit from these classes almost exactly the same way:
public class InheritsFromInterface
implements Interface
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
public class InteritsFromAbstractClass
extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
In fact, you could even change the interface and the abstract class like this:
interface Interface
{
void abstractMethod();
}
abstract public class AbstractClass
implements Interface
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
}
public class InheritsFromInterfaceAndAbstractClass
extends AbstractClass implements Interface
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.println("abstractMethod()"); }
}
However, there are two differences between interfaces and abstract classes.
The first difference is that interfaces cannot implement methods.
interface Interface
{
public void implementedMethod()
{
System.out.println("implementedMethod()");
}
}
The interface above generates a compiler error because it has an implementation for implementedMethod(). If you wanted to implement the method but not be able to instantiate the class, you would have to do it like this:
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
public void implementedMethod()
{
System.out.println("implementedMethod()");
}
}
That's not much of an abstract class because none of its members are abstract, but it is legal Java.
The other difference between interfaces and abstract classes is that a class can inherit from multiple interfaces, but can only inherit from one abstract class.
abstract public class AbstractClassA { }
abstract public class AbstractClassB { }
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
The code above generates a compiler error, not because the classes are all empty, but because InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses is trying to inherit from two abstract classes, which is illegal. The following is perfectly legal.
interface InterfaceA { }
interface InterfaceB { }
public class InheritsFromTwoInterfaces
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{ }
The first difference between interfaces and abstract classes is the reason for the second difference. Take a look at the following code.
interface InterfaceA
{
void method();
}
interface InterfaceB
{
void method();
}
public class InheritsFromTwoInterfaces
implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
void method() { System.out.println("method()"); }
}
There's no problem with the code above because InterfaceA and InterfaceB don't have anything to hide. It's easy to tell that a call to method will print "method()".
Now look at the following code:
abstract public class AbstractClassA
{
void method() { System.out.println("Hello"); }
}
abstract public class AbstractClassB
{
void method() { System.out.println("Goodbye"); }
}
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
This is exactly the same as our other example, except that because we're allowed to implement methods in abstract classes, we did, and because we don't have to implement already-implemented methods in an inheriting class, we didn't. But you may have noticed, there's a problem. What happens when we call new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().method()? Does it print "Hello" or "Goodbye"? You probably don't know, and neither does the Java compiler. Another language, C++ allowed this kind of inheritance and they resolved these issues in ways that were often very complicated. To avoid this kind of trouble, Java decided to make this "multiple inheritance" illegal.
The downside to Java's solution that the following can't be done:
abstract public class AbstractClassA
{
void hi() { System.out.println("Hello"); }
}
abstract public class AbstractClassB
{
void bye() { System.out.println("Goodbye"); }
}
public class InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses
extends AbstractClassA, AbstractClassB
{ }
AbstractClassA and AbstractClassB are "mixins" or classes that aren't intended to be instantiated but add functionality to the classes that they are "mixed into" through inheritance. There's obviously no problem figuring out what happens if you call new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().hi() or new InheritsFromTwoAbstractClasses().bye(), but you can't do that because Java doesn't allow it.
(I know this is a long post, so if there are any mistakes in it please let me know and I will correct them.)
Interface is a contract. A simple example is a Tenant and Landlord which are the two parties and the contract is the Rent Agreement. Rent Agreement contains various clause which Tenants have to follow. Likewise Interface is a contact which contains various method (Declaration) which the Party has to implement (provide method bodies).Here party one is the class which implement the interface and second party is Client and the way to use and interface is having “Reference of Interface” and “Object of Implementing class”: below are 3 components:(Explained with help of example)
Component 1] Interface : The Contract
interface myInterface{
public void myMethod();
}
Component 2] Implementing Class : Party number 1
class myClass implements myInterface {
#Override
public void myMethod() {
System.out.println("in MyMethod");
}
}
Component 3] Client code : Party number 2
Client.java
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
myInterface mi = new myClass();
// Reference of Interface = Object of Implementing Class
mi.myMethod(); // this will print in MyMethod
}
}
An interface in java is a blueprint of a class. It has static constants and abstract methods only.The interface in java is a mechanism to achieve fully abstraction. There can be only abstract methods in the java interface not method body. It is used to achieve fully abstraction and multiple inheritance in Java. An interface is a collection of abstract methods. A class implements an interface, thereby inheriting the abstract methods of the interface.
An interface is not a class. Writing an interface is similar to writing a class, but they are two different concepts. A class describes the attributes and behaviors of an object. An interface contains behaviors(Abstract Methods) that a class implements.
Unless the class that implements the interface is abstract, all the methods of the interface need to be defined in the class.Since multiple inheritance is not allowed in java so interface is only way to implement multiple inheritance.
Here is an example for understanding interface
interface Printable{
void print();
}
interface Showable{
void print();
}
class testinterface1 implements Printable,Showable{
public void print(){System.out.println("Hello");}
public static void main(String args[]){
testinterface1 obj = new testinterface1();
obj.print();
}
}
Interface : System requirement service.
Description : Suppose a client needed some functionality "i.e. JDBC API" interface and some other server Apache , Jetty , WebServer they all provide implements of this.
So it bounded requirement document which service provider provided to the user who uses data-connection with these server Apache , Jetty , WebServer .
Interface is the blueprint of an class.
There is one oop's concept called Data abstraction under that there are two categories one is abstract class and other one is interface.
Abstract class achieves only partial abstraction but interface achieves full abstraction.
In interface there is only abstract methods and final variables..you can extends any number of interface and you can implement any number of classes.
If any class is implementing the interface then the class must implements the abstract methods too
Interface cannot be instantiated.
interface A() {
void print()
}
This question is 6 years old and lot of things have changed the definition of interface over the years.
From oracle documentation page ( post Java 8 release) :
In the Java programming language, 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. Interfaces cannot be instantiated—they can only be implemented by classes or extended by other interfaces.
Have a look at related SE questions for better explanation:
Is there more to an interface than having the correct methods
What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?
What it is
An interface is a reference type, just like a class is. These are the two main reference types in Java.
What it contains
An interface can contain a subset of what a normal class can contain. This includes everything that is static, both methods and variables, and non-static method declarations. It is not allowed to have non-static variables.
A declaration of a method differs from a normal method in several things; here is one as an example:
[public] [abstract] ReturnType methodName();
These declarations can be marked as public and abstract, as represented with [optional braces]. It is not necessary to do so, as it is the default. private, protected, package-private (aka. nothing) and the final modifier are not allowed and marked as a compiler error. They have not implementation, so there is a semicolon instead of curly braces.
As of Java 8, they can hold non-static methods with an implementation, these have to be marked with the default modifier. However, the same restrictions as to the other modifiers apply (adding that strictfp is now valid and abstract is no more).
What it's useful for
One of its uses is for it to be used as a face for a service. When two parties work together to form a service-requester & service-provider kind of relationship, the service provider provides the face of the service (as to what the service looks like) in the form of an interface.
One of the OOP concept is "Abstraction" which means to hide away complex working of the systems and show only what is necessary to understand the system. This helps in visualizing the working of a complex system.
This can be achieved through interface where in each module is visualized (and also implemented) to work through interface of another module
An interface is a class-like construct that contains only constants and abstract methods (Introduction to java programming, n.d.). Moreover, it can extend more than one interface for example a Superclass. Java allows only single inheritance for class extension but allows multiple extensions for
interfaces(Introduction to Java programming, n.d.) For example,
public class NewClass extends BaseClass
implements Interface1, ..., InterfaceN {
...
}
Secondly, interfaces can be used to specify the behavior of objects in a class. However, they cannot contain abstract methods. Also, an interface can inherit other interfaces using the extends keyword.
public interface NewInterface extends Interface1, ... , InterfaceN {
}
Reference
Introduction to Java Programming. Interfaces and Abstract classes (n.d). Retrieved March 10, 2017 from https://viewer.gcu.edu/7NNUKW
In general, we prefer interfaces when there are two are more implementations we have. Where Interface is acts as protocol.
Coding to interface, not implementations Coding to interface makes loosely couple.
An interface is a reference type in Java. It is similar to class. It is a collection of abstract methods. A class implements an interface, thereby inheriting the abstract methods of the interface. Along with abstract methods, an interface may also contain constants, default methods, static methods, and nested types. for more details
From the latest definition by Oracle, Interface is:
There are a number of situations in software engineering when it is
important for disparate groups of programmers to agree to a "contract"
that spells out how their software interacts. Each group should be
able to write their code without any knowledge of how the other
group's code is written. Generally speaking, interfaces are such
contracts.
For example, imagine a futuristic society where computer-controlled
robotic cars transport passengers through city streets without a human
operator. Automobile manufacturers write software (Java, of course)
that operates the automobile—stop, start, accelerate, turn left, and
so forth. Another industrial group, electronic guidance instrument
manufacturers, make computer systems that receive GPS (Global
Positioning System) position data and wireless transmission of traffic
conditions and use that information to drive the car.
The auto manufacturers must publish an industry-standard interface
that spells out in detail what methods can be invoked to make the car
move (any car, from any manufacturer). The guidance manufacturers can
then write software that invokes the methods described in the
interface to command the car. Neither industrial group needs to know
how the other group's software is implemented. In fact, each group
considers its software highly proprietary and reserves the right to
modify it at any time, as long as it continues to adhere to the
published 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. Interfaces cannot be instantiated—they
can only be implemented by classes or extended by other interfaces.
The most popular usage of interfaces is as APIs (Application Programming Interface) which are common in commercial software products. Typically, a company sells a software package that contains complex methods that another company wants to use in its own software product.
An example could be a package of digital image processing methods that are sold to companies making end-user graphics programs.
The image processing company writes its classes to implement an interface, which it makes public to its customers. The graphics company then invokes the image processing methods using the signatures and return types defined in the interface. While the image processing company's API is made public (to its customers), its implementation of the API is kept as a closely guarded secret—in fact, it may revise the implementation at a later date as long as it continues to implement the original interface that its customers have relied on.
Check out to learn more about interfaces.
In addition to what others have mentioned and by illogical comparison
it's a frame work for wrapping methods so they can be stored in
variables.
Thus on the fly you can equate the interface variable to be equal to any method or collection of methods atleast in this sense, a good reason you would usually want to do that is to escape repetitive logic that will definitely be an enemy of progress within the half life of your code at any decaying rate, be careful with the scenario below user discretion is advised.
SCENARIO
You have a game with a drawSillyThings() method in a SoulAvenger class, that has to draw some frames or sprites. Now drawSillyThings() has a list of other methods it needs to call in other to draw a metamorphed glorified-soul-ranger after user kills the grim-reaper in level 5k, i.e. drawSillyThings() needs to call either of inviteTheGrimReaper(), drawUpperCut(), drawTotalKO(), drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger(), drawDefeatAndMockery(), drawFightRecap() and drawGameOver() whenever the right situations arise during the gaming experience but all these would result in unwanted logic in drawSillyThings() which might slow the game i.e.
public static class SoulAvenger{
public SoulAvenger(){
//constructor logic
}
private void loadLevel5k(){...}
private void dontAllowUserWinOnTime(){...}
private void loadGrimReaperFight(){...}
private void drawSillyThings(){
... //unaccounted game logic
while(fighting_in_level_5k){
while(soul_ranger_has_enough_lives){
if(game_state=fight)inviteTheGrimReaper();
else if(game_state=medium_blows)drawUpperCut();
else if(game_state=heavy_blows)drawTotalKO();
else if(game_state=lost)drawDefeatAndMockery();
else if(game_state=won)drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger();
else if(game_state=end)drawFightRecap();
}else drawGameOver();
}
}
}
The problem here is the loop-nested boolean checks that have to be performed each time while the soul-ranger is still alive where as you could just have an alternative class which makes sure drawSillyThings() doesn’t need a game_state to be checked each time in order to call the right method but to do that you ‘ld need to kinda store the right method in a variable so that subsequently you can kinda variable = new method and also kinda variable.invoke(). If that wasn’t something have a look
public static class InterfaceTest{
public interface Method{
public void invoke();
}
public static void main(String[] args){
//lets create and store a method in a variable shall we
Method method_variable=new Method(){
#Override
public void invoke(){
//do something
}
};
//lets call or invoke the method from the variable in order to do something
method_variable.invoke();
//lets change the method to do something else
method_variable=new Method(){
#Override
public void invoke(){
//do something else
}
};
//lets do something else
method_variable.invoke();
}
}
This was probably what the guys at oracle had discovered was missing from Java several years before rumors of some developers planning a massive protest surfaced on the web but back to the SoulAvenger, as the gameplay occurs you would definitely just want to kinda have a variable be equated to give the right method to be invoked in drawSillyThings() in order to run things in a silly manner therefore
public static class SoulAvenger{
private interface SillyRunner{
public void run_things();
}
...//soul avenging variables
private SillyRunner silly_runner;
public SoulAvenger(int game_state){
//logic check is performed once instead of multiple times in a nested loop
if(game_state=medium_blows){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawUpperCut();
}
};
}else if(game_state=heavy_blows){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawTotalKO();
}
};
}else if(game_state=lost){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawDefeatAndMockery();
}
};
}else if(game_state=won){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawVictoryAndGlorifiedRanger();
}
};
}else if(game_state=fight){
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawFightRecap();
}
};
}
}
private void loadLevel5k(){
//an event triggered method to change how you run things to load level 5k
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
//level 5k logic
}
};
}
private void dontAllowUserWinOnTime(){
//an event triggered method to help user get annoyed and addicted to the game
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
drawDefeatAndMockery();
}
};
}
private void loadGrimReaperFight(){
//an event triggered method to send an invitation to the nearest grim-reaper
silly_runner=new SillyRunner(){
#Override
public void run_things(){
inviteTheGrimReaper();
}
};
}
private void drawSillyThings(){
...//unaccounted game logic
while(fighting_in_level_5k){
while(soul_ranger_has_enough_lives){
silly_runner.run_things();
}
}
}
}
Now the drawSillyThings() doesn’t need to perform any if logic while drawing because as the right events gets triggered the silly_runner gets equated to have its run_things() method invoke a different method thus using a variable to store and invoke a method kinda-ish although in the real gaming world(I actually mean in a console) several threads will work asynchronously to change interface variables to run different piece of code with the same call.
An interface in java is a special type of Abstract class, the Interface provided the 100% Abstraction but since the java introduce new features in java 8 the meaning of whole Interface is change. Interfaces are used to tell what should be done. But due to new features now we give implementations of methods in Interface, that changed the meaning of Interface.
In Interface the method is public abstract by default
interface Bird{
void sound();
void eat();
}
Java doesn't provide the multiple inheritances feature mean a class doesn't have two parents, but we extend multiple Interfaces in java.
An interface is a contract between the system and the external environment. More specifically to Java - a contract for a class (for a specific behavior), implemented in a form that resembles a pure abstract class.
For example, if I make an abstract class and it has two abstract methods in it, does my subclass need to have them in some shape or form?
Do i need to include them in like just define them or do i also need to implement them and use them?
You can implement your methods in your abstract class and so they wont need to be necessary implemented in your subclass. Be sure to remove the abstract keyword from the methods and add body to them (in the abstract class).
You can still override them in your subclass if you want.
Create a new class file AnimalTest.java and paste the code below:
public class AnimalTest
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Animal cat = new Cat("pussy");
Animal dog = new Dog("pluto");
cat.speak();
dog.speak();
}
}
abstract class Animal
{
private final String name;
private final String kind;
public Animal(String name, String kind)
{
this.name = name;
this.kind = kind;
}
// It has no body. It contains the abstract keyword. It needs to be implemented in subclass
public abstract void speak();
// it's already implemented here, in abstract class. You won't be forced to implement this in subclass. But you can still override it if you want.
public String name()
{
return this.kind + " " + this.name;
}
}
class Dog extends Animal
{
public Dog(String name)
{
super(name, "dog");
}
#Override
public void speak()
{
System.out.println(this.name() + " says woof");
}
}
class Cat extends Animal
{
public Cat(String name)
{
super(name, "cat");
}
#Override
public void speak()
{
System.out.println(this.name() + " says niar");
}
}
Result:
cat pussy says niar
dog pluto says woof
If your subclass is also abstract (public abstract class MyAbstractClass extends TheOriginalClass), you don't have to implement any of the methods. Essentially, you could leave the abstract subclass empty.
If your subclass is concrete (public class MyClass extends TheOriginalClass), you'll need to implement all the methods.
Regarding "...and use them" in your question: Does not matter.
abstract class A {
abstract void f1();
abstract void f2();
}
class B extends A {} // won't compile
You cannot write a concrete subclass which doesn't implement the abstract methods the compiler will "scream at you". You can define another abstract class and use it as the subclass without needing to implement those methods, however eventually you will find yourself creating a concrete subclass and at that exact point you must implement all the abstract methods, as they are a sort of contract that must be fulfilled.
As to why, well it forces certain design decisions onto you the coder, which seem logical, for example let's say you're making a game and you have many different types of enemies in mind for the game, you'll have a common super-class for all of them, class Monster and every behavior that is similar you'll put inside that super class and since you don't know how a Monster moves for example you will mark that method/behavior as abstract and a good reason why would be because you want to force everyone that is working with you on the game to implement that behavior when they are designing their concrete monster, hope the example helped illustrate it a bit better.
Do i need to include them in like just define them or do i also need to implement them and use them?
Java does not contemplate forward declarations, because everything about the class must be implemented within the class. You can define a method without implementing it, but the compiler will force you to mark it as abstract.
You don’t need to use them, but it must be implemented anyway. Abstract methods are usually used to be called by superclasses, but nobody forces nobody to call a method in general.
if I make an abstract class and it has two abstract methods in it, does my subclass need to have them in some shape or form?
If you have an abstract class this means that the class has a number of abstract methods that is non-zero.
If you subclass an abstract class you’re forced to mark it as abstract unless this class implements all the abstract methods.
Does this class have any utility itself other than providing a unified interface for its subclasses? Yes, maybe static methods.
But obviously you can’t instantiate an object of a class which has left some methods uninplemented.
I was recently looking through some open source code PicketLink code. If you take a look at this class, you'll see a number of concrete methods in an abstract class that do nothing. Is there any purpose whatsoever for this?
I thought about two things:
If the method needs to be overriden by subclasses and not defined in the parent abstract class, why not simply make it abstract?
If only some of the child classes actually need to implement the method, wouldn't this indicate the need for a restructuring of the class hierarchy so that children are not forced to have methods that are not applicable?
While not the most common case, sometimes it is handy in the context of a template method. In this case there is a method that defines the flow, leaving the concrete implementation of some parts to its subclasses. In some cases a default concrete behavior is to do nothing, leaving the concrete method in the base class empty, but allowing customization in the subclass by overriding it.
HTH
Personally I think it is a code smell.
Like you say, unless they have some base functionality - which they don't, they should be abstract, forcing derived classes to provide implementation.
If some derived classes shouldn't have an implementation for these methods, then there's probably something wrong with the design.
Consider this:
public abstract class Animal
{
public abstract string Speak();
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
public override string Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof");
}
}
public class Cat : Animal
{
public override string Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Meow");
}
}
All fine so far, but what if you want to add an animal that doesn't speak?
public class Ant : Animal
{
public override string Speak()
{
// do nothing - ants don't speak.
}
}
This in my opinion is bad. Someone might do this (what you have described).
public abstract class Animal
{
public string Speak()
{
// not abstract because not all derived animals speak.
}
}
This in my opinion, is better, but still not great. What I would like to see in this situation is either Speak be moved to an interface and only the animals that can speak implement it, or something like this.
public abstract class Animal
{
}
public abstract class Mammal : Animal
{
public abstract string Speak();
}
public class Dog : Mammal
{
public override string Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Woof");
}
}
public class Cat : Mammal
{
public override string Speak()
{
Console.WriteLine("Meow");
}
}
public class Ant : Animal
{
}
Building off of Andres Fortier's answer, you will also see this pattern a lot in Swing, with the various EventListener Adapter classes. For example, MouseAdapter provides corresponding empty methods for each listener method. This allows the interface to define all relevant methods, but implementations to extend the corresponding adapter and only override a single method they care about, instead of being forced to provide empty bodies for all other interface methods.