Why is that a variable used in an Interface is PUBLIC STATIC FINAL? Why "static" in particular?
A field declared in an interface can only be a constant anyway, so why would it depend on which instance you use to access it?
Putting fields in interfaces is often poor style anyway these days. The interface is meant to reflect the capabilities of classes that implement it - which is completely orthogonal to the idea of a constant. It's certainly a nasty idea to use an interface just to declare a bunch of constants. I do occasionally find it useful to make the interface type expose constants which are simple implementations - so a filtering interface might have "ALLOW_ALL" and "ALLOW_NONE" fields, for example.
I suppose you could conceive of a scenario where implementing an interface did actually add an instance field to your class - but that would break encapsulation not only in terms of it being implicitly public, but also by specifying part of the implementation instead of the API.
Because you can not instantiate an interface. Also there cannot be any method body to use a non-static non-final variable.
Why wouldn't it be static?
It's a constant associated with the interface, rather than with any particular instance of it.
The main reason I guess is implementation detail of the VM/language.
If an interface is not allowed to have non-static variables, there's no need to allocate memory for the interface during the creation of the class. There's also no need for special naming/renaming mechanisms in case you inherit variables with the same name. The only thing you need is some table to call the correct functions when the interface is used.
In short - it makes the live of the language / VM maintainer easier. If you really want to take a look at multiple inheritance and its pitfalls and traps, read Object Oriented Software Construction by Bertrand Meyer (2nd Edition). Then you understand why the interface needs to be so simple (and yet archives most of the things multiple inheritance does).
An interface is a contract that defines the interaction between objects.
This interaction is defined by the exposed methods, not by the variables. Variables would only describe the internal working, not the interaction.
Note that variables should never be used for interaction. According to the OOP principle of encapsulation, it would be a crime to let 1 class access a variable of another class directly.
Constants (e.g.Math.PI) are the only acceptable exception. Since constants are the only kind of variables that can be accessed directly by other classes without violating the principle of encapsulation, all variables in an interface are treated as public static final variables (i.e. constants)
Related
By making private constructor, we can avoid instantiating class from anywhere outside. and by making class final, no other class can extend it. Why is it necessary for Util class to have private constructor and final class ?
This is not a mandate from a functional point of view or java complication or runtime. However, it's a coding standard accepted by the wider community. Even most static code review tools, like checkstyle, check that such classes have this convention followed.
Why this convention is followed is already explained in other answers and even OP covered that, but I'd like to explain it a little further.
Mostly utility classes are a collection of methods/functions which are independent of an object instance. Those are kind of like aggregate functions as they depend only on parameters for return values and are not associated with class variables of the utility class. So, these functions/methods are mostly kept static. As a result, utility classes are, ideally, classes with only static methods. Therefore, any programmer calling these methods doesn't need to instantiate the class. However, some robo-coders (maybe with less experience or interest) will tend to create the object as they believe they need to before calling its method. To avoid that, we have 3 options:
Keep educating people to not instantiate it. (No sane person can keep doing it.)
Mark the utility class as abstract: Now robo-coders will not create the object. However, reviewers and the wider java community will argue that marking the class as abstract means you want someone to extend it. So, this is also not a good option.
Private constructor: Not protected because it'll allow a child class to instantiate the object.
Now, if someone wants to add a new method for some functionality to the utility class, they don't need to extend it: they can add a new method as each method is independent and has no chance of breaking other functionalities. So, no need to override it. Also, you are not going to instantiate it, so no need to subclass it. Better to mark it final.
In summary, instantiating a utility class (new MyUtilityClass()) does not make sense. Hence the constructors should be private. And you never want to override or extend it, so mark it final.
It's not necessary, but it is convenient. A utility class is just a namespace holder of related functions and is not meant to be instantiated or subclassed. So preventing instantiation and extension sends a correct message to the user of the class.
There is an important distinction between the Java Language, and the Java Runtime.
When the java class is compiled to bytecode, there is no concept of access restriction, public, package, protected, private are equivalent. It is always possible via reflection or bytecode manipulation to invoke the private constructor, so the jvm cannot rely on that ability.
final on the other hand, is something that persists through to the bytecode, and the guarantees it provides can be used by javac to generate more efficient bytecode, and by the jvm to generate more efficient machine instructions.
Most of the optimisations this enabled are no longer relevant, as the jvm now applies the same optimisations to all classes that are monomorphic at runtime—and these were always the most important.
By default this kind of class normally is used to aggregate functions who do different this, in that case we didn't need to create a new object
In object oriented programming, I have read that you should program to an interface not an implementation but do they mean literal interfaces (no shared code at all)?
Is it okay to program to an abstract base class that would have been an interface except that there were variables in this "interface" that all sub-classes were expected to have? Replicating a variable across sub-classes would have been an inconvenience because if I changed the name of one of the variables in one of the sub-classes I would have to change the name of that variable in all of the sub-classes.
In following the principle of "program to an interface not an implementation", is this okay or would you create another interface on top of the abstract base class and program to that interface?
You want to program to interfaces because it means lower coupling. Note that interfaces in Java are more flexible since they can be implemented by a class anywhere in the class hierarchy unlike abstract classes (as a result of single inheritance). Such flexibility means that your code is reusable to a higher degree.
The important point of "programming to an interface not an implementation" is that of the general principles mentioned above, even if they might cause some minor inconveniences.
Also, even if you program to an interface, you can always implement said interface (or parts of it) by means of abstract classes if you'd like, achieving both low coupling and code reusability at the same time.
It's always okay to program to abstract or even concrete classes, however it's better if you can avoid it.
This discussion might be helpful or this one and of course this one.
Note: C++ doesn't have interfaces. You might argue it doesn't need them.
you should program to an interface not an implementation but do they mean literal interfaces (no shared code at all)?
Possibly. Where it makes sense to do this, it can work very well. Note: in Java interfaces can have code as well.
Is it okay to program to an abstract base class that would have been an interface except that there were variables in this "interface" that all sub-classes were expected to have?
If you need fields in the implementation an abstract class can make sense. You can still use an interface as well.
Replicating a variable across sub-classes would have been an inconvenience because if I changed the name of one of the variables in one of the sub-classes I would have to change the name of that variable in all of the sub-classes.
This is where using an IDE helps. You can change a field, class, method name in all your code with one action.
is this okay or would you create another interface on top of the abstract base class and program to that interface?
You can code your implementation to an abstract class, but the users of that class should be using an interface if possible.
e.g. HashMap extends AbstractMap but implements Map. Most people would use Map not AbstractMap
Say I am using a Java library that has the following method
public static SomeInterface foo();
The interface SomeInterface has multiple implementations, some of which are protected within the library's package. One of these implementation is TheProtectedClass
What would be the best way to check if the object returned by foo() is an instance of TheProtectedClass?
My current plan is to create an Utils class that lives within my project but in the same package as the protected class. This Utils can refer to TheProtectedClass since it is in the same package and thus it can check if an object is instanceof TheProtectedClass.
Any other ideas?
EDIT: Some people are asking "why" so here is more context.
I am using jOOQ and in some part of my code, I want to know if the Field instance that I have is an instance of Lower.
Currently, I use field.getName().equals("lower") but this isn't as robust as I'd like it to be.
I realize that since Lower is a protected class, it isn't part of the API and that it can change but I am ok with that.
Class.forName("TheProtectedClass").isAssignableFrom(foo())
although it is a bad idea for many reasons. You're breaking the encapsulation and the abstraction here. If it's package-private, you shouldn't have to concern with it outside. If it's protected, you should explicitly inherit from it and use the API provided by class for this case.
The less obvious but more correct solution is to get an instance of TheProtectedClass, and compare it by
guaranteedTPCInstance.getClass().isAssignableFrom(foo())
, while still being kind of hacky, at least is more portable and OOPy IMO.
As to your idea of creating a class in the same package as TheProtectedClass to avoid being package-private - it's a viable solution, but a) it breaks the basic principle of encapsulation and the programming contract of the TPC class; packaging is done by library/class authors for a reason - to prevent irresponsible data access and using private API or undocumented proprietary methods, b) it's not always possible (and shouldn't be possible in case of properly designed library classes), since those classes can be not only package-private, but final or effectively final (anonymous inner classes etc) - for the reasons described by Bloch in EJ 2nd, "favor composition over inheritance" item, see also Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java? Use of final class in Java etc c) you can't do it with some Java library classes, as you can't define your class to be and use e.g. java.lang package. As such, the only "portable" solution is through reflection and through what I described.
tl;dr The fact you can piggyback another package by mimicking its package definition is an obvious C-style deficiency of Java's syntax (allowing programmer to do what he shouldn't be able to normally do; same goes with some specific reflection methods); hacks made this way are neither maintainable nor safe.
NOTE: If you you expect to do something in a internal implementation-dependent and, at the same time, portable and maintainable (e.g. impervious to implementation changes/class name changes etc) way, you're obviously expecting the impossible.
It appears that the best solution is to create a package in your project that has the same package as the package-private class and either expose TheProtectedClass.class as a Class<?> or simply add a simple method that checks if your Object is instanceof TheProtectedClass.
This does not require reflection, it is fast and relatively safe (compilation will break if the package-private class changes name).
In java, is there ever a case for allowing a non-abstract class to be extended?
It always seems to indicate bad code when there are class hierarchies. Do you agree, and why/ why not?
There are certainly times when it makes sense to have non-final concrete classes. However, I agree with Kent - I believe that classes should be final (sealed in C#) by default, and that Java methods should be final by default (as they are in C#).
As Kent says, inheritance requires careful design and documentation - it's very easy to think you can just override a single method, but not know the situations in which that method may be called from the base class as part of the rest of the implementation.
See "How do you design a class for inheritance" for more discussion on this.
I agree with Jon and Kent but, like Scott Myers (in Effective C++), I go much further. I believe that every class should be either abstract, or final. That is, only leaf classes in any hierarchy are really apt for direct instantiation. All other classes (i.e. inner nodes in the inheritance) are “unfinished” and should consequently be abstract.
It simply makes no sense for usual classes to be further extended. If an aspect of the class is worth extending and/or modifying, the cleaner way would be to take that one class and separate it into one abstract base class and one concrete interchangeable implementation.
there a good reasons to keep your code non-final. many frameworks such as hibernate, spring, guice depend sometimes on non-final classes that they extends dynamically at runtime.
for example, hibernate uses proxies for lazy association fetching.
especially when it comes to AOP, you will want your classes non-final, so that the interceptors can attach to it.
see also the question at SO
This question is equally applicable to other platforms such as C# .NET. There are those (myself included) that believe types should be final/sealed by default and need to be explicitly unsealed to allow inheritance.
Extension via inheritance is something that needs careful design and is not as simple as just leaving a type unsealed. Therefore, I think it should be an explicit decision to allow inheritance.
Your best reference here is Item 15 of Joshua Bloch's excellent book "Effective Java", called "Design and document for inheritance or else prohibit it". However the key to whether extension of a class should be allowed is not "is it abstract" but "was it designed with inheritance in mind". There is sometimes a correlation between the two, but it's the second that is important. To take a simple example most of the AWT classes are designed to be extended, even those that are not abstract.
The summary of Bloch's chapter is that interaction of inherited classes with their parents can be surprising and unpredicatable if the ancestor wasn't designed to be inherited from. Classes should therefore come in two kinds a) classes designed to be extended, and with enough documentation to describe how it should be done b) classes marked final. Classes in (a) will often be abstract, but not always. For
I disagree. If hierarchies were bad, there'd be no reason for object oriented languages to exist. If you look at UI widget libraries from Microsoft and Sun, you're certain to find inheritance. Is that all "bad code" by definition? No, of course not.
Inheritance can be abused, but so can any language feature. The trick is to learn how to do things appropriately.
In some cases you want to make sure there's no subclassing, in other cases you want to ensure subclassing (abstract). But there's always a large subset of classes where you as the original author don't care and shouldn't care. It's part of being open/closed. Deciding that something should be closed is also to be done for a reason.
I couldn't disagree more. Class hierarchies make sense for concrete classes when the concrete classes know the possible return types of methods that they have not marked final. For instance, a concrete class may have a subclass hook:
protected SomeType doSomething() {
return null;
}
This doSomething is guarenteed to be either null or a SomeType instance. Say that you have the ability to process the SomeType instance but don't have a use case for using the SomeType instance in the current class, but know that this functionality would be really good to have in subclasses and most everything is concrete. It makes no sense to make the current class an abstract class if it can be used directly with the default of doing nothing with its null value. If you made it an abstract class, then you would have its children in this type of hierarchy:
Abstract base class
Default class (the class that could have been non-abstract, only implements the protected method and nothing else)
Other subclasses.
You thus have an abstract base class that can't be used directly, when the default class may be the most common case. In the other hierarchy, there is one less class, so that the functionality can be used without making an essentially useless default class because abstraction just had to be forced onto the class.
Default class
Other subclasses.
Now, sure, hierarchies can be used and abused, and if things are not documented clearly or classes not well designed, subclasses can run into problems. But these same problems exist with abstract classes as well, you don't get rid of the problem just because you add "abstract" to your class. For instance, if the contract of the "doSomething()" method above required SomeType to have populated x, y and z fields when they were accessed via getters and setters, your subclass would blow up regardless if you used the concrete class that returned null as your base class or an abstract class.
The general rule of thumb for designing a class hierarchy is pretty much a simple questionaire:
Do I need the behavior of my proposed superclass in my subclass? (Y/N)
This is the first question you need to ask yourself. If you don't need the behavior, there's no argument for subclassing.
Do I need the state of my proposed superclass in my subclass? (Y/N)
This is the second question. If the state fits the model of what you need, this may be a canidate for subclassing.
If the subclass was created from the proposed superclass, would it truly be an IS-A relation, or is it just a shortcut to inherit behavior and state?
This is the final question. If it is just a shortcut and you cannot qualify your proposed subclass "as-a" superclass, then inheritance should be avoided. The state and logic can be copied and pasted into the new class with a different root, or delegation can be used.
Only if a class needs the behavior, state and can be considered that the subclass IS-A(n) instance of the superclass should it be considered to inherit from a superclass. Otherwise, other options exist that would be better suited to the purpose, although it may require a little more work up front, it is cleaner in the long run.
There are a few cases where we dont want to allow to change the behavior. For instance, String class, Math.
I don't like inheritance because there's always a better way to do the same thing but when you're making maintenance changes in a huge system sometimes the best way to fix the code with minimum changes is to extend a class a little. Yes, it's usually leads to a bad code but to a working one and without months of rewriting first. So giving a maintenance man as much flexibility as he can handle is a good way to go.
I'm learning Java (and OOP) and although it might irrelevant for where I'm at right now, I was wondering if SO could share some common pitfalls or good design practices.
One important thing to remember is that static methods cannot be overridden by a subclass. References to a static method in your code essentially tie it to that implementation. When using instance methods, behavior can be varied based on the type of the instance. You can take advantage of polymorphism. Static methods are more suited to utilitarian types of operations where the behavior is set in stone. Things like base 64 encoding or calculating a checksum for instance.
I don't think any of the answers get to the heart of the OO reason of when to choose one or the other. Sure, use an instance method when you need to deal with instance members, but you could make all of your members public and then code a static method that takes in an instance of the class as an argument. Hello C.
You need to think about the messages the object you are designing responds to. Those will always be your instance methods. If you think about your objects this way, you'll almost never have static methods. Static members are ok in certain circumstances.
Notable exceptions that come to mind are the Factory Method and Singleton (use sparingly) patterns. Exercise caution when you are tempted to write a "helper" class, for from there, it is a slippery slope into procedural programming.
If the implementation of a method can be expressed completely in terms of the public interface (without downcasting) of your class, then it may be a good candidate for a static "utility" method. This allows you to maintain a minimal interface while still providing the convenience methods that clients of the code may use a lot. As Scott Meyers explains, this approach encourages encapsulation by minimizing the amount of code impacted by a change to the internal implementation of a class. Here's another interesting article by Herb Sutter picking apart std::basic_string deciding what methods should be members and what shouldn't.
In a language like Java or C++, I'll admit that the static methods make the code less elegant so there's still a tradeoff. In C#, extension methods can give you the best of both worlds.
If the operation will need to be overridden by a sub-class for some reason, then of course it must be an instance method in which case you'll need to think about all the factors that go into designing a class for inheritance.
My rule of thumb is: if the method performs anything related to a specific instance of a class, regardless of whether it needs to use class instance variables. If you can consider a situation where you might need to use a certain method without necessarily referring to an instance of the class, then the method should definitely be static (class). If this method also happens to need to make use of instance variables in certain cases, then it is probably best to create a separate instance method that calls the static method and passes the instance variables. Performance-wise I believe there is negligible difference (at least in .NET, though I would imagine it would be very similar for Java).
If you keep state ( a value ) of an object and the method is used to access, or modify the state then you should use an instance method.
Even if the method does not alter the state ( an utility function ) I would recommend you to use an instance method. Mostly because this way you can have a subclass that perform a different action.
For the rest you could use an static method.
:)
This thread looks relevant: Method can be made static, but should it? The difference's between C# and Java won't impact its relevance (I think).
Your default choice should be an instance method.
If it uses an instance variable it must be an instance method.
If not, it's up to you, but if you find yourself with a lot of static methods and/or static non-final variables, you probably want to extract all the static stuff into a new class instance. (A bunch of static methods and members is a singleton, but a really annoying one, having a real singleton object would be better--a regular object that there happens to be one of, the best!).
Basically, the rule of thumb is if it uses any data specific to the object, instance. So Math.max is static but BigInteger.bitCount() is instance. It obviously gets more complicated as your domain model does, and there are border-line cases, but the general idea is simple.
I would use an instance method by default. The advantage is that behavior can be overridden in a subclass or if you are coding against interfaces, an alternative implementation of the collaborator can be used. This is really useful for flexibility in testing code.
Static references are baked into your implementation and can't change. I find static useful for short utility methods. If the contents of your static method are very large, you may want to think about breaking responsibility into one or more separate objects and letting those collaborate with the client code as object instances.
IMHO, if you can make it a static method (without having to change it structure) then make it a static method. It is faster, and simpler.
If you know you will want to override the method, I suggest you write a unit test where you actually do this and so it is no longer appropriate to make it static. If that sounds like too much hard work, then don't make it an instance method.
Generally, You shouldn't add functionality as soon as you imagine a use one day (that way madness lies), you should only add functionality you know you actually need.
For a longer explanation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Ain%27t_Gonna_Need_It
http://c2.com/xp/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html
the issue with static methods is that you are breaking one of the core Object Oriented principles as you are coupled to an implementation. You want to support the open close principle and have your class implement an interface that describes the dependency (in a behavioral abstract sense) and then have your classes depend on that innterface. Much easier to extend after that point going forward . ..
My static methods are always one of the following:
Private "helper" methods that evaluate a formula useful only to that class.
Factory methods (Foo.getInstance() etc.)
In a "utility" class that is final, has a private constructor and contains nothing other than public static methods (e.g. com.google.common.collect.Maps)
I will not make a method static just because it does not refer to any instance variables.