The Single Responsibility Principle states that:
A class should have one, and only one, reason to change.
The Open/Closed Principle states that:
You should be able to extend a classes behavior, without modifying it.
How can a developer respect both principles if a class should have only one reason to change, but should not be modified?
Example
The factory pattern is a good example here of something that has a single responsibility, but could violate the open/closed principle:
public abstract class Product
{
}
public class FooProduct : Product
{
}
public class BarProduct : Product
{
}
public class ProductFactory
{
public Product GetProduct(string type)
{
switch(type)
{
case "foo":
return new FooProduct();
case "bar":
return new BarProduct();
default:
throw new ArgumentException(...);
}
}
}
What happens when I need to add ZenProduct to the factory at a later stage?
Surely this violates the open/closed principle?
How can we prevent this violation?
This feels like a discussion of the semantics of 'extend a classes behaviour'. Adding the new type to the factory is modifying existing behaviour, it's not extending behaviour, because we haven't changed the one thing the factory does. We may need to extend the factory but we have not extended it's behaviour. Extending behaviour means introducing new behaviour and would be more along the lines of an event each time an instance of a type is created or authorising the caller of the factory - both these examples extend (introduce new) behaviour.
A class should have one, and only one, reason to change.
The example in the question is a factory for creating Product instances and the only valid reason for it to change is to change something about the Product instances it creates, such as adding a new ZenProduct.
You should be able to extend a classes behavior, without modifying it.
A really simple way to achieve this is through the use of a Decorator
The decorator pattern is often useful for adhering to the Single Responsibility Principle, as it allows functionality to be divided between classes with unique areas of concern.
public interface IProductFactory
{
Product GetProduct(string type);
}
public class ProductFactory : IProductFactory
{
public Product GetProduct(string type)
{
\\ find and return the type
}
}
public class ProductFactoryAuth : IProductFactory
{
IProductFactory decorated;
public ProductFactoryAuth(IProductFactory decorated)
{
this.decorated = decorated;
}
public Product GetProduct(string type)
{
\\ authenticate the caller
return this.decorated.GetProduct(type);
}
}
The decorator pattern is a powerful pattern when applying the SOLID principles. In the above example we've added authentication to the ProductFactory without changing the ProductFactory.
A class should have one, and only one, reason to change.
This basically means, your class should represent single responsibility and shouldn't be modified thereafter to accommodate new feature.
For example, if you have class, which is responsible to print report in pdf format. Later, you wanted to add new feature to support printing report in other formats. Then instead of modify the existing code, you should extend it to support other format, which also implies extend a classes behavior, without modifying it
I think it depends on your interpretation of the SRP. This stuff is always somewhat subjective. Ask 100 people to define "single responsibility" and you'll probably get 100 different answers.
Using the scenario in Ravi's answer, a typical solution might be to have a ReportGenerator class which exposes a GeneratePdf method. It could then be later extended with an additional GenerateWord method if required. Like yourself though, I think this has a whiff about it.
I would probably refactor the GeneratePdf method into a PdfReportGenerator class and then expose that through the ReportGenerator. That way the ReportGenerator only has a single responsibility; which is to expose the various report generation mechanisms (but not contain their logic). It could then be extended without expanding upon that responsibility.
I'd say that if you find a conflict, it might well be an architectural smell that warrants a quick review to see if it can be done in a better way.
I have a class StudentOrganiser class which takes IStudentRepository dependency. Interfaces exposed by IStudentRepository is say GetStudent(int studentId)
Class obeys SRP because it does not have any logic related to manage the connection with repository source.
Class obeys OCP because if we want to change repository source from SQL to XML, StudentOrganiser need not to undergo any changes => open for extension but closed for modification.
Consider if StudentOrganiser was designed to not take dependency of IStudentRepository, then method inside class itself must be taking care of instantiating new StudentSqlRepository() If later on requirement would have come to also support StudentXMLRepository on the basis of certain run time condition, your method would have ended with some case switch kind of paradigm and thus violating SRP as method is also indulged in actual repository deciding factor. By injecting repository dependency we taken off that responsibility from class. Now StudentOrganiser class can be extended to support StudentXMLRepository without any modification.
I already know the fundamentals of the implements and interfaces. I don't understand when to use an interface. What is the requirement to have an interface?
Example:
/// Interface demo
Interface IDemo
{
// Function prototype
public void Show();
}
// First class using the interface
Class MyClass1 : IDemo
{
public void Show()
{
// Function body comes here
Response.Write("I'm in MyClass");
}
}
// Second class using the interface
Class MyClass2 : IDemo
{
public void Show()
{
// Function body comes here
Response.Write("I'm in MyClass2");
Response.Write("So, what?");
}
}
These two classes have the same function name with different bodies. This can also be achieved without interfaces. What's the purpose of having the method reference? When I extend a superclass, at least I get the superclass's properties and methods.
Please give me a clear explaining and a real world scenario for me to understand well.
First they provide a contract for users, so a user doesn't need to know what underlying implementation is used but rather just the contract. This creates loose coupling in case underlying implementation changes.
Real World Examples
In this manner we can use certain patterns like strategy and command pattern: Using a strategy pattern and a command pattern
Real World Example of the Strategy Pattern
Real world example of application of the command pattern
Difference Between Abstract Class and Interface
Much of this can be said about abstract classes, see here for the differences: Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
You need an interface if you need multiple inheritance.
Suppose you have a class that needs to be Comparable and also a List. Since you can only inherit one class in some languages, in order to prove to the compiler that it has both Comparable's compareTo() method as well as List's add() method, you need interfaces. That's the very simplest explanation but I'm sure others will give more reasons.
Also interfaces make multiple inheritance easier in some cases since there is nothing going on "in the background." they only specify what an object needs to offer in terms of methods.
Two reasons to use interfaces:
You need multiple inheritance, and your programming language does not support it (e.g., Java, C#). In this case, most (all but one) of the base classes you inherit in your derived class will need to be defined as interface classes.
You expect to use multiple implementations of a certain class. In this cases, the class can be an abstract class or an interface. Your client provides a specific concrete implementation of this class, which can vary from client to client. The interface (or abstract class) requires the same behavior (methods) for each implementation.
I believe one of the most inportant reasons for using interfaces is type matching. Your programe can be much more flixible by programming to an interface instead of an implementation.
You could take a look at different design patterns (I suggest you start with Strategy Pattern, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern#Example) I reckon you will instantly understand how program to interfaces makes your code more flexible.
Hope this can help.
Much of the power comes from the fact that an object can be referenced by a variable of the interface type. This is subtly vary powerful.
private foo()
{
IDemo demoOne = new MyClass1();
IDemo demoTwo = new MyClass2();
}
This can become vary powerful because you can encapsulate different behaviors. For example:
private foo(bool option)
{
IDemo demo = option ? new MyClass1() : new MyClass2();
}
private bar (IDemo demo)
{
demo.Show();
}
Now bar can use the IDemo object without having to know which concrete implementation of IDemo is passed in. The decision about which implementation to use is encapsulated in the foo method. This might not seem like a big deal in such a simple example. If you look at the links posted in tigger's answer, you will see where this can become very useful.
One case where this is particularly useful is with unit testing. You can have a business logic class that takes an interface to a data layer object. When the application runs, the business logic class is passed an instance of the real data layer object. When the class is unit tested, it is passed an instance of a object that returns test data. This allows the unit test to run with predictable data inputs. This is known at Dependency Injection.
Another useful case is when you want to interact with framework or third-party code. Let's say you want to implement a custom collection. If your class implements the IEnumerable interface, you can iterate through the items in the collection in a foreach loop. The framework doesn't need to know how your class stores the items or what is in the items, but if it knows that you implemented IEnumerable, it can allow you to use a foreach loop.
I saw this in someone's code and thought wow, that's an elegant way to solve this particular problem, but it probably violates good OO principles in an epic way.
In the constructor for a set of classes that are all derived from a common base class, he requires a reference to the instancing class to be passed. For example,
Foo Foo_i = new(this);
Then later on Foo would call methods in the instancing class to get information about itself and the other objects contained by the instancing class.
On the one hand, this simplifies a TON of code that models a 5-layer tree structure in hardware (agents plugged into ports on multiple switches, etc). On the other hand, these objects are pretty tightly coupled to each other in a way that seems pretty wrong, but I don't know enough about OOA&D to put my finger on it.
So, is this okay? Or is this the OO equivalent to a goto statement?
You shoud try to avoid mutual references (especially when implemeting containment) but oftentimes they are impossible to avoid. I.e. parent child relationship - children often need to know the parent and notify it if some events happen. If you really need to do that - opt for interfaces (or abstract classes in case of C++).
So you instancing class should implement some interface, and the instanciated class should know it only as interface - this will sigificantly reduce coupling. In some respect this approach is similar to nested listener class as it exposes only part of the class, but it is easier to maintain. Here is little C# example:
interface IParent
{
//some methods here
}
class Child
{
// child will know parent (instancing class) as interface only
private readonly IParent parent_;
public Child(IParent parent)
{
parent_ = parent;
}
}
class Parent : IParent
{
// IParent implementation and other methods here
}
This sounds like it could be violating the Law of Demeter, depending on how much Foo needs to know to fish around in the instancing class. Objects should preferably be loosely coupled. You'd rather not have one class need to know a lot about the structure of another class. One example I've heard a few times is that you wouldn't hand your wallet over to a store clerk and let him fish around inside. Your wallet is your business, and you'll find what you need to give the clerk and hand it over yourself. You can reorganize your wallet and nobody will be the wiser. Looser coupling makes testing easier. Foo should ideally be testable without needing to maintain a complex context.
I try and avoid this if I can just from an information hiding point of view. The less information a class has or needs the easier it is to test and verify. That being said, it does lead to more elegant solutions in some cases so if not doing it is horribly convoluted involving an awful lot of parameter passing then by all means go for it.
Java for example uses this a lot with inner classes:
public class Outer {
private class Inner {
public Inner() {
// has access to the members of Outer for the instance that instantiated it
}
}
}
In Java, I remember avoiding this once by subclassing certain Listeners and Adapters in my controller and adding those listeners and adapters to my subclasses.
In other words my controller was
class p {
private member x
private methods
private class q {
// methods referencing p's private members and methods
}
x.setListener(new q());
}
I think this is more loosely coupled, but I would also like some confirmation.
This design pattern can make a lot of sense in some situations. For example, iterators are always associated with a specific collection, so it makes sense for the iterator's constructor to require a collection.
You didn't provide a concrete example, but if the class reminds you of goto, it probably is a bad idea.
You said the new object must interrogate the instantiating object for information. Perhaps the class makes too many assumptions about its environment? If those assumptions complicate unit testing, debugging, or (non-hypothetical) code reuse, then you should consider refactoring.
But if the design saves developer time overall and you don't expect an unmaintainable beast in two years' time, the practice is completely acceptable from a practical standpoint.
Could someone please demystify interfaces for me or point me to some good examples? I keep seeing interfaces popup here and there, but I haven't ever really been exposed to good explanations of interfaces or when to use them.
I am talking about interfaces in a context of interfaces vs. abstract classes.
Interfaces allow you to program against a "description" instead of a type, which allows you to more-loosely associate elements of your software.
Think of it this way: You want to share data with someone in the cube next to you, so you pull out your flash stick and copy/paste. You walk next door and the guy says "is that USB?" and you say yes - all set. It doesn't matter the size of the flash stick, nor the maker - all that matters is that it's USB.
In the same way, interfaces allow you to generisize your development. Using another analogy - imagine you wanted to create an application that virtually painted cars. You might have a signature like this:
public void Paint(Car car, System.Drawing.Color color)...
This would work until your client said "now I want to paint trucks" so you could do this:
public void Paint (Vehicle vehicle, System.Drawing.Color color)...
this would broaden your app... until your client said "now I want to paint houses!" What you could have done from the very beginning is created an interface:
public interface IPaintable{
void Paint(System.Drawing.Color color);
}
...and passed that to your routine:
public void Paint(IPaintable item, System.Drawing.Color color){
item.Paint(color);
}
Hopefully this makes sense - it's a pretty simplistic explanation but hopefully gets to the heart of it.
Interfaces establish a contract between a class and the code that calls it. They also allow you to have similar classes that implement the same interface but do different actions or events and not have to know which you are actually working with. This might make more sense as an example so let me try one here.
Say you have a couple classes called Dog, Cat, and Mouse. Each of these classes is a Pet and in theory you could inherit them all from another class called Pet but here's the problem. Pets in and of themselves don't do anything. You can't go to the store and buy a pet. You can go and buy a dog or a cat but a pet is an abstract concept and not concrete.
So You know pets can do certain things. They can sleep, or eat, etc. So you define an interface called IPet and it looks something like this (C# syntax)
public interface IPet
{
void Eat(object food);
void Sleep(int duration);
}
Each of your Dog, Cat, and Mouse classes implement IPet.
public class Dog : IPet
So now each of those classes has to have it's own implementation of Eat and Sleep. Yay you have a contract... Now what's the point.
Next let's say you want to make a new object called PetStore. And this isn't a very good PetStore so they basically just sell you a random pet (yes i know this is a contrived example).
public class PetStore
{
public static IPet GetRandomPet()
{
//Code to return a random Dog, Cat, or Mouse
}
}
IPet myNewRandomPet = PetStore.GetRandomPet();
myNewRandomPet.Sleep(10);
The problem is you don't know what type of pet it will be. Thanks to the interface though you know whatever it is it will Eat and Sleep.
So this answer may not have been helpful at all but the general idea is that interfaces let you do neat stuff like Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control where you can get an object, have a well defined list of stuff that object can do without ever REALLY knowing what the concrete type of that object is.
The easiest answer is that interfaces define a what your class can do. It's a "contract" that says that your class will be able to do that action.
Public Interface IRollOver
Sub RollOver()
End Interface
Public Class Dog Implements IRollOver
Public Sub RollOver() Implements IRollOver.RollOver
Console.WriteLine("Rolling Over!")
End Sub
End Class
Public Sub Main()
Dim d as New Dog()
Dim ro as IRollOver = TryCast(d, IRollOver)
If ro isNot Nothing Then
ro.RollOver()
End If
End Sub
Basically, you are guaranteeing that the Dog class always has the ability to roll over as long as it continues to implement that Interface. Should cats ever gain the ability to RollOver(), they too could implement that interface, and you can treat both Dogs and Cats homogeneously when asking them to RollOver().
When you drive a friend's car, you more or less know how to do that. This is because conventional cars all have a very similar interface: steering wheel, pedals, and so forth. Think of this interface as a contract between car manufacturers and drivers. As a driver (the user/client of the interface in software terms), you don't need to learn the particulars of different cars to be able to drive them: e.g., all you need to know is that turning the steering wheel makes the car turn. As a car manufacturer (the provider of an implementation of the interface in software terms) you have a clear idea what your new car should have and how it should behave so that drivers can use them without much extra training. This contract is what people in software design refer to as decoupling (the user from the provider) -- the client code is in terms of using an interface rather than a particular implementation thereof and hence doesn't need to know the details of the objects implementing the interface.
Interfaces are a mechanism to reduce coupling between different, possibly disparate parts of a system.
From a .NET perspective
The interface definition is a list of operations and/or properties.
Interface methods are always public.
The interface itself doesn't have to be public.
When you create a class that implements the interface, you must provide either an explicit or implicit implementation of all methods and properties defined by the interface.
Further, .NET has only single inheritance, and interfaces are a necessity for an object to expose methods to other objects that aren't aware of, or lie outside of its class hierarchy. This is also known as exposing behaviors.
An example that's a little more concrete:
Consider is we have many DTO's (data transfer objects) that have properties for who updated last, and when that was. The problem is that not all the DTO's have this property because it's not always relevant.
At the same time we desire a generic mechanism to guarantee these properties are set if available when submitted to the workflow, but the workflow object should be loosely coupled from the submitted objects. i.e. the submit workflow method shouldn't really know about all the subtleties of each object, and all objects in the workflow aren't necessarily DTO objects.
// First pass - not maintainable
void SubmitToWorkflow(object o, User u)
{
if (o is StreetMap)
{
var map = (StreetMap)o;
map.LastUpdated = DateTime.UtcNow;
map.UpdatedByUser = u.UserID;
}
else if (o is Person)
{
var person = (Person)o;
person.LastUpdated = DateTime.Now; // Whoops .. should be UtcNow
person.UpdatedByUser = u.UserID;
}
// Whoa - very unmaintainable.
In the code above, SubmitToWorkflow() must know about each and every object. Additionally, the code is a mess with one massive if/else/switch, violates the don't repeat yourself (DRY) principle, and requires developers to remember copy/paste changes every time a new object is added to the system.
// Second pass - brittle
void SubmitToWorkflow(object o, User u)
{
if (o is DTOBase)
{
DTOBase dto = (DTOBase)o;
dto.LastUpdated = DateTime.UtcNow;
dto.UpdatedByUser = u.UserID;
}
It is slightly better, but it is still brittle. If we want to submit other types of objects, we need still need more case statements. etc.
// Third pass pass - also brittle
void SubmitToWorkflow(DTOBase dto, User u)
{
dto.LastUpdated = DateTime.UtcNow;
dto.UpdatedByUser = u.UserID;
It is still brittle, and both methods impose the constraint that all the DTOs have to implement this property which we indicated wasn't universally applicable. Some developers might be tempted to write do-nothing methods, but that smells bad. We don't want classes pretending they support update tracking but don't.
Interfaces, how can they help?
If we define a very simple interface:
public interface IUpdateTracked
{
DateTime LastUpdated { get; set; }
int UpdatedByUser { get; set; }
}
Any class that needs this automatic update tracking can implement the interface.
public class SomeDTO : IUpdateTracked
{
// IUpdateTracked implementation as well as other methods for SomeDTO
}
The workflow method can be made to be a lot more generic, smaller, and more maintainable, and it will continue to work no matter how many classes implement the interface (DTOs or otherwise) because it only deals with the interface.
void SubmitToWorkflow(object o, User u)
{
IUpdateTracked updateTracked = o as IUpdateTracked;
if (updateTracked != null)
{
updateTracked.LastUpdated = DateTime.UtcNow;
updateTracked.UpdatedByUser = u.UserID;
}
// ...
We can note the variation void SubmitToWorkflow(IUpdateTracked updateTracked, User u) would guarantee type safety, however it doesn't seem as relevant in these circumstances.
In some production code we use, we have code generation to create these DTO classes from the database definition. The only thing the developer does is have to create the field name correctly and decorate the class with the interface. As long as the properties are called LastUpdated and UpdatedByUser, it just works.
Maybe you're asking What happens if my database is legacy and that's not possible? You just have to do a little more typing; another great feature of interfaces is they can allow you to create a bridge between the classes.
In the code below we have a fictitious LegacyDTO, a pre-existing object having similarly-named fields. It's implementing the IUpdateTracked interface to bridge the existing, but differently named properties.
// Using an interface to bridge properties
public class LegacyDTO : IUpdateTracked
{
public int LegacyUserID { get; set; }
public DateTime LastSaved { get; set; }
public int UpdatedByUser
{
get { return LegacyUserID; }
set { LegacyUserID = value; }
}
public DateTime LastUpdated
{
get { return LastSaved; }
set { LastSaved = value; }
}
}
You might thing Cool, but isn't it confusing having multiple properties? or What happens if there are already those properties, but they mean something else? .NET gives you the ability to explicitly implement the interface.
What this means is that the IUpdateTracked properties will only be visible when we're using a reference to IUpdateTracked. Note how there is no public modifier on the declaration, and the declaration includes the interface name.
// Explicit implementation of an interface
public class YetAnotherObject : IUpdatable
{
int IUpdatable.UpdatedByUser
{ ... }
DateTime IUpdatable.LastUpdated
{ ... }
Having so much flexibility to define how the class implements the interface gives the developer a lot of freedom to decouple the object from methods that consume it. Interfaces are a great way to break coupling.
There is a lot more to interfaces than just this. This is just a simplified real-life example that utilizes one aspect of interface based programming.
As I mentioned earlier, and by other responders, you can create methods that take and/or return interface references rather than a specific class reference. If I needed to find duplicates in a list, I could write a method that takes and returns an IList (an interface defining operations that work on lists) and I'm not constrained to a concrete collection class.
// Decouples the caller and the code as both
// operate only on IList, and are free to swap
// out the concrete collection.
public IList<T> FindDuplicates( IList<T> list )
{
var duplicates = new List<T>()
// TODO - write some code to detect duplicate items
return duplicates;
}
Versioning caveat
If it's a public interface, you're declaring I guarantee interface x looks like this! And once you have shipped code and published the interface, you should never change it. As soon as consumer code starts to rely on that interface, you don't want to break their code in the field.
See this Haacked post for a good discussion.
Interfaces versus abstract (base) classes
Abstract classes can provide implementation whereas Interfaces cannot. Abstract classes are in some ways more flexible in the versioning aspect if you follow some guidelines like the NVPI (Non-Virtual Public Interface) pattern.
It's worth reiterating that in .NET, a class can only inherit from a single class, but a class can implement as many interfaces as it likes.
Dependency Injection
The quick summary of interfaces and dependency injection (DI) is that the use of interfaces enables developers to write code that is programmed against an interface to provide services. In practice you can end up with a lot of small interfaces and small classes, and one idea is that small classes that do one thing and only one thing are much easier to code and maintain.
class AnnualRaiseAdjuster
: ISalaryAdjuster
{
AnnualRaiseAdjuster(IPayGradeDetermination payGradeDetermination) { ... }
void AdjustSalary(Staff s)
{
var payGrade = payGradeDetermination.Determine(s);
s.Salary = s.Salary * 1.01 + payGrade.Bonus;
}
}
In brief, the benefit shown in the above snippet is that the pay grade determination is just injected into the annual raise adjuster. How pay grade is determined doesn't actually matter to this class. When testing, the developer can mock pay grade determination results to ensure the salary adjuster functions as desired. The tests are also fast because the test is only testing the class, and not everything else.
This isn't a DI primer though as there are whole books devoted to the subject; the above example is very simplified.
This is a rather "long" subject, but let me try to put it simple.
An interface is -as "they name it"- a Contract. But forget about that word.
The best way to understand them is through some sort of pseudo-code example. That's how I understood them long time ago.
Suppose you have an app that processes Messages. A Message contains some stuff, like a subject, a text, etc.
So you write your MessageController to read a database, and extract messages. It's very nice until you suddenly hear that Faxes will be also implemented soon. So you will now have to read "Faxes" and process them as messages!
This could easily turn into a Spagetti code. So what you do instead of having a MessageController than controls "Messages" only, you make it able to work with an interface called IMessage (the I is just common usage, but not required).
Your IMessage interface, contains some basic data you need to make sure that you're able to process the Message as such.
So when you create your EMail, Fax, PhoneCall classes, you make them Implement the Interface called IMessage.
So in your MessageController, you can have a method called like this:
private void ProcessMessage(IMessage oneMessage)
{
DoSomething();
}
If you had not used Interfaces, you'd have to have:
private void ProcessEmail(Email someEmail);
private void ProcessFax(Fax someFax);
etc.
So, by using a common interface, you just made sure that the ProcessMessage method will be able to work with it, no matter if it was a Fax, an Email a PhoneCall, etc.
Why or how?
Because the interface is a contract that specifies some things you must adhere (or implement) in order to be able to use it. Think of it as a badge. If your object "Fax" doesn't have the IMessage interface, then your ProcessMessage method wouldn't be able to work with that, it will give you an invalid type, because you're passing a Fax to a method that expects an IMessage object.
Do you see the point?
Think of the interface as a "subset" of methods and properties that you will have available, despite the real object type. If the original object (Fax, Email, PhoneCall, etc) implements that interface, you can safety pass it across methods that need that Interface.
There's more magic hidden in there, you can CAST the interfaces back to their original objects:
Fax myFax = (Fax)SomeIMessageThatIReceive;
The ArrayList() in .NET 1.1 had a nice interface called IList. If you had an IList (very "generic") you could transform it into an ArrayList:
ArrayList ar = (ArrayList)SomeIList;
And there are thousands of samples out there in the wild.
Interfaces like ISortable, IComparable, etc., define the methods and properties you must implement in your class in order to achieve that functionality.
To expand our sample, you could have a List<> of Emails, Fax, PhoneCall, all in the same List, if the Type is IMessage, but you couldn't have them all together if the objects were simply Email, Fax, etc.
If you wanted to sort (or enumerate for example) your objects, you'd need them to implement the corresponding interface. In the .NET sample, if you have a list of "Fax" objects and want to be able to sort them by using MyList.Sort(), you need to make your fax class like this:
public class Fax : ISorteable
{
//implement the ISorteable stuff here.
}
I hope this gives you a hint. Other users will possibly post other good examples. Good luck! and Embrace the power of INterfaces.
warning: Not everything is good about interfaces, there are some issues with them, OOP purists will start a war on this. I shall remain aside. One drawback of an Interfce (in .NET 2.0 at least) is that you cannot have PRIVATE members, or protected, it must be public. This makes some sense, but sometimes you wish you could simply declare stuff as private or protected.
In addition to the function interfaces have within programming languages, they also are a powerful semantic tool when expressing design ideas to other people.
A code base with well-designed interfaces is suddenly a lot easier to discuss. "Yes, you need a CredentialsManager to register new remote servers." "Pass a PropertyMap to ThingFactory to get a working instance."
Ability to address a complex thing with a single word is pretty useful.
Interfaces let you code against objects in a generic way. For instance, say you have a method that sends out reports. Now say you have a new requirement that comes in where you need to write a new report. It would be nice if you could reuse the method you already had written right? Interfaces makes that easy:
interface IReport
{
string RenderReport();
}
class MyNewReport : IReport
{
public string RenderReport()
{
return "Hello World Report!";
}
}
class AnotherReport : IReport
{
public string RenderReport()
{
return "Another Report!";
}
}
//This class can process any report that implements IReport!
class ReportEmailer()
{
public void EmailReport(IReport report)
{
Email(report.RenderReport());
}
}
class MyApp()
{
void Main()
{
//create specific "MyNewReport" report using interface
IReport newReport = new MyNewReport();
//create specific "AnotherReport" report using interface
IReport anotherReport = new AnotherReport();
ReportEmailer reportEmailer = new ReportEmailer();
//emailer expects interface
reportEmailer.EmailReport(newReport);
reportEmailer.EmailReport(anotherReport);
}
}
Interfaces are also key to polymorphism, one of the "THREE PILLARS OF OOD".
Some people touched on it above, polymorphism just means a given class can take on different "forms". Meaning, if we have two classes, "Dog" and "Cat" and both implement the interface "INeedFreshFoodAndWater" (hehe) - your code can do something like this (pseudocode):
INeedFreshFoodAndWater[] array = new INeedFreshFoodAndWater[];
array.Add(new Dog());
array.Add(new Cat());
foreach(INeedFreshFoodAndWater item in array)
{
item.Feed();
item.Water();
}
This is powerful because it allows you to treat different classes of objects abstractly, and allows you to do things like make your objects more loosely coupled, etc.
OK, so it's about abstract classes vs. interfaces...
Conceptually, abstract classes are there to be used as base classes. Quite often they themselves already provide some basic functionality, and the subclasses have to provide their own implementation of the abstract methods (those are the methods which aren't implemented in the abstract base class).
Interfaces are mostly used for decoupling the client code from the details of a particular implementation. Also, sometimes the ability to switch the implementation without changing the client code makes the client code more generic.
On the technical level, it's harder to draw the line between abstract classes and interfaces, because in some languages (e.g., C++), there's no syntactic difference, or because you could also use abstract classes for the purposes of decoupling or generalization. Using an abstract class as an interface is possible because every base class, by definition, defines an interface that all of its subclasses should honor (i.e., it should be possible to use a subclass instead of a base class).
Interfaces are a way to enforce that an object implements a certain amount of functionality, without having to use inheritance (which leads to strongly coupled code, instead of loosely coupled which can be achieved through using interfaces).
Interfaces describe the functionality, not the implementation.
Most of the interfaces you come across are a collection of method and property signatures. Any one who implements an interface must provide definitions to what ever is in the interface.
Simply put: An interface is a class that methods defined but no implementation in them. In contrast an abstract class has some of the methods implemented but not all.
Think of an interface as a contract. When a class implements an interface, it is essentially agreeing to honor the terms of that contract. As a consumer, you only care that the objects you have can perform their contractual duties. Their inner workings and details aren't important.
One good reason for using an interface vs. an abstract class in Java is that a subclass cannot extend multiple base classes, but it CAN implement multiple interfaces.
Java does not allow multiple inheritance (for very good reasons, look up dreadful diamond) but what if you want to have your class supply several sets of behavior? Say you want anyone who uses it to know it can be serialized, and also that it can paint itself on the screen. the answer is to implement two different interfaces.
Because interfaces contain no implementation of their own and no instance members it is safe to implement several of them in the same class with no ambiguities.
The down side is that you will have to have the implementation in each class separately. So if your hierarchy is simple and there are parts of the implementation that should be the same for all the inheriting classes use an abstract class.
Assuming you're referring to interfaces in statically-typed object-oriented languages, the primary use is in asserting that your class follows a particular contract or protocol.
Say you have:
public interface ICommand
{
void Execute();
}
public class PrintSomething : ICommand
{
OutputStream Stream { get; set; }
String Content {get; set;}
void Execute()
{
Stream.Write(content);
}
}
Now you have a substitutable command structure. Any instance of a class that implements IExecute can be stored in a list of some sort, say something that implements IEnumerable and you can loop through that and execute each one, knowing that each object will Just Do The Right Thing. You can create a composite command by implementing CompositeCommand which will have its own list of commands to run, or a LoopingCommand to run a set of commands repeatedly, then you'll have most of a simple interpreter.
When you can reduce a set of objects to a behavior that they all have in common, you might have cause to extract an interface. Also, sometimes you can use interfaces to prevent objects from accidentally intruding on the concerns of that class; for example, you may implement an interface that only allows clients to retrieve, rather than change data in your object, and have most objects receive only a reference to the retrieval interface.
Interfaces work best when your interfaces are relatively simple and make few assumptions.
Look up the Liskov subsitution principle to make more sense of this.
Some statically-typed languages like C++ don't support interfaces as a first-class concept, so you create interfaces using pure abstract classes.
Update
Since you seem to be asking about abstract classes vs. interfaces, here's my preferred oversimplification:
Interfaces define capabilities and features.
Abstract classes define core functionality.
Typically, I do an extract interface refactoring before I build an abstract class. I'm more likely to build an abstract class if I think there should be a creational contract (specifically, that a specific type of constructor should always be supported by subclasses). However, I rarely use "pure" abstract classes in C#/java. I'm far more likely to implement a class with at least one method containing meaningful behavior, and use abstract methods to support template methods called by that method. Then the abstract class is a base implementation of a behavior, which all concrete subclasses can take advantage of without having to reimplement.
Simple answer: An interface is a bunch of method signatures (+ return type). When an object says it implements an interface, you know it exposes that set of methods.
Interfaces are a way to implement conventions in a way that is still strongly typed and polymorphic.
A good real world example would be IDisposable in .NET. A class that implements the IDisposable interface forces that class to implement the Dispose() method. If the class doesn't implement Dispose() you'll get a compiler error when trying to build. Additionally, this code pattern:
using (DisposableClass myClass = new DisposableClass())
{
// code goes here
}
Will cause myClass.Dispose() to be executed automatically when execution exits the inner block.
However, and this is important, there is no enforcement as to what your Dispose() method should do. You could have your Dispose() method pick random recipes from a file and email them to a distribution list, the compiler doesn't care. The intent of the IDisposable pattern is to make cleaning up resources easier. If instances of a class will hold onto file handles then IDisposable makes it very easy to centralize the deallocation and cleanup code in one spot and to promote a style of use which ensures that deallocation always occurs.
And that's the key to interfaces. They are a way to streamline programming conventions and design patterns. Which, when used correctly, promotes simpler, self-documenting code which is easier to use, easier to maintain, and more correct.
Here is a db related example I often use. Let us say you have an object and a container object like an list. Let us assume that sometime you might want to store the objects in a particular sequence. Assume that the sequence is not related to the position in the array but instead that the objects are a subset of a larger set of objects and the sequence position is related to the database sql filtering.
To keep track of your customized sequence positions you could make your object implement a custom interface. The custom interface could mediate the organizational effort required to maintain such sequences.
For example, the sequence you are interested in has nothing to do with primary keys in the records. With the object implementing the interface you could say myObject.next() or myObject.prev().
I have had the same problem as you and I find the "contract" explanation a bit confusing.
If you specify that a method takes an IEnumerable interface as an in-parameter you could say that this is a contract specifying that the parameter must be of a type that inherits from the IEnumerable interface and hence supports all methods specified in the IEnumerable interface. The same would be true though if we used an abstract class or a normal class. Any object that inherits from those classes would be ok to pass in as a parameter. You would in any case be able to say that the inherited object supports all public methods in the base class whether the base class is a normal class, an abstract class or an interface.
An abstract class with all abstract methods is basically the same as an interface so you could say an interface is simply a class without implemented methods. You could actually drop interfaces from the language and just use abstract class with only abstract methods instead. I think the reason we separate them is for semantic reasons but for coding reasons I don't see the reason and find it just confusing.
Another suggestion could be to rename the interface to interface class as the interface is just another variation of a class.
In certain languages there are subtle differences that allows a class to inherit only 1 class but multiple interfaces while in others you could have many of both, but that is another issue and not directly related I think
The simplest way to understand interfaces is to start by considering what class inheritance means. It includes two aspects:
Members of a derived class can use public or protected members of a base class as their own.
Members of a derived class can be used by code which expects a member of the base class (meaning they are substitutable).
Both of these features are useful, but because it is difficult to allow a class to use members of more than one class as its own, many languages and frameworks only allow classes to inherit from a single base class. On the other hand, there is no particular difficulty with having a class be substitutable for multiple other unrelated things.
Further, because the first benefit of inheritance can be largely achieved via encapsulation, the relative benefit from allowing multiple-inheritance of the first type is somewhat limited. On the other hand, being able to substitute an object for multiple unrelated types of things is a useful ability which cannot be readily achieved without language support.
Interfaces provide a means by which a language/framework can allow programs to benefit from the second aspect of inheritance for multiple base types, without requiring it to also provide the first.
Interface is like a fully abstract class. That is, an abstract class with only abstract members. You can also implement multiple interfaces, it's like inheriting from multiple fully abstract classes. Anyway.. this explanation only helps if you understand what an abstract class is.
Like others have said here, interfaces define a contract (how the classes who use the interface will "look") and abstract classes define shared functionality.
Let's see if the code helps:
public interface IReport
{
void RenderReport(); // This just defines the method prototype
}
public abstract class Reporter
{
protected void DoSomething()
{
// This method is the same for every class that inherits from this class
}
}
public class ReportViolators : Reporter, IReport
{
public void RenderReport()
{
// Some kind of implementation specific to this class
}
}
public class ClientApp
{
var violatorsReport = new ReportViolators();
// The interface method
violatorsReport.RenderReport();
// The abstract class method
violatorsReport.DoSomething();
}
Interfaces require any class that implements them to contain the methods defined in the interface.
The purpose is so that, without having to see the code in a class, you can know if it can be used for a certain task. For example, the Integer class in Java implements the comparable interface, so, if you only saw the method header (public class String implements Comparable), you would know that it contains a compareTo() method.
In your simple case, you could achieve something similar to what you get with interfaces by using a common base class that implements show() (or perhaps defines it as abstract). Let me change your generic names to something more concrete, Eagle and Hawk instead of MyClass1 and MyClass2. In that case you could write code like
Bird bird = GetMeAnInstanceOfABird(someCriteriaForSelectingASpecificKindOfBird);
bird.Fly(Direction.South, Speed.CruisingSpeed);
That lets you write code that can handle anything that is a Bird. You could then write code that causes the Bird to do its thing (fly, eat, lay eggs, and so forth) that acts on an instance it treats as a Bird. That code would work whether Bird is really an Eagle, Hawk, or anything else that derives from Bird.
That paradigm starts to get messy, though, when you don't have a true is a relationship. Say you want to write code that flies things around in the sky. If you write that code to accept a Bird base class, it suddenly becomes hard to evolve that code to work on a JumboJet instance, because while a Bird and a JumboJet can certainly both fly, a JumboJet is most certainly not a Bird.
Enter the interface.
What Bird (and Eagle, and Hawk) do have in common is that they can all fly. If you write the above code instead to act on an interface, IFly, that code can be applied to anything that provides an implementation to that interface.