Related
At the beginning I know there are couple of similar subject already but decided to create my own as it's a bit more that others.
Think I know how to use interfaces (or not) - how it has to be declared, how class implements it and how to assign object of class which implements interface to this interface.
My main problem is I cannot enforce myself to use them somehow. I am not sure if I really understand when interface has to be used. When I am developing application I noticed that I am not using them or I use them but just simply to declare interface and consume by class as a contract but that's it - I just don't see usage of them later. Those which I much use is inheritance but not interfaces.
So out of what I just wrote the question is more like how to know that in this particular moment I should use them or better in what moment they could be used. How do you do it in your daily business work? Real world examples are welcomed.
I agree with you when you don't have multiple implementations, then it is un-necessary to design the interface and then implement it. It will unnecessarily add a new file to code base. But we find in general practice people create an interface first then implement it. It could be because of 3 main reasons :
For Future : They can see multiple implementation in future, so to make the future implementation secure, lets define the contract during the first implementation.
For Abstraction : Interface will give a small and clear definition of your implementation. You can read the interface and get a quick view/understanding.
For Management : If you are busy with the implementing a component and others have a dependency on your component. So lets quickly design the interface and distribute to them so that they can continue on their part.
If interfaces have empty methods (implicit abstract method) then what is its use? Why do we say it reduces the code and provides re-usability? Give me a real life example of using an interface that shows the difference between an abstract class and an interface.
Interface is more like a contract. It doesn't provide any implementation reuse as such. Which actually makes your code de-coupled from implementation. Having a abstract class with ALL the methods abstract provides the same benefit (if we ignore the issue of multiple inheritance).
For a really good example take a look at Java Collections and how things are loosely coupled using interfaces for Collection, Map and Lists.
Because of the terminology you are using, I am going to assume you are talking about Java.
An interface is useful in lieu of an abstract class because a class can only inherit from a single class, but can implement multiple interfaces.
An interface is a contract between parts of the program. It says that one part of the program has certain expectations about classes that implement this interface. As long as those classes uphold that interface contract, the other parts of the program don't care how that contract is implemented, just that it is implemented.
It allows for polymorphism and for the reuse of code. For instance, (with respect to Java), you can take the List interface. You can write code that interfaces with a List object where you don't care about the implementation of the List. Your code then can be used with a LinkedList or an ArrayList or any other type of list that it may deal with, and it should be able to manage well enough. You can write code now that has certain expectations through this List interface contract, and 15 years down the road someone can use the latest technologies to create their own List implementation and your code will be able to use it.
Abstract class lets you describe fields and non abstract methods. It does not limit you to simply describing interface, it involves some logic. Interface on other hand does what it says and has nothing to do with logic. From client code side, you have no worries about implementation and how stuff works. It lets you exchange one interface realization with other without additional code.
On realization code side, interface lets you perform multiple "inheritance".
I like to call these types of features "implied code documentation". Using an interface can communicate a lot of information to other developers who will be working on your project, and this information can help prevent a lot of headaches.
For instance, if a class implements an interface that has 2 methods, and I'm new to the project, that may tell me that the developer who wrote those methods don't want the method signature to change.
Think about the Dog class and the Cat class that both implement the interface Sociable, where there are methods walk(int speed), sit(), layDown(), bite(int degree).
If we have a Dog class and a Cat class that implement these methods and there are dependencies on them, changing the method signature of one could have some negative effects.
Interfaces are a way to help describe a class. In this example, a Sociable Dog and a Sociable Cat have a lot in common.
As far as reusability goes, your classes become reusable because it's harder for others to come in and change the contract defined in the method signature.
Lastly, while a class can only subclass one class, it can implement multiple interfaces. Thus, the advantage of using an interface is that I can have a Dog that implements Big and Sociable, and a Cat that implements Small and Sociable.
I was wondering, I recently read an article that spoke of the ills of using the singleton pattern siting the disadvantage of global variable occurrence and rightly that the singleton violates alot of the rules we learn from OOP school, single responsibility principle, programming to interfaces and abstract classes and not to concrete classes... all that good stuff. I was wondering how then do you work with like database connection class where you want just one connection to your DB and one object of your DB floating around. The author spoke of Dependency Injection principle which to my mind stands well with the Dependency Inversion rule. How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
Edit: This answer assumes you are using a dependency injection container, either one you wrote yourself, or one you got from a library. If not, then use a DI container :)
How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
By contract
The oral contract - You write a design spec that says "thou shalt not instantiate this class directly" and "thou shalt not pass around any object you got from the dependency injection container. Pass the container if you have to".
The compiler contract - You give them a dependency injection container, and they grab the instance out of it, by abstract interface. If you want only a single instance to be used, you can supply them a named instance, which they extract with both the name, and the interface.
ISomething instance = serviceLocator.ResolveInstance<ISomething>(
"TheInstanceImSupposedToUse");
You can also make all your concrete classes private/internal/what-have-you, and only provide them an abstract interface to operate against. This will prevent them from instantiating the classes themselves.
// This can only be instantiated by you, but can be used by them via ISomething
private class ConcreteSomething : ISomething
{
// ...
}
By code review
You make group-wide coding and design standards that are fair, and make sure they are understood by everyone within the group.
You use a source control mechanism, and require code reviews before they check in. You read over their code for what they link to, what headers they include, what objects they instantiate, and what instances they are passing around.
If they violate your rules during code reviews, you don't let them check in until they fix their code. Optionally, for repeat offenders, you make them pay you a dollar, you make them buy you lunch, or you hire a different contractor to replace them. Whatever works well within your group :)
For those who criticize the singleton pattern, based on SRP, here is an opposing view. Also, I've found that dependency injection containers can create as many problems as they solve. That said, I'm using a promising compromise, as covered in another post.
Dependency injection containers (even one you develop yourself, which isn't an entirely uncommon practice) are generally very configurable. What you'd do in that scenario is configure it such that any request for the interface that implementation, well, implements would be satisfied with that implementation. Even if it's a singleton.
For example, take a look at the Logger singleton being used here: http://www.pnpguidance.net/News/StructureMapTutorialDependencyInjectionIoCNET.aspx
Don't take what you read anywhere as absolute truth. Read it, understand it and then you can see when it's best to apply certain things. In your case, why wouldn't you want to create a static singleton?
Whenever i hear about interfaces i have the following doubt.
i have the following interface
interface Imammals
{
walk();
eat();
run();
}
and i have two classes Human and Cat that implements this interface.
Anyway, the functionality of the methods are going to be different in both the Classes.
For Eg: walk(), the functionality differs as cat uses four legs and human uses two legs
Then, Why do i need to have a common interface which ONLY declares these methods? Is my design here faulty?
If the functionality of the methods are going to be same in both the classes, i could go for a class based inheritance where the parent implements the complete functionality and the child inherits and uses the parent class methods.
But here the interfaces help us just to consolidate the methods declarations or is there anything more inside?
EDIT: walking(), eating(), running() was changed to walk(), eat(), run() and mammals was changes to Imammals.
In your scenario, either type-inheritance or interface-implementation would work - but interface based abstraction allows types outside of your existing type model to provide the functionality. It could be a mock object, or it could be some kind of super killer robot, that can walk run and eat but isn't really a mammal (so having it inherit from a Mammal class could be confusing or just impossible).
In particular, interfaces allow us to express this relationship neatly, while avoiding the subtle points from C# having single (type-)inheritance.
Using the interface you can have the following:
public void walkMyAnimal(Animal animal) {
animal.walk();
}
without the need to know what animal exactly is passed.
Interface allows you to define behavior for inheriting classes so if you have Donkey in future then you simply implement this interface and be sure that you donkey will walk,run and eat.
Also you can use composition instead of concrete implementation if some of your objects have common behaviour.
Read a bit about Strategy pattern I think that will help.
One big advantage of interfaces is that even in languages like Java and C# where multiple inheritance is not allowed, a class can take on more than one interface. Something can be both Closable, for instance, and a List, but could not inherit from both (hypothetical) abstract base classes AbstractClosable and AbstractList.
It is also suitable for cases where you are writing a library or a plugin interface and want to provide a way for your code to use objects provided by library users or plugin writers, but you don't want (nor should you) any say in the implementation. Think of the Listener interfaces in Java, for instance. Without those, there would be no possibility of an event model, since Java doens't support callbacks.
In general, interfaces are good for cases where you want objects that have particular functionality, but the way that functionality is implemented can vary widely, and might not be the only thing a class does.
The reason you want an interface is to be able to treat them all alike when commanding them.
Whoever calls walking() (which is a rather odd name btw, it should probably be walk()) is just interested in telling your animal to do just that. The actual implementation will vary but that is not something the caller would care about.
Well, sometimes you'd want to be able to do something to "anything capable of running" without necessarily knowing at design time whether you're talking about a human or a cat or whatever. For instance, imagine a function mammal raceWinner(mammal m1, mammal m2){...}
to calculate which mammal would win in a race. To determine who wins, perhaps the function needs to call m1.running() and m2.running(). Of course, the mammals we pass in will really be cats or humans or whatever, and this class supplies the actual implementation of running(). But all raceWinner needs to know is that they have a running() method with the expected signature.
If we only defined running() on cat and human, we couldn't call m1.running() (because the compiler is not guaranteed that m1 has a running() method, as it only knows it's a m1 implements mammal). So instead we'd have to implement a raceWinner(human m1, cat m2) and likewise for two humans, two cats, or any other pair of mammals we had in mind, leading to a lot more work on our part.
An interface provides a contract. It doesn't provide an implementation. It's good practice to interface out your classes.
Of course, walking(), eating() will have different implementation in different animals. But they all walk, run, etc. That is all the interface is saying.
You could model this using inheritance, which would allow you to give default implementations for some or all of the methods. However, interfaces are really useful for declaring a set of features that apply to many unrelated types.
To continue your example, you could imagine a type Alien, which would probably have the same methods, but would not fit in your inheritance hierarchy.
The purpose of interfaces is to tell you what a class does, not how it does it.
This is especially important for accepting things that work differently -- each printer we attach to the PC works differently, so does each scanner, so does each external drive. If all programs needed to care about how each of them worked, you would need to recompile, say, Microsoft Office, for every model of printer that comes out.
One way to develop interfaces is to define an interface and a relative class which implements te interface a common reasonable way. Having both interface and class, you could use the interface in the case the class alreay derives from another class, otherwise a class could derived derivctly to the interface implementation.
It's not always possible, but it solves many problem.
Having a common interface is used to use different object using only the interface (collecting them to a generic list, for example).
There isn't much difference between an entirely abstract class and an interface if you only have one base type. Interfaces can't have any implementation code, but abstract classes can. In this case, abstract classes can be more flexible.
Where interfaces are really useful is that you can assign multiple interfaces to a single implementation, but you can only assign one base class.
for instance, you could have:
class Cat : IMammal, IFourLeggedAnimal
{
}
class Human: IMammal, ITwoLeggedAnimal
{
}
Now you can treat both of them as Mammals, with a "walk()" method, or you can treat them as Four or two legged animals (not necessarily mammals).
What is really useful with an interface like mammal is that you can treat an array of objects (Humans and Cats) as of being of the same type when you want them to walk, eat or run.
For instance if you ware creating a game where you have a number (objects would be created dynamically, but just for example lets say 10 cats and 1 human) of mammals on the screen (saved in a collection), and just wanted them to walk on every turn, you could simply do:
foreach(mammals m in MamalsArrayList){
{
m.walking();
}
note: I suggest you follow naming conventions and name your interfaces with "I" in front of them, so your example should be named IMammals.
without having to know weather any particular m is either a cat or a human.
Interfaces are hard to show on any particular snippet - but when you really need one you can see how useful they can be.
Of course they have other uses to (that are mentioned in other answers), I just focused on your example.
There are two issues here that are often confused. Inherited behaviour allows different 'commands' to be responded to in the same way e.g Man.walk() === Woman.walk(). Polymorphic behaviour allows the same 'command' to be responded to in different ways e.g. Animal.move() for one object may be different for Animal.move() for another, the bird will choose to fly while the slug will slide.
Now, I would argue the second of these is good while the first is not. Why? Because in OOP we should be encapsulating functionality into objects, which in turn promotes code reuse and all the other nicenesses of OOP. So rather than inheriting behaviour we should delegate it out to a shared object. If you know patterns then this is what State and Strategy are doing.
The problem lies in the fact that normally when you inherit , you get both of these behaviours mixed together. I suggest that this is more trouble than its worth and we should only be using interfaces, though sometimes we do have to make do with whatever the framework provides.
In your specific example Mammal is probably a bad interface name because it doesn't really tell me what it does and it has the potential to blowout to thousands of methods. It's better to divide interfaces into very specific cases. If you were modelling animals you might have a Moveable interface with one method, move(), to which each animal could respond by walking, running, flying, or crawling as appropriate.
What can be reasons to prevent a class from being inherited? (e.g. using sealed on a c# class)
Right now I can't think of any.
Because writing classes to be substitutably extended is damn hard and requires you to make accurate predictions of how future users will want to extend what you've written.
Sealing your class forces them to use composition, which is much more robust.
How about if you are not sure about the interface yet and don't want any other code depending on the present interface? [That's off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in other reasons as well!]
Edit:
A bit of googling gave the following:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/patricksmacchia/archive/2008/01/05/rambling-on-the-sealed-keyword.aspx
Quoting:
There are three reasons why a sealed class is better than an unsealed class:
Versioning: When a class is originally sealed, it can change to unsealed in the future without breaking compatibility. (…)
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
Security and Predictability: A class must protect its own state and not allow itself to ever become corrupted. When a class is unsealed, a derived class can access and manipulate the base class’s state if any data fields or methods that internally manipulate fields are accessible and not private.(…)
I want to give you this message from "Code Complete":
Inheritance - subclasses - tends to
work against the primary technical
imperative you have as a programmer,
which is to manage complexity.For the sake of controlling complexity, you should maintain a heavy bias against inheritance.
The only legitimate use of inheritance is to define a particular case of a base class like, for example, when inherit from Shape to derive Circle. To check this look at the relation in opposite direction: is a Shape a generalization of Circle? If the answer is yes then it is ok to use inheritance.
So if you have a class for which there can not be any particular cases that specialize its behavior it should be sealed.
Also due to LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle) one can use derived class where base class is expected and this is actually imposes the greatest impact from use of inheritance: code using base class may be given an inherited class and it still has to work as expected. In order to protect external code when there is no obvious need for subclasses you seal the class and its clients can rely that its behavior will not be changed. Otherwise external code needs to be explicitly designed to expect possible changes in behavior in subclasses.
A more concrete example would be Singleton pattern. You need to seal singleton to ensure one can not break the "singletonness".
This may not apply to your code, but a lot of classes within the .NET framework are sealed purposely so that no one tries to create a sub-class.
There are certain situations where the internals are complex and require certain things to be controlled very specifically so the designer decided no one should inherit the class so that no one accidentally breaks functionality by using something in the wrong way.
#jjnguy
Another user may want to re-use your code by sub-classing your class. I don't see a reason to stop this.
If they want to use the functionality of my class they can achieve that with containment, and they will have much less brittle code as a result.
Composition seems to be often overlooked; all too often people want to jump on the inheritance bandwagon. They should not! Substitutability is difficult. Default to composition; you'll thank me in the long run.
I am in agreement with jjnguy... I think the reasons to seal a class are few and far between. Quite the contrary, I have been in the situation more than once where I want to extend a class, but couldn't because it was sealed.
As a perfect example, I was recently creating a small package (Java, not C#, but same principles) to wrap functionality around the memcached tool. I wanted an interface so in tests I could mock away the memcached client API I was using, and also so we could switch clients if the need arose (there are 2 clients listed on the memcached homepage). Additionally, I wanted to have the opportunity to replace the functionality altogether if the need or desire arose (such as if the memcached servers are down for some reason, we could potentially hot swap with a local cache implementation instead).
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
That said, I think there are potential times when you might want to make a class sealed... and the best thing I can think of is an API that you will invoke directly, but allow clients to implement. For example, a game where you can program against the game... if your classes were not sealed, then the players who are adding features could potentially exploit the API to their advantage. This is a very narrow case though, and I think any time you have full control over the codebase, there really is little if any reason to make a class sealed.
This is one reason I really like the Ruby programming language... even the core classes are open, not just to extend but to ADD AND CHANGE functionality dynamically, TO THE CLASS ITSELF! It's called monkeypatching and can be a nightmare if abused, but it's damn fun to play with!
From an object-oriented perspective, sealing a class clearly documents the author's intent without the need for comments. When I seal a class I am trying to say that this class was designed to encapsulate some specific piece of knowledge or some specific service. It was not meant to be enhanced or subclassed further.
This goes well with the Template Method design pattern. I have an interface that says "I perform this service." I then have a class that implements that interface. But, what if performing that service relies on context that the base class doesn't know about (and shouldn't know about)? What happens is that the base class provides virtual methods, which are either protected or private, and these virtual methods are the hooks for subclasses to provide the piece of information or action that the base class does not know and cannot know. Meanwhile, the base class can contain code that is common for all the child classes. These subclasses would be sealed because they are meant to accomplish that one and only one concrete implementation of the service.
Can you make the argument that these subclasses should be further subclassed to enhance them? I would say no because if that subclass couldn't get the job done in the first place then it should never have derived from the base class. If you don't like it then you have the original interface, go write your own implementation class.
Sealing these subclasses also discourages deep levels of inheritence, which works well for GUI frameworks but works poorly for business logic layers.
Because you always want to be handed a reference to the class and not to a derived one for various reasons:
i. invariants that you have in some other part of your code
ii. security
etc
Also, because it's a safe bet with regards to backward compatibility - you'll never be able to close that class for inheritance if it's release unsealed.
Or maybe you didn't have enough time to test the interface that the class exposes to be sure that you can allow others to inherit from it.
Or maybe there's no point (that you see now) in having a subclass.
Or you don't want bug reports when people try to subclass and don't manage to get all the nitty-gritty details - cut support costs.
Sometimes your class interface just isn't meant to be inheirited. The public interface just isn't virtual and while someone could override the functionality that's in place it would just be wrong. Yes in general they shouldn't override the public interface, but you can insure that they don't by making the class non-inheritable.
The example I can think of right now are customized contained classes with deep clones in .Net. If you inherit from them you lose the deep clone ability.[I'm kind of fuzzy on this example, it's been a while since I worked with IClonable] If you have a true singelton class, you probably don't want inherited forms of it around, and a data persistence layer is not normally place you want a lot of inheritance.
Not everything that's important in a class is asserted easily in code. There can be semantics and relationships present that are easily broken by inheriting and overriding methods. Overriding one method at a time is an easy way to do this. You design a class/object as a single meaningful entity and then someone comes along and thinks if a method or two were 'better' it would do no harm. That may or may not be true. Maybe you can correctly separate all methods between private and not private or virtual and not virtual but that still may not be enough. Demanding inheritance of all classes also puts a huge additional burden on the original developer to foresee all the ways an inheriting class could screw things up.
I don't know of a perfect solution. I'm sympathetic to preventing inheritance but that's also a problem because it hinders unit testing.
I exposed a minimal interface to interact with the client API, and it would have been awesome to extend the client API class and then just add an implements clause with my new interface. The methods that I had in the interface that matched the actual interface would then need no further details and so I wouldn't have to explicitly implement them. However, the class was sealed, so I had to instead proxy calls to an internal reference to this class. The result: more work and a lot more code for no real good reason.
Well, there is a reason: your code is now somewhat insulated from changes to the memcached interface.
Performance: (…) if the JIT compiler sees a call to a virtual method using a sealed types, the JIT compiler can produce more efficient code by calling the method non-virtually.(…)
That's a great reason indeed. Thus, for performance-critical classes, sealed and friends make sense.
All the other reasons I've seen mentioned so far boil down to "nobody touches my class!". If you're worried someone might misunderstand its internals, you did a poor job documenting it. You can't possibly know that there's nothing useful to add to your class, or that you already know every imaginable use case for it. Even if you're right and the other developer shouldn't have used your class to solve their problem, using a keyword isn't a great way of preventing such a mistake. Documentation is. If they ignore the documentation, their loss.
Most of answers (when abstracted) state that sealed/finalized classes are tool to protect other programmers against potential mistakes. There is a blurry line between meaningful protection and pointless restriction. But as long as programmer is the one who is expected to understand the program, I see no hardly any reasons to restrict him from reusing parts of a class. Most of you talk about classes. But it's all about objects!
In his first post, DrPizza claims that designing inheritable class means anticipating possible extensions. Do I get it right that you think that class should be inheritable only if it's likely to be extended well? Looks as if you were used to design software from the most abstract classes. Allow me a brief explanation of how do I think when designing:
Starting from the very concrete objects, I find characteristics and [thus] functionality that they have in common and I abstract it to superclass of those particular objects. This is a way to reduce code duplicity.
Unless developing some specific product such as a framework, I should care about my code, not others (virtual) code. The fact that others might find it useful to reuse my code is a nice bonus, not my primary goal. If they decide to do so, it's their responsibility to ensure validity of extensions. This applies team-wide. Up-front design is crucial to productivity.
Getting back to my idea: Your objects should primarily serve your purposes, not some possible shoulda/woulda/coulda functionality of their subtypes. Your goal is to solve given problem. Object oriented languages uses fact that many problems (or more likely their subproblems) are similar and therefore existing code can be used to accelerate further development.
Sealing a class forces people who could possibly take advantage of existing code WITHOUT ACTUALLY MODIFYING YOUR PRODUCT to reinvent the wheel. (This is a crucial idea of my thesis: Inheriting a class doesn't modify it! Which seems quite pedestrian and obvious, but it's being commonly ignored).
People are often scared that their "open" classes will be twisted to something that can not substitute its ascendants. So what? Why should you care? No tool can prevent bad programmer from creating bad software!
I'm not trying to denote inheritable classes as the ultimately correct way of designing, consider this more like an explanation of my inclination to inheritable classes. That's the beauty of programming - virtually infinite set of correct solutions, each with its own cons and pros. Your comments and arguments are welcome.
And finally, my answer to the original question: I'd finalize a class to let others know that I consider the class a leaf of the hierarchical class tree and I see absolutely no possibility that it could become a parent node. (And if anyone thinks that it actually could, then either I was wrong or they don't get me).