I'm reading through Design Patterns by GoF and I'm starting to wonder. Are interfaces redundant if you're using an abstract as the interface in languages like C#? Let's put multiple inheritance aside for a moment, as I understand you can only achieve that (in C#) through interfaces.
I'm trying to apply this logic to DDD in C#. Almost every example and implementation I've ever seen uses interfaces. I'm starting to wonder why. Could the abstract class be used instead? It seems to me that this would be a more robust solution, but then again I could be missing something, which is why I'm asking here.
Summary:
Question 1: In the context of OOP with a language that only supports single inheritance, if designed properly what are some uses
of interfaces over the abstract class?
Question 2: In the context of DDD, if designed properly what are the uses of interfaces over the abstract class?
Note:
I've read through all the similar questions listed, but none seem to give me an answer. If I missed one, please let me know.
For question 1: regardless of support for multiple inheritance interfaces are contract specifications, abstract classes are base classes.
Interfaces provide a way for a class to specify a set of capabilities ( think IDisposable, IEnumerable, etc ) and it's recommended that they obey the Interface Segregation Principle.
Abstract classes should implement a concept that can be extended, or that can have different implementations depending on the context ( think HttpContextBase, AbstractButton etc ).
The biggest difference between interfaces and abstract classes is conceptual. You can argue that, except inheritance, an interface is the same as an abstract class with only abstract methods, but conceptually they represent different things.
As for question 2: in the context of DDD interfaces are implementations details. I dare say you can do DDD and not use interfaces or abstract classes, or even inheritance. As long as you have your bounded contexts, aggregates, entities and VOs well defined.
In conclusion, when you try to express a contract use an interface, when you want to indicate that your class has some capability, implement an interface. When you have a concept for which you can provide more implementations depending on context, use a base class ( abstract or not ).
When you think about it like this, the decision of the language makers ( c# ) to allow only single inheritance, but allow implementation of multiple interfaces makes a lot of sense.
The advantage of Interfaces is precisely that there is no multiple-inheritance. By using an Interface you can allow classes like Forms, UserControls, Components, etc to participate in interactions that would otherwise be diffucult/impossible.
I recommend doing both. I usually create an interface, and (if possible) then create an abstract class that inherits that interface to provde any common or default implementaion of that interface. This gives you the best of both worlds.
interfaces are not redundant. an interface is independent of implementation while abstract classes are implementation. code that uses an interface does not have to be changed or recompiled if some implementation class changes.
the advantage is above. if you are doing ddd, start out with concrete classes and write some tests. refactor common stuff into base classes (some will be abstract). if there is a reason to make an interface go ahead and do so. repeat until done.
Related
I am struggling to understand both abstract and interface approach. Since i get the idea what is the purpose to use one over another is clear. I was trying to found whatever example of using them both in action however all tutorials are how to use interface over abstract or vice versa showing usage either for one or another. I would really love to see practical example which could show both in action best on some real life example. Additional comments why in specific case you used one over another appreciated. Generics are very welcome to see as well in such example.
I'll propose foloowing example. We got some engine to get files from diffrent locations which could be taken using diffrent protocols as follows. I would like to understand on this example how this could be accomplished with both interfaces and abstract.
'As all of protocol has to close and open would it be good to put in abstract?
abstract class Collector
Protected Id
Protected Name
MustInherit Sub OpenConnection
MustInherit Sub CloseConection
End Class
'?
class Ftp : Collector
class Sftp: Collector
class Soap: Collector
'Interface?
Public Interface IRepository(Of T, Tkey)
Function GetAllFiles() As IEnumerable(Of T)
Function GetAllById(Tkey) as IEnumerable(Of T)
End Interface
Some key distinctions:
An abstract class can contain some implementation. An interface cannot.
In .NET, a class can not inherit from multiple base classes.
A class can implement multiple interfaces
The choice of which approach is really up to you. In general, it's a choice between the Composition pattern or Inheritance.
Composition uses Interfaces. Think of an object as having X.
Inheritance uses Classes. Think of an object as being X.
In either case, an abstract class or an interface is just a Type, through which you will access and manipulate them. For example, if you have some code that wants to perform Insert/Update/Delete operations, it doesn't need to know that the object it is operating on is a FTP client--only that the object has the ability to support these operations. (and that is exactly what IRepository specifies)
You definitely can combine both. There's no reason a concrete FtpClient class couldn't inherit from an abstract Protocol class and also implement the IRepository interface. It could even use generics!
Interfaces are great for decoupling your code, and also great for unit test mocks.
There is also a good summary of pros & cons on Wikipedia (Composition_over_inheritance). Pros:
To favor composition over inheritance is a design principle that gives the design higher flexibility. It is more natural to build business-domain classes out of various components than trying to find commonality between them and creating a family tree. For example, a gas pedal and a wheel share very few common traits, yet are both vital components in a car. What they can do and how they can be used to benefit the car is easily defined. Composition also provides a more stable business domain in the long term as it is less prone to the quirks of the family members. In other words, it is better to compose what an object can do (HAS-A) than extend what it is (IS-A).
Initial design is simplified by identifying system object behaviors in separate interfaces instead of creating a hierarchical relationship to distribute behaviors among business-domain classes via inheritance. This approach more easily accommodates future requirements changes that would otherwise require a complete restructuring of business-domain classes in the inheritance model. Additionally, it avoids problems often associated with relatively minor changes to an inheritance-based model that includes several generations of classes.
Cons:
One common drawback of using composition instead of inheritance is that methods being provided by individual components may have to be implemented in the derived type, even if they are only forwarding methods. In contrast, inheritance does not require all of the base class's methods to be re-implemented within the derived class. Rather, the derived class only needs to implement (override) the methods having different behavior than the base class methods. This can require significantly less programming effort if the base class contains many methods providing default behavior and only a few of them need to be overridden within the derived class.
I don't understand why you want to have an example combining both. Let's just say both are valid ways to build solid software architecture. They're just two tools - like having a kitchen knife and a meat cleaver. You won't necessarily use them together but see the pro's and con's when looking at the dinner you want to serve.
So usually you take abstract/MustInherit classes if you want to provide a common denominator. Sub-classes derive from the abstract one and have to implement the methods just like they would if they implemeted an interface. The good thing here is that abstract classes can provide "base logic" which can be developed centrally and all the sub-classes can make use of that. In the best case, abstract classes provide kind of "hooks" to plug in special logic in the sub-classes.
Interfaces describe what a class has to fulfill. So everything an interface defines has to be implemented in classes implementing the interface. There's no reusable logic built-in in this approach like in abstract base classes but the big "pro" for interfaces is that they don't take away the single base type you can derive from like abstract classes do. So you can derive from anything or nothing and still implement an interface. AND: You can implement multiple interfaces.
One word to the "reusable logic" with interfaces. While this is not really wroing, the .NET framework allows use to write extension methods on types (and interfaces) to attach externally developed code. This allows code reuse with interfaces like having a method implemented in there. So for example, you could write an extension method None() for the interface IEnumerable which is checking whether the enumerable is empty.
public static bool None(this IEnumerable values)
{
return !values.Any();
}
With this, None() can be used on any IEnumerable in your code base having access to the extension method (in fact, Any(), Select(), Where(), etc. are extension methods as well, lying in the System.Linq namespace).
From a picture, Can i use inheritance instead of implement an interface?
I mean change from "ConcreteStrategyA and ConcreteStrategyB implements Strategy Interface" to "ConcreteStrategyA and ConcreteStrategyB extends Strategy Class"
Is it still work well or have some problem?
If it still work well my next question is "Why most people prefer to use interface?"
Well technically from a Design pattern perspective with the Strategy pattern, the concrete Strategies need to implement (I mean write code for, not the interface implements thing) a common contract which the Strategy Context is aware of. This is the primary backbone of Strategy pattern philosophy. The adherence to the common contract is what allows the Strategy context to replace the concrete strategies based on some runtime feature. This pattern ideology is what we loosely call Polymorphism in OOP parlance.
Now in Java you can implement his polymorphic strategy either as an interface or as inheritance. For interface you have given the example in the question itself. For inheritance as long as the contract holds between subclasses (something like a base abstract class with an abstract contract which subclasses implement to provide concrete strategy implementations) you can implement Strategy pattern in inheritance as well.
Now thinking about it from OOP perspective. For OOP inheritance is something which a subclass inherits from a super class. The subclass automatically owns and thus demonstrates that inherited generic behavior but it has a choice to make that behavior more specific to its own type. Thus multiple subclasses can override the same behavior and make bits of it more specific to their use. But this chain becomes cumbersome to manage when it gets too long or when subclasses try to inherit the behaviors which don't apply to them logically.
Thus it makes more sense to implement Strategy pattern using interfaces as against inheritance.
Absolutely. Inheritance is most often used with an abstract base class, when you want your derived strategies to share some common code.
People prefer to use interfaces or abstract classes over concrete base classes because :
With a Dependency Inversion approach, a class needs loose coupling to its Strategy. It only needs to know that the Strategy fulfills a contract, but doesn't want to know about its implementation details. Interfaces and abstract classes are an elegant and minimal way to define a contract without specifying the implementation.
It doesn't make sense to instantiate the base Strategy class most of the time, because it's a general, abstract concept -- in fact, it's better if you forbid instantiating it.
There are no technical problems.
However, a class can only extend one base class but it can implement multiple interfaces. So if you want to, let's say, change your inheritance structure in the future it is easier if you choose to implement an interface instead.
As you know a design pattern is "a general solution to a commonly occurring problem". It just describe a general solution without indications concerning implementation details.
If your problem requires a class in place of the interface, there is nothing wrong replacing it with a concrete (or abstract) class.
Using an interface in the pattern UML is a way to say: "you have to expose this set of public methods".
So, no problem using your approach. As an alternative you could leave the Strategy interface and implement it in a StrategyImpl class, then you can inherit this class in your ConcreteStrategyA and ConcreteStrategyB classes.
It's good practice for a class' implementation to be defined by interfaces. If a class has any public methods that aren't covered by any interfaces then they have the potential to leak their implementation.
E.g. if class Foo has methods bar() and baz() but only bar() is covered by an interface then any use of baz() doesn't use an interface.
It feels like to get cleaner code it would make sense to either:
create extra interfaces if the class has to have those methods (eg a separate interface to cover the behavior of baz() above)
or ideally refactor (eg using more composition) so the class doesn't need to have so many methods (put baz() in another class)
Having methods not covered by an interface feels like a code smell. Or am I being unrealistic?
I consider it as "overusing" the interface.
Interface can give you access only to limited functionality, therefore it is good for gathering more classes with similar functionality into one List<Interface> and using them, for example.
Or if you want to keep loose coupling principle, you rather give another component some interface than the whole class(es).
Also some classes should have restricted access to another classes, which can be done with interfaces too.
However high cohesion principle (which is usually connected to loose coupling) does not prevent you from using class itself, if two classes are and should be "strong" connected to each other.
I don't think that's the purpose of interfaces. If you actually talk about the 'is-a' and 'has-a' relationship between classes, not necessarily a class needs to cover all public methods in interfaces. That's like taking the concept too far.
A class can have methods which describe it's behavior but then, there are some methods that do not exactly describe the classes' behavior but rather describe what else the class can do.
In case if a question arises about SRP regarding the 'can-do' behaviors, it is possible that the class can use a component to execute those behaviors rather than implementing within itself.
For e.g., I have a class DataGrid, why would I need to have an interface called IDataGrid which exposes all the public methods. But may be there is an additional functionality that the DataGrid can do, which is export the data. In that case I can have it implement IExportData, and implement the ExportData method, which in turn does not export the data but uses a component, say DataExportHelper, that actually does the job.
The DataGrid only passes the data to the component.
I don't think SRP will be violated in the above example.
EDIT:
I am a .Net developer, so would like to give you and example from MS library classes. For e.g., the class System.Windows.Window does not implemnt any interface that has Close() method. And I don't see why it should be a part of any presenter.
Also, it is possible that something might look seem like a code smell but not necessarily it might be wrong. Code smell itself does not mean there is a problem but that there is a possibility of problem.
I have never come across any principle or guideline in software design which mentions that all the public members of a class need to be exposed in some or the other interface. May be doing that just for the sake of it might be a bad design.
No, I would definitely not consider methods not covered by an interface a code smell.
It seems like this might be dependent on the object infrastructure you are building in, but in the infrastructures I'm familiar with, the real point of interfaces is to provide a manageable form of multiple inheritance. I consider the overuse of multiple inheritance a notable smell.
In .NET at least, abstract classes are explicitly the preferred construct for exposing abstraction (not interfaces). The .NET design guidelines say: Do favor defining classes over interfaces., with rationale described here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/ms229013(v=vs.100).aspx.
Even in COM (where any externally visible functionality had to be defined in an interface) there are perfectly good reasons to have non-exposed functions: limiting the visibility of implementation details. COM was originally defined in C (not C++) which lacked the richer set of access modifiers that newer languages have, but the concepts were there: published interface members were public, everything else was internal.
I've searched in here and other forums and couldn't find a good answer..
I kind of know that Extending classes isn't the best of practices. And that I should use Interfaces more. my problem is that usually I start creating Interfaces and then move to Abstract classes because there's always some functionality that I want implemented on a super class so that I don't have to replicate it in every child classes.
For instance, I have a Vehicle class and the Car and Bike child classes. a lot of functionality could be implemented on the Vehicle class, such as Move() and Stop(), so what would be the best practice to keep the architecture clean, avoid code repetition and use Interfaces instead of Inheritance?
Thanks a lot!
(if you have no idea why I'm asking this you may read this interesting article: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-2003/jw-0801-toolbox.html)
Inheritance ('extending classes') imposes significant limitations on class design and I'm not sure the use of interfaces as a replacement for inheritance is the best idea since it fails the DRY test.
These days, Composition is favored over Inheritance, so you might consider this post: Prefer composition over inheritance?
Interesting question. Everyone has different approaches. But it all based on personal experience and choice.
Usually, i start with an interface, then let an abstract class inherit that interface. And implement common actions there, and let others to be implemented by who ever inherits this class.
This give few advantageous based on by experience,
1.During function calls you can pass the elements as interface type or abstract class type.
2.Common variables such as ID, Names etc can be put on abstract class.
3.Easy for maintenance. For example, if you want to implement a new interface, then just implement in the abstract quickly.
If you keep in mind fundamental difference between interfaces and classes it will make it easier to decide which one to use. The difference is that interfaces represent just a protocol (usually behavioral) between objects involved, while abstract classes represent some unfinished constructions that involve some parts (data). In car example, interface is essentially a blueprint for the generic car. And abstract class would be like prefabricated specific model car body that needs to be filled with remaining parts to get final product. Interfaces don't even have to be in Java - it will not change anything - still blueprint.
Typically you would use abstract class within your specific implementation framework to provide its consumers with some basic functionality. If you just state that you never use abstract class in favor of interface - it's plain wrong from practical standpoint. What if you need 10 implementations of the same interface with 90% of the same code. Replicate code 10 times? Ok, may be you would use abstract class here but put interface on top of it. But why would you do that if you never intend to offer your class hierarchy to external consumers?
I am using word external in very wide sense - it can be just different package in your project or remote consumer.
Ultimately, many of those things are preferences and personal experiences, but I disagree with most blanket statements like extends is evil. I also prefer not to use extra classes (interfaces or abstract) unless it is required by specific parts of the design.
Just my two cents.
Inheritance allows code reuse and substitutability, but restricts polymorphism. Composition allows code reuse but not substitutability. Interfaces allow substitutability but not code reuse.
The decision of whether to use inheritance, composition, or interfaces, boils down to a few simple principles:
If one needs both code reuse and substitutability, and the restrictions imposed on polymorphism aren't too bad, use inheritance.
If one needs code reuse, but not substitutability, use composition.
If one needs substitutability, but not code reuse, or if the restrictions inheritance would impose upon polymorphism would be worse than duplicated code, use interfaces.
If one needs substitutability and code reuse, but the restrictions imposed by polymorphism would be unacceptable, use interfaces to wrap encapsulated objects.
If one needs substitutability and code reuse, and the restrictions imposed by polymorphism would not pose any immediate problem but might be problematic for future substitutable classes, derive a model base class which implements an interface, and have those classes that can derive from it do so. Avoid using variables and parameters of the class type, though--use the interface instead. If you do that, and there is a need for a substitutable class which cannot very well derive from the model base class, the new class can implement the interface without having to inherit from the base; if desired, it may implement the interface by wrapping an encapsulated instance of a derivative of the model type.
Judgment may be required in deciding whether future substitutable classes may have difficulty deriving from a base class. I tend to think approach #5 often offers the best of all worlds, though, when substitutability is required. It's often cheaper than using interfaces alone, and not much more expensive than using inheritance alone. If there is a need for future classes which are substitutable but cannot be derived from the base, it may be necessary to convert the code to use approach #5. Using approach #5 from the get-go would avoid having to refactor the code later. (Of course, if it's never necessary to substitute a class that can't derive from the base, the extra cost--slight as it may be--may end up being unnecessary).
Agree with tofutim - in your current example, move and stop on Vehicle is reasonable.
Having read the article - I think it's using powerful language to push a point... remember - inheritance is a tool to help get a job done.
But if we go with the assumption that for whatever reasons you can't / won't use the tool in this case, you can start by breaking it down into small interfaces with helper objects and/or visitors...
For example -
Vehicle types include submarine, boat, plane, car and bike. You could break it down into interfaces...
IMoveable
+ Forward()
+ Backward()
+ Left()
+ Right()
IFloatable
+ Dock()
ISink()
+ BlowAir()
IFly()
+ Takeoff()
+ Land()
And then your classes can aggregate the plethora of interfaces you've just defined.
The problem is though that you may end up duplicating some code in the car / bike class for IMoveable.Left() and IMoveable.Right(). You could factor this into a helper method and aggregate the helper... but if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you would still end up refactoring many things back into base classes.
Inheritance and Aggregation are tools... neither of which are "evil".
Hope that helps.
Do you want an answer for your specific case, or in general? In the case you described, there is nothing wrong with using an Abstract class. It doesn't make sense use an interface when all of the clients would need to implement the exact same code for Move() and Stop().
Don't believe all you read
Many times, inheritance is not bad, in fact, for data-hiding, it may be a good idea.
Basically, only use the policy of "interfaces only" when you're making a very small tree of classes, otherwise, I promise it will be a pain. Suppose you have a Person "class" (has eat() and sleep), and there are two subclasses, Mathematician (has doProblem() ) and Engineer ( buildSomething() ), then go with interfaces. If you need something like a Car class and then 56 bazillion types of cars, then go with inheritance.
IMHO.
I think, that Interfaces sometime also evil. They could be as avoidance of multiple inheritance.
But if we compare interface with abstract class, then abstract class is always more than interface. Interface is always some aspect of the class -- some viewpoint, and not whole as a class.
So I don't think you should avoid inheritance and use iterfaces everywhere -- there should be balance.
While certain guidelines state that you should use an interface when you want to define a contract for a class where inheritance is not clear (IDomesticated) and inheritance when the class is an extension of another (Cat : Mammal, Snake : Reptile), there are cases when (in my opinion) these guidelines enter a gray area.
For example, say my implementation was Cat : Pet. Pet is an abstract class. Should that be expanded to Cat : Mammal, IDomesticated where Mammal is an abstract class and IDomesticated is an interface? Or am I in conflict with the KISS/YAGNI principles (even though I'm not sure whether there will be a Wolf class in the future, which would not be able to inherit from Pet)?
Moving away from the metaphorical Cats and Pets, let's say I have some classes that represent sources for incoming data. They all need to implement the same base somehow. I could implement some generic code in an abstract Source class and inherit from it. I could also just make an ISource interface (which feels more "right" to me) and re-implement the generic code in each class (which is less intuitive). Finally, I could "have the cake and eat it" by making both the abstract class and the interface. What's best?
These two cases bring up points for using only an abstract class, only an interface and using both an abstract class and an interface. Are these all valid choices, or are there "rules" for when one should be used over another?
I'd like to clarify that by "using both an abstract class and an interface" that includes the case when they essentially represent the same thing (Source and ISource both have the same members), but the class adds generic functionality while the interface specifies the contract.
Also worth noting is that this question is mostly for languages that do not support multiple inheritance (such as .NET and Java).
As a first rule of thumb, I prefer abstract classes over interfaces, based on the .NET Design Guidelines. The reasoning applies much wider than .NET, but is better explained in the book Framework Design Guidelines.
The main reasoning behind the preference for abstract base classes is versioning, because you can always add a new virtual member to an abstract base class without breaking existing clients. That's not possible with interfaces.
There are scenarios where an interface is still the correct choice (particularly when you don't care about versioning), but being aware of the advantages and disadvantages enables you to make the correct decision.
So as a partial answer before I continue: Having both an interface and a base class only makes sense if you decide to code against an interface in the first place. If you allow an interface, you must code against that interface only, since otherwise you would be violating the Liskov Substitution Principle. In other words, even if you provide a base class that implements the interface, you cannot let your code consume that base class.
If you decide to code against a base class, having an interface makes no sense.
If you decide to code against an interface, having a base class that provides default functionality is optional. It is not necessary, but may speed up things for implementers, so you can provide one as a courtesy.
An example that springs to mind is in ASP.NET MVC. The request pipeline works on IController, but there's a Controller base class that you typically use to implement behavior.
Final answer: If using an abstract base class, use only that. If using an interface, a base class is an optional courtesy to implementers.
Update: I no longer prefer abstract classes over interfaces, and I haven't for a long time; instead, I favour composition over inheritance, using SOLID as a guideline.
(While I could edit the above text directly, it would radically change the nature of the post, and since a few people have found it valuable enough to up-vote it, I'd rather let the original text stand, and instead add this note. The latter part of the post is still meaningful, so it would be a shame to delete it, too.)
I tend to use base classes (abstract or not) to describe what something is, while I use interfaces to describe the capabilities of an object.
A Cat is a Mammal but one of it's capabilities is that it is Pettable.
Or, to put it a different way, classes are nouns, while interfaces map closer to adjectives.
From MSDN, Recommendations for Abstract Classes vs. Interfaces
If you anticipate creating multiple versions of your component, create an abstract class. Abstract classes provide a simple and easy way to version your components. By updating the base class, all inheriting classes are automatically updated with the change. Interfaces, on the other hand, cannot be changed once created. If a new version of an interface is required, you must create a whole new interface.
If the functionality you are creating will be useful across a wide range of disparate objects, use an interface. Abstract classes should be used primarily for objects that are closely related, whereas interfaces are best suited for providing common functionality to unrelated classes.
If you are designing small, concise bits of functionality, use interfaces. If you are designing large functional units, use an abstract class.
If you want to provide common, implemented functionality among all implementations of your component, use an abstract class. Abstract classes allow you to partially implement your class, whereas interfaces contain no implementation for any members.
If you want to provide the option of replacing your implementation completely, use an interface. This applies especially for interactions between major components, these should always be decoupled by interfaces.
There may also be technical reasons for prefering an interface, for example to enable mocking in unit tests.
Internally in a component it may be fine to just use an abstract class directly to access a hierarchy of classes.
If you use an interface and have a hierarchy of implementing classes then it is good practice to have an abstract classe which contain the common parts of the implementation. E.g.
interface Foo
abstract class FooBase implements Foo
class FunnyFoo extends FooBase
class SeriousFoo extends FooBase
You could also have more abstract classes inheriting from each other for a more complicated hierarchy.
Refer to below SE question for generic guidelines:
Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
Practical use case for interface:
Implementation of Strategy_pattern: Define your strategy as an interface. Switch the implementation dynamically with one of concrete implementations of strategy at run time.
Define a capability among multiple unrelated classes.
Practical use case for abstract class:
Implementation of Template_method_pattern: Define a skeleton of an algorithm. The child classes can't change strucutre of the algortihm but they can re-define a part of the implementation in child classes.
When you want share non-static and non-final variables among multiple related classes with "has a" relation.
Use of both abstradt class and interface:
If you are going for an abstract class, you can move abstract methods to interface and abstract class can simply implement that interface. All use cases of abstract classes can fall into this category.
I always use these guidelines:
Use interfaces for multiple TYPE inheritance (as .NET/Java don't use multiple inheritance)
Use abstract classes for a re-usable implementation of a type
The rule of the dominant concern dictates that a class always has a main concern and 0 or more others (see http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/tarr99degrees.html). Those 0 or more others you then implement through interfaces, as the class then implements all the types it has to implement (its own, and all interfaces it implements).
In a world of multiple implementation inheritance (e.g. C++/Eiffel), one would inherit from classes which implement the interfaces. (In theory. In practise it might not work that well.)
There is also something called the DRY principle - Don't Repeat Yourself.
In your example of data sources you say there is some generic code that is common between different implementations. To me it seems that the best way to handle that would be to have an abstract class with the generic code in it and some concrete classes extending it.
The advantage is that every bug fix in generic code benefits all concrete implementations.
If you go interface only you will have to maintain several copies of the same code which is asking for trouble.
Regarding abstract + interface if there is no immediate justification for it I would not do it. Extracting interface from abstract class is an easy refactoring, so I would do it only when it is actually needed.