I'm reading Grady Booch's book Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, third edition. In page 94, Booch said that:
We can furthur devide the interface of a class into four parts:
Public: a declaration that is accessible to all clients
Protected: a declaration that is accessible only to the class itself and its subclasses
Private: a declaration that is accessible only to the class itself
Package: a declaration that is accessible only by classes in the same package
I can understand why protected declaration can be considered a interface, becuase subclasses of a class is this class's client, too.
But I don't understand why the private declaration can be considered as interface. Please enlight me.
But I don't understand why the private declaration can be considered as interface.
Private declarations may be said to constitute an interface, since they have their own clients, though not as many as protected or public interface of a class.
These clients are:
The class itself. Obviously, you can access your classes' private members from any static or non-static method of any instance of your class.
Inner classes of your class. Remember that inner classes of your class have access to all of the members of your class, including private ones.
(In C++) Friends of your class. Though from the quote in your question, I see that the book you refer to is about Java, I'll add this item anyway, for completeness, since your question isn't tagged java. In C++ there is a friend keyword, which allows a programmer of a class to designate certain other classes and/or functions as friends of this class. Such "friendly" classes and functions have access to all the members of the class, including private ones, and so they are also clients of the class' private interface.
So, it may be useful to have a well-defined private interface, since it makes the implementation of methods in both your class, its friends and inner classes simpler and more manageable for other developers, who may be working on your class.
But still, I find an "interface to itself" is quite odd.
Interface to itself may be important. Here's a little thought experiment.
Imagine that two developers, Alice and Bob, are working on the same class, called MissileLauncher. Bob is responsible for implementing the logic to clear the launching pad after the missile is fired. (This is a private mechanism, clients of the public or protected interface may not request the pad to be cleared - it's just an implementation detail of this class).
So, Bob knows that to clear the launching pad one has to decrement missleCounter, set currentMissle to null and call pendingOperations.remove(this.currentOp). There is only one place in the code of the class, where this has to be done. Bob could encapsulate all of this in a private method, called clearLaunchingPad() but he figured that the logic is too simple, so he didn't bother.
Several months later, Alice discovers that there is another scenario, where the launching pad needs to be cleared. If Bob had thought about a proper "interface to itself", Alice would be able to simply write a call to this.clearLaunchingPad() and be done with it in several seconds. But, as we know, Bob didn't. Now Alice has to go and ask Bob what she needs to do to clear the pad. But several months have already passed, Bob doesn't remember the implementation details anymore, or worse, he may have been fired since then (and no surprise either, given his coding culture).
So now Alice has to dig into the code of MissileLauncher and try to figure out what she needs to do, hoping that Bob has at least had the decency to comment his code.
In this way several seconds turn into several hours and a few possible bugs (Alice might forget to call pendingOperations.remove(this.currentOp) at the end), just because Bob didn't pay attention to the design of this class` interface to itself.
I read it one more time and that is very simple it's just say's that interface can be private,protected,Package and public and after that he tells you for what you need it and how you using them :)
example for private interface : interface that can be implemented only inside the class!
public class MyClass
{
private interface IFoo
{
int MyProp { get; }
}
private class Foo : IFoo
{
int _mamboNumber = 5;
public int MyProp { get { return _mamboNumber; } set { _mamboNumber = value; } }
}
private class FooSec : IFoo
{
int _mamboNumber = 10;
public int MyProp { get { return _mamboNumber; } set { _mamboNumber = value; } }
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
IFoo foo = new Foo();
int fooProp = foo.MyProp; // return 5
IFoo foo2 = new FooSec();
int foo2Prop = foo2.MyProp; // return 10
}
}
I am writing a new app and I have chosen to use Java for flexibility. It is a GUI app so I will use JavaFX. This is my first time using Java but I have experience with C#.
I am getting familiar with JavaFX Properties, they look like a great way of bi-directional binding between front-end and back-end.
My code uses classes from an open-source API, and I would like to convert the members of these classes to JavaFX Properties (String => StringProperty, etc). I believe this would be transparent to any objects that refer to these members.
Is it ok to do this?
Is it the suggested way of dealing with existing classes?
What do I do about Enum types? E.g. an enum member has it's value changed, how should I connect the enum member to the front-end?
Thank you :)
In general, as long as you don't change the public API of the class - in other words you don't remove any public methods, modify their parameter types or return types, or change their functionality - you should not break any code that uses them.
So, e.g. a change from
public class Foo {
private String bar ;
public String getBar() {
return bar ;
}
public void setBar(String bar) {
this.bar = bar ;
}
}
to
public class Foo {
private final StringProperty bar = new SimpleStringProperty();
public StringProperty barProperty() {
return bar ;
}
public String getBar() {
return barProperty().get();
}
public void setBar(String bar) {
barProperty().set(bar);
}
}
should not break any clients of the class Foo. The only possible problem is that classes that have subclassed Foo and overridden getBar() and/or setBar(...) might get unexpected behavior if their superclass is replaced with the new implementation (specifically, if getBar() and setBar(...) are not final, you have no way to enforce that getBar()==barProperty().get(), which is desirable).
For enums (and other objects) you can use an ObjectProperty<>:
Given
public enum Option { FIRST_CHOICE, SECOND_CHOICE, THIRD_CHOICE }
Then you can do
public class Foo {
private final ObjectProperty<Option> option = new SimpleObjectProperty<>();
public ObjectProperty<Option> optionProperty() {
return option ;
}
public Option getOption() {
return optionProperty().get();
}
public void setOption(Option choice) {
optionProperty().set(choice);
}
}
One caveat to all this is that you do introduce a dependency on the JavaFX API that wasn't previously present in these classes. JavaFX ships with the Oracle JDK, but it is not a full part of the JSE (e.g. it is not included in OpenJDK by default, and not included in some other JSE implementations). So in practice, you're highly unlikely to be able to persuade the developers of the open source library to accept your changes to the classes in the library. Since it's open source, you can of course maintain your own fork of the library with JavaFX properties, but then it will get tricky if you want to incorporate new versions of that library (you will need to merge two different sets of changes, essentially).
Another option is to use bound properties in the classes, and wrap them using a Java Bean Property Adapter. This is described in this question.
Interface behaves differently in Vb.Net. Below is a sample code snippet where IStudent interface has a method SayHello which is implemented by a class Student. The Access modifier for SayHello should be Public by default. By changing Access modifier to Private is not breaking the existing code and still i can access this private method using below code
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.SayHello()
Access modifier determines the scope of the members in a class, more over private members are accessible only from the class which exists. But here the theory of Access Modifier, Encapsulation are broken.
Why .net has designed in this way?
Is the concept of Access modifier and encapsulation are really broken?
How .net framework internally handle this situation?
Thanks in advance
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.Name = "vimal"
stdnt.SayHello()
End Sub
End Module
Public Interface IStudent
Property Name As String
Sub SayHello()
End Interface
Public Class Student
Implements IStudent
Private Property Name As String Implements IStudent.Name
Private Sub SayHello() Implements IStudent.SayHello
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!")
End Sub
End Class
The original poster submitted this question to me via TheBugGuys#Coverity.com; my answer is here:
https://communities.coverity.com/blogs/development-testing-blog/2013/10/09/oct-9-posting-interface-behaves-differently-in-visual-basic
To briefly summarize:
Why was .NET designed in this way?
That question is impossibly vague.
Is encapsulation broken by explicit implementation in C# and VB?
No. The privacy of the method restricts the accessibility domain of the methods name, not who can call the method. If the author of the class chooses to make a private method callable by some mechanism other than looking it up by name, that is their choice. A third party cannot make the choice for them except via techniques such as private reflection, which do break encapsulation.
How is this feature implemented in .NET?
There is a special metadata table for explicit interface implementations. The CLR consults it first when attempting to figure out which class (or struct) method is associated with which interface method.
From MSDN:
You can use a private member to implement an interface member. When a private member implements a member of an interface, that member becomes available by way of the interface even though it is not available directly on object variables for the class.
In C#, this behaviour is achieved by implementing the interface explicitly, like this:
public interface IStudent {
string Name { get; set; }
void SayHello();
}
public class Student : IStudent {
string IStudent.Name { get; set; }
void IStudent.SayHello() {
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
}
So, if you were to omit the IStudent. in front of the method names, it would break. I see that in the VB syntax the interface name is included. I don't know whether this has any implications altough. But interface members aren't private, since the interface isn't. They're kinda public...
There is no fundamental difference between C# and VB.NET, they just chose different ways to solve ambiguity. Best demonstrated with a C# snippet:
interface ICowboy {
void Draw();
}
interface IPainter {
void Draw();
}
class CowboyPainter : ICowboy, IPainter {
void ICowboy.Draw() { useGun(); }
void IPainter.Draw() { useBrush(); }
// etc...
}
VB.NET just chose consistent interface implementation syntax so the programmer doesn't have to weigh the differences between implicit and explicit implementation syntax. Simply always explicit in VB.NET.
Only the accessibility of the interface method matters. Always public.
When your variable stdnt is declared as IStudent, the interface methods and properties are then made Public, so the derived class' (Student) implementation is executed. If, on the other hand, if stdnt was declared as Student, the private members (Name and SayHello) would not be implemented, and an error would be thrown.
I'm guessing that the Interface members stubs (Name & SayHello) are by default Public, and the access modifier definitions of the derived class' implementation are ignored.
IMHO.
The exact equivalent in C# is the following - the method available to objects of the interface type and the private method available otherwise:
void IStudent.SayHello()
{
this.SayHello();
}
private void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
Interface behaves differently in Vb.Net. Below is a sample code snippet where IStudent interface has a method SayHello which is implemented by a class Student. The Access modifier for SayHello should be Public by default. By changing Access modifier to Private is not breaking the existing code and still i can access this private method using below code
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.SayHello()
Access modifier determines the scope of the members in a class, more over private members are accessible only from the class which exists. But here the theory of Access Modifier, Encapsulation are broken.
Why .net has designed in this way?
Is the concept of Access modifier and encapsulation are really broken?
How .net framework internally handle this situation?
Thanks in advance
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim stdnt As IStudent = New Student
stdnt.Name = "vimal"
stdnt.SayHello()
End Sub
End Module
Public Interface IStudent
Property Name As String
Sub SayHello()
End Interface
Public Class Student
Implements IStudent
Private Property Name As String Implements IStudent.Name
Private Sub SayHello() Implements IStudent.SayHello
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!")
End Sub
End Class
The original poster submitted this question to me via TheBugGuys#Coverity.com; my answer is here:
https://communities.coverity.com/blogs/development-testing-blog/2013/10/09/oct-9-posting-interface-behaves-differently-in-visual-basic
To briefly summarize:
Why was .NET designed in this way?
That question is impossibly vague.
Is encapsulation broken by explicit implementation in C# and VB?
No. The privacy of the method restricts the accessibility domain of the methods name, not who can call the method. If the author of the class chooses to make a private method callable by some mechanism other than looking it up by name, that is their choice. A third party cannot make the choice for them except via techniques such as private reflection, which do break encapsulation.
How is this feature implemented in .NET?
There is a special metadata table for explicit interface implementations. The CLR consults it first when attempting to figure out which class (or struct) method is associated with which interface method.
From MSDN:
You can use a private member to implement an interface member. When a private member implements a member of an interface, that member becomes available by way of the interface even though it is not available directly on object variables for the class.
In C#, this behaviour is achieved by implementing the interface explicitly, like this:
public interface IStudent {
string Name { get; set; }
void SayHello();
}
public class Student : IStudent {
string IStudent.Name { get; set; }
void IStudent.SayHello() {
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
}
So, if you were to omit the IStudent. in front of the method names, it would break. I see that in the VB syntax the interface name is included. I don't know whether this has any implications altough. But interface members aren't private, since the interface isn't. They're kinda public...
There is no fundamental difference between C# and VB.NET, they just chose different ways to solve ambiguity. Best demonstrated with a C# snippet:
interface ICowboy {
void Draw();
}
interface IPainter {
void Draw();
}
class CowboyPainter : ICowboy, IPainter {
void ICowboy.Draw() { useGun(); }
void IPainter.Draw() { useBrush(); }
// etc...
}
VB.NET just chose consistent interface implementation syntax so the programmer doesn't have to weigh the differences between implicit and explicit implementation syntax. Simply always explicit in VB.NET.
Only the accessibility of the interface method matters. Always public.
When your variable stdnt is declared as IStudent, the interface methods and properties are then made Public, so the derived class' (Student) implementation is executed. If, on the other hand, if stdnt was declared as Student, the private members (Name and SayHello) would not be implemented, and an error would be thrown.
I'm guessing that the Interface members stubs (Name & SayHello) are by default Public, and the access modifier definitions of the derived class' implementation are ignored.
IMHO.
The exact equivalent in C# is the following - the method available to objects of the interface type and the private method available otherwise:
void IStudent.SayHello()
{
this.SayHello();
}
private void SayHello()
{
Console.WriteLine("Say Hello!");
}
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}