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 have some questions about the affects of using concrete classes and interfaces.
Say some chunk of code (call it chunkCode) uses concrete class A. Would I have to re-compile chunkCode if:
I add some new public methods to A? If so, isn't that a bit stange? After all I still provide the interface chunkCode relies on. (Or do I have to re-compile because chunkCode may never know otherwise that this is true and I haven't omitted some API)
I add some new private methods to A?
I add a new public field to A?
I add a new private field to A?
Factory Design Pattern:
The main code doesn't care what the concrete type of the object is. It relies only on the API. But what would you do if there are few methods which are relevant to only one concrete type? This type implements the interface but adds some more public methods? Would you use some if (A is type1) statements (or the like) the main code?
Thanks for any clarification
1) Compiling is not an activity in OO. It is a detail of specific OO implementations. If you want an answer for a specific implementation (e.g. Java), then you need to clarify.
In general, some would say that adding to an interface is not considered a breaking change, wheras others say you cannot change an interface once it is published, and you have to create a new interface.
Edit: You specified C#, so check out this question regarding breaking changes in .Net. I don't want to do that answer a disservice, so I won't try to replicate it here.
2) People often hack their designs to do this, but it is a sign that you have a poor design.
Good alternatives:
Create a method in your interface that allows you to invoke the custom behavior, but not be required to know what that behavior is.
Create an additional interface (and a new factory) that supports the new methods. The new interface does not have to inherit the old interface, but it can if it makes sense (if an is-a relationship can be expressed between the interfaces).
If your language supports it, use the Abstract Factory pattern, and take advantage of Covariant Return Types in the concrete factory. If you need a specific derived type, accept a concrete factory instead of an abstract one.
Bad alternatives (anti-patterns):
Adding a method to the interface that does nothing in other derived classed.
Throwing an exception in a method that doesn't make sense for your derived class.
Adding query methods to the interface that tell the user if they can call a certain method.
Unless the method name is generic enough that the user wouldn't expect it to do anything (e.g. DoExtraProcessing), then adding a method that is no-op in most derived classes breaks the contract defined by that interface.
E.g.: Someone invoking bird.Fly() would expect it to actually do something. We know that chickens can't fly. So either a Chicken isn't a Bird, or Birds don't Fly.
Adding query methods is a poor work-around for this. E.g. Adding a boolean CanFly() method or property in your interface. So is throwing an exception. Neither of them get around the fact that the type simply isn't substitutable. Check out the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP).
For your first question the answer is NO for all your points. If it would be that way then backward compatibility would not make any sense. You have to recompile chunkCode only if you brake the API, that is remove some functionality that chunkCode is using, changing calling conventions, modifying number of parameters, these sort of things == breaking changes.
For the second I usually, but only if I really have to, use dynamic_cast in those situations.
Note my answer is valid in the context of C++;I just saw the question is language agnostic(kind of tired at this hour; I'll remove the answer if it offenses anybody).
Question 1: Depends on what language you are talking about. Its always safer to recompile both languages though. Mostly because chuckCode does not know what actually exists inside A. Recompiling refreshes its memory. But it should work in Java without recompiling.
Question 2: No. The entire point of writing a Factory is to get rid of if(A is type1). These if statements are terrible from maintenance perspective.
Factory is designed to build objects of similar type. If you are having a situation where you are using this statement then that object is either not a similar type to rest of the classes. If you are sure it is of similar type and have similar interfaces. I would write an extra function in all the concrete base classes and implement it only on this one.
Ideally All these concrete classes should have a common abstract base class or a Interface to define what the API is. Nothing other than what is designed in this Interface should be expected to be called anywhere in the code unless you are writing functions that takes this specific class.
A friend of mine goes back and forth on what "interface" means in programming.
What is the best description of an "interface"?
To me, an interface is a blueprint of a class. Is this the best definition?
An interface is one of the more overloaded and confusing terms in development.
It is actually a concept of abstraction and encapsulation. For a given "box", it declares the "inputs" and "outputs" of that box. In the world of software, that usually means the operations that can be invoked on the box (along with arguments) and in some cases the return types of these operations.
What it does not do is define what the semantics of these operations are, although it is commonplace (and very good practice) to document them in proximity to the declaration (e.g., via comments), or to pick good naming conventions. Nevertheless, there are no guarantees that these intentions would be followed.
Here is an analogy: Take a look at your television when it is off. Its interface are the buttons it has, the various plugs, and the screen. Its semantics and behavior are that it takes inputs (e.g., cable programming) and has outputs (display on the screen, sound, etc.). However, when you look at a TV that is not plugged in, you are projecting your expected semantics into an interface. For all you know, the TV could just explode when you plug it in. However, based on its "interface" you can assume that it won't make any coffee since it doesn't have a water intake.
In object oriented programming, an interface generally defines the set of methods (or messages) that an instance of a class that has that interface could respond to.
What adds to the confusion is that in some languages, like Java, there is an actual interface with its language specific semantics. In Java, for example, it is a set of method declarations, with no implementation, but an interface also corresponds to a type and obeys various typing rules.
In other languages, like C++, you do not have interfaces. A class itself defines methods, but you could think of the interface of the class as the declarations of the non-private methods. Because of how C++ compiles, you get header files where you could have the "interface" of the class without actual implementation. You could also mimic Java interfaces with abstract classes with pure virtual functions, etc.
An interface is most certainly not a blueprint for a class. A blueprint, by one definition is a "detailed plan of action". An interface promises nothing about an action! The source of the confusion is that in most languages, if you have an interface type that defines a set of methods, the class that implements it "repeats" the same methods (but provides definition), so the interface looks like a skeleton or an outline of the class.
Consider the following situation:
You are in the middle of a large, empty room, when a zombie suddenly attacks you.
You have no weapon.
Luckily, a fellow living human is standing in the doorway of the room.
"Quick!" you shout at him. "Throw me something I can hit the zombie with!"
Now consider:
You didn't specify (nor do you care) exactly what your friend will choose to toss;
...But it doesn't matter, as long as:
It's something that can be tossed (He can't toss you the sofa)
It's something that you can grab hold of (Let's hope he didn't toss a shuriken)
It's something you can use to bash the zombie's brains out (That rules out pillows and such)
It doesn't matter whether you get a baseball bat or a hammer -
as long as it implements your three conditions, you're good.
To sum it up:
When you write an interface, you're basically saying: "I need something that..."
Interface is a contract you should comply to or given to, depending if you are implementer or a user.
I don't think "blueprint" is a good word to use. A blueprint tells you how to build something. An interface specifically avoids telling you how to build something.
An interface defines how you can interact with a class, i.e. what methods it supports.
In Programming, an interface defines what the behavior a an object will have, but it will not actually specify the behavior. It is a contract, that will guarantee, that a certain class can do something.
Consider this piece of C# code here:
using System;
public interface IGenerate
{
int Generate();
}
// Dependencies
public class KnownNumber : IGenerate
{
public int Generate()
{
return 5;
}
}
public class SecretNumber : IGenerate
{
public int Generate()
{
return new Random().Next(0, 10);
}
}
// What you care about
class Game
{
public Game(IGenerate generator)
{
Console.WriteLine(generator.Generate())
}
}
new Game(new SecretNumber());
new Game(new KnownNumber());
The Game class requires a secret number. For the sake of testing it, you would like to inject what will be used as a secret number (this principle is called Inversion of Control).
The game class wants to be "open minded" about what will actually create the random number, therefore it will ask in its constructor for "anything, that has a Generate method".
First, the interface specifies, what operations an object will provide. It just contains what it looks like, but no actual implementation is given. This is just the signature of the method. Conventionally, in C# interfaces are prefixed with an I.
The classes now implement the IGenerate Interface. This means that the compiler will make sure, that they both have a method, that returns an int and is called Generate.
The game now is being called two different object, each of which implementant the correct interface. Other classes would produce an error upon building the code.
Here I noticed the blueprint analogy you used:
A class is commonly seen as a blueprint for an object. An Interface specifies something that a class will need to do, so one could argue that it indeed is just a blueprint for a class, but since a class does not necessarily need an interface, I would argue that this metaphor is breaking. Think of an interface as a contract. The class that "signs it" will be legally required (enforced by the compiler police), to comply to the terms and conditions in the contract. This means that it will have to do, what is specified in the interface.
This is all due to the statically typed nature of some OO languages, as it is the case with Java or C#. In Python on the other hand, another mechanism is used:
import random
# Dependencies
class KnownNumber(object):
def generate(self):
return 5
class SecretNumber(object):
def generate(self):
return random.randint(0,10)
# What you care about
class SecretGame(object):
def __init__(self, number_generator):
number = number_generator.generate()
print number
Here, none of the classes implement an interface. Python does not care about that, because the SecretGame class will just try to call whatever object is passed in. If the object HAS a generate() method, everything is fine. If it doesn't: KAPUTT!
This mistake will not be seen at compile time, but at runtime, so possibly when your program is already deployed and running. C# would notify you way before you came close to that.
The reason this mechanism is used, naively stated, because in OO languages naturally functions aren't first class citizens. As you can see, KnownNumber and SecretNumber contain JUST the functions to generate a number. One does not really need the classes at all. In Python, therefore, one could just throw them away and pick the functions on their own:
# OO Approach
SecretGame(SecretNumber())
SecretGame(KnownNumber())
# Functional Approach
# Dependencies
class SecretGame(object):
def __init__(self, generate):
number = generate()
print number
SecretGame(lambda: random.randint(0,10))
SecretGame(lambda: 5)
A lambda is just a function, that was declared "in line, as you go".
A delegate is just the same in C#:
class Game
{
public Game(Func<int> generate)
{
Console.WriteLine(generate())
}
}
new Game(() => 5);
new Game(() => new Random().Next(0, 10));
Side note: The latter examples were not possible like this up to Java 7. There, Interfaces were your only way of specifying this behavior. However, Java 8 introduced lambda expressions so the C# example can be converted to Java very easily (Func<int> becomes java.util.function.IntSupplier and => becomes ->).
To me an interface is a blueprint of a class, is this the best definition?
No. A blueprint typically includes the internals. But a interface is purely about what is visible on the outside of a class ... or more accurately, a family of classes that implement the interface.
The interface consists of the signatures of methods and values of constants, and also a (typically informal) "behavioral contract" between classes that implement the interface and others that use it.
Technically, I would describe an interface as a set of ways (methods, properties, accessors... the vocabulary depends on the language you are using) to interact with an object. If an object supports/implements an interface, then you can use all of the ways specified in the interface to interact with this object.
Semantically, an interface could also contain conventions about what you may or may not do (e.g., the order in which you may call the methods) and about what, in return, you may assume about the state of the object given how you interacted so far.
Personally I see an interface like a template. If a interface contains the definition for the methods foo() and bar(), then you know every class which uses this interface has the methods foo() and bar().
Let us consider a Man(User or an Object) wants some work to be done. He will contact a middle man(Interface) who will be having a contract with the companies(real world objects created using implemented classes). Few types of works will be defined by him which companies will implement and give him results.
Each and every company will implement the work in its own way but the result will be same. Like this User will get its work done using an single interface.
I think Interface will act as visible part of the systems with few commands which will be defined internally by the implementing inner sub systems.
An interface separates out operations on a class from the implementation within. Thus, some implementations may provide for many interfaces.
People would usually describe it as a "contract" for what must be available in the methods of the class.
It is absolutely not a blueprint, since that would also determine implementation. A full class definition could be said to be a blueprint.
An interface defines what a class that inherits from it must implement. In this way, multiple classes can inherit from an interface, and because of that inherticance, you can
be sure that all members of the interface are implemented in the derived class (even if its just to throw an exception)
Abstract away the class itself from the caller (cast an instance of a class to the interface, and interact with it without needing to know what the actual derived class IS)
for more info, see this http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173156.aspx
In my opinion, interface has a broader meaning than the one commonly associated with it in Java. I would define "interface" as a set of available operations with some common functionality, that allow controlling/monitoring a module.
In this definition I try to cover both programatic interfaces, where the client is some module, and human interfaces (GUI for example).
As others already said, an interface always has some contract behind it, in terms of inputs and outputs. The interface does not promise anything about the "how" of the operations; it only guarantees some properties of the outcome, given the current state, the selected operation and its parameters.
As above, synonyms of "contract" and "protocol" are appropriate.
The interface comprises the methods and properties you can expect to be exposed by a class.
So if a class Cheetos Bag implements the Chip Bag interface, you should expect a Cheetos Bag to behave exactly like any other Chip Bag. (That is, expose the .attemptToOpenWithoutSpillingEverywhere() method, etc.)
A boundary across which two systems communicate.
Interfaces are how some OO languages achieve ad hoc polymorphism. Ad hoc polymorphism is simply functions with the same names operating on different types.
Conventional Definition - An interface is a contract that specifies the methods which needs to be implemented by the class implementing it.
The Definition of Interface has changed over time. Do you think Interface just have method declarations only ? What about static final variables and what about default definitions after Java 5.
Interfaces were introduced to Java because of the Diamond problem with multiple Inheritance and that's what they actually intend to do.
Interfaces are the constructs that were created to get away with the multiple inheritance problem and can have abstract methods , default definitions and static final variables.
http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Java-allow-static-final-variables-in-interfaces-when-they-are-only-intended-to-be-contracts
In short, The basic problem an interface is trying to solve is to separate how we use something from how it is implemented. But you should consider interface is not a contract. Read more here.
I'm trying to solve a design issue using inheritance based polymorphism and dynamic binding. I have an abstract superclass and two subclasses. The superclass contains common behaviour. SubClassA and SubClassB define some different methods:
SubClassA defines a method performTransform(), but SubClassB does not.
So the following example
1 var v:SuperClass;
2 var b:SubClassB = new SubClassB();
3 v = b;
4 v.performTransform();
would cause a compile error on line 4 as performTransform() is not defined in the superclass. We can get it to compile by casting...
(v as SubClassA).performTransform();
however, this will cause a runtime exception to be thrown as v is actually an instance of SubClassB, which also does not define performTransform()
So we can get around that by testing the type of an object before casting it:
if( typeof v == SubClassA)
{
(cast v to SubClassA).performTransform();
}
That will ensure that we only call performTransform() on v's that are instances of SubClassA. That's a pretty inelegant solution to my eyes, but at least its safe. I have used interface based polymorphism (interface meaning
a type that can't
be instantiated and defines the API of classes that implement it) in the past, but that also feels clunky. For the above case, if SubClassA and SubClassB implemented ISuperClass
that defined performTransform, then they would both have to implement performTransform(). If SubClassB had no real need for a performTransform() you would have to implement an empty function.
There must be a design pattern out there that addresses the issue.
My immediate comment is that your object modelling is wrong. Why treat SubClassA as a SuperClass (is-a relationship), when I would suggest that it's not.
You could implement a dummy performTransform() that does absolutely nothing in its base instance, and is overridden in SubClassA. But I'm still concerned that on one hand you're treating all these objects (SubClassA, SubClassB) as the same thing, and then wanting to treat them differently depending on their real implementation, rather than the interface they present.
Assuming you are using a strongly-typed language, which your question seems to indicate...
There is no design pattern to work around this, because this is the intended behavior.
In your definition, performTransform belongs only to SubClassA. Thus, to be able to invoke performTransform on an object, the object must be of type SubClassA (or a subtype of SubClassA.
Invoking performTransform on a SuperClass does not make sense because not every instance of SuperClass defines this method.
Downcasting from a SuperClass to a SubClassA should certainly throw an error if the instance is not a SubClassA - this should be obvious.
So, you must either change your definitions such that performTransform belongs to SuperClass (in which case, as you said, every instance of type SuperClass would need to have some implementation for the method, even an empty one) or you must make sure that you are only invoking methods on types that define them.
I'm not so sure it requires a pattern to solve but instead just a small redesign. If it makes sense for anything to call performTransform is should be in the superclass as a virtual method and overridden in the subclasses.
So the superclass defines the flow from an abstract viewpoint and the subclasses implement them appropriately. In your case, the simplest options are to either just leave performTransform empty in the superclass or implement it as an empty method in the subclass that doesn't require it (when you mix this approach with a short comment, you get a more maintainable system IMO).
The closest pattern I can think of for this is the Null Object pattern where this performTransform method is just a dummy function to preserve compatibility but perform no actual task.
Just because you say your bicycle is a car doesn't mean there's a place to put gas in it. The whole point of polymorphism is to let you think of things as the super class - these are all bank accounts, these are all shapes, to use the classic examples - and not get caught up in what they really are. Sometimes the subclasses add capability. In many cases that capability is used in the specific implementations in each subclass. So to use your names, some method Adjust() that is in the signature of SuperClass is implemented (differently) in SubClassA and SubClassB. The SubClassA version calls its own performTransform as part of the process and we all live happily ever after. The minute some code needs to decide whether to call performTransform or not, you're not just thinking of it as a SuperClass any more. That's not necessarily something that needs to be solved, it's just what is.
It Would be better to have the call to performTransform() in a method that only takes type SubClassB as a parameter - at least you wouldn't have to do type checking then.
On saying that, if your having this problem at all it may suggest that inheritance may not be the best solution - composition may be a better way to approach the problem.