I am designing a utility to backup applications.
The backup functionality will contain both common tasks to do (common code) and some unique steps. Am I on the right track by using an interface for the unique behaviour and an abstract base class for the common behaviour in common by all the children? Is there any downside to this approach? Anything better?
Thanks
If the base class actually implements some behaviour then I think it's called a non-abstract base class.
Anyway I think that's called Template method pattern: you may want to look that up in a dictionary of patterns (which should explain when it's appropriate, and reference any similar alternative patterns).
I wouldn't use abstract base classes to share common functionality, but only to express is-a relationships. If D derives from B, wherever B is expected, a D can come up. This is the criteria for using public inheritance.
You can use private inheritance though, but you are limited to derive from only one class in some languages.
Which brings us to the point to should be the first - you should think about responsibilites and encapsulate functionality wherever it belongs to, exposing interfaces (or pure abstract classes in C++) to clients, and implementing functionalities in concrete classes that derive from those interfaces.
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).
We have used a homegrown version of object oriented coldfusion for a while and I'm just starting to experiment with cfc's and how it "should" be done...
If I understand correctly, cfinterface defines the signature of functions, and any class that implements that interface must have their own functions to do whats defined in the interface.
I'm kind of trying to do the opposite - the interface doesn't just define the function's signature, but also defines the logic of the function and anything that implements that interface can use its functions without having to define it itself. Does that exist besides creating subclasses?
For example, say you have classes A,B,C,D that all belong to the Animal class
A & B can walk
A & C can talk
B & D can sleep
Suppose the logic of walk, talk & sleep (if the object can do it) is the same regardless of the class doing it
Ideally, if A & B both implement the walking interface, they can walk without defining a separate walk method in each class.
Or borrowing a better example from this java multiple inheritance question
A Pegasus is a mix of a Horse and a Bird because it runs like a horse
but flies like a bird
Is that possible? (I think this is multiple inheritance?)
In short: no, an interface only defines a contract, it does not (and cannot) define functionality). Also CFML does not have the concept of multiple inheritance.
You will have to use single-inheritance and concrete implementations to effect what you need. I can't be bothered assessing your implementation-sharing requirements to work out what an approrpriate class hierarchy might be to minimise code duplication. I'm sure you can do that yourself (and it's not really part of your question anyhow).
One tactic you could try is to use mixins for your common methods. Store the common methods in a different library, and then inject them into your objects as required. So basically Mixins.cfc would implement walk(), talk(), sleep(), and you'd have an AFactory.cfc, BFactory.cfc, CFactory.cfc. When asking a factory for a new A, B or C, and the factory method injects the mixin methods before returning the instances. Obviously this is a fairly cumbersome process, and you'd want to use some sort of IoC container to manage all this.
A better question might come out of you showing us more real world examples... I suspect your domain design could perhaps stand improvement if you find yourself needing to do what your example suggests. Actual design requirements are seldom exposed with examples using animals.
You can do similar things with WireBox and its Virtual Inheritance feature:
http://wiki.coldbox.org/wiki/WireBox.cfm#Virtual_Inheritance
// Declare base CFC
map("BaseModel").to("model.base.BaseModel");
map("UserService").to("model.users.UserService").virtualInheritance("BaseModel");
It's basically very similar to what Adam described above; a base class is created, and references to it's public members are placed in the sub class.
https://github.com/ColdBox/coldbox-platform/blob/master/system/ioc/Builder.cfc#L535
There's no reason why you can't build something similar but you should know this has already been done.
Full disclosure, I am a contributing member of the *Box community.
I could not find the main difference. And I am very confused when we could use inheritance and when we can use subtyping. I found some definitions but they are not very clear.
What is the difference between subtyping and inheritance in object-oriented programming?
In addition to the answers already given, here's a link to an article I think is relevant.
Excerpts:
In the object-oriented framework, inheritance is usually presented as a feature that goes hand in hand with subtyping when one organizes abstract datatypes in a hierarchy of classes. However, the two are orthogonal ideas.
Subtyping refers to compatibility of interfaces. A type B is a subtype of A if every function that can be invoked on an object of type A can also be invoked on an object of type B.
Inheritance refers to reuse of implementations. A type B inherits from another type A if some functions for B are written in terms of functions of A.
However, subtyping and inheritance need not go hand in hand. Consider the data structure deque, a double-ended queue. A deque supports insertion and deletion at both ends, so it has four functions insert-front, delete-front, insert-rear and delete-rear. If we use just insert-rear and delete-front we get a normal queue. On the other hand, if we use just insert-front and delete-front, we get a stack. In other words, we can implement queues and stacks in terms of deques, so as datatypes, Stack and Queue inherit from Deque. On the other hand, neither Stack nor Queue are subtypes of Deque since they do not support all the functions provided by Deque. In fact, in this case, Deque is a subtype of both Stack and Queue!
I think that Java, C++, C# and their ilk have contributed to the confusion, as already noted, by the fact that they consolidate both ideas into a single class hierarchy. However, I think the example given above does justice to the ideas in a rather language-agnostic way. I'm sure others can give more examples.
A relative unfortunately died and left you his bookstore.
You can now read all the books there, sell them, you can look at his accounts, his customer list, etc. This is inheritance - you have everything the relative had. Inheritance is a form of code reuse.
You can also re-open the book store yourself, taking on all of the relative's roles and responsibilities, even though you add some changes of your own - this is subtyping - you are now a bookstore owner, just like your relative used to be.
Subtyping is a key component of OOP - you have an object of one type but which fulfills the interface of another type, so it can be used anywhere the other object could have been used.
In the languages you listed in your question - C++, Java and C# - the two are (almost) always used together, and thus the only way to inherit from something is to subtype it and vice versa. But other languages don't necessarily fuse the two concepts.
Inheritance is about gaining attributes (and/or functionality) of super types. For example:
class Base {
//interface with included definitions
}
class Derived inherits Base {
//Add some additional functionality.
//Reuse Base without having to explicitly forward
//the functions in Base
}
Here, a Derived cannot be used where a Base is expected, but is able to act similarly to a Base, while adding behaviour or changing some aspect of Bases behaviour. Typically, Base would be a small helper class that provides both an interface and an implementation for some commonly desired functionality.
Subtype-polymorphism is about implementing an interface, and so being able to substitute different implementations of that interface at run-time:
class Interface {
//some abstract interface, no definitions included
}
class Implementation implements Interface {
//provide all the operations
//required by the interface
}
Here, an Implementation can be used wherever an Interface is required, and different implementations can be substituted at run-time. The purpose is to allow code that uses Interface to be more widely useful.
Your confusion is justified. Java, C#, and C++ all conflate these two ideas into a single class hierarchy. However, the two concepts are not identical, and there do exist languages which separate the two.
If you inherit privately in C++, you get inheritance without subtyping. That is, given:
class Derived : Base // note the missing public before Base
You cannot write:
Base * p = new Derived(); // type error
Because Derived is not a subtype of Base. You merely inherited the implementation, not the type.
Subtyping doesn't have to be implemented via inheritance. Some subtyping that is not inheritance:
Ocaml's variant
Rust's lifetime anotation
Clean's uniqueness types
Go's interface
in a simple word: subtyping and inheritance both are polymorphism, (inheritance is a dynamic polymorphism - overriding). Actually, inheritance is subclassing, it means in inheritance there is no warranty to ensure capability of the subclass with the superclass (make sure subclass do not discard superclass behavior), but subtyping(such as implementing an interface and ... ), ensure the class does not discard the expected behavior.
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.
Abstract classes are described as being useful for a family of objects (e.g. could be used for animals which are mammals). However, what difference is there between using an interface or abstract class for representing a family of related objects?
My process is to use an abstract class when I want to define common functionality but with the option for future extensions and an interface for custom functionality (implementations).
For example, I wrote an abstract class to encapsulate some database functionality which will be used heavily in a small web app at work. I wrote an abstract class with virtual methods which can be overrided with custom functionality in the future (e.g. logging, or some reporting of the database events which may be required).
Is this the right way to go? Is there any significance in choosing one construct (abstract or interface) to represent a family?
An abstract class should be used when there is common state and behavior between all types. An interface should be used when all types will have a common interface but will not share state or behavior.
Here is an example.
German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Beagle
These three objects are all dogs, and as such they share certain common state (carnivorous, 4 legs, etc.) and they also share certain overridable behavior (bark, pant, etc.). In this instance it would make the most sense to create an abstract Dog class to hold this common state and behavior and create subtypes of Dog for each type of dog.
Pencil, Pen, Chalk
These objects have no common state and they cannot share behavior. Yet you may notice that they do have something in common - they are cabaple of writing. These objects are best build separately and without a base class and then tied together with a Writable interface that exposes each type's Write method.
I would suggest using interfaces so that you can implement new functionality in your database utility at some future point.
As always, the primary design principle when it comes to development is
Design towards an interface, not an implementation
With abstract classes, you can provide implementation that is needed and shared by all the classes in your hierarchy. Therefore, you're reusing code. You may allow the derived classes to override the default behavior or not but at least you're providing a baseline functionality like breathing for a new born animal. However, with interfaces, you can't provide any implementation. You simply define a contract that all classes that inherits that interface should honor and provide implementation for. This may lead to repetitive and duplicate code among the hierarchy of classes.
Interfaces are not very good for extensibility and you need to worry about versioning. You decide to make change to an existing interface but you will soon realize that there are a lot of classes in existence you may need to modify. Think about adding Breath method to IMammal interface that's already being used by many mammals. You will need to go and provide Breath implementation for each one. With an abstract class, you can simply add Breath method and provide some baseline implementation without having to worry about existing derived classes. So abstract classes are more flexible in term of the development of your hierarchy and the api.