I have seen this mentioned a few times and I am not clear on what it means. When and why would you do this?
I know what interfaces do, but the fact I am not clear on this makes me think I am missing out on using them correctly.
Is it just so if you were to do:
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever()
You could use any class that implements IInterface? When would you need to do that? The only thing I can think of is if you have a method and you are unsure of what object will be passed except for it implementing IInterface. I cannot think how often you would need to do that.
Also, how could you write a method that takes in an object that implements an interface? Is that possible?
There are some wonderful answers on here to this questions that get into all sorts of great detail about interfaces and loosely coupling code, inversion of control and so on. There are some fairly heady discussions, so I'd like to take the opportunity to break things down a bit for understanding why an interface is useful.
When I first started getting exposed to interfaces, I too was confused about their relevance. I didn't understand why you needed them. If we're using a language like Java or C#, we already have inheritance and I viewed interfaces as a weaker form of inheritance and thought, "why bother?" In a sense I was right, you can think of interfaces as sort of a weak form of inheritance, but beyond that I finally understood their use as a language construct by thinking of them as a means of classifying common traits or behaviors that were exhibited by potentially many non-related classes of objects.
For example -- say you have a SIM game and have the following classes:
class HouseFly inherits Insect {
void FlyAroundYourHead(){}
void LandOnThings(){}
}
class Telemarketer inherits Person {
void CallDuringDinner(){}
void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo(){}
}
Clearly, these two objects have nothing in common in terms of direct inheritance. But, you could say they are both annoying.
Let's say our game needs to have some sort of random thing that annoys the game player when they eat dinner. This could be a HouseFly or a Telemarketer or both -- but how do you allow for both with a single function? And how do you ask each different type of object to "do their annoying thing" in the same way?
The key to realize is that both a Telemarketer and HouseFly share a common loosely interpreted behavior even though they are nothing alike in terms of modeling them. So, let's make an interface that both can implement:
interface IPest {
void BeAnnoying();
}
class HouseFly inherits Insect implements IPest {
void FlyAroundYourHead(){}
void LandOnThings(){}
void BeAnnoying() {
FlyAroundYourHead();
LandOnThings();
}
}
class Telemarketer inherits Person implements IPest {
void CallDuringDinner(){}
void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo(){}
void BeAnnoying() {
CallDuringDinner();
ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo();
}
}
We now have two classes that can each be annoying in their own way. And they do not need to derive from the same base class and share common inherent characteristics -- they simply need to satisfy the contract of IPest -- that contract is simple. You just have to BeAnnoying. In this regard, we can model the following:
class DiningRoom {
DiningRoom(Person[] diningPeople, IPest[] pests) { ... }
void ServeDinner() {
when diningPeople are eating,
foreach pest in pests
pest.BeAnnoying();
}
}
Here we have a dining room that accepts a number of diners and a number of pests -- note the use of the interface. This means that in our little world, a member of the pests array could actually be a Telemarketer object or a HouseFly object.
The ServeDinner method is called when dinner is served and our people in the dining room are supposed to eat. In our little game, that's when our pests do their work -- each pest is instructed to be annoying by way of the IPest interface. In this way, we can easily have both Telemarketers and HouseFlys be annoying in each of their own ways -- we care only that we have something in the DiningRoom object that is a pest, we don't really care what it is and they could have nothing in common with other.
This very contrived pseudo-code example (that dragged on a lot longer than I anticipated) is simply meant to illustrate the kind of thing that finally turned the light on for me in terms of when we might use an interface. I apologize in advance for the silliness of the example, but hope that it helps in your understanding. And, to be sure, the other posted answers you've received here really cover the gamut of the use of interfaces today in design patterns and development methodologies.
The specific example I used to give to students is that they should write
List myList = new ArrayList(); // programming to the List interface
instead of
ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(); // this is bad
These look exactly the same in a short program, but if you go on to use myList 100 times in your program you can start to see a difference. The first declaration ensures that you only call methods on myList that are defined by the List interface (so no ArrayList specific methods). If you've programmed to the interface this way, later on you can decide that you really need
List myList = new TreeList();
and you only have to change your code in that one spot. You already know that the rest of your code doesn't do anything that will be broken by changing the implementation because you programmed to the interface.
The benefits are even more obvious (I think) when you're talking about method parameters and return values. Take this for example:
public ArrayList doSomething(HashMap map);
That method declaration ties you to two concrete implementations (ArrayList and HashMap). As soon as that method is called from other code, any changes to those types probably mean you're going to have to change the calling code as well. It would be better to program to the interfaces.
public List doSomething(Map map);
Now it doesn't matter what kind of List you return, or what kind of Map is passed in as a parameter. Changes that you make inside the doSomething method won't force you to change the calling code.
Programming to an interface is saying, "I need this functionality and I don't care where it comes from."
Consider (in Java), the List interface versus the ArrayList and LinkedList concrete classes. If all I care about is that I have a data structure containing multiple data items that I should access via iteration, I'd pick a List (and that's 99% of the time). If I know that I need constant-time insert/delete from either end of the list, I might pick the LinkedList concrete implementation (or more likely, use the Queue interface). If I know I need random access by index, I'd pick the ArrayList concrete class.
Programming to an interface has absolutely nothing to do with abstract interfaces like we see in Java or .NET. It isn't even an OOP concept.
What it means is don't go messing around with the internals of an object or data structure. Use the Abstract Program Interface, or API, to interact with your data. In Java or C# that means using public properties and methods instead of raw field access. For C that means using functions instead of raw pointers.
EDIT: And with databases it means using views and stored procedures instead of direct table access.
Using interfaces is a key factor in making your code easily testable in addition to removing unnecessary couplings between your classes. By creating an interface that defines the operations on your class, you allow classes that want to use that functionality the ability to use it without depending on your implementing class directly. If later on you decide to change and use a different implementation, you need only change the part of the code where the implementation is instantiated. The rest of the code need not change because it depends on the interface, not the implementing class.
This is very useful in creating unit tests. In the class under test you have it depend on the interface and inject an instance of the interface into the class (or a factory that allows it to build instances of the interface as needed) via the constructor or a property settor. The class uses the provided (or created) interface in its methods. When you go to write your tests, you can mock or fake the interface and provide an interface that responds with data configured in your unit test. You can do this because your class under test deals only with the interface, not your concrete implementation. Any class implementing the interface, including your mock or fake class, will do.
EDIT: Below is a link to an article where Erich Gamma discusses his quote, "Program to an interface, not an implementation."
http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/designprinciples.html
You should look into Inversion of Control:
Martin Fowler: Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern
Wikipedia: Inversion of Control
In such a scenario, you wouldn't write this:
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever();
You would write something like this:
IInterface classRef = container.Resolve<IInterface>();
This would go into a rule-based setup in the container object, and construct the actual object for you, which could be ObjectWhatever. The important thing is that you could replace this rule with something that used another type of object altogether, and your code would still work.
If we leave IoC off the table, you can write code that knows that it can talk to an object that does something specific, but not which type of object or how it does it.
This would come in handy when passing parameters.
As for your parenthesized question "Also, how could you write a method that takes in an object that implements an Interface? Is that possible?", in C# you would simply use the interface type for the parameter type, like this:
public void DoSomethingToAnObject(IInterface whatever) { ... }
This plugs right into the "talk to an object that does something specific." The method defined above knows what to expect from the object, that it implements everything in IInterface, but it doesn't care which type of object it is, only that it adheres to the contract, which is what an interface is.
For instance, you're probably familiar with calculators and have probably used quite a few in your days, but most of the time they're all different. You, on the other hand, knows how a standard calculator should work, so you're able to use them all, even if you can't use the specific features that each calculator has that none of the other has.
This is the beauty of interfaces. You can write a piece of code, that knows that it will get objects passed to it that it can expect certain behavior from. It doesn't care one hoot what kind of object it is, only that it supports the behavior needed.
Let me give you a concrete example.
We have a custom-built translation system for windows forms. This system loops through controls on a form and translate text in each. The system knows how to handle basic controls, like the-type-of-control-that-has-a-Text-property, and similar basic stuff, but for anything basic, it falls short.
Now, since controls inherit from pre-defined classes that we have no control over, we could do one of three things:
Build support for our translation system to detect specifically which type of control it is working with, and translate the correct bits (maintenance nightmare)
Build support into base classes (impossible, since all the controls inherit from different pre-defined classes)
Add interface support
So we did nr. 3. All our controls implement ILocalizable, which is an interface that gives us one method, the ability to translate "itself" into a container of translation text/rules. As such, the form doesn't need to know which kind of control it has found, only that it implements the specific interface, and knows that there is a method where it can call to localize the control.
Code to the Interface Not the Implementation has NOTHING to do with Java, nor its Interface construct.
This concept was brought to prominence in the Patterns / Gang of Four books but was most probably around well before that. The concept certainly existed well before Java ever existed.
The Java Interface construct was created to aid in this idea (among other things), and people have become too focused on the construct as the centre of the meaning rather than the original intent. However, it is the reason we have public and private methods and attributes in Java, C++, C#, etc.
It means just interact with an object or system's public interface. Don't worry or even anticipate how it does what it does internally. Don't worry about how it is implemented. In object-oriented code, it is why we have public vs. private methods/attributes. We are intended to use the public methods because the private methods are there only for use internally, within the class. They make up the implementation of the class and can be changed as required without changing the public interface. Assume that regarding functionality, a method on a class will perform the same operation with the same expected result every time you call it with the same parameters. It allows the author to change how the class works, its implementation, without breaking how people interact with it.
And you can program to the interface, not the implementation without ever using an Interface construct. You can program to the interface not the implementation in C++, which does not have an Interface construct. You can integrate two massive enterprise systems much more robustly as long as they interact through public interfaces (contracts) rather than calling methods on objects internal to the systems. The interfaces are expected to always react the same expected way given the same input parameters; if implemented to the interface and not the implementation. The concept works in many places.
Shake the thought that Java Interfaces have anything what-so-ever to do with the concept of 'Program to the Interface, Not the Implementation'. They can help apply the concept, but they are not the concept.
It sounds like you understand how interfaces work but are unsure of when to use them and what advantages they offer. Here are a few examples of when an interface would make sense:
// if I want to add search capabilities to my application and support multiple search
// engines such as Google, Yahoo, Live, etc.
interface ISearchProvider
{
string Search(string keywords);
}
then I could create GoogleSearchProvider, YahooSearchProvider, LiveSearchProvider, etc.
// if I want to support multiple downloads using different protocols
// HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, etc.
interface IUrlDownload
{
void Download(string url)
}
// how about an image loader for different kinds of images JPG, GIF, PNG, etc.
interface IImageLoader
{
Bitmap LoadImage(string filename)
}
then create JpegImageLoader, GifImageLoader, PngImageLoader, etc.
Most add-ins and plugin systems work off interfaces.
Another popular use is for the Repository pattern. Say I want to load a list of zip codes from different sources
interface IZipCodeRepository
{
IList<ZipCode> GetZipCodes(string state);
}
then I could create an XMLZipCodeRepository, SQLZipCodeRepository, CSVZipCodeRepository, etc. For my web applications, I often create XML repositories early on so I can get something up and running before the SQL Database is ready. Once the database is ready I write an SQLRepository to replace the XML version. The rest of my code remains unchanged since it runs solely off of interfaces.
Methods can accept interfaces such as:
PrintZipCodes(IZipCodeRepository zipCodeRepository, string state)
{
foreach (ZipCode zipCode in zipCodeRepository.GetZipCodes(state))
{
Console.WriteLine(zipCode.ToString());
}
}
It makes your code a lot more extensible and easier to maintain when you have sets of similar classes. I am a junior programmer, so I am no expert, but I just finished a project that required something similar.
I work on client side software that talks to a server running a medical device. We are developing a new version of this device that has some new components that the customer must configure at times. There are two types of new components, and they are different, but they are also very similar. Basically, I had to create two config forms, two lists classes, two of everything.
I decided that it would be best to create an abstract base class for each control type that would hold almost all of the real logic, and then derived types to take care of the differences between the two components. However, the base classes would not have been able to perform operations on these components if I had to worry about types all of the time (well, they could have, but there would have been an "if" statement or switch in every method).
I defined a simple interface for these components and all of the base classes talk to this interface. Now when I change something, it pretty much 'just works' everywhere and I have no code duplication.
A lot of explanation out there, but to make it even more simpler. Take for instance a List. One can implement a list with as:
An internal array
A linked list
Other implementations
By building to an interface, say a List. You only code as to definition of List or what List means in reality.
You could use any type of implementation internally say an array implementation. But suppose you wish to change the implementation for some reason say a bug or performance. Then you just have to change the declaration List<String> ls = new ArrayList<String>() to List<String> ls = new LinkedList<String>().
Nowhere else in code, will you have to change anything else; Because everything else was built on the definition of List.
If you program in Java, JDBC is a good example. JDBC defines a set of interfaces but says nothing about the implementation. Your applications can be written against this set of interfaces. In theory, you pick some JDBC driver and your application would just work. If you discover there's a faster or "better" or cheaper JDBC driver or for whatever reason, you can again in theory re-configure your property file, and without having to make any change in your application, your application would still work.
I am a late comer to this question, but I want to mention here that the line "Program to an interface, not an implementation" had some good discussion in the GoF (Gang of Four) Design Patterns book.
It stated, on p. 18:
Program to an interface, not an implementation
Don't declare variables to be instances of particular concrete classes. Instead, commit only to an interface defined by an abstract class. You will find this to be a common theme of the design patterns in this book.
and above that, it began with:
There are two benefits to manipulating objects solely in terms of the interface defined by abstract classes:
Clients remain unaware of the specific types of objects they use, as long as the objects adhere to the interface that clients expect.
Clients remain unaware of the classes that implement these objects. Clients only know about the abstract class(es) defining the interface.
So in other words, don't write it your classes so that it has a quack() method for ducks, and then a bark() method for dogs, because they are too specific for a particular implementation of a class (or subclass). Instead, write the method using names that are general enough to be used in the base class, such as giveSound() or move(), so that they can be used for ducks, dogs, or even cars, and then the client of your classes can just say .giveSound() rather than thinking about whether to use quack() or bark() or even determine the type before issuing the correct message to be sent to the object.
Programming to Interfaces is awesome, it promotes loose coupling. As #lassevk mentioned, Inversion of Control is a great use of this.
In addition, look into SOLID principals. here is a video series
It goes through a hard coded (strongly coupled example) then looks at interfaces, finally progressing to a IoC/DI tool (NInject)
To add to the existing posts, sometimes coding to interfaces helps on large projects when developers work on separate components simultaneously. All you need is to define interfaces upfront and write code to them while other developers write code to the interface you are implementing.
It can be advantageous to program to interfaces, even when we are not depending on abstractions.
Programming to interfaces forces us to use a contextually appropriate subset of an object. That helps because it:
prevents us from doing contextually inappropriate things, and
lets us safely change the implementation in the future.
For example, consider a Person class that implements the Friend and the Employee interface.
class Person implements AbstractEmployee, AbstractFriend {
}
In the context of the person's birthday, we program to the Friend interface, to prevent treating the person like an Employee.
function party() {
const friend: Friend = new Person("Kathryn");
friend.HaveFun();
}
In the context of the person's work, we program to the Employee interface, to prevent blurring workplace boundaries.
function workplace() {
const employee: Employee = new Person("Kathryn");
employee.DoWork();
}
Great. We have behaved appropriately in different contexts, and our software is working well.
Far into the future, if our business changes to work with dogs, we can change the software fairly easily. First, we create a Dog class that implements both Friend and Employee. Then, we safely change new Person() to new Dog(). Even if both functions have thousands of lines of code, that simple edit will work because we know the following are true:
Function party uses only the Friend subset of Person.
Function workplace uses only the Employee subset of Person.
Class Dog implements both the Friend and Employee interfaces.
On the other hand, if either party or workplace were to have programmed against Person, there would be a risk of both having Person-specific code. Changing from Person to Dog would require us to comb through the code to extirpate any Person-specific code that Dog does not support.
The moral: programming to interfaces helps our code to behave appropriately and to be ready for change. It also prepares our code to depend on abstractions, which brings even more advantages.
If I'm writing a new class Swimmer to add the functionality swim() and need to use an object of class say Dog, and this Dog class implements interface Animal which declares swim().
At the top of the hierarchy (Animal), it's very abstract while at the bottom (Dog) it's very concrete. The way I think about "programming to interfaces" is that, as I write Swimmer class, I want to write my code against the interface that's as far up that hierarchy which in this case is an Animal object. An interface is free from implementation details and thus makes your code loosely-coupled.
The implementation details can be changed with time, however, it would not affect the remaining code since all you are interacting with is with the interface and not the implementation. You don't care what the implementation is like... all you know is that there will be a class that would implement the interface.
It is also good for Unit Testing, you can inject your own classes (that meet the requirements of the interface) into a class that depends on it
Short story: A postman is asked to go home after home and receive the covers contains (letters, documents, cheques, gift cards, application, love letter) with the address written on it to deliver.
Suppose there is no cover and ask the postman to go home after home and receive all the things and deliver to other people, the postman can get confused.
So better wrap it with cover (in our story it is the interface) then he will do his job fine.
Now the postman's job is to receive and deliver the covers only (he wouldn't bothered what is inside in the cover).
Create a type of interface not actual type, but implement it with actual type.
To create to interface means your components get Fit into the rest of code easily
I give you an example.
you have the AirPlane interface as below.
interface Airplane{
parkPlane();
servicePlane();
}
Suppose you have methods in your Controller class of Planes like
parkPlane(Airplane plane)
and
servicePlane(Airplane plane)
implemented in your program. It will not BREAK your code.
I mean, it need not to change as long as it accepts arguments as AirPlane.
Because it will accept any Airplane despite actual type, flyer, highflyr, fighter, etc.
Also, in a collection:
List<Airplane> plane; // Will take all your planes.
The following example will clear your understanding.
You have a fighter plane that implements it, so
public class Fighter implements Airplane {
public void parkPlane(){
// Specific implementations for fighter plane to park
}
public void servicePlane(){
// Specific implementatoins for fighter plane to service.
}
}
The same thing for HighFlyer and other clasess:
public class HighFlyer implements Airplane {
public void parkPlane(){
// Specific implementations for HighFlyer plane to park
}
public void servicePlane(){
// specific implementatoins for HighFlyer plane to service.
}
}
Now think your controller classes using AirPlane several times,
Suppose your Controller class is ControlPlane like below,
public Class ControlPlane{
AirPlane plane;
// so much method with AirPlane reference are used here...
}
Here magic comes as you may make your new AirPlane type instances as many as you want and you are not changing the code of ControlPlane class.
You can add an instance...
JumboJetPlane // implementing AirPlane interface.
AirBus // implementing AirPlane interface.
You may remove instances of previously created types too.
So, just to get this right, the advantage of a interface is that I can separate the calling of a method from any particular class. Instead creating a instance of the interface, where the implementation is given from whichever class I choose that implements that interface. Thus allowing me to have many classes, which have similar but slightly different functionality and in some cases (the cases related to the intention of the interface) not care which object it is.
For example, I could have a movement interface. A method which makes something 'move' and any object (Person, Car, Cat) that implements the movement interface could be passed in and told to move. Without the method every knowing the type of class it is.
Imagine you have a product called 'Zebra' that can be extended by plugins. It finds the plugins by searching for DLLs in some directory. It loads all those DLLs and uses reflection to find any classes that implement IZebraPlugin, and then calls the methods of that interface to communicate with the plugins.
This makes it completely independent of any specific plugin class - it doesn't care what the classes are. It only cares that they fulfill the interface specification.
Interfaces are a way of defining points of extensibility like this. Code that talks to an interface is more loosely coupled - in fact it is not coupled at all to any other specific code. It can inter-operate with plugins written years later by people who have never met the original developer.
You could instead use a base class with virtual functions - all plugins would be derived from the base class. But this is much more limiting because a class can only have one base class, whereas it can implement any number of interfaces.
C++ explanation.
Think of an interface as your classes public methods.
You then could create a template that 'depends' on these public methods in order to carry out it's own function (it makes function calls defined in the classes public interface). Lets say this template is a container, like a Vector class, and the interface it depends on is a search algorithm.
Any algorithm class that defines the functions/interface Vector makes calls to will satisfy the 'contract' (as someone explained in the original reply). The algorithms don't even need to be of the same base class; the only requirement is that the functions/methods that the Vector depends on (interface) is defined in your algorithm.
The point of all of this is that you could supply any different search algorithm/class just as long as it supplied the interface that Vector depends on (bubble search, sequential search, quick search).
You might also want to design other containers (lists, queues) that would harness the same search algorithm as Vector by having them fulfill the interface/contract that your search algorithms depends on.
This saves time (OOP principle 'code reuse') as you are able to write an algorithm once instead of again and again and again specific to every new object you create without over-complicating the issue with an overgrown inheritance tree.
As for 'missing out' on how things operate; big-time (at least in C++), as this is how most of the Standard TEMPLATE Library's framework operates.
Of course when using inheritance and abstract classes the methodology of programming to an interface changes; but the principle is the same, your public functions/methods are your classes interface.
This is a huge topic and one of the the cornerstone principles of Design Patterns.
In Java these concrete classes all implement the CharSequence interface:
CharBuffer, String, StringBuffer, StringBuilder
These concrete classes do not have a common parent class other than Object, so there is nothing that relates them, other than the fact they each have something to do with arrays of characters, representing such, or manipulating such. For instance, the characters of String cannot be changed once a String object is instantiated, whereas the characters of StringBuffer or StringBuilder can be edited.
Yet each one of these classes is capable of suitably implementing the CharSequence interface methods:
char charAt(int index)
int length()
CharSequence subSequence(int start, int end)
String toString()
In some cases, Java class library classes that used to accept String have been revised to now accept the CharSequence interface. So if you have an instance of StringBuilder, instead of extracting a String object (which means instantiating a new object instance), it can instead just pass the StringBuilder itself as it implements the CharSequence interface.
The Appendable interface that some classes implement has much the same kind of benefit for any situation where characters can be appended to an instance of the underlying concrete class object instance. All of these concrete classes implement the Appendable interface:
BufferedWriter, CharArrayWriter, CharBuffer, FileWriter, FilterWriter, LogStream, OutputStreamWriter, PipedWriter, PrintStream, PrintWriter, StringBuffer, StringBuilder, StringWriter, Writer
Previous answers focus on programming to an abstraction for the sake of extensibility and loose coupling. While these are very important points,
readability is equally important. Readability allows others (and your future self) to understand the code with minimal effort. This is why readability leverages abstractions.
An abstraction is, by definition, simpler than its implementation. An abstraction omits detail in order to convey the essence or purpose of a thing, but nothing more.
Because abstractions are simpler, I can fit a lot more of them in my head at one time, compared to implementations.
As a programmer (in any language) I walk around with a general idea of a List in my head at all times. In particular, a List allows random access, duplicate elements, and maintains order. When I see a declaration like this: List myList = new ArrayList() I think, cool, this is a List that's being used in the (basic) way that I understand; and I don't have to think any more about it.
On the other hand, I do not carry around the specific implementation details of ArrayList in my head. So when I see, ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(). I think, uh-oh, this ArrayList must be used in a way that isn't covered by the List interface. Now I have to track down all the usages of this ArrayList to understand why, because otherwise I won't be able to fully understand this code. It gets even more confusing when I discover that 100% of the usages of this ArrayList do conform to the List interface. Then I'm left wondering... was there some code relying on ArrayList implementation details that got deleted? Was the programmer who instantiated it just incompetent? Is this application locked into that specific implementation in some way at runtime? A way that I don't understand?
I'm now confused and uncertain about this application, and all we're talking about is a simple List. What if this was a complex business object ignoring its interface? Then my knowledge of the business domain is insufficient to understand the purpose of the code.
So even when I need a List strictly within a private method (nothing that would break other applications if it changed, and I could easily find/replace every usage in my IDE) it still benefits readability to program to an abstraction. Because abstractions are simpler than implementation details. You could say that programming to abstractions is one way of adhering to the KISS principle.
An interface is like a contract, where you want your implementation class to implement methods written in the contract (interface). Since Java does not provide multiple inheritance, "programming to interface" is a good way to achieve multiple inheritance.
If you have a class A that is already extending some other class B, but you want that class A to also follow certain guidelines or implement a certain contract, then you can do so by the "programming to interface" strategy.
Q: - ... "Could you use any class that implements an interface?"
A: - Yes.
Q: - ... "When would you need to do that?"
A: - Each time you need a class(es) that implements interface(s).
Note: We couldn't instantiate an interface not implemented by a class - True.
Why?
Because the interface has only method prototypes, not definitions (just functions names, not their logic)
AnIntf anInst = new Aclass();
// we could do this only if Aclass implements AnIntf.
// anInst will have Aclass reference.
Note: Now we could understand what happened if Bclass and Cclass implemented same Dintf.
Dintf bInst = new Bclass();
// now we could call all Dintf functions implemented (defined) in Bclass.
Dintf cInst = new Cclass();
// now we could call all Dintf functions implemented (defined) in Cclass.
What we have: Same interface prototypes (functions names in interface), and call different implementations.
Bibliography:
Prototypes - wikipedia
program to an interface is a term from the GOF book. i would not directly say it has to do with java interface but rather real interfaces. to achieve clean layer separation, you need to create some separation between systems for example: Let's say you had a concrete database you want to use, you would never "program to the database" , instead you would "program to the storage interface". Likewise you would never "program to a Web Service" but rather you would program to a "client interface". this is so you can easily swap things out.
i find these rules help me:
1. we use a java interface when we have multiple types of an object. if i just have single object, i dont see the point. if there are at least two concrete implementations of some idea, then i would use a java interface.
2. if as i stated above, you want to bring decoupling from an external system (storage system) to your own system (local DB) then also use a interface.
notice how there are two ways to consider when to use them.
Coding to an interface is a philosophy, rather than specific language constructs or design patterns - it instructs you what is the correct order of steps to follow in order to create better software systems (e.g. more resilient, more testable, more scalable, more extendible, and other nice traits).
What it actually means is:
===
Before jumping to implementations and coding (the HOW) - think of the WHAT:
What black boxes should make up your system,
What is each box' responsibility,
What are the ways each "client" (that is, one of those other boxes, 3rd party "boxes", or even humans) should communicate with it (the API of each box).
After you figure the above, go ahead and implement those boxes (the HOW).
Thinking first of what a box' is and what its API, leads the developer to distil the box' responsibility, and to mark for himself and future developers the difference between what is its exposed details ("API") and it's hidden details ("implementation details"), which is a very important differentiation to have.
One immediate and easily noticeable gain is the team can then change and improve implementations without affecting the general architecture. It also makes the system MUCH more testable (it goes well with the TDD approach).
===
Beyond the traits I've mentioned above, you also save A LOT OF TIME going this direction.
Micro Services and DDD, when done right, are great examples of "Coding to an interface", however the concept wins in every pattern from monoliths to "serverless", from BE to FE, from OOP to functional, etc....
I strongly recommend this approach for Software Engineering (and I basically believe it makes total sense in other fields as well).
Program to an interface allows to change implementation of contract defined by interface seamlessly. It allows loose coupling between contract and specific implementations.
IInterface classRef = new ObjectWhatever()
You could use any class that implements IInterface? When would you need to do that?
Have a look at this SE question for good example.
Why should the interface for a Java class be preferred?
does using an Interface hit performance?
if so how much?
Yes. It will have slight performance overhead in sub-seconds. But if your application has requirement to change the implementation of interface dynamically, don't worry about performance impact.
how can you avoid it without having to maintain two bits of code?
Don't try to avoid multiple implementations of interface if your application need them. In absence of tight coupling of interface with one specific implementation, you may have to deploy the patch to change one implementation to other implementation.
One good use case: Implementation of Strategy pattern:
Real World Example of the Strategy Pattern
"Program to interface" means don't provide hard code right the way, meaning your code should be extended without breaking the previous functionality. Just extensions, not editing the previous code.
Also I see a lot of good and explanatory answers here, so I want to give my point of view here, including some extra information what I noticed when using this method.
Unit testing
For the last two years, I have written a hobby project and I did not write unit tests for it. After writing about 50K lines I found out it would be really necessary to write unit tests.
I did not use interfaces (or very sparingly) ... and when I made my first unit test, I found out it was complicated. Why?
Because I had to make a lot of class instances, used for input as class variables and/or parameters. So the tests look more like integration tests (having to make a complete 'framework' of classes since all was tied together).
Fear of interfaces
So I decided to use interfaces. My fear was that I had to implement all functionality everywhere (in all used classes) multiple times. In some way this is true, however, by using inheritance it can be reduced a lot.
Combination of interfaces and inheritance
I found out the combination is very good to be used. I give a very simple example.
public interface IPricable
{
int Price { get; }
}
public interface ICar : IPricable
public abstract class Article
{
public int Price { get { return ... } }
}
public class Car : Article, ICar
{
// Price does not need to be defined here
}
This way copying code is not necessary, while still having the benefit of using a car as interface (ICar).
I just came across Inversion of Control approach (implemented using Dependency Injection) of designing loosely coupled software architecture. As per my understanding the IOC approach aims to solve problem related to tight coupling between classes by instantiating an object of a class inside another class which should ideally not happen (as per the pattern). Is my understanding correct here?
If above is true than what about composition or has-a relationship (the very basic important aspect of OO). For an example I write my stack class using a linked list class already defined so I instantiate a linked list class inside my stack class. But as per IOC this will result in tight coupling and hence a bad design. Is this true? I am bit confused here between composition or has-a relationship and IOC.
As per my understanding the IOC approach aims to solve problem related
to tight coupling between classes by instantiating an object of a
class inside another class which should ideally not happen (as per the
pattern). Is my understanding correct here?
Close, but you are slightly off. The problem of tight coupling is addressed when you define contracts between classes (interfaces in Java). Since you need implementations of your contracts(interfaces), at some point those implementations must be provided. IoC is one way of providing an implementation, but not the only way. So tight coupling is really orthogonal to Inversion of Control (meaning it's not directly related).
More specifically, you can have loose coupling but no IoC. The IoC part is that the implementations are coming from outside of the components. Consider the case where you define a class that uses an interface implementation. When you test that class, you might provide a mock. When you pass the mock to the class under test, you are not using IoC. However when you start your app, and the IoC container decides what to pass to your class, that's the IoC.
For an example I write my stack class using a linked list class
already defined so I instantiate a linked list class inside my stack
class. But as per IOC this will result in tight coupling and hence a
bad design. Is this true? I am bit confused here between composition
or has-a relationship and IOC.
Yes and No. In the general sense, you don't need to completely abstract every bit of functionality in your app. You can, and purists probably would, but it can be tedious and over-done.
In this case, you could treat your stack as a black box, and not manage it with IoC. Remember, the Stack itself is loosely couple because the Stack's behavior can be abstracted away. Also, consider the following two definitions
class StackImpl implements Stack {
private List backingList
vs
class StackImpl implements Stack {
private LinkedList backingList
The first is vastly superior to the second, precisely because it's easier to change List implementations; i.e. you have already provided a loose coupling.
That's as far as I would take it. Besides, if you are using composition, you can certainly configure most IoC containers (if not all) to pass things to the constructor or invoke setters, so you can still have a has-A relationship.
Good implementations of IoC can fulfill the "has a" pattern, but just abstract the implementation of the child.
For example, every business layer class may, by your design, "have a" exception handler; with IoC you can define it so that the exception handler that actually gets instantiated at runtime be different in different environments.
The most value in IoC is if you are doing lots of automated testing; in these scenarios you can instantiate mock data access components in your test environment, but have real data access components instantiated in production, which keeps your tests clean. The downside of IoC is that it's harder to debug, since everything is more abstract.
I have my doubts as to my understanding of Inversion of Control too. (It seems like an application of good OO design principles given a fancy name) So, let me assume you are a beginner, analyse your example and clarify my thoughts on the path.
We should start by defining an interface IStack.
interface IStack<T>
{
bool IsEmpty();
T Pop();
void Push(T item);
}
In a way we are already finished; the rest of the code probably will not care whether we implemented it with linked lists, or arrays, or whatever. StackWithLinkedList : IStack and StackWithArray : IStack will behave the same.
class StackWithLinkedList<T> : IStack<T>
{
private LinkedList<T> list;
public StackWithLinkedList<T>()
{
list = new LinkedList<T>();
}
}
So StackWithLinkedList totally owns the list; it does not need any help from outside to construct it, it does not need any flexibility (that line will never change) and the clients of StackWithLinkedList couldn't care less (they have no access to the list). In short, this is not a good example to discuss Inversion of Control: we don't need any.
Let's discuss a similar example, PriorityQueue<T> :
interface IPriorityQueue<T>
{
bool IsEmpty();
T Dequeue();
void Enqueue(T item);
}
Now we have a problem: we need to compare items of type T to provide an implementation of a IPriorityQueue. Clients still do not care whether we use an array, or a heap or whatever inside, but they do care about how we compare items. We could require T to implement IComparable<T> but that would be an unnecessary restriction. What we need is some piece of functionality that will compare T items by our request:
class PriorityQueue<T> : IPriorityQueue<T>
{
private Func<T,T,int> CompareTo;
private LinkedList<T> list;
//bla bla.
}
Such that:
if CompareTo(left,right) < 0 then left < right (in some sense)
if CompareTo(left,right) > 0 then left > right (in some sense)
if CompareTo(left,right) = 0 then left = right (in some sense)
(We would also require CompareTo to be consistent, etc. but that's another topic)
The problem is how to initialize CompareTo.
One option might be, -let's suppose there is a generic comparison creator somewhere- use the comparison creator. (I agree, the example is becoming a little silly)
public PriorityQueue()
{
this.CompareTo = ComparisonCreator<T>.CreateComparison();
this.list = new LinkedList<T>();
}
Or, perhaps even something like: ServiceLocator.Instance.ComparisonCreator<T>.CreateComparison();
This is not an ideal solution for the following reasons:
PriorityQueue is now (very unnecessarily) dependant on ComparisonCreator. If it is on a different assembly, it has to reference it. If someone changes ComparisonCreator he has to make sure PriorityQueue is not affected.
The clients will have a difficult time to use the PriorityQueue. They will first need to make sure that the ComparisonCreator is constructed and initialized.
The clients will have a difficult time to change the default behaviour. Suppose somewhere a client needs a different CompareTo function. There is no easy solution. For example, if it changes the ComparisonCreator<T>'s behaviour, it may affect other clients. What if there are other threads. Even in a single thread environment the client will probably need to undo the change on construction. It's too much effort just to make it work.
For the same reasons, it is difficult to unit test the PriorityQueue. One needs to set up the whole environment.
Of course, - and of course you knew this all along - there is a much easier way in this specific problem. Just provide the CompareTo function in the constructor:
public PriorityQueue(Func<T,T,int> CompareTo)
{
this.CompareTo = CompareTo;
this.list = new LinkedList<T>();
}
Let's check:
PriorityQueue is independent of ComparisonCreator.
For the clients, probably it is much easier to use PriorityQueue. They may need to provide a CompareTo function, but at the worst case they can always ask the ServiceLocator, so al least it is never more difficult.
Changing the default behaviour is very easy. Just give a different CompareTo function. What one client does, does not affect other clients.
It is very easy to unit test PriorityQueue. There is no complex environment to set up. We can easily test it with different CompareTo functions, etc.
What we did is called "constructor injection" because we injected a dependency in the constructor. By giving the needed dependency at the construction, we were able to change the PriorityQueue into a "self sufficient" class. We still create a LinkedList<T>, a concrete class in the construction for the same reasons in Stack example: it is not a real dependency.
The tight coupling in your stack example comes from the stack intantiating a specific list type. The IOC allows the creator of the stack type to provide which exact list implementation to use (e.g. for performance or testing purposes), realizing that the stack does not (at least should not) care what the exact type of the list is as long as it has a specific interface (the methods that stack wants to use) and the concetere implementation provides the required semantics (e.g. iterating through the list will give access to all elements added to the list in the order they were added).
As per my understanding the IOC approach aims to solve problem related
to tight coupling between classes by instantiating an object of a
class inside another class which should ideally not happen (as per the
pattern). Is my understanding correct here?
IoC is actually quite a broad concept, so let's restrict the field to the Dependency Injection approach that you are referring to. Yes, Dependency Injection does what you said.
I think the reason why hvgotcodes thinks that you are slightly off is that the concept of tight coupling can be thought as of having multiple levels. Programming to interfaces is the way to abstract from a particular implementation, which keeps the usage of some piece of code some client code interacts with and its implementation loosely coupled.
The implementation has to be created (instantiated) somewhere though: even if you program to an interface, if the implementation is created inside the client code you are bound to that particular implementation.
So we can abstract the implementation from the interface, but we can also abstract the choice of which implementation to use.
As soon as this detail is clear, you have to ask yourself when it makes sense to abstract the choice of the implementation, which is basically one of the fundamental questions of software engineering: when should you abstract what? The answer to the question is of course context dependent.
But as per IOC this will result in tight coupling and hence a bad
design. Is this true?
If tight coupling is bad design, why are you still relying on standard Java classes? We actually need to distinguish between stable and volatile dependencies.
Citing your example, if you are using the standard implementation of a list, you probably may not want to inject this dependency into your class. What would you achieve by doing this? Do you expect the standard implementation of the list to change any time soon, or do you want to be able to inject a different implementation of a standard list?
On the other hand, suppose you have a custom list with some sort of change tracking mechanism, so that you can perform undo and redo operations on it. Now it could make sense to inject it, because you may want to be able to unit test the client class in isolation, without incurring in potential bugs of your custom list implementation.
As you see, tight coupling is not always bad, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it is to be avoided: in the end it comes down to the type of dependency.
If I understand correctly, the typical mechanism for Dependency Injection is to inject either through a class' constructor or through a public property (member) of the class.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Am I correct in identifying this tradeoff? How do you deal with this issue?
Please also see my answer to my own question below.
There is another way of looking at this issue that you might find interesting.
When we use IoC/dependency injection, we're not using OOP concepts. Admittedly we're using an OO language as the 'host', but the ideas behind IoC come from component-oriented software engineering, not OO.
Component software is all about managing dependencies - an example in common use is .NET's Assembly mechanism. Each assembly publishes the list of assemblies that it references, and this makes it much easier to pull together (and validate) the pieces needed for a running application.
By applying similar techniques in our OO programs via IoC, we aim to make programs easier to configure and maintain. Publishing dependencies (as constructor parameters or whatever) is a key part of this. Encapsulation doesn't really apply, as in the component/service oriented world, there is no 'implementation type' for details to leak from.
Unfortunately our languages don't currently segregate the fine-grained, object-oriented concepts from the coarser-grained component-oriented ones, so this is a distinction that you have to hold in your mind only :)
It's a good question - but at some point, encapsulation in its purest form needs to be violated if the object is ever to have its dependency fulfilled. Some provider of the dependency must know both that the object in question requires a Foo, and the provider has to have a way of providing the Foo to the object.
Classically this latter case is handled as you say, through constructor arguments or setter methods. However, this is not necessarily true - I know that the latest versions of the Spring DI framework in Java, for example, let you annotate private fields (e.g. with #Autowired) and the dependency will be set via reflection without you needing to expose the dependency through any of the classes public methods/constructors. This might be the kind of solution you were looking for.
That said, I don't think that constructor injection is much of a problem, either. I've always felt that objects should be fully valid after construction, such that anything they need in order to perform their role (i.e. be in a valid state) should be supplied through the constructor anyway. If you have an object that requires a collaborator to work, it seems fine to me that the constructor publically advertises this requirement and ensures it is fulfilled when a new instance of the class is created.
Ideally when dealing with objects, you interact with them through an interface anyway, and the more you do this (and have dependencies wired through DI), the less you actually have to deal with constructors yourself. In the ideal situation, your code doesn't deal with or even ever create concrete instances of classes; so it just gets given an IFoo through DI, without worrying about what the constructor of FooImpl indicates it needs to do its job, and in fact without even being aware of FooImpl's existance. From this point of view, the encapsulation is perfect.
This is an opinion of course, but to my mind DI doesn't necessarily violate encapsulation and in fact can help it by centralising all of the necessary knowledge of internals into one place. Not only is this a good thing in itself, but even better this place is outside your own codebase, so none of the code you write needs to know about classes' dependencies.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Well, frankly speaking, everything violates encapsulation. :) It's a kind of a tender principle that must be treated well.
So, what violates encapsulation?
Inheritance does.
"Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation'". (Gang of Four 1995:19)
Aspect-oriented programming does. For example, you register onMethodCall() callback and that gives you a great opportunity to inject code to the normal method evaluation, adding strange side-effects etc.
Friend declaration in C++ does.
Class extention in Ruby does. Just redefine a string method somewhere after a string class was fully defined.
Well, a lot of stuff does.
Encapsulation is a good and important principle. But not the only one.
switch (principle)
{
case encapsulation:
if (there_is_a_reason)
break!
}
Yes, DI violates encapsulation (also known as "information hiding").
But the real problem comes when developers use it as an excuse to violate the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) and YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principles.
Personally, I prefer simple and effective solutions. I mostly use the "new" operator to instantiate stateful dependencies whenever and wherever they are needed. It is simple, well encapsulated, easy to understand, and easy to test. So, why not?
A good depenancy injection container/system will allow for constructor injection. The dependant objects will be encapsulated, and need not be exposed publicly at all. Further, by using a DP system, none of your code even "knows" the details of how the object is constructed, possibly even including the object being constructed. There is more encapsulation in this case since nearly all of your code not only is shielded from knowledge of the encapsulated objects, but does not even participate in the objects construction.
Now, I am assuming you are comparing against the case where the created object creates its own encapsulated objects, most likely in its constructor. My understanding of DP is that we want to take this responsibility away from the object and give it to someone else. To that end, the "someone else", which is the DP container in this case, does have intimate knowledge which "violates" encapsulation; the benefit is that it pulls that knowledge out of the object, iteself. Someone has to have it. The rest of your application does not.
I would think of it this way: The dependancy injection container/system violates encapsulation, but your code does not. In fact, your code is more "encapsulated" then ever.
This is similar to the upvoted answer but I want to think out loud - perhaps others see things this way as well.
Classical OO uses constructors to define the public "initialization" contract for consumers of the class (hiding ALL implementation details; aka encapsulation). This contract can ensure that after instantiation you have a ready-to-use object (i.e. no additional initialization steps to be remembered (er, forgotten) by the user).
(constructor) DI undeniably breaks encapsulation by bleeding implemenation detail through this public constructor interface. As long as we still consider the public constructor responsible for defining the initialization contract for users, we have created a horrible violation of encapsulation.
Theoretical Example:
Class Foo has 4 methods and needs an integer for initialization, so its constructor looks like Foo(int size) and it's immediately clear to users of class Foo that they must provide a size at instantiation in order for Foo to work.
Say this particular implementation of Foo may also need a IWidget to do its job. Constructor injection of this dependency would have us create a constructor like Foo(int size, IWidget widget)
What irks me about this is now we have a constructor that's blending initialization data with dependencies - one input is of interest to the user of the class (size), the other is an internal dependency that only serves to confuse the user and is an implementation detail (widget).
The size parameter is NOT a dependency - it's simple a per-instance initialization value. IoC is dandy for external dependencies (like widget) but not for internal state initialization.
Even worse, what if the Widget is only necessary for 2 of the 4 methods on this class; I may be incurring instantiation overhead for Widget even though it may not be used!
How to compromise/reconcile this?
One approach is to switch exclusively to interfaces to define the operation contract; and abolish the use of constructors by users.
To be consistent, all objects would have to be accessed through interfaces only, and instantiated only through some form of resolver (like an IOC/DI container). Only the container gets to instantiate things.
That takes care of the Widget dependency, but how do we initialize "size" without resorting to a separate initialization method on the Foo interface? Using this solution, we lost the ability to ensure that an instance of Foo is fully initialized by the time you get the instance. Bummer, because I really like the idea and simplicity of constructor injection.
How do I achieve guaranteed initialization in this DI world, when initialization is MORE than ONLY external dependencies?
As Jeff Sternal pointed out in a comment to the question, the answer is entirely dependent on how you define encapsulation.
There seem to be two main camps of what encapsulation means:
Everything related to the object is a method on an object. So, a File object may have methods to Save, Print, Display, ModifyText, etc.
An object is its own little world, and does not depend on outside behavior.
These two definitions are in direct contradiction to each other. If a File object can print itself, it will depend heavily on the printer's behavior. On the other hand, if it merely knows about something that can print for it (an IFilePrinter or some such interface), then the File object doesn't have to know anything about printing, and so working with it will bring less dependencies into the object.
So, dependency injection will break encapsulation if you use the first definition. But, frankly I don't know if I like the first definition - it clearly doesn't scale (if it did, MS Word would be one big class).
On the other hand, dependency injection is nearly mandatory if you're using the second definition of encapsulation.
It doesn't violate encapsulation. You're providing a collaborator, but the class gets to decide how it is used. As long as you follow Tell don't ask things are fine. I find constructer injection preferable, but setters can be fine as well as long as they're smart. That is they contain logic to maintain the invariants the class represents.
Pure encapsulation is an ideal that can never be achieved. If all dependencies were hidden then you wouldn't have the need for DI at all. Think about it this way, if you truly have private values that can be internalized within the object, say for instance the integer value of the speed of a car object, then you have no external dependency and no need to invert or inject that dependency. These sorts of internal state values that are operated on purely by private functions are what you want to encapsulate always.
But if you're building a car that wants a certain kind of engine object then you have an external dependency. You can either instantiate that engine -- for instance new GMOverHeadCamEngine() -- internally within the car object's constructor, preserving encapsulation but creating a much more insidious coupling to a concrete class GMOverHeadCamEngine, or you can inject it, allowing your Car object to operate agnostically (and much more robustly) on for example an interface IEngine without the concrete dependency. Whether you use an IOC container or simple DI to achieve this is not the point -- the point is that you've got a Car that can use many kinds of engines without being coupled to any of them, thus making your codebase more flexible and less prone to side effects.
DI is not a violation of encapsulation, it is a way of minimizing the coupling when encapsulation is necessarily broken as a matter of course within virtually every OOP project. Injecting a dependency into an interface externally minimizes coupling side effects and allows your classes to remain agnostic about implementation.
It depends on whether the dependency is really an implementation detail or something that the client would want/need to know about in some way or another. One thing that is relevant is what level of abstraction the class is targeting. Here are some examples:
If you have a method that uses caching under the hood to speed up calls, then the cache object should be a Singleton or something and should not be injected. The fact that the cache is being used at all is an implementation detail that the clients of your class should not have to care about.
If your class needs to output streams of data, it probably makes sense to inject the output stream so that the class can easily output the results to an array, a file, or wherever else someone else might want to send the data.
For a gray area, let's say you have a class that does some monte carlo simulation. It needs a source of randomness. On the one hand, the fact that it needs this is an implementation detail in that the client really doesn't care exactly where the randomness comes from. On the other hand, since real-world random number generators make tradeoffs between degree of randomness, speed, etc. that the client may want to control, and the client may want to control seeding to get repeatable behavior, injection may make sense. In this case, I'd suggest offering a way of creating the class without specifying a random number generator, and use a thread-local Singleton as the default. If/when the need for finer control arises, provide another constructor that allows for a source of randomness to be injected.
Having struggled with the issue a little further, I am now in the opinion that Dependency Injection does (at this time) violate encapsulation to some degree. Don't get me wrong though - I think that using dependency injection is well worth the tradeoff in most cases.
The case for why DI violates encapsulation becomes clear when the component you are working on is to be delivered to an "external" party (think of writing a library for a customer).
When my component requires sub-components to be injected via the constructor (or public properties) there's no guarantee for
"preventing users from setting the internal data of the component into an invalid or inconsistent state".
At the same time it cannot be said that
"users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it".
Both quotes are from wikipedia.
To give a specific example: I need to deliver a client-side DLL that simplifies and hides communication to a WCF service (essentially a remote facade). Because it depends on 3 different WCF proxy classes, if I take the DI approach I am forced to expose them via the constructor. With that I expose the internals of my communication layer which I am trying to hide.
Generally I am all for DI. In this particular (extreme) example, it strikes me as dangerous.
I struggled with this notion as well. At first, the 'requirement' to use the DI container (like Spring) to instantiate an object felt like jumping thru hoops. But in reality, it's really not a hoop - it's just another 'published' way to create objects I need. Sure, encapsulation is 'broken' becuase someone 'outside the class' knows what it needs, but it really isn't the rest of the system that knows that - it's the DI container. Nothing magical happens differently because DI 'knows' one object needs another.
In fact it gets even better - by focusing on Factories and Repositories I don't even have to know DI is involved at all! That to me puts the lid back on encapsulation. Whew!
I belive in simplicity. Applying IOC/Dependecy Injection in Domain classes does not make any improvement except making the code much more harder to main by having an external xml files describing the relation. Many technologies like EJB 1.0/2.0 & struts 1.1 are reversing back by reducing the stuff the put in XML and try put them in code as annoation etc. So applying IOC for all the classes you develope will make the code non-sense.
IOC has it benefits when the dependent object is not ready for creation at compile time. This can happend in most of the infrasture abstract level architecture components, trying establish a common base framework which may need to work for different scenarios. In those places usage IOC makes more sense. Still this does not make the code more simple / maintainable.
As all the other technologies, this too has PROs & CONs. My worry is, we implement latest technologies in all the places irrespective of their best context usage.
Encapsulation is only broken if a class has both the responsibility to create the object (which requires knowledge of implementation details) and then uses the class (which does not require knowledge of these details). I'll explain why, but first a quick car anaology:
When I was driving my old 1971 Kombi,
I could press the accelerator and it
went (slightly) quicker. I did not
need to know why, but the guys who
built the Kombi at the factory knew
exactly why.
But back to the coding. Encapsulation is "hiding an implementation detail from something using that implementation." Encapsulation is a good thing because the implementation details can change without the user of the class knowing.
When using dependency injection, constructor injection is used to construct service type objects (as opposed to entity/value objects which model state). Any member variables in service type object represent implementation details that should not leak out. e.g. socket port number, database credentials, another class to call to perform encryption, a cache, etc.
The constructor is relevant when the class is being initially created. This happens during the construction-phase while your DI container (or factory) wires together all the service objects. The DI container only knows about implementation details. It knows all about implementation details like the guys at the Kombi factory know about spark plugs.
At run-time, the service object that was created is called apon to do some real work. At this time, the caller of the object knows nothing of the implementation details.
That's me driving my Kombi to the beach.
Now, back to encapsulation. If implementation details change, then the class using that implementation at run-time does not need to change. Encapsulation is not broken.
I can drive my new car to the beach too. Encapsulation is not broken.
If implementation details change, the DI container (or factory) does need to change. You were never trying to hide implementation details from the factory in the first place.
DI violates Encapsulation for NON-Shared objects - period. Shared objects have a lifespan outside of the object being created, and thus must be AGGREGATED into the object being created. Objects that are private to the object being created should be COMPOSED into the created object - when the created object is destroyed, it takes the composed object with it.
Let's take the human body as an example. What's composed and what's aggregated. If we were to use DI, the human body constructor would have 100's of objects. Many of the organs, for example, are (potentially) replaceable. But, they are still composed into the body. Blood cells are created in the body (and destroyed) everyday, without the need for external influences (other than protein). Thus, blood cells are created internally by the body - new BloodCell().
Advocators of DI argue that an object should NEVER use the new operator.
That "purist" approach not only violates encapsulation but also the Liskov Substitution Principle for whoever is creating the object.
PS. By providing Dependency Injection you do not necessarily break Encapsulation. Example:
obj.inject_dependency( factory.get_instance_of_unknown_class(x) );
Client code does not know implementation details still.
Maybe this is a naive way of thinking about it, but what is the difference between a constructor that takes in an integer parameter and a constructor that takes in a service as a parameter? Does this mean that defining an integer outside the new object and feeding it into the object breaks encapsulation? If the service is only used within the new object, I don't see how that would break encapsulation.
Also, by using some sort of autowiring feature (Autofac for C#, for example), it makes the code extremely clean. By building extension methods for the Autofac builder, I was able to cut out a LOT of DI configuration code that I would have had to maintain over time as the list of dependencies grew.
I think it's self evident that at the very least DI significantly weakens encapsulation. In additional to that here are some other downsides of DI to consider.
It makes code harder to reuse. A module which a client can use without having to explicitly provide dependencies to, is obviously easier to use than one where the client has to somehow discover what that component's dependencies are and then somehow make them available. For example a component originally created to be used in an ASP application may expect to have its dependencies provided by a DI container that provides object instances with lifetimes related to client http requests. This may not be simple to reproduce in another client that does not come with the same built in DI container as the original ASP application.
It can make code more fragile. Dependencies provided by interface specification can be implemented in unexpected ways which gives rise to a whole class of runtime bugs that are not possible with a statically resolved concrete dependency.
It can make code less flexible in the sense that you may end up with fewer choices about how you want it to work. Not every class needs to have all its dependencies in existence for the entire lifetime of the owning instance, yet with many DI implementations you have no other option.
With that in mind I think the most important question then becomes, "does a particular dependency need to be externally specified at all?". In practise I have rarely found it necessary to make a dependency externally supplied just to support testing.
Where a dependency genuinely needs to be externally supplied, that normally suggests that the relation between the objects is a collaboration rather than an internal dependency, in which case the appropriate goal is then encapsulation of each class, rather than encapsulation of one class inside the other.
In my experience the main problem regarding the use of DI is that whether you start with an application framework with built in DI, or you add DI support to your codebase, for some reason people assume that since you have DI support that must be the correct way to instantiate everything. They just never even bother to ask the question "does this dependency need to be externally specified?". And worse, they also start trying to force everyone else to use the DI support for everything too.
The result of this is that inexorably your codebase starts to devolve into a state where creating any instance of anything in your codebase requires reams of obtuse DI container configuration, and debugging anything is twice as hard because you have the extra workload of trying to identify how and where anything was instantiated.
So my answer to the question is this. Use DI where you can identify an actual problem that it solves for you, which you can't solve more simply any other way.
I agree that taken to an extreme, DI can violate encapsulation. Usually DI exposes dependencies which were never truly encapsulated. Here's a simplified example borrowed from Miško Hevery's Singletons are Pathological Liars:
You start with a CreditCard test and write a simple unit test.
#Test
public void creditCard_Charge()
{
CreditCard c = new CreditCard("1234 5678 9012 3456", 5, 2008);
c.charge(100);
}
Next month you get a bill for $100. Why did you get charged? The unit test affected a production database. Internally, CreditCard calls Database.getInstance(). Refactoring CreditCard so that it takes a DatabaseInterface in its constructor exposes the fact that there's dependency. But I would argue that the dependency was never encapsulated to begin with since the CreditCard class causes externally visible side effects. If you want to test CreditCard without refactoring, you can certainly observe the dependency.
#Before
public void setUp()
{
Database.setInstance(new MockDatabase());
}
#After
public void tearDown()
{
Database.resetInstance();
}
I don't think it's worth worrying whether exposing the Database as a dependency reduces encapsulation, because it's a good design. Not all DI decisions will be so straight forward. However, none of the other answers show a counter example.
I think it's a matter of scope. When you define encapsulation (not letting know how) you must define what is the encapsuled functionality.
Class as is: what you are encapsulating is the only responsability of the class. What it knows how to do. By example, sorting. If you inject some comparator for ordering, let's say, clients, that's not part of the encapsuled thing: quicksort.
Configured functionality: if you want to provide a ready-to-use functionality then you are not providing QuickSort class, but an instance of QuickSort class configured with a Comparator. In that case the code responsible for creating and configuring that must be hidden from the user code. And that's the encapsulation.
When you are programming classes, it is, implementing single responsibilities into classes, you are using option 1.
When you are programming applications, it is, making something that undertakes some useful concrete work then you are repeteadily using option 2.
This is the implementation of the configured instance:
<bean id="clientSorter" class="QuickSort">
<property name="comparator">
<bean class="ClientComparator"/>
</property>
</bean>
This is how some other client code use it:
<bean id="clientService" class"...">
<property name="sorter" ref="clientSorter"/>
</bean>
It is encapsulated because if you change implementation (you change clientSorter bean definition) it doesn't break client use. Maybe, as you use xml files with all written together you are seeing all the details. But believe me, the client code (ClientService)
don't know nothing about its sorter.
It's probably worth mentioning that Encapsulation is somewhat perspective dependent.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
}
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
From the perspective of someone working on the A class, in the second example A knows a lot less about the nature of this.b
Whereas without DI
new A()
vs
new A(new B())
The person looking at this code knows more about the nature of A in the second example.
With DI, at least all that leaked knowledge is in one place.