What could be the thought process behind having static implementations in Interfaces (Java-8)?
(As these static methods are not inherited by implementing classes nor static methods can be overridden)
The purpose could be different from different perspectives but what Oracle says is below:
This makes it easier for you to organize helper methods in your libraries; you can keep static methods specific to an interface in the same interface rather than in a separate class.
Basically, it allows putting utility methods like null check, string manipulations etc within the interface itself. This basically eliminates the need of writing Utility classes or Wrapper classes with utility features.
As a examples Collections utility class could go away and the utility methods could be put inside the interfaces itself.
For more read here at oracle.
Related
In c# we have the protected accessor which allows class members to be visible on inherited clases but not for the rest.
In Swift this doesn't exist so I wonder what's a correct approach for something like this:
I want to have a variable (internal behavior) and and a public method using this variable on a base class. This variable will be used also on inherited clases.
Options I see
Forget about base class and implement variable and methods everywhere I need it. WRONG, duplicated code
Implement inheritance by composition. I'd create a class containing common methods and this will be used by composition instead of inheritance. LESS WRONG but still repeating code that could be avoided with inheritance
Implement inheritance and make variable internal on base class. WRONG since exposes things without any justification except allowing visibility on inherited clases.
Implementation Details for Base Class
I want to have a NSOperationQueue instance and and a public method to cancel queued operations. I add new operations to this queue from inherited classes.
In Swift the correct answer is almost always protocols and extensions. It is almost never inheritance. Sometimes Cocoa stands in our way, because there are classes in Cocoa more often than protocols, but the goal is almost always protocols and extensions. Subclassing is our last choice.
Your particular case is confusing because NSOperationQueue already has a public method to cancel queued operations (cancelAllOperations). If you want to protect the queue from outside access (prevent callers from using addOperation directly for instance), then you should put the queue inside another type (i.e. composition), and forward what you want to the queue. More details on the specific problem you're solving would allow us to help suggest other Swift-like solutions.
If in the end you need something that looks like protected or friend, the correct solution is private. Put your subclass or your friend in the same file with the target, and mark the private thing private. Alternately, put the things that need to work together in a framework, and mark the attribute internal. The Swift Blog provides a good explanation of why this is an intentional choice.
Whenever I create an abstract class I tend to create an interface to go along with it and have other code refer to the interface and not the abstract class. Usually when I don't create an interface to start with I regret it (such as having to override all implimented methods to stub the class for unit testing or later down the line new classes don't need any of the implimentation and override everything also finding themselves unable to extend any other class).
At first I tried to distinguish when to use an interface and when to use an abstract class by considering is-a vs able-to but I still would end up suffering later down the line for not making an interface to start with.
So the question is when is it a good idea to only have an abstract class and no interface at all?
When you wish to "give" some base class functionality to derived classes but when this functionality is not sufficient to instantiate a usable class, then go for abstract classes.
When you wish that some classes completely implement a set of methods (a public contract), then it is a convenient to define such contract with interfaces and enforce them onto classes by making them inherit this interface.
In short:
With abstract classes you give some common base functionality to derived classes. No further actions are necessary unless abstract class has some stubs (which have to be implemented down there).
With interfaces you require derived classes to implement a set of functions and you do not pass along any implementation.
So the question is when is it a good idea to only have an abstract class and no interface at all?
When you do not wish to enforce any public contract (a set of methods/properties defined by an interface).
Also when you do not plan to use certain coding techniques like casting object to an interface type (run-time polymorphism) or limit allowed input (some method argument will only accept object of types which implement certain interfaces).
Well, the main case it is useful to have only an abstract class without any interface is to mark a certain type. It is useful to be able to check if an object "is-a" something. These interface "mark" an objet to be of a certain type. Depending on the language you use, different design patterns apply ...
These sort of abstract classes exist in java. You can also use them in C++ with RTTI.
my2c
Similar question but not quite the same thing
I was thinking that with extension methods in the same namespace as the interface you could get a similar effect to multiple inheritance in that you don't need to have duplicate code implementing the same interface the same way in 10 different classes.
What are some of the downsides of doing this? I think the pros are pretty obvious, it's the cons that usually come back to bite you later on.
One of the cons I see is that the extension methods can't be virtual, so you need to be sure that you actually do want them implemented the same way for every instance.
The problem that I see with building interface capability via extension methods is that you are no longer actually implementing the interface and so can't use the object as the interface type.
Say I have a method that takes an object of type IBar. If I implement the IBar interface on class Foo via extension methods, then Foo doesn't derive from IBar and can't be used interchangeably with it (Liskov Substitution principle). Sure, I get the behavior that I want added to Foo, but I lose the most important aspect of creating interfaces in the first place -- being able to define an abstract contract that can be implemented in a variety of ways by various classes so that dependent classes need not know about concrete implementations.
If I needed multiple inheritance (and so far I've lived without it) badly enough, I think I'd use composition instead to minimize the amount of code duplication.
A decent way to think about this is that instance methods are something done by the object, while extension methods are something done to the object. I am fairly certain the Framework Design Guidelines say you should implement an instance method whenever possible.
An interface declares "I care about using this functionality, but not how it is accomplished." That leaves implementers the freedom to choose the how. It decouples the intent, a public API, from the mechanism, a class with concrete code.
As this is the main benefit of interfaces, implementing them entirely as extension methods seems to defeat their purpose. Even IEnumerable<T> has an instance method.
Edit: Also, objects are meant to act on the data they contain. Extension methods can only see an object's public API (as they are just static methods); you would have to expose all of an object's state to make it work (an OO no-no).
Duplicate
What’s wrong with singleton?
Singletons: good design or a crutch?
Singleton: How should it be used
What is so bad about Singletons
You can find numerous reasons for using a Singleton over a Static class. But there must surely be some situations where it is better to use a static class before a Singleton. What are they?
You can use static class when:
1) all its methods are utilities (nice example - class Math)
2) you don't want to deal with preserving your instance from garbage collector (in applets), but I would better use singleton there
3) you are absolutely sure that it wouldn't become stateful in the future and you are sure that you will always need only one instance of that class
If you are using singleton and in one moment you realize that you need several instances then your singleton easily can be transformed to multitone, but you'll have a problem with static class
Having fought with the testability of consumers of static classes over the years I can honestly say that they are the work of evil minds. Seriously though, I'd use static classes for extention methods in C# but not really anywhere else.
If your class doesn't store any state, then use a Static class.
If it stores state and you require a single instance, then (maybe) use a Singleton.
Otherwise use a regular class.
Static class is better for when you don't need to change the implementation. With a Singleton, you can have an interface with various implementations. A Static class, can only be an implementation.
A singleton is a class of which only one instance can be instantiated, whereas there is no instance associated with a static method.
If you can implement the function you want with a single static method, then that is probably your best approach, because it is easier to implement. Consider extension methods - they are just static methods with syntactic sugar. If you can logically view the static method as a helper to an existing class, then it makes sense to use a static method.
On the other hand, if there is some sort of state involved in the functionality you are trying to achieve, then it is probably best to use a Singleton instead. The Singleton object can contain/manage its state and manage concurrent access/threading, whereas this becomes much more complicated with static classes and static methods. If you are using Singleton's in C#, I highly recommend reading Jon Skeet's article on proper Singleton implementation, which is available at http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/singleton.html .
Singleton's are more comparable to static classes than static methods. A big advantage that singletons have in this comparison is that they can implement interfaces and derive from base classes. This allows you to decouple their implementations from their interfaces. For example, if I have an interface IAccountService in my core assembly with a Singleton implementation, SingletonAspNetAccountService in my service layer, then I can inject the IAccountService into my UI layer with an IoC container, without requiring a dependency on my service layer in the UI layer. On the other hand, if I had a static Accounts class, then I would have to either create an adapter to the static class's methods or have a dependency on the service layer in my UI in order to access the static account functionality.
It's always where you don't actually need to pass the singleton instance anywhere.
For example, singleton will be useful if it implements some interface, you can't do it with a static class.
Remember, every Class instance is a singleton, managed by JVM.
So static class is a singleton.
I am looking at nServiceBus and came over this interface
namespace NServiceBus
{
public interface IMessage
{
}
}
What is the use of an empty interface?
Usually it's to signal usage of a class. You can implement IMessage to signal that your class is a message. Other code can then use reflection to see if your objects are meant to be used as messages and act accordingly.
This is something that was used in Java a lot before they had annotations. In .Net it's cleaner to use attributes for this.
#Stimpy77 Thanks! I hadn't thought of it that way.
I hope you'll allow me to rephrase your comment in a more general way.
Annotations and attributes have to be checked at runtime using reflection. Empty interfaces can be checked at compile-time using the type-system in the compiler. This brings no overhead at runtime at all so it is faster.
Also known as a Marker Interface:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker_interface_pattern
In java Serializable is the perfect example for this. It defines no methods but every class that "implements" it has to make sure, that it is really serializable and holds no reference to things that cannot be serialized, like database connections, open files etc.
In Java, empty interfaces were usually used for "tagging" classes - these days annotations would normally be used.
It's just a way of adding a bit of metadata to a class saying, "This class is suitable for <this> kind of use" even when no common members will be involved.
Normally it's similar to attributes. Using attributes is a preferred to empty interfaces (at least as much as FxCop is aware). However .NET itself uses some of these interfaces like IRequiresSessionState and IReadOnlySessionState. I think there is performance loss in metadata lookup when you use attributes that made them use interfaces instead.
An empty interface acts simply as a placeholder for a data type no better specified in its interface behaviour.
In Java, the mechanism of the interface extension represents a good example of use. For example, let's say that we've the following
interface one {}
interface two {}
interface three extends one, two {}
Interface three will inherit the behaviour of 'one' and 'two', and so
class four implements three { ... }
has to specify the two methods, being of type 'three'.
As you can see, from the above example, empty interface can be seen also as a point of multiple inheritance (not allowed in Java).
Hoping this helps to clarify with a further viewpoint.
They're called "Mark Interfaces" and are meant to signal instances of the marked classes.
For example... in C++ is a common practice to mark as "ICollectible" objects so they can be stored in generic non typed collections.
So like someone over says, they're to signal some object supported behavior, like ability to be collected, serialized, etc.
Been working with NServiceBus for the past year. While I wouldn't speak for Udi Dahan my understanding is that this interface is indeed used as a marker primarily.
Though I'd suggest you ask the man himself if he'd had thoughts of leaving this for future extension. My bet is no, as the mantra seems to be to keep messages very simple or at least practically platform agnostic.
Others answer well on the more general reasons for empty interfaces.
I'd say its used for "future" reference or if you want to share some objects, meaning you could have 10 classes each implementing this interface.
And have them sent to a function for work on them, but if the interface is empty, I'd say its just "pre"-work.
Empty interfaces are used to document that the classes that implement a given interface have a certain behaviour
For example in java the Cloneable interface in Java is an empty interface. When a class implements the Cloneable interface you know that you can call run the clone() on it.
Empty interfaces are used to mark the class, at run time type check can be performed using the interfaces.
For example
An application of marker interfaces from the Java programming language is the Serializable interface. A class implements this interface to indicate that its non-transient data members can be written to an ObjectOutputStream. The ObjectOutputStream private method writeObject() contains a series of instanceof tests to determine writeability, one of which looks for the Serializable interface. If any of these tests fails, the method throws a NotSerializableException.
An empty interface can be used to classify classes under a specific purpose. (Marker Interface)
Example : Database Entities
public interface IEntity {
}
public class Question implements IEntity {
// Implementation Goes Here
}
public class Answer implements IEntity {
// Implementation Goes Here
}
For Instance, If you will be using Generic Repository(ex. IEntityRepository), using generic constraints, you can prevent the classes that do not implement the IEntity interface from being sent by the developers.