I made an Interface having all common methods a player should have. I implemented it in my code, my colleague too. But many of the developers who were not aware with my interface created their own methods like playMyPlayer() etc.
How can I force other programmers to implement my interface ?
Explaning with your own scenario:
Interface
interface Player{
public void play();
public void pause();
public void stop();
}
Classes which are implementing Player Intreface;
class AudioPlayer implements Player{...}
class VideoPlayer implements Player{...}
Some extra class. Meaningless but seems relevant
Class PlayList{}
An enum who plays important role;
enum MEDIAPLAYER {
AUDIO,VIDEO;
public Player getPlayer() {
switch (this) {
case AUDIO:
return new AudioPlayer();
case VIDEO:
return new VideoPlayer();
default:
return new AudioPlayer();
}
}
}
Using your code
Player testPlayer = MEDIAPLAYER.getPlayer();
:
testPlayer.play();
Now if any new player is added, its entry will go to MEDIAPLAYER which is returning Player type object. So everyone would have to implement Player
Another approach:
You can create an abstract class, say MasterPlayer, who is having all the abstract methods Player interface has. In addition, MasterPlayer will have some additional methods like managing PlayList
The only way to do this is to create a useful class that requires object instances implementing your interface:
public class UsefulClass {
public void DoSomethingIrresistable(IPlayer player) {
// ... implementation here
}
}
Anyone that wants the goodies has to find or create a class that implements IPlayer.
Otherwise, why would anyone implement the interface in the first place? You create interfaces to guarantee certain class members exist, not to force people to organize their classes the way you think they should be designed.
You identified the main problem here yourself, its not that these developers chose not to use your interface, they didnt know it existed.
I think the main thing here is to implement a system of informing your developers what code they can access and a wiki or some other knowledge repository where they can search for what they need.
Once you have a system for informing your developers what interfaces / code samples / whatever they have available to them it is going to be much more easy to make sure they use it. And in all fairness if the code you provide is well written and supports the features they need most developers will use it anyway as it saves them work.
You should however put something in your coding standards / code of conduct about reusing existing code rather than rewriting BUT you cant do this till you have a solid system in place for informing developers what code is available for them to use.
Related
There're likely no more than 2-4 widely used approaches to this problem.
I have a situation in which there's a common class I use all over the place, and (on occasion) I'd like to give it special abilities. For arguments sake, let's say that type checking is not a requirement.
What are some means of giving functionality to a class without it being simply inheritance or member functions?
One way I've seen is the "decorator" pattern in which a sort of mutator wraps around the class, modifies it a bit, and spits out a version of it with more functions.
Another one I've read about but never used is for gaming. It has something to do with entities and power-ups/augments. I'm not sure about the specifics, but I think they have a list of them.
???
I don't need specific code of a specific language so much as a general gist and some keywords. I can implement from there.
So as far as I understand, you're looking to extend an interface to allow client-specific implementations that may require additional functionality, and you want to do so in a way that doesn't clutter up the base class.
As you mentioned, for simple systems, the standard way is to use the Adaptor pattern: subclass the "special abilities", then call that particular subclass when you need it. This is definitely the best choice if the extent of the special abilities you'll need to add is known and reasonably small, i.e. you generally only use the base class, but for three-to-five places where additional functionality is needed.
But I can see why you'd want some other possible options, because rarely do we know upfront the full extent of the additional functionality that will be required of the subclasses (i.e. when implementing a Connection API or a Component Class, each of which could be extended almost without bound). Depending on how complex the client-specific implementations are, how much additional functionality is needed and how much it varies between the implementations, this could be solved in a variety of ways:
Decorator Pattern as you mentioned (useful in the case where the special entities are only ever expanding the pre-existing methods of the base class, without adding brand new ones)
class MyClass{};
DecoratedClass = decorate(MyClass);
A combined AbstractFactory/Adaptor builder for the subclasses (useful for cases where there are groupings of functionality in the subclasses that may differ in their implementations)
interface Button {
void paint();
}
interface GUIFactory {
Button createButton();
}
class WinFactory implements GUIFactory {
public Button createButton() {
return new WinButton();
}
}
class OSXFactory implements GUIFactory {
public Button createButton() {
return new OSXButton();
}
}
class WinButton implements Button {
public void paint() {
System.out.println("I'm a WinButton");
}
}
class OSXButton implements Button {
public void paint() {
System.out.println("I'm an OSXButton");
}
}
class Application {
public Application(GUIFactory factory) {
Button button = factory.createButton();
button.paint();
}
}
public class ApplicationRunner {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Application(createOsSpecificFactory());
}
public static GUIFactory createOsSpecificFactory() {
int sys = readFromConfigFile("OS_TYPE");
if (sys == 0) return new WinFactory();
else return new OSXFactory();
}
}
The Strategy pattern could also work, depending on the use case. But that would be a heavier lift with the preexisting base class that you don't want to change, and depending on if it is a strategy that is changing between those subclasses. The Visitor Pattern could also fit, but would have the same problem and involve a major change to the architecture around the base class.
class MyClass{
public sort() { Globals.getSortStrategy()() }
};
Finally, if the "special abilities" needed are enough (or could eventually be enough) to justify a whole new interface, this may be a good time for the use of the Extension Objects Pattern. Though it does make your clients or subclasses far more complex, as they have to manage a lot more: checking that the specific extension object and it's required methods exist, etc.
class MyClass{
public addExtension(addMe) {
addMe.initialize(this);
}
public getExtension(getMe);
};
(new MyClass()).getExtension("wooper").doWoop();
With all that being said, keep it as simple as possible, sometimes you just have to write the specific subclasses or a few adaptors and you're done, especially with a preexisting class in use in many other places. You also have to ask how much you want to leave the class open for further extension. It might be worthwhile to keep the tech debt low with an abstract factory, so less changes need to be made when you add more functionality down the road. Or maybe what you really want is to lock the class down to prevent further extension, for the sake of understand-ability and simplicity. You have to examine your use case, future plans, and existing architecture to decide on the path forward. More than likely, there are lots of right answers and only a couple very wrong ones, so weigh the options, pick one that feels right, then implement and push code.
As far as I've gotten, adding functions to a class is a bit of a no-op. There are ways, but it seems to always get ugly because the class is meant to be itself and nothing else ever.
What has been more approachable is to add references to functions to an object or map.
So, I have bound the CombatController to an object called "godObject". In the Start() method, I call init() functions on other classes. I did this so I can control the order in which objects are initialized since, for example, the character controller relies on the grid controller being initialized.
Quick diagram:
-------------------- calls
| CombatController | ----------> CameraController.init();
-------------------- |
| ---> GridController.init();
|
| ---> CharacterController.init();
So, now I have a slight problem. I have multiple properties that I need in every controller. At the moment, I have bound everything to the combat controller itself. That means that, in every controller, I have to get an instance of the CombatController via GameObject.Find("godObject).GetComponent<CombatController>(). To be honest, I don't think this is good design.
My idea now was to create a BaseCombatController that extends MonoBehavior, and then have all other classes like GridController, CharacterController etc. extend the BaseCombatController. It might look like this:
public class BaseCombatController : MonoBehaviour
{
public GameObject activePlayer;
public void setActivePlayer(GameObject player) {
this.activePlayer = player;
}
... more stuff to come ...
}
This way, I could access activePlayer everywhere without the need to create a new instance of the CombatController. However, I'm not sure if this doesn't have possible side effects.
So, lots of text for a simple question, is that safe to do?
I use inheritance in Unity all the time. The trick, like you have in the question, is to allow your base class to inherit from monobehavior. For Example:
public class Base Item : Monobehavior
{
public string ItemName;
public int Price;
public virtual void PickUp(){//pickup logic}
//Additional functions. Update etc. Make them virtual.
}
This class sets up what an item should do. Then in a derived class you can change and extend this behavior.
public class Coin : BaseItem
{
//properties set in the inspector
public override void PickUp(){//override pickup logic}
}
I have used this design pattern a lot over the past year, and am currently using it in a retail product. I would say go for it! Unity seems to favor components over inheritance, but you could easily use them in conjunction with each other.
Hope this helps!
As far as I can see this should be safe. If you look into Unity intern or even Microsoft scripts they all extend/inhert (from) each other.
Another thing you could try would be the use of interfaces, here is the Unity Documentation to them: https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/topics/scripting/interfaces if you want to check it out.
You are right that GameObject.Find is pure code smell.
You can do it via the inheritance tree (as discussed earlier) or even better via interfaces (as mentioned by Assasin Bot), or (I am surprised no one mentioned it earlier) via static fields (aka the Singleton pattern).
One thing to add from experience - having to have Inits() called in a specific order is a yellow flag for your design - I've been there myself and found myself drowned by init order management.
As a general advice: Unity gives you two usefull callbacks - Awake() and Start(). If you find yourself needing Init() you are probably not using those two as they were designed.
All the Awakes() are guaranteed (for acvie objects) to run before first Start(), so do all the internal object initialisation in Awake(), and binding to external objects on Start(). If you find yourself needing finer control - you should probably simplify the design a bit.
As a rule of thumb: all objects should have their internal state (getcomponents<>, list inits etc) in order by the end of Awake(), but they shold not make any calls depending on other objects being ready before Start(). Splitting it this way usually helps a lot
Unity3D has an interface like this, for any Component on a MonoBehavior you just do this:
public class LaraCroft:MonoBehaviour,IPointerDownHandler
{
public void OnPointerDown(PointerEventData data)
{
Debug.Log("With no other effort, this function is called
for you, by the Unity engine, every time someone touches
the glass of your iPhone or Android.");
}
You do not have to register, set a delegate or anything else. OnPointerDown (the only item in IPointerDownHandler) gets called for you every single time someone touches the screen.
Amazing!
Here's a similar interface I wrote ...
public interface ISingleFingerDownHandler
{
void OnSingleFingerDown();
}
Now, I want consumers to be able to do this...
public class LaraCroft:MonoBehaviour,ISingleFingerDownHandler
{
public void OnSingleFingerDown(PointerEventData data)
{
Debug.Log("this will get called every time
the screen is touched...");
}
Just to recap, using Unity's interface, the function gets called automatically with no further effort - the consumer does not have to register or anything else.
Sadly, I can achieve that only like this:
I write a "daemon" ..
public class ISingleFingerDaemon:MonoBehaviour
{
private ISingleFingerDownHandler needsUs = null;
// of course that would be a List,
// just one shown for simplicity in this example code
void Awake()
{
needsUs = GetComponent(typeof(ISingleFingerDownHandler))
as ISingleFingerDownHandler;
// of course, this could search the whole scene,
// just the local gameobject shown here for simplicity
}
... when something happens ...
if (needsUs != null) needsUs.OnSingleFingerDown(data);
}
And I get that daemon running somewhere.
If you're not a Unity user - what it does is looks around for and finds any of the ISingleFingerDownHandler consumers, keeps a list of them, and then appropriately calls OnPointerDown as needed. This works fine BUT
the consumer-programmer has to remember to "put the daemon somewhere" and get it running etc.
there are obvious anti-elegancies whenever you do something like this (in Unity or elsewhere), re efficiency, placement, etc etc
• this approach fails of course if a consumer comes in to existence at a time when the daemon is not searching for them (Unity's magic interfaces don't suffer this problem - they have more magic to deal with that)
(PS, I know how to write an automatic helper that places the daemon and so on: please do not reply in that vein, thanks!)
Indeed, obviously the developers at Unity have some system going on behind the scenes, which does all that beautifully because "their" interfaces are perfectly able to call all the needed calls, regardless of even items being created on the fly etc.
What's the best solution? Am I stuck with needing a daemon? And perhaps having to register?
(It would surely suck - indeed generally not be usable in typical Unity projects - to just make it a class to inherit from; that type of facility is naturally an interface.)
So to recap, Unity has this:
public class LaraCroft:MonoBehaviour,IPointerDownHandler
Surely there's a way for me to make a replacement, extension, for that...
public class LaraCroft:MonoBehaviour,ISuperiorPointerDownHandler
which can then be used the same way / which shares the magic qualities of that interface? I can do it fine, but only my making a daemon.
Update
Full solution for "ISingleFingerHandler" "IPinchHandler" and similar concepts in Unity is here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40591301/294884
You say you don't want to do a daemon but that is exactly what Unity is doing. The StandaloneInputModule class that is automatically added when you add a UI component is that daemon.
What you can do is create a new class derived from one of the classes derived from BaseInputModule (likey PointerInputModule for your case) that can handle listening to trigger and raising your extra events then add that new class to the EventSystem object.
See the Unity manual section on the Event System for notes on how to create your custom events and more details on what the input module does.
I hate to answer my own questions, but the answer here is really:
You cannot. You do have to add a daemon.
But then, it's very much worth noting that
Indeed, Unity add a daemon - they just hide it a little.
The final absolutely critical point to understand is that:
Unity screwed-up: you cannot in fact inherit from their lovely StandAloneInputModule. This is a big mistake.
Unity's StandAloneInputModule and IPointerDownHandler family - are brilliant. But you can't inherit from them properly.
The fact is, you just have to inherit sideways from IPointerDownHandler. That's all there is to it.
The fact is you have to make your own daemon ("as if" it inherits from StandAloneInputModule) which actually just goes sideways from IPointerDownHandler family.
So the actual answer is (A) you have this
public interface ISingleFingerHandler
{
void OnSingleFingerDown (Vector2 position);
void OnSingleFingerUp (Vector2 position);
void OnSingleFingerDrag (Vector2 delta);
}
public class SingleFingerInputModule:MonoBehaviour,
IPointerDownHandler,IPointerUpHandler,IDragHandler
and (B) you do have to put that on a game object (it's a daemon), and then (C) it's just stupidly easy to finally handle pinches, etc.
public class YourFingerClass:MonoBehaviour, IPinchHandler
{
public void OnPinchZoom (float delta)
{
_processPinch(delta);
}
That's it!
Full production code for PinchInputModule ...
https://stackoverflow.com/a/40591301/294884
...which indeed inherits sideways from ("uses") IPointerDownHandler family.
My assumption is that MonoBehaviour runs a type check in ctor. Which is why you cannot use the ctor on those to avoid overriding that process. The common solution is that your interface would also require to implement a registering method (Vuforia does that for instance) so any new instance registers itself.
You could also extend MB class with your own MB system:
public class JoeMonoBehaviour : MonoBehaviour
{
protected virtual void Awake(){
Init();
}
private void Init(){
if(this is ISuperiorPointerDownHandler)
{
if(ISuperiorHandler.Instance != null){
ISuperiorHandlerInstance.RegisterPointerDownHandler(this as ISuperiorPointerDownHandler);
}
}
}
}
It does not have the magic of Unity but you cannot achieve the magic of Unity with MonoBehaviour. It require the sub class to make sure it calls the base.Awake() if overriding it.
You'd have to come up with your own side engine system to run your own engine logic. Not sure that'd be worth it.
Another solution is to create your own Instantiate:
namespace JoeBlowEngine{
public static GameObject Instantiate(GameObject prefab, Vector3 position, Quaternion rotation){
GameObject obj = (GameObject)Instantiate(prefab, position, rotation);
MonoBehaviour [] mbs = obj.GetComponentsInChildren<MonoBehaviour>(true); // I think it should also get all components on the parent object
foreach(MonoBehaviour mb in mbs){
CheckForSuperior(mb);
CheckForInferior(mb);
// so on...
}
return obj;
}
internal static CheckForSuperior(MonoBehaviour mb)
{
if(mb is SomeType) { SomeTypeHandler.Instance.Register(mb as SomeType); }
}
}
Now it look like you are doing some magic only with :
JoeBlowEngine.Instantiate(prefab, Vector3.zero, Quaternion.identity);
I'm working with the MVVM pattern + a simple ServiceLocator implementation, now to my problem how am I supposed to setup the services when the views are running in design time?
Iv tried this but it does not seem to work in VS 2010 or some thing, I know it worked on my old computer but on my new it does not. so does any one know a good alternative?
Edit: (On behalf of Merlyn Morgan-Graham)
Well what I'm trying to do is this, I have my view, ViewModel and services now the difference here is that I have 2 implementations of each service one for design time and one for run time.
for a better explanation look here.
If you want to decouple your view from your viewmodel, and your viewmodel from your model/dal (basically, if you want to use MVVM), then your view model and data model shouldn't know anything about design time. Design time only applies to the view.
This article shows a way to define your design time data via XML/XAML, so your code underneath doesn't have to know anything about it:
http://karlshifflett.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/visual-studio-2010-beta2-sample-data-project-templates/
After Edit: It turns out that you'll still have to use your view model for your existing XAML bindings to work. This will just populate the view model rather than having to create a new data model. I'm not sure, but there might be classes that allow you to use the WPF binding mechanism to take care of this... Views?
Resume Before Edit...:
As far as the solution in the article you linked first, the designer doesn't instantiate anything but your class, and the code it references. That means that assembly attributes won't be instantiated unless your view code somehow directly references them.
If you really want to couple your view models to your views during design time, and make it so that design time services are registered, then you have to place the service registration code in your view class, or a class the view class directly references.
To do that, you could use static constructors of your views to register your design time services. You could also write a static method on some other class (application?) to (conditionally) register the design time services. Then, call that method in the constructor of your views.
Or you could simply register them in the constructor for each of your views.
Basically, what you want to do is possible, but that method linked in the first article isn't. If you read farther in the comments, you'll see that his method is broken.
You may also want to question the idea of hooking your view model to your view during design time, because the MVVM pattern was made to avoid that sort of thing.
You usually don't need to access services at design-time... Typically, you don't even use your real ViewModels at design-time, you use dummy design data, as explained here. If you really need to use your real ViewModels, you can implement dummy versions of your services, and use them instead of the real services :
if (DesignerProperties.GetIsInDesignMode(new DependencyObject()))
{
// Design time
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService1>(new DummyService1());
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService2>(new DummyService2());
}
else
{
// Run time
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService1>(new RealService1());
ServiceLocator.Instance.Register<IService2>(new RealService2());
}
Also I do agree to all who have concerns regarding the use of the service locator at design time, I do believe that this is a valid scenario in some use cases.
This is not a discussion on why/why not, this is simple the way it (almost) worked for me.
There is still a problem which I did not solve yet: this only works for one view at a time.
Create a simple bootstrapper for setting up your IoC of choice. Notice the ISupportInitialize interface.
public class Bootstrapper: ISupportInitialize
{
#region ISupportInitialize Members
public void BeginInit() { }
public void EndInit()
{
if (DesignerProperties.GetIsInDesignMode(new DependencyObject()))
Setup();
}
#endregion
public static void Setup() { SetupServiceLocator(); }
static void SetupServiceLocator()
{
ContainerBuilder builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<ConfigService>().As<IConfigService>().ExternallyOwned().SingleInstance();
IContainer container = builder.Build();
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => new AutofacServiceLocator(container));
}
}
Use the Bootstrapper as before for runtime mode, e.g.:
public partial class App : Application
{
protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
{
base.OnStartup(e);
Bootstrapper.Setup();
}
}
Additionally you need to add it to the application resources for design mode support:
<Application x:Class="MonitoringConfigurator.App"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:local="clr-namespace:MyBootstrapperNamespace"
StartupUri="MainWindow.xaml">
<Application.Resources>
<local:Bootstrapper x:Key="Bootstrapper" />
</Application.Resources>
</Application>
Sorry to ask sich a generic question, but I've been studying these and, outside of say the head programming conveying what member MUST be in a class, I just don't see any benefits.
There are two (basic) parts to object oriented programming that give newcomers trouble; the first is inheritance and the second is composition. These are the toughest to 'get'; and once you understand those everything else is just that much easier.
What you're referring to is composition - e.g., what does a class do? If you go the inheritance route, it derives from an abstract class (say Dog IS A Animal) . If you use composition, then you are instituting a contract (A Car HAS A Driver/Loan/Insurance). Anyone that implements your interface must implement the methods of that interface.
This allows for loose coupling; and doesn't tie you down into the inheritance model where it doesn't fit.
Where inheritance fits, use it; but if the relationship between two classes is contractual in nature, or HAS-A vs. IS-A, then use an interface to model that part.
Why Use Interfaces?
For a practical example, let's jump into a business application. If you have a repository; you'll want to make the layer above your repository those of interfaces. That way if you have to change anything in the way the respository works, you won't affect anything since they all obey the same contracts.
Here's our repository:
public interface IUserRepository
{
public void Save();
public void Delete(int id);
public bool Create(User user);
public User GetUserById(int id);
}
Now, I can implement that Repository in a class:
public class UserRepository : IRepository
{
public void Save()
{
//Implement
}
public void Delete(int id)
{
//Implement
}
public bool Create(User user)
{
//Implement
}
public User GetUserById(int id)
{
//Implement
}
}
This separates the Interface from what is calling it. I could change this Class from Linq-To-SQL to inline SQL or Stored procedures, and as long as I implemented the IUserRepository interface, no one would be the wiser; and best of all, there are no classes that derive from my class that could potentially be pissed about my change.
Inheritance and Composition: Best Friends
Inheritance and Composition are meant to tackle different problems. Use each where it fits, and there are entire subsets of problems where you use both.
I was going to leave George to point out that you can now consume the interface rather than the concrete class. It seems like everyone here understands what interfaces are and how to define them, but most have failed to explain the key point of them in a way a student will easily grasp - and something that most courses fail to point out instead leaving you to either grasp at straws or figure it out for yourself so I'll attempt to spell it out in a way that doesn't require either. So hopefully you won't be left thinking "so what, it still seems like a waste of time/effort/code."
public interface ICar
{
public bool EngineIsRunning{ get; }
public void StartEngine();
public void StopEngine();
public int NumberOfWheels{ get; }
public void Drive(string direction);
}
public class SportsCar : ICar
{
public SportsCar
{
Console.WriteLine("New sports car ready for action!");
}
public bool EngineIsRunning{ get; protected set; }
public void StartEngine()
{
if(!EngineIsRunning)
{
EngineIsRunning = true;
Console.WriteLine("Engine is started.");
}
else
Console.WriteLine("Engine is already running.");
}
public void StopEngine()
{
if(EngineIsRunning)
{
EngineIsRunning = false;
Console.WriteLine("Engine is stopped.");
}
else
Console.WriteLine("Engine is already stopped.");
}
public int NumberOfWheels
{
get
{
return 4;
}
}
public void Drive(string direction)
{
if (EngineIsRunning)
Console.WriteLine("Driving {0}", direction);
else
Console.WriteLine("You can only drive when the engine is running.");
}
}
public class CarFactory
{
public ICar BuildCar(string car)
{
switch case(car)
case "SportsCar" :
return Activator.CreateInstance("SportsCar");
default :
/* Return some other concrete class that implements ICar */
}
}
public class Program
{
/* Your car type would be defined in your app.config or some other
* mechanism that is application agnostic - perhaps by implicit
* reference of an existing DLL or something else. My point is that
* while I've hard coded the CarType as "SportsCar" in this example,
* in a real world application, the CarType would not be known at
* design time - only at runtime. */
string CarType = "SportsCar";
/* Now we tell the CarFactory to build us a car of whatever type we
* found from our outside configuration */
ICar car = CarFactory.BuildCar(CarType);
/* And without knowing what type of car it was, we work to the
* interface. The CarFactory could have returned any type of car,
* our application doesn't care. We know that any class returned
* from the CarFactory has the StartEngine(), StopEngine() and Drive()
* methods as well as the NumberOfWheels and EngineIsRunning
* properties. */
if (car != null)
{
car.StartEngine();
Console.WriteLine("Engine is running: {0}", car.EngineIsRunning);
if (car.EngineIsRunning)
{
car.Drive("Forward");
car.StopEngine();
}
}
}
As you can see, we could define any type of car, and as long as that car implements the interface ICar, it will have the predefined properties and methods that we can call from our main application. We don't need to know what type of car is - or even the type of class that was returned from the CarFactory.BuildCar() method. It could return an instance of type "DragRacer" for all we care, all we need to know is that DragRacer implements ICar and we can carry on life as normal.
In a real world application, imagine instead IDataStore where our concrete data store classes provide access to a data store on disk, or on the network, some database, thumb drive, we don't care what - all we would care is that the concrete class that is returned from our class factory implements the interface IDataStore and we can call the methods and properties without needing to know about the underlying architecture of the class.
Another real world implication (for .NET at least) is that if the person who coded the sports car class makes changes to the library that contains the sports car implementation and recompiles, and you've made a hard reference to their library you will need to recompile - whereas if you've coded your application against ICar, you can just replace the DLL with their new version and you can carry on as normal.
So that a given class can inherit from multiple sources, while still only inheriting from a single parent class.
Some programming languages (C++ is the classic example) allow a class to inherit from multiple classes; in this case, interfaces aren't needed (and, generally speaking, don't exist.)
However, when you end up in a language like Java or C# where multiple-inheritance isn't allowed, you need a different mechanism to allow a class to inherit from multiple sources - that is, to represent more than one "is-a" relationships. Enter Interfaces.
So, it lets you define, quite literally, interfaces - a class implementing a given interface will implement a given set of methods, without having to specify anything about how those methods are actually written.
Maybe this resource is helpful: When to Use Interfaces
It allows you to separate the implementation from the definition.
For instance I can define one interface that one section of my code is coded against - as far as it is concerned it is calling members on the interface. Then I can swap implementations in and out as I wish - if I want to create a fake version of the database access component then I can.
Interfaces are the basic building blocks of software components
In Java, interfaces allow you to refer any class that implements the interface. This is similar to subclassing however there are times when you want to refer to classes from completely different hierarchies as if they are the same type.
Speaking from a Java standpoint, you can create an interface, telling any classes that implement said interface, that "you MUST implement these methods" but you don't introduce another class into the hierarchy.
This is desireable because you may want to guarantee that certain mechanisms exist when you want objects of different bases to have the same code semantics (ie same methods that are coded as appropriate in each class) for some purpose, but you don't want to create an abstract class, which would limit you in that now you can't inherit another class.
just a thought... i only tinker with Java. I'm no expert.
Please see my thoughts below. 2 different devices need to receive messages from our computer. one resides across the internet and uses http as a transport protocol. the other sits 10 feet away, connect via USB.
Note, this syntax is pseudo-code.
interface writeable
{
void open();
void write();
void close();
}
class A : HTTP_CONNECTION implements writeable
{
//here, opening means opening an HTTP connection.
//maybe writing means to assemble our message for a specific protocol on top of
//HTTP
//maybe closing means to terminate the connection
}
class B : USB_DEVICE implements writeable
{
//open means open a serial connection
//write means write the same message as above, for a different protocol and device
//close means to release USB object gracefully.
}
Interfaces create a layer insulation between a consumer and a supplier. This layer of insulation can be used for different things. But overall, if used correctly they reduce the dependency density (and the resulting complexity) in the application.
I wish to support Electron's answer as the most valid answer.
Object oriented programming facilitates the declaration of contracts.
A class declaration is the contract. The contract is a commitment from the class to provide features according to types/signatures that have been declared by the class. In the common oo languages, each class has a public and a protected contract.
Obviously, we all know that an interface is an empty unfulfilled class template that can be allowed to masquerade as a class. But why have empty unfulfilled class contracts?
An implemented class has all of its contracts spontaneously fulfilled.
An abstract class is a partially fulfilled contract.
A class spontaneously projects a personality thro its implemented features saying it is qualified for a certain job description. However, it also could project more than one personality to qualify itself for more than one job description.
But why should a class Motorcar not present its complete personality honestly rather than hide behind the curtains of multiple-personalities? That is because, a class Bicycle, Boat or Skateboard that wishes to present itself as much as a mode of Transport does not wish to implement all the complexities and constraints of a Motorcar. A boat needs to be capable of water travel which a Motorcar needs not. Then why not give a Motorcar all the features of a Boat too - of course, the response to such a proposal would be - are you kiddin?
Sometimes, we just wish to declare an unfulfilled contract without bothering with the implementation. A totally unfulfilled abstract class is simply an interface. Perhaps, an interface is akin to the blank legal forms you could buy from a stationary shop.
Therefore, in an environment that allows multiple inheritances, interfaces/totally-abstract-classes are useful when we just wish to declare unfulfilled contracts that someone else could fulfill.
In an environment that disallows multiple inheritances, having interfaces is the only way to allow an implementing class to project multiple personalities.
Consider
interface Transportation
{
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
class Motorcar implements Transportation
{
cleanWindshiedl();
getOilChange();
doMillionsOtherThings();
...
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
class Kayak implements Transportation
{
paddle();
getCarriedAcrossRapids();
...
takePassengers();
gotoDestination(Destination d);
}
An activity requiring Transportation has to be blind to the millions alternatives of transportation. Because it just wants to call
Transportation.takePassengers or
Transportation.gotoDestination
because it is requesting for transportation however it is fulfilled. This is modular thinking and programming, because we don't want to restrict ourselves to a Motorcar or Kayak for transportation. If we restricted to all the transportation we know, we would need to spend a lot of time finding out all the current transportation technologies and see if it fits into our plan of activities.
We also do not know that in the future, a new mode of transport called AntiGravityCar would be developed. And after spending so much time unnecessarily accommodating every mode of transport we possibly know, we find that our routine does not allow us to use AntiGravityCar. But with a specific contract that is blind any technology other than that it requires, not only do we not waste time considering all sorts of behaviours of various transports, but any future transport development that implements the Transport interface can simply include itself into the activity without further ado.
None of the answers yet mention the key word: substitutability. Any object which implements interface Foo may be substituted for "a thing that implements Foo" in any code that needs the latter. In many frameworks, an object must give a single answer to the question "What type of thing are you", and a single answer to "What is your type derived from"; nonetheless, it may be helpful for a type to be substitutable for many different kinds of things. Interfaces allow for that. A VolkswagonBeetleConvertible is derived from VolkswagonBeetle, and a FordMustangConvertible is derived from FordMustang. Both VolkswagonBeetleConvertible and FordMustangConvertible implement IOpenableTop, even though neither class' parent type does. Consequently, the two derived types mentioned can be substituted for "a thing which implements IOpenableTop".