I have a Business Layer, whose only one class should be visible to outer world. So, I have marked all classes as internal except that class. Since that class requires some internal class to instantiate, I need other classes to be marked as public and other classes depend on some other classes and so on. So ultimately almost all of my internal classes are made public.
How do You handle such scenarios?
Also today there is just one class exposed to outer world but in future there may be two or three, so it means I need three facades?
Thanks
Correct, all of your injected dependencies must be visible to your Composition Root. It sounds like you're asking this question: Ioc/DI - Why do I have to reference all layers/assemblies in entry application?
To quote part of that answer from Mark Seeman:
you don't have to add hard references to all required libraries. Instead, you can use late binding either in the form of convention-based assembly-scanning (preferred) or XML configuration.
Also this, from Steven:
If you are very strict about protecting your architectural boundaries using assemblies, you can simply move your Composition Root to a separate assembly.
However, you should ask yourself why doing so would be worth the effort. If it is merely to enforce architectural boundaries, there is no substitute for discipline. My experience is that that discipline is also more easily maintained when following the SOLID principles, for which dependency injection is the "glue".
After doing a lot of research I am writing my findings, so that it may be of some help to newcomers on Dependency Injection
Misunderstandings regarding my current design and Dependency Injection:
Initial approach and problem(s) associated with it:
My business layer was having a composition root inside it, where as
it should be outside the business layer and near to the application
entry point. In composition root I was essentially having a big factory referred as Poor Man's DI by Mark Seemann. In my application starting point, I was creating an instance of this factory class and then creating my only (intended to be) visible class to outside world. This decision clearly violates Liskov's Principle which says that every dependency should be replaceable. I was having a modular design, but my previous approach was tightly coupled, I wasn't able to reap more benefits out of it, despite only some code cleanliness and code maintainability.
A better approach is:
A very helplful link given by Facio Ratio
The Composition root should have been near the application root, all dependency classes should be made public which I referred initially as a problem; making them public I am introducing low coupling and following Liskov's substitution which is good.
You can change the public class to the interface and all other parts of the program will only know about the interface. Here's some sample code to illustrate this:
public interface IFacade
{
void DoSomething();
}
internal class FacadeImpl : IFacade
{
public FacadeImpl(Alfa alfa, Bravo bravo)
{
}
public void DoSomething()
{
}
}
internal class Alfa
{
}
internal class Bravo
{
}
I can see three solutions, none real good. You might want to combine them in someway. But...
First, put some simple parameters (numeric, perhaps) in the constructor that let the caller say what he wants to do, and that the new public class instance can use to grab internal class objects (to self-inject). (You could use special public classes/interfaces used solely to convey information here too.) This makes for an awkward and limited interface, but is great for encapsulation. If the caller prefers adding a few quick parameters to constructing complex injectable objects anyway this might work out well. (It's always a drag when a method wants five objects of classes you never heard of before when the only option you need, or even want, is "read-only" vs "editable".)
Second, you could make your internal classes public. Now the caller has immense power and can do anything. This is good if the calling code is really the heart of the system, but bad if you don't quite trust that code or if the caller really doesn't want to be bothered with all the picky details.
Third, you might find you can pull some classes from the calling code into your assembly. If you're really lucky, the class making the call might work better on the inside (hopefully without reintroducing this problem one level up).
Response to comments:
As I understand it, you have a service calling a method in a public class in your business layer. To make the call, it needs objects of other classes in the business layer. These other classes are and should be internal. For example, you want to call a method called GetAverage and pass it an instance of the (internal) class RoundingPolicy so it knows how to round. My first answer is that you should take an integer value instead of a class: a constant value such as ROUND_UP, ROUND_DOWN, NEAREST_INTEGER, etc. GetAverage would then use this number to generate the proper RoundingPolicy instance inside the business layer, keeping RoundingPolicy internal.
My first answer is the one I'm suggesting. However, it gives the service a rather primitive interface, so my second two answers suggest alternatives.
The second answer is actually what you are trying to avoid. My thinking was that if all those internal classes were needed by the service, maybe there was no way around the problem. In my example above, if the service is using 30 lines of code to construct just the right RoundingPolicy instance before passing it, you're not going to fix the problem with just a few integer parameters. You'd need to give the overall design a lot of thought.
The third answer is a forlorn hope, but you might find that the calling code is doing work that could just as easily be done inside the business layer. This is actually similar to my first answer. Here, however, the interface might be more elegant. My first answer limits what the service can do. This answer suggests the service doesn't want to do much anyway; it's always using one identical RoundingPolicy instance, so you don't even need to pass a parameter.
I may not fully understand your question, but I hope there's an idea here somewhere that you can use.
Still more: Forth Answer:
I considered this a sort of part of my first answer, but I've thought it through and think I should state it explicitly.
I don't think the class you're making the call to needs an interface, but you could make interfaces for all the classes you don't want to expose to the service. IRoundingPolicy, for instance. You will need some way to get real instances of these interfaces, because new IRoundingPolicy() isn't going to work. Now the service is exposed to all the complexities of the classes you were trying to hide (down side) but they can't see inside the classes (up side). You can control exactly what the service gets to work with--the original classes are still encapsulated. This perhaps makes a workable version of my second answer. This might be useful in one or two places where the service needs more elaborate options than my first answer allows.
Related
We are working on two product lines that will share the same code.
For functionality that differs, I have both product lines implement the same interface (or base classes in some case) and these types will be created in the Main class (which is separate for both product lines) and passed further downstream.
For code that is deep inside the business logic, it is very hard to have product line specific code. We do not want to user if(ProductLine == "ProductLine1") and else methodology.
So I am planning to implement a Factory class which will have static methods to return NewObject1(), NewObject2() and so on. This Factory class will be registered in the Main class as Factory.RegisterClient(ProductLine1).
So with the above approach, the factory(which internally contains ProductLine1Factor & ProductLine2Factory) knows which type of objects to create.
Do you know a better approach to this problem. Please note that ProductLine1 was already existing and ProductLine2 is something new (but is 90% similar to ProductLine1). We cannot do drastic refactoring such that both product lines exist. We want to do as minimally invasive code changes as possible.
The factory approach typically exposes an interface, but the problem with interfaces is that I cannot expose static types which are also needed.
I would really appreciate if some experts would shed some light.
Your approach sounds fine.
Instead of a custom crafted factory, why don't you use a fully fledged IoC framework like NInject or Unity? You could have the service implemented twice, for each client, and select one in a container configuration file, statically. This way you don't even need to change the single line of your code if you add yet another implementation, you just reconfigure i.e. make some changes in the xml file.
Anyway, an IoC container is just a tool, use it or not, it just replaces your factory (IoC containers are sometimes called "factories on steroids").
What I want to archieve:
Service assembly (project) that holds EntityClasses - pure Data.
GUI assembly that extends those Entities for its own pourposes - Runtime information for GUI.
What I tried:
Derivation (Gui defines class ExtendedEntity : Service.BaseEntity)
seems to be the most common and only practicable way to me, but:
Converting Service.BaseEntity to ExtendedEntity after retrieving Data from the Service is painful. can 'workaround' this by using reflection to generate new ExtendedEntity instances based on base entity instances, but that can't be the 'proper' solution.
Partial classes
is exactly what I'm looking for, except the fact, that it does not work cross-assembly.
I'd greatly appreciate any hints helping me to find a proper & clean solution without reflection cheating =)
This is not a direct answer, but you may want to think a little more about your design. Why does your GUI need intimate knowledge of the mechanics of data storage? Typically we work very hard to make sure that the the UI and the data access are loosely coupled, so we can make changes to either without fear of breaking what already work. The design you are looking to implement can lead to unforeseen problems later.
One common pattern that works well for this type of thing is called the Repository pattern. Essentially the service assembly (repository) would contain all of the knowledge required to push data into and out of a particular data store. The 'shape' of the data is well known, and shared between the GUI and the repository. The service assembly would make the CRUD operations available to the GUI, and the GUI would would hold a reference to the repository, and call methods on it to fetch, create and update the data it needs.
Here are some links to get started on the ideas of loose coupling, the repository pattern, and dependency injection.
Cohesion and coupling
What is dependency injection
What's a good repository pattern tutorial
Is decompilation an option? If yes you can use e.g. PostSharp or Mono Cecil to rewrite the classes in question and add the there the code you want to have them.
I am curios why you do not want to use the standard OO approach like derivation. It is definitely not hacking.
The "cleanest" OO solution is to use aggregation and encapsulate the Entity classes inside objects where you can fully control what you can do with the data and how you want to manipulate or query it. You have reached "heaven" when your aggregation class does not need to expose the internal Entity class anymore because your class is powerful enough to support all necessary operations with the right abstractions.
If the classes you want to extend are sealed then you need to think hard why the writers of these classes did not want you to extend them.
Eric Lippert has a nice post about the usages of the sealed keyword.
...
Now, I recognize that developers are highly practical people who just
want to get stuff done. Being able to extend any class is convenient,
sure. Typical developers say "IS-A-SHMIZ-A, I just want to slap a
Confusticator into the Froboznicator class". That developer could
write up a hash table to map one to the other, but then you have to
worry about when to remove the items, etc, etc, etc -- it's not rocket
science, but it is work.
Obviously there is a tradeoff here. The tradeoff is between letting
developers save a little time by allowing them to treat any old object
as a property bag on the one hand, and developing a well-designed,
OOPtacular, fully-featured, robust, secure, predictable, testable
framework in a reasonable amount of time -- and I'm going to lean
heavily towards the latter. Because you know what? Those same
developers are going to complain bitterly if the framework we give
them slows them down because it is half-baked, brittle, insecure, and
not fully tested!
...
Yours,
Alois Kraus
You could have your GUI assembly define extension methods on the entity classes. With appropriate using directives, this would mean the consuming code would not know or care where the methods were actually defined.
A slight annoyance would be the non-existence of extension properties, so even things that are conceptually properties would have to be implemented as methods.
It would look a little like this:
In Service assembly
public class FooDTO
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
In GUI assembly
internal static class Extensions
{
// Artificial example!
public static int GetNameLength(this FooDTO foo)
{
return foo.Name.Length;
}
}
// Consuming code
int myFooNameLength = myFooDTO.GetNameLength();
so in my application I've got several different customers being "serviced". Each customer has their own implementations of various classes that are all based on interfaces.
With the latest customer being added, I've noticed there will be a lot of duplication of code from another customer but the other customer is in no other way related to them.
I've already got a default implementation for several other customers and roll new ones as i need them.
My question is how do i refactor this and still keep the code clean? If i were a dev new to this code base i would want each customer to either use the default or their own implementation of these classes... but that's a lot of duplication.
Consider using an abstract base class with abstract or virtual members. Abstract members are essentially equivalent to interface members (they have no build-in behavior, they only guarantee the method exists) whereas virtual members have a default implementation which can be overridden by derived classes.
Your question is really too vague to answer in full, but here's how you can leverage inheritance.
If you want all classes to use the same implementation of a member then that member can be implemented in the base-class.
If you want each class to have its own implementation of a member then you can either use a base-class with abstract members, or an interface.
If you want some classes to use the same implementations and others to use different implementations then implementing the default behavior in the base-class and override it as needed.
My main point is that OOP there is a spectrum of how much or little functionality is in base/abstract/concrete classes. There's no silver-bullet answer, sometimes your base classes will be skeletons and sometimes they'll be fully fleshed-out; it all depends on the specific problem at hand.
Is there some way that you could create a base class, then a specific implementation for each customer and then using some type of Dependency Injection have that load classes or functionality as needed. You want to really have a DRY system so as to avoid headaches and typos or other similar human mistakes.
You may use either inheritance (put common logic to the base class) or aggregation (spread that logic among other classes and make use them from your customers).
I'd recommend the visitor pattern:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern
As well as the mediator pattern:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediator_pattern
Reason being that it sounds like you may benefit from decoupling, or at least more-loose-coupling, the business logic from your classes, based on what you are saying.
It's a bit difficult to know what to suggest without a better understanding of the code... but some things that have worked for me in similar situations include:
Use a Strategy, for the duplicated code. I've had most success where the strategy is encapsulated within a class implementing a known interface (one class per alternate strategy). Often in such cases I use some form of Dependency Injection framework (typically StructureMap) to pass the appropriate strategy/strategies to the class.
Use some sort of template class (or template methods) for the common item(s).
Use a Decorator to add specific functionality to some basic customer.
STW suggested that I should offer some clarification on what I mean by "Strategy" and how that differs from normal inheritance. I imagine inheritance is something you are very familiar with - something (typically a method - either abstract or virtual) in the base class is replaced by an alternate implementation in the derived class.
A strategy (at least the way I typically use it) is normally implemented by a completely different class. Often all that class will contain is the implementation for a single replaceable operation. For example if the "operation" is to perform some validation, you may have a NullValidationStrategy which does nothing and a ParanoidValidationStrategy which makes sure every McGuffin is the correct height, width and specific shade of blue. The reason I usually implement each strategy in its own class is because I try and follow the Single Responsibility Principle which can make it easier to reuse the code later.
As I mentioned above, I typically use a Dependency Injection (DI) framework to "inject" the appropriate strategy via the class constructor, but a similar results may be obtained via other mechanisms - e.g. having a SetSomeOperationStrategy(ISomeOperation StrategyToUse) method, or a property which holds the strategy reference. If you aren't using DI, and the strategy will always be the same for a given customer type, you could always set the correct choices when the class is constructed. If the strategy won't be the same for each instance of a given customer type, then you probably need some sort of customer factory (often a factory method will be sufficient).
I'd go with the answer of spinon (got my vote at least), but it's to short so let me elaborate:
Use your interfaces for the default implementation and then use dependency injection. Most tools allow you to define a scope or some criteria how to resolve something.
I assume that you do know the client at some early point of the program. So for ninject you just might want to define a "Module" for each client and load that into the kernel, depending on the client.
So I'd create a "no customization" Module and create a "ClientX" Module for every special case that uses ´Bind.To()` instead.
You end up with
a base implementation that is clean/default
a single place change for a new client (got a new one? Great. Either it works with the default or just needs a single Module that maps the interfaces to other classes)
The rest of the code shouldn't mind and get the dependencies via injection (constructor, property, whatever is easiest to go for. Constructor would probably be the nicest way) and has no special treatment at all.
You could even use a conditional binding in Ninject link text to solve the binding issue without different modules at all (although, depending on the number of clients, this might get messy and should better be separated).
I was going to suggest aggregation, as #the_joric suggests, over inheritance, but your description makes it sound like your application is already reasonably well-factored - that there aren't a lot of small classes waiting to be extracted from your existing classes. Assuming that's the case, for any given interface, if you have a perfect class for the new customer already written and ready to go, I would say go ahead and use it. If you're worried about that, for some reason, then take that perfect class, make it abstract, and create empty subclasses for your existing customer and your new customer - and if it's not quite a perfect fit, then that's the way I would go.
I have seen code where every class has an interface that it implements.
Sometimes there is no common interface for them all.
They are just there and they are used instead of concrete objects.
They do not offer a generic interface for two classes and are specific to the domain of the problem that the class solves.
Is there any reason to do that?
No.
Interfaces are good for classes with complex behaviour, and are especially handy if you want to be able to create a mock or fake implementation class of that interface for use in unit tests.
But, some classes don't have a lot of behaviour and can be treated more like values and usually consist of a set of data fields. There's little point in creating interfaces for classes like this because doing so would introduce unnecessary overhead when there's little point in mocking or providing alternative implementations of the interface. For example, consider a class:
class Coordinate
{
public Coordinate( int x, int y);
public int X { get; }
public int y { get; }
}
You're unlikely to want an interface ICoordinate to go with this class, because there's little point in implementing it in any other way than simply getting and setting X and Y values.
However, the class
class RoutePlanner
{
// Return a new list of coordinates ordered to be the shortest route that
// can be taken through all of the passed in coordinates.
public List<Coordinate> GetShortestRoute( List<Coordinate> waypoints );
}
you probably would want an IRoutePlanner interface for RoutePlanner because there are many different algorithms that could be used for planning a route.
Also, if you had a third class:
class RobotTank
{
public RobotTank( IRoutePlanner );
public void DriveRoute( List<Coordinate> points );
}
By giving RoutePlanner an interface, you could write a test method for RobotTank that creates one with a mock RoutePlanner that just returns a list of coordinates in no particular order. This would allow the test method to check that the tank navigates correctly between the coordinates without also testing the route planner. This means you can write a test that just tests one unit (the tank), without also testing the route planner.
You'll see though, it's quite easy to feed real Coordinates in to a test like this without needing to hide them behind an ICoordinate interface.
After revisiting this answer, I've decided to amend it slightly.
No, it's not best practice to extract interfaces for every class. This can actually be counterproductive. However, interfaces are useful for a few reasons:
Test support (mocks, stubs).
Implementation abstraction (furthering onto IoC/DI).
Ancillary things like co- and contra-variance support in C#.
For achieving these goals, interfaces are considered good practice (and are actually required for the last point). Depending on the project size, you will find that you may never need talk to an interface or that you are constantly extracting interfaces for one of the above reasons.
We maintain a large application, some parts of it are great and some are suffering from lack of attention. We frequently find ourselves refactoring to pull an interface out of a type to make it testable or so we can change implementations whilst lessening the impact of that change. We also do this to reduce the "coupling" effect that concrete types can accidentally impose if you are not strict on your public API (interfaces can only represent a public API so for us inherently become quite strict).
That said, it is possible to abstract behaviour without interfaces and possible to test types without needing interfaces, so they are not a requirement to the above. It is just that most frameworks / libraries that you may use to support you in those tasks will operate effectively against interfaces.
I'll leave my old answer for context.
Interfaces define a public contract. People implementing interfaces have to implement this contract. Consumers only see the public contract. This means the implementation details have been abstracted away from the consumer.
An immediate use for this these days is Unit Testing. Interfaces are easy to mock, stub, fake, you name it.
Another immediate use is Dependency Injection. A registered concrete type for a given interface is provided to a type consuming an interface. The type doesn't care specifically about the implementation, so it can abstractly ask for the interface. This allows you to change implementations without impacting lots of code (the impact area is very small so long as the contract stays the same).
For very small projects I tend not to bother, for medium projects I tend to bother on important core items, and for large projects there tends to be an interface for almost every class. This is almost always to support testing, but in some cases of injected behaviour, or abstraction of behaviour to reduce code duplication.
Let me quote OO guru, Martin Fowler, to add some solid justification to the most common answer in this thread.
This excerpt comes from the "Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture" (enlisted in the "classics of programming" and\or the "every dev must read" book category).
[Pattern] Separated Interface
(...)
When to Use It
You use Separated Interface when you need to break a dependency between two parts of the system.
(...)
I come across many developers who have separate interfaces for every class they write. I think this is excessive, especially for
application development. Keeping separate interfaces and
implementations is extra work, especially since you often need factory
classes (with interfaces and implementations) as well. For
applications I recommend using a separate interface only if you want
to break a dependency or you want to have multiple independent
implementations. If you put the interface and implementation
together and need to separate them later, this is a simple refactoring
that can be delayed until you need to do it.
Answering your question: no
I've seen some of the "fancy" code of this type myself, where developer thinks he's SOLID, but instead is unintelligible, difficult to extend and too complex.
There's no practical reason behind extracting Interfaces for each class in your project. That'd be an over-kill. The reason why they must be extracting interfaces would be the fact that they seem to implement an OOAD principle "Program to Interface, not to Implementation". You can find more information about this principle with an example here.
Having the interface and coding to the interface makes it a ton easier to swap out implementations. This also applies with unit testing. If you are testing some code that uses the interface, you can (in theory) use a mock object instead of a concrete object. This allows your test to be more focused and finer grained.
It is more common from what I have seen to switch out implementations for testing (mocks) then in actual production code. And yes it is wroth it for unit testing.
I like interfaces on things that could be implemented two different ways, either in time or space, i.e. either it could be implemented differently in the future, or there are 2 different code clients in different parts of the code which may want a different implementation.
The original writer of your code might have just been robo coding, or they were being clever and preparing for version resilience, or preping for unit testing. More likely the former because version resilience an uncommon need-- (i.e. where the client is deployed and can't be changed and a component will be deployed that must be compatible with the existing client)
I like interfaces on things that are dependencies worth isolation from some other code I plan to test. If these interfaces weren't created to support unit tests either, then I'm not sure they're such a good idea. Interface have a cost to maintain and when it comes time to make an object swappable with another, you might want to have an interface apply to only a few methods (so more classes can implement the interface), it might be better to use an abstract class (so that default behaviors can be implemented in an inheritance tree).
So pre-need interfaces is probably not a good idea.
If is a part of the Dependency Inversion principle. Basically code depends on the interfaces and not on the implementations.
This allows you to easy swap the implementations in and out without affecting the calling classes. It allows for looser coupling which makes maintenance of the system much easier.
As your system grows and gets more complex, this principle keeps making more and more sense!
I don't think it's reasonable for Every class.
It's a matter of how much reuse you expect from what type of a component. Of course, you have to plan for more reuse (without the need to do major refactoring later) than you are really going to use at the moment, but extracting an abstract interface for every single class in a program would mean you have less classes than needed.
Interfaces define a behaviour. If you implement one or more interfaces then your object behaves like the one or other interfaces describes. This allows loose coupling between classes. It is really useful when you have to replace an implementation by another one. Communication between classes shall always be done using interfaces excepting if the classes are really tightly bound to each other.
There might be, if you want to be sure to be able to inject other implementations in the future. For some (maybe most) cases, this is overkill, but it is as with most habits - if you're used to it, you don't loos very much time doing it. And since you can never be sure what you'll want to replace in the future, extracting an interface on every class does have a point.
There is never only one solution to a problem. Thus, there could always be more than one implementation of the same interface.
It might seem silly, but the potential benefit of doing it this way is that if at some point you realize there's a better way to implement a certain functionality, you can just write a new class that implements the same interface, and change one line to make all of your code use that class: the line where the interface variable is assigned.
Doing it this way (writing a new class that implements the same interface) also means you can always switch back and forth between old and new implementations to compare them.
It may end up that you never take advantage of this convenience and your final product really does just use the original class that was written for each interface. If that's the case, great! But it really didn't take much time to write those interfaces, and had you needed them, they would've saved you a lot of time.
The interfaces are good to have since you can mock the classes when (unit-) testing.
I create interfaces for at least all classes that touches external resources (e.g. database, filesystem, webservice) and then write a mock or use a mocking framework to simulate the behavior.
Why do you need interfaces? Think practically and deeply. Interfaces are not really attached to classes, rather they are attached to services. The goal of interface is what you allow others to do with your code without serving them the code. So it relates to the service and its management.
See ya
Should you always create an interface if there's a possibility that there might be something else that could use it, or wait until there's an actual need for it then refactor to use an interface?
Programming to an interface generally seems like sound advice, but then there's YAGNI...
I guess maybe it depends on the situation. Right now I have an object representing a folder that can contain recipes or other folders. Instead of using Folder directly, should I worry about implementing something like IContainer? In case in the future I want to have a recipe that refers to other sub recipes (say an apple pie recipe that is also a container for a pie crust recipe)
It always depends on the situation. If you KNOW there is going to be another class using the interface, then yes, create the interface class to save time later. However, if you are not sure (and most of the time you aren't) then wait till you need it.
Now that doesn't mean to ignore the possibility of the interface - think about the object's public methods and such with an eye toward making an interface later, but don't clutter your codebase with anything that you don't actually NEED.
Think of an interface as a contract to define semantics, or a concept. That's a general approach and not really language specific. In context of OO, if you are working in a single inheritance model, there is an excellent case to be made for preferring interfaces over classes for defining your object model, since that single super class pathway is fairly precious and you want to save it for something more 'substantial' than defining properties that are exposed on an object, or methods.
To have IContainer semantics (contract) is a fairly poor reason to make an interface out of your folder; better to have your folder (if it is doing any non-trivial logic) 'implement' the (likely already existing) IContainer or ICollection interface in your language's core frameworks.
As always, the better choice is fairly dependent on the specific problem. In case of your recipes that are also folders (?!) you are probably thinking of a parent-child, or composition, relationship -- a semantic that can (and should) be expressed using interfaces if you will have other elements in your system 'operate' on things that are composed using that sort of semantics.
There is a bit of overhead (programming wise) with interfaces, and, if you find yourself when you are done with nothing more than a set of Woof and IWoof classes and interfaces, then you'll know you probably didn't need to express your problem in terms of interfaces -- simple classes would have been sufficient.
As a rule, for any I, you should have at least a couple of concrete classes (with more meaningful names other than IImpl, or ).
Hope that helps.
There will be always a test that use it, right (you do unit tests, don't you?). Which means it's always N + 1 classes that use it, where N is number of classes that use your class in application.
Another purpose of interface besides dependency injection is separation of concern so that your class may actually implement multiple interfaces.
Keep all of that in mind but you can always have interface(s) introduced later via refactoring if not implemented in the beginning.
Generally, you shouldn't bother with creating an interface if only one class is going to implement it, even if you anticipate a possible class for it since there may be implementation issues that won't come up until the class is actually tested in a scenario, in which case a prematurely created interface may have too many memebrs or may be missing a member.
For example, the .NET Framework Bas Class Library team has admitted to prematurely designing ICollection when it included a SyncRoot property. For the later generic ICollection<T> they decided to remove it (http://blogs.msdn.com/bclteam/archive/2005/03/15/396399.aspx).
If you are going to create a mock object implementing the same interface then that would count as a second implementation that justifies creating the inteface. Not all unit tests warrant a mock-style interface, though.
I would say it depends more on how many places you're going to use the class, and less on how many classes might possibly implement the interface. If you're only using Folder in one or two places then I would say wait until there's an actual need for the interface before you implement it and refactor. However, if Folder is going to be used in 100 different places, then you can save some time by programming to an interface up front.
A lot of the people have already outlined very sound advice.
One thing I'd like to add is that if you are looking to avoid direct hard dependencies on concrete classes then interfaces will help by providing loose coupling.
If you are creating a plug-in based architecture then interfaces are definitely the way to go. Also, if you are planning to write unit tests either side by side or later down the line, you will probably notice that code which calls into your folder class(es) will have to carry around a concrete implementation for the calling code to be testable.
If your concrete implementation of the folder class(es) is in turn talking to a DB or a service then you will need to have that carried over into your tests as well which will get unwieldy very quickly.
Just my 2 cents.