Related
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).
What's the advantage of using getters and setters - that only get and set - instead of simply using public fields for those variables?
If getters and setters are ever doing more than just the simple get/set, I can figure this one out very quickly, but I'm not 100% clear on how:
public String foo;
is any worse than:
private String foo;
public void setFoo(String foo) { this.foo = foo; }
public String getFoo() { return foo; }
Whereas the former takes a lot less boilerplate code.
There are actually many good reasons to consider using accessors rather than directly exposing fields of a class - beyond just the argument of encapsulation and making future changes easier.
Here are the some of the reasons I am aware of:
Encapsulation of behavior associated with getting or setting the property - this allows additional functionality (like validation) to be added more easily later.
Hiding the internal representation of the property while exposing a property using an alternative representation.
Insulating your public interface from change - allowing the public interface to remain constant while the implementation changes without affecting existing consumers.
Controlling the lifetime and memory management (disposal) semantics of the property - particularly important in non-managed memory environments (like C++ or Objective-C).
Providing a debugging interception point for when a property changes at runtime - debugging when and where a property changed to a particular value can be quite difficult without this in some languages.
Improved interoperability with libraries that are designed to operate against property getter/setters - Mocking, Serialization, and WPF come to mind.
Allowing inheritors to change the semantics of how the property behaves and is exposed by overriding the getter/setter methods.
Allowing the getter/setter to be passed around as lambda expressions rather than values.
Getters and setters can allow different access levels - for example the get may be public, but the set could be protected.
Because 2 weeks (months, years) from now when you realize that your setter needs to do more than just set the value, you'll also realize that the property has been used directly in 238 other classes :-)
A public field is not worse than a getter/setter pair that does nothing except returning the field and assigning to it. First, it's clear that (in most languages) there is no functional difference. Any difference must be in other factors, like maintainability or readability.
An oft-mentioned advantage of getter/setter pairs, isn't. There's this claim that you can change the implementation and your clients don't have to be recompiled. Supposedly, setters let you add functionality like validation later on and your clients don't even need to know about it. However, adding validation to a setter is a change to its preconditions, a violation of the previous contract, which was, quite simply, "you can put anything in here, and you can get that same thing later from the getter".
So, now that you broke the contract, changing every file in the codebase is something you should want to do, not avoid. If you avoid it you're making the assumption that all the code assumed the contract for those methods was different.
If that should not have been the contract, then the interface was allowing clients to put the object in invalid states. That's the exact opposite of encapsulation If that field could not really be set to anything from the start, why wasn't the validation there from the start?
This same argument applies to other supposed advantages of these pass-through getter/setter pairs: if you later decide to change the value being set, you're breaking the contract. If you override the default functionality in a derived class, in a way beyond a few harmless modifications (like logging or other non-observable behaviour), you're breaking the contract of the base class. That is a violation of the Liskov Substitutability Principle, which is seen as one of the tenets of OO.
If a class has these dumb getters and setters for every field, then it is a class that has no invariants whatsoever, no contract. Is that really object-oriented design? If all the class has is those getters and setters, it's just a dumb data holder, and dumb data holders should look like dumb data holders:
class Foo {
public:
int DaysLeft;
int ContestantNumber;
};
Adding pass-through getter/setter pairs to such a class adds no value. Other classes should provide meaningful operations, not just operations that fields already provide. That's how you can define and maintain useful invariants.
Client: "What can I do with an object of this class?"
Designer: "You can read and write several variables."
Client: "Oh... cool, I guess?"
There are reasons to use getters and setters, but if those reasons don't exist, making getter/setter pairs in the name of false encapsulation gods is not a good thing. Valid reasons to make getters or setters include the things often mentioned as the potential changes you can make later, like validation or different internal representations. Or maybe the value should be readable by clients but not writable (for example, reading the size of a dictionary), so a simple getter is a nice choice. But those reasons should be there when you make the choice, and not just as a potential thing you may want later. This is an instance of YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It).
Lots of people talk about the advantages of getters and setters but I want to play devil's advocate. Right now I'm debugging a very large program where the programmers decided to make everything getters and setters. That might seem nice, but its a reverse-engineering nightmare.
Say you're looking through hundreds of lines of code and you come across this:
person.name = "Joe";
It's a beautifully simply piece of code until you realize its a setter. Now, you follow that setter and find that it also sets person.firstName, person.lastName, person.isHuman, person.hasReallyCommonFirstName, and calls person.update(), which sends a query out to the database, etc. Oh, that's where your memory leak was occurring.
Understanding a local piece of code at first glance is an important property of good readability that getters and setters tend to break. That is why I try to avoid them when I can, and minimize what they do when I use them.
In a pure object-oriented world getters and setters is a terrible anti-pattern. Read this article: Getters/Setters. Evil. Period. In a nutshell, they encourage programmers to think about objects as of data structures, and this type of thinking is pure procedural (like in COBOL or C). In an object-oriented language there are no data structures, but only objects that expose behavior (not attributes/properties!)
You may find more about them in Section 3.5 of Elegant Objects (my book about object-oriented programming).
There are many reasons. My favorite one is when you need to change the behavior or regulate what you can set on a variable. For instance, lets say you had a setSpeed(int speed) method. But you want that you can only set a maximum speed of 100. You would do something like:
public void setSpeed(int speed) {
if ( speed > 100 ) {
this.speed = 100;
} else {
this.speed = speed;
}
}
Now what if EVERYWHERE in your code you were using the public field and then you realized you need the above requirement? Have fun hunting down every usage of the public field instead of just modifying your setter.
My 2 cents :)
One advantage of accessors and mutators is that you can perform validation.
For example, if foo was public, I could easily set it to null and then someone else could try to call a method on the object. But it's not there anymore! With a setFoo method, I could ensure that foo was never set to null.
Accessors and mutators also allow for encapsulation - if you aren't supposed to see the value once its set (perhaps it's set in the constructor and then used by methods, but never supposed to be changed), it will never been seen by anyone. But if you can allow other classes to see or change it, you can provide the proper accessor and/or mutator.
Thanks, that really clarified my thinking. Now here is (almost) 10 (almost) good reasons NOT to use getters and setters:
When you realize you need to do more than just set and get the value, you can just make the field private, which will instantly tell you where you've directly accessed it.
Any validation you perform in there can only be context free, which validation rarely is in practice.
You can change the value being set - this is an absolute nightmare when the caller passes you a value that they [shock horror] want you to store AS IS.
You can hide the internal representation - fantastic, so you're making sure that all these operations are symmetrical right?
You've insulated your public interface from changes under the sheets - if you were designing an interface and weren't sure whether direct access to something was OK, then you should have kept designing.
Some libraries expect this, but not many - reflection, serialization, mock objects all work just fine with public fields.
Inheriting this class, you can override default functionality - in other words you can REALLY confuse callers by not only hiding the implementation but making it inconsistent.
The last three I'm just leaving (N/A or D/C)...
Depends on your language. You've tagged this "object-oriented" rather than "Java", so I'd like to point out that ChssPly76's answer is language-dependent. In Python, for instance, there is no reason to use getters and setters. If you need to change the behavior, you can use a property, which wraps a getter and setter around basic attribute access. Something like this:
class Simple(object):
def _get_value(self):
return self._value -1
def _set_value(self, new_value):
self._value = new_value + 1
def _del_value(self):
self.old_values.append(self._value)
del self._value
value = property(_get_value, _set_value, _del_value)
Well i just want to add that even if sometimes they are necessary for the encapsulation and security of your variables/objects, if we want to code a real Object Oriented Program, then we need to STOP OVERUSING THE ACCESSORS, cause sometimes we depend a lot on them when is not really necessary and that makes almost the same as if we put the variables public.
EDIT: I answered this question because there are a bunch of people learning programming asking this, and most of the answers are very technically competent, but they're not as easy to understand if you're a newbie. We were all newbies, so I thought I'd try my hand at a more newbie friendly answer.
The two main ones are polymorphism, and validation. Even if it's just a stupid data structure.
Let's say we have this simple class:
public class Bottle {
public int amountOfWaterMl;
public int capacityMl;
}
A very simple class that holds how much liquid is in it, and what its capacity is (in milliliters).
What happens when I do:
Bottle bot = new Bottle();
bot.amountOfWaterMl = 1500;
bot.capacityMl = 1000;
Well, you wouldn't expect that to work, right?
You want there to be some kind of sanity check. And worse, what if I never specified the maximum capacity? Oh dear, we have a problem.
But there's another problem too. What if bottles were just one type of container? What if we had several containers, all with capacities and amounts of liquid filled? If we could just make an interface, we could let the rest of our program accept that interface, and bottles, jerrycans and all sorts of stuff would just work interchangably. Wouldn't that be better? Since interfaces demand methods, this is also a good thing.
We'd end up with something like:
public interface LiquidContainer {
public int getAmountMl();
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl);
public int getCapacityMl();
}
Great! And now we just change Bottle to this:
public class Bottle implements LiquidContainer {
private int capacityMl;
private int amountFilledMl;
public Bottle(int capacityMl, int amountFilledMl) {
this.capacityMl = capacityMl;
this.amountFilledMl = amountFilledMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getAmountMl() {
return amountFilledMl;
}
public void setAmountMl(int amountMl) {
this.amountFilled = amountMl;
checkNotOverFlow();
}
public int getCapacityMl() {
return capacityMl;
}
private void checkNotOverFlow() {
if(amountOfWaterMl > capacityMl) {
throw new BottleOverflowException();
}
}
I'll leave the definition of the BottleOverflowException as an exercise to the reader.
Now notice how much more robust this is. We can deal with any type of container in our code now by accepting LiquidContainer instead of Bottle. And how these bottles deal with this sort of stuff can all differ. You can have bottles that write their state to disk when it changes, or bottles that save on SQL databases or GNU knows what else.
And all these can have different ways to handle various whoopsies. The Bottle just checks and if it's overflowing it throws a RuntimeException. But that might be the wrong thing to do.
(There is a useful discussion to be had about error handling, but I'm keeping it very simple here on purpose. People in comments will likely point out the flaws of this simplistic approach. ;) )
And yes, it seems like we go from a very simple idea to getting much better answers quickly.
Please note also that you can't change the capacity of a bottle. It's now set in stone. You could do this with an int by declaring it final. But if this was a list, you could empty it, add new things to it, and so on. You can't limit the access to touching the innards.
There's also the third thing that not everyone has addressed: getters and setters use method calls. That means that they look like normal methods everywhere else does. Instead of having weird specific syntax for DTOs and stuff, you have the same thing everywhere.
I know it's a bit late, but I think there are some people who are interested in performance.
I've done a little performance test. I wrote a class "NumberHolder" which, well, holds an Integer. You can either read that Integer by using the getter method
anInstance.getNumber() or by directly accessing the number by using anInstance.number. My programm reads the number 1,000,000,000 times, via both ways. That process is repeated five times and the time is printed. I've got the following result:
Time 1: 953ms, Time 2: 741ms
Time 1: 655ms, Time 2: 743ms
Time 1: 656ms, Time 2: 634ms
Time 1: 637ms, Time 2: 629ms
Time 1: 633ms, Time 2: 625ms
(Time 1 is the direct way, Time 2 is the getter)
You see, the getter is (almost) always a bit faster. Then I tried with different numbers of cycles. Instead of 1 million, I used 10 million and 0.1 million.
The results:
10 million cycles:
Time 1: 6382ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6363ms, Time 2: 6351ms
Time 1: 6350ms, Time 2: 6363ms
Time 1: 6353ms, Time 2: 6357ms
Time 1: 6348ms, Time 2: 6354ms
With 10 million cycles, the times are almost the same.
Here are 100 thousand (0.1 million) cycles:
Time 1: 77ms, Time 2: 73ms
Time 1: 94ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 67ms, Time 2: 63ms
Time 1: 65ms, Time 2: 65ms
Time 1: 66ms, Time 2: 63ms
Also with different amounts of cycles, the getter is a little bit faster than the regular way. I hope this helped you.
Don't use getters setters unless needed for your current delivery I.e. Don't think too much about what would happen in the future, if any thing to be changed its a change request in most of the production applications, systems.
Think simple, easy, add complexity when needed.
I would not take advantage of ignorance of business owners of deep technical know how just because I think it's correct or I like the approach.
I have massive system written without getters setters only with access modifiers and some methods to validate n perform biz logic. If you absolutely needed the. Use anything.
We use getters and setters:
for reusability
to perform validation in later stages of programming
Getter and setter methods are public interfaces to access private class members.
Encapsulation mantra
The encapsulation mantra is to make fields private and methods public.
Getter Methods: We can get access to private variables.
Setter Methods: We can modify private fields.
Even though the getter and setter methods do not add new functionality, we can change our mind come back later to make that method
better;
safer; and
faster.
Anywhere a value can be used, a method that returns that value can be added. Instead of:
int x = 1000 - 500
use
int x = 1000 - class_name.getValue();
In layman's terms
Suppose we need to store the details of this Person. This Person has the fields name, age and sex. Doing this involves creating methods for name, age and sex. Now if we need create another person, it becomes necessary to create the methods for name, age, sex all over again.
Instead of doing this, we can create a bean class(Person) with getter and setter methods. So tomorrow we can just create objects of this Bean class(Person class) whenever we need to add a new person (see the figure). Thus we are reusing the fields and methods of bean class, which is much better.
I spent quite a while thinking this over for the Java case, and I believe the real reasons are:
Code to the interface, not the implementation
Interfaces only specify methods, not fields
In other words, the only way you can specify a field in an interface is by providing a method for writing a new value and a method for reading the current value.
Those methods are the infamous getter and setter....
It can be useful for lazy-loading. Say the object in question is stored in a database, and you don't want to go get it unless you need it. If the object is retrieved by a getter, then the internal object can be null until somebody asks for it, then you can go get it on the first call to the getter.
I had a base page class in a project that was handed to me that was loading some data from a couple different web service calls, but the data in those web service calls wasn't always used in all child pages. Web services, for all of the benefits, pioneer new definitions of "slow", so you don't want to make a web service call if you don't have to.
I moved from public fields to getters, and now the getters check the cache, and if it's not there call the web service. So with a little wrapping, a lot of web service calls were prevented.
So the getter saves me from trying to figure out, on each child page, what I will need. If I need it, I call the getter, and it goes to find it for me if I don't already have it.
protected YourType _yourName = null;
public YourType YourName{
get
{
if (_yourName == null)
{
_yourName = new YourType();
return _yourName;
}
}
}
One aspect I missed in the answers so far, the access specification:
for members you have only one access specification for both setting and getting
for setters and getters you can fine tune it and define it separately
In languages which don't support "properties" (C++, Java) or require recompilation of clients when changing fields to properties (C#), using get/set methods is easier to modify. For example, adding validation logic to a setFoo method will not require changing the public interface of a class.
In languages which support "real" properties (Python, Ruby, maybe Smalltalk?) there is no point to get/set methods.
One of the basic principals of OO design: Encapsulation!
It gives you many benefits, one of which being that you can change the implementation of the getter/setter behind the scenes but any consumer of that value will continue to work as long as the data type remains the same.
You should use getters and setters when:
You're dealing with something that is conceptually an attribute, but:
Your language doesn't have properties (or some similar mechanism, like Tcl's variable traces), or
Your language's property support isn't sufficient for this use case, or
Your language's (or sometimes your framework's) idiomatic conventions encourage getters or setters for this use case.
So this is very rarely a general OO question; it's a language-specific question, with different answers for different languages (and different use cases).
From an OO theory point of view, getters and setters are useless. The interface of your class is what it does, not what its state is. (If not, you've written the wrong class.) In very simple cases, where what a class does is just, e.g., represent a point in rectangular coordinates,* the attributes are part of the interface; getters and setters just cloud that. But in anything but very simple cases, neither the attributes nor getters and setters are part of the interface.
Put another way: If you believe that consumers of your class shouldn't even know that you have a spam attribute, much less be able to change it willy-nilly, then giving them a set_spam method is the last thing you want to do.
* Even for that simple class, you may not necessarily want to allow setting the x and y values. If this is really a class, shouldn't it have methods like translate, rotate, etc.? If it's only a class because your language doesn't have records/structs/named tuples, then this isn't really a question of OO…
But nobody is ever doing general OO design. They're doing design, and implementation, in a specific language. And in some languages, getters and setters are far from useless.
If your language doesn't have properties, then the only way to represent something that's conceptually an attribute, but is actually computed, or validated, etc., is through getters and setters.
Even if your language does have properties, there may be cases where they're insufficient or inappropriate. For example, if you want to allow subclasses to control the semantics of an attribute, in languages without dynamic access, a subclass can't substitute a computed property for an attribute.
As for the "what if I want to change my implementation later?" question (which is repeated multiple times in different wording in both the OP's question and the accepted answer): If it really is a pure implementation change, and you started with an attribute, you can change it to a property without affecting the interface. Unless, of course, your language doesn't support that. So this is really just the same case again.
Also, it's important to follow the idioms of the language (or framework) you're using. If you write beautiful Ruby-style code in C#, any experienced C# developer other than you is going to have trouble reading it, and that's bad. Some languages have stronger cultures around their conventions than others.—and it may not be a coincidence that Java and Python, which are on opposite ends of the spectrum for how idiomatic getters are, happen to have two of the strongest cultures.
Beyond human readers, there will be libraries and tools that expect you to follow the conventions, and make your life harder if you don't. Hooking Interface Builder widgets to anything but ObjC properties, or using certain Java mocking libraries without getters, is just making your life more difficult. If the tools are important to you, don't fight them.
From a object orientation design standpoint both alternatives can be damaging to the maintenance of the code by weakening the encapsulation of the classes. For a discussion you can look into this excellent article: http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23
Code evolves. private is great for when you need data member protection. Eventually all classes should be sort of "miniprograms" that have a well-defined interface that you can't just screw with the internals of.
That said, software development isn't about setting down that final version of the class as if you're pressing some cast iron statue on the first try. While you're working with it, code is more like clay. It evolves as you develop it and learn more about the problem domain you are solving. During development classes may interact with each other than they should (dependency you plan to factor out), merge together, or split apart. So I think the debate boils down to people not wanting to religiously write
int getVar() const { return var ; }
So you have:
doSomething( obj->getVar() ) ;
Instead of
doSomething( obj->var ) ;
Not only is getVar() visually noisy, it gives this illusion that gettingVar() is somehow a more complex process than it really is. How you (as the class writer) regard the sanctity of var is particularly confusing to a user of your class if it has a passthru setter -- then it looks like you're putting up these gates to "protect" something you insist is valuable, (the sanctity of var) but yet even you concede var's protection isn't worth much by the ability for anyone to just come in and set var to whatever value they want, without you even peeking at what they are doing.
So I program as follows (assuming an "agile" type approach -- ie when I write code not knowing exactly what it will be doing/don't have time or experience to plan an elaborate waterfall style interface set):
1) Start with all public members for basic objects with data and behavior. This is why in all my C++ "example" code you'll notice me using struct instead of class everywhere.
2) When an object's internal behavior for a data member becomes complex enough, (for example, it likes to keep an internal std::list in some kind of order), accessor type functions are written. Because I'm programming by myself, I don't always set the member private right away, but somewhere down the evolution of the class the member will be "promoted" to either protected or private.
3) Classes that are fully fleshed out and have strict rules about their internals (ie they know exactly what they are doing, and you are not to "fuck" (technical term) with its internals) are given the class designation, default private members, and only a select few members are allowed to be public.
I find this approach allows me to avoid sitting there and religiously writing getter/setters when a lot of data members get migrated out, shifted around, etc. during the early stages of a class's evolution.
There is a good reason to consider using accessors is there is no property inheritance. See next example:
public class TestPropertyOverride {
public static class A {
public int i = 0;
public void add() {
i++;
}
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static class B extends A {
public int i = 2;
#Override
public void add() {
i = i + 2;
}
#Override
public int getI() {
return i;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
System.out.println(a.i);
a.add();
System.out.println(a.i);
System.out.println(a.getI());
}
}
Output:
0
0
4
Getters and setters are used to implement two of the fundamental aspects of Object Oriented Programming which are:
Abstraction
Encapsulation
Suppose we have an Employee class:
package com.highmark.productConfig.types;
public class Employee {
private String firstName;
private String middleName;
private String lastName;
public String getFirstName() {
return firstName;
}
public void setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
}
public String getMiddleName() {
return middleName;
}
public void setMiddleName(String middleName) {
this.middleName = middleName;
}
public String getLastName() {
return lastName;
}
public void setLastName(String lastName) {
this.lastName = lastName;
}
public String getFullName(){
return this.getFirstName() + this.getMiddleName() + this.getLastName();
}
}
Here the implementation details of Full Name is hidden from the user and is not accessible directly to the user, unlike a public attribute.
There is a difference between DataStructure and Object.
Datastructure should expose its innards and not behavior.
An Object should not expose its innards but it should expose its behavior, which is also known as the Law of Demeter
Mostly DTOs are considered more of a datastructure and not Object. They should only expose their data and not behavior. Having Setter/Getter in DataStructure will expose behavior instead of data inside it. This further increases the chance of violation of Law of Demeter.
Uncle Bob in his book Clean code explained the Law of Demeter.
There is a well-known heuristic called the Law of Demeter that says a
module should not know about the innards of the objects it
manipulates. As we saw in the last section, objects hide their data
and expose operations. This means that an object should not expose its
internal structure through accessors because to do so is to expose,
rather than to hide, its internal structure.
More precisely, the Law of Demeter says that a method f of a class C
should only call the methods of these:
C
An object created by f
An object passed as an argument to f
An object held in an instance variable of C
The method should not invoke methods on objects that are returned by any of the allowed functions.
In other words, talk to friends, not to strangers.
So according this, example of LoD violation is:
final String outputDir = ctxt.getOptions().getScratchDir().getAbsolutePath();
Here, the function should call the method of its immediate friend which is ctxt here, It should not call the method of its immediate friend's friend. but this rule doesn't apply to data structure. so here if ctxt, option, scratchDir are datastructure then why to wrap their internal data with some behavior and doing a violation of LoD.
Instead, we can do something like this.
final String outputDir = ctxt.options.scratchDir.absolutePath;
This fulfills our needs and doesn't even violate LoD.
Inspired by Clean Code by Robert C. Martin(Uncle Bob)
If you don't require any validations and not even need to maintain state i.e. one property depends on another so we need to maintain the state when one is change. You can keep it simple by making field public and not using getter and setters.
I think OOPs complicates things as the program grows it becomes nightmare for developer to scale.
A simple example; we generate c++ headers from xml. The header contains simple field which does not require any validations. But still as in OOPS accessor are fashion we generates them as following.
const Filed& getfield() const
Field& getField()
void setfield(const Field& field){...}
which is very verbose and is not required. a simple
struct
{
Field field;
};
is enough and readable.
Functional programming don't have the concept of data hiding they even don't require it as they do not mutate the data.
Additionally, this is to "future-proof" your class. In particular, changing from a field to a property is an ABI break, so if you do later decide that you need more logic than just "set/get the field", then you need to break ABI, which of course creates problems for anything else already compiled against your class.
One other use (in languages that support properties) is that setters and getters can imply that an operation is non-trivial. Typically, you want to avoid doing anything that's computationally expensive in a property.
One relatively modern advantage of getters/setters is that is makes it easier to browse code in tagged (indexed) code editors. E.g. If you want to see who sets a member, you can open the call hierarchy of the setter.
On the other hand, if the member is public, the tools don't make it possible to filter read/write access to the member. So you have to trudge though all uses of the member.
Getters and setters coming from data hiding. Data Hiding means We
are hiding data from outsiders or outside person/thing cannot access
our data.This is a useful feature in OOP.
As a example:
If you create a public variable, you can access that variable and change value in anywhere(any class). But if you create as private that variable cannot see/access in any class except declared class.
public and private are access modifiers.
So how can we access that variable outside:
This is the place getters and setters coming from. You can declare variable as private then you can implement getter and setter for that variable.
Example(Java):
private String name;
public String getName(){
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name= name;
}
Advantage:
When anyone want to access or change/set value to balance variable, he/she must have permision.
//assume we have person1 object
//to give permission to check balance
person1.getName()
//to give permission to set balance
person1.setName()
You can set value in constructor also but when later on when you want
to update/change value, you have to implement setter method.
I'm doing code review and came across a class that uses all static methods. The entrance method takes several arguments and then starts calling the other static methods passing along all or some of the arguments the entrance method received.
It isn't like a Math class with largely unrelated utility functions. In my own normal programming, I rarely write methods where Resharper pops and says "this could be a static method", when I do, they tend to be mindless utility methods.
Is there anything wrong with this pattern? Is this just a matter of personal choice if the state of a class is held in fields and properties or passed around amongst static methods using arguments?
UPDATE: the particular state that is being passed around is the result set from the database. The class's responsibility is to populate an excel spreadsheet template from a result set from the DB. I don't know if this makes any difference.
Is there anything wrong with this
pattern? Is this just a matter of
personal choice if the state of a
class is held in fields and properties
or passed around amongst static
methods using arguments?
Speaking from my own personal experience, I've worked on 100 KLOC applications which have very very deep object hiearchies, everything inherits and overrides everything else, everything implements half a dozen interfaces, even the interfaces inherit half a dozen interfaces, the system implements every design pattern in the book, etc.
End result: a truly OOP-tastic architecture with so many levels of indirection that it takes hours to debug anything. I recently started a job with a system like this, where the learning curve was described to me as "a brick wall, followed by a mountain".
Sometimes overzealous OOP results in classes so granular that it actually a net harm.
By contrast, many functional programming languages, even the OO ones like F# and OCaml (and C#!), encourage flat and shallow hiearchy. Libraries in these languages tend to have the following properties:
Most objects are POCOs, or have at most one or two levels of inheritance, where the objects aren't much more than containers for logically related data.
Instead of classes calling into each other, you have modules (equivalent to static classes) controlling the interactions between objects.
Modules tend to act on a very limited number of data types, and so have a narrow scope. For example, the OCaml List module represents operations on lists, a Customer modules facilitates operations on customers. While modules have more or less the same functionality as instance methods on a class, the key difference with module-based libraries is that modules are much more self-contained, much less granular, and tend to have few if any dependencies on other modules.
There's usually no need to subclass objects override methods since you can pass around functions as first-class objects for specialization.
Although C# doesn't support this functionality, functors provide a means to subclass an specialize modules.
Most big libraries tend to be more wide than deep, for example the Win32 API, PHP libraries, Erlang BIFs, OCaml and Haskell libraries, stored procedures in a database, etc. So this style of programming is battle testing and seems to work well in the real world.
In my opinion, the best designed module-based APIs tend to be easier to work with than the best designed OOP APIs. However, coding style is just as important in API design, so if everyone else on your team is using OOP and someone goes off and implements something in a completely different style, then you should probably ask for a rewrite to more closely match your teams coding standards.
What you describe is simply structured programming, as could be done in C, Pascal or Algol. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. There are situations were OOP is more appropriate, but OOP is not the ultimate answer and if the problem at hand is best served by structured programming then a class full of static methods is the way to go.
Does it help to rephrase the question:
Can you describe the data that the static methods operates on as an entity having:
a clear meaning
responsibility for keeping it's internal state consistent.
In that case it should be an instantiated object, otherwise it may just be a bunch of related functions, much like a math library.
Here's a refactor workflow that I frequently encounter that involves static methods. It may lend some insight into your problem.
I'll start with a class that has reasonably good encapsulation. As I start to add features I run into a piece of functionality that doesn't really need access to the private fields in my class but seems to contain related functionality. After this happens a few times (sometimes just once) I start to see the outlines of a new class in the static methods I've implemented and how that new class relates to the old class in which I first implemented the static methods.
The benefit that I see of turning these static methods into one or more classes is, when you do this, it frequently becomes easier to understand and maintain your software.
I feel that if the class is required to maintain some form of state (e.g. properties) then it should be instantiated (i.e. a "normal" class.)
If there should only be one instance of this class (hence all the static methods) then there should be a singleton property/method or a factory method that creates an instance of the class the first time it's called, and then just provides that instance when anyone else asks for it.
Having said that, this is just my personal opinion and the way I'd implement it. I'm sure others would disagree with me. Without knowing anything more it's hard to give reasons for/against each method, to be honest.
The biggest problem IMO is that if you want to unit test classes that are calling the class you mention, there is no way to replace that dependency. So you are forced to test both the client class, and the staticly called class at once.
If we are talking about a class with utility methods like Math.floor() this is not really a problem. But if the class is a real dependency, for instance a data access object, then it ties all its clients in to its implementation.
EDIT: I don't agree with the people saying there is 'nothing wrong' with this type of 'structured programming'. I would say a class like this is at least a code smell when encountered within a normal Java project, and probably indicates misunderstanding of object-oriented design on the part of the creator.
There is nothing wrong with this pattern. C# in fact has a construct called static classes which is used to support this notion by enforcing the requirement that all methods be static. Additionally there are many classes in the framework which have this feature: Enumerable, Math, etc ...
Nothing is wrong with it. It is a more "functional" way to code. It can be easier to test (because no internal state) and better performance at runtime (because no overhead to instance an otherwise useless object).
But you immediately lose some OO capabilities
Static methods don't respond well (at all) to inheritance.
A static class cannot participate in many design patterns such as factory/ service locator.
No, many people tend to create completely static classes for utility functions that they wish to group under a related namespace. There are many valid reasons for having completely static classes.
One thing to consider in C# is that many classes previously written completely static are now eligible to be considered as .net extension classes which are also at their heart still static classes. A lot of the Linq extensions are based on this.
An example:
namespace Utils {
public static class IntUtils {
public static bool IsLessThanZero(this int source)
{
return (source < 0);
}
}
}
Which then allows you to simply do the following:
var intTest = 0;
var blNegative = intTest.IsLessThanZero();
One of the disadvantages of using a static class is that its clients cannot replace it by a test double in order to be unit tested.
In the same way, it's harder to unit test a static class because its collaborators cannot be replaced by test doubles (actually,this happens with all the classes that are not dependency-injected).
It depends on whether the passed arguments can really be classified as state.
Having static methods calling each other is OK in case it's all utility functionality split up in multiple methods to avoid duplication. For example:
public static File loadConfiguration(String name, Enum type) {
String fileName = (form file name based on name and type);
return loadFile(fileName); // static method in the same class
}
Well, personnally, I tend to think that a method modifying the state of an object should be an instance method of that object's class. In fact, i consider it a rule a thumb : a method modifying an object is an instance method of that object's class.
There however are a few exceptions :
methods that process strings (like uppercasing their first letters, or that kind of feature)
method that are stateless and simply assemble some things to produce a new one, without any internal state. They obviously are rare, but it is generally useful to make them static.
In fact, I consider the static keyword as what it is : an option that should be used with care since it breaks some of OOP principles.
Passing all state as method parameters can be a useful design pattern. It ensures that there is no shared mutable state, and so the class is intrinsicly thread-safe. Services are commonly implemented using this pattern.
However, passing all state via method parameters doesn't mean the methods have to be static - you can still use the same pattern with non-static methods. The advantages of making the methods static is that calling code can just use the class by referencing it by name. There's no need for injection, or lookup or any other middleman. The disadvantage is maintanability - static methods are not dynamic dispatch, and cannot be easily subclassed, nor refactored to an interface. I recommend using static methods when there is intrinsicly only one possible implementation of the class, and when there is a strong reason not to use non-static methods.
"state of a class is ...passed around amongst static methods using arguments?"
This is how procedual programming works.
A class with all static methods, and no instance variables (except static final constants) is normally a utility class, eg Math.
There is nothing wrong with making a unility class, (not in an of itself)
BTW: If making a utility class, you chould prevent the class aver being used to crteate an object. in java you would do this by explictily defining the constructor, but making the constructor private.
While as i said there is nothing wrong with creating a utility class,
If the bulk of the work is being done by a utiulity class (wich esc. isn't a class in the usual sense - it's more of a collection of functions)
then this is prob as sign the problem hasn't been solved using the object orientated paradim.
this may or maynot be a good thing
The entrance method takes several arguments and then starts calling the other static methods passing along all or some of the arguments the entrance method received.
from the sound of this, the whole class is just effectivly one method (this would definatly be the case is al lthe other static methods are private (and are just helper functions), and there are no instance variables (baring constants))
This may be and Ok thing,
It's esc. structured/procedual progamming, rather neat having them (the function and it's helper)all bundled in one class. (in C you'ld just put them all in one file, and declare the helper's static (meaning can't be accesses from out side this file))
if there's no need of creating an object of a class, then there's no issue in creating all method as static of that class, but i wanna know what you are doing with a class fullof static methods.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by entrance method but if you're talking about something like this:
MyMethod myMethod = new MyMethod();
myMethod.doSomething(1);
public class MyMethod {
public String doSomething(int a) {
String p1 = MyMethod.functionA(a);
String p2 = MyMethod.functionB(p1);
return p1 + P2;
}
public static String functionA(...) {...}
public static String functionB(...) {...}
}
That's not advisable.
I think using all static methods/singletons a good way to code your business logic when you don't have to persist anything in the class. I tend to use it over singletons but that's simply a preference.
MyClass.myStaticMethod(....);
as opposed to:
MyClass.getInstance().mySingletonMethod(...);
All static methods/singletons tend to use less memory as well but depending on how many users you have you may not even notice it.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Should C# methods that can be static be static?
We were discussing this today and I'm kind of on the fence. Imagine you have a long method that you refactor a few lines out of. The new method probably takes a few local variables from the parent method and returns a value. This means it could be static.
The question is: should it be static? It's not static by design or choice, simply by its nature in that it doesn't reference any instance values.
It depends.
There are really 2 types of static methods:
Methods that are static because they CAN be
Methods that are static because they HAVE to be
In a small to medium size code base you can really treat the two methods interchangeably.
If you have a method that is in the first category (can-be-static), and you need to change it to access class state, it's relatively straight forward to figure out if it's possible to turn the static method into a instance method.
In a large code base, however, the sheer number of call sites might make searching to see if it's possible to convert a static method to a non static one too costly. Many times people will see the number of calls, and say "ok... I better not change this method, but instead create a new one that does what I need".
That can result in either:
A lot of code duplication
An explosion in the number of method arguments
Both of those things are bad.
So, my advice would be that if you have a code base over 200K LOC, that I would only make methods static if they are must-be-static methods.
The refactoring from non-static to static is relatively easy (just add a keyword), so if you want to make a can-be-static into an actual static later (when you need it's functionality outside of an instance) then you can. However, the inverse refactoring, turning a can-be-static into a instance method is MUCH more expensive.
With large code bases it's better to error on the side of ease of extension, rather than on the side of idealogical purity.
So, for big projects don't make things static unless you need them to be. For small projects, just do what ever you like best.
I would not make it a public static member of that class. The reason is that making it public static is saying something about the class' type: not only that "this type knows how to do this behavior", but also "it is the responsibility of this type to perform this behavior." And odds are the behavior no longer has any real relationship with the larger type.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't make it static at all, though. Ask yourself this: could the new method logically belong elsewhere? If you can answer "yes" to that, you probably do want to make it static (and move it as well). Even if that's not true, you could still make it static. Just don't mark it public.
As a matter of convenience, you could at least mark it internal. This typically avoids needing to move the method if you don't have easy access to a more appropriate type, but still leaves it accessible where needed in a way that it won't show up as part of the public interface to users of your class.
Not necessarily.
Moving public methods from static to non-static is a breaking change, and would require changes to all of your callers or consumers. If a method seems like an instance method, but happens to not use any instance members, I would suggest making it an instance method as a measure of future-proofing.
Yes. The reason "it can be static" is that it does not operate on the state of the object upon which it is called. Therefore it is not an instance method, but a class method. If it can do what it needs to do without ever accessing the data for the instance, then it should be static.
Yes, it should. There are various metrics of coupling that measure how your class depends on other things, like other classes, methods, etc. Making methods static is a way to keep the degree of coupling down, since you can be sure a static method does not reference any members.
I think it would make it a bit more readable if you marked it as static...Then someone who comes along would know that it doesn't reference any instance variables without having to read the entire function...
Personally, I'm a great fan of statelessness. Does your method need access to the state of the class? If the answer is no (and it is probably no, otherwise you wouldn't consider making it a static method), then yeah, go for it.
No access to state is less headache. Just as it is a good idea to hide private members that are not needed by other classes, it is a good idea to hide the state from members that don't need it. Reduced access can mean less bugs. Also, it makes threading easier as it is much easier to keep static members thread-safe. There is also a performance consideration as the runtime does not need to pass a reference to this as a parameter for static methods.
Of course the downside is that if you ever find that your previously static method will have to access the state for some reason, then you have to change it. Now I understand that this can be a problem for public APIs so if this is a public method in a public class, then perhaps you should think about the implications of this a bit. Still, I've never faced a situtation in the real world where this actually caused a problem, but maybe I'm just lucky.
So yeah, go for it, by all means.
Static methods are faster than the non-static ones so yes, they should be static if they can and there is no special reason for leaving them nonstatic.
I am surprised that so few are mentioning encapsulation here in fact. An instance method will automatically have access to all private (instance) fields, properties and methods. In addition to all protected ones inherited from base classes.
When you write code you should write it so that you expose as little as possible and also so that you have access to as little as possible.
So yes, it might be important to make your code fast which would happen if you're making your methods static, but usually more important then that is to make your code as incapable of creating bugs as possible too. One way to achieve that is to have your code have access to as little as possible of "private stuff".
This might seem irrelevant at first glance since the OP is obviously talking about refactoring which can not go wrong in this scenario and create any new bugs, however this refactored code must be maintained in the future and modified which makes your code have a bigger "attack surface" in regards to new bugs if it has access to private instance members. So in general I think the conclusion here is that "yes mostly your methods should be static" unless there are any other reasons for not having them static. And this simply because it's "better use of encapsulation and data hiding and creates 'safer' code"...
Making something static just because you can is not a good idea. Static methods should be static due to their design, not due to happenstance.
Like Michael said, changing this later will break code that's using it.
With that said, it sounds like you are creating a private utility function for the class that is, in fact, static by design.
If you were able to refactor a few lines out and the resulting method could be static, it is probably an indication that the lines you pulled out of that method don't belong in the containing class at all, and you should consider moving them into their own class.
It depends but generally I do not make those methods static. Code is always changing and perhaps someday I will want to make that function virtual and override it in a subclass. Or perhaps some day it will need to reference instance variables. It will be harder to make those changes if every call site has to be changed.
Personally I would have no choice but to make it static. Resharper issues a warning in this case and our PM has a rule "No warnings from the Resharper".
Inherently static methods that are for some reason made non-static are simply annoying. To wit:
I call my bank and ask for my balance.
They ask for my account number. Fair enough. Instance method.
I call my bank and ask for their mailing address.
They ask for my account number. WTF? Fail—should have been static method.
I suggest that the best way to think about it is this: If you need a class method that needs to be called when no instances of the class are instantioated, or maintains some kind of global state, then static is a good idea. But in general, I suggest you should prefer making members non-static.
You should think about your methods and classes:
How are you going to use them?
Do you need a lot of acces to them from different levels of your code?
Is this a method/class I can use in almost every thinkable project.
If the last two are 'yes', then your method/class should probably be static.
The most used example is probably the Math class. Every major OO language has it and all the methods are static. Because you need to be able to use them anywhere, anytime, without making an instance.
Another good example is the Reverse() method in C#.This is a static method in the Array class. It reverses the order of your array.
Code:
public static void Reverse(Array array)
It doesn't even return anything, your array is reversed, because all arrays are instances of the Array class.
As long as you make the new method private static it is not a breaking change. In fact, FxCop includes this guidance as one of its rules (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms245046(VS.80).aspx), with the following information:
After you mark the methods as static, the compiler will emit non-virtual call sites to these members. Emitting non-virtual call sites will prevent a check at runtime for each call that ensures that the current object pointer is non-null. This can result in a measurable performance gain for performance-sensitive code. In some cases, the failure to access the current object instance represents a correctness issue.
That being said, the first comment from David Kean more succinctly summarizes the concerns by saying this is actually more about being correct than about the performance gain:
Although this rule is classified as a performance issue, the performance improvement of making a method static is only around 1%.
Rather, it is more a correctness issue that could indicate an either an incomplete or a bug in the member by its failure to use other instance members. Marking a method static (Shared in Visual Basic) makes it clear on its intention not to touch instance state.
I would definitely turn anything I can into static for a different reason:
Static functions, when JIT'd, are called without a "this" parameter.
That means, for example, that a 3 parameter non-static function (member method)
gets pushed with 4 params on the stack.
The same function compiled as a static function would get called with 3 parameters.
This can free up registers for the JIT and conserve stack space...
I'm in the "only make private methods static" camp. Making a public method can introduce coupling that you don't want and may decrease testability: You can't stub a public static method.
If you want to unit test a method that uses a public static method, you end up testing the static method as well, which might not be what you want.
I look at it generally from a functional perspective of pure functions. Does it need to be an instance method? If not, you may benefit from forcing the user to pass in the variables and not mangling the current instance's state. (Well, you could still mangle state, but the point is to, by design, not do so.) I generally design instance methods as public members and do my best to make private members static. If necessary (you can then more easily extract them into other classes later.
In those cases, i tend to move the method to a static or utils library, so i don't be mixing the concept of the "object" with the concept of "class"
In OOP languages like C# or VB.NET, if I make the properties or methods in a super class protected I can't access them in my Form - they can only be accessed in my class that inherits from that super class.
To access those properties or methods I need to make them public, which defeats encapsulation, or re-write them into my class, which defeats inheritance.
What is the right way to do this?
If you have code which needs to ask an Class to perform a specific operation but the class does not present your code with a means to do that then the Class doesn't fulfill you codes requirements.
Its bit like saying I've got a Car (Automobile) that has a protected steering wheel so I can't access it. The car is no use to me.
Either make those members Public (or at least internal) and use them or ditch the class and use one that gives your consuming code the features it needs.
Perhaps what you are really looking for is an interface. The interface contains the members your code needs and you implement that interface on your class. The advantage here is that your class can determine that the members are being accessed via this Interface rather than an inheriting subclass.
"need to make them public which defeats encapsulation"
Don't conflate good design with the icky visibility rules. The visibility rules are confusing. There are really two orthogonal kinds of visibility -- subclass and client. It's not perfectly clear why we'd ever conceal anything from our subclasses. But we can, with private.
Here's what's important. Encapsulation does not mean hiding. Protected and private are not an essential part of good encapsulation. You can do good design with everything being public (that's the way Python works, for example).
The protected/private stuff is -- mostly -- about intellectual property management: are you willing to commit (in a legally binding, "see-you-in-court-if-it-doesn't-work" way) to an interface? If your software development involves lawyers, then you care about adding protect and private to the things you're not committed to.
If you don't have to cope with lawyers, consider doing encapsulation right but leave everything public.
Sorry, it's not clear what you mean by "in my Form" - what is the relationship between your Form and your two classes? If your classes are controls in the same project, and you want to access properties from the form, you should use the 'internal' keyword.
There are at least three ways you can limit who can use some particular instance method of particular class instances:
Define the method as `protected`, `internal`, or `private`. In the first case, an instance method will only be usable from within derived-class methods of the same instance; in the second case, all classes within the assembly will have access to those methods, but classes outside won't; in the third case, no outside classes, even derived ones in the same assembly, will have access, unless their code is nested within the declaring class.
Define the method as `public`, but have the classes that create instances keep them private and never expose them to the outside world. Anyone wanting to invoke an instance method on an object has to have an instance to invoke it on. If a class holds instances but never exposes direct references to them, the only instance methods that can ever be used on those instances will be those which the holding classes uses itself.
Define the method as `public`, but have a constructor which accepts a location into which one or more delegates to private methods may be stored. Code with access to those delegates will be able to call the methods referred to thereby, but other code will not (except by using Reflection in ways which I think are only usable in full-trust scenarios).
If Reflection in non-full-trust scenarios would allow unbound delegates to be bound to arbitrary object instances, one could use nested classes to reinforce #3 so that one would have to access private fields to gain illegitimate access to the private functions; that would definitely be forbidden outside full-trust scenarios.