Understanding Interfaces - c#

I am still having trouble understanding what interfaces are good for. I read a few tutorials and I still don't know what they really are for other then "they make your classes keep promises" and "they help with multiple inheritance".
Thats about it. I still don't know when I would even use an interface in a real work example or even when to identify when to use it.
From my limited knowledge of interfaces they can help because if something implements it then you can just pass the interface in allowing to pass in like different classes without worrying about it not being the right parameter.
But I never know what the real point of this since they usually stop short at this point from showing what the code would do after it passes the interface and if they sort of do it it seems like they don't do anything useful that I could look at and go "wow they would help in a real world example".
So what I guess I am saying is I am trying to find a real world example where I can see interfaces in action.
I also don't understand that you can do like a reference to an object like this:
ICalculator myInterface = new JustSomeClass();
So now if I would go myInterface dot and intellisense would pull up I would only see the interface methods and not the other methods in JustSomeClass. So I don't see a point to this yet.
Also I started to do unit testing where they seem to love to use interfaces but I still don't understand why.
Like for instance this example:
public AuthenticationController(IFormsAuthentication formsAuth)
{
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
}
public class FormsAuthenticationWrapper : IFormsAuthentication
{
public void SetAuthCookie(string userName, bool createPersistentCookie)
{
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(userName, createPersistentCookie);
}
public void SignOut()
{
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
}
}
public IFormsAuthentication FormsAuth
{
get;
set;
}
Like why bother making this interface? Why not just make FormsAuthenticationWrapper with the methods in it and call it a day? Why First make an interface then have the Wrapper implement the interface and then finally write the methods?
Then I don't get what the statement is really saying.
Like I now know that the statement is saying this
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
if formsAuth is null then make a new FormsAuthenticationWrapper and then assign it to the property that is an Interface.
I guess it goes back to the whole point of why the reference thing. Especially in this case since all the methods are exactly the same. The Wrapper does not have any new methods that the interface does not have and I am not sure but when you do this the methods are filled right(ie they have a body) they don't get converted to stubs because that would really seem pointless to me(it it would be converted back to an interface).
Then in the testing file they have:
var formsAuthenticationMock = new Mock<AuthenticationController.IFormsAuthentication>();
So they just pass in the FormsAuthentication what I am guessing makes all the fake stubs. I am guessing the wrapper class is used when the program is actually running since it has real methods that do something(like sign a person out).
But looking at new Mock(from moq) it accepts a class or an interface. Why not just again made the wrapper class put those methods in and then in the new Mock call that?
Would that not just make the stubs for you?


Ok, I had a hard time understanding too at first, so don't worry about it.
Think about this, if you have a class, that lets say is a video game character.
public class Character
{
}
Now say I want to have the Character have a weapon. I could use an interface to determin the methods required by a weapon:
interface IWeapon
{
public Use();
}
So lets give the Character a weapon:
public class Character
{
IWeapon weapon;
public void GiveWeapon(IWeapon weapon)
{
this.weapon = weapon;
}
public void UseWeapon()
{
weapon.Use();
}
}
Now we can create weapons that use the IWeapon interface and we can give them to any character class and that class can use the item.
public class Gun : IWeapon
{
public void Use()
{
Console.Writeline("Weapon Fired");
}
}
Then you can stick it together:
Character bob = new character();
Gun pistol = new Gun();
bob.GiveWeapon(pistol);
bob.UseWeapon();
Now this is a general example, but it gives a lot of power. You can read about this more if you look up the Strategy Pattern.


Interfaces define contracts.
In the example you provide, the ?? operator just provides a default value if you pass null to the constructor and doesn't really have anything to do with interfaces.
What is more relevant is that you might use an actual FormsAuthenticationWrapper object, but you can also implement your own IFormsAuthentication type that has nothing to do with the wrapper class at all. The interface tells you what methods and properties you need to implement to fulfill the contract, and allows the compiler to verify that your object really does honor that contract (to some extent - it's simple to honor a contract in name, but not in spirit), and so you don't have to use the pre-built FormsAuthenticationWrapper if you don't want to. You can build a different class that works completely differently but still honors the required contract.
In this respect interfaces are much like normal inheritance, with one important difference. In C# a class can only inherit from one type but can implement many interfaces. So interfaces allow you to fulfill multiple contracts in one class. An object can be an IFormsAuthentication object and also be something else, like IEnumerable.
Interfaces are even more useful when you look at it from the other direction: they allow you to treat many different types as if they were all the same. A good example of this is with the various collections classes. Take this code sample:
void OutputValues(string[] values)
{
foreach (string value in values)
{
Console.Writeline(value);
}
}
This accepts an array and outputs it to the console. Now apply this simple change to use an interface:
void OutputValues(IEnumerable<string> values)
{
foreach (string value in values)
{
Console.Writeline(value);
}
}
This code still takes an array and outputs it to the console. But it also takes a List<string> or anything else you care to give it that implements IEnumerable<string>. So we've taken an interface and used it to make a simple block of code much more powerful.
Another good example is the ASP.Net membership provider. You tell ASP.Net that you honor the membership contract by implementing the required interfaces. Now you can easily customize the built-in ASP.Net authentication to use any source, and all thanks to interfaces. The data providers in the System.Data namespace work in a similar fashion.
One final note: when I see an interface with a "default" wrapper implementation like that, I consider it a bit of an anit-pattern, or at least a code smell. It indicates to me that maybe the interface is too complicated, and you either need to split it apart or consider using some combination of composition + events + delegates rather than derivation to accomplish the same thing.


Perhaps the best way to get a good understanding of interfaces is to use an example from the .NET framework.
Consider the following function:
void printValues(IEnumerable sequence)
{
foreach (var value in sequence)
Console.WriteLine(value);
}
Now I could have written this function to accept a List<T>, object[], or any other type of concrete sequence. But since I have written this function to accept a parameter of type IEnumerable that means that I can pass any concrete type into this function that implements the IEnumerable interface.
The reason this is desirable is that by using the interface type your function is more flexible than it would otherwise be. Also you are increasing the utility of this function as many different callers will be able to make use of it without requiring modification.
By using an interface type you are able to declare the type of your parameter as a contract of what you need from whatever concrete type is passed in. In my example I don't care what type you pass me, I just care that I can iterate it.


All of the answers here have been helpful and I doubt I can add anything new to the mix but in reading the answers here, two of the concepts mentioned in two different answers really meshed well in my head so I will compose my understanding here in the hopes that it might help you.
A class has methods and properties and each of the methods and properties of a class has a signature and a body
public int Add(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
The signature of the Add method is everything before the first curly brace character
public int Add(int x, int y)
The purpose of the method signature is to assign a name to a method and also to describe it's protection level (public, protected, internal, private and / or virtual) which defines where a method can be accessed from in code
The signature also defines the type of the value returned by the method, the Add method above returns an int, and the arguments a method expects to have passed to it by callers
Methods are generally considered to be something an object can do, the example above implies that the class the method is defined in works with numbers
The method body describes precisly (in code) how it is that an object performs the action described by the method name. In the example above the add method works by applying the addition operator to it's parameters and returing the result.
One of the primary differences between an interface and a class in terms of language syntax is that an interface can only define the signature of a methd, never the method body.
Put another way, an interface can describe in a the actions (methods) of a class, but it must never describe how an action is to be performed.
Now that you hopefully have a better understanding of what an interface is, we can move on to the second and third parts of your question when, and why would we use an interface in a real program.
One of the main times interfaces are used in a program is when one wants to perform an action, without wanting to know, or be tied to the specifics of how those actions are performed.
That is a very abstract concept to grapsp so perhaps an example might help to firm things up in your mind
Imagine you are the author of a very popular web browser that millions of people use every day and you have thousands of feature requests from people, some big, some little, some good and some like "bring back <maquee> and <blink> support".
Because you only have a relitivly small number of developers, and an even smaller number of hours in the day, you can't possibly implement every requested feature yourself, but you still want to satisfy your customers
So you decide to allow users to develop their own plugins, so they can <blink 'till the cows come home.
To implement this you might come up with a plugin class that looks like:
public class Plugin
{
public void Run (PluginHost browser)
{
//do stuff here....
}
}
But how could you reasonably implement that method? You can't possibly know precisly how every poossible future plugin is going to work
One possible way around this is to define Plugin as an interface and have the browser refer to each plugin using that, like this:
public interface IPlugin
{
void Run(PluginHost browser);
}
public class PluginHost
{
public void RunPlugins (IPlugin[] plugins)
{
foreach plugin in plugins
{
plugin.Run(this);
}
}
}
Note that as discussed earlier the IPlugin interface describes the Run method but does not specify how Run does it's job because this is specific to each plugin, we don't want the plugin host concerned with the specifics of each individual plugin.
To demonstrate the "can-be-a" aspect of the relationship between a class and an interface I will write a plugin for the plugin host below that implements the <blink> tag.
public class BlinkPlugin: IPlugin
{
private void MakeTextBlink(string text)
{
//code to make text blink.
}
public void Run(PluginHost browser)
{
MakeTextBlink(browser.CurrentPage.ParsedHtml);
}
}
From this perspective you can see that the plugin is defined in a class named BlinkPlugin but because it also implements the IPlugin interface it can also be refered to as an IPlugin object,as the PluginHost class above does, because it doesn't know or care what type the class actually is, just that it can be an IPlugin
I hope this has helped, I really didnt intend it to be quite this long.


I'll give you an example below but let me start with one of your statements. "I don't know how to identify when to use one". to put it on edge. You don't need to identify when to use it but when not to use it. Any parameter (at least to public methods), any (public) property (and personally I would actually extend the list to and anything else) should be declared as something of an interface not a specific class. The only time I would ever declare something of a specific type would be when there was no suitable interface.
I'd go
IEnumerable<T> sequence;
when ever I can and hardly ever (the only case I can think off is if I really needed the ForEach method)
List<T> sequence;
and now an example. Let's say you are building a sytem that can compare prices on cars and computers. Each is displayed in a list.
The car prices are datamined from a set of websites and the computer prices from a set of services.
a solution could be:
create one web page, say with a datagrid and Dependency Injection of a IDataRetriever
(where IDataRetriver is some interface making data fetching available with out you having to know where the data came from (DB,XML,web services or ...) or how they were fetched (data mined, SQL Quering in house data or read from file).
Since the two scenarios we have have nothing but the usage in common a super class will make little sense. but the page using our two classes (one for cars and one for computers) needs to perform the exact same operations in both cases to make that possible we need to tell the page (compiler) which operations are possible. We do that by means of an interface and then the two classes implement that interfcae.
using dependency injection has nothing to do with when or how to use interfaces but the reason why I included it is another common scenario where interfaces makes you life easier. Testing. if you use injection and interfaces you can easily substitute a production class for a testing class when testing. (This again could be to switch data stores or to enforce an error that might be very hard to produce in release code, say a race condition)


We use interfaces (or abstract base classes) to allow polymorphism, which is a very central concept in object-oriented programming. It allows us to compose behavior in very flexible ways. If you haven't already, you should read Design Patterns - it contains numerous examples of using interfaces.
In relation to Test Doubles (such as Mock objects), we use interfaces to be able to remove functionality that we currently don't want to test, or that can't work from within a unit testing framework.
Particularly when working with web development, a lot of the services that we rely on (such as the HTTP Context) isn't available when the code executes outside of the web context, but if we hide that functionality behind an interface, we can replace it with something else during testing.


The way I understood it was:
Derivation is 'is-a' relationship e.g., A Dog is an Animal, A Cow is an Animal but an interface is never derived, it is implemented.
So, interface is a 'can-be' relationship e.g., A Dog can be a Spy Dog, A Dog can be a Circus Dog etc. But to achieve this, a dog has to learn some specific things. Which in OO terminology means that your class has to able to do some specific things (contract as they call it) if it implements an interface. e.g., if your class implements IEnumerable, it clearly means that your class has (must have) such a functionality that it's objects can be Enumerated.
So, in essence, through Interface Implementation a Class exposes a functionality to its users that it can do something and it is NOT inheritance.


With almost everything written about interfaces, let me have a shot.
In simple terms, interface is something which will relate two or more , otherwise, non related classes.
Interfaces define contract which ensures that any two or more classes, even if not completely related, happens to implement a common interface, will contain a common set of operations.
Combined with the support of polymorphism , one can use interfaces to write cleaner and dynamic code.
eg.
Interface livingBeings
-- speak() // says anybody who IS a livingBeing need to define how they speak
class dog implements livingBeings
--speak(){bark;} // implementation of speak as a dog
class bird implements livingBeings
--speak(){chirp;}// implementation of speak as a bird


ICalculator myInterface = new JustSomeClass();
JustSomeClass myObject = (JustSomeClass) myInterface;
Now you have both "interfaces" to work with on the object.
I am pretty new to this too, but I like to think of interfaces as buttons on a remote control. When using the ICalculator interface, you only have access to the buttons (functionality) intended by the interface designer. When using the JustSomeClass object reference, you have another set of buttons. But they both point to the same object.
There are many reasons to do this. The one that has been most useful to me is communication between co-workers. If they can agree on an interface (buttons which will be pushed), then one developer can work on implementing the button's functionality and another can write code that uses the buttons.
Hope this helps.

Related

Statically defining options for a type of a derived class

I'm developing a framework where a class inheriting from an abstract class of the framework needs to be able to specify the schema for the options it can accept when it is called to DoStuff().
I started out with an abstract GetOptionsSchema() method like this:
public abstract class Widget
{
public abstract OptionsSchema GetOptionsSchema();
public abstract void DoStuff(Options options);
}
Other developers would then extend on my framework by creating custom Widget types:
public abstract class FooWidget: Widget
{
public overide DoStuff(Options options)
{
//Do some FooWidget stuff
}
public overide OptionsSchema GetOptionsSchema()
{
//Return options for FooWidget
}
}
This works but requires the framework to create an instance of every Widget type to determine options schema they accept, even if it has no need to actually DoStuff() with any of these types.
Ultimately, I'd like to be able to determine the options schema for a specific Widget type directly from a System.Type. I would create a custom OptionsSchema attribute, but constructing these schemas is more complicated then would make sense to do in the constructor of an attribute. It needs to happen in a method.
I've seen other frameworks solve similar problems by creating a custom attribute that identifies a static method or property by name. For example the TestCaseSource attribute in NUnit.
Here's what this option might look like:
public abstract class Widget
{
public abstract void DoStuff(Options options);
}
[OptionsSchemaSource(nameof(GetOptionsSchema))]
public abstract class FooWidget: Widget
{
public overide DoStuff(Options options)
{
//Do some FooWidget stuff
}
public static OptionSchema GetOptionsSchema()
{
//Return options for FooWidget
}
}
I like how the OptionsSchemaSource attribute makes it possible to get the options schema directly from a System.Type, but this also seem much less discoverable to other developers creating custom Widget types.
With the abstract method another Widget developer knows they must override GetOptionSchema() because their code would not compile otherwise. With the OptionsSchemaSource attribute the best I could do would be to hope people read my documentation and have the framework throw an exception at run-time if it encounters a Widget with out an OptionsSchemaSource attribute.
Is there an alternative/better/recommended approach to this?

You pretty much already know everything of interest to judge what's the best approach.
As already mentioned, you cannot have static interfaces defined on your type, so there is no way you can ensure a new developer is enforced to add the attribute.
So, the two alternatives you identified are the only two I can think of.
Now, let's do a pros and cons and try to sharpen them.
Attribute
You can lessen the pain of ensuring devs put attributes on the classes with meaningful error messages. I would say that you should manage the discovery of the classes based exclusively on Attributes, not in inheritance.
If you manage everything with Attributes, you don't need to inherit from Widget.
This is a pro, because now everyone can inherit if it's desirable, and re-implement if it's preferred.
The con is that the implementation of discoverability will be more complex: you will need to use reflection at start up, get a MethodInfo, check that the method has the correct signature, give proper errors in case and invoke the method unboxing the result as needed.
Think about it: you would like a static method because you don't need to instantiate a single typed Widget instance, but actually instantiating a new Widget could very well be not a big deal.
Abstract class
Well, you enforce an inheritance chain over you developers, which could be ok, necessary or entirely optional (you judge), but you get a self documenting experience.
The apparent con is that at startup you need to instantiate a Widget for every derived type you discover, but that could very well be peanuts compared to assembly scanning and type checking and methodinfo discovery and method calls through reflection.
Ugly? Kind of. Inefficient? Not so much. And it's code that is invisible to your end user.
IMHO
I find quite a good tradeoff, when designing a framework, to put some "ugly" code inside the framework, if it means that every single implementation using the library is going to be even a little bit better.
All in all, if you're designing a library that you want to be flexible and discoverable, you should expect a developer to read at least a quick start guide. If they can read in 5 minutes a single bit of information (either "extend a base class" or "add a single or a couple attributes") and that single bit gives them an direction into discovering every aspect of widget registration, I would be ok: you can't really get much better than this.
My call: I would go the abstract class route with a smallish caveat. I really don't like having an enforced base class. So I would organize discovery at startup based on interface, IWidget, containing the GetOptionsSchema method and everything is needed to use the widget (which could be the DoStuff method, but could very well be something else). At startup you search for implementations of the interface which are not abstract, and you're good to go.
If, and only if, the only bit you really need in advance is a string or other similarly simple type, I would require an additional attribute.
[OptionsSchemaName("http://something")]
public class MyWidget : WidgetBase
{
public overide DoStuff(Options options)
{
//Do some FooWidget stuff
}
public static OptionSchema GetOptionsSchema()
{
//Return options for FooWidget
}
}
Then, your type discovery infrastructure can search for non-abstract IWidgets and throw a meaningful error right at startup like the type MyWidget is lacking an OptionsSchemaName attribute. Every implementation of IWidget must define one. See http://mydocs for information.
Bang! Nailed it!

It's not currently possible to enforce the attribute at compile time; that would've been ideal for your use case. It's also not possible to have an abstract static method, or have a static method specified in an interface; so there is no way to ensure the method is actually there at compile time, except by enforcing an instance method via abstract class or interface (which will require an instance of the type to access).
I'd go with the attribute idea - it's not unreasonable to expect developers to read documentation; even with overriding an abstract method, the developer would need to know how to construct an OptionSchema in the overridden method - back to documentation!

What is the purpose of declaring a type different to the type you are instantiating? [duplicate]

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).

Why classes tend to be defined as interface nowadays?

These 2-3 last years, many projects I see, like Cuyahoga open source C# CMS, tends to define persistent and non persistent classes as Interface. Why? Is there a good reason? TDD? Mocking? A design pattern? ...

The main reason is that this makes techniques like dependency injection easier. This in turn allows for more flexibility in the software and easier reuse and recombination of existing code. Examples for where this is useful include the various forms of unit testing (as you mentioned), but also most other forms of "regular" code reuse.
A simple example:
Say you have a method that calculates emplyoee salaries. As part of its signature, it accepts an object that calculates their benefits, say an instance of BenefitCalculator:
calculateSalary(... BenefitCalculator bc, ...)
Originally, your design has only one class BenefitCalculator. But later, it turns out that you need more than one class, e.g. because different parts of the software are supposed to use different algorithms (maybe to support different countries, or because the algorithm is supposed to be user-configurable...). In that case, rather than bloat the existing implementation of BenefitCalculator, it makes sense to create new class(es), e.g. BenefitCalculatorFrance, or BenefitCalculatorSimple etc.
Now if you use the signature
calculateSalary(... BenefitCalculator bc, ...)
, you are kind of screwed, because you cannot supply different implementations. If however you use
calculateSalary(... IBenefitCalculator
bc, ...)
you can just have all classes implement the interface.
This is actually just a special case of "loose coupling": Demand as little as possible from other parts of the code. In this case, don't demand a certain class; instead just demand that certain methods exist, which is just what an Interface does.

First of all, you can't define a class as an interface. Your class implements an interface.
Interfaces are used as one way to enable polymorphic behavior. Each class that implements the interface is free to specify its own implementation of the methods defined in the interface. Take the following for example:
You are writing banking software. Your task is to write a Transaction Processor. Now, you know you need to handle different kinds of Transactions (Deposits, Withdraws, Transfers). You could write code that looks like:
public class TransactionProcessor
{
public void ProcessDeposit( // Process Deposit );
public void ProcessWithdraw( // Process Withdraw );
public void ProcessTransfer( // Process Transfer );
}
And then every time somebody adds a new Transaction type, you have to modify your class. Or, you could:
public interface ITransaction { void Process(); }
public class TransactionProcessor
{
public void ProccessTransaction(ITransaction t) { t.Process(); }
}
Now you don't need to modify your code to Process a new type of transaction. You just need people to create their own class that implements ITransaction and your class will "just handle it".
This allows you to swap implementations of an interface depending on your needs. It also enables things like Dependency Injection and Mocking Frameworks for Unit Testing.
In general though, it really is just another way to make your code more flexible.

Interfaces have the advantage that they make you independent from the implementation, which is a good thing.

During last years IoC containers become quite popular with developers.
For example, Unity Container from Microsoft Practices. So, at the start of your application you can register concrete classes which implement interfaces, and then, for example, all classes which contain these interfaces in their constructors, or their properties marked with [Dependency] attribute will be filled, when instancing objects via Unity container's resolve. Its quite useful in the apps with complicated dependencies, when one interface can be implemented in three different classed.
And all these things can't be achieved without usage of interfaces.

At a really boring level interfaces can also help make for a faster compile.
public class A {
B b;
}
public class B {
public int getCount() {
return 10;
}
}
In this case every time internal changes to B are made, the compiler needs to re-evaluate A to determine if it needs to be recompiled.
Instead we use interfaces:
class A {
IB b;
}
interface IB {
int getCount();
}
class B : IB {
public int getCount() {
return 10;
}
}
In this case A only depends on IB. No change to B requires any consideration of A at compile time.
At scale this effect on short circuiting dependency evaluation can significantly speed up compilation of large code bases. It is particularly powerful when there are a lot of classes depending on a single class that changes a lot.
Clearly this compile time benefit only works if the classes have no static dependency on the implementation classes. Doing the following would totally defeat this benefit:
class A {
IB b = new B();
}
This is where Dependency Injection comes in. The DI container would construct a B and provide it to A as an IB so A doesn't need to have the static dependency.

Using implicit conversion as a substitute for multiple inheritance in .NET

I have a situation where I would like to have objects of a certain type be able to be used as two different types. If one of the "base" types was an interface this wouldn't be an issue, but in my case it is preferable that they both be concrete types.
I am considering adding copies of the methods and properties of one of the base types to the derived type, and adding an implicit conversion from the derived type to that base type. Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type.
It seems like this solution will fit my needs well, but am I missing anything? Is there a situation where this won't work, or where it is likely to add confusion instead of simplicity when using the API?
EDIT: More details about my specific scenario:
This is for a potential future redesign of the way indicators are written in RightEdge, which is an automated trading system development environment. Price data is represented as a series of bars, which have values for the open, low, high, and close prices for a given period (1 minute, 1 day, etc). Indicators perform calculations on series of data. An example of a simple indicator is the moving average indicator, which gives the moving average of the most recent n values of its input, where n is user-specified. The moving average might be applied to the bar close, or it could be applied to the output of another indicator to smooth it out.
Each time a new bar comes in, the indicators compute the new value for their output for that bar.
Most indicators have only one output series, but sometimes it is convenient to have more than one output (see MACD), and I want to support this.
So, indicators need to derive from a "Component" class which has the methods that are called when new data comes in. However, for indicators which have only one output series (and this is most of them), it would be good for them to act as a series themselves. That way, users can use SMA.Current for the current value of an SMA, instead of having to use SMA.Output.Current. Likewise, Indicator2.Input = Indicator1; is preferable to Indicator2.Input = Indicator1.Output;. This may not seem like much of a difference, but a lot of our target customers are not professional .NET developers so I want to make this as easy as possible.
My idea is to have an implicit conversion from the indicator to its output series for indicators that have only one output series.

You don't provide too many details, so here is an attempt to answering from what you provide.
Take a look at the basic differences:
When you have a base type B and a derived type D, an assignment like this:
B my_B_object = my_D_object;
assigns a reference to the same object. On the other hand, when B and D are independent types with an implicit conversion between them, the above assignment would create a copy of my_D_object and store it (or a reference to it if B is a class) on my_B_object.
In summary, with "real" inheritance works by reference (changes to a reference affect the object shared by many references), while custom type conversions generally work by value (that depends on how you implement it, but implementing something close to "by reference" behavior for converters would be nearly insane): each reference will point to its own object.
You say you don't want to use interfaces, but why? Using the combo interface + helper class + extension methods (C# 3.0 and .Net 3.5 or newer required) can get quite close to real multiple inheritance. Look at this:
interface MyType { ... }
static class MyTypeHelper {
public static void MyMethod(this MyType value) {...}
}
Doing that for each "base" type would allow you to provide default implementations for the methods you want to.
These won't behave as virtual methods out-of-the-box; but you may use reflection to achieve that; you would need to do the following from within the implementation on the Helper class:
retrieve a System.Type with value.GetType()
find if that type has a method matching the signature
if you find a matching method, invoke it and return (so the rest of the Helper's method is not run).
Finally, if you found no specific implementation, let the rest of the method run and work as a "base class implementation".
There you go: multiple inheritance in C#, with the only caveat of requiring some ugly code in the base classes that will support this, and some overhead due to reflection; but unless your application is working under heavy pressure this should do the trick.
So, once again, why you don't want to use interfaces? If the only reason is their inability to provide method implementations, the trick above solves it. If you have any other issue with interfaces, I might try to sort them out, but I'd have to know about them first ;)
Hope this helps.
[EDIT: Addition based on the comments]
I've added a bunch of details to the original question. I don't want to use interfaces because I want to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot by implementing them incorrectly, or accidentally calling a method (ie NewBar) which they need to override if they want to implement an indicator, but which they should never need to call directly.
I've looked at your updated question, but the comment quite summarizes it. Maybe I'm missing something, but interfaces + extensions + reflection can solve everything multiple inheritance could, and fares far better than implicit conversions at the task:
Virtual method behavior (an implementation is provided, inheritors can override): include method on the helper (wrapped in the reflection "virtualization" described above), don't declare on the interface.
Abstract method behavior (no implementation provided, inheritors must implement): declare method on the interface, don't include it on the helper.
Non-virtual method behavior (an implementation is provided, inheritors may hide but can't override): Just implement it as normal on the helper.
Bonus: weird method (an implementation is provided, but inheritors must implement anyway; they may explicitly invoke the base implementation): that's not doable with normal or multiple inheritance, but I'm including it for completeness: that's what you'd get if you provide an implementation on the helper and also declare it on the interface. I'm not sure of how would that work (on the aspect of virtual vs. non-virtual) or what use it'd have, but hey, my solution has already beaten multiple inheritance :P
Note: On the case of the non-virtual method, you'd need to have the interface type as the "declared" type to ensure that the base implementation is used. That's exactly the same as when an inheritor hides a method.
I want to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot by implementing them incorrectly
Seems that non-virtual (implemented only on the helper) will work best here.
or accidentally calling a method (ie NewBar) which they need to override if they want to implement an indicator
That's where abstract methods (or interfaces, which are a kind of super-abstract thing) shine most. The inheritor must implement the method, or the code won't even compile. On some cases virtual methods may do (if you have a generic base implementation but more specific implementations are reasonable).
but which they should never need to call directly
If a method (or any other member) is exposed to client code but shouldn't be called from client code, there is no programmatic solution to enforce that (actually, there is, bear with me). The right place to address that is on the documentation. Because you are documenting you API, aren't you? ;) Neither conversions nor multiple inheritance could help you here. However, reflection may help:
if(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetCallingAssembly()!=System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
throw new Exception("Don't call me. Don't call me!. DON'T CALL ME!!!");
Of course, you may shorten that if you have a using System.Reflection; statement on your file. And, BTW, feel free to change the Exception's type and message to something more descriptive ;).

I see two issues:
User-defined type conversion operators are generally not very discoverable -- they don't show up in IntelliSense.
With an implicit user-defined type conversion operator, it's often not obvious when the operator is applied.
This doesn't been you shouldn't be defining type conversion operators at all, but you have to keep this in mind when designing your solution.
An easily discoverable, easily recognizable solution would be to define explicit conversion methods:
class Person { }
abstract class Student : Person
{
public abstract decimal Wage { get; }
}
abstract class Musician : Person
{
public abstract decimal Wage { get; }
}
class StudentMusician : Person
{
public decimal MusicianWage { get { return 10; } }
public decimal StudentWage { get { return 8; } }
public Musician AsMusician() { return new MusicianFacade(this); }
public Student AsStudent() { return new StudentFacade(this); }
}
Usage:
void PayMusician(Musician musician) { GiveMoney(musician, musician.Wage); }
void PayStudent(Student student) { GiveMoney(student, student.Wage); }
StudentMusician alice;
PayStudent(alice.AsStudent());

It doesn't sound as if your method would support a cross-cast. True multiple inheritance would.
An example from C++, which has multiple inheritance:
class A {};
class B {};
class C : public A, public B {};
C o;
B* pB = &o;
A* pA = dynamic_cast<A*>(pB); // with true MI, this succeeds

Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type.
This will behave differently, however. In the case of inheritance, you're just passing your object. However, by implementing an implicit converter, you'll always be constructing a new object when the conversion takes place. This could be very unexpected, since it will behave quite differently in the two cases.
Personally, I'd make this a method that returns the new type, since it would make the actual implementation obvious to the end user.

Maybe I'm going too far off with this, but your use case sounds suspiciously as if it could heavily benefit from building on Rx (Rx in 15 Minutes).
Rx is a framework for working with objects that produce values. It allows such objects to be composed in a very expressive way and to transform, filter and aggregate such streams of produced values.
You say you have a bar:
class Bar
{
double Open { get; }
double Low { get; }
double High { get; }
double Close { get; }
}
A series is an object that produces bars:
class Series : IObservable<Bar>
{
// ...
}
A moving average indicator is an object that produces the average of the last count bars whenever a new bar is produced:
static class IndicatorExtensions
{
public static IObservable<double> MovingAverage(
this IObservable<Bar> source,
int count)
{
// ...
}
}
The usage would be as follows:
Series series = GetSeries();
series.MovingAverage(20).Subscribe(average =>
{
txtCurrentAverage.Text = average.ToString();
});
An indicator with multiple outputs is similar to GroupBy.

This might be a stupid idea, but: if your design requires multiple inheritance, then why don't you simply use a language with MI? There are several .NET languages which support multiple inheritance. Off the top of my head: Eiffel, Python, Ioke. There's probable more.

Using explicit interfaces to ensure programming against an interface

I have seen arguments for using explicit interfaces as a method of locking a classes usage to that interface. The argument seems to be that by forcing others to program to the interface you can ensure better decoupling of the classes and allow easier testing.
Example:
public interface ICut
{
void Cut();
}
public class Knife : ICut
{
void ICut.Cut()
{
//Cut Something
}
}
And to use the Knife object:
ICut obj = new Knife();
obj.Cut();
Would you recommend this method of interface implementation? Why or why not?
EDIT:
Also, given that I am using an explicit interface the following would NOT work.
Knife obj = new Knife();
obj.Cut();

To quote GoF chapter 1:
"Program to an interface, not an implementation".
"Favor object composition over class inheritance".
As C# does not have multiple inheritance, object composition and programming to interfaces are the way to go.
ETA: And you should never use multiple inheritance anyway but that's another topic altogether.. :-)
ETA2: I'm not so sure about the explicit interface. That doesn't seem constructive. Why would I want to have a Knife that can only Cut() if instansiated as a ICut?

I've only used it in scenarios where I want to restrict access to certain methods.
public interface IWriter
{
void Write(string message);
}
public interface IReader
{
string Read();
}
public class MessageLog : IReader, IWriter
{
public string Read()
{
// Implementation
return "";
}
void IWriter.Write(string message)
{
// Implementation
}
}
public class Foo
{
readonly MessageLog _messageLog;
IWriter _messageWriter;
public Foo()
{
_messageLog = new MessageLog();
_messageWriter = _messageLog;
}
public IReader Messages
{
get { return _messageLog; }
}
}
Now Foo can write messages to it's message log using _messageWriter, but clients can only read. This is especially beneficial in a scenario where your classes are ComVisible. Your client can't cast to the Writer type and alter the information inside the message log.

Yes. And not just for testing. It makes sense to factor common behaviour into an interface (or abstract class); that way you can make use of polymorphism.
public class Sword: ICut
{
void ICut.Cut()
{
//Cut Something
}
}
Factory could return a type of sharp implement!:
ICut obj = SharpImplementFactory();
obj.Cut();

This is a bad idea because their usage breaks polymorphism. The type of the reference used should NOT vary the behavior of the object. If you want to ensure loose coupling, make the classes internal and use a DI technology (such as Spring.Net).

There are no doubt certain advantages to forcing the users of your code to cast your objects to the interface types you want them to be using.
But, on the whole, programming to an interface is a methodology or process issue. Programming to an interface is not going to be achieved merely by making your code annoying to the user.

Using interfaces in this method does not, in and of itself, lead to decoupled code. If this is all you do, it just adds another layer of obfuscation and probably makes this more confusing later on.
However, if you combine interface based programming with Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection, then you are really getting somewhere. You can also make use of Mock Objects for Unit Testing with this type of setup if you are into Test Driven Development.
However, IOC, DI and TDD are all major topics in and of themselves, and entire books have been written on each of those subjects. Hopefully this will give you a jumping off point of things you can research.

Well there is an organizational advantage. You can encapsulate your ICuttingSurface, ICut and related functionality into an Assembly that is self-contained and unit testable. Any implementations of the ICut interface are easily Mockable and can be made to be dependant upon only the ICut interface and not actual implementations which makes for a more modular and clean system.
Also this helps keep the inheritance more simplified and gives you more flexibility to use polymoprhism.

Allowing only callers expecting to explicit interface type ensures methods are only visible in the context they are needed in.
Consider a logical entity in a game and u decide that instead of a class responsibile for drawing/ticking the entities you want the code for tick/draw to be in the entity.
implement IDrawable.draw() and ITickable.tick() ensures an entity can only ever be drawn/ticked when the game expects it to. Otherwise these methods wont ever be visible.
Lesser bonus is when implementing multiple interfaces, explicit implementations let you work around cases where two interface method names collide.

Another potential scenario for explicitly implementing an interface is when dealing with an existing class that already implements the functionality, but uses a different method name. For example, if your Knife class already had a method called Slice, you could implement the interface this way:
public class Knife : ICut
{
public void Slice()
{
// slice something
}
void ICut.Cut()
{
Slice();
}
}

If the client code doesn't care about anything other than the fact that it can use the object to Cut() things, then use ICut.

Yes, but not necessarily for the given reasons.
An example:
On my current project, we are building a tool for data entry. We have certain functions that are used by all (or almost all) tabs, and we are coding a single page (the project is web-based) to contain all of the data entry controls.
This page has navigation on it, and buttons to interact with all the common actions.
By defining an interface (IDataEntry) that implements methods for each of the functions, and implementing that interface on each of the controls, we can have the aspx page fire public methods on the user controls which do the actual data entry.
By defining a strict set of interaction methods (such as your 'cut' method in the example) Interfaces allow you to take an object (be it a business object, a web control, or what have you) and work with it in a defined way.
For your example, you could call cut on any ICut object, be it a knife, a saw, a blowtorch, or mono filament wire.
For testing purposes, I think interfaces are also good. If you define tests based around the expected functionality of the interface, you can define objects as described and test them. This is a very high-level test, but it still ensures functionality. HOWEVER, this should not replace unit testing of the individual object methods...it does no good to know that 'obj.Cut' resulted in a cutting if it resulted in the wrong thing being cut, or in the wrong place.

Categories

Resources