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 shouldn't one leave all methods and attributes accessible from anywhere (i.e. public)?
Can you give me an example of a problem I can run into if I declared an attribute as public?
Think of McDonald's as an object. There's a well known public method to order a BigMac.
Internally there's going to be a few zillion other calls to actually GET the materials for making that Bigmac. They don't want you to know how their supply chain works, so all you get is the public Gimme_a_BigMac() call, and would never ever allow you to get access to the Slaughter_a_cow() or Buy_potatoes_for_fries() methods.
For your own code, that no one will ever see, go ahead and leave everything public. But if you're doing a library for others to reuse, then you go and protect the internal details. That leaves McDonald's free to switch to having Scotty beam over a patty rather than having to call up a Trucking company to deliver the meat by land. The end-user never knows the difference - they just get their BigMac. But internally everything could fundamentally change.
Why shouldn't one leave all methods and attributes accessible from anywhere (i.e. public)?
Because that is far too expensive.
Every public method that I make has to be carefully designed and then approved by a team of architects, it has to be implemented to be robust in the face of arbitrarily hostile or buggy callers, it has to be fully tested, all problems found during testing have to have regression suites added, the method has to be documented, the documentation has to be translated into at least twelve different languages.
The biggest cost of all though is: the method has to be maintained, unchanged, forever and ever, amen. If I decide in the next version that I didn't like what that method did, I can't change it because customers now rely on it. Breaking backwards compatibility of a public method imposes costs on users and I am loathe to do that. Living with a bad design or implementation of a public method imposes high costs on the designers, testers and implementers of the next version.
A public method can easily cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Make a hundred of them in a class and that's a million dollar class right there.
Private methods have none of those costs. Spend shareholder money wisely; make everything private that you possibly can.
Think of visibility scopes as inner circles of trust.
Take yourself as an example, and think about what activities are public and what are private or protected. There are number of things that you are not delegating for anybody to do on your behalf. There are some that are fine others to trigger and there are some with limited access.
Similarly, in programming, scopes give you tools for creating different circles of trust. Additionally, making things private/protected, give you more control on what's happening. For example, you can allow 3rd-party plugins that can extend some of your code, while they can be limited to the scope of how far they can go.
So, to generalize, scopes give you the extra level of security and keeps things more organized that they would be otherwise.
Because that violates the concept of encapsulation, a key tenet of OOP.
A risk you run, you say?
<?php
class Foo
{
/**
* #var SomeObject
*/
public $bar;
}
Your code states that $bar should contain an object instanceof SomeObject. However, anyone using your code could do
$myFoo->bar = new SomeOtherObject();
... and any code relying on Foo::$bar being a SomeObject would break. With getters and setters and protected properties, you can enforce this expectation:
<?php
class Foo
{
/**
* #var SomeObject
*/
protected $bar;
public function setBar(SomeObject $bar)
{
$this->bar = $bar;
}
}
Now you can be certain that any time Foo::$bar is set, it will be with an object instanceof SomeObject.
By hiding implementation details, it is also preventing an object from getting into an inconsistent state.
Here is an contrived example of a stack (pseudo code).
public class Stack {
public List stack = new List();
public int currentStackPosition = 0;
public String pop() {
if (currentStackPosition-1 >= 0) {
currentStackPosition--;
return stack.remove(currentStackPosition + 1);
} else {
return null;
}
}
public void push(String value) {
currentStackPosition++;
stack.add(value);
}
}
If you make both variables private the implementation works fine. But if public you can easily break it by just setting an incorrect value for currentStackPosition or directly modifying the List.
If you only expose the functions you provide a reliable contract that others can use and trust. Exposing the implementation just make it a thing that might work of nobody messes with it.
Encapsulation is not needed in any language, but it's useful.
Encapsulation is used to minimise the number of potential dependencies with the highest probability of change propagation also it helps preventing inconsistencies :
Simple example: Assume we made a Rectangle class that contained four variables - length, width, area, perimeter. Please note that area and perimeter are derived from length and width (normally I wouldn't make variables for them), so that changing length would change both area and perimeter.
If you did not use proper information hiding (encapsulation), then another program utilizing that Rectangle class could alter the length without altering the area, and you would have an inconsistent Rectangle. Without encapsulation, it would be possible to create a Rectangle with a length of 1 and a width of 3, and have an area of 32345.
Using encapsulation, we can create a function that, if a program wanted to change the length of the rectangle, that the object would appropriately update its area and perimeter without being inconsistent.
Encapsulation eliminates the possibilities for inconsistency, and shifts the responsibility of staying consistent onto the object itself rather than a program utilizing it.
However at the same time encapsulation is sometimes a bad idea, and motion planning and collision (in game programming) are areas where this is particularly likely to be the case.
the problem is that encapsulation is fantastic in places where it is needed, but it is terrible when applied in places where it isn’t needed like when there are global properties that need to be maintained by a group of encapsulation, Since OOP enforced encapsulation no matter what, you are stuck. For example, there are many properties of objects that are non-local, for example, any kind of global consistency. What tends to happen in OOP is that every object has to encode its view of the global consistency condition, and do its part to help maintain the right global properties. This can be fun if you really need the encapsulation, to allow alternative implementations. But if you don’t need it, you end up writing lots of very tricky code in multiple places that basically does the same thing. Everything seems encapsulated, but is in fact completely interdependent.
Well, in fact you can have everything public and it doesn't break encapsulation when you state clearly, what is the contract, the correct way to use objects. Maybe not attributes, but methods are often more hidden than they have to be.
Remember, that it is not you, the API designer, that is breaking the encapsulation by making things public. It is the users of the class that can do so, by calling internal methods in their application. You can either slap their hands for trying to do so (i.e. declaring methods private), or pass the responsibility to them (e.g. by prefixing non-API methods with "_"). Do you really care whether someone breaks his code by using your library the other way you advice him to do? I don't.
Making almost everything private or final -- or leaving them without API documentation, on the other hand -- is a way of discouraging extendability and feedback in open source. Your code can be used in a ways you even didn't think of, which might not be the case when everything is locked (e.g. sealed-by-default methods in C#).
The only problem you can run into is that people will see you as "uncool" if you don't use Private or Protected or Abstract Static Final Interface or whatever. This stuff is like designer clothes or Apple gadgets - people buy them not because they need to, but just to keep up with others.
Yes, encapsulation is an important theoretical concept, but in the practice "private" and friends rarely make sense. They might make some sense in Java or C#, but in a scripting language like PHP using "private" or "protected" is sheer stupid, because encapsulation is invented to be checked by a compiler, which doesn't exist in PHP. More details.
See also this excellent response and #troelskn and #mario comments over here
The visibility is just something that you can use for your own good, to help you not break your own code. And if you use it right, you will help others (who are using your code) that don't break their own code (by not using your code right).
The simplest, widely known example, in my opinion is the Singleton pattern. It's a pattern, because it's a common problem. (Definition of pattern from Wikipedia:
is a formal way of documenting a solution to a design problem
Definition of the Singleton pattern in Wikipedia:
In software engineering, the singleton pattern is a design pattern used to implement the mathematical concept of a singleton, by restricting the instantiation of a class to one object. This is useful when exactly one object is needed to coordinate actions across the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern
The implementation of the pattern uses a private constructor. If you don't make the constructor private, anyone could mistakenly create a new instance, and break the whole point of having only one instance.
You may think that the previous answers are "theoretical", if you use public properties in Doctrine2 Entities, you break lazy loading.
To save you from yourself!
There's been some excellent answers above, but I wanted to add a bit. This is called principle of least privilege. With less privilege, less entities have authority to break things. Breaking things is bad.
If you follow the principle of least privilege, the principle of least knowledge (or Law of Demeter) and single responsibility principle aren't far behind. Since your class you wrote to download the latest football scores has followed this principle, and you have to poll it's data instead of it being dumped straight to your interface, you copy and paste the whole class into your next project, saving development time. Saving development time is good.
If you're lucky, you'll be coming back to this code in 6 months to fix a small bug, after you've made gigaquads of money from it. Future self will take prior self's name in vain for not following the above principles, and he will fall victim to a violation of the principle of least astonishment. That is, your bug is a parse error in the football score model, but since you didn't follow LOD and SRP, you're astonished at the fact that you're doing XML parsing inline with your output generation. There are much better things in life to be astonished by than the horrificness of your own code. Trust me, I know.
Since you followed all the principles and documented your code, you work two hours every Thursday afternoon on maintenance programming, and the rest of the time surfing.
I'm obviously brand new to these concepts. I just don't understand why you would limit access to properties or methods. It seems that you would just write the code according to intended results. Why would you create a private method instead of simply not calling that method? Is it for iterative object creation (if I'm stating that correctly), a multiple developer situation (don't mess up other people's work), or just so you don't mess up your own work accidentally?
Your last two points are quite accurate - you don't need multiple developers to have your stuff messed with. If you work on a project long enough, you'll realize you've forgotten much of what you did at the beginning.
One of the most important reasons for hiding something is so that you can safely change it later. If a field is public, and several months later you want to change it so that every time the field changes, something else happens, you're in trouble. Because it was public, there's no way to know or remember how many other places accessed that field directly. If it's private, you have a guarantee that it isn't being touched outside of this class. You likely have a public method wrapped around it, and you can easily change the behavior of that method.
In general, more you things make public, the more you have to worry about compatibility with other code.
We create private methods so that consumers of our classes don't have to care about implementation details - they can focus on the few nifty things our classes provide for them.
Moreover, we're obligated to consider every possible use of public methods. By making methods private, we reduce the number of features a class has to support, and we have more freedom to change them.
Say you have a Queue class - every time a caller adds an item to the queue, it may be necessary to to increase the queue's capacity. Because of the underlying implementation, setting the capacity isn't trivial, so you break it out into a separate function to improve the readability of your Enqueue function. Since callers don't care about a queue's capacity (you're handling it for them), you can make the method private: callers don't get distracted by superfluous methods, you don't have to worry that callers will do ridiculous things to the capacity, and you can change the implementation any time you like without breaking code that uses your class (as long as it still sets the capacity within the limited use cases defined by your class).
It all comes down to encapsulation. This means hiding the insides of the class and just caring about what it does. If you want to have a credit card processing class, you don't really care 'how' it processes the credit card. You just want to be able to go: $creditCardProcessor->charge(10.99, $creditCardNumber); and expect it to work.
By making some methods public and others private or protected, we leave an entry way for others so they know where it is safe to call code from. The public methods and variables are called an 'interface'.
For any class, you have an implementation. This is how the class carries out its duty. If it is a smoothie making class, how the class adds the ingredients, what ingredients it adds, etc are all part of the implementation. The outside code shouldn't know and/or care about the implementation.
The other side of the class it its interface. The interface is the public methods that the developer of the class intended to be called by outside code. This means that you should be able to call any public method and it will work properly.
There are several reasons for using encapsulation, one of the strongest is: Imagine using a large, complicated library written by someone else. If every object was unprotected you could unknowingly be accessing or changing values that the developer never intended to be manipulated in that way.
Hiding data makes the program easier to conceptualize and easier to implement.
It's all about encapsulation. Methods are private that do the inner grunt work while exposing graceful functions that make things easy. E.g. you might have an $product->insert() function that utilizes 4 inner functions to validate a singleton db object, make the query safe, etc - those are inner functions that don't need to be exposed and if called, might mess up other structures or flows you, the developer, have put in place.
a multiple developer situation (don't
mess up other people's work), or just
so you don't mess up your own work
accidentally?
Mainly these two things. Making a method public says "this is how the class is supposed to be used by its clients", making it private says "this is an implementation detail that may change without warning and which clients should not care about" AND forces clients to follow that advice.
A class with a few, well documented public methods is much easier to use by someone who's not familiar with it (which may well be its original author, looking at it for the first time in 6 months) than one where everything is public, including all the little implementation details that you don't care about.
It makes collaboration easier, you tell the users of your classes what parts should not change so often and you can guarantee that your object will be in a meaningful state if they use only public methods.
It does not need to be so strict as distinguishing between private/public/whatever (I mean enforced by the language). For example, in Python, this is accomplished by a naming convention. You know you shouldn't mess with anything marked as not public.
For example - private/protected method may be part of some class which is called in another (public) method. If that part is called in more public methods, it makes sense. And yet you don't want these methods to be called anywhere else.
It's quite the same with class properties. Yes, you can write all-public classes, but whats the fun in that?
I'm currently rewriting an e-shop - but only the client side, i.e. the CMS remains mostly in tact. I am not using a pre-built framework, as the system has to retain backwards compatibility with the CMS and I have to have full freedom of the structure of code.
The new system is purely MVC based and I have a Bootstrapper which loads controllers based on the current uri and the latter use models for the real work - both with sessions and the database.
tl;dr It's my first project without a pre-built framework.
I am very inexperienced when it comes to design patterns. I know how do most of the popular ones work but have had never put them to use.
Now I am suspecting code smells because all of my models are classes that consist purely of static methods. I can find no advantages of doing them in a different manner. I routinely need some of the methods in various places through out the code. I.e. I need to fetch the logged in user in the main layout, check user rights to see current page in the bootstraper, display user panel by the controller. I'd need to re-instantiate an object each time or keep a global one if I wasn't using statics. There also won't be a need for more than one such class at a time.
I must be missing something, because even though I use OOP, some my classes are just meaningless containers for their methods (and sometimes a couple of private variables). I could have just been using PHP4 and simple functions.
Any comments or advice would be highly appreciated.
EDIT: in spite of all these educated answers, I remain unconvinced. Even though it's most probably because of my lack of experience, I still don't foresee anything going wrong with the current setup. I mean I don't even fathom a situation where I'd have any inconveniences due to the code architecture as it is now. I hope I don't get a harsh lesson when it's too late to change anything...
You are right, it's a code smell and everybody will tell you it's baaaad.
So here I suggest rather to make a self-assessment of the severity of the problem:
Do you have classes with many getter and setter?
Are your static functions like the one below?
If yes, try to move the logic in the class MyClass that will be already way more OO. That's a classic mistake from procedural/scripting world.
static void myMethod( MyClass anObject )
{
// get value from anObject
// do some business logic
// set value of anObject
}
Do you have a lot of global state, such as data you fetch from the current session?
If yes, make an assessment whether you want to change it. The OO way would be to pass the session down the call chain. But in practice, it's convenient to access the session as a global object. But it impedes testability. Try to remove some global state and turn that into regular object that you pass and manipulate in methods.
Make this assessment, and try to identify utility classes, services classes and the business objects. Utility class are helper classes with utility methods (e.g. formatting, conversion, etc.) which can be static. Service class do some business logic but they should be stateless and one instance suffice. Business objects are user, products, article, etc. is where you must concentrate your effort. Try to turn plain data into objects with embed some behavior.
Have a look at should entity be dumb. Even if it's for java, the concepts are general.
EDIT
Here is my analysis based on your comment:
You don't have a domain model with entities. You manipulate the database directly.
What you call your model, is what I call services and is where you perform the business logic that manipulate data. Service classes are stateless, which is correct. As you pointed out in the question, you then either need to constantly re-create them, create one global instance, or use static methods.
The OO paradigm would say that you should try to have a domain model where you map your database with entities. At least have an anemic domain model where entities are dull data container that are loaded/persisted in database. Then the OO paradigm would also say to put a bit of logic in the entities if possible.
It would also say to turn the services into objects to ease composition and reuse. If it was the case you could for instance wrap all services with an interceptor to start/stop transactions or do some security check, which you won't be able to do with static methods.
What you describe (no entities + stateless procedural services) is not considered a great OO design. I would suggest you introduce an anemic domain model at least and DAO. Regarding the sateless procedural services, this is actually the reality of many web applications -- if you don't need more you can stick to it.
My 2 cents
If you are mainly only using static classes then you've really taken out the object out of object oriented programming. I am not saying you are doing things incorrectly, I am saying maybe your system shouldn't lend itself to OOP. Maybe it is a simple app that requires some basic utility functions (sends email, etc). In this case most of your code becomes very procedural.
If you are dealing with databases you could have a static db class, and a simple business layer, and your php app interacts with your business layer which in turn interacts with your database layer. This becomes your typical 3-tier architecture (some people like to refer to this as 4 t-iers and seperate the actual database from the data layer, same thing).
If you are not really calling methods that require an object than what is the point of all of these static classes, just a question to ask yourself.
One thing you may notice is that if you plan on doing any kind of unit testing with mocking/stubbing you are probably going to have a hard time since static classes and methods are not easy to mock, stub or test.
I would be cautious about using static variables and classes in web applications. If you really must share an instance between users, then it should be ok to have a single instance (lookup "Singleton" design pattern).
However, if you trying to maintain state across pages, you should do this through either utilising the ViewState or by using the Session object.
If you were to have a global static variable, you could have a situation where concurrent users are fighting to update the same value.
Short answer: It's ok but you are foregoing the benefits of OOP.
One reasoning behind using objects is that most of the time there is more than one type of object that performs a role. For example you can swap your DBVendor1 data access object with a DBVendor2 data access object that has the same interface. This especially handy if you are using unit tests and need to swap objects that do real work with dummy objects (mocks and stubs). Think of your objects with the same interface as Lego bricks with different colors that fit together and are easily interchangeable. And you simply can't do that with static objects.
Of course, the increased flexibility of the objects comes at a price: The initialization of the objects and putting them together is more work (like you wrote) and leads to more code and objects that put together other objects. This is where creational design patterns like builder and factory come into play.
If you want to go that route, I advise you to read about dependency injection and using a DI framework.
Technically there is nothing wrong in doing it. But practically you are loosing lot of the benefits of object oriented programming. Also write the code/functionality where it belong to.. for example:
user.doSomeTask()
on the user object makes more sense than
UserUtils.doSomeTask(User user)
Using OOP concepts you abstract the functionality where it belongs to and in future it helps you change your code, extend the functionality more easily than using the static methods.
There are advantages to using static methods. One being that since you cannot inherit them they perform better. But using them all of the time limits you. The whole OOP paradigm
is based on re-usability of base classes thorough the use of inheritance.