We Keep Coding

Is this an anti-pattern or violates it some design-principles?

I try myself with design-patterns & -principles and have a question.
Before, sorry for the bad coding-style habit !!
I have an interface like ITest in this case:
public interface ITest
{
public void method1();
}
and then implement the methods and fields, if any, into a concrete class B like this:
public class B implements ITest
{
//This is the method from the interface
#Override
public void method1()
{
System.out.println("method1");
}
//This is another method in class B
public void method2()
{
System.out.println("method2");
}
}
Now in the application code I put it in like this:
public class Main
{
public static void main(final String args[]) throws Exception
{
//One principle says:
//programm to an interface instead to an implementation
ITest test = new B();
//method from interface
test.method1();
//this method is not accessible because not part of ITest
test.method2(); //compile-time error
}
}
You see that method2() from class B is not available because to the interface of ITest.
Now, what if I need this 'important' method?
There are several possibilities. I could abstract it in the interface or make class B abstract and extend into another class and so on, or make the reference in the main() method like:
B test = new B();
But this would violate the principle.
So, I modified the interface to:
public interface ITest
{
//A method to return the class-type B
public B hook();
public void method1();
}
And put in class B the implementation:
public class B implements ITest
{
//this returns the object reference of itself
#Override
public B hook()
{
return this;
}
//This is the method from the interface
#Override
public void method1()
{
System.out.println("method1");
}
//This is the 'important' method in class B
public void method2()
{
System.out.println("method2");
}
}
Now in my main()-method I can call both methods with a little hook or chaining mechanism without referencing a new object nor does it violate the design-principle and I don't need an extra class for extension or abstraction.
public class Main
{
public static void main(final String args[])
{
//programm to an interface instead into an implemintation
ITest test = new B();
//method from interface
test.method1();
//method2 will not be accessible from ITest so we referencing B through a method hook()
//benefits: we don't need to create extra objects nor additional classes but only referencing
test.hook().method2();
System.out.println("Are they both equal: "+test.equals(test.hook()));
}
}
Also, I can encapsulate, inherit and abstract other methods, fields etc.
This means, that I can create more complex and flexible hierarchies.
My question now:
Is this a kind of anti-pattern, bad design-principle or could we benefit from this?
Thank you for watching. :-)

Is this a kind of anti-pattern, bad design-principle or could we
benefit from this?
Yes, it is a bad pattern.
The problem stems from the fact that you have tightly coupled ITest to B. Say I want to create a new implementation of ITest - let's call it C.
public class C implements ITest
{
#Override
public B hook()
{
// How do I implement this?
}
#Override
public void method1()
{
System.out.println("method1");
}
}
There's no sane way we can implement this method. The only reasonable thing to do is to return null. Doing so would force any users of our interface to constantly perform defensive null checks.
If they're going to have to check every time before using the result of the method, they might as well just do an instanceof and cast to B. So what value are you adding? You're just making the interface less coherent and more confusing.

Adding a method returning B to interface ITest implemented by B is definitely an awful design choice, because it forces other classes implementing ITest return B, for example
public class C implements ITest {
#Override
public B hook()
{
return // What do I return here? C is not a B
}
...
}
Your first choice is better:
B test1 = new B();
C test2 = new C();

override static method functionality

We have class library as
class A {
public void callWorkflow() {
B b = new B();
}
}
class B {
public void callStatic() {
C.someMethod();
}
}
class C {
public static someMethod() {}
}
We are actually trying to change functionality of static method someMethod. Is there a way to solve this problem without changing call hierarchy?

You can't just Override a static method. In my opinion, remove static from the method someMethod(), then create an object of class C inside class B. Then call the method.
Class A{
public void callWorkflow() {
B b = new B();}
}
Class B{
public void callStatic(){
C c = new C();
c.someMethod();}
}
Class C{
public someMethod(){}
}

There is no way to override a static method.
That's why one of these approaches is preferred to calling static methods:
Inject another object (service) that will provide the functionality in a non-static method and call it through the injected object
Make the static method a thin wrapper that just delegates the work to some non-static object that can be configured (like in slf4j's logger)

Call method not defined in interface from implemented interface in Java

I have the following scenario in Java. Let's say I have an interface, and two classes that implement this interface. As follows:
public interface myInterface {
public String printStuff();
}
public class A implements myInterface {
#Override
public String printStuff(){
return "Stuff";
}
}
public class B implements myInterface {
#Override
public String printStuff(){
return "Stuff";
}
public String printOtherStuff(){
return "Other Stuff";
}
}
How do I call the printOtherStuff method above if I define it as follows:
public static void main(String... args) {
myInterface myinterface = new B();
String str = myinterface.printOtherStuff(); // ? This does not work
}
The above calling code does not seem work. Any ideas?

myInterface myinterface = new B();
The reference type of myinterface is myInterface. That means you can only access the methods defined in the interface. You can cast it to type B in order to make the method call.
NOTE: From here on out I'll be using the proper naming conventions.
Example
MyInterface myInterface = new B();
String str = ((B)myInterface).printOtherStuff();
Just a note on this
If you need to do this, then you need to have a look at your class design. The idea of using an interface in this way is to abstract away from the details of the object's concrete implementation. If you're having to perform an explicit cast like this, then you might want to look into either changing your interface to accommodate the necessary methods, or change your class so that the method is moved into a global location (like a util file or something).
Extra Reading
You should read about reference types here, and you should have a look at casting here. My answer is a combination of the understanding of both of these things.
As an added note, take a look at the Java Naming Conventions. This is a vital piece of information for any Java developer to make understandable code.

Surely this wouldn't work because you have reference type of Interface MyInterface. At the time of method binding compiler would try to find this method in your Interface MyInterface which is not available. So you need to cast it to your class like this.
MyInterface myInterface = new B();
B newB=(B) myInterface ;//casting to class
newB.printOtherStuff();// would work fine

change myInterface
public interface myInterface {
public String printStuff();
public String printOtherStuff();
}
If you cant change myInterface, then extends myInterface
public interface myOtherInterface extends myInterface {
public String printOtherStuff();
}
Then Implements myOtherInterface
public class B implements myOtherInterface {
#Override
public String printStuff(){
return "Stuff";
}
#Override
public String printOtherStuff(){
return "Other Stuff";
}
}
public static void main(String... args) {
myOtherInterface myotherinterface = new B();
String str = myotherinterface.printOtherStuff();
}

If interface have two methods with same name while implementing which one call first?

code as follows:
interface A
{
void test();
}
interface B
{
void test();
}
public class C implements A,B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c=new C();
c.test();
}
public void test() {
System.out.println("hai");
}
}
Here o/p is came, but which interface method was invoked?

All that the interfaces require is for you to have a void method called test(), which takes no arguments. The implementation of test() is in your class, not interface.
Additionally, you cannot instantiate an interface with new; however, you could do the following:
A a = new C();
or
B b = new C();
EDIT: It doesn't work if you take the public out of your method header, since interface methods must be public. Despite you not putting public in the interface when declaring the header, interface methods are by default public--this cannot be changed, and putting public in the header inside of the interface is unnecessary.

Your code looks invalid as you cannot instantiate an A.
You can use new C() but at present what you are doing is
A a=new A();
which is invalid.
So you can probably do like
A a = new C();
or
B b = new C();
but you cannot instantiate an interface
EDIT:-
After the edit which you have made in your question, it looks like that the implementation of test() is in your class, not interface.

You cant initiate a interface like you are doing
A a=new A();
You can do like
A a = new C();
then there will be no problem which interface method was invoked..

Interface questions

Suppose that I have interface MyInterface and 2 classes A, B which implement MyInterface.
I declared 2 objects: MyInterface a = new A() , and MyInterface b = new B().
When I try to pass to a function - function doSomething(A a){} I am getting an error.
This is my code:
public interface MyInterface {}
public class A implements MyInterface{}
public class B implements MyInterface{}
public class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args){
MyInterface a = new A();
MyInterface b = new B();
test(b);
}
public static void test(A a){
System.out.println("A");
}
public static void test(B b){
System.out.println("B");
}
}
My problem is that I am getting from some component interface which can be all sorts of classes and I need to write function for each class.
So one way is to get interface and to check which type is it. (instance of A)
I would like to know how others deal with this problem??
Thx

Can you not just have a method on the interface which each class implements? Or do you not have control of the interface?
This would provide both polymorphism and avoid the need to define any external methods. I believe this is the intention of an interface, it allows a client to treat all classes implementing it in a non type specific manner.
If you cannot add to the interface then you would be best introducing a second interface with the appropriate method. If you cannot edit either the interface or the classes then you need a method which has the interface as a parameter and then check for the concrete class. However this should be a last resort and rather subverts the use of the interface and ties the method to all the implementations.

It sounds like you are after something like this:
public static void test(MyInterface obj){
if(obj instanceof A) {
A tmp = (A)obj;
} else if(obj instanceof B) {
B tmp = (B)obj;
} else {
//handle error condition
}
}
But please note this is very bad form and indicates something has gone seriously wrong in your design. If you don't have control of the interface then, as suggested by marcj, adding a second interface might be the way to go. Note you can do this whilst preserving binary compatibility.

I'm unclear on what you're actually asking, but the problem is that you don't have a method that takes a parameter of type MyInterface. I don't know what the exact syntax is in Java, but you could do something like if (b is B) { test(b as B) } but I wouldn't. If you need it to be generic, then use the MyInterface type as the variable type, otherwise use B as the variable type. You're defeating the purpose of using the interface.

I'm not sure if I fully understand the issue, but it seems like one way might be to move the test() methods into the child classes:
public interface MyInterface {
public void test();
}
public class A implements MyInterface{
public void test() {
System.out.println("A");
}
}
public class B implements MyInterface{
public void test() {
System.out.println("B");
}
}
public class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args){
MyInterface a = new A();
MyInterface b = new B();
b.test();
}
}
You could similarly use a toString() method and print the result of that. I can't quite tell from the question, though, if your requirements make this impossible.

I think visitor design pattern will help you out here. The basic idea is to have your classes (A and B) call the appropriate method themselves instead of you trying to decide which method to call. Being a C# guy I hope my Java works:
public interface Visitable {
void accept(Tester tester)
}
public interface MyInterface implements Visitable {
}
public class A implements MyInterface{
public void accept(Tester tester){
tester.test(this);
}
}
public class B implements MyInterface{
public void accept(Tester tester){
tester.test(this);
}
}
public class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args){
MyInterface a = new A();
MyInterface b = new B();
a.accept(this);
b.accept(this);
}
public void test(A a){
System.out.println("A");
}
public void test(B b){
System.out.println("B");
}
}

Use only one public class/interface in one .java file, otherwise it'll throw error. And call the object with the object name.. You declared two methos in Teater class only, then what the purpose of declaring class A,B.

I usually use an abstract class to get around this problem, like so:
public abstract class Parent {}
public class A extends Parent {...}
public class B extends Parent {...}
That allows you to pass Parent objects to functions that take A or B.

You have 3 options:
Visitor pattern; you'll need to be able to change the MyInterface type to include a method visit(Visitor) where the Visitor class contains lots of methods for visiting each subclass.
Use if-else inside your method test(MyInterface) to check between them
Use chaining. That is, declare handlers ATester, BTester etc, all of which implement the interface ITester which has the method test(MyInterface). Then in the ATester, check that the type is equal to A before doing stuff. Then your main Tester class can have a chain of these testers and pass each MyInterface instance down the chain, until it reaches an ITester which can handle it. This is basically turning the if-else block from 2 into separate classes.
Personally I would go for 2 in most situations. Java lacks true object-orientation. Deal with it! Coming up with various ways around it usually just makes for difficult-to-follow code.

Sounds like you need either a) to leverage polymorphism by putting method on MyInterface and implementing in A and B or b) some combination of Composite and Visitor design pattern. I'd start with a) and head towards b) when things get unwieldy.
My extensive thoughts on Visitor:
http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/07/16/visitor/

public interface MyInterface {}
public class A implements MyInterface{}
public class B implements MyInterface{}
public class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args){
MyInterface a = new A();
MyInterface b = new B();
test(b); // this is wrong
}
public static void test(A a){
System.out.println("A");
}
public static void test(B b){
System.out.println("B");
}
}
You are trying to pass an object referenced by MyInterface reference variable to a method defined with an argument with its sub type like test(B b). Compiler complains here because the MyInterface reference variable can reference any object which is a sub type of MyInterface, but not necessarily an object of B.There can be runtime errors if this is allowed in Java. Take an example which will make the concept clearer for you. I have modified your code for class B and added a method.
public class B implements MyInterface {
public void onlyBCanInvokeThis() {}
}
Now just alter the test(B b) method like below :
public static void test(B b){
b.onlyBCanInvokeThis();
System.out.println("B");
}
This code will blow up at runtime if allowed by compiler:
MyInterface a = new A();
// since a is of type A. invoking onlyBCanInvokeThis()
// inside test() method on a will throw exception.
test(a);
To prevent this, compiler disallows such method invocation techniques with super class reference.
I'm not sure what are you trying to achieve but it seems like you want to achieve runtime polymorphism. To achieve that you need to declare a method in your MyInterface and implement it in each of the subclass. This way the call to the method will be resolved at run time based on the object type and not on the reference type.
public interface MyInterface {
public void test();
}
public class A implements MyInterface{
public void test() {
System.out.println("A");
}
}
public class B implements MyInterface{
public void test() {
System.out.println("B");
}
}
public class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args){
MyInterface a = new A();
MyInterface b = new B();
b.test(); // calls B's implementation of test()
}
}