We Keep Coding

Why is "final" not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?

One of the most useful features of Java 8 are the new default methods on interfaces. There are essentially two reasons (there may be others) why they have been introduced:
Providing actual default implementations. Example: Iterator.remove()
Allowing for JDK API evolution. Example: Iterable.forEach()
From an API designer's perspective, I would have liked to be able to use other modifiers on interface methods, e.g. final. This would be useful when adding convenience methods, preventing "accidental" overrides in implementing classes:
interface Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
default final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
void send(String message);
}
The above is already common practice if Sender were a class:
abstract class Sender {
// Convenience method to send an empty message
final void send() {
send(null);
}
// Implementations should only implement this method
abstract void send(String message);
}
Now, default and final are obviously contradicting keywords, but the default keyword itself would not have been strictly required, so I'm assuming that this contradiction is deliberate, to reflect the subtle differences between "class methods with body" (just methods) and "interface methods with body" (default methods), i.e. differences which I have not yet understood.
At some point of time, support for modifiers like static and final on interface methods was not yet fully explored, citing Brian Goetz:
The other part is how far we're going to go to support class-building
tools in interfaces, such as final methods, private methods, protected
methods, static methods, etc. The answer is: we don't know yet
Since that time in late 2011, obviously, support for static methods in interfaces was added. Clearly, this added a lot of value to the JDK libraries themselves, such as with Comparator.comparing().
Question:
What is the reason final (and also static final) never made it to Java 8 interfaces?

This question is, to some degree, related to What is the reason why “synchronized” is not allowed in Java 8 interface methods?
The key thing to understand about default methods is that the primary design goal is interface evolution, not "turn interfaces into (mediocre) traits". While there's some overlap between the two, and we tried to be accommodating to the latter where it didn't get in the way of the former, these questions are best understood when viewed in this light. (Note too that class methods are going to be different from interface methods, no matter what the intent, by virtue of the fact that interface methods can be multiply inherited.)
The basic idea of a default method is: it is an interface method with a default implementation, and a derived class can provide a more specific implementation. And because the design center was interface evolution, it was a critical design goal that default methods be able to be added to interfaces after the fact in a source-compatible and binary-compatible manner.
The too-simple answer to "why not final default methods" is that then the body would then not simply be the default implementation, it would be the only implementation. While that's a little too simple an answer, it gives us a clue that the question is already heading in a questionable direction.
Another reason why final interface methods are questionable is that they create impossible problems for implementors. For example, suppose you have:
interface A {
default void foo() { ... }
}
interface B {
}
class C implements A, B {
}
Here, everything is good; C inherits foo() from A. Now supposing B is changed to have a foo method, with a default:
interface B {
default void foo() { ... }
}
Now, when we go to recompile C, the compiler will tell us that it doesn't know what behavior to inherit for foo(), so C has to override it (and could choose to delegate to A.super.foo() if it wanted to retain the same behavior.) But what if B had made its default final, and A is not under the control of the author of C? Now C is irretrievably broken; it can't compile without overriding foo(), but it can't override foo() if it was final in B.
This is just one example, but the point is that finality for methods is really a tool that makes more sense in the world of single-inheritance classes (generally which couple state to behavior), than to interfaces which merely contribute behavior and can be multiply inherited. It's too hard to reason about "what other interfaces might be mixed into the eventual implementor", and allowing an interface method to be final would likely cause these problems (and they would blow up not on the person who wrote the interface, but on the poor user who tries to implement it.)
Another reason to disallow them is that they wouldn't mean what you think they mean. A default implementation is only considered if the class (or its superclasses) don't provide a declaration (concrete or abstract) of the method. If a default method were final, but a superclass already implemented the method, the default would be ignored, which is probably not what the default author was expecting when declaring it final. (This inheritance behavior is a reflection of the design center for default methods -- interface evolution. It should be possible to add a default method (or a default implementation to an existing interface method) to existing interfaces that already have implementations, without changing the behavior of existing classes that implement the interface, guaranteeing that classes that already worked before default methods were added will work the same way in the presence of default methods.)

In the lambda mailing list there are plenty of discussions about it. One of those that seems to contain a lot of discussion about all that stuff is the following: On Varied interface method visibility (was Final defenders).
In this discussion, Talden, the author of the original question asks something very similar to your question:
The decision to make all interface members public was indeed an
unfortunate decision. That any use of interface in internal design
exposes implementation private details is a big one.
It's a tough one to fix without adding some obscure or compatibility
breaking nuances to the language. A compatibility break of that
magnitude and potential subtlety would seen unconscionable so a
solution has to exist that doesn't break existing code.
Could reintroducing the 'package' keyword as an access-specifier be
viable. It's absence of a specifier in an interface would imply
public-access and the absence of a specifier in a class implies
package-access. Which specifiers make sense in an interface is unclear
- especially if, to minimise the knowledge burden on developers, we have to ensure that access-specifiers mean the same thing in both
class and interface if they're present.
In the absence of default methods I'd have speculated that the
specifier of a member in an interface has to be at least as visible as
the interface itself (so the interface can actually be implemented in
all visible contexts) - with default methods that's not so certain.
Has there been any clear communication as to whether this is even a
possible in-scope discussion? If not, should it be held elsewhere.
Eventually Brian Goetz's answer was:
Yes, this is already being explored.
However, let me set some realistic expectations -- language / VM
features have a long lead time, even trivial-seeming ones like this.
The time for proposing new language feature ideas for Java SE 8 has
pretty much passed.
So, most likely it was never implemented because it was never part of the scope. It was never proposed in time to be considered.
In another heated discussion about final defender methods on the subject, Brian said again:
And you have gotten exactly what you wished for. That's exactly what
this feature adds -- multiple inheritance of behavior. Of course we
understand that people will use them as traits. And we've worked hard
to ensure that the the model of inheritance they offer is simple and
clean enough that people can get good results doing so in a broad
variety of situations. We have, at the same time, chosen not to push
them beyond the boundary of what works simply and cleanly, and that
leads to "aw, you didn't go far enough" reactions in some case. But
really, most of this thread seems to be grumbling that the glass is
merely 98% full. I'll take that 98% and get on with it!
So this reinforces my theory that it simply was not part of the scope or part of their design. What they did was to provide enough functionality to deal with the issues of API evolution.

It will be hard to find and identify "THE" answer, for the resons mentioned in the comments from #EJP : There are roughly 2 (+/- 2) people in the world who can give the definite answer at all. And in doubt, the answer might just be something like "Supporting final default methods did not seem to be worth the effort of restructuring the internal call resolution mechanisms". This is speculation, of course, but it is at least backed by subtle evidences, like this Statement (by one of the two persons) in the OpenJDK mailing list:
"I suppose if "final default" methods were allowed, they might need rewriting from internal invokespecial to user-visible invokeinterface."
and trivial facts like that a method is simply not considered to be a (really) final method when it is a default method, as currently implemented in the Method::is_final_method method in the OpenJDK.
Further really "authorative" information is indeed hard to find, even with excessive websearches and by reading commit logs. I thought that it might be related to potential ambiguities during the resolution of interface method calls with the invokeinterface instruction and and class method calls, corresponding to the invokevirtual instruction: For the invokevirtual instruction, there may be a simple vtable lookup, because the method must either be inherited from a superclass, or implemented by the class directly. In contrast to that, an invokeinterface call must examine the respective call site to find out which interface this call actually refers to (this is explained in more detail in the InterfaceCalls page of the HotSpot Wiki). However, final methods do either not get inserted into the vtable at all, or replace existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp. Line 333), and similarly, default methods are replacing existing entries in the vtable (see klassVtable.cpp, Line 202). So the actual reason (and thus, the answer) must be hidden deeper inside the (rather complex) method call resolution mechanisms, but maybe these references will nevertheless be considered as being helpful, be it only for others that manage to derive the actual answer from that.

I wouldn't think it is neccessary to specify final on a convienience interface method, I can agree though that it may be helpful, but seemingly the costs have outweight the benefits.
What you are supposed to do, either way, is to write proper javadoc for the default method, showing exactly what the method is and is not allowed to do. In that way the classes implementing the interface "are not allowed" to change the implementation, though there are no guarantees.
Anyone could write a Collection that adheres to the interface and then does things in the methods that are absolutely counter intuitive, there is no way to shield yourself from that, other than writing extensive unit tests.

We add default keyword to our method inside an interface when we know that the class extending the interface may or may not override our implementation. But what if we want to add a method that we don't want any implementing class to override? Well, two options were available to us:
Add a default final method.
Add a static method.
Now, Java says that if we have a class implementing two or more interfaces such that they have a default method with exactly same method name and signature i.e. they are duplicate, then we need to provide an implementation of that method in our class. Now in case of default final methods, we can't provide an implementation and we are stuck. And that's why final keyword isn't used in interfaces.

What is the advantage of using interfaces [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Interfaces in Java - what are they for? [duplicate]
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Let's say you have an interface
public interface Change {
void updateUser();
void deleteUser();
void helpUser();
}
I've read that interfaces are Java's way to implement multiple inheritance. You implement an interface, then you have access to its methods. What I don't understand is, the methods don't have any body in the interface, so you need to give them a body in your class. So if you an interface is implemented by more than one class, you need to give the method a body in more than one class. Why is this better than just having individual methods in your classes, and not implementing an interface?

My professor in college once gave a great anecdote to describe polymorphism and encapsulation. It went like this.
Does anyone here know how a soda machine works? (Cue confused glances about why we'd even talk about this.) No? Let me tell you.
You drop in your change, and inside the machine is a little monkey who counts all your change to make sure you put in enough money. When you press the button for your soda, a little light comes on telling the monkey which button you pressed, and if you entered the right amount of change, he grabs your choice and throws it into the little hole for you to grab your soda.
This is the concept of encapsulation. We hide the implementation of the soda machine. Unless it's got one of those fancy, clear windows to let you see the inside, you honestly have no idea how it really works. All you know is that you put in some cash, you press a button, and if you put in enough, you get your drink.
To add to that, you know how to use a soda machine's interface, so therefore as long as the machine's interface follows the usual soda machine interface, you can use it. This is called the interface contract. The machine can be bringing the drinks from Antarctica on a conveyor belt for all you care, as long as you get your drink, it's cold, and you get change back.
Polymorphism is the idea that when you use the soda machine interface, it could be doing different things. This is why encapsulation and polymorphism are closely related. In polymorphism, all you know is that you're using a SodaMachine implementation, which can be changed, and as a result, different things can be done behind the scenes. This leads to the driving concept of polymorphism, which is the ability of one object, the SodaMachine, to actually act as both a MonkeySodaMachine and a ConveyorSodaMachine depending on the machine actually behind the interface.
Probably not word-for-word, but close enough. Essentially it boils down to two concepts: polymorphism and encapsulation. Let me know if you want clarification.

Why is this better than just having individual methods in your classes, and not implementing an interface?
Because if a class C implements an interface I, you can use a C whenever an I is expected. If you do not implement the interface, you could not do this (even if you provided all of the appropriate methods as mandated by the interface):
interface I {
void foo();
}
class C1 implements I {
public void foo() {
System.out.println("C1");
}
}
class C2 { // C2 has a 'foo' method, but does not implement I
public void foo() {
System.out.println("C2");
}
}
...
class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
I eye1 = new C1(); // works
I eye2 = new C2(); // error!
}
}

It separates what the caller expects from the implementation. You have a pure set of methods you can call without any knowledge of the implementation. In fact some libraries like JMS and JDBC provide interfaces without any implementations.
This separation means you don't need to know the class of any actual implementation.

An interface allows you to guarantee that certain methods exist and return the required types. When the compiler knows this, it can use that assumption to work with unknown classes as if they had certain known behavior. For example, the comparable interface guarantees that an implementing class will be able to compareTo() some similar object and will return an int.
This means that you can compare anything that implements this interface - so you can sort anything that is Comparable instead of writing one method to sort Strings and another to sort Integers and another to sort LabelledBoxesOfBooks

The interface essentially guarentees that all the methods that inherit it will have its methods, so that you can safely call a method in the interface for anything that inherits it.

It makes it easier to define APIs using interfaces, so that all concrete implementations of the interfaces provide the expected methods in each class.
It also provides a way to implement multiple inheritance, which is not possible (in Java) with straight class inheritance.

What is there to "override" in an interface?

Starting with Java 1.6, we can use #Override to mark the implementation of methods defined in the interface. I understand the values of having that annotation, which I use systematically. But can someone explain to me what on earth is there to "override" since the interface just defines a contract and doesn't provide a default implementation?

Yes, there is nothing to override and the only plausible explanation is that this was an offshoot of convention.
In the context of a class implementing an interface, you don't really need this since the compiler will come screaming if you fail to write code for all interface methods anyway. In this setting, the annotation works like a marker, no different than a comment.
Also, if it's interface-related, IDE's ought to stop including #Override it in auto-generated quick-fix method stubs.
On top of that they should generate an "unused" code warning if the #Override annotation is used on an implementation of an interface method.

Semantically, it only makes sense if you consider an interface to be a kind of empty base class instead of a completely different thing. And historically this is in fact the origin of the interface concept. C++ was a language that didn't have a native concept of "interface", but that supported giving a single class multiple base classes. Many people who used the language felt that having multiple base classes was too unwieldly to be useful - except in the case of base classes that had no implementation at all, and only method definitions. Subsequent languages, such as Java, formalized the concept of interface-only base classes.

I guess it might be useful in this situation.
interface Goable {
void go(Location loc);
}
class Vehicle implements Goable {
void go() {
...
}
void go(Location loc) {
...
}
}
In the class Vehicle, using #Override can help identify the implemented method.

Why are interfaces preferred to abstract classes?

I recently attended an interview and they asked me the question "Why Interfaces are preferred over Abstract classes?"
I tried giving a few answers like:
We can get only one Extends functionality
they are 100% Abstract
Implementation is not hard-coded
They asked me take any of the JDBC api that you use. "Why are they Interfaces?".
Can I get a better answer for this?

That interview question reflects a certain belief of the person asking the question. I believe that the person is wrong, and therefore you can go one of two directions.
Give them the answer they want.
Respectfully disagree.
The answer that they want, well, the other posters have highlighted those incredibly well.
Multiple interface inheritance, the inheritance forces the class to make implementation choices, interfaces can be changed easier.
However, if you create a compelling (and correct) argument in your disagreement, then the interviewer might take note.
First, highlight the positive things about interfaces, this is a MUST.
Secondly, I would say that interfaces are better in many scenarios, but they also lead to code duplication which is a negative thing. If you have a wide array of subclasses which will be doing largely the same implementation, plus extra functionality, then you might want an abstract class. It allows you to have many similar objects with fine grained detail, whereas with only interfaces, you must have many distinct objects with almost duplicate code.
Interfaces have many uses, and there is a compelling reason to believe they are 'better'. However you should always be using the correct tool for the job, and that means that you can't write off abstract classes.

In general, and this is by no means a "rule" that should be blindly followed, the most flexible arrangement is:
interface
abstract class
concrete class 1
concrete class 2
The interface is there for a couple of reasons:
an existing class that already extends something can implement the interface (assuming you have control over the code for the existing class)
an existing class can be subclasses and the subclass can implement the interface (assuming the existing class is subclassable)
This means that you can take pre-existing classes (or just classes that MUST extend from something else) and have them work with your code.
The abstract class is there to provide all of the common bits for the concrete classes. The abstract class is extended from when you are writing new classes or modifying classes that you want to extend it (assuming they extend from java.lang.Object).
You should always (unless you have a really good reason not to) declare variables (instance, class, local, and method parameters) as the interface.

You only get one shot at inheritance. If you make an abstract class rather than an interface, someone who inherits your class can't also inherit a different abstract class.

You can implement more than one interface, but you can only inherit from a single class

Abstract Classes
1.Cannot be instantiated independently from their derived classes. Abstract class constructors are called only by their derived classes.
2.Define abstract member signatures that base classes must implement.
3.Are more extensible than interfaces, without breaking any version compatibility. With abstract classes, it is possible to add additional nonabstract members that all derived classes can inherit.
4.Can include data stored in fields.
5.Allow for (virtual) members that have implementation and, therefore, provide a default implementation of a member to the deriving class.
6.Deriving from an abstract class uses up a subclass's one and only base class option.
Interface
1.Cannot be instantiated.
2.Implementation of all members of the interface occurs in the base class. It is not possible to implement only some members within the implementing class.
3.Extending interfaces with additional members breaks the version compatibility.
4.Cannot store any data. Fields can be specified only on the deriving classes. The workaround for this is to define properties, but without implementation.
5.All members are automatically virtual and cannot include any implementation.
6.Although no default implementation can appear, classes implementing interfaces can continue to derive from one another.

As devinb and others mention, it sounds like the interviewer shows their ignorance in not accepting your valid answers.
However, the mention of JDBC might be a hint. In that case, perhaps they are asking for the benefits of a client coding against an interface instead of a class.
So instead of perfectly valid answers such as "you only get one use of inheritance", which are relating to class design, they may be looking for an answer more like "decouples a client from a specific implementation".

Abstract classes have a number of potential pitfalls. For example, if you override a method, the super() method is not called unless you explicitly call it. This can cause problems for poorly-implemented overriding classes. Also, there are potential problems with equals() when you use inheritance.
Using interfaces can encourage use of composition when you want to share an implementation. Composition is very often a better way to reuse others objects, as it is less brittle. Inheritance is easily overused or used for the wrong purposes.
Defining an interface is a very safe way to define how an object is supposed to act, without risking the brittleness that can come with extending another class, abstract or not.
Also, as you mention, you can only extend one class at a time, but you can implement as many interfaces as you wish.

Abstract classes are used when you inherit implementation, interfaces are used when you inherit specification. The JDBC standards state that "A connection must do this". That's specification.

When you use abstract classes you create a coupling between the subclass and the base class. This coupling can sometimes make code really hard to change, especially as the number of subclasses increases. Interfaces do not have this problem.
You also only have one inheritance, so you should make sure you use it for the proper reasons.

"Why Interfaces are preferred over
Abstract classes?"
The other posts have done a great job of looking at the differences between interfaces and abstract classes, so I won't duplicate those thoughts.
But looking at the interview question, the better question is really "When should interfaces be preferred over abstract classes?" (and vice versa).
As with most programming constructs, they're available for a reason and absolute statements like the one in the interview question tend to miss that. It sort of reminds me of all the statement you used to read regarding the goto statement in C. "You should never use goto - it reveals poor coding skills." However, goto always had its appropriate uses.

Respectfully disagree with most of the above posters (sorry! mod me down if you want :-) )
First, the "only one super class" answer is lame. Anyone who gave me that answer in an interview would be quickly countered with "C++ existed before Java and C++ had multiple super classes. Why do you think James Gosling only allowed one superclass for Java?"
Understand the philosophy behind your answer otherwise you are toast (at least if I interview you.)
Second, interfaces have multiple advantages over abstract classes, especially when designing interfaces. The biggest one is not having a particular class structure imposed on the caller of a method. There is nothing worse than trying to use a method call that demands a particular class structure. It is painful and awkward. Using an interface anything can be passed to the method with a minimum of expectations.
Example:
public void foo(Hashtable bar);
vs.
public void foo(Map bar);
For the former, the caller will always be taking their existing data structure and slamming it into a new Hashtable.
Third, interfaces allow public methods in the concrete class implementers to be "private". If the method is not declared in the interface then the method cannot be used (or misused) by classes that have no business using the method. Which brings me to point 4....
Fourth, Interfaces represent a minimal contract between the implementing class and the caller. This minimal contract specifies exactly how the concrete implementer expects to be used and no more. The calling class is not allowed to use any other method not specified by the "contract" of the interface. The interface name in use also flavors the developer's expectation of how they should be using the object. If a developer is passed a
public interface FragmentVisitor {
public void visit(Node node);
}
The developer knows that the only method they can call is the visit method. They don't get distracted by the bright shiny methods in the concrete class that they shouldn't mess with.
Lastly, abstract classes have many methods that are really only present for the subclasses to be using. So abstract classes tend to look a little like a mess to the outside developer, there is no guidance on which methods are intended to be used by outside code.
Yes of course some such methods can be made protected. However, sadly protected methods are also visible to other classes in the same package. And if an abstract class' method implements an interface the method must be public.
However using interfaces all this innards that are hanging out when looking at the abstract super class or the concrete class are safely tucked away.
Yes I know that of course the developer may use some "special" knowledge to cast an object to another broader interface or the concrete class itself. But such a cast violates the expected contract, and the developer should be slapped with a salmon.

If they think that X is better than Y I wouldn't be worried about getting the job, I wouldn't like working for someone who forced me to one design over another because they were told interfaces are the best. Both are good depending on the situation, otherwise why did the language choose to add abstract classes? Surely, the language designers are smarter than me.

This is the issue of "Multiple Inheritance".
We can "extends" not more than one abstarct class at one time through another class but in Interfaces, we can "implement" multiple interfaces in single class.
So, though Java doesn't provide multiple inheritance in general but by using interfaces we can incorporate multiplt inheritance property in it.
Hope this helps!!!

interfaces are a cleaner way of writing a purely abstract class. You can tell that implementation has not sneaked in (of course you might want to do that at certain maintenance stages, which makes interfaces bad). That's about it. There is almost no difference discernible to client code.
JDBC is a really bad example. Ask anyone who has tried to implement the interfaces and maintain the code between JDK releases. JAX-WS is even worse, adding methods in update releases.
There are technical differences, such as the ability to multiply "inherit" interface. That tends to be the result of confused design. In rare cases it might be useful to have an implementation hierarchy that is different from the interface hierarchy.
On the downside for interfaces, the compiler is unable to pick up on some impossible casts/instanceofs.

There is one reason not mentioned by the above.
You can decorate any interface easily with java.lang.reflect.Proxy allowing you to add custom code at runtime to any method in the given interface. It is very powerful.
See http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-reflection/dynamic-proxies.html for a tutorial.

interface is not substitute for abstract class.
Prefer
interface: To implement a contract by multiple unrelated objects
abstract class: To implement the same or different behaviour among multiple related objects
Refer to this related SE question for use cases of both interface and abstract class
Interface vs Abstract Class (general OO)
Use case:
If you have to use Template_method pattern, you can't achieve with interface. Abstract class should be chosen to achieve it.
If you have to implement a capability for many unrleated objects, abstract class does not serve the purpose and you have to chose interface.

You can implement multiple interfaces, but particularly with c# you can not have multiple inheritances

Because interfaces are not forcing you into some inheritance hierarchy.

You define interfaces when you only require that some object implement certain methods but you don't care about its pedigree. So someone can extend an existing class to implement an interface, without affecting the previously existing behavior of that class.
That's why JDBC is all interfaces; you don't really care what classes are used in a JDBC implementation, you only need any JDBC implementation to have the same expected behavior. Internally, the Oracle JDBC driver may be very different from the PostgreSQL driver, but that's irrelevant to you. One may have to inherit from some internal classes that the database developers already had, while another one may be completely developed from scratch, but that's not important to you as long as they both implement the same interfaces so that you can communicate with one or the other without knowing the internal workings of either.

Well, I'd suggest the question itself should be rephrased. Interfaces are mainly contracts that a class acquires, the implementation of that contract itself will vary. An abstract class will usually contain some default logic and its child classes will add some more logic.
I'd say that the answer to the questions relies on the diamond problem. Java prevents multiple inheritance to avoid it. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_problem ).

They asked me take any of the JDBC api
that you use. "Why are they
Interfaces?".
My answer to this specific question is :
SUN doesnt know how to implement them or what to put in the implementation. Its up to the service providers/db vendors to put their logic into the implementation.
The JDBC design has relationship with the Bridge pattern, which says "Decouple an abstraction from its implementation so that the two can vary independently".
That means JDBC api's interfaces hierarchy can be evolved irrespective of the implementation hierarchy that a jdbc vendor provides or uses.

Abstract classes offer a way to define a template of behavior, where the user plugins in the details.
One good example is Java 6's SwingWorker. It defines a framework to do something in the background, requiring the user to define doInBackground() for the actual task.
I extended this class such that it automatically created a popup progress bar. I overrode done(), to control disposal of this pop-up, but then provided a new override point, allowing the user to optionally define what happens after the progress bar disappears.
public abstract class ProgressiveSwingWorker<T, V> extends SwingWorker<T, V> {
private JFrame progress;
public ProgressiveSwingWorker(final String title, final String label) {
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
#SuppressWarnings("serial")
#Override
public void run() {
progress = new JFrame() {{
setLayout(new MigLayout("","[grow]"));
setTitle(title);
add(new JLabel(label));
JProgressBar bar = new JProgressBar();
bar.setIndeterminate(true);
add(bar);
pack();
setLocationRelativeTo(null);
setVisible(true);
}};
}
});
}
/**
* This method has been marked final to secure disposing of the progress dialog. Any behavior
* intended for this should be put in afterProgressBarDisposed.
*/
#Override
protected final void done() {
progress.dispose();
try {
afterProgressBarDisposed(get());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
protected void afterProgressBarDisposed(T results) {
}
}
The user still has the requirement of providing the implementation of doInBackground(). However, they can also have follow-up behavior, such as opening another window, displaying a JOptionPane with results, or simply do nothing.
To use it:
new ProgressiveSwingWorker<DataResultType, Object>("Editing some data", "Editing " + data.getSource()) {
#Override
protected DataResultType doInBackground() throws Exception {
return retrieve(data.getSource());
}
#Override
protected void afterProgressBarDisposed(DataResultType results) {
new DataEditor(results);
}
}.execute();
This shows how an abstract class can nicely provide a templated operation, orthogonal to the concept of interfaces defining an API contract.

Its depend on your requirement and power of implementation, which is much important.
You have got so many answer regarding this question.
What i think about this question is that abstract class is the evolution if API.
You can define your future function definition in abstract class but you don't need all function implementation in your main class but with interface you cant do this thing.

Java: No interface implementation?

Today I got my book "Head First Design Patterns" in the mail. Pretty interesting stuff so far, however I do have a question about it's contents.
I have no Java/C# background nor do I wish to jump into those languages right now (I'm trying to focus on C++ first). In the book is said that java does not have an implementation for interfaces... This would mean that for every change to that interface, you would have to modify all subclasses that implement the interface.
How is this done in C++? What am I missing?

What the author of the book meant, if you change the signatures of the members of the interface or add new ones, you will need to make those changes in the implementing classes as well so that they keep implementing the interface.
You can change the implementing classes whatever way you want as long you have the members of the interface implemented with exactly the same signatures (that is, with the same name, return type, and the order and type of parameters).
I have the impression that you don't quite understand how interfaces work, so I suggest reading up the C# interface specification on MSDN which is quite clear on the subject I think (and it's pretty much the same in Java except that in Java you use the "implements" keyword instead of a colon (:) to declare that a class implements a specific interface).

... if you want to change the signature of a method in an interface, a good IDE (eclipse, netbeans...) can help you with refactoring all the classes implementing this interface.

It's the same situation in C++.
C++ doesn't have an interface keyword, but a pure virtual class, with all pure virtual methods, is the same idea.
If you changed method signatures in the pure virtual class, all its subclasses must follow suit in order to compile.

The C++ equivalent of a Java interface would be a class with only pure virtual methods.
You mentioned that you've "seen plenty of these Runnable/Threadable interfaces that can be modified without touching those subclasses." It's hard to say for sure from your description, but what you might have seen before is something like this:
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// do something here
}
};
This is an anonymous class implementing the Runnable interface; it is not modifying the interface in any way.

An interface defines a contract that the class implementing the interface is expected to follow. This is akin to an abstract base class - which basically delegates the implementation of the methods to the deriving class.
Yes, if you modify the interface - you would have to modify all the classes that implement that interface. My guess is that the instances of Runnable that you would have seen in Java code are anonymous classes which actually implement Runnable rather than modify the interface itself.
Runnable myOwnThread = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// Do something here
}
};
In Java, you are not allowed to modify the interfaces (and classes) provided in the standard library. The equivalent in C++ could be the pure virtual class.

Ok I'll askt he obvious question:
If you want to do design patterns in C++ why would you read anything other than the original Gang of Four Design Patterns book?
And yes a C++ class with pure virtual methods is the equivalent to a Java or C# interface.