I understand that in Java static methods are inherited just like instance methods, with the difference that when they are redeclared, the parent implementations are hidden rather than overridden. Fine, this makes sense. However, the Java tutorial notes that
Static methods in interfaces are never inherited.
Why? What's the difference between regular and interface static methods?
Let me clarify what I mean when I say static methods can be inherited:
class Animal {
public static void identify() {
System.out.println("This is an animal");
}
}
class Cat extends Animal {}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Animal.identify();
Cat.identify(); // This compiles, even though it is not redefined in Cat.
}
However,
interface Animal {
public static void identify() {
System.out.println("This is an animal");
}
}
class Cat implements Animal {}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Animal.identify();
Cat.identify(); // This does not compile, because interface static methods do not inherit. (Why?)
}
Here's my guess.
Since Cat can only extend one class if Cat extends Animal then Cat.identify has only one meaning. Cat can implement multiple interfaces each of which can have a static implementation. Therefore, the compiler would not know which one to choose?
However, as pointed out by the author,
Java already has this problem, with default methods. If two interfaces
declare default void identify(), which one is used? It's a compile
error, and you have to implement an overriding method (which could
just be Animal.super.identify()). So Java already resolves this
problem for default methods – why not for static methods?
If I was to guess again, I'd say that with default the implementation is part of Cat's vtable. With static it cannot be. The main function must bind to something. At compile time Cat.identify could be replaced with Animal.identify by the compiler but the code wouldn't match reality if Cat was recompiled but not the class that contains main.
Before Java 8, you couldn't define static methods in an interface. This is heavily discussed in this question. I'm going to refer to this answer (by user #JamesA.Rosen) as to why the Java designers probably didn't want static methods in an interface initially:
There are a few issues at play here. The first is the issue of
declaring a static method without defining it. This is the difference
between
public interface Foo {
public static int bar();
}
and
public interface Foo {
public static int bar() {
...
}
}
Java doesn't allow either, but it could allow the second. The first is
impossible for the reasons that Espo mentions: you don't know which
implementing class is the correct definition.
Java could allow the latter, as long as it treated Interfaces as
first-class Objects. Ruby's Modules, which are approximately
equivalent to Java's Interfaces, allow exactly that:
module Foo
def self.bar
...
end
end
However, since the release of Java 8, you can actually add default and static methods inside an interface.
I'm going to be quoting this source a lot here. This is the initial problem:
Java's interface language feature lets you declare interfaces with
abstract methods and provide implementations of those methods in the
classes that implement the interfaces. You are required to implement
each method, which is burdensome when there are many methods to
implement. Also, after publishing the interface you cannot add new
abstract methods to it without breaking source and binary
compatibility.
This was the solution Java 8 provided default:
Java 8 addresses these problems by evolving the interface to support
default and static methods. A default method is an instance method
defined in an interface whose method header begins with the default
keyword; it also provides a code body. Every class that implements the
interface inherits the interface's default methods and can override
them
And for static:
A static method is a method that's associated with the class in which
it's defined, rather than with any object created from that class.
Every instance of the class shares the static methods of the class.
Java 8 also lets static methods be defined in interfaces where they
can assist default methods.
When you implement an interface that contains a static method, the
static method is still part of the interface and not part of the
implementing class. For this reason, you cannot prefix the method with
the class name. Instead, you must prefix the method with the interface
name
Example:
interface X
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("foo");
}
}
class Y implements X
{
}
public class Z
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
X.foo();
// Y.foo(); // won't compile
}
}
Expression Y.foo() will not compile because foo() is a static member
of interface X and not a static member of class Y.
Static methods in interfaces could create a diamond of death if they were being inherited. So, calling a static method from the appropriate interface is good enough compared to the risk of calling it from a concrete class that may implement multiple interfaces that contain static methods of the same name.
Why are static methods any different?
Static methods are just functions unrelated to the objects. Instead of placing them in utility abstract classes (like calling Collections.sort() ) we move those functions (static methods) to their appropriate interfaces. They could be bound to the inherited objects like the default methods do, but that is not their job.
Static methods provide functionality which is unrelated to the instances of the class.
Example:
interface Floatable {
default void float() {
// implementation
}
static boolean checkIfItCanFloat(Object fl) {
// some physics here
}
}
class Duck implements Floatable { }
So, the point is that a Duck may float but the function that checks if an Object really floats is not something that a Duck can do. It is an irrelevant functionallity that we could pass to our Floatable interface instead of having it sit inside some utility class.
Let's begin with some background ...
Java doesn't support multiple inheritance (the ability to extend more than one class). This is because multiple inheritance is prone to the deadly diamond of death (also known as the diamond problem) which the designers of Java chose to preempt.
If B and C override a method inherited from A, which method does D inherit?
A class can implement multiple interfaces because interface methods are contracted for overriding; if a class C implements two interfaces A and B that declare the same method, then the same method in C will be invoked by clients of either interface (A or B). The introduction of default methods for interfaces in Java 8 was made possible by forcing the implementer to override the default in case of ambiguity. This was an acceptable compromise since default methods are intended to be defensive (to be used if no other implementation is explicitly provided by an implementer). However, since the compiler can’t force you to override a static method (static methods inherently can't be overridden), the introduction of static methods for interfaces in Java came with one restriction: the static methods of an interface are not inherited.
The answer is that static methods belong to a class/interface and there is only one instance for static blocks. that's the reason you can't override any static method.
Even in classes, you may override but only the super class' static method gets executed.
Related
Why are interface variables static and final by default in Java?
From the Java interface design FAQ by Philip Shaw:
Interface variables are static because Java interfaces cannot be instantiated in their own right; the value of the variable must be assigned in a static context in which no instance exists. The final modifier ensures the value assigned to the interface variable is a true constant that cannot be re-assigned by program code.
source
public: for the accessibility across all the classes, just like the methods present in the interface
static: as interface cannot have an object, the interfaceName.variableName can be used to reference it or directly the variableName in the class implementing it.
final: to make them constants. If 2 classes implement the same interface and you give both of them the right to change the value, conflict will occur in the current value of the var, which is why only one time initialization is permitted.
Also all these modifiers are implicit for an interface, you dont really need to specify any of them.
Since interface doesn't have a direct object, the only way to access them is by using a class/interface and hence that is why if interface variable exists, it should be static otherwise it wont be accessible at all to outside world. Now since it is static, it can hold only one value and any classes that implements it can change it and hence it will be all mess.
Hence if at all there is an interface variable, it will be implicitly static, final and obviously public!!!
(This is not a philosophical answer but more of a practical one). The requirement for static modifier is obvious which has been answered by others. Basically, since the interfaces cannot be instantiated, the only way to access its fields are to make them a class field -- static.
The reason behind the interface fields automatically becoming final (constant) is to prevent different implementations accidentally changing the value of interface variable which can inadvertently affect the behavior of the other implementations. Imagine the scenario below where an interface property did not explicitly become final by Java:
public interface Actionable {
public static boolean isActionable = false;
public void performAction();
}
public NuclearAction implements Actionable {
public void performAction() {
// Code that depends on isActionable variable
if (isActionable) {
// Launch nuclear weapon!!!
}
}
}
Now, just think what would happen if another class that implements Actionable alters the state of the interface variable:
public CleanAction implements Actionable {
public void performAction() {
// Code that can alter isActionable state since it is not constant
isActionable = true;
}
}
If these classes are loaded within a single JVM by a classloader, then the behavior of NuclearAction can be affected by another class, CleanAction, when its performAction() is invoke after CleanAction's is executed (in the same thread or otherwise), which in this case can be disastrous (semantically that is).
Since we do not know how each implementation of an interface is going to use these variables, they must implicitly be final.
Because anything else is part of the implementation, and interfaces cannot contain any implementation.
public interface A{
int x=65;
}
public interface B{
int x=66;
}
public class D implements A,B {
public static void main(String[] a){
System.out.println(x); // which x?
}
}
Here is the solution.
System.out.println(A.x); // done
I think it is the one reason why interface variable are static.
Don't declare variables inside Interface.
because:
Static : as we can't have objects of interfaces so we should avoid using Object level member variables and should use class level variables i.e. static.
Final : so that we should not have ambiguous values for the variables(Diamond problem - Multiple Inheritance).
And as per the documentation interface is a contract and not an implementation.
reference: Abhishek Jain's answer on quora
static - because Interface cannot have any instance. and final - because we do not need to change it.
Interface : System requirement service.
In interface, variable are by default assign by public,static,final access modifier.
Because :
public : It happen some-times that interface might placed in some other package. So it need to access the variable from anywhere in project.
static : As such incomplete class can not create object. So in project we need to access the variable without object so we can access with the help of interface_filename.variable_name
final : Suppose one interface implements by many class and all classes try to access and update the interface variable. So it leads to inconsistent of changing data and affect every other class. So it need to declare access modifier with final.
Java does not allow abstract variables and/or constructor definitions in interfaces. Solution: Simply hang an abstract class between your interface and your implementation which only extends the abstract class like so:
public interface IMyClass {
void methodA();
String methodB();
Integer methodC();
}
public abstract class myAbstractClass implements IMyClass {
protected String varA, varB;
//Constructor
myAbstractClass(String varA, String varB) {
this.varA = varA;
this.varB = VarB;
}
//Implement (some) interface methods here or leave them for the concrete class
protected void methodA() {
//Do something
}
//Add additional methods here which must be implemented in the concrete class
protected abstract Long methodD();
//Write some completely new methods which can be used by all subclasses
protected Float methodE() {
return 42.0;
}
}
public class myConcreteClass extends myAbstractClass {
//Constructor must now be implemented!
myClass(String varA, String varB) {
super(varA, varB);
}
//All non-private variables from the abstract class are available here
//All methods not implemented in the abstract class must be implemented here
}
You can also use an abstract class without any interface if you are SURE that you don't want to implement it along with other interfaces later. Please note that you can't create an instance of an abstract class you MUST extend it first.
(The "protected" keyword means that only extended classes can access these methods and variables.)
spyro
An Interface is contract between two parties that is invariant, carved in the stone, hence final. See Design by Contract.
In Java, interface doesn't allow you to declare any instance variables. Using a variable declared in an interface as an instance variable will return a compile time error.
You can declare a constant variable, using static final which is different from an instance variable.
Interface can be implemented by any classes and what if that value got changed by one of there implementing class then there will be mislead for other implementing classes. Interface is basically a reference to combine two corelated but different entity.so for that reason the declaring variable inside the interface will implicitly be final and also static because interface can not be instantiate.
Think of a web application where you have interface defined and other classes implement it. As you cannot create an instance of interface to access the variables you need to have a static keyword. Since its static any change in the value will reflect to other instances which has implemented it. So in order to prevent it we define them as final.
Just tried in Eclipse, the variable in interface is default to be final, so you can't change it. Compared with parent class, the variables are definitely changeable. Why? From my point, variable in class is an attribute which will be inherited by children, and children can change it according to their actual need. On the contrary, interface only define behavior, not attribute. The only reason to put in variables in interface is to use them as consts which related to that interface. Though, this is not a good practice according to following excerpt:
"Placing constants in an interface was a popular technique in the early days of Java, but now many consider it a distasteful use of interfaces, since interfaces should deal with the services provided by an object, not its data. As well, the constants used by a class are typically an implementation detail, but placing them in an interface promotes them to the public API of the class."
I also tried either put static or not makes no difference at all. The code is as below:
public interface Addable {
static int count = 6;
public int add(int i);
}
public class Impl implements Addable {
#Override
public int add(int i) {
return i+count;
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
Impl impl = new Impl();
System.out.println(impl.add(4));
}
}
I feel like all these answers missed the point of the OP's question.
The OP did not ask for confirmation of their statement, they wanted to know WHY their statement is the standard.
Answering the question requires a little bit of information.
First, lets talk about inheretence.
Lets assume there is a class called A with an instance variable named x.
When you create a class A, it inhereits all the properties of the Object class. Without your knowledge when you instantiate A, you are instantiating an Object object as well, and A points to it as it's parent.
Now lets say you make a class B that inherits from A.
When you create a class B, you are also creating a class A and a Object.
B has access to the variable x. that means that B.x is really just the same thing as B.A.x and Java just hides the magic of grabbing A for you.
Not lets talk about interfaces...
An interface is NOT inheretence. If B were to implmement the interface Comparable, B is not making a Comparable instance and calling it a parent. Instead, B is promising to have the things that Comparable has.
Not lets talk a little bit of theory here... An interface is a set of functions you can use to interact with something. It is not the thing itself. For example, you interface with your friends by talking to them, sharing food with them, dancing with them, being near them. You don't inheret from them though - you do not have a copy of them.
Interfaces are similar. There is only one interface and all the objects associate with it. Since the interface exists only one time as a Class (as opposed to an instance of itself) it is not possible for each object that implements the interface to have their own copy of the interface. That means there is only one instance of each variable. That means the variables are shared by all the classes that use the interface (a.k.a. static).
As for why we make them public...
Private would be useless. The functions are abstract and cannot have any code inside them to use teh private variable. It will always be unused. If the variable is marked as protected, then only an inheritor of the class will be able to use the variables. I don't think you can inhereit from interfaces. Public is the only viable option then.
The only design decision left is the 'final'. It is possible that you intend to change the shared variable between multiple instances of a class. (E.G. Maybe you have 5 players playing Monopoly and you want one board to exist so you have all the players meet the interface and a single shared Board - it might be that you want to actually make the board change based on the player functions...) [I recommend against this design]
For multithreaded applicatiosn though, if you don't make the variable static you will have a difficult time later, but I won't stop you. Do it and learn why that hurts <3
So there you go. final public static variables
It is said that Java has an alternative to achieve multiple inheritance by implementing number of interfaces. According to the Java documentation about inheritance found here:
A subclass inherits all the members (fields, methods, and nested classes) from its superclass . The idea of inheritance is simple but powerful: When you want to create a new class and there is already a class that includes some of the code that you want, you can derive your new class from the existing class. In doing this, you can reuse the fields and methods of the existing class without having to write (and debug!) them yourself.
and about interfaces here, it says that interfaces don't have methods implemented. They just contain method declarations. Also, as far as I know, interfaces don't contain nested classes either. One more point, not all the interfaces have constant fields, many a time the interfaces (which I use for my work) contain just method declarations.
In that case, what do we really inherit from them, if we have to define all the methods ourselves? I know the other uses of interfaces very well. But I am not getting what it has to do with inheritance.
In that case, what do we really inherit from them, if we have to define all the methods ourselves?
In classic Java (7 and earlier), implementing an interface gives you:
an "is-a" relationship with an abstraction,
a set of method signatures that have to be implemented (to satisfy the "is-a" relationship), and
an implied "contract" that says what the methods are supposed to do.
In Java 8, you also inherit default methods declared in the interface.
It is true that a class the implements an interface doesn't inherent any state declarations, or methods that can access the state declarations, as it would if it extend a class. But the flip-side is that a class can implement multiple interfaces ... which you can't do with a extend.
In short, implements allows you to do things you can't do with extends and vice versa.
Interfaces offer a contract, meaning that when a class implements an interface, then, by definition it provides a set of methods. How these are implemented is left to the class implementing the interface.
Consider:
public interface IPrint
{
public void print(String str);
}
public interface IClean
{
public void clean();
}
public class CanonPrint implements IPrint, IClean //Prints to a physical canon printer
{
public void print(String str)
{
//Send data to canon printer
}
public void clean()
{
//Clean printer buffer, etc
}
}
public class Console implements IPrint, IClean //Prints to a console
{
public void print(String str)
{
//Send data to console
}
public void clean()
{
//Clean console buffer, etc
}
}
The above example, you know that the CanonPrint and ConsolePrint classes can print and clean after themselves, they have the logic to do it, the fact that they implement the IPrint and IClean interfaces guarantees it. Nothing is inherited, there is no functionality being extended, just a guaranteed a set of functions. The logic, etc, is delegated.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
overriding case:
class a{ public void m() {} }
class b extends a { #override public void m(){} }
hiding case :
class a { public static void m(){} }
class b extends a{ public static void m(){} }
is this one instance method hiding another?
interface i { void m(); }
interface j { void m(); }
class a implements i,j { void m(){} }
Can a instance method hide another instance method?
Static methods
In case of static methods you'd have to provide the class to the call anyways (they are class methods, not instance methods) and thus there'd be no hiding, e.g.
A.m(); //call static method on class A (btw, Java convention is that class names start with a capital case letter)
B.m();
Instance methods
Instance methods can't hide others, just override them, e.g. if B extends A, whenever you call m() on an instance of B, then the B version of m() would be called.
Interfaces
In case of interfaces you'd implement a method once even if it is declared in multiple interfaces.
As of Java 8 where there might be default implementations of interface methods and IIRC a concrete implementation would override the default implementation whereas two default implementations interfaces I and J would generate a compile time error (unless one interface is more specific, e.g. if J extended I.
class a { public static void m(){} }
class b { public static void m(){} }
These classes don't share a common ancestor, so one can't "hide" the other's method. In Java, same-name instance methods in subclasses always override the superclass's instance method, there is no hiding mechanism as there is in other languages (such as Pascal if I remember correctly). This is true even if the #Override annotation isn't made, the annotation just makes code more readable and helps against typos.
If you changed class b to extend class a, however, then it's static method m() would in fact hide the same name method in a.
This is what the Oracle docs have to say about this:
The distinction between hiding a static method and overriding an instance method has important implications:
The version of the overridden instance method that gets invoked is the one in the subclass.
The version of the hidden static method that gets invoked depends on whether it is invoked from the superclass or the subclass.
In the case of your interfaces:
interface i { void m(); }
interface j { void m(); }
class a implements i,j { void m(){} }
Interfaces don't provide any instance methods themselves, they are just a contract that the implementing class has to honor by implementing the methods declared in the interface. In your case, both your interfaces simply require the implementing classes (like class a) to implement a method public void m(). It's like promising both your wife and your daughter to take them out for ice cream on Saturday - the promise made to your daughter doesn't invalidate, hide or negate the same promise made to your wife. ;)
So in short: instance methods cannot be hidden in Java.
As a side note: Per the Java naming conventions, classes and interfaces should start with upper case letters.
If the method matches both signatures in i and j (which is here the case), it implements them both. If the signatures in the two interfaces don't differ enough to use overloading, they can not be combined into a single class.
There is no hiding/overriding when it comes to interfaces, only implementation.
For interfaces i and j, if a class implements both then that is fine, there is no violation of the interface.
For static methods, you can't hide it as you have to call it from the class i.e. a.m() and b.m(), hence it is not hidden.
Lastly for overriding methods, the method of the superclass isn't hidden, it is overridden.
Defining a Method with the Same Signature as a Superclass's Method
In a subclass, you can overload the methods inherited from the superclass. Such overloaded methods neither hide nor override the superclass instance methods—they are new methods, unique to the subclass.
In the case of #Override it's ok.
The interface case is different:
An interface define a contract it just say that the object marked as the interface can do something. Without defining how to do it. So you aren't hiding the method, but with the class that implements two interfaces you're defining that two action (with the same name) are executed in the same way.
Why are interface variables static and final by default in Java?
From the Java interface design FAQ by Philip Shaw:
Interface variables are static because Java interfaces cannot be instantiated in their own right; the value of the variable must be assigned in a static context in which no instance exists. The final modifier ensures the value assigned to the interface variable is a true constant that cannot be re-assigned by program code.
source
public: for the accessibility across all the classes, just like the methods present in the interface
static: as interface cannot have an object, the interfaceName.variableName can be used to reference it or directly the variableName in the class implementing it.
final: to make them constants. If 2 classes implement the same interface and you give both of them the right to change the value, conflict will occur in the current value of the var, which is why only one time initialization is permitted.
Also all these modifiers are implicit for an interface, you dont really need to specify any of them.
Since interface doesn't have a direct object, the only way to access them is by using a class/interface and hence that is why if interface variable exists, it should be static otherwise it wont be accessible at all to outside world. Now since it is static, it can hold only one value and any classes that implements it can change it and hence it will be all mess.
Hence if at all there is an interface variable, it will be implicitly static, final and obviously public!!!
(This is not a philosophical answer but more of a practical one). The requirement for static modifier is obvious which has been answered by others. Basically, since the interfaces cannot be instantiated, the only way to access its fields are to make them a class field -- static.
The reason behind the interface fields automatically becoming final (constant) is to prevent different implementations accidentally changing the value of interface variable which can inadvertently affect the behavior of the other implementations. Imagine the scenario below where an interface property did not explicitly become final by Java:
public interface Actionable {
public static boolean isActionable = false;
public void performAction();
}
public NuclearAction implements Actionable {
public void performAction() {
// Code that depends on isActionable variable
if (isActionable) {
// Launch nuclear weapon!!!
}
}
}
Now, just think what would happen if another class that implements Actionable alters the state of the interface variable:
public CleanAction implements Actionable {
public void performAction() {
// Code that can alter isActionable state since it is not constant
isActionable = true;
}
}
If these classes are loaded within a single JVM by a classloader, then the behavior of NuclearAction can be affected by another class, CleanAction, when its performAction() is invoke after CleanAction's is executed (in the same thread or otherwise), which in this case can be disastrous (semantically that is).
Since we do not know how each implementation of an interface is going to use these variables, they must implicitly be final.
Because anything else is part of the implementation, and interfaces cannot contain any implementation.
public interface A{
int x=65;
}
public interface B{
int x=66;
}
public class D implements A,B {
public static void main(String[] a){
System.out.println(x); // which x?
}
}
Here is the solution.
System.out.println(A.x); // done
I think it is the one reason why interface variable are static.
Don't declare variables inside Interface.
because:
Static : as we can't have objects of interfaces so we should avoid using Object level member variables and should use class level variables i.e. static.
Final : so that we should not have ambiguous values for the variables(Diamond problem - Multiple Inheritance).
And as per the documentation interface is a contract and not an implementation.
reference: Abhishek Jain's answer on quora
static - because Interface cannot have any instance. and final - because we do not need to change it.
Interface : System requirement service.
In interface, variable are by default assign by public,static,final access modifier.
Because :
public : It happen some-times that interface might placed in some other package. So it need to access the variable from anywhere in project.
static : As such incomplete class can not create object. So in project we need to access the variable without object so we can access with the help of interface_filename.variable_name
final : Suppose one interface implements by many class and all classes try to access and update the interface variable. So it leads to inconsistent of changing data and affect every other class. So it need to declare access modifier with final.
Java does not allow abstract variables and/or constructor definitions in interfaces. Solution: Simply hang an abstract class between your interface and your implementation which only extends the abstract class like so:
public interface IMyClass {
void methodA();
String methodB();
Integer methodC();
}
public abstract class myAbstractClass implements IMyClass {
protected String varA, varB;
//Constructor
myAbstractClass(String varA, String varB) {
this.varA = varA;
this.varB = VarB;
}
//Implement (some) interface methods here or leave them for the concrete class
protected void methodA() {
//Do something
}
//Add additional methods here which must be implemented in the concrete class
protected abstract Long methodD();
//Write some completely new methods which can be used by all subclasses
protected Float methodE() {
return 42.0;
}
}
public class myConcreteClass extends myAbstractClass {
//Constructor must now be implemented!
myClass(String varA, String varB) {
super(varA, varB);
}
//All non-private variables from the abstract class are available here
//All methods not implemented in the abstract class must be implemented here
}
You can also use an abstract class without any interface if you are SURE that you don't want to implement it along with other interfaces later. Please note that you can't create an instance of an abstract class you MUST extend it first.
(The "protected" keyword means that only extended classes can access these methods and variables.)
spyro
An Interface is contract between two parties that is invariant, carved in the stone, hence final. See Design by Contract.
In Java, interface doesn't allow you to declare any instance variables. Using a variable declared in an interface as an instance variable will return a compile time error.
You can declare a constant variable, using static final which is different from an instance variable.
Interface can be implemented by any classes and what if that value got changed by one of there implementing class then there will be mislead for other implementing classes. Interface is basically a reference to combine two corelated but different entity.so for that reason the declaring variable inside the interface will implicitly be final and also static because interface can not be instantiate.
Think of a web application where you have interface defined and other classes implement it. As you cannot create an instance of interface to access the variables you need to have a static keyword. Since its static any change in the value will reflect to other instances which has implemented it. So in order to prevent it we define them as final.
Just tried in Eclipse, the variable in interface is default to be final, so you can't change it. Compared with parent class, the variables are definitely changeable. Why? From my point, variable in class is an attribute which will be inherited by children, and children can change it according to their actual need. On the contrary, interface only define behavior, not attribute. The only reason to put in variables in interface is to use them as consts which related to that interface. Though, this is not a good practice according to following excerpt:
"Placing constants in an interface was a popular technique in the early days of Java, but now many consider it a distasteful use of interfaces, since interfaces should deal with the services provided by an object, not its data. As well, the constants used by a class are typically an implementation detail, but placing them in an interface promotes them to the public API of the class."
I also tried either put static or not makes no difference at all. The code is as below:
public interface Addable {
static int count = 6;
public int add(int i);
}
public class Impl implements Addable {
#Override
public int add(int i) {
return i+count;
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
Impl impl = new Impl();
System.out.println(impl.add(4));
}
}
I feel like all these answers missed the point of the OP's question.
The OP did not ask for confirmation of their statement, they wanted to know WHY their statement is the standard.
Answering the question requires a little bit of information.
First, lets talk about inheretence.
Lets assume there is a class called A with an instance variable named x.
When you create a class A, it inhereits all the properties of the Object class. Without your knowledge when you instantiate A, you are instantiating an Object object as well, and A points to it as it's parent.
Now lets say you make a class B that inherits from A.
When you create a class B, you are also creating a class A and a Object.
B has access to the variable x. that means that B.x is really just the same thing as B.A.x and Java just hides the magic of grabbing A for you.
Not lets talk about interfaces...
An interface is NOT inheretence. If B were to implmement the interface Comparable, B is not making a Comparable instance and calling it a parent. Instead, B is promising to have the things that Comparable has.
Not lets talk a little bit of theory here... An interface is a set of functions you can use to interact with something. It is not the thing itself. For example, you interface with your friends by talking to them, sharing food with them, dancing with them, being near them. You don't inheret from them though - you do not have a copy of them.
Interfaces are similar. There is only one interface and all the objects associate with it. Since the interface exists only one time as a Class (as opposed to an instance of itself) it is not possible for each object that implements the interface to have their own copy of the interface. That means there is only one instance of each variable. That means the variables are shared by all the classes that use the interface (a.k.a. static).
As for why we make them public...
Private would be useless. The functions are abstract and cannot have any code inside them to use teh private variable. It will always be unused. If the variable is marked as protected, then only an inheritor of the class will be able to use the variables. I don't think you can inhereit from interfaces. Public is the only viable option then.
The only design decision left is the 'final'. It is possible that you intend to change the shared variable between multiple instances of a class. (E.G. Maybe you have 5 players playing Monopoly and you want one board to exist so you have all the players meet the interface and a single shared Board - it might be that you want to actually make the board change based on the player functions...) [I recommend against this design]
For multithreaded applicatiosn though, if you don't make the variable static you will have a difficult time later, but I won't stop you. Do it and learn why that hurts <3
So there you go. final public static variables
This question already has answers here:
Why can't I define a static method in a Java interface?
(24 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
There have been a few questions asked here about why you can't define static methods within interfaces, but none of them address a basic inconsistency: why can you define static fields and static inner types within an interface, but not static methods?
Static inner types perhaps aren't a fair comparison, since that's just syntactic sugar that generates a new class, but why fields but not methods?
An argument against static methods within interfaces is that it breaks the virtual table resolution strategy used by the JVM, but shouldn't that apply equally to static fields, i.e. the compiler can just inline it?
Consistency is what I desire, and Java should have either supported no statics of any form within an interface, or it should be consistent and allow them.
An official proposal has been made to allow static methods in interfaces in Java 7. This proposal is being made under Project Coin.
My personal opinion is that it's a great idea. There is no technical difficulty in implementation, and it's a very logical, reasonable thing to do. There are several proposals in Project Coin that I hope will never become part of the Java language, but this is one that could clean up a lot of APIs. For example, the Collections class has static methods for manipulating any List implementation; those could be included in the List interface.
Update: In the Java Posse Podcast #234, Joe D'arcy mentioned the proposal briefly, saying that it was "complex" and probably would not make it in under Project Coin.
Update: While they didn't make it into Project Coin for Java 7, Java 8 does support static functions in interfaces.
I'm going to go with my pet theory with this one, which is that the lack of consistency in this case is a matter of convenience rather than design or necessity, since I've heard no convincing argument that it was either of those two.
Static fields are there (a) because they were there in JDK 1.0, and many dodgy decisions were made in JDK 1.0, and (b) static final fields in interfaces are the closest thing java had to constants at the time.
Static inner classes in interfaces were allowed because that's pure syntactic sugar - the inner class isn't actually anything to do with the parent class.
So static methods aren't allowed simply because there's no compelling reason to do so; consistency isn't sufficiently compelling to change the status quo.
Of course, this could be permitted in future JLS versions without breaking anything.
There is never a point to declaring a static method in an interface. They cannot be executed by the normal call MyInterface.staticMethod(). (EDIT:Since that last sentence confused some people, calling MyClass.staticMethod() executes precisely the implementation of staticMethod on MyClass, which if MyClass is an interface cannot exist!) If you call them by specifying the implementing class MyImplementor.staticMethod() then you must know the actual class, so it is irrelevant whether the interface contains it or not.
More importantly, static methods are never overridden, and if you try to do:
MyInterface var = new MyImplementingClass();
var.staticMethod();
the rules for static say that the method defined in the declared type of var must be executed. Since this is an interface, this is impossible.
You can of course always remove the static keyword from the method. Everything will work fine. You may have to suppress some warnings if it is called from an instance method.
To answer some of the comments below, the reason you can't execute "result=MyInterface.staticMethod()" is that it would have to execute the version of the method defined in MyInterface. But there can't be a version defined in MyInterface, because it's an interface. It doesn't have code by definition.
The purpose of interfaces is to define a contract without providing an implementation. Therefore, you can't have static methods, because they'd have to have an implementation already in the interface since you can't override static methods. As to fields, only static final fields are allowed, which are, essentially, constants (in 1.5+ you can also have enums in interfaces). The constants are there to help define the interface without magic numbers.
BTW, there's no need to explicitly specify static final modifiers for fields in interfaces, because only static final fields are allowed.
This is an old thread , but this is something very important question for all. Since i noticed this today only so i am trying to explain it in cleaner way:
The main purpose of interface is to provide something that is unimplementable, so if they provide
static methods to be allowed
then you can call that method using interfaceName.staticMethodName(), but this is unimplemented method and contains nothing. So it is useless to allow static methods. Therefore they do not provide this at all.
static fields are allowed
because fields are not implementable, by implementable i mean you can not perform any logical operation in field, you can do operation on field. So you are not changing behavior of field that is why they are allowed.
Inner classes are allowed
Inner classes are allowed because after compilation different class file of the Inner class is created say InterfaceName$InnerClassName.class , so basically you are providing implementation in different entity all together but not in interface. So implementation in Inner classes is provided.
I hope this would help.
Actually sometimes there are reasons someone can benefit from static methods. They can be used as factory methods for the classes that implement the interface. For example that's the reason we have Collection interface and the Collections class in openjdk now. So there are workarounds as always - provide another class with a private constructor which will serve as a "namespace" for the static methods.
Prior to Java 5, a common usage for static fields was:
interface HtmlConstants {
static String OPEN = "<";
static String SLASH_OPEN = "</";
static String CLOSE = ">";
static String SLASH_CLOSE = " />";
static String HTML = "html";
static String BODY = "body";
...
}
public class HtmlBuilder implements HtmlConstants { // implements ?!?
public String buildHtml() {
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
sb.append(OPEN).append(HTML).append(CLOSE);
sb.append(OPEN).append(BODY).append(CLOSE);
...
sb.append(SLASH_OPEN).append(BODY).append(CLOSE);
sb.append(SLASH_OPEN).append(HTML).append(CLOSE);
return sb.toString();
}
}
This meant HtmlBuilder would not have to qualify each constant, so it could use OPEN instead of HtmlConstants.OPEN
Using implements in this way is ultimately confusing.
Now with Java 5, we have the import static syntax to achieve the same effect:
private final class HtmlConstants {
...
private HtmlConstants() { /* empty */ }
}
import static HtmlConstants.*;
public class HtmlBuilder { // no longer uses implements
...
}
There is no real reason for not having static methods in interfaces except: the Java language designers did not want it like that.
From a technical standpoint it would make sense to allow them. After all an abstract class can have them as well. I assume but did not test it, that you can "hand craft" byte code where the interface has a static method and it should imho work with no problems to call the method and/or to use the interface as usually.
I often wonder why static methods at all? They do have their uses, but package/namespace level methods would probably cover 80 of what static methods are used for.
Two main reasons spring to mind:
Static methods in Java cannot be overridden by subclasses, and this is a much bigger deal for methods than static fields. In practice, I've never even wanted to override a field in a subclass, but I override methods all the time. So having static methods prevents a class implementing the interface from supplying its own implementation of that method, which largely defeats the purpose of using an interface.
Interfaces aren't supposed to have code; that's what abstract classes are for. The whole point of an interface is to let you talk about possibly-unrelated objects which happen to all have a certain set of methods. Actually providing an implementation of those methods is outside the bounds of what interfaces are intended to be.
Static methods are tied to a class. In Java, an interface is not technically a class, it is a type, but not a class (hence, the keyword implements, and interfaces do not extend Object). Because interfaces are not classes, they cannot have static methods, because there is no actual class to attach to.
You may call InterfaceName.class to get the Class Object corresponding to the interface, but the Class class specifically states that it represents classes and interfaces in a Java application. However, the interface itself is not treated as a class, and hence you cannot attach a static method.
Only static final fields may be declared in an interface (much like methods, which are public even if you don't include the "public" keyword, static fields are "final" with or without the keyword).
These are only values, and will be copied literally wherever they are used at compile time, so you never actually "call" static fields at runtime. Having a static method would not have the same semantics, since it would involve calling an interface without an implementation, which Java does not allow.
The reason is that all methods defined in an interface are abstract whether or not you explicitly declare that modifier. An abstract static method is not an allowable combination of modifiers since static methods are not able to be overridden.
As to why interfaces allow static fields. I have a feeling that should be considered a "feature". The only possibility I can think of would be to group constants that implementations of the interface would be interested in.
I agree that consistency would have been a better approach. No static members should be allowed in an interface.
I believe that static methods can be accessed without creating an object and the interface does not allow creating an object as to restrict the programmers from using the interface methods directly rather than from its implemented class.
But if you define a static method in an interface, you can access it directly without its implementation. Thus static methods are not allowed in interfaces.
I don't think that consistency should be a concern.
Java 1.8 interface static method is visible to interface methods only, if we remove the methodSta1() method from the InterfaceExample class,
we won’t be able to use it for the InterfaceExample object. However like other static methods, we can use interface static methods using class name.
For example, a valid statement will be:
exp1.methodSta1();
So after looking below example we can say :
1) Java interface static method is part of interface, we can’t use it for implementation class objects.
2) Java interface static methods are good for providing utility methods, for example null check, collection sorting ,log etc.
3) Java interface static method helps us in providing security by not allowing implementation classes (InterfaceExample) to override them.
4) We can’t define interface static method for Object class methods, we will get compiler error as “This static method cannot hide the instance method from Object”. This is because it’s not allowed in java, since Object is the base class for all the classes and we can’t have one class level static method and another instance method with same signature.
5) We can use java interface static methods to remove utility classes such as Collections and move all of it’s static methods to the corresponding interface,
that would be easy to find and use.
public class InterfaceExample implements exp1 {
#Override
public void method() {
System.out.println("From method()");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new InterfaceExample().method2();
InterfaceExample.methodSta2(); // <--------------------------- would not compile
// methodSta1(); // <--------------------------- would not compile
exp1.methodSta1();
}
static void methodSta2() { // <-- it compile successfully but it can't be overridden in child classes
System.out.println("========= InterfaceExample :: from methodSta2() ======");
}
}
interface exp1 {
void method();
//protected void method1(); // <-- error
//private void method2(); // <-- error
//static void methodSta1(); // <-- error it require body in java 1.8
static void methodSta1() { // <-- it compile successfully but it can't be overridden in child classes
System.out.println("========= exp1:: from methodSta1() ======");
}
static void methodSta2() { // <-- it compile successfully but it can't be overridden in child classes
System.out.println("========= exp1:: from methodSta2() ======");
}
default void method2() { System.out.println("--- exp1:: from method2() ---");}
//synchronized default void method3() { System.out.println("---");} // <-- Illegal modifier for the interface method method3; only public, abstract, default, static
// and strictfp are permitted
//final default void method3() { System.out.println("---");} // <-- error
}