I checked out this SO Post which discusses using RequestMapping in interface. Although the post contains ways to achieve this but it does not mention the pros and cons of doing this.
Architecture wise , is this a bad idea to use controller as interface?
What benefit will we achieve in terms of polymorphism for controller?
There is nothing wrong with putting #RequestMapping on the interface. However make sure you have the right reasons to do it. Polymorphism is probably not a good reason, you will not have a different concrete implementation swapped in at runtime or something like that.
On the other hand, for example, Swagger codegen generates interfaces with #RequestMapping and all the annotations on the methods, fields and return types (together with #Api definitions etc.). Your controller then implements this interface. In this case it makes a lot of sense because it is just enforcing you to respect the Swagger / OpenAPI interface definition originally defined in Yaml. There is a nice side-effect that it makes your controller much cleaner. (Clients can also use the same Yaml to generate their own client stubs for their own language frameworks).
If you opt to do this, make sure you use the latest version of the Spring Framework, because there were some bugs which were fixed only very recently, where not all annotations were being inherited.
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/issues/15682
If you are stuck with an older Spring version, you might need to repeat the same annotations in your controller.
So, the real reason this would make sense is to enforce the interface contract, and separate the interface definition (together with any information pertaining to the interface) from the actual concrete implementation.
While some arguments against this are that
the request mapping is an implementation detail, or
since you only have one active controller implementation, you might as well put it on the implementation,
(others will probably be provided in different answers soon,)
I was recently faced with the same decision to put jax-rs annotations on the interface or the implementation. So, since everything always "depends" on some context, I want to give you an argument for putting the RequestMapping (or e.g. #Path, etc if not using spring) on the interface:
If you are not using HATEOAS or discovering the endpoints via some other means, the endpoint url, http method, etc. are usually fixed and a static part of your backend API. Therefore, you might as well put it on an interface. This was the case for me because I control both the client and the server side.
The controller usually has only one active implementation, so the reason for doing so is not polymorphism. But your implementation usually has a lot more dependencies than the plain interface. So if you export/provide only your interface to clients (e.g. in a seperate jar/java project/...), you only provide things that the clients really require. In my specific case, I delivered the annotated interface so that a client implementation could can it using a Rest-Client-Library and detect the endpoint paths automatically.
In our project architecture we are using a classic MVC pattern including a classic service layer (opening the transaction and calling the DAO layer).
For each service we have an implementation and his interface. But to be honest, I'm pretty sure that for one service and his interface, we will never have more than one implementation. So ok maybe it's more clear to have the public method declared in the interface helping to know what the service does, but an interface is used to have multiple implementation and if we know that we won't have more than one implementation, should we keep them?
From the documentation:
Implementing an interface allows a class to become more formal about
the behavior it promises to provide. Interfaces form a contract
between the class and the outside world, and this contract is enforced
at build time by the compiler.
If you know that you will only have one implementation, the implementation itself will define the contract, so you can remove the interfaces.
But writing an interface could help you to better define the contract and also, you could need at a given point to write a mock for the service, in such a case you would benefit from the use of interfaces.
i think this is a good approach for keeping interfaces.
reasons:
1. say you want to write junits for the same with a different implementations ex. inspite of getting data from database you want to get data from a separate datasource then a different implementation will suffice.
We have a typical n-tier java application, and I noticed that our data access layers has DAO's that are of the type FooDAO and FooDAOImpl. I was looking to justify the need for the two and here is my analysis.
If you had multiple implementation for the same interface, the abstraction is helpful. But given that we have already made the choice of the framework to be used for the DAOImpl (say iBATIS), is it really required?
Help in proxying via Spring. From what I gather, classes that have interfaces can be proxied easily (going the JdkProxy route) rather than classes that have no interfaces (where the cglib route is chosen) and one has the subclass the class to be proxied. Subclassing has its problems where the class to proxied is final or has none default constructors - both of which are highly unlikely at the data access layer. Performance used to be a factor, but from what I hear, it is no longer a cause of concern.
Help in mocking. Classes with interfaces are more suited to be mocked by mocking frameworks. I have only heard this, but not seen it in practice - so can't really count on it, but maybe because of the same factors as mentioned in #2 above.
With these points, I don't feel the real need for a separate FooDAO and FooDAOImpl where a simple FooDAO should suffice. Feel free to correct any of the points that I have mentioned.
Thanks in advance!
I tried #3 with Mockito and it was able to mock POJO's without interfaces just fine. With the arguments mentioned against #1 and #2, I am inclined not to go with separate DAO and DAOImpl for now. Feel free to add other points of comparison.
I see a fourth reason:
Hide implementation details
Depending for instance on the team, the expected lifetime of the software or the amount of change anticipated in the future, it pays to hide as much as possible even if there is only one implementation.
I would say that having a FooDAO interface with a single implementation FooDAOImpl is generally an anti-pattern. The simpler solution (no separate interfaces for DAOs) is much preferable, unless you have a solid reason otherwise - which doesn't seem to be the case here.
Personally, I would go even further and say that having DAOs at all is not the best choice. I prefer having a single persistence facade class implemented on top of an ORM API such as Hibernate or JPA. Maybe iBATIS is too low-level for that, though.
I asked a question about Interface here How to organize class interfaces hierarchy? and someone answered Separation of Concern.
Is there a link between this separation of concern with class interface and AOP ?
AOP is just a different programming paradigm, which has OOP for a pillar beneath.
Class interfaces are something more specific and which should be used when you want to define a property that can be common between different classes.
The separation of concern that was mentioned probably is related with those different properties, which, when spotted and different, should allow for the creation of a new interface, consequently allowing other classes to implement them, and making it possible for them to have something in common that relates them and which is visible and explicit.
AOP shouldn't be used for that purpose, because it involves its own paradigm, and it is a task that you can already achieve with the interfaces. AOP changes things at another level, allowing you to change the behaviour of a whole program by defining pointcuts to be adviced.
Using an interface you can group like methods together and then encapsulate the details in the implementation. This generally makes your application more portable. For instance if you have multiple DAO implementation for different database vendors, you can create an interface and implement it for each db. You can swap out the implementation while keeping the structure of the interface as the same.
Using AOP you can decouple the cross-cutting concerns in an application. For instance if all your DAO methods requires transaction management then that's a common concern and you can utilize AOP pattern there.
Separation of concern is a generic term and a common programming principle. You want to decouple as much as you can. Using both interfaces and AOP, you can promote decoupling.
I've been programming in Java for a few courses in the University and I have the following question:
Is it methodologically accepted that every class should implement an interface? Is it considered bad practice not to do so? Can you describe a situation where it's not a good idea to use interfaces?
Edit: Personally, I like the notion of using Interfaces for everything as a methodology and habit, even if it's not clearly beneficial. Eclipse automatically created a class file with all the methods, so it doesn't waste any time anyway.
You don't need to create an interface if you are not going to use it.
Typically you need an interface when:
Your program will provide several implementations for your component. For example, a default implementation which is part of your code, and a mock implementation which is used in a JUnit test. Some tools automate creating a mock implementation, like for instance EasyMock.
You want to use dependency injection for this class, with a framework such as Spring or the JBoss Micro-Container. In this case it is a good idea to specify the dependencies from one class with other classes using an interface.
Following the YAGNI principle a class should implement an interface if you really need it. Otherwise what do you gain from it?
Edit: Interfaces provide a sort of abstraction. They are particularly useful if you want to interchange between different implementations(many classes implementing the same interface). If it is just a single class, then there is no gain.
No, it's not necessary for every class to implement an interface. Use interfaces only if they make your code cleaner and easier to write.
If your program has no current need for to have more than 1 implementation for a given class, then you don't need an interface. For example, in a simple chess program I wrote, I only need 1 type of Board object. A chess board is a chess board is a chess board. Making a Board interface and implementing that would have just required more code to write and maintain.
It's so easy to switch to an interface if you eventually need it.
Every class does implement an interface (i.e. contract) insofar as it provides a non-private API. Whether you should choose to represent the interface separately as a Java interface depends on whether the implementation is "a concept that varies".
If you are absolutely certain that there is only one reasonable implementation then there is no need for an interface. Otherwise an interface will allow you to change the implementation without changing client code.
Some people will shout "YAGNI", assuming that you have complete control over changing the code should you discover a new requirement later on. Other people will be justly afraid that they will need to change the unchangeable - a published API.
If you don't implement an interface (and use some kind of factory for object creation) then certain kinds of changes will force you to break the Open-Closed Principle. In some situations this is commercially acceptable, in others it isn't.
Can you describe a situation where it's not a good idea to use interfaces?
In some languages (e.g. C++, C#, but not Java) you can get a performance benefit if your class contains no virtual methods.
In small programs, or applications without published APIs, then you might see a small cost to maintaining separate interfaces.
If you see a significant increase in complexity due to separating interface and implementation then you are probably not using interfaces as contracts. Interfaces reduce complexity. From the consumer's perspective, components become commodities that fulfil the terms of a contract instead of entities that have sophisticated implementation details in their own right.
Creating an interface for every class is unnecessary. Some commonly cited reasons include mocking (unneeded with modern mocking frameworks like Mockito) and for dependency injection (e.g. Spring, also unneeded in modern implementations).
Create an interface if you need one, especially to formally document public interfaces. There are a couple of nifty edge cases (e.g. marker interfaces).
For what it's worth, on a recent project we used interfaces for everything (both DI and mocking were cited as reasons) and it turned out to be a complete waste and added a lot of complexity - it was just as easy to add an interface when actually needed to mock something out in the rare cases it was needed. In the end, I'm sure someone will wind up going in and deleting all of the extraneous interfaces some weekend.
I do notice that C programmers first moving to Java tend to like lots of interfaces ("it's like headers"). The current version of Eclipse supports this, by allowing control-click navigation to generate a pop-up asking for interface or implementation.
To answer the OP's question in a very blunt way: no, not all classes need to implement an interface. Like for all design questions, this boils down to one's best judgment. Here are a few rule of thumbs I normally follow:
Purely functional objects probably
don't need to (e.g. Pattern,
CharMatcher – even though the
latter does implement Predicate, it
is secondary to its core function)
Pure data holders probably don't need
to (e.g. LogRecord, Locale)
If you can
envision a different implementation
of a given functionality (say, in-memory
Cache vs. disk-based Cache), try to
isolate the functionality into an interface. But don't go too far trying to predict the future either.
For testing purposes, it's
very convenient when classes that do
I/O or start threads are easily mockable, so
that users don't pay a penalty when
running their tests.
There's nothing
worse than a interface that leaks its
underlying implementation. Pay attention where you draw the line and make sure your interface's Javadoc is neutral in that way. If it's not, you probably don't need an interface.
Generally
speaking, it is preferable for
classes meant for public consumption
outside your package/project to
implement interfaces so that your
users are less coupled to your
implementation du jour.
Note that you can probably find counter-examples for each of the bullets in that list. Interfaces are very powerful, so they need to be used and created with care, especially if you're providing external APIs (watch this video to convince yourself). If you're too quick in putting an interface in front of everything, you'll probably end up leaking your single implementation, and you are only making things more complicated for the people following you. If you don't use them enough, you might end up with a codebase that is equally hard to maintain because everything is statically bound and very hard to change. The non-exhaustive list above is where I try to draw the line.
I've found that it is beneficial to define the public methods of a class in a corresponding interface and when defining references to other classes strictly use an interface reference. This allows for easy inversion of control, and it also facilitates unit testing with mocking and stubbing. It also gives you the liberty of replacing the implementation with some other class that implements that interface, so if you are into TDD it may make things easier (or more contrived if you are a critic of TDD)
Interfaces are the way to get an polymorphism. So if You have only one implementation, one class of particularly type, You don't need an interface.
A good way of learning what are considered good methodologies, especially when it comes to code structure design, is to look at freely available code. With Java, the obvious example is to take a look at the JDK system libraries.
You will find many examples of classes that do not implement any interfaces, or that are meant to be used directly, such as java.util.StringTokenizer.
If you use Service Provider Interface pattern in your application interfaces are harder to extend than abstract classes. If you add method to interface, all service providers must be rewritten. But if you add non-abstract method to the abstract class, none of the service providers must be rewritten.
Interfaces also make programming harder if only small part of the interface methods usually have meaningfull implementation.
When I design a new system from scratch I use a component oriented approach, each component (10 or more classes) provide an interface, this allows me (sometimes) to reuse them.
When designing a Tool (Or a simple system) I think this must not necessarily be an extensible framework I introduce interfaces when I need a second implementation as an option.
I saw some products which exposed nearly every functionality by an interface, it took simply too much time to understand unnecessary complexity.
An interface is like a contract between a service provider (server) and the user of such a service (client).
If we are developing a Webservice and we are exposing the rest routes
via controller classes, controller classes can implement interfaces
and those interfaces act as the agreement between web service and the
other applications which use this web service.
Java interfaces like Serializable, Clonnable and Remote
used to indicate something to compiler or JVM.When JVM sees a class
that implement these interfaces, it performs some operation on the to
support Serialization, cloning or Remote Method Invocation. If your class needs these features, then you will have to implement these interfaces.
Using Interface is about to make your application framework resilient to change. Since as I mentioned here (Multiple Inheritance Debates II: according to Stroustrup) multiple inheritance was cancelled in java and c# which I regret, one should always use Interface because you never know what the future will be.