For example a real estate builder is constructing an apartment with many flats. All the rooms in the flats have the same design, except the bedroom. The bedroom design is left for the people who would own the flats i.e; the bed Rooms can be of different designs for different flats.
I can achieve this through an abstract class like below:
public abstract class Flat
{
//some properties
public void livingRoom(){
//some code
}
public void kitchen(){
//some code
}
public abstract void bedRoom();
}
}
An implementation class would be as follows:
public class Flat101 extends Flat
{
public void bedRoom() {
System.out.println("This flat has a customized bedroom");
}
}
Alternatively I can use an interface instead of an abstract class to achieve the same purpose like follows:
class Flat
{
public void livingRoom(){
System.out.println("This flat has a living room");
}
public void kitchen(){
System.out.println("This flat has a kitchen");
}
}
interface BedRoomInterface
{
public abstract void bedRoom();
}
public class Flat101 extends Flat implements BedRoomInterface
{
public void bedRoom() {
System.out.println("This flat has a customized bedroom");
}
}
Now the question is : For this why should choose to use an interface (or) why should I choose to use an abstract class?
It depends on your intention or use case. But in general, you should prefer interface over abstract classes (Item 18 in Bloch's Effective Java). Abstract classes are more fragile, because someone may modify the abstract class changing the behavior of other classes extending from it (this is a general statement).
It's more flexible to work with interfaces, because if you have BedroomInterface and LivingRoomInterface, then you can have FlatInterface implementing both interfaces, then Flat101 implementation class implements FlatInterface (instead of extending from Flat then implementing an interface). This seems clearer, and later on you can have ExecutiveFlatInterface which not only have bedroom and living room but also guess room, then Flat102 can implement from it.
Option 2 is to have Flat101 extend from Flat, then Flat implements BedroomInterface and LivingRoomInterface. This really depends on what you want to do and what methods are likely needed.
If you're designing an API that is going to be widely used, you'd use both: an interface to express the contract to be fulfilled by implementing classes, and an abstract class which partially implements that interface and thus permits code re-use.
As an example, consider Java's List: methods in the Collections framework (eg Collections.sort()) are written in terms of the List interface, which is partially implemented by the abstract class AbstractList, which in turn is extended into the concrete implementations LinkedList and ArrayList. LinkedList and ArrayList re-use code from AbstractList, but that does not prevent someone from writing their own completely separate implementation of List and then sorting it using Collections.sort().
That said, in a lot of circumstances this approach can be overkill. If the type hierarchy you're building is only used within a relatively small scope, its generally fine to just use abstract classes. If you decide later on that you want an interface later, its a pretty painless refactoring task to change things.
Abstract classes do have a few advantages:
they allow you to specify abstract methods with package/protected modifiers
they facilitate code re-use
via the use of abstract methods and final methods on the super class they allow you to restrict the manner in which your class is subclassed, which can be useful in a wide variety of circumstances (see also: the Template pattern)
code that references classes is generally easier to follow in an IDE (clicking "open declaration" on an abstract class type parameter is usually more useful than on an interface type parameter)
If you have a class which provides some of the functionality required by derived classes, but each derived class additionally requires differing implementation of other functionality, then an abstract class provides a means of defining the common implementation, while leaving the specific behaviors required by derived classes to be made specific to each derived class.
I feel it is generalization means; an abstract class is most useful if the property and the behaviors of the class are common among a given package or module. One good example is drum brake; as all drum brake works same way holding brakes inside wheel drum so this behavior can be inherited in all class of cars which uses drum brake.
For interface; it is more like specification or contract which force you to implement its speciation. Let’s take an example of model of a building it has all speciation like doors, window, lift ….. But while you implement the model into actual building you we need to keep the window but the internal behavior is decided by (as the widow could be a simple widow or a slider window, the color and material …)
Hope this helps!!
I feel when we need to implement some common functionality and some abstract functionality for multiple class then we should use abstract class. If we see the example of Flat, where we have some common design and some custom design, in such use case it is better to use abstract rather then use interface again to implement custom function and use of abstract as derived class doesn't create an extra instance as normal derived class.
You can not extends more than one class but you can implements more than one interface
If you need to change frequently of your design then abstract class is better because any change happen in abstract class , no force implementation need in sub class. But If any change in interface you have to implement of the implementation class.
Related
I've been reading a lot about interfaces and class inheritance in Java, and I know how to do both and I think I have a good feel for both. But it seems that nobody ever really compares the two side by side and explains when and why you would want to use one or the other. I have not found a lot of times when implementing an interface would be a better system than extending a superclass.
So when do you implement an interface and when do you extend a superclass?
Use an interface if you want to define a contract. I.e. X must take Y and return Z. It doesn't care how the code is doing that. A class can implement multiple interfaces.
Use an abstract class if you want to define default behaviour in non-abstract methods so that the endusers can reuse it without rewriting it again and again. A class can extend from only one other class. An abstract class with only abstract methods can be as good definied as an interface. An abstract class without any abstract method is recognizeable as the Template Method pattern (see this answer for some real world examples).
An abstract class in turn can perfectly implement an interface whenever you want to provide the enduser freedom in defining the default behaviour.
You should choose an interface if all you want is to define a contract i.e. method signatures that you want the inheriting classes to implement. An interface can have no implementation at all. The inheriting classes are free to choose their own implementation.
Sometimes you want to define partial implementation in a base type and want to leave the rest to inheriting classes. If that is the case, choose an abstract class. An abstract class can define method implementations and variables while leaving some methods as abstract. Extending classes can choose how to implement the abstract methods while they also have the partial implementation provided by the superclass.
One extreme of abstract classes is a pure abstract class - one that has only abstract methods and nothing else. If it comes to pure abstract class vs. an interface, go with the interface. Java allows only single implementation inheritance whereas it allows multiple interface inheritance meaning that a class can implement multiple interfaces but can extend only one class. So choosing a pure abstract class over the interface will mean that the subclass will not be allowed to extend any other class while implementing the abstract methods.
Use an interface to define behavior. User (abstract) classes (and subclasses) to provide implementation. They are not mutually exclusive; they can all work together.
For example, lets say you are defining a data access object. You want your DAO to be able to load data. So put a load method on the interface. This means that anything that wants to call itself a DAO must implement load. Now lets say you need to load A and B. You can create a generic abstract class that is parameterized (generics) to provide the outline on how the load works. You then subclass that abstract class to provide the concrete implementations for A and B.
The main reason for using abstract classes and interfaces are different.
An abstract class should be used when you have classes that have identical implementations for a bunch of methods, but vary in a few.
This may be a bad example, but the most obvious use of abstract classes in the Java framework is within the java.io classes. OutputStream is just a stream of bytes. Where that stream goes to depends entirely on which subclass of OutputStream you're using... FileOutputStream, PipedOutputStream, the output stream created from a java.net.Socket's getOutputStream method...
Note: java.io also uses the Decorator pattern to wrap streams in other streams/readers/writers.
An interface should be used when you just want to guarantee that a class implements a set of methods, but you don't care how.
The most obvious use of interfaces is within the Collections framework.
I don't care how a List adds/removes elements, so long as I can call add(something) and get(0) to put and get elements. It may use an array (ArrayList, CopyOnWriteArrayList), linked list (LinkedList), etc...
The other advantage in using interfaces is that a class may implement more than one. LinkedList is an implementation of both List and Deque.
No one?
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/interfacevsabstract.html
EDIT: I should supply more than a link
Here's a situation. To build on the car example below, consider this
interface Drivable {
void drive(float miles);
}
abstract class Car implements Drivable {
float gallonsOfGas;
float odometer;
final float mpg;
protected Car(float mpg) { gallonsOfGas = 0; odometer = 0; this.mpg = mpg; }
public void addGas(float gallons) { gallonsOfGas += gallons; }
public void drive(float miles) {
if(miles/mpg > gallonsOfGas) throw new NotEnoughGasException();
gallonsOfGas -= miles/mpg;
odometer += miles;
}
}
class LeakyCar extends Car { // still implements Drivable because of Car
public addGas(float gallons) { super.addGas(gallons * .8); } // leaky tank
}
class ElectricCar extends Car {
float electricMiles;
public void drive(float miles) { // can we drive the whole way electric?
if(electricMiles > miles) {
electricMiles -= miles;
odometer += miles;
return; // early return here
}
if(electricMiles > 0) { // exhaust electric miles first
if((miles-electricMiles)/mpg > gallonsOfGas)
throw new NotEnoughGasException();
miles -= electricMiles;
odometer += electricMiles;
electricMiles = 0;
}
// finish driving
super.drive(miles);
}
}
I think that interfaces work best when you use them to express that the object has a certain property or behavior, that spans multiple inheritance trees, and is only clearly defined for each class.
For example think of Comparable. If you wanted to create a class Comparable to be extended by other classes, it would have to be very high on the inheritance tree, possible right after Object, and the property it expresses is that two objects of that type can be compared, but there's no way to define that generally (you can't have an implementation of compareTo directly in the Comparable class, it's different for every class that implements it).
Classes work best when they define something clear, you know what properties and behaviors they have, and have actual implementations for methods, that you want to pass down to the children.
So classes work when you need to define a concrete object like a human, or a car, and interfaces work better when you need more abstract behavior that's too general to belong to any inheritance tree, like the ability to be compared (Comparable) or to be run (Runnable).
One method of choosing between an interface and a base class is the consideration of code ownership. If you control all the code then a base class is a viable option. If on the other hand many different companies might want to produce replaceable components, that is define a contract then an interface is your only choice.
I found some articles, particularly some who describe why you should not use implementation inheritance (i.e. superclasses):
Why extends is evil
Inheritance of implementation is evil
Implementation inheritance
Implementation inheritance
Java inheritance FAQ
I guess I'll give the classic car example.
When you have a car interface, you can create a Ford, a Chevy, and an Oldsmobile. In other words, you create different kinds of cars from a car interface.
When you have a car class, you can then extend the car class to make a truck, or a bus. In other words, you add new attributes to the sub classes while keeping the attributes of the base or super class.
You can think of extending from a super class if the derived class is of the same type.I mean that when a class extends an abstract class, they both should be of the same type, the only difference being that the super class has a more general behavior and the sub class has a more specific behavior. An interface is a totally different concept. When a class implements an interface, its either to expose some API(contract) or to get certain behavior. To give an example, I would say that Car is an abstract class. You can extend many classes from it like say Ford, Chevy and so on which are each of type car. But then if you need certain specific behavior like say you need a GPS in a car then the concrete class, eg Ford should implement GPS interface.
If you only want to inherit method signatures (name, arguments, return type) in the subclasses, use an interface, but if you also want to inherit implementation code, use a superclass.
I already read the post of research effort required to post a SO question. I am ashamed again to post this question to a pile of million questions. But I still don't get the idea of interfaces in java. They have unimplemented methods and then defined for every class in which they are implemented. I searched about it. Interfaces were used to support multiple inheritance in java and also to avoid (Deadly) Diamond Death of inheritance. I also came across Composition vs Inheritance and that inheritance is not for code reuse and its for polymorphism. So when I have a common code as a class to extend it will not be supported due to multiple inheritance which gives the option to use Interfaces(Correct me if I am wrong). I also came across that its not possible in most cases to define a generic implementation. So what is the problem in having a common definition (not a perfect generic implementation) of the interface method and then Override it wherever necessary and why doesn't java support it. Eg. When I have 100 classes that implements an interface 70 of them have a common implementation while others have different implementation. Why do I have to define the common method in interface over 70 classes and why can't I define them in Interface and then override them in other 30 classes which saves me from using same code in 70 classes. Is my understanding of interfaces wrong?
First, an interface in Java (as of Java 7) has no code. It's a mere definition, a contract a class must fulfill.
So what is the problem in having a common definition (not a perfect
generic implementation) of the interface method and then Override it
wherever necessary and why doesn't java support it
Yes you can do that in Java, just not with interfaces only. Let's suppose I want from this Example interface to have a default implementation for method1 but leave method2 unimplemented:
interface Example {
public void method1();
public String method2(final int parameter);
}
abstract class AbstractExampleImpl implements Example {
#Override
public void method1() {
// Implement
}
}
Now classes that want to use this method1 default implementation can just extend AbstractExampleImpl. This is more flexible than implementing code in the interface because if you do so, then all classes are bound to that implementation which you might not want. This is the advantage of interfaces: being able to reference a certain behavior (contract) without having to know how the class actually implements this, for example:
List<String> aList = MyListFactory.getNewList();
MyListFactory.getNewList() can return any object implementing List, our code manipulating aList doesn't care at all because it's based on the interface.
What if the class that uses interface already is a Sub-class. Then we
can't use Abstract class as multiple inheritance is not supported
I guess you mean this situation:
class AnotherClass extends AnotherBaseClass
and you want to extend AbstractExampleImpl as well. Yes, in this case, it's not possible to make AnotherClass extend AbstractExampleImpl, but you can write a wrapped inner-class that does this, for example:
class AnotherClass extends AnotherBaseClass implements Example {
private class InnerExampleImpl extends AbstractExampleImpl {
// Here you have AbstractExampleImpl's implementation of method1
}
}
Then you can just internally make all Example methods being actually implemented by InnerExampleImpl by calling its methods.
Is it necessary to have the interface in AnotherClass?
I guess you mean AnotherClass implements Example. Well, this is what you wanted: have AnotherClass implement Example with some default implementation as well as extend another class, or I understood you wrong. Since you cannot extend more than one class, you have to implement the interface so you can do
final Example anotherClass = new AnotherClass();
Otherwise this will not be possible.
Also for every class that implements an interface do I have to design
an inner class?
No, it doesn't have to be an inner class, that was just an example. If you want multiple other classes have this default Example implementation, you can just write a separate class and wrap it inside all the classes you want.
class DefaultExampleImpl implements Example {
// Implements the methods
}
class YourClass extends YetAnotherClass implements Example {
private Example example = new DefaultClassImpl();
#Override
public void method1() {
this.example.method1();
}
#Override
public String method2(final int parameter) {
return this.example.method2(parameter);
}
}
You can create an abstract class to implement that interface, and make your those classes inherit that abstract class, that should be what you want.
A non abstract class that implements and interface needs to implement all the methods from the interface. A abstract class doesn't have to implement all the methods but cannot initiated. If you create abstract class in your example that implements all the interface methods except one. The classes that extend from these abstract class just have to implement the one not already implemented method.
The Java interfaces could have been called contracts instead to better convey their intent. The declarer promise to provide some functionality, and the using code is guaranteed that the object provides that functionality.
This is a powerful concept and is decoupled from how that functionality is provided where Java is a bit limited and you are not the first to notice that. I have personally found that it is hard to provide "perfect" implementations which just need a subclass or two to be usable in a given situation. Swing uses adapters to provide empty implementations which can then be overrides as needed and that may be the technique you are looking for.
The idea of the interface is to create a series of methods that are abstract enough to be used by different classes that implement them. The concept is based on the DRY principle (Don't repeat yourself) the interface allows you to have methods like run() that are abstract enough to be usuable for a game loop, a players ability to run,
You should understand the funda of interface first. Which is
It is use to provide tight coupling means tight encapsulation
It helps us to hide our code from the external environment i.e. from other class
Interface should have only definition and data which is constant
It provide facility to class open for extension. Hence it cannot be replace by the any other class in java otherwise that class will become close for extension. which means class will not be able to extend any other class.
I think you are struggling with the concept of Object Oriented Design more than anything. In your example above where you state you have 100 classes and 70 of them have the same method implementation (which I would be stunned by). So given an interface like this:
public interface Printable
{
void print();
}
and two classes that have the "same" implementation of print
public class First implements Printable
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
public class Second implements Printable
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
you would instead want to do this:
public abstract class DefaultPrinter implements Printable
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
now for First and Second
public class First extends DefaultPrinter
{
}
public class Second extends DefaultPrinter
{
}
Now both of these are still Printable . Now this is where it gets very important to understand how to properly design object hierarchies. If something IS NOT a DefaultPrinter YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT make the new class extend DefaultPrinter
In Java, abstract classes give the ability to define both concrete and abstract methods whereas interfaces only give the ability to implement abstract methods.
I believe overriding methods in subclasses/implementations is possible in both cases, therefore, what is the real advantage of one over the other (interfaces vs abstract classes in Java)?
Interfaces are for when you want to say "I don't care how you do it, but here's what you need to get done."
Abstract classes are for when you want to say "I know what you should do, and I know how you should do it in some/many of the cases."
Abstract classes have some serious drawbacks. For example:
class House {
}
class Boat {
}
class HouseBoat extends /* Uh oh!! */ {
// don't get me started on Farmer's Insurance "Autoboathome" which is also a helicopter
}
You can get through via an interface:
interface Liveable {
}
interface Floatable {
}
class HouseBoat implements Liveable, Floatable {
}
Now, abstract classes are also very useful. For example, consider the AbstractCollection class. It defines the default behavior for very common methods to all Collections, like isEmpty() and contains(Object). You can override these behaviors if you want to, but... is the behavior for determining if a collection is empty really likely to change? Typically it's going to be size == 0. (But it can make a big difference! Sometimes size is expensive to calculate, but determining whether something is empty or not is as easy as looking at the first element.)
And since it won't change often, is it really worth the developer's time to implement that method every... single... time... for every method in that "solved" category? Not to mention when you need to make a change to it, you're going to have code duplication and missed bugs if you had to re-implement it everywhere.
Interfaces are useful because Java doesn't have multiple inheritance (but you can implement as many interfaces as you like).
Abstract classes are useful when you need concrete behaviour from the base class.
The facts are-
Java doesn't support multiple inheritance
Multiple interfaces can be implemented
Few methods in an abstract class may be implemented
These facts can be used to tilt the advantage in favor of interfaces or abstract classes.
If there are more than one behavior that a class must share with other classes, interfaces win.
If a method definition has to be shared/ overridden with other classes, abstract classes win.
An class may implement several interfaces, whereas it may only extend one class (abstract or concrete), because Java does not support multiple inheritance.
In OOP (mostly independent of a concrete language) abstract classes are a re-use mechanism for the class hierarchy for behaviour and structure which isn't complete on its own.
Interfaces are mechanism for specification of requirements on a module (e.g. class) independently of the concrete implementation.
All other differences are technical details, important is different usage.
You dont override an interface. You implement it.
Writing an interface gives implementors the ability to implement your interface and also other interfaces in addition to inheriting from a base class.
Abstract classes can be partially or fully implemented.Marking a class abstract just prevents you from instantiating an object of that type.
-Method without any implementation is abstract method,whenever a class contains one or more abstract method,then it must be declared as a abstract class
-Interface is fully abstract which cannot have constructor,instance and static blocks,and it contains only two types of members
1.public abstract method
2.public-static-final variable
*Both cannot be instantiated but reference can be created.
*Which one suits better depends on the application
-Interfaces are useful because Java classes will not support multiple inheritance but interfaces do.
-Abstract classes are useful when you need concrete behavior from the base class.
The main advantages of interface over abstract class is to overcome the occurrence of diamond
problem and achieve multiple inheritance.
In java there is no solution provided for diamond problem using classes.For this reason multiple inheritance is block using classes in java.
So to achieve multiple inheritance we use interface .
class Animal
{ void move(){} }
class Bird
{ void move(){fly} }
class Fish
{ void move(){swim} }
Now, if class Animal is abstract class like
Animal a;
a= new Bird(); or a = new Fish()
Here, abstraction works well, but if there are 100 objects like Animal a[100];
You can not write new Bird().move or new Fish().move 100 times
Use interface and write a[i].move. It will differentiate as bird or fish and that move() will be invoked
Second it supports multiple inheritance as class A can implements as many interfaces.
Amazing answers!!
I too want to put my opinion on Interface.
As the name says it is interface which means it will provide interface between two classes.
It help a class or interface hold multiple behavior at the same time.
Who ever having the interface can access the behavior of the class agreed with the interface.
interface teacher
{
//methods related to teacher
}
interface student
{
//methods related to student
}
interface employee
{
//methods related to employee
}
class Person:teacher,student,employee
{
//definition of all the methods in teacher,student, employee interface
//and method for person
}
Now here which ever class is having teacher interface will have access to only teacher behavior of Person.
Similarly the class or module having student interface will have access to only student behavior of person.
Using abstract class, it is not at all possible.
Hope this will add some additional points. :)
Happy coding!!.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Abstract class and Interface class?
Java: interface / abstract classes / abstract method
In Java, whatever use of interface is fulfilled by abstract class. I know one advantage of interfaces is that if we implement an interface then we can also extend another class. Is there any other use or advantage of interface in Java?
Interfaces allow you to use classes in different hierarchies, polymorphically.
For example, say you have the following interface:
public interface Movable {
void move();
}
Any number of classes, across class hierarchies could implement Movable in their own specific way, yet still be used by some caller in a uniform way.
So if you have the following two classes:
public class Car extends Vehicle implements Movable {
public void move() {
//implement move, vroom, vroom!
}
}
public class Horse extends Animal implements Movable {
public void move() {
//implement move, neigh!
}
}
From the perspective of the caller, it's just a Movable
Movable movable = ...;
movable.move(); //who am I?
I hope this helps.
What you like : thousands of abstract methods in one Abstract Class and inherit this class OR make as many interfaces for specific abstract methods and use those only you want by inheriting as many interfaces as needed...
abstract class A
{
//thousands of abstract method();
abstract methodA();
abstract methodB();
abstract methodC();
}
//OR
interface ForOnlymethodA
{
void methodA();
}
interface FormethodBandmethodC
{
void methodB();
void methodC();
}
So, use that method only what you just need by inheriting particular interface, if you are inheriting Abstract classes then you are unnecessarily inheriting all methods that you don't need in one class and may be needed in some other classes..
Multiple interfaces can be implemented, but only one class can be extended. A completely abstract class is a lot like an interface, except that an abstract class can contain variables.
It really depends on what you need. C++ allows you to extend as many classes you want, and it turns into a bit of a disaster. The nice thing about having only one superclass is that there's only ever one other set of implementations that you have to worry about (even if the parent has a parent, the parent's particular combination becomes your parent...)
Interfaces allow one object to play many roles, but they don't allow code reuse.
It's really to simplify thinking about inheritance. On the balance, I think they got it right.
Advantages over an abstract class? except the fact you can implement multiple interfaces but extend only one (abstract or not) class, it's the same as an abstract class that all of it's methods are abstract and public
Interfaces allow the nominative typing in Java to work across disjoint class hierarchies.
This is due to the "single inheritance" limitation on a class hierarchy and "closed types". I will hold my tongue on subtype polymorphism and Java's implementation of it ;-)
There are other solutions to this problem such as dynamic typing, structural typing, multiple inheritance, and traits, etc. Each approach has advantages and dis-advantages. Interfaces were just the approach that Java took.
Java interface
- provides the data encapsulation which means, implementation of the methods can not be seen. The class which extends this interface must implement all the methods declared in it.
more info: wiki answer
We can extend a class but we cannot implement a class. We can implement an interface, but cannot extend an interface.
In what cases should we be using extends?
extends is used for either extending a base class:
class ClassX extends ClassY {
...
}
or extending an interface:
interface InterfaceA extends InterfaceB {
...
}
Note that interfaces cannot implement other interfaces (most likely because they have no implementation).
Java doesn't impose any naming conventions for classes vs. interfaces (in contrast to IFoo for interfaces in the .NET world) and instead uses the difference between extends and implements to signify the difference to the programmer:
class ClassA extends ClassB implements InterfaceC, InterfaceD {
...
}
Here you can clearly see that you're building upon an existing implementation in ClassB and also implement the methods from two interfaces.
Is a matter of uses. Interfaces can be used as a contract with your application and then base classes can be use to extend that interface, so it is loosely couple.
Take for example Injection Dependency pattern:
You first write a contract:
public interface IProductRepository
{
IList<T> GetAllProducts();
}
Then you extend your contract with a base class:
public abstract BaseProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
public IList<T> GetAllProducts()
{ //Implementation }
}
Now you have the option to extend base into two or more concrete classes:
public class InternetProductRepository extends BaseProductRepository;
public class StoreProductRepository extends BaseProductRepository;
I hope this small examples clears the differences between extend and Implement. sorry that I did not use java for the example but is all OO, so I think you will get the point.
Thanks for reading, Geo
I did not complete the code for injection dependency pattern but the idea is there, is also well documented on the net. Let me know if you have any questions.
Actually, you can extend an interface - in the case where you're defining another interface.
There are lots of quasi-religious arguments about this issue and I doubt there's a clear right answer, but for what it's worth here's my take on things. Use subclassing (i.e. extends), when your various classes provide the same sort of functionality, and have some implementation details in common. Use interface implementation, in order to signal that your classes provide some particular functionality (as specified by the interface).
Note that the two are not mutually exclusive; in fact if a superclass implements an interface, then any subclasses will also be considered to implement that interface.
In Java there is no multiple inheritance, so that a (sub)class can only have one parent class, and subclassing should be considered carefully so as to choose an appropriate parent if any at all; choosing a parent that reflects just a small amount of the class' abilities is likely to end in frustration later if there are other sensible parent classes. So for example, having an AbstractSQLExecutor with SQL Server and Oracle subclasses makes a lot of sense; but having a FileUtils parent class with some utility methods in, and then subclassing that all over the place in order to inherit that functionality, is a bad idea (in this case you should likely declare the helper methods static, or hold a reference to a FileUtils instance, instead).
Additionally, subclassing ties you to implementation details (of your parent) more than implementing an interface does. I'd say that in general it's better merely to implement the interface, at least initially, and only form class hierarchies of classes in the same or similar packages with a clear hierarchical structure.
Like you said. the implement java keyword is used to implement an interface where the extends is used to extend a class.
It depends what you would like to do. Typically you would use an interface when you want to force implementation (like a contract). Similar to an abstract class (but with an abstract class you can have non-abstract methods).
Remember in java you can only extend one class and implement zero to many interfaces for the implementing class. Unlike C# where you can extend multiple classes using :, and where C# only uses the : symbol for both interfaces and classes.
extends keyword is used for either extending a concrete/abstract class. By extending, u can either override methods of parent class / inherit them. A class can only extend class.
U can also say interface1 extends intenface2.
implements keyword is used for implementing interface. In this case u have to define all the methods indicated in interface. A class can only implement interface.