As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
When I started to look for the benefits of polymorphism, I found with this question here. But here I was unable to find my answer. Let me tell what I want to find. Here I have some classes:
class CoolingMachines{
public void startMachine(){
//No implementationion
}
public void stopMachine(){
//No implementationion
}
}
class Refrigerator extends CoolingMachines{
public void startMachine(){
System.out.println("Refrigerator Starts");
}
public void stopMachine(){
System.out.println("Refrigerator Stop");
}
public void trip(){
System.out.println("Refrigerator Trip");
}
}
class AirConditioner extends CoolingMachines{
public void startMachine(){
System.out.println("AC Starts");
}
public void stopMachine(){
System.out.println("AC Stop");
}
}
public class PolymorphismDemo {
CoolingMachines cm = new Refrigerator();
Refrigerator rf = new Refrigerator();
}
Now here I created two objects in the Demo class and are references of Refrigerator. I have completely understood that from the rf object I am able to call the trip() method of Refrigerator, but that method will be hidden for the cm object. Now my question is why should I use polymorphism or why should I use
CoolingMachines cm = new Refrigerator();
when I am OK with
Refrigerator rf = new Refrigerator();
Is polymorphic object's efficiency is good or light in weight? What is the basic purpose and difference between both of these objects? Is there any difference between cm.start(); and rf.start()?
It is useful when you handle lists...
A short example:
List<CoolingMachines> coolingMachines = ... // a list of CoolingMachines
for (CoolingMachine current : coolingMachines) {
current.start();
}
Or when you want to allow a method to work with any subclass of CoolingMachines
In cases where you're really okay with knowing the concrete class, there's no benefit. However, in many cases you want to be able to write code which only knows about the base class or interface.
For example, look at Iterables in Guava - that's a lot of methods which (mostly) don't care what implementation of Iterable is being used. Would you really want all that code separately for every implementation?
Where you can code to an abstract base class or an interface, you allow yourself to later use other implementations which share the same public API, but may have different implementations. Even if you only want a single production implementation, you may well want alternative implementations for testing. (The extent to which this applies very much depends on the class in question.)
Because later if you want to use AirConditioner instead of Refrigerator for cooling, then only code you need to change is CoolingMachines cm = new AirConditioner();
The reason that you want to use
CoolingMachines cm = new Refrigerator();
is that you can later easily use a different CoolingMachines. You only need to change that one line of code and the rest of the code will still work (as it will only use methods of CoolingMachines, which is more general than a specific machine, such as a Refrigerator).
So for a particular instance of Refrigerator, the calls cm.start(); and rf.start() work the same way but cm might also be a different CoolingMachines object. And that object could have a different implementation of start().
First answer:
Use polymorphism for method overridding and method overloading. Other class methods used in different class then two options: first method inherited, second method over written. Here extend interface: use them, or implemention method: logic write them. Polymorphism used for method, class inheritance.
Second answer:
Is there any difference between cm.start(); and rf.start();?
Yes, both are objects that are completely different with respect to each other. Do not create interface objects because Java doesn`t support interface objects. First object created for interface and second for Refrigerator class. Second object right now.
The most general answer to the general part of your question (why should I use polymorphism?) is that polymorphism realizes a few critical object-oriented design principles, for example:
code reuse:
By putting any code that is common to all of your 'cooling-machines' into cooling-machine, you only need to write that code once and any edits to that code trickle down instantly.
abstraction:
Human brains can only keep track of so much stuff, but they are good at categories and hierarchies. This helps understand what's happening in a big program.
encapsulation:
each class hides the details of what it's doing and just builds on the interface of the base class.
separation of concerns:
a lot of object oriented programming is about assigning responsibilities. Who is going to be in charge of that? Specialized concerns can go in subclasses.
So polymorphism is just part of the bigger oo picture, and the reasons for using it sometimes only make sense if you are going to try and do 'real' oo programming.
A simple use case of polymorphism is that you can have an array of coolingMachines where element 0 is a refrigator and element 1 is an AirConditioner etc...
You do not need to preform any checks or make sure which object you are dealing with in order to call trip or start etc.
This can be a great benefit when taking input from a user and having to iterate over all the objects and call similar functions
I'll give an easy to understand example. Lets say you have some json
{"a":[1,2],"sz":"text", "v":3, "f":1.2}
Now lets say programmatically you want to list the name, type and value. Instead of having a switch() for each type (array for a, string for sz, etc) you can just have a base type and call a function which does its job. It is also more cpu efficient than using a switch with a dozen types.
Then there are plugins, libs and foreign code with interface reasons.
Using your objects polymorphically also helps to create factories or families of related classes which is an important part of how Factory Design Pattern is implemented. Here's a very basic example of polymorphic factory:
public CoolingMachine CreateCoolingMachines(string machineType)
{
if(machineType == "ref")
return new Refrigerator();
//other else ifs to return other types of CoolingMachine family
}
usage of calling above code:
CoolingMachine cm = CreateCoolingMachine("AC"); //the cm variable will have a reference to Airconditioner class which is returned by CreateCoolingMachines() method polymorphically
Also, imagine that you have a method as below that uses concrete class parameter Refrigerator:
public void UseObject(Refrigerator refObject)
{
//Implementation to use Refrigerator object only
}
Now, if you change above implementation of UseObject() method to use most generic base class parameter, the calling code would get advantage to pass any parameter polymorphically which can then be utilized inside the method UseObject():
public void UseObject(CoolingMachine coolingMachineObject)
{
//Implementation to use Generic object and all derived objects
}
Above code is now more extensible as other subclasses could be added later to the family of
CoolingMachines, and objects of those new subclasses would also work with the existing code.
Related
I would like to know if it safe and a good practice to keep common code in a separate class and make method static.
I have a class Car, that is constructed based on inputs from other classes. I need to apply some post construct processing after the Car object is created. Example below.
Class Travel uses Car and calls postConstructProcessing method.
CarProcessor is simillary used in other classes whenever car object is creates.
My question is should I make method process Static in CarProcessor.
Class car{
Type type;
Int model
Car(Type t, int m){
...
...
}
;
....
...}
Below class of code uses Car and calls postConstructProcessing method
public class Travel {
public void go(){
....
....
Car c = new Car(t,m);
new CarProcessor().process(c);
}
}
class CarProcessor{
public Car process(Car c){
If(c.type.value.equals("ABC"){
c.type.version=1.1;
}
if(c.model=5.7){
c.price=50k
}
}
}
My question is , is it safe and a good practice to make method process in CarProcessor static.
In general it's not great.
The most obvious problem is, if you are testing the go method, how do you replace/mock out CarProcessor::process?
The real problem is organizational though. When you are coding next time and looking for the functionality you'd expect to see in "Car" or "go", you type "car." or "go." into your IDE and hit ctrl-space, you'd expect to see all the interesting methods shown to you. How do you know to create a CarProcessor to proceed?
Some things are difficult to implement in OO though--in particular utilities. Look at the entire Math package in the java library. It's full of static methods that you just call. An oo fanatic would say these all belong in the Number class (maybe something like "Number.math.sqrt()?", but java didn't take that route--in fact they don't even have a good common number class (We have one, it's not good)--
But even when we have real classes like String, we lean towards "StringUtil" and such. This has led to a HUGE number of conflicting "Util" implementations of String. In this case part of the problem is that String is immutable and we can't really back-fill it with methods (probably a good thing). but in general, OO just isn't great for general-purpose utility methods.
Functions (which is what you are proposing) are not awesome, but are heavily used. If you have the ability to modify your business classes then that's almost always a better fit for this type of code.
Just to clarify: A Function is different from a Method--methods work on members (class variables), functions are stand-alone (Might as well be static).
Functions are a very old approach at organization. OO is a somewhat newer approach invented for when the sheer number of functions become too difficult to manage (conceptually).
This question already has answers here:
Interfaces in Java - what are they for? [duplicate]
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Let's say you have an interface
public interface Change {
void updateUser();
void deleteUser();
void helpUser();
}
I've read that interfaces are Java's way to implement multiple inheritance. You implement an interface, then you have access to its methods. What I don't understand is, the methods don't have any body in the interface, so you need to give them a body in your class. So if you an interface is implemented by more than one class, you need to give the method a body in more than one class. Why is this better than just having individual methods in your classes, and not implementing an interface?
My professor in college once gave a great anecdote to describe polymorphism and encapsulation. It went like this.
Does anyone here know how a soda machine works? (Cue confused glances about why we'd even talk about this.) No? Let me tell you.
You drop in your change, and inside the machine is a little monkey who counts all your change to make sure you put in enough money. When you press the button for your soda, a little light comes on telling the monkey which button you pressed, and if you entered the right amount of change, he grabs your choice and throws it into the little hole for you to grab your soda.
This is the concept of encapsulation. We hide the implementation of the soda machine. Unless it's got one of those fancy, clear windows to let you see the inside, you honestly have no idea how it really works. All you know is that you put in some cash, you press a button, and if you put in enough, you get your drink.
To add to that, you know how to use a soda machine's interface, so therefore as long as the machine's interface follows the usual soda machine interface, you can use it. This is called the interface contract. The machine can be bringing the drinks from Antarctica on a conveyor belt for all you care, as long as you get your drink, it's cold, and you get change back.
Polymorphism is the idea that when you use the soda machine interface, it could be doing different things. This is why encapsulation and polymorphism are closely related. In polymorphism, all you know is that you're using a SodaMachine implementation, which can be changed, and as a result, different things can be done behind the scenes. This leads to the driving concept of polymorphism, which is the ability of one object, the SodaMachine, to actually act as both a MonkeySodaMachine and a ConveyorSodaMachine depending on the machine actually behind the interface.
Probably not word-for-word, but close enough. Essentially it boils down to two concepts: polymorphism and encapsulation. Let me know if you want clarification.
Why is this better than just having individual methods in your classes, and not implementing an interface?
Because if a class C implements an interface I, you can use a C whenever an I is expected. If you do not implement the interface, you could not do this (even if you provided all of the appropriate methods as mandated by the interface):
interface I {
void foo();
}
class C1 implements I {
public void foo() {
System.out.println("C1");
}
}
class C2 { // C2 has a 'foo' method, but does not implement I
public void foo() {
System.out.println("C2");
}
}
...
class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
I eye1 = new C1(); // works
I eye2 = new C2(); // error!
}
}
It separates what the caller expects from the implementation. You have a pure set of methods you can call without any knowledge of the implementation. In fact some libraries like JMS and JDBC provide interfaces without any implementations.
This separation means you don't need to know the class of any actual implementation.
An interface allows you to guarantee that certain methods exist and return the required types. When the compiler knows this, it can use that assumption to work with unknown classes as if they had certain known behavior. For example, the comparable interface guarantees that an implementing class will be able to compareTo() some similar object and will return an int.
This means that you can compare anything that implements this interface - so you can sort anything that is Comparable instead of writing one method to sort Strings and another to sort Integers and another to sort LabelledBoxesOfBooks
The interface essentially guarentees that all the methods that inherit it will have its methods, so that you can safely call a method in the interface for anything that inherits it.
It makes it easier to define APIs using interfaces, so that all concrete implementations of the interfaces provide the expected methods in each class.
It also provides a way to implement multiple inheritance, which is not possible (in Java) with straight class inheritance.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Let's say we have two classes, Tiger and Aeroplane.
One thing in common for these two types is the Speed. I know that it would be illogical to create a superclass ClassWithSpeed and then derive subclasses Aeroplane and Tiger from it.
Instead, it is better to create an interface that contains the method speed() and then implement it in Aeroplane and Tiger. I get that. But, we can do the same thing without interfaces. We could define method speed() in Aeroplane and method speed() in Tiger.
The only (maybe very big) flaw it would be that we couldn't "reach" the objects of Tiger and Aeroplane through an interface reference.
I am beginner in Java and OOP, and I would be very grateful if someone explained to me the role of interfaces.
Cheers!
It's:
public int howFast(Airplane airplane) {
return airplane.speed();
}
public int howFast(Tiger tiger) {
return tiger.speed();
}
public int howFast(Rocket rocket) {
return rocket.speed();
}
public int howFast(ThingThatHasntBeenInventedYet thingx) {
// wait... what? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!
return thingx.speed();
}
...
vs
public int howFast(Mover mover) {
return mover.speed();
}
Now, imagine having to go back and change all those howFast functions in the future.
Interface or no, each class will have to implement or inherit the speed() method. An interface lets you use those disparate classes more easily, because they've each promised to behave in a certain way. You'll call speed(), and they'll return an int, so you don't have to write separate methods for every possible class.
When you find you need to handle speed differently because of a breakthrough in relativistic physics, you only need to update the methods that call speed(). When your great-granddaughter writes a class for HyperIntelligentMonkeyFish, she doesn't have to disassemble your ancient binary and make changes so that your code can monitor and control her mutant army. She needs only declare that HyperIntelligentMonkeyFish implements Mover.
Interfaces allow Java, since it is statically typed, to work around multiple inheritance limitations to the degree felt worthwhile by the language designers.
In a dynamic language (like Python, Ruby, etc.) you can just call the speed method on any arbitrary object and discover at runtime if it is there or not.
Java, on the other hand, is statically typed, which means the compiler has to agree that the method will be there ahead of time. The only way to do that on classes that don't share common ancestry, and may only have Object in common, is an interface.
Since objects can implement an arbitrary number of interfaces, this means you get the goodness of multiple inheritance (a single object that can pose as multiple different objects for different methods) without the downside (of conflicting implementations in the two super classes).
With Java 8, the designers of the language concluded that interfaces without any implementation was overly restrictive (they didn't like my solution I guess ;-)), so they allow for a default implementation, thus expanding the multi-inheritance options of interfaces, while still trying to avoid the conflicting implementation problem via a complex set of precedence rules so that there is an unambiguous default implementation to execute.
I am trying to explain the advantage of interface with the following example-
suppose you have another class where you need to use the tiger or AeroPlane as parameter. So by using interface you can call using
someObject.someMethod(ClassWithSpeed)
but if you dont use interface you can use
someObject.someMethod(Tiger)
someObject.someMethod(AeroPlane)
Now what should you do? Your probable answer will be like, "I will use two overloaded method".
This is okay so far, But
Say you need to add more options (say car, cycle, rabbit, tortoise.... 100 others). So what will you do to make the change of your existing code?? you will need to change a lots of things..
The overall example above has only one purpose. That is to say
"we need interface to create a better, reusable and properly object oriented
design"
N.B.
if you are sure the program is too small and you will never need to change them then I think it is okay to implement without interface
Defining an interface allows you to define methods that work not only on Aeroplane and Tiger, but also other classes that share the same interface.
For example, say your interface is IObjectWithSpeed. Then you can define a method like this -- in a single class that operates on IObjectWithSpeed objects.
public double calculateSecondsToTravel( IObjectWithSpeed obj, double distance ) {
return distance / obj.getSpeed();
}
Interfaces allow us to satisfy the open/closed principle - open for extension, but closed for modification. The single implementation of the method above doesn't need to be modified as new classes are defined that implement IObjectWithSpeed.
I want go into much theoretical details but will try to explain using this example.
Consider JDBC API. It is API used to deal with database related options in the Java. Now, there are so many databases in the industry. How would one write drivers for that? Well, the quick and dirty approach may be write own implementation using our own classes and API.
But think from the programmer's perspective. Will they start learning DATABASE DRIVER's API while using different database? The answer is NO.
So what is the solution to the problem ? Just have a well defined API which anyone can extend for his own implementation.
In JDBC API, there are some Interfaces which are Connection, ResultSet, PreparedStatement, Statement etc. Now each database vendor will implement the interface and will write his own implementation for that. Result ? : Reduced effort from the developer and easy understandability.
Now, what this custom implementation might consisting of ? It's simple. They do what, take ResultSet interface for example and implement it and in whatever method the ResultSet is gettting returned, return THE CLASS THAT IMPLEMENTS ResultSet interface like this
ResultSet rs=new ResultSetImpl(); //this is what they are doing internally.
So interface are like contracts. They define what your class is able to do and they give your application flexibility. You can create your own APIs using interfaces properly.
Hope this helps you.
An interface is not simply a method signature.
It is a type that represents a contract. The contract is the thing, not the method signatures. When a class implements an interface, it is because there is a contract for a shared behavior that the class has an interest in implementing as a type. That contract is implemented via the specified members which are usually method bodies but may also include static final fields.
It may be true that a tiger and an aeroplane both could be expressed as a type with a common behavior implemented through speed() ... and if so, then the interface represents the contract for expressing that behavior.
Aside from being descriptive for those classes' functionality, methods of an interface could be used without any knowledge about the classes implementing it, even for classes that were not yet defined.
So for example, if you'd need a class Transport that computes say efficient routes, it could be given a class that implements ClassWithSpeed as a parameter and use its method speed() for computing what it needs. This way you could use it with our class Aeroplane, but also with any class we define later, say Boat. Java will take care that if you want to use a class as a parameter to Transport it will implement ClassWithSpeed, and that any class implementing ClassWithSpeed implements the method speed() so that it can be used.
The interface (as a language construct) is used by the compiler to prove that the method call is valid and allows you to have dependent classes interact with the implementing class while having the least possible knowledge about the implementing class.
This is a very wide question to give a simple answer. I can recommend a book Interface Oriented Design: With Patterns. It explains all power of interfaces. And why we should not avoid them.
Have you tried using composition instead?, if I want 2 dissimilar classes to inherit the same abilities I use a class which takes an object of the type its working with by using abstract classes and checking the instances. Interfaces are useful for forcing methods to be including in the class but don't require any implementation or for 2 teams of coders to work on different coding areas.
Class Tiger {
public MovingEntity mover;
public Tiger(){
mover.speed=30;
mover.directionX=-1;
mover.move(mover);
}
}
Class Plane {
public MovingEntity mover;
public Plane(){
mover.speed=500;
mover.directionX=-1;
mover.move(mover);
}
Abstract Class Moverable(){
private int xPos;
private int yPos;
private int directionX;
private int directionY;
private int speed;
Class MovingEntity extends Moverable {
public void move(Moverable m){
if(m instanceof Tiger){
xPos+=directionX*speed;
yPos+=directionY*speed;
}else if(m instanceof Plane){
xPos+=directionX*speed;
yPos+=directionY*speed;
}
}
On language level, the only use of interfaces is, like you mentioned, to be able to refer to different classes in a common way. On people level, however, the picture looks different: IMO Java is strong when used in big projects where the design and the implementation are done by separate people, often from separate companies. Now, instead of writing a specification on a Word document, the system architects can create a bunch of classes that implementers can then directly insert in their IDEs and start working on them.
In other words it is more convenient instead of declaring that "Class X implements methods Y and Z in order for it to be used for purpose A, just to say that "Class X implements interface A"
Because creating interface gives you Polymorphism, across all those classes i.e. Tiger and Aeroplane.
You can extend from an (abstract or concrete) class when the base class's functionality is going to be the core of your child class's functionality as well.
You use interfaces when you want to add an augmented functionality to your class in addition to its core functionality. So using interfaces would give you Polymorphism even when its not your class's core functionality (because you've entered a contract by implementing the interface). This is a huge advantage over creating a speed() method with each class.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How are Java interfaces actually used?
I'm not talking from an accademic buzzword point of view but from a pratical developer point of view.
So taking the example:-
Class1 implements Interface
public String methodOne() {
return "This is Class1.methodOne()";
}
public String methodTwo() {
return "This is Class1.methodTwo()";
}
}
Class2:
Class2 implements Interface
public String methodOne() {
return "This is Class2.methodOne()";
}
public String methodTwo() {
return "This is Class2.methodTwo()";
}
}
Using the Interface:-
Client {
Interface intface = new Class1();
intface.methodOne();
intface.methodTwo();
Interface intface = new Class2();
intface.methodOne();
intface.methodTwo();
}
But what are the benefits over just writting:-
Client {
Class1 clas1 = new Class1();
clas1.methodOne();
clas1.methodTwo();
Class2 clas2 = new Class2();
clas2.methodOne();
clas2.methodTwo();
}
And bypass the Interface altogether.
Interfaces just seem to be an additional layer of code for the sake of an additional layer of code,
or is there more to them than just "Here are the methods that the class you are accessing has"?
When using standalone classes, you don't need interfaces. However, when you have a type hierarchy, interfaces are indeed indispensable.
Your simple example does not really do justice, but let's rename your interface to something more useful and concrete, e.g. a Sorter algorithm which can take a list of items and sort them. You can have several different sorting algorithms implemented, and you may want to change the algorithm used, based on the context (i.e. QuickSort is faster for large data sets, but BubbleSort is better for small data sets, etc.) So you don't want to tie the client code to one specific algorithm. By using the polymorphic Sorter type (implemented as an interface), you can pass different concrete sorter objects to the client, without it knowing (and caring) what algorithm it is actually using. And you can any time introduce a better sorting algorithm, or remove one which proved inefficient, without the clients noticing anything.
Such a feat would be impossible without interfaces. The alternative would be calling the sort method of choice directly from (possibly duplicated) if-else or switch blocks all over the place, with the inevitable possibility of introducing bugs when forgetting to update all places properly when a sorting algorithm is added/removed... not to mention that you would need to recompile all client code after each such change :-(
Suppose you want a collection of objects with both methods "Method1" and "Method2".
And you don't want to programatically check each instance in the collection for its type.
A collection of objects the implement that interface saves you from doing this.
It calls Polymorphism and it is very useful.
The other folks have pretty much covered your question but, in a word: Yes!
The Java language was actually conceived as a fairly minimal object-oriented language, and interfaces were there from the very beginning. There are concepts of describing the relationships between classes that are hard or impossible to do without either interfaces or some performance-costly runtime type identification. All or almost all the patterns quoted in the famous Design Patterns book (here's the book itself) rely on interfaces.
(Not sure how I respond without it being seen as an answer but...)
Wow, so many answers so quickly, pretty impressive forum - cheers! :-D
So would it be reasonable to say that an Interface essentially sets the 'rules' for which the concrete classes must meet?
For example if I had classes Class1 & Class2, both of which have method 'getList()'.
Without implementing an Interface Class1.getList() could return say a list of Strings and Class2.getList() could return Integers.
Essentially the Interface sets the rules that my Class has to have a method of getList() and that method must return List,
so if both implement the Interface Lister with method 'public String getList();' I know that both Class1 & Class2 getList() returns a
List of types String.
But concrete Class1 could be returning a list of departments whereas Class2 is a list of employees, but I know they both return a list of Strings.
This would probably become more useful if I had maybe half dozen or so classes each with half dozen methods all of which I want to
ensure meet the .getList returns a list of type String 'rule'.
I use interfaces mostly for
simulating multiple inheritance
defining a service contract and a service implementation
single method callback contracts
and because
some dependency injection frameworks require interfaces to work
mocking interfaces easier than mocking classes
many AOP frameworks work better with interfaces than classes
And it is not really a layer of code between a service and its client, but more a formal contract.
Interfaces are useful if there is a chance that you'll need more than one implementation, maybe for another technology (different database) or for testing.
Interfaces define the contract of the type, without anu implementation details. This lets you program against the interface without knowing the actual implementation class.
An example of the advantage of interfaces using your code could be:
public void useInterface(Interface obj) {
obj.methodOne();
obj.methodTwo();
}
and calling it as in:
useInterface(new Class1());
useInterface(new Class2());
The Java collections classes make heavy use of interfaces, it allows you to switch implementations for lists and maps later without having to change the code using those instances.
Consider the following method which receives a list of 'intfaces', you don't have to know if you handle clas1 or clas2, you just want to handle something that 'is a' intface. You may add clas3 implement intface later on and it will stil work...
public void callMethods(List<intface> intfaces){
for(Interface intface : intfaces) {
intface.methodOne();
intface.methodTwo();
}
}
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Java: Rationale of the Object class not being declared abstract
Why is the Object class, which is base class of 'em all in Java, not abstract?
I've had this question for a really really long time and it is asked here purely out of curiosity, that's all. Nothing in my code or anybody's code is breaking because it is not abstract, but I was wondering why they made it concrete?
Why would anyone want an "instance" (and not its presence a.k.a. Reference) of this Object class? One case is a poor synchronization code which uses the instance of an Object for locking (at least I used it this way once.. my bad).
Is there any practical use of an "instance" of an Object class? And how does its instantiation fit in OOP? What would have happened if they had marked it abstract (of course after providing implementations to its methods)?
Without the designers of java.lang.Object telling us, we have to base our answers on opinion. There's a few questions which can be asked which may help clear it up.
Would any of the methods of Object benefit from being abstract?
It could be argued that some of the methods would benefit from this. Take hashCode() and equals() for instance, there would probably have been a lot less frustration around the complexities of these two if they had both been made abstract. This would require developers to figure out how they should be implementing them, making it more obvious that they should be consistent (see Effective Java). However, I'm more of the opinion that hashCode(), equals() and clone() belong on separate, opt-in abstractions (i.e. interfaces). The other methods, wait(), notify(), finalize(), etc. are sufficiently complicated and/or are native, so it's best they're already implemented, and would not benefit from being abstracted.
So I'd guess the answer would be no, none of the methods of Object would benefit from being abstract.
Would it be a benefit to mark the Object class as abstract?
Assuming all the methods are implemented, the only effect of marking Object abstract is that it cannot be constructed (i.e. new Object() is a compile error). Would this have a benefit? I'm of the opinion that the term "object" is itself abstract (can you find anything around you which can be totally described as "an object"?), so it would fit with the object-oriented paradigm. It is however, on the purist side. It could be argued that forcing developers to pick a name for any concrete subclass, even empty ones, will result in code which better expresses their intent. I think, to be totally correct in terms of the paradigm, Object should be marked abstract, but when it comes down to it, there's no real benefit, it's a matter of design preference (pragmatism vs. purity).
Is the practice of using a plain Object for synchronisation a good enough reason for it to be concrete?
Many of the other answers talk about constructing a plain object to use in the synchronized() operation. While this may have been a common and accepted practice, I don't believe it would be a good enough reason to prevent Object being abstract if the designers wanted it to be. Other answers have mentioned how we would have to declare a single, empty subclass of Object any time we wanted to synchronise on a certain object, but this doesn't stand up - an empty subclass could have been provided in the SDK (java.lang.Lock or whatever), which could be constructed any time we wanted to synchronise. Doing this would have the added benefit of creating a stronger statement of intent.
Are there any other factors which could have been adversely affected by making Object abstract?
There are several areas, separate from a pure design standpoint, which may have influenced the choice. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about them to expand on them. However, it would not suprise me if any of these had an impact on the decision:
Performance
Security
Simplicity of implementation of the JVM
Could there be other reasons?
It's been mentioned that it may be in relation to reflection. However, reflection was introduced after Object was designed. So whether it affects reflection or not is moot - it's not the reason. The same for generics.
There's also the unforgettable point that java.lang.Object was designed by humans: they may have made a mistake, they may not have considered the question. There is no language without flaws, and this may be one of them, but if it is, it's hardly a big one. And I think I can safely say, without lack of ambition, that I'm very unlikely to be involved in designing a key part of such a widely used technology, especially one that's lasted 15(?) years and still going strong, so this shouldn't be considered a criticism.
Having said that, I would have made it abstract ;-p
Summary
Basically, as far as I see it, the answer to both questions "Why is java.lang.Object concrete?" or (if it were so) "Why is java.lang.Object abstract?" is... "Why not?".
Plain instances of java.lang.Object are typically used in locking/syncronization scenarios and that's accepted practice.
Also - what would be the reason for it to be abstract? Because it's not fully functional in its own right as an instance? Could it really do with some abstract members? Don't think so. So the argument for making it abstract in the first place is non-existent. So it isn't.
Take the classic hierarchy of animals, where you have an abstract class Animal, the reasoning to make the Animal class abstract is because an instance of Animal is effectively an 'invalid' -by lack of a better word- animal (even if all its methods provide a base implementation). With Object, that is simply not the case. There is no overwhelming case to make it abstract in the first place.
From everything I've read, it seems that Object does not need to be concrete, and in fact should have been abstract.
Not only is there no need for it to be concrete, but after some more reading I am convinced that Object not being abstract is in conflict with the basic inheritance model - we should not be allowing abstract subclasses of a concrete class, since subclasses should only add functionality.
Clearly this is not the case in Java, where we have abstract subclasses of Object.
I can think of several cases where instances of Object are useful:
Locking and synchronization, like you and other commenters mention. It is probably a code smell, but I have seen Object instances used this way all the time.
As Null Objects, because equals will always return false, except on the instance itself.
In test code, especially when testing collection classes. Sometimes it's easiest to fill a collection or array with dummy objects rather than nulls.
As the base instance for anonymous classes. For example:
Object o = new Object() {...code here...}
I think it probably should have been declared abstract, but once it is done and released it is very hard to undo without causing a lot of pain - see Java Language Spec 13.4.1:
"If a class that was not abstract is changed to be declared abstract, then preexisting binaries that attempt to create new instances of that class will throw either an InstantiationError at link time, or (if a reflective method is used) an InstantiationException at run time; such a change is therefore not recommended for widely distributed classes."
From time to time you need a plain Object that has no state of its own. Although such objects seem useless at first sight, they still have utility since each one has different identity. Tnis is useful in several scenarios, most important of which is locking: You want to coordinate two threads. In Java you do that by using an object that will be used as a lock. The object need not have any state its mere existence is enough for it to become a lock:
class MyThread extends Thread {
private Object lock;
public MyThread(Object l) { lock = l; }
public void run() {
doSomething();
synchronized(lock) {
doSomethingElse();
}
}
}
Object lock = new Object();
new MyThread(lock).start();
new MyThread(lock).start();
In this example we used a lock to prevent the two threads from concurrently executing doSomethingElse()
If Object were abstract and we needed a lock we'd have to subclass it without adding any method nor fields just so that we can instantiate lock.
Coming to think about it, here's a dual question to yours: Suppose Object were abstract, will it define any abstract methods? I guess the answer is No. In such circumstances there is not much value to defining the class as abstract.
I don't understand why most seem to believe that making a fully functional class, which implements all of its methods in a use full way abstract would be a good idea.
I would rather ask why make it abstract? Does it do something it shouldn't? is it missing some functionality it should have? Both those questions can be answered with no, it is a fully working class on its own, making it abstract just leads to people implementing empty classes.
public class UseableObject extends AbstractObject{}
UseableObject inherits from abstract Object and surprise it can be implemented, it does not add any functionality and its only reason to exist is to allow access to the methods exposed by Object.
Also I have to disagree with the use in "poor" synchronisation. Using private Objects to synchronize access is safer than using synchronize(this) and safer as well as easier to use than the Lock classes from java util concurrent.
Seems to me there's a simple question of practicality here. Making a class abstract takes away the programmer's ability to do something, namely, to instantiate it. There is nothing you can do with an abstract class that you cannot do with a concrete class. (Well, you can declare abstract functions in it, but in this case we have no need to have abstract functions.) So by making it concrete, you make it more flexible.
Of course if there was some active harm that was done by making it concrete, that "flexibility" would be a drawback. But I can't think of any active harm done by making Object instantiable. (Is "instantiable" a word? Whatever.) We could debate whether any given use that someone has made of a raw Object instance is a good idea. But even if you could convince me that every use that I have ever seen of a raw Object instance was a bad idea, that still wouldn't prove that there might not be good uses out there. So if it doesn't hurt anything, and it might help, even if we can't think of a way that it would actually help at the moment, why prohibit it?
I think all of the answers so far forget what it was like with Java 1.0. In Java 1.0, you could not make an anonymous class, so if you just wanted an object for some purpose (synchronization or a null placeholder) you would have to go declare a class for that purpose, and then a whole bunch of code would have these extra classes for this purpose. Much more straight forward to just allow direct instantiation of Object.
Sure, if you were designing Java today you might say that everyone should do:
Object NULL_OBJECT = new Object(){};
But that was not an option in 1.0.
I suspect the designers did not know in which way people may use an Object may be used in the future, and therefore didn't want to limit programmers by enforcing them to create an additional class where not necessary, eg for things like mutexes, keys etc.
It also means that it can be instantiated in an array. In the pre-1.5 days, this would allow you to have generic data structures. This could still be true on some platforms (I'm thinking J2ME, but I'm not sure)
Reasons why Object needs to be concrete.
reflection
see Object.getClass()
generic use (pre Java 5)
comparison/output
see Object.toString(), Object.equals(), Object.hashCode(), etc.
syncronization
see Object.wait(), Object.notify(), etc.
Even though a couple of areas have been replaced/deprecated, there was still a need for a concrete parent class to provide these features to every Java class.
The Object class is used in reflection so code can call methods on instances of indeterminate type, i.e. 'Object.class.getDeclaredMethods()'. If Object were to be Abstract then code that wanted to participate would have to implement all abstract methods before client code could use reflection on them.
According to Sun, An abstract class is a class that is declared abstract—it may or may not include abstract methods. Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed. This also means you can't call methods or access public fields of an abstract class.
Example of an abstract root class:
abstract public class AbstractBaseClass
{
public Class clazz;
public AbstractBaseClass(Class clazz)
{
super();
this.clazz = clazz;
}
}
A child of our AbstractBaseClass:
public class ReflectedClass extends AbstractBaseClass
{
public ReflectedClass()
{
super(this);
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ReflectedClass me = new ReflectedClass();
}
}
This will not compile because it's invalid to reference 'this' in a constructor unless its to call another constructor in the same class. I can get it to compile if I change it to:
public ReflectedClass()
{
super(ReflectedClass.class);
}
but that only works because ReflectedClass has a parent ("Object") which is 1) concrete and 2) has a field to store the type for its children.
A example more typical of reflection would be in a non-static member function:
public void foo()
{
Class localClass = AbstractBaseClass.clazz;
}
This fails unless you change the field 'clazz' to be static. For the class field of Object this wouldn't work because it is supposed to be instance specific. It would make no sense for Object to have a static class field.
Now, I did try the following change and it works but is a bit misleading. It still requires the base class to be extended to work.
public void genericPrint(AbstractBaseClass c)
{
Class localClass = c.clazz;
System.out.println("Class is: " + localClass);
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ReflectedClass me = new ReflectedClass();
ReflectedClass meTwo = new ReflectedClass();
me.genericPrint(meTwo);
}
Pre-Java5 generics (like with arrays) would have been impossible
Object[] array = new Object[100];
array[0] = me;
array[1] = meTwo;
Instances need to be constructed to serve as placeholders until the actual objects are received.
I suspect the short answer is that the collection classes lost type information in the days before Java generics. If a collection is not generic, then it must return a concrete Object (and be downcast at runtime to whatever type it was previously).
Since making a concrete class into an abstract class would break binary compatibility (as noted upthread), the concrete Object class was kept. I would like to point out that in no case was it created for the sole purpose of sychronization; dummy classes work just as well.
The design flaw is not including generics from the beginning. A lot of design criticism is aimed at that decision and its consequences. [oh, and the array subtyping rule.]
Its not abstract because whenever we create a new class it extends Object class then if it was abstract you need to implement all the methods of Object class which is overhead... There are already methods implemented in that class...