We Keep Coding

Interface Segregation Principle and default methods in Java 8

As per the Interface Segregation Principle
clients should not be forced to implement the unwanted methods of an interface
...and so we should define interfaces to have logical separation.
But default methods introduced in Java 8 have provided the flexibility to implement methods in Java interfaces. It seems Java 8 has provided the feasibility to enhance an interface to have some methods not related to its core logic, but with some default or empty implementation.
Does it not violate the ISP?

Good question. Definitely, it violates Interface Segregation Principle and I personally don't like the concept of default implementation because it spoils the beauty of interface design and a bit on exact polymorphism as well. If somebody is not aware of the concept of ISP then they will start design fat interfaces and will end up like everything packed in one interface. During code design, people will not think logically as well.
This will end up with code smells and I am sure those who don't know the concepts will start writing bad code. I believe default implementation is an unwanted feature as it will tend people to write smelly code.

The ISP will be violated if you intend to do so. You can segregate the interfaces to fulfill only single responsibility. The group of methods for a particular responsibility most probably will follow 80-20 rule. You can provide the default implementations for 40-50% of the methods out of 80% part. This 40-50% part will be the one which will be rarely used and hence defaults are ok. If interface fulfills single responsibility, they will rarely be too big, and most often will be in ISP.

No.
In fact, default methods can be a good way of providing additional useful functionality while avoiding violating ISP.
An excerpt from my longer answer here:
There are examples in the standard library of good uses default methods. One would be java.util.function.Function with its andThen(...) and compose(...) methods. ...
These default methods do not violate ISP, as classes that implement Function have no need to call or override them. There may be many use-cases where concrete instances of Function never have their andThen(...) method called, but that's fine – you don't break ISP by providing useful but non-essential functionality, as long as you don't encumber all those use-cases by forcing them to do something with it. In the case of Function, providing these methods as abstract rather than default would violate ISP, as all implementing classes would have to add their own implementations, even when they know it's unlikely to ever be called.

The quote in the OP is not quite accurate. The actual statement of the ISP is,
Clients should not be forced to depend upon interfaces that they do not use.
The client is the consumer of the interface, i.e. the caller of its abstract methods. The client is not the implementer of the interface. If we are following the dependency inversion principle, the client should not even know the concrete implementation of the interface.
The reasoning behind the ISP is not to save developers from implementing additional abstract methods. It is to save the caller of those methods from unnecessary transitive dependencies. Additional interface methods risk pulling in additional dependencies (via declaration or implementation). A client who doesn't use those methods still acquires those dependencies and becomes coupled to clients who do use those methods through the changes those clients force upon the interface and its shared implementation.
Applying this principle to default methods in Java 8, it is certainly possible for such a method to violate the ISP by adding dependencies that not all clients require. On the other hand, it is also possible (and preferable) for a default method to not add any dependency and to never change in any way that breaks clients.
In summary, default methods are just another tool. They may be used to help your code or to hurt it.

Java - Is it good practice to return interface or abstract types from methods? [duplicate]

when programming in Java I practically always, just out of habit, write something like this:
public List<String> foo() {
return new ArrayList<String>();
}
Most of the time without even thinking about it. Now, the question is: should I always specify the interface as the return type? Or is it advisable to use the actual implementation of the interface, and if so, under what circumstances?
It is obvious that using the interface has a lot of advantages (that's why it's there). In most cases it doesn't really matter what concrete implementation is used by a library function. But maybe there are cases where it does matter. For instance, if I know that I will primarily access the data in the list randomly, a LinkedList would be bad. But if my library function only returns the interface, I simply don't know. To be on the safe side I might even need to copy the list explicitly over to an ArrayList:
List bar = foo();
List myList = bar instanceof LinkedList ? new ArrayList(bar) : bar;
but that just seems horrible and my coworkers would probably lynch me in the cafeteria. And rightfully so.
What do you guys think? What are your guidelines, when do you tend towards the abstract solution, and when do you reveal details of your implementation for potential performance gains?

Return the appropriate interface to hide implementation details. Your clients should only care about what your object offers, not how you implemented it. If you start with a private ArrayList, and decide later on that something else (e.g., LinkedLisk, skip list, etc.) is more appropriate you can change the implementation without affecting clients if you return the interface. The moment you return a concrete type the opportunity is lost.

For instance, if I know that I will
primarily access the data in the list
randomly, a LinkedList would be bad.
But if my library function only
returns the interface, I simply don't
know. To be on the safe side I might
even need to copy the list explicitly
over to an ArrayList.
As everybody else has mentioned, you just mustn't care about how the library has implemented the functionality, to reduce coupling and increasing maintainability of the library.
If you, as a library client, can demonstrate that the implementation is performing badly for your use case, you can then contact the person in charge and discuss about the best path to follow (a new method for this case or just changing the implementation).
That said, your example reeks of premature optimization.
If the method is or can be critical, it might mention the implementation details in the documentation.

Without being able to justify it with reams of CS quotes (I'm self taught), I've always gone by the mantra of "Accept the least derived, return the most derived," when designing classes and it has stood me well over the years.
I guess that means in terms of interface versus concrete return is that if you are trying to reduce dependencies and/or decouple, returning the interface is generally more useful. However, if the concrete class implements more than that interface, it is usually more useful to the callers of your method to get the concrete class back (i.e. the "most derived") rather than aribtrarily restrict them to a subset of that returned object's functionality - unless you actually need to restrict them. Then again, you could also just increase the coverage of the interface. Needless restrictions like this I compare to thoughtless sealing of classes; you never know. Just to talk a bit about the former part of that mantra (for other readers), accepting the least derived also gives maximum flexibility for callers of your method.
-Oisin

Sorry to disagree, but I think the basic rule is as follows:
For input arguments use the most generic.
For output values, the most specific.
So, in this case you want to declare the implementation as:
public ArrayList<String> foo() {
return new ArrayList<String>();
}
Rationale:
The input case is already known and explained by everyone: use the interface, period. However, the output case can look counter-intuitive.
You want to return the implementation because you want the client to have the most information about what is receiving. In this case, more knowledge is more power.
Example 1: the client wants to get the 5th element:
return Collection: must iterate until 5th element vs return List:
return List: list.get(4)
Example 2: the client wants to remove the 5th element:
return List: must create a new list without the specified element (list.remove() is optional).
return ArrayList: arrayList.remove(4)
So it's a big truth that using interfaces is great because it promotes reusability, reduces coupling, improves maintainability and makes people happy ... but only when used as input.
So, again, the rule can be stated as:
Be flexible for what you offer.
Be informative with what you deliver.
So, next time, please return the implementation.

In OO programming, we want to encapsulate as much as possible the data. Hide as much as possible the actual implementation, abstracting the types as high as possible.
In this context, I would answer only return what is meaningful. Does it makes sense at all for the return value to be the concrete class? Aka in your example, ask yourself: will anyone use a LinkedList-specific method on the return value of foo?
If no, just use the higher-level Interface. It's much more flexible, and allows you to change the backend
If yes, ask yourself: can't I refactor my code to return the higher-level interface? :)
The more abstract is your code, the less changes your are required to do when changing a backend. It's as simple as that.
If, on the other hand, you end up casting the return values to the concrete class, well that's a strong sign that you should probably return instead the concrete class. Your users/teammates should not have to know about more or less implicit contracts: if you need to use the concrete methods, just return the concrete class, for clarity.
In a nutshell: code abstract, but explicitly :)

In general, for a public facing interface such as APIs, returning the interface (such as List) over the concrete implementation (such as ArrayList) would be better.
The use of a ArrayList or LinkedList is an implementation detail of the library that should be considered for the most common use case of that library. And of course, internally, having private methods handing off LinkedLists wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if it provides facilities that would make the processing easier.
There is no reason that a concrete class shouldn't be used in the implementation, unless there is a good reason to believe that some other List class would be used later on. But then again, changing the implementation details shouldn't be as painful as long as the public facing portion is well-designed.
The library itself should be a black box to its consumers, so they don't really have to worry about what's going on internally. That also means that the library should be designed so that it is designed to be used in the way it is intended.

It doesn't matter all that much whether an API method returns an interface or a concrete class; despite what everyone here says, you almost never change the implementiation class once the code is written.
What's far more important: always use minimum-scope interfaces for your method parameters! That way, clients have maximal freedom and can use classes your code doesn't even know about.
When an API method returns ArrayList, I have absolutely no qualms with that, but when it demands an ArrayList (or, all to common, Vector) parameter, I consider hunting down the programmer and hurting him, because it means that I can't use Arrays.asList(), Collections.singletonList() or Collections.EMPTY_LIST.

As a rule, I only pass back internal implementations if I am in some private, inner workings of a library, and even so only sparingly. For everything that is public and likely to be called from the outside of my module I use interfaces, and also the Factory pattern.
Using interfaces in such a way has proven to be a very reliable way to write reusable code.

The main question has been answered already and you should always use the interface. I however would just like to comment on
It is obvious that using the interface has a lot of advantages (that's why it's there). In most cases it doesn't really matter what concrete implementation is used by a library function. But maybe there are cases where it does matter. For instance, if I know that I will primarily access the data in the list randomly, a LinkedList would be bad. But if my library function only returns the interface, I simply don't know. To be on the safe side I might even need to copy the list explicitly over to an ArrayList.
If you are returning a data structure that you know has poor random access performance -- O(n) and typically a LOT of data -- there are other interfaces you should be specifying instead of List, like Iterable so that anyone using the library will be fully aware that only sequential access is available.
Picking the right type to return isn't just about interface versus concrete implementation, it is also about selecting the right interface.

You use interface to abstract away from the actual implementation. The interface is basically just a blueprint for what your implementation can do.
Interfaces are good design because they allow you to change implementation details without having to fear that any of its consumers are directly affected, as long as you implementation still does what your interface says it does.
To work with interfaces you would instantiate them like this:
IParser parser = new Parser();
Now IParser would be your interface, and Parser would be your implementation. Now when you work with the parser object from above, you will work against the interface (IParser), which in turn will work against your implementation (Parser).
That means that you can change the inner workings of Parser as much as you want, it will never affect code that works against your IParser parser interface.

In general use the interface in all cases if you have no need of the functionality of the concrete class. Note that for lists, Java has added a RandomAccess marker class primarily to distinguish a common case where an algorithm may need to know if get(i) is constant time or not.
For uses of code, Michael above is right that being as generic as possible in the method parameters is often even more important. This is especially true when testing such a method.

You'll find (or have found) that as you return interfaces, they permeate through your code. e.g. you return an interface from method A and you have to then pass an interface to method B.
What you're doing is programming by contract, albeit in a limited fashion.
This gives you enormous scope to change implementations under the covers (provided these new objects fulfill the existing contracts/expected behaviours).
Given all of this, you have benefits in terms of choosing your implementation, and how you can substitute behaviours (including testing - using mocking, for example). In case you hadn't guessed, I'm all in favour of this and try to reduce to (or introduce) interfaces wherever possible.

Minimizing interfaces in Golang

In golang, interfaces are extremely important for decoupling and composing code, and thus, an advanced go program might easily define 1000s of interfaces .
How do we evolve these interfaces over time, to ensure that they remain minimal?
Are there commonly used go tools which check for unused functions ?
Are there best practices for annotating go functions with something similar to java's #Override, which ensures that a declared function is properly implementing a expected contract?
Typically in the java language, it is easy to keep code tightly bound to an interface specification because the advanced tooling allows us to find and remove functions which aren't referenced at all (usually this is highlighted automatically for you in any common IDE).

Are there commonly used go tools which check for unused functions ?
Sort of, but it is really hard to be sure for exported interfaces. oracle can be used to find references to types or methods, but only if you have all of the code that references you availible on your gopath.
can you ensure a type implements a contract?
If you attempt to use a type as an interface, the compiler will complain if it does not have all of the methods. I generally do this by exporting interfaces but not implementations, and making a constructor:
type MyInterface interface{
Foo()
}
type impl struct{}
func (i *impl) Foo(){}
func NewImpl() MyInterface{
return &impl{}
}
This will not compile if impl does not implement all of the required functions.
In go, it is not needed to declare that you implement an interface. This allows you to implement an interface without even referencing the package it is defined in. This is pretty much exactly the opposite of "tightly binding to an interface specification", but it does allow for some interesting usage patterns.

What your asking for isn't really a part of Go. There are no best practices for annotating that a function satisfies an interface. I would personally say the only clear best practice is to document which interfaces your types implement so that people can know. If you want to test explicitly (at compile time) if a type implements an interface you can do so using assignment, check out my answer here on the topic; How to check if an object has a particular method?
If you're just looking to take inventory of your code base to do some clean up I would recommend using that assignment method for all your types to generate compile time errors regarding what they don't implement, scale down the declarations until it compiles. In doing so you should become aware of the disparity between what might be implemented and what actually is.
Go is also lacking in IDE options. As a result some of those friendly features like "find all references" aren't there. You can use text searching tricks to get around this, like searching func TheName to get only the declaration and .TheName( to get all invocations. I'm sure you'll get used to it pretty quickly if you continue to use this tooling.

Empty interfaces - Modeling of object relationships

Is it ok to use empty interfaces for object modeling?
E.g. the following interface extends other empty interfaces in order the characterize the object 'Ferry':
public interface Ferry extends Watercraft, StationBased, Scheduled, Oneway, Motorized {}
Watercraft, StationBased, etc., are all empty interfaces, too, so they kind of act as a marker. However, they are not used by the JVM or compiler. These classes are only used for modeling purposes.
Is this good practice? Should an interface not usually provide some kind of common functionality, and not merely mark a class?

Yes, you can use empty interfaces for object modeling, but... Object modeling without any use-case is IMO overstretching it.
You write code to execute concrete actions, you model it to leverage general abstractions in the domain, and yes you can over-abstract your code.
Adding an interface in code is a classification or typification, which is only necessary as long as there is a taker for it. Otherwise it is plain dead code.
My worst encounter which sometimes still haunts me in my nightmares was an abstraction over business services, which essentially replaced it with a single method taking a map as arguments and returning an object which either contained the result or an error state. Effectively modeling a method invocation, but this time without types. Having forced this down on all business methods was simply a nightmare to unravel later.

There is nothing wrong with doing it that way except that you may discover quite quickly that changing the structure or adding new forms will become unpleasant.
I would probably consider a much more flexible enum option.
enum CraftAttributes {
Watercraft,
StationBased,
Scheduled,
Oneway,
Motorized;
}
class Ferry {
Set<CraftAttributes> attributes = EnumSet.of(
CraftAttributes.Watercraft
//...
);
}
There are lots of sweet thing you can do with unions and intersections of Sets that make for powerful but lucid code.

In a Java interface, how can I *not* use one particular method inherited from a parent interface?

I have a hierarchy of three interfaces, grandparent, parent and child. Parent and child have a method "add", which requires different input parameters in the child. While it's no problem to add the required signature in the child, the inherited method will be pointless, so is there a way to not have it in there at all? The other methods work fine.
Maybe, to achieve what I want, I can improve the design altogether, so I'll shortly outline what the interfaces are about:
I collect meter readings that consist of a time and a value. The grandparent interface is for a single reading. I also have classes that represent a number of consecutive readings (a series), and one that contains multiple series running over the same period of time (let's just call that a table).
The table can be viewed as a series (which aggregates the values orthogonally to the time axis), and both table and series can be viewed as a single reading (the implementations providing different means of aggregation), hence the inheritance. This seems to work out fine, but for the add method. (I can add a single point to the series, but for the table I need an additional parameter to tell me to which series it belongs.)

No, you cannot avoid inheriting a method, since doing so would violate the Liskov substitution principle.
In practice, you could have implementations throw an UnsupportedOperationException, but that would be pretty nasty.
Can't you implement the inherited method with some sort of default value for the series?

Maybe it would make sense to break the interface inheritance all together. Just have specific interfaces for specific types of behaviors. Whatever classes you have that implement these interfaces can just pick the ones that make sense, and won't have to worry about implementing methods that don't make sense.

The problem with inheritance is that the focus on the language mechanism makes people think about implementation rather than semantics.
When B inherits from A, it means that every instance of B is also an instance of A. In OOP, being an instance of something means typically that you should have a sensible response to its methods and at least support their messages.
If you feel that B should not support one of the messages of A, then as far as I am concerned you have two options:
BAD - Throw an "Unimplemented" exception as you would get with the collections framework. However, this is in my opinion poor form.
Good - Accept that B is not a type of A and avoid the inheritance, or restructure it (e.g., using composition and/or interfaces) so that you don't have to rewrite the code but you do not use a subtyping relation. If your application will live over time, you don't want to have semantic issues in your hierarchies.

Thanks for putting me on the right track, I upvoted the posts I found most helpful. Since my solution was inspired by the posts, but is not posted, I'll share what I decided to do:
As the hierarchy was inspired by how the data should be viewed, while the problems arise on the semantics of how you add data, I'm going to split up the interfaces for series and table into a read and a write interface each. The write interfaces have nothing to do with each other, and the read interfaces can inherit without conflicts.
I'll make this wiki, in case someone wants to expand on this.

You might want to look at the Refused Bequest code smell.

An interface is a contract. It means that anything that implements that interface will necessarily implement the methods defined. You could technically just implement it as a dummy method (no body, simply return, whatever) but to my knowledge, it must be implemented.

You can always implement the method as empty, for example:
class A implements B{ void add(A) { /*Goes Nowhere Does Nothing*/ return;} }
but really, it's not a good idea. A better solution would be for all of your grandparents, parents, and children all be the same class with two extra methods- hasParent():boolean and hasChild():boolean. This has the benefit of being a liskov substition compatible change as well as a cleaner design.