Showing posts with label interface. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interface. Show all posts

Thursday, February 27, 2014

jump into interface implementation in Eclipse IDE

Here's what I do:
  • In the interface, move the cursor to the method name. Press F4. => Type Hierarchy view appears
  • In the lower part of the view, the method should already be selected. In its toolbar, click "Lock view and show members in hierarchy" (should be the leftmost toolbar icon).
  • In the upper part of the view, you can browse through all implementations of the method.
The procedure isn't very quick, but it gives you a good overview.

Press ctrl-t on the method name (rather than F3). This gives the type hierarchy as a pop-up so is slightly faster than using F4 and the type hierarchy view.
Also, when done on a method, subtypes that don't implement/override the method will be greyed out, and when you double click on a class in the list it will take you straight to the method in that class.

Monday, November 25, 2013

What is the use of marker interfaces in Java?

In earlier versions of Java, Marker Interfaces were the only way to declare metadata about a class. For example, the Serializable Marker Interface lets the author of a class say that their class will behave correctly when serialized and deserialized.
In modern Java, marker interfaces have no place. They can be completely replace by Annotations, which allow for a very flexible metadata capability. If you have information about a class, and that information never changes, then annotations are a very useful way to represent it.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

What does it mean to “program to an interface”?


There are some wonderful answers on here to this questions that get into all sorts of great detail about interfaces and loosely coupling code, inversion of control and so on. There are some fairly heady discussions, so I'd like to take the opportunity to break things down a bit for understanding why an interface is useful.
When I first started getting exposed to interfaces, I too was confused about their relevance. I didn't understand why you needed them. If we're using a language like Java or C#, we already have inheritance and I viewed interfaces as a weaker form of inheritance and thought, "why bother?" In a sense I was right, you can think of interfaces as sort of a weak form of inheritance, but beyond that I finally understood their use as a language construct by thinking of them as means of classifying common traits or behaviors that were exhibited by potentially many non-related classes of objects.
For example -- say you have a SIM game and have the following classes:
 class HouseFly inherits Insect {
   void FlyAroundYourHead();
   void LandOnThings();
 }

 class Telemarketer inherits Person {
   void CallDuringDinner();
   void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo();
 }
Clearly, these two objects have nothing in common in terms of direct inheritance. But, you could say they are both annoying.
Let's say our game needs to have some sort of random thing that annoys the game player when they eat dinner. This could be a HouseFly or a Telemarketer or both -- but how do you allow for both with a single function? And how do you ask each different type of object to "do their annoying thing" in the same way?
The key to realize is that both a Telemarketer and HouseFly share a common loosely interpreted behavior even though they are nothing alike in terms of modeling them. So, let's make an interface that both can implement:
 interface IPest {
    void BeAnnoying();
 }


 class HouseFly inherits Insect implements IPest {
   void FlyAroundYourHead();
   void LandOnThings();

   void BeAnnoying() {
     FlyAroundYourHead();
     LandOnThings();
   }
 }

 class Telemarketer inherits Person implements IPest {
   void CallDuringDinner();
   void ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo();

   void BeAnnoying() {
      CallDuringDinner();
      ContinueTalkingWhenYouSayNo();
   }
 }
We now have two classes that can each be annoying in their own way. And they do not need to derive from the same base class and share common inherent characteristics -- they simply need to satisfy the contract of IPest -- that contract is simple. You just have to BeAnnoying. In this regard, we can model the following:
 class DiningRoom {


   DiningRoom(Person[] diningPeople, IPest[] pests) { ... }

   void ServeDinner() {
     when diningPeople are eating,

       foreach pest in pests
         pest.BeAnnoying();
   }
 }
Here we have a dining room that accepts a number of diners and a number of pests -- note the use of the interface. This means that in our little world, a memeber of the pests array could actually be a Telemarketer object or a HouseFly object.
The ServeDinner method is called when dinner is served and our people in the dining room are supposed to eat. In our little game, that's when our pests do their work -- each pest is instructed to be annoying by way of the IPest interface. In this way, we can easily have both Telemarketers and HouseFlys be annoying in each of their own ways -- we care only that we have something in the DiningRoom object that is a pest, we don't really care what it is and they could have nothing in common with other.
This very contrived pseudo-code example (that dragged on a lot longer than I anticipated) is simply meant to illustrate the kind of thing that finally turned the light on for me in terms of when we might use an interface. I apologize in advance for the silliness of the example, but hope that it helps in your understanding. And, to be sure, the other posted answers you've received here really cover the gamut of the use of interfaces today in design patterns and development methodologies.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

EJB - confused about Home/Remote — LocalHome/Local interfaces

Home is responsible for the creation of the Remote (kind of like its constructor) and LocalHome and Local have the same relationship.
In each case the container is giving you a proxy that references the real EJB class that you write.
If I had to guess, what the question was looking for was the use of remote for the session bean and local for the entity bean.
Anyway, although these concepts can still exists, things have been much better simplified in EJB3.
EDIT: In response to the comment, with EJB3, the bean class itself can implement the remote and the home interfaces directly (for the session beans). They are made EJB's with a single annotation. Stateful beans have a couple more annotations to deal with state issues. Entity beans do not have a Home interface, and do not need a local interface, you can interact with the java object directly. There is an EntityManager that retrieves the right entity beans based on a query, and that EntityManager is injected via an annotation.
That kind of sums it up in a paragraph. There are great tutorials on the web for this stuff, but EJBs in general solve a class of problem that is hard to appreciate unless you deal with the problem. They aren't the only way to solve it, but unless you deal with this type of programming, just reading about it won't really help you relate to it.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/913267/ejb-confused-about-home-remote-localhome-local-interfaces?rq=1

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Designing with interfaces

Separation of interface and implementation is central to Java's spirit, and the Java interface construct enables you to achieve this separation in your designs. Two major activities of any software system design are identifying parts (the subsystems within a program or system of programs) and specifying the interfaces between the parts. In designing a Java-based system, you should use Java interfaces to represent abstract interfaces -- the ways in which the parts will interact with each other.
So this is how I ended up thinking about Java's interfaces: as the preferred means of communicating with the parts of your program that represent abstractions that may have several implementations. For example, two parts of a program I describe in my September Design Techniques installment, "The Event Generator Idiom", were TelephoneListener and Telephone. In this design, I decided that the "telephone listener" represented an abstraction that could have multiple implementations, but thatTelephone did not. Thus, I made Telephone a class that didn't implement any interfaces, and defined TelephoneListener as an interface. Telephone, an event source, passed events to (communicated with) listeners through the TelephoneListenerinterface.
I see interfaces as a fundamental tool for achieving flexibility in the design of Java-based systems. Any class can provide an implementation of an interface. As long as you don't change the interface itself, you can make all kind of changes to the implementing classes, or plug in new classes, without impacting code that depends only on the interface. Thus, if you have a subsystem that represents an abstraction that may have multiple implementations, whether the subsystem is a single object, a group of objects, an entire Java applet or application, you should define Java interfaces through which the rest of the world communicates with that subsystem. When you use interfaces in this way, you decouple the parts of your system from each other and generate code that is more flexible: more easily changed, extended, and customized.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Why do we use Interface? Is it only for Standardization?

Purposes of Interfaces

  • create loosely coupled software
  • support design by contract (an implementor must provide the entire interface)
  • allow for pluggable software
  • allow different objects to interact easily
  • hide implementation details of classes from each other
  • facilitate reuse of software
Analogy 1: Much like the US space shuttle, Russian Soyuz spacecraft and Chinese Shenzhou 5 can all dock to the International Space Station, because they implement the same docking interface. (This is the just an example - I don't know if it's true in real life however let's suspend our disbelief for the sake of an example)
Analogy 2: Like you can plug various computer monitors into your home computer. You can plug a wall-size TV into it, an old CRT (the thick kind), a 20" flat screen, or a braille machine for the blind to "see" by touch. There's compatibility among these various/different devices and your computer because they all agree on interface standards.
Details of C# interfaces -- With C#/OOP interfaces you're doing the same kind of thing but in the unseen/virtual world.
You're correct about standardization, but also flexibility, scalability, extensibility, maintainability, reusability, testability and power.
(The more you use software interfaces the more these "buzz words" will be understood. And always consider interfaces in the real world because they have done us equally well.)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2026054/why-do-we-use-interface-is-it-only-for-standardization

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Why do we use Interface?

Purposes of Interfaces

  • create loosely coupled software
  • support design by contract (an implementor must provide the entire interface)
  • allow for pluggable software
  • allow different objects to interact easily
  • hide implementation details of classes from each other
  • facilitate reuse of software
Analogy 1: Much like the US space shuttle, Russian Soyuz spacecraft and Chinese Shenzhou 5 can all dock to the International Space Station, because they implement the same docking interface. (This is the just an example - I don't know if it's true in real life however let's suspend our disbelief for the sake of an example)
Analogy 2: Like you can plug various computer monitors into your home computer. You can plug a wall-size TV into it, an old CRT (the thick kind), a 20" flat screen, or a braille machine for the blind to "see" by touch. There's compatibility among these various/different devices and your computer because they all agree on interface standards.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2026054/why-do-we-use-interface-is-it-only-for-standardization

When should one use interfaces?

In languages such as Java and C# interfaces provide a means for a class to be have in a polymorphic manner. That is to say a class can satisfy more than one contract - it can behave as multiple different types, a class of one type can be substituted for another. In other languages this can also be provided by multiple inheritance, but there are various disadvantages to this approach. However, having a class behave as more than one type is not the most common motivation for using interfaces.

By programming to interfaces instead of classes you can also decouple your program from specific implementations. This makes it much easier to substitute one class implementation for another. This is particularly useful when writing unit tests where you may wish to swap some heavyweight class implementation with a lightweight mock object. If your program only expects an interface type, and both the heavyweight object and mock object implement said interface, then they are very easy to substitute.

Also, consider a simple Java example where I say have a program that displays pages of data on the screen. Initially I want it to get the data from a database or XML files. If I write my program so that it uses interfaces I can define an interface like so:

And use it like so:

I can then write separate database and XML implementations that adhere to this interface:

Because I used an interface I can now use either implementation - Database or XML - interchangeably without having to change the parts of my program that ask for the page data. The XML and Database implementations likely do completely different things but all my program cares about is that the object supplying the page data implements the PageDatasource interface.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1686174/when-should-one-use-interfaces