Java abstract interface

Question

Why is it necessary for an interface to be "declared" abstract?

It's not.

public abstract interface Interface {
       \___.__/
           |
           '----> Neither this...

    public void interfacing();
    public abstract boolean interfacing(boolean really);
           \___.__/
               |
               '----> nor this, are necessary.
}

Interfaces and their methods are implicitly abstract and adding that modifier makes no difference.

Is there other rules that applies with an abstract interface?

No, same rules apply. The method must be implemented by any (concrete) implementing class.

If abstract is obsolete, why is it included in Java? Is there a history for abstract interface?

Interesting question. I dug up the first edition of JLS, and even there it says "This modifier is obsolete and should not be used in new Java programs".

Okay, digging even further... After hitting numerous broken links, I managed to find a copy of the original Oak 0.2 Specification (or "manual"). Quite interesting read I must say, and only 38 pages in total! :-)

Under Section 5, Interfaces, it provides the following example:

public interface Storing {
    void freezeDry(Stream s) = 0;
    void reconstitute(Stream s) = 0;
}

And in the margin it says

In the future, the " =0" part of declaring methods in interfaces may go away.

Assuming =0 got replaced by the abstract keyword, I suspect that abstract was at some point mandatory for interface methods!

---

Related article: Java: Abstract interfaces and abstract interface methods

It's not necessary, it's optional, just as public on interface methods.

See the JLS on this:

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/interfaces.doc.html

9.1.1.1 abstract Interfaces Every interface is implicitly abstract. This modifier is obsolete and should not be used in new programs.

And

9.4 Abstract Method Declarations

[...]

For compatibility with older versions of the Java platform, it is permitted but discouraged, as a matter of style, to redundantly specify the abstract modifier for methods declared in interfaces.

It is permitted, but strongly discouraged as a matter of style, to redundantly specify the public modifier for interface methods.

It is not necessary to declare the interface abstract.

Just like declaring all those methods public (which they already are if the interface is public) or abstract (which they already are in an interface) is redundant.

No one is stopping you, though.

Other things you can explicitly state, but don't need to:

• call super() on the first line of a constructor
• extends Object
• implement inherited interfaces

Is there other rules that applies with an abstract interface?

An interface is already "abstract". Applying that keyword again makes absolutely no difference.

Be aware that in Spring it has non academic meaning. The abstract interface is a warning to the developer not to use it for @Autowired. I hope that spring/eclipse @Autowired will look at this attribute and warn/fail about usages of such.

A real example: @Service proxy under @Transnational to a @Repository need to use same basic methods however they should use different interfaces that extends this abstract interface due to @Autowired. (I call this XXXSpec interface)

Every interface is implicitly abstract.
This modifier is obsolete and should not be used in new programs.

[The Java Language Specification - 9.1.1.1 abstract Interfaces]

Also note that interface member methods are implicitly public abstract.
[The Java Language Specification - 9.2 Interface Members]

Why are those modifiers implicit? There is no other modifier (not even the 'no modifier'-modifier) that would be useful here, so you don't explicitly have to type it.

It isn't necessary. It's a quirk of the language.

It's not necessary, as interfaces are by default abstract as all the methods in an interface are abstract.