I inherited some legacy Java (1.4) code and this design decision appears regularly. I can't understand if there's any purpose or reason to it.
public interface SoapFacade extends iConfigurable{ } public class SoapFacadeBase implements SoapFacade{ ... } public class SoapFacadeImpl extends SoapFacadeBase implements SoapFacade{ ... }
As I understand interfaces (and my experimentation has reinforced), there is no purpose to having both the parent and the child implement the same interface. In this scenario, everything from SoapFacade
is implemented in SoapFacadeBase
, but the method in iConfigurable
is implemented in SoapFacadeImpl
. However, that doesn't create a need to have SoapFacadeImpl
implement SoapFacade
.
Is there something I don't know about interfaces that would give this pattern some purpose or benefit? Are there underlying costs beyond lack of clarity that should drive refactoring it? Or should it simply be refactored for clarity/simplicity?
As I understand interfaces (and my experimentation has reinforced), there is no purpose to having both the parent and the child implement the same interface. No. Technically, it is completely redundant.
A class can implement multiple interfaces and many classes can implement the same interface. A class can implement multiple interfaces and many classes can implement the same interface. Final method can't be overridden. Thus, an abstract function can't be final.
A Java class can only extend one parent class. Multiple inheritance is not allowed. Interfaces are not classes, however, and an interface can extend more than one parent interface. The extends keyword is used once, and the parent interfaces are declared in a comma-separated list.
what happens if both superclass and subclass have a field with same name? Sub class field will hide the Super class field. Hidden super class field in sub class can be accessed using super keyword.
As I understand interfaces (and my experimentation has reinforced), there is no purpose to having both the parent and the child implement the same interface.
No. Technically, it is completely redundant.
It does however document the fact that you intend SoapFacadeImpl
to be a SoapFacade
and it ensures that you get a compile error, if you (or someone else) decides to remove implements SoapFacade
from the base class.
You see this pattern everywhere in the standard Java Collections API. ArrayList
implements List
even though its base class (AbstractList
) already, does. Same holds for HashSet
/ AbstractSet
and the Set
interface.
If you use the interface also as a marker. Class.getInterfaces();
will only return directly instanced interfaces.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With