Inheritance and interfaces

问题:

This is somewhat of a follow-up question to this question.

Suppose I have an inheritance tree as follows:

Car -> Ford -> Mustang -> MustangGT

Is there a benefit to defining interfaces for each of these classes? Example:

ICar -> IFord -> IMustang -> IMustangGT

I can see that maybe other classes (like Chevy) would want to implement Icar or IFord and maybe even IMustang, but probably not IMustangGT because it is so specific. Are the interfaces superfluous in this case?

Also, I would think that any class that would want to implement IFord would definitely want to use its one inheritance by inheriting from Ford so as not to duplicate code. If that is a given, what is the benefit of also implementing IFord?

回答1:

In my experience, interfaces are best used when you have several classes which each need to respond to the same method or methods so that they can be used interchangeably by other code which will be written against those classes' common interface. The best use of an interface is when the protocol is important but the underlying logic may be different for each class. If you would otherwise be duplicating logic, consider abstract classes or standard class inheritance instead.

And in response to the first part of your question, I would recommend against creating an interface for each of your classes. This would unnecessarily clutter your class structure. If you find you need an interface you can always add it later. Hope this helps!

Adam

回答2:

I also agree with adamalex's response that interfaces should be shared by classes that should respond to certain methods.

If classes have similar functionality, yet are not directly related to each other in an ancestral relationship, then an interface would be a good way to add that function to the classes without duplicating functionality between the two. (Or have multiple implementations with only subtle differences.)

While we're using a car analogy, a concrete example. Let's say we have the following classes:

Car -> Ford   -> Escape  -> EscapeHybrid
Car -> Toyota -> Corolla -> CorollaHybrid

Cars have wheels and can Drive() and Steer(). So those methods should exist in the Car class. (Probably the Car class will be an abstract class.)

Going down the line, we get the distinction between Ford and Toyota (probably implemented as difference in the type of emblem on the car, again probably an abstract class.)

Then, finally we have a Escape and Corolla class which are classes that are completely implemented as a car.

Now, how could we make a Hybrid vehicle?

We could have a subclass of Escape that is EscapeHybrid which adds a FordsHybridDrive() method, and a subclass of Corolla that is CorollaHybrid with ToyotasHybridDrive() method. The methods are basically doing the same thing, but yet we have different methods. Yuck. Seems like we can do better than that.

Let's say that a hybrid has a HybridDrive() method. Since we don't want to end up having two different types of hybrids (in a perfect world), so we can make an IHybrid interface which has a HybridDrive() method.

So, if we want to make an EscapeHybrid or CorollaHybrid class, all we have to do is to implement the IHybrid interface.

For a real world example, let's take a look at Java. A class which can do a comparison of an object with another object implements the Comparable interface. As the name implies, the interface should be for a class that is comparable, hence the name "Comparable".

Just as a matter of interest, a car example is used in the Interfaces lesson of the Java Tutorial.

回答3:

You shouldn't implement any of those interfaces at all.

Class inheritance describes what an object is (eg: it's identity). This is fine, however most of the time what an object is, is far less important than what an object does. This is where interfaces come in.

An interface should describe what an object does), or what it acts like. By this I mean it's behavior, and the set of operations which make sense given that behaviour.

As such, good interface names should usually be of the form IDriveable, IHasWheels, and so on. Sometimes the best way to describe this behaviour is to reference a well-known other object, so you can say "acts like one of these" (eg: IList) but IMHO that form of naming is in the minority.

Given that logic, the scenarios where interface inheritance makes sense are completely and entirely different from the scenarios where object inheritance makes sense - often these scenarios don't relate to eachother at all.

Hope that helps you think through the interfaces you should actually need :-)

回答4:

I'd say only make an interface for things you need to refer to. You may have some other classes or functions that need to know about a car, but how often will there be something that needs to know about a ford?

回答5:

Don't build stuff you don't need. If it turns out you need the interfaces, it's a small effort to go back and build them.

Also, on the pedantic side, I hope you're not actually building something that looks like this hierarchy. This is not what inheritance should be used for.

回答6:

Create it only once that level of functionality becomes necessary.

Re-factoring Code is always on on-going process.

There are tools available that will allow you to extract to interface if necessary. E.G. http://geekswithblogs.net/JaySmith/archive/2008/02/27/refactor-visual-studio-extract-interface.aspx

回答7:

Make an ICar and all the rest (Make=Ford, Model=Mustang, and stuff) as members of a class that implements the interface.

You might wanna have your Ford class and for example GM class and both implement ICar in order to use polymorphism if you don't wanna go down the route of checking Make == Whatever, that's up to your style.

Anyway - In my opinion those are attributes of a car not the other way around - you just need one interface because methods are common: Brake, SpeedUp, etc.

Can a Ford do stuff that other cars cannot? I don't think so.

回答8:

I woudl create the first two levels, ICar and IFord and leave the second level alone until I need an interface at that second level.

回答9:

Think carefully about how your objects need to interact with each other within your problem domain, and consider if you need to have more than one implementation of a particular abstract concept. Use Interfaces to provide a contract around a concept that other objects interact with.

In your example, I would suggest that Ford is probably a Manufacturer and Mustang is a ModelName Value used by the Manufacturer Ford, therefore you might have something more like:

IVehichle -> CarImpl, MotorbikeImpl - has-a Manufacturer has-many ModelNames

回答10:

In this answer about the difference between interface and class, I explained that:

• interface exposes what a concept is (in term of "what is" valid, at compilation time), and is used for values (MyInterface x = ...)
• class exposes what a concept does (actually executed at runtime), and is used for values or for objects (MyClass x or aMyClass.method() )

So if you need to store into a 'Ford' variable (notion of 'value') different sub-classes of Ford, create an IFord. Otherwise, do not bother until you actually need it.

That is one criteria: if it is not met, IFord is probably useless.
If it is met, then the other criteria exposed in the previous answers apply: If a Ford has a richer API than a Car, an IFord is useful for polymorphisms purpose. If not, ICar is enough.

回答11:

In my view interfaces are a tool to enforce a requirement that a class implement a certain signature, or (as I like to think of it) a certain "Behavior" To me I think if the Capital I at the beginning of my onterface names as a personal pronoun, and I try to name my interfaces so they can be read that way... ICanFly, IKnowHowToPersistMyself IAmDisplayable, etc... So in your example, I would not create an interface to Mirror the complete public signature of any specific class. I would analyze the public signature (the behavior) and then separate the members into smaller logical groups (the smaller the better) like (using your example) IMove, IUseFuel, ICarryPassengers, ISteerable, IAccelerate, IDepreciate, etc... And then apply those interfaces to whatever other classes in my system need them

回答12:

In general, the best way to think about this (and many questions in OO) is to think about the notion of a contract.

A contract is defined as an agreement between two (or more) parties, that states specific obligations each party must meet; in a program, this is what services a class will provide, and what you have to provide the class in order to get the services. An interface states a contract that any class implementing the interface must satisfy.

With that in mind, though, your question somewhat depends on what language you're using and what you want to do.

After many years of doing OO (like, oh my god, 30 years) I would usually write an interface for every contract, especially in Java, because it makes tests so much easier: if I have an interface for the class, I can build mock objects easily, almost trivially.

回答13:

Interfaces are intended to be a generic public API, and users will be restricted to using this public API. Unless you intend users to be using the type-specific methods of IMustangGT, you may want to limit the interface hierarchy to ICar and IExpensiveCar.

回答14:

Only inherit from Interfaces and abstract classes.

If you have a couple of classes wich are almost the same, and you need to implement the majority of methods, use and Interface in combination with buying the other object.
If the Mustang classes are so different then not only create an interface ICar, but also IMustang.
So class Ford and Mustang can inherit from ICar, and Mustang and MustangGT from ICar and IMustang.

If you implement class Ford and a method is the same as Mustang, buy from Mustang:

class Ford{
  public function Foo(){
    ...
    Mustang mustang  = new Mustang();
    return mustang.Foo();
}