I'm trying to understand how Java handles cases of ambiguity that come out when a concrete class inherits (abstract or concrete) methods having the same name from different classes/interfaces.

I've not been able to find a general rule, this is why I decided, once for all, to spend some time on this by using a practical approach.

I considered 8 different cases, combining

abstract methods
non-abstract methods
abstract classes
interfaces

resulting in this scheme:

                           +-------------------------+
                           |       INTERFACE         |
                           +----------+--------------|
                           | abstract | non-abstract |
                           | method   | method       |
+-----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|           | abstract     |          |              |
| ABSTRACT  | method       |    1a    |      2a      |
|           +--------------+----------+--------------+
|   CLASS   | non-abstract |          |              |
|           | method       |    3a    |      4a      |
+-----------+--------------+----------+--------------+
|           | abstract     |          |              |
|           | method       |    1b    |      2b      |
| INTERFACE +--------------+----------+--------------+
|           | non-abstract |          |              |
|           | method       |    3b    |      4b      |
+-----------+--------------+----------+--------------+

And here every case is implemented and commented:

// (1a) 
// A - abstract method  
// I - abstract method
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "The type B1 must implement the inherited abstract method A1.foo()"
//
abstract class A1{                  abstract void foo();    }
interface I1{                       void foo();             }
class B1 extends A1 implements I1{  public void foo(){}     }

// (2a)
// A - abstract method
// I - non-abstract method  
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "The type B2 must implement the inherited abstract method A2.foo()"
//
abstract class A2{                  abstract void foo();    }
interface I2{                       default void foo(){}    }
class B2 extends A2 implements I2{  public void foo(){}     }

// (3a) 
// A - non-abstract method  
// I - abstract method
//
// Implementation not needed
//
abstract class A3{                  public void foo(){}     }
interface I3{                       void foo();             }
class B3 extends A3 implements I3{                          }

// (4a)
// A - non-abstract method
// I - non-abstract method  
//
// Implementation not needed
//
abstract class A4              {    public void foo(){System.out.println("A4");}}
interface I4{default void foo(){    System.out.println("I4");}                  }
class B4 extends A4 implements I4{  B4(){foo();} /*prints "A4"*/                }



// (1b) 
// J - abstract method  
// K - abstract method
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "The type C1 must implement the inherited abstract method K1.foo()"
//
interface J1{               void foo();         }
interface K1{               void foo();         }
class C1 implements J1,K1{  public void foo(){} }

// (2b)
// J - abstract method
// K - non-abstract method  
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "The default method foo() inherited from K2 conflicts with another 
//   method inherited from J2"
//
interface J2{               void foo();             }
interface K2{               default void foo(){}    }
class C2 implements J2,K2{  public void foo(){}     }

// (3b) 
// J - non-abstract method  
// K - abstract method
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "The default method foo() inherited from J3 conflicts with another 
//   method inherited from K3"
//
interface J3{               default void foo(){}    }
interface K3{               void foo();             }
class C3 implements J3,K3{  public void foo(){}     }

// (4b)
// J - non-abstract method
// K - non-abstract method  
//
// Implementation needed to avoid compilation error:
//  "Duplicate default methods named foo with the parameters () and () 
//   are inherited from the types K4 and J4"
//
interface J4{               default void foo(){}    }
interface K4{               default void foo(){}    }
class C4 implements J4,K4{  public void foo(){}     }

Done that, anyway, albeit I'm able to understand the majority of the cases in my example, I've not been able to infer any "general rule" yet.

For instance, I don't understand why cases 2a and 3a work differently, i.e. why an implementation given by the abstract class is accepted while an implementation given by the interface is not.

My final question is: does any "genaral rule" really exist? Is there any way I can predict how the compiler will behave without having to memorize every single case?

EDIT

It could be trivial, but I think it can be useful to someone else putting down my considerations.

I think you can summarize all the question to this simple steps:

Given an example code like this

abstract class A{abstract void foo();}
abstract class B extends A {protected void foo(){}}
interface I{void foo();}
interface J{default void foo(){}}

class C extends B implements I,J{}

Consider your class C made up of all its methods and inherited ones (call it C*)

class C* implements I,J{protected void foo(){};}
Validate C* against interfaces it implements (every method ambiguity coming from interfaces, including default methods, must be resolved in C by giving an implementation).

3a. If C* gives a valid implementation stop here

(it's not the case because method visibility cannot be reduced from public to protected)

3b. Otherwise a valid implementation is needed in C

class C extends B implements I,J{public void foo(){}}

回答1:

The JLS states (§9.4.1.3 paragraph 7):

When an abstract and a default method with matching signatures are inherited, we produce an error.

They then go on to explain why they chose this:

In this case, it would be possible to give priority to one or the other - perhaps we would assume that the default method provides a reasonable implementation for the abstract method, too. But this is risky, since other than the coincidental name and signature, we have no reason to believe that the default method behaves consistently with the abstract method's contract - the default method may not have even existed when the subinterface was originally developed. It is safer in this situation to ask the user to actively assert that the default implementation is appropriate (via an overriding declaration).

回答2:

The general rule is that the definitions in a class take precedence over defender methods in an interface. If a method is declared abstract in a class, that overrules the existence of a default implementation in the interface.

Defender methods were introduced as a stopgap measure to allow the growth of interface APIs without breaking backwards compatibilty. The semantics had to be such that defender methods don't get in the way of any existing language rules.