Why should you ever have to care whether an object reference is an interface or a class?_问答_开发者

I often seem to run into the discussion of whether or not to apply some sort of prefix/suffix convention to interface type names, typically adding "I" to the beginning of the name.

Personally I'm in the camp that advocates no prefix, but that's not what this question is about. Rather, it's about one of the arguments I often hear in that discussion:

You can no longer see at-a-glance whether something is an interface or a class.

The question that immediately pops up in my head is: apart from object creation, why should you ever have to 开发者_如何学Gocare whether an object reference is a class or an interface?

I've tagged this question as language agnostic, but as has been pointed out it may not be. I contend that it is because while specific language implementation details may be interesting, I'd like to keep this on a conceptual level. In other words, I think that, conceptually, you'd never have to care whether an object reference is typed as a class or an interface but I'm not sure, hence the question.

This is not a discussion about IDEs and what they do or don't do when visualizing the different types; caring about the type of an object is certainly a necessity when browsing through code (packages/sources/whatever form). Nor is it a discussion about the pros or cons about either naming convention. I just can't seem to figure out in what scenario, other than object creation, you actually care about wether or not you're referencing a concrete type or an interface.

Most of the time, you probably don't care. But here are some instances that I can think of where you would. There are several, and it does vary a little bit by language. Some languages don't mind as much as others.

In the case of inversion of control (where someone PASSES you a parameter) you probably don't care if it's an interface or an object as far as calling its methods etc. But when dealing with types, it definitely can make a difference.

In managed languages such as .NET languages, interfaces can usually only inherit one interface, whereas a class can inherit one class but implement many interfaces. The order of classes vs interfaces may also matter in a class or interface declaration. So you need to know which is which when defining a new class or interface.
In Delphi / VCL, interfaces are reference counted and automatically collected, whereas classes must be explicitly freed, so lifecyle management on the whole is affected, not just the creation.
Interfaces may not be viable sources for class references.
Interfaces can be cast to compatible interfaces, but in many languages, they cannot be cast to compatible classes. Classes can be cast to either.
Interfaces may be passed to parameters of type IID, or IUnknown, whereas classes cannot (without a cast and a supporting interface).
An interface's implementation is unknown. Its input and output are defined, but the implementation which creates the output is abstracted. In general, ones attitude may be that when working with a class, one may know how the class works. But when working with an interface, no such assumption should be made. In a perfect world, it might make no difference. But in reality, this most certainly can have affect your design.

I agree with you (and thereby do not use an "I" prefix for interfaces). We shouldn't have to care whether it is an abstract class or an interface.

Worth noting that Java needs to have a notion of interface solely because it does not support multiple inheritance. Otherwise, "abstract class" concept would suffice (which may be "all" abstract, or partially abstract, or almost concrete and just 1 tiny bit abstract, whatever).

Things that concrete class can have and the interfaces can't:

Constructors
Instance fields
Static methods and static fields

So if you use the convention of starting all interface names with 'I' then it indicates to the user of your library that the particular type will not have any of the above mentioned things.

But personally I feel that this is not a reason enough to start all interface names with 'I'. The modern IDEs are powerful enough to indicate if some type is an interface. Also it hides the true meaning of an interface name: imagine if Runnable and List interfaces were named IRunnable and IList repectively.

When a class is used, I can make the assumption that I will get objects from a relatively small and almost well-defined range of subclasses. That's because subclassing is - or at least it should be - a decision that isn't made too easily, especially in languages that don't support multiple inheritance. In contrast, interfaces can be implemented by any class, and the implementation can be added later to any class.

So the information is useful, especially when browsing through code, and trying to get a feeling what the code author intended to do - but I think it should be enough, if the IDE shows interfaces/classes as distinctive icons.

You want to see at a glance which are the "interfaces" and which are the "concrete classes" so that you can focus your attention to the abstractions in the design instead of the details.

Good designs are based on abstractions - if you know and understand them you understand the system without knowing any of the details. So you know you can skip the classes without the I prefix, and focus on the ones that do have it while you are understanding the code, and you also know to avoid building new code around non-interface classes without having to refer to some other design document.

I agree that the I* naming convention is just not appropriate for modern OO languages, but truth is this question isn't really language agnostic. There are legitimate cases where you have an interface not for any architectural reason but because you simply don't have an implementation or have access to an implementation. For these cases you can read I* as *Stub or similar, and, in these cases, it might make sense to have an IBlah and a Blah class

These days, though, you rarely come up against this, and in modern OO languages when you say Interface you actually mean Interface not just I don't have the code for this. So there is no need for the I*, and in fact it encourages really bad OO design as you won't get the natural naming conflicts that would tell you something's gone wrong in your architecture. Say you had a List and an IList... what's the difference? when would you use one over the other? if you wanted to implement IList would you be constrained (conceptually at least) by what List does? I'll tell you what... if I found both an IBlah and a Blah class in any of my codebases I would purge one at random and take away that person's commit privileges.

Interfaces don't have fields, hence when you use IDisposable (or whatever), you know you're only declaring what you can do. That seems to me the main point of it.

Distinguishing between interfaces and classes may be useful, anywhere the type is referenced, in the IDE or out, to determine:

Can I make a new implementation of this type?
Can I implement this interface in a language that does not support multiple inheritance of implementation classes (e.g., Java).
Can there be multiple implementations of this type?
Can I easily mock this interface in an arbitrary mocking framework?

It is worth noting that UML distinguishes between interfaces and implementation classes. In addition, the "I" prefix is used in the examples in "The Unified Modeling Language User Guide" by the three amigos Booch, Jacobson and Rumbaugh. (Incidentally, this also provides an example why IDE syntax coloring alone is not sufficient to distinguish in all contexts.)

You should care, because :

An interface with capital "I" enables one, namely you or your co-workers to use any implementation which implements the interface. If in the future you figure out a better way to do something, say a better list sorting algorithm, you will be stuck with having the change ALL of the invoking methods as well.
It helps in understanding code - e.g. you don't need to memorize all 10 implementations of say, I_SortableList , you just care that it sorts a list (or something like that). Your code becomes practically self-documenting here.

To complete the discussion, here is a pseudocode example illustrating the above:

//Pseudocode - define implementations of ISortableList
Class SortList1 : ISortableLIst, SortList2:IsortableList, SortList3:IsortableList

//PseudoCode - the interface way
void Populate(ISortableList list, int[] nums)
{
    list.set(nums)
}

//PseudoCode - the "i dont care way"

void Populate2( SortList1 list, int[] nums )
{
    list.set(nums)
}

...
//Pseudocode - create instances

SortList1 list1 = new SortList1();
SortList2 list2 = new SortList2();
SortList3 list3 = new SortList3();

//Invoke Populate() - The "interface way"
Populate(list1,nums);//OK, list1 is ISortableList implementation
Populate(list2,nums);//OK, list2 is ISortableList implementation
Populate(list3,nums);//OK, list3 is ISortableList implementation

//Invoke Populate2() - the "I don't care way"
Populate(list1,nums);//OK, list1 is an instance of SortList1
Populate(list2,nums);//Not OK, list2 is not of required argument type, won't compile
Populate(list3,nums);//the same as above

Hope this helps,

Jas.