Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #3816

Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern

From	Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern
References	<9dt5s6dalhetgfe99qs92c02hf0dbas44e@4ax.com> <iq139v$feg$1@news.onet.pl> <GR%wp.68076$yp3.20908@newsfe09.iad> <iq5r0f$il6$1@news.onet.pl>
Message-ID	<JJzxp.21021$uh5.14366@newsfe02.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Date	2011-05-08 13:42 -0300

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-05-08 07:24 AM, Michal Kleczek wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
>> Further note: behaviour isn't just a list of method signatures. It's
>> also what the abstract class or concrete class actually does. Not *how*
>> it does it - that's implementation - but what it does - that's
>> contractual _behaviour_. Keeping insertion order for iterators is
>> _behaviour_...using a doubly-linked list to accomplish that is
>> implementation.
> 
> I think this is the real point of the discussion - Java interfaces are just 
> too weak to express contracts. Note that there are many other aspects beside 
> iteration ordering that are important to the overall solution but still not 
> expressed (and not expressable) by interfaces: concurrency guarantees, 
> performance and memory usage characteristics etc.
> Picking one aspect and trying to express it using Java types just does not 
> make sense.

Agreed, partly. It can't be done with Java interfaces at all. It can -
obviously - be done with the published API of abstract or concrete Java
classes.

What we're really arguing about here is whether it's desirable to bind
client code to provider contracts. It's clear that Map cannot enforce a
behavioural contract, and that LinkedHashMap does. Rather than beat that
to death, let's acknowledge that we have one camp that argues that we
don't want to tie the caller to a behavioural provider contract, and
another camp (me) that says that sometimes you do want and need to do this.

> One could actually argue if java.util.Set interface is really needed at all.

This is one of the main points, I agree. It's also been highlighted in
this thread precisely because most of the time the calling code
genuinely doesn't care what implementation it gets. Most of the time the
calling code requires simply that it gets a Map, List, Set etc, and the
provider of the Map or List or Set has the responsibility for enforcing
the contract...assuming one exists.

In this case I believe a credible case can be made that the calling code
does care about what the specific contract is: the OP said so, and
provided a good use case. One thing I do know, based on experience, is
that if you return a generic map from that method, that when developers
move on to different projects and different employers, and the
documentation (if it ever existed) fails to be maintained, and
refactorings change the relationship of the Map provider code to the
calling code, that sooner or later that client code is no longer going
to get a LinkedHashMap. If the code never gets touched again after
Version 1.0, then you were just _lucky_.

I don't pretend to be infallible when it comes to answers for this kind
of thing. But I do know that a knee-jerk 100% adherence to "program to a
Java 'interface'", and highest-level interfaces at that, can be wrong.

Absolutely, Java interfaces, *as language constructs* that are enforced
by the compiler, are too weak to express many forms of contracts. All
they can do is ensure that subtypes that implement an interface have a
certain set of methods. Period.

> Additionally - the mere fact that in the overall solution the choice of the 
> map implementation having a particular characteristic is important is not 
> enough to justify that _all_ code should depend on it.

I'd honestly need to see more of the OP's problem before I definitely
recommended returning LinkedHashMap. Mainly what got my hackles up was
everyone piling in on the "program to the interface" principle without
any obvious thought being put into it.

Fact of the matter is that you _could_ return Map in the OP's scenario,
and get away with it, provided that both the code that constructed and
provided that map, and the code that used it, were one monolithic piece.
It's when you separate the two that wishful thinking enters the picture.
We don't in this case know enough about the relationship of the provider
of the map and the user of the map to say, one way or the other, whether
Map or LinkedHashMap is the best way to go.

>>> The decision on what Map implementation to use has to obey DRY principle
>>> - if the place to decide is getSortedMap() then the rest of the program
>>> should assume getSortedMap() does the right thing.
>>
>> Good luck with that one. That's what a lot of Java code ends up hoping
>> for, because people misunderstood "program to an interface" and forced
>> the use of the highest possible level Java-keyword interfaces everywheres
>> possible. There are a bunch of problems that come about then:
>> downcasting all over the place, 
> 
> If downcasting is needed it means the wrong type was choosen. It is not the 
> case here since OP is not going to use any methods not defined in 
> java.util.Map.
> 
With Java collections - Map and Collection mainly - you normally don't
have to downcast, just for the reason you stated. All the subinterfaces
and classes that extend/implement Map and Collection rarely
significantly change the actual set of method signatures, with a few
notable exceptions like queues. But if you "program to an interface" at
all costs in many other type hierarchies then it can happen.

As a conclusion, I think a few of us have at least agreed that there is
no good mechanism in Java for defining and enforcing a large swathe of
contractual behaviour. We rely on good Javadocs, and meticulous reading
of same, and very good adherence to design and implementation best
practices - all those things that all Java programmers are so very good
at - to save us.

AHS

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

"Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-05 12:21 -0700
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-05-05 15:43 -0400
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-05 17:19 -0400
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-05 21:47 +0200
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 14:14 -0600
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-05 13:26 -0700
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-05 22:27 +0200
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 14:42 -0600
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-05 22:48 +0200
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 15:02 -0600
            Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 00:02 +0200
              Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-05 19:49 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 02:28 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-06 07:24 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-05-06 07:03 -0700
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-06 17:30 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 18:56 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-06 17:50 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 23:37 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-06 19:43 -0300
              Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 17:17 -0600
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 02:28 +0200
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-05 23:25 -0700
            Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-06 18:25 +0200
              Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-07 16:26 -0700
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-08 03:28 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-08 00:05 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-08 16:15 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-08 14:20 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-08 19:48 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern markspace <-@.> - 2011-05-10 07:36 -0700
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-10 13:04 -0600
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-10 21:31 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-10 20:01 -0300
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-11 19:14 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-05-11 10:41 -0700
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-11 19:55 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-11 16:42 -0400
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-05-11 23:34 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-12 00:51 -0400
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-12 00:58 -0400
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-05-12 20:08 +0100
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-15 13:25 -0300
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-05 17:24 -0400
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 16:00 -0600
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2011-05-06 15:01 +0300
            Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-06 12:17 -0400
              Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-07 16:28 -0700
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-05 17:21 -0400
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 15:58 -0600
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-05 18:18 -0400
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-05 19:20 -0300
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-05 18:23 -0400
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-05 20:17 -0300
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-05 18:26 -0300
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2011-05-05 22:57 +0100
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-05-05 23:29 +0100
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2011-05-06 13:30 +0100
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-06 12:19 -0400
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 16:41 -0600
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-05 20:47 -0300
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-05-05 16:41 -0700
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-05 22:47 -0600
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl@foo.com> - 2011-05-05 23:28 -0700
  Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-05-06 17:15 +0200
    Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-06 20:53 -0300
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-05-06 21:39 -0400
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-07 00:56 -0300
      Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 12:24 +0200
        Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-08 13:42 -0300
          Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 11:04 +0200
            Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-09 19:33 -0300
              Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 15:51 +0200
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-05-10 13:15 -0600
                Re: "Program to an interface" - When to break a design pattern Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-05-10 19:40 -0300

csiph-web