Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #24802

Re: Interface with implied Constructor

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:56:19 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
<asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote:

>On 07/19/2013 04:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:21:35 -0300, Arved Sandstrom
>> <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I'll be honest, Robert, personally I consider the behaviour of an object
>>> - the kinds of things you could specify in an interface - to be what the
>>> *initialized* object can (should) do.
>>
>>       But there is more to it than that.  There is also getting it
>> initialised.  That should also be part of the API.  I would not
>> enforce that it has to, but I sure would like the option to specify
>> constructor signatures in an interface.
>
>Apart from other problems with constructors in interfaces (e.g. a class 
>implements 2 interfaces, both of which have constructors: which ctor do 
>you ignore and hence violate a contract?), what do you intend to mandate 
>by requiring a constructor with a given signature? That all implementing 
>classes create matching private fields that are exposed by accessors? 
>Why would you want to do that?

     In that case, I would not have the constructor signature in the
interface.

     What if I am not subclassing?  Having the interface is then
documentation of the full API for the class.

>Although it's usually an anti-pattern, I believe a better idea would be 
>to specify some important getters in an interface, if you need something 
>like this. Rather than wanting to control how an object initializes 
>itself and is implemented, typically what you're really after is to 
>require that an object can provide some synthetic state information.

     Why?  I do not need any getters.  I just want a  prototype of the
constructor with the rest of the prototypes.

>>> I seriously dislike init() methods, not just in Java. Particularly if
>>> there is no sensible un-init()'ed object for the class. I just don't see
>>> any credible argument for them. Like Richard said, actually: "half-baked".
>>>
>>> Often the best way to properly initialize an object is to call a
>>> constructor with arguments. That's what they are for. And to be honest
>>> once again, a ctor *is* an implementation thing, IMO: it's not the
>>
>>       A method is an implementation thing, too, but we have interface
>> specifications for them.
>
>The *body* of a method is implementation. Interface or no interface, the 
>method as called, the way it represents to callers, is behaviour.
>
>I've seen people in threads make your argument. To call everything 
>behaviour is not helpful. A constructor builds an object. I don't 
>consider that behaviour.

     What else could it be but behaviour?  This definition for
behaviour is from dictionary.reference.com: "the action, reaction, or
functioning of a system, under normal or specified circumstances".
What is the behaviour of a constructor?  It builds an object of type
_____.  Redefining the word to suit your biases simply creates
confusion.

>>> business of an interface to dictate how an implementation will
>>> initialize objects that can support the interface contract. After all,
>>
>>        That is exactly what it is for.  How the implementation works is
>> not the business of the interface, but how to call it is.
>
>I don't consider a constructor a "call". Invoking a method on a properly 
>initialized method, yes; *building* the object, no.

     It is called, implicitly, but called nonetheless.  Once again,
you are trying to redefine a commonly-used term to your biases.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

Thread

Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-09 18:41 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-09 04:08 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 06:46 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-09 21:08 -0400
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-11 19:11 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 17:53 +0200
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-15 08:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 10:57 -0700
              [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-15 14:13 -0400
                Re: [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 12:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-15 20:45 +0200
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 18:03 +0200
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-18 23:21 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-19 12:38 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 17:56 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-22 12:39 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-22 16:02 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-22 18:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-23 14:32 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-07-23 14:43 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:27 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-24 18:20 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-26 00:03 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-24 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-24 17:42 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-23 18:19 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:31 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-07-27 04:06 +0100
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-19 21:21 +0000
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 18:56 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-19 18:10 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 20:46 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:42 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0400
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-19 19:20 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-19 20:11 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:26 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:38 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 19:46 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 19:12 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:12 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-21 12:13 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 16:18 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-21 13:45 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-21 16:58 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 21:19 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:09 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:21 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-20 23:17 +0200
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:32 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-21 00:10 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 17:53 -0300
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-09 18:13 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 18:03 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-10 08:41 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-11 06:53 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-09 21:41 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 17:55 +0800
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-10 14:52 -0700
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-07-10 16:02 -0700

csiph-web