CODEWITHSUNDEEP
oopinterface
Yaroslav Yakovlev
Yaroslav Yakovlev

Reputation: 6483

Should programming according to the interface hide everything?

OOP is about programming with interface, not the implementation. Objects are "talking" to each other using their interfaces. When interfaces are not well defined one object can know too much about the other and if you need to change implementation of your object you'll need to change your programm in different places. That's really bad, it`s all about changing things in one place and DRY principles. So my question is the following: what if make interface context. Interface context will make sure that if object provides multiple interfaces other objects will only be able to use the one they need. This will ease things and reduce possibility of errors.

Let me introduce the example: some abstract class that let us read text and write text. So it has two interfaces: reader and writer. If you are dealing with reader, all you need is reader methods. So we can remove the writer interface. In the real world you'll still see the reader part (in IDEs like Visual Studio). But what if make such a thing that would allow you to declare "I'm in the reader context" and you`ll be able to do things only related to reading and every class will show you its reader related interface. What do you think? Does it make sense? Like add-ins to Visual Studio that will hide other interfaces when set to one?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 241

Answers (3)

Aaron Digulla
Aaron Digulla

Reputation: 328860

In Eclipse, you have a method called getAdapter() which tries to turn an object into something else. So you can say:

Writer w = text.getAdapter(Writer.class);

Then the text can figure out how to turn itself into a Writer and create one for you. The next step is to have an adapter registry, so you can say:

AdapterRegistry.instance().register(TextDocument.class,
                                    new TextDocumentAdapterFactory ());

In TextDocument, you can then say:

public Object getAdapter(Class c) {
    AdapterRegistry.instance().createAdapter(this, c);
}

This way, you can add adapters for existing objects at a later time.

On the positive side, this makes your code extremely flexible. On the negative side, it makes the code impossible to debug since you can't tell what getAdapter() migth eventually return.

Upvotes: 0

kyoryu
kyoryu

Reputation: 13065

Yes, that often makes sense, especially as you start to work more with Inversion of Control principles.

The easiest way to do this is to imlement the interface explicitly.

public interface IFoo
{
    void Foo();
}

public interface IBar
{
    void Bar();   
}
public class Baz : IFoo, IBar
{
    void IFoo.Foo()
    {

    }

    void IBar.Bar()
    {

    }
}

public class Program
{
    public void DoStuff()
    {
        Baz b = new Baz();
        //b.Foo(); // doesn't compile
        IFoo f = b as IFoo;
        f.Foo(); // works
        IBar bar = b as IBar;
        bar.Bar(); //now we an see that.
    }
}

The Foo method will only show up on Bar after you cast it to an IFoo.

Upvotes: 3

Nerdfest
Nerdfest

Reputation: 1685

Have a look around for Robert Martin's "Interface Segration Principle", as well as the rest of the SOLID principles of object oriented design.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions