一旦你需要为你的类强制一个行为，你应该定义一个接口。

动物的行为可能包括走、吃、跑等。因此，您将它们定义为接口。

另一个实际的例子是ActionListener(或Runnable)接口。您可以在需要跟踪特定事件时实现它们。因此，您需要在类(或子类)中提供actionPerformed(Event e)方法的实现。类似地，对于Runnable接口，提供公共void run()方法的实现。

此外，您可以让任意数量的类实现这些接口。

使用接口(在Java中)的另一个实例是实现c++中提供的多重继承。

I like Jimmy's answer a lot, but I feel I need to add something to it. The key to the whole thing is the "able" in IProcessable . It indicates a capability (or property, but meaning "intrinsic quality", not in the sense of C# properties) of the object that implements the interface. IAnimal is probably not a good example for an interface, but IWalkable might be a good interface to have if your system has many things that can walk. You might have classes derived from Animal such as Dog, Cow, Fish, Snake. The first two would probably implement IWalkable, the latter two don't walk, so they wouldn't. Now you ask "why not just have another superclass, WalkingAnimal, that Dog and Cow derive from?". The answer is when you have something completely outside the inheritance tree that also can walk, such as a robot. Robot would implement IWalkable, but probably wouldn't derive from Animal. If you want a list of things that can walk, you type it as IWalkable and you can put all walking animals plus robots in the list.

现在，将IWalkable替换为IPersistable这样更像软件的东西，这样的类比就更接近你在实际程序中看到的情况了。

In my experience the driving force to create interfaces didn't occur until I start doing unit testing with a mocking framework. It became abundantly clear that using interfaces was going to make mocking much easier (since the framework depended on the methods being virtual). Once I started I saw the value of abstracting away the interface to my class from the implementation. Even if I don't create an actual interface, I try now to make my methods virtual (providing an implicit interface that can be overridden).

我发现还有许多其他原因可以加强重构到接口的良好实践，但是单元测试/模拟的事情提供了最初的“顿悟时刻”的实践经验。

EDIT: To clarify, with unit testing and mocking I always have two implementations -- the real, concrete implementation and an alternate mock implementation used in testing. Once you have two implementations, the value of the interface becomes obvious -- deal with it in terms of the interface so you can replace the implementation at any time. In this case I'm replacing it with a mock interface. I know that I can do this without an actual interface if my class is constructed properly, but using an actual interface reinforces this and makes it cleaner (clearer to the reader). Without this impetus, I don't think I would have appreciated the value of interfaces since most of my classes only, ever have a single concrete implementation.

扩展一下Larsenal所说的。接口是所有实现类都必须遵循的契约。因此，您可以使用一种称为契约编程的技术。这允许您的软件变得独立于实现。

当您希望定义对象可以显示的行为时，通常会使用接口。

在. net世界中，一个很好的例子是IDisposable接口，它用于任何使用必须手动释放的系统资源的Microsoft类。它要求实现它的类具有Dispose()方法。

Dispose()方法也被VB的using语言构造调用。NET和c#，只适用于IDisposables)

请记住，您可以通过使用诸如TypeOf…之类的构造来检查对象是否实现了特定的接口。Is (VB.NET)， Is (c#)， instanceof (Java)，等等…

别太担心。很多开发人员很少需要编写接口。您将经常使用. net框架中可用的接口，但如果您觉得没有必要在短时间内编写一个接口，这也没什么好奇怪的。

我经常给别人的例子是，如果你有一个帆船职业和一个毒蛇职业。它们分别继承了Boat类和Car类。现在假设您需要遍历所有这些对象并调用它们的Drive()方法。你也可以编写如下代码:

if(myObject is Boat)
    ((Boat)myObject).Drive()
else
    if (myObject is Car)
        ((Car)myObject).Drive()

这样写会简单得多:

((IDrivable)myObject).Drive()