在我的一次采访中,我被要求解释接口类和抽象类之间的区别。

以下是我的回答:

Methods of a Java interface are implicitly abstract and cannot have implementations. A Java abstract class can have instance methods that implements a default behaviour. Variables declared in a Java interface are by default final. An abstract class may contain non-final variables. Members of a Java interface are public by default. A Java abstract class can have the usual flavours of class members like private, protected, etc. A Java interface should be implemented using keyword “implements”; A Java abstract class should be extended using keyword “extends”. An interface can extend another Java interface only, an abstract class can extend another Java class and implement multiple Java interfaces. A Java class can implement multiple interfaces but it can extend only one abstract class.

然而,面试官并不满意,他告诉我这种描述代表了“书本知识”。

他让我给出一个更实际的回答,用实际的例子解释我什么时候会选择抽象类而不是接口。

我哪里错了?


当前回答

是的,从技术上讲,你的回答是正确的,但你的错误之处在于,你没有向他们表明你理解选择其中一个的利弊。此外,他们可能担心将来升级时代码库的兼容性问题。这种类型的回答可能有帮助(除了你说的):

"Choosing an Abstract Class over an Interface Class depends on what we project the future of the code will be. Abstract classes allow better forward-compatibility because you can continue adding behavior to an Abstract Class well into the future without breaking your existing code --> this is not possible with an Interface Class. On the other hand, Interface Classes are more flexible than Abstract Classes. This is because they can implement multiple interfaces. The thing is Java does not have multiple inheritances so using abstract classes won't let you use any other class hierarchy structure... So, in the end a good general rule of thumb is: Prefer using Interface Classes when there are no existing/default implementations in your codebase. And, use Abstract Classes to preserve compatibility if you know you will be updating your class in the future."

祝你下次面试好运!

其他回答

接口是纯粹抽象的。我们在接口中没有任何实现代码。

抽象类包含方法及其实现。

点击这里观看接口和抽象类教程

你的回答是对的,但是面试官需要你从软件工程的角度来区分,而不是根据Java的细节。

简单的单词:

An Interface is like the interface of a shop anything that is shown on it should be there in the shop, so any method in the Interface must be there implemented in the concrete class. Now what if some classes share some exact methods and varies in others. Suppose the Interface is about a shop that contains two things and suppose we have two shops both contain sport equipment but one has clothes extra and the other has shoes extra. So what you do is making an abstract class for Sport that implements the Sports method and leave the other method unimplemented. Abstract class here means that this shop doesn't exist itself but it is the base for other classes/shops. This way you are organising the code, avoiding errors of replicating the code, unifying the code, and ensuring re-usability by some other class.

嗯,现在人们渴望实用的方法,你说得很对,但大多数面试官看起来是按照他们目前的要求,想要一个实用的方法。

回答完你的问题后,你应该跳到例子上:

文摘:

例如,我们有一个工资函数,它有一些对所有员工共同的参数。然后我们可以有一个叫做CTC的抽象类,它带有部分定义的方法体,它将被所有类型的员工扩展,并根据他们的额外工资得到补偿。 对于公共功能。

public abstract class CTC {

    public int salary(int hra, int da, int extra)
    {
        int total;
        total = hra+da+extra;
        //incentive for specific performing employee
        //total = hra+da+extra+incentive;
        return total;
    }
}

class Manger extends CTC
{
}


class CEO extends CTC
{
}

class Developer extends CTC
{   
}

接口

Java中的接口允许在不扩展接口功能的情况下拥有接口功能,你必须清楚你想在应用程序中引入的功能签名的实现。它会迫使你做出定义。 不同的功能。

public interface EmployeType {

    public String typeOfEmployee();
}

class ContarctOne implements EmployeType
{

    @Override
    public String typeOfEmployee() {
        return "contract";
    }

}

class PermanentOne implements EmployeType
{

    @Override
    public String typeOfEmployee() {
        return "permanent";
    }

}

通过将methgos定义为抽象类,你也可以对抽象类进行这样的强制活动,现在一个扩展抽象类的类仍然是抽象类,直到它覆盖抽象函数。

Many junior developers make the mistake of thinking of interfaces, abstract and concrete classes as slight variations of the same thing, and choose one of them purely on technical grounds: Do I need multiple inheritance? Do I need some place to put common methods? Do I need to bother with something other than just a concrete class? This is wrong, and hidden in these questions is the main problem: "I". When you write code for yourself, by yourself, you rarely think of other present or future developers working on or with your code.

接口和抽象类,虽然从技术的角度来看很相似,但它们的含义和目的完全不同。

总结

接口定义了一个契约,由某个实现为您实现。 抽象类提供了您的实现可以重用的默认行为。

以上两点正是我在面试时所寻求的,并且是一个足够紧凑的总结。阅读更多细节。

替代的总结

接口用于定义公共api 抽象类用于内部使用和定义spi

通过例子

To put it differently: A concrete class does the actual work, in a very specific way. For example, an ArrayList uses a contiguous area of memory to store a list of objects in a compact manner which offers fast random access, iteration, and in-place changes, but is terrible at insertions, deletions, and occasionally even additions; meanwhile, a LinkedList uses double-linked nodes to store a list of objects, which instead offers fast iteration, in-place changes, and insertion/deletion/addition, but is terrible at random access. These two types of lists are optimized for different use cases, and it matters a lot how you're going to use them. When you're trying to squeeze performance out of a list that you're heavily interacting with, and when picking the type of list is up to you, you should carefully pick which one you're instantiating.

On the other hand, high level users of a list don't really care how it is actually implemented, and they should be insulated from these details. Let's imagine that Java didn't expose the List interface, but only had a concrete List class that's actually what LinkedList is right now. All Java developers would have tailored their code to fit the implementation details: avoid random access, add a cache to speed up access, or just reimplement ArrayList on their own, although it would be incompatible with all the other code that actually works with List only. That would be terrible... But now imagine that the Java masters actually realize that a linked list is terrible for most actual use cases, and decided to switch over to an array list for their only List class available. This would affect the performance of every Java program in the world, and people wouldn't be happy about it. And the main culprit is that implementation details were available, and the developers assumed that those details are a permanent contract that they can rely on. This is why it's important to hide implementation details, and only define an abstract contract. This is the purpose of an interface: define what kind of input a method accepts, and what kind of output is expected, without exposing all the guts that would tempt programmers to tweak their code to fit the internal details that might change with any future update.

抽象类介于接口和具体类之间。它应该帮助实现共享常见或无聊的代码。例如,AbstractCollection提供了基于大小为0的isEmpty的基本实现,contains作为迭代和比较,addAll作为重复添加,等等。这使得实现将重点放在区分它们的关键部分:如何实际存储和检索数据。

另一个角度:api与spi

接口是代码不同部分之间的低内聚网关。它们允许库的存在和发展,而不会在内部发生变化时影响到每个库的用户。它被称为应用程序编程接口,而不是应用程序编程类。在较小的规模上,它们还允许多个开发人员在大型项目上成功协作,通过良好的文档接口分离不同的模块。

抽象类是在实现接口时使用的高内聚帮助器,假设有某种级别的实现细节。或者,抽象类用于定义服务提供者接口(spi)。

API和SPI之间的区别很微妙,但很重要:对于API,重点在于谁使用它,而对于SPI,重点在于谁实现它。

Adding methods to an API is easy, all existing users of the API will still compile. Adding methods to an SPI is hard, since every service provider (concrete implementation) will have to implement the new methods. If interfaces are used to define an SPI, a provider will have to release a new version whenever the SPI contract changes. If abstract classes are used instead, new methods could either be defined in terms of existing abstract methods, or as empty throw not implemented exception stubs, which will at least allow an older version of a service implementation to still compile and run.

关于Java 8和默认方法的说明

尽管Java 8为接口引入了默认方法,这使得接口和抽象类之间的界限更加模糊,但这并不是为了实现可以重用代码,而是为了更容易地更改既作为API又作为SPI(或者被错误地用于定义SPI而不是抽象类)的接口。

“书本知识”

OP回答中提供的技术细节被认为是“书本知识”,因为这通常是在学校和大多数关于语言的技术书籍中使用的方法:一个东西是什么,而不是如何在实践中使用它,特别是在大规模应用中。

打个比方:假设问题是:

舞会之夜租什么更好,一辆车还是一间酒店房间?

技术上的答案是这样的:

嗯,在车里你可以做得更快,但在酒店房间里你可以做得更舒服。另一方面,酒店房间只在一个地方,而在汽车里你可以在更多的地方这样做,比如,你可以去远景点看风景,或者在汽车电影院,或者很多其他地方,甚至不止一个地方。而且,酒店房间里有淋浴。

这都是真的,但完全忽略了一点,那就是它们是两种完全不同的东西,两者都可以同时用于不同的目的,“做”方面并不是这两种选择中最重要的事情。这个答案缺乏视角,它显示了一种不成熟的思维方式,而正确地呈现了真实的“事实”。

当我试图在两个密切相关的类之间共享行为时,我创建了一个包含公共行为的抽象类,并作为两个类的父类。

当我试图定义Type(对象的用户可以可靠地调用的方法列表)时,我创建了一个接口。

例如,我绝不会创建一个只有一个具体子类的抽象类,因为抽象类是关于共享行为的。但是我很可能创建一个只有一个实现的接口。我的代码的用户不会知道只有一个实现。实际上,在未来的版本中可能会有几个实现,它们都是一些新的抽象类的子类,这些抽象类在我创建接口时甚至还不存在。

这似乎也有点太书生气了(尽管我在记忆中从未见过这样的说法)。如果面试官(或OP)真的想要更多关于这方面的个人经验,我早就准备好了关于界面是出于必要而进化的轶事,反之亦然。

One more thing. Java 8 now allows you to put default code into an interface, further blurring the line between interfaces and abstract classes. But from what I have seen, that feature is overused even by the makers of the Java core libraries. That feature was added, and rightly so, to make it possible to extend an interface without creating binary incompatibility. But if you are making a brand new Type by defining an interface, then the interface should be JUST an interface. If you want to also provide common code, then by all means make a helper class (abstract or concrete). Don't be cluttering your interface from the start with functionality that you may want to change.