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.

就连我也在多次面试中遇到过同样的问题，相信我，说服面试官会让你很痛苦。 如果我固有以上所有的答案，那么我需要增加一个关键点，使它更有说服力，并充分利用OO

如果你不打算在规则中进行任何修改，对于子类来说，在很长一段时间内，去接口，因为你不能在其中修改，如果你这样做，你需要在所有其他子类中进行更改，然而，如果你认为，你想重用功能，设置一些规则并使其开放修改，去抽象类。

想象一下，你使用了一个可消费的服务，或者你向世界提供了一些代码，你有机会修改一些东西，假设是一个安全检查 如果我是代码的消费者，并且在更新后的某个早上，我发现Eclipse中所有的读标记，整个应用程序都关闭了。 因此，为了避免这样的噩梦，请在接口上使用抽象

我想这会在一定程度上说服面试官……愉快的面试。

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”。

我为工作做面试，我也会不看好你的答案(抱歉，但我很诚实)。听起来你确实读过不同之处并修改了答案，但也许你从未在实践中使用过。

一个好的解释为什么你会使用每一种，比一个精确的解释差异要好得多。雇主最终希望程序员做一些他们不了解的事情，而这些事情很难在面试中展示出来。如果你申请的是技术或文档相关的工作，而不是开发人员的职位，你给出的答案会很好。

祝你以后面试顺利。

另外，我对这个问题的回答更多的是关于面试技巧，而不是你提供的技术材料。或许可以考虑读一读。https://workplace.stackexchange.com/是做这类事情的好地方。

接口就像一组公开记录的具有某种影响的基因:DNA测试会告诉我是否有它们——如果我有，我可以公开让人们知道我是“携带者”，我的部分行为或状态将符合它们。(当然，我可能还有很多其他基因，这些基因提供的特征超出了这个范围。)

抽象类就像单性别物种的死去的祖先(*):她不能被复活，但一个活着的(即非抽象的)后代继承了她所有的基因。

为了扩展这个比喻，我们假设这个物种的所有成员都活到相同的年龄。这意味着一个死去的祖先的所有祖先也必须是死的——同样，一个活着的祖先的所有后代也必须是活着的。

这个世界上没有什么是完美的。他们可能期待的是更实际的方法。

但在你解释之后，你可以用稍微不同的方法添加这些行。

Interfaces are rules (rules because you must give an implementation to them that you can't ignore or avoid, so that they are imposed like rules) which works as a common understanding document among various teams in software development. Interfaces give the idea what is to be done but not how it will be done. So implementation completely depends on developer by following the given rules (means given signature of methods). Abstract classes may contain abstract declarations, concrete implementations, or both. Abstract declarations are like rules to be followed and concrete implementations are like guidelines (you can use it as it is or you can ignore it by overriding and giving your own implementation to it). Moreover which methods with same signature may change the behaviour in different context are provided as interface declarations as rules to implement accordingly in different contexts.

编辑:Java 8简化了在接口中定义默认方法和静态方法。

public interface SomeInterfaceOne {

    void usualAbstractMethod(String inputString);

    default void defaultMethod(String inputString){
        System.out.println("Inside SomeInterfaceOne defaultMethod::"+inputString);
    }
}

现在，当一个类将实现SomeInterface时，并不强制为interface的默认方法提供实现。

如果我们有另一个具有以下方法的接口:

public interface SomeInterfaceTwo {

    void usualAbstractMethod(String inputString);

    default void defaultMethod(String inputString){
        System.out.println("Inside SomeInterfaceTwo defaultMethod::"+inputString);
    }

}

Java不允许扩展多个类，因为这会导致“钻石问题”，即编译器无法决定使用哪个超类方法。如果使用默认方法，接口也会出现菱形问题。因为如果一个类同时实现这两个

SomeInterfaceOne and SomeInterfaceTwo

并且没有实现常见的默认方法，编译器不能决定选择哪一个。 为了避免这个问题，在java 8中必须实现不同接口的通用缺省方法。如果任何类实现了上述两个接口，它必须提供defaultMethod()方法的实现，否则编译器将抛出编译时错误。