Final interface
From APIDesign
(→JDK Scratching Own Itch!) |
(→JDK: Scratching Own Itch!) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Of course most of this discussion is becoming obsolete with [[JDK]]8 extender methods. With [[JDK]]8 you can add new methods with ''default implementations'' into existing interfaces - which is then source and binary compatible extension. Reasonable [[API]] writers will then provide the default bodies for newly added methods and mitigate the [[DOM]]2 vs. [[DOM]]3 problems by that. | Of course most of this discussion is becoming obsolete with [[JDK]]8 extender methods. With [[JDK]]8 you can add new methods with ''default implementations'' into existing interfaces - which is then source and binary compatible extension. Reasonable [[API]] writers will then provide the default bodies for newly added methods and mitigate the [[DOM]]2 vs. [[DOM]]3 problems by that. | ||
| - | It is however interesting the analyze the reasons why ''extender methods'' were introduced. Of course, people we crying for them for ages, but the | + | It is however interesting the analyze the reasons why ''extender methods'' were introduced. Of course, people we crying for them for ages, but the members of [[JDK]] team were refusing all such efforts. Why? To keep the purity of the language. |
However when they finally felt all the pain - e.g. when the {{JDK|java/util|Collection}} and etc. interfaces were found insufficient, they immediately changed their mind. And of course, because they control the [[VM]], they could do (unlike us, regular outsider beings) miracles. It is way easier to resolve [[backward compatibility]] issues if you control the way linkage is done! | However when they finally felt all the pain - e.g. when the {{JDK|java/util|Collection}} and etc. interfaces were found insufficient, they immediately changed their mind. And of course, because they control the [[VM]], they could do (unlike us, regular outsider beings) miracles. It is way easier to resolve [[backward compatibility]] issues if you control the way linkage is done! | ||
Revision as of 08:08, 4 February 2015
Final interface is a pattern often used in vendor library style API design. It marks a Java interface in an API as final (either in Javadoc or elsewhere TBD) with the evolution plan to expand it incompatibly (from the point of implementers). The hope is that nobody except the implementers will ever implement such interface.
Contents |
Why it does not work?
DOM2 vs. DOM3 problems are famous. The interfaces in DOM Java API were made Final interface, but as the XML specification was still evolving it soon turned out the original interfaces are not satisfactory. The XML introduced namespaces and the Java DOM API needed to adopt to it. How can one do it with Final interfaces? Well, you break backward compatibility for those who implement the interface - and there were many DOM2 parsers, as at certain point in time it was very popular to write own's XML parser.
If one worked only with the standard XML parser provided by the JDK itself together with the DOM API - everything worked fine. Of course, because of closest possible proximity! When you package your [[API] with (the only) implementation you don't have evolution and versioning problems - the proximity is so intimate, you don't have to think about versioning.
However most of the more complex Java applications were not satisfied with the default Java parser and needed to include different implementation. And hence the problems began - when one had implementation of DOM3 provided as a library, but the DOM2 API provided by the JDK, the linkage problems were endless. JDK's distribution of DOM2 and parsers and applications relying on DOM3 (which contains incompatible interfaces from provider point of view) just created a unsolvable mess.
When it works?
The above problems can be slightly mitigated if one has good runtime support for modularity and this may be the reason why the vendor library seems to be very popular in OSGi world. If the version range used by clients is wider than version range used by implementations proper versioning is possible and the OSGi container can select the right modules to compose a working system. More about this in the proximity essay. However it needs to be stated that this works only in One to Many and in Few to Many mode - e.g. when there is a single provider (or few of them) of the DOM parser and many users of the DOM parsing API. Then one can use OSGi RangeDependencies to make sure the implementation has closer proximity than users of the DOM API.
Once you end up with multiple DOM parser implementations in your application (like a large and modular app like NetBeans did) - e.g. you enter [modular library|Many to Many]] relationship, no close proximity is going to save you. The only saving point is to adhere to best API Design practice and separate ClientAPI from ProviderAPIs. As such I am going to include final interface in API Design anti patterns although I am sure OSGi friends will never try to understand the better alternative.
JDK: Scratching Own Itch!
Of course most of this discussion is becoming obsolete with JDK8 extender methods. With JDK8 you can add new methods with default implementations into existing interfaces - which is then source and binary compatible extension. Reasonable API writers will then provide the default bodies for newly added methods and mitigate the DOM2 vs. DOM3 problems by that.
It is however interesting the analyze the reasons why extender methods were introduced. Of course, people we crying for them for ages, but the members of JDK team were refusing all such efforts. Why? To keep the purity of the language.
However when they finally felt all the pain - e.g. when the Collection and etc. interfaces were found insufficient, they immediately changed their mind. And of course, because they control the VM, they could do (unlike us, regular outsider beings) miracles. It is way easier to resolve backward compatibility issues if you control the way linkage is done!
All that is needed is to motivate owner of HotSpot to implement some small enhancement. That however requires the owner to feel the pain - e.g. simulate common problem in context of JDK - that is however tough - JDK is specific isolated project and problems they face are often too different from real world ones. But when a rare situation happens (e.g. JDK feels the problem as rest of the world), scratching own itch can really move things forward!
Follow
