www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Question on Interface.

reply "SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:
I like the concept of interface, It enforces its successors to 
implement some necessary methods.

Please take a look at the following example:

device.d
---------------------------------
interface device
{
// I want the three methods implemented by its successors
     void PowerOn();
     void PowerOff();
     void Reset();

     string signature; // This is not allowed in D, but every 
device should has a signature.
}

Why it doesn't support non-static members?
Actually in many cases, we need an interface which needs enforce 
its successors to implement necessary methods, meanwhile it needs 
has its own non-static members.
Aug 07 2013
next sibling parent reply dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
Am 07.08.2013 09:11, schrieb SteveGuo:

 I like the concept of interface, It enforces its successors to
 implement some necessary methods.

 Please take a look at the following example:

 device.d
 ---------------------------------
 interface device
 {
 // I want the three methods implemented by its successors
       void PowerOn();
       void PowerOff();
       void Reset();

       string signature; // This is not allowed in D, but every
 device should has a signature.
 }

 Why it doesn't support non-static members?
 Actually in many cases, we need an interface which needs enforce
 its successors to implement necessary methods, meanwhile it needs
 has its own non-static members.


if D would allow this - what is then the difference between a class with 
your methods as virtuals + your string?

interface are for loosier coupling then classes - thats why only 
declerations not implementations (like your string) are allowed, same
Aug 07 2013
parent reply "SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:
 if D would allow this - what is then the difference between a 
 class with your methods as virtuals + your string?

 interface are for loosier coupling then classes - thats why 
 only declerations not implementations (like your string) are 

 interface having languages)


But classes cannot enforce its successor to do something. May 
introduce a new keyword "enforce"?
Aug 07 2013
parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 07:30:52 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:

 if D would allow this - what is then the difference between a 
 class with your methods as virtuals + your string?

 interface are for loosier coupling then classes - thats why 
 only declerations not implementations (like your string) are 

 interface having languages)


 But classes cannot enforce its successor to do something. May 
 introduce a new keyword "enforce"?


what? O_o
let me explain, abstract class requires its successors to 
implement all methods, but may have fields.
class successors *always* do something, either their methods has 
derived behavior or overridden ones. so does interface, if you 
has class derived from interface then its successors may or may 
not override its methods.
Aug 07 2013
parent reply "SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:
 what? O_o
 let me explain, abstract class requires its successors to 
 implement all methods, but may have fields.
 class successors *always* do something, either their methods 
 has derived behavior or overridden ones. so does interface, if 
 you has class derived from interface then its successors may or 
 may not override its methods.


Thanks for replying, I think I need read more online-docs.
Aug 07 2013
parent reply "Andre Artus" <andre.artus gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 08:18:43 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:

 what? O_o
 let me explain, abstract class requires its successors to 
 implement all methods, but may have fields.
 class successors *always* do something, either their methods 
 has derived behavior or overridden ones. so does interface, if 
 you has class derived from interface then its successors may 
 or may not override its methods.


 Thanks for replying, I think I need read more online-docs.


As mentioned by evilrat earlier the 'string signature' should 
probably be made a readonly property, set in the constructor. I 
don't think D supports defining a constructor signature on 
interfaces (I could be wrong), so you want to define an invariant 
as part of the contract.


You may also want to protect the constructor and implement a 
factory method (or equivalent) pattern.
I will need to look it up, but if I recall it may be possible to 
define a 'final' function on the interface that can set the 
'signature'.

I regret that I cannot at this time give you a definitive answer 
as I'm not in my office where I could verify.
Aug 07 2013
parent "SteveGuo" <steveguo outlook.com> writes:
 As mentioned by evilrat earlier the 'string signature' should 
 probably be made a readonly property, set in the constructor. I 
 don't think D supports defining a constructor signature on 
 interfaces (I could be wrong), so you want to define an 
 invariant as part of the contract.


 You may also want to protect the constructor and implement a 
 factory method (or equivalent) pattern.
 I will need to look it up, but if I recall it may be possible 
 to define a 'final' function on the interface that can set the 
 'signature'.

 I regret that I cannot at this time give you a definitive 
 answer as I'm not in my office where I could verify.


Thanks for the help:) I'm a newbie in D scene, so there should be 
much more to learn.
Aug 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 07:11:58 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:

 I like the concept of interface, It enforces its successors to 
 implement some necessary methods.

 Please take a look at the following example:

 device.d
 ---------------------------------
 interface device
 {
 // I want the three methods implemented by its successors
     void PowerOn();
     void PowerOff();
     void Reset();

     string signature; // This is not allowed in D, but every 
 device should has a signature.
 }

 Why it doesn't support non-static members?
 Actually in many cases, we need an interface which needs 
 enforce its successors to implement necessary methods, 
 meanwhile it needs has its own non-static members.


in this case you could switch to abstract class, or make 
signature a read-only property
 property string signature();
Aug 07 2013
prev sibling parent "JS" <js.mdnq gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 7 August 2013 at 07:11:58 UTC, SteveGuo wrote:

 I like the concept of interface, It enforces its successors to 
 implement some necessary methods.

 Please take a look at the following example:

 device.d
 ---------------------------------
 interface device
 {
 // I want the three methods implemented by its successors
     void PowerOn();
     void PowerOff();
     void Reset();

     string signature; // This is not allowed in D, but every 
 device should has a signature.
 }

 Why it doesn't support non-static members?
 Actually in many cases, we need an interface which needs 
 enforce its successors to implement necessary methods, 
 meanwhile it needs has its own non-static members.



Use properties. Interfaces cannot require fields but can require 
methods. A property is a getter and setter method that wraps a 
field.

So instead ing string signature; use  property string signature();

Then for all practical purposes you can treat it as a field.
Aug 07 2013