www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Default Implementation For an Interface

reply Kevin <kevincox.ca gmail.com> writes:
I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
  - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a 
variety of sources.
  - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

For example, say I was writing a database class.  I could either name 
the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or 
something but that is ugly.  If I call the interface IDatabase, the 
Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write 
functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default 
implementation.  This way, I could create my Database interface and 
classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you 
would still get a basic database.

I thought about doing it in different modules but it just gets messier 
as you have to fully qualify all of the names so both look ugly.  I 
though about overloading the new operator for the interface but it would 
have to be final and that would mess everything up.  I though about a 
meathod like `Database.newDefault()` but that is messy and has no 
meaning in a derived class.

I couldn't find anything about this so I was wondering what you would 
recommend.  Should I just pick a naming scheme?
Feb 15 2012
next sibling parent simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:
On 02/16/2012 04:01 AM, Kevin wrote:

 I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
 - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a
 variety of sources.
 - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

 For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name the
 interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or
 something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the
 Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write
 functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

 I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default
 implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and
 classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you
 would still get a basic database.

 I thought about doing it in different modules but it just gets messier
 as you have to fully qualify all of the names so both look ugly. I
 though about overloading the new operator for the interface but it would
 have to be final and that would mess everything up. I though about a
 meathod like `Database.newDefault()` but that is messy and has no
 meaning in a derived class.

 I couldn't find anything about this so I was wondering what you would
 recommend. Should I just pick a naming scheme?



As a user (read developer), I'd rather code to the generic interface 
when possible. I like that concrete implementations looks rather long 
and ugly :)
I don't think you should be worried that your users is using direct 
implementations rather than the interface - their problem!

Remember that in D, interfaces can contain implementations that only 
uses static methods on the interface:

interface DB {
      property string name();
     // interfaces can have implementations
     static DB createDefault() { return new GenericDB(); }
}

class GenericDB : DB {
      property string name() {
         return "generic"; }
}

class MySQLDB : DB {
      property string name() {
         return "mysql"; }
}

void main() {
     assert(DB.createDefault().name == "generic");
     assert((new MySQLDB()).name == "mysql");
}
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-16 04:01, Kevin wrote:

 I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
 - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a
 variety of sources.
 - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

 For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name the
 interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or
 something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the
 Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write
 functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

 I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default
 implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and
 classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you
 would still get a basic database.



You can create an abstract class that implements some parts of the 
interface. Then the user (developer) is free to choose to inherit from 
the interface or the abstract class.


 I thought about doing it in different modules but it just gets messier
 as you have to fully qualify all of the names so both look ugly. I
 though about overloading the new operator for the interface but it would
 have to be final and that would mess everything up. I though about a
 meathod like `Database.newDefault()` but that is messy and has no
 meaning in a derived class.

 I couldn't find anything about this so I was wondering what you would
 recommend. Should I just pick a naming scheme?



About the naming scheme I would go for this:

interface Database {}
abstract AbstractDatabase : Database {}

class Implementation : Database {}
class Implementation2 : AbstractDatabase {}

Possibly suffix the implementations with "Database".

class ImplementationDatabase : Database {}
class Implementation2Database : AbstractDatabase {}

But it feels a bit redundant with "Database" in the implementation name.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 16 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-16 11:23, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:11:20 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 You can create an abstract class that implements some parts of the
 interface. Then the user (developer) is free to choose to inherit from
 the interface or the abstract class.



 Which results in a classic problem that you run into in Java all the time when
 dealing with event-based programming (since it deals with events via
 interfaces). If you have a class that only really needs to implement a couple
 of the functions from the interface of an event listener, then you can derive
 from the class which implements it and gives them all empty bodies. But if you
 need your class to implement multiple such interfaces, you can only do that
 with one of them, which gets really annoying, because then you have to create
 a bunch of empty method bodies yourself. It's one of the classic examples
 where multiple inheritance would be desirable.



Interfaces and abstract classes is the simple solution. If the class 
hierarchy is quite simple won't be a problem. It looks like it is quite 
simple in this case. Or one could skip the interface completely perhaps.


 The current situation in D is exactly the same (though, since we don't have a
 swing equivalent, I don't think that it's something that D programmers are
 frequently running into at the moment). AIUI, Java is going to be adding the
 ability to give interfaces default implementations such that that
 implementation is effectively copy-pasted into your class when you implement it
 and don't provide an implementation yourself (rather than the function in your
 class overidding it as would be the case with an abstract class). This nicely
 solves the event listener problem, and D doesn't have that. I assume that
 that's the sort of thing that the OP is looking for.



Since D have delegates I would use those for event handling and not 
listeners. I think they are a much better fit, as long as you don't have 
to force the user to handle many different events on the same object.


 Now, if you use template mixins, I believe that it's possible to use that to
 mixin default implementations for the functions in an interface, which should
 solve the problem for D. So, that's probably good enough for D without having
 to make it so that interface functions can have default implementations.

 - Jonathan M Davis



Template mixins cause their own problems. You can't overload methods 
with template mixins, may it's possible to get around that with aliases, 
I don't remember.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 16 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-16 20:05, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Thursday, February 16, 2012 13:26:59 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Since D have delegates I would use those for event handling and not
 listeners. I think they are a much better fit, as long as you don't have
 to force the user to handle many different events on the same object.



 Oh, I'm not necessarily arguing that using interfaces far listeners is the way
 to go (in fact, I agree that delegates would be much better). It's just that
 that's a prime example of a situation where you want default implementations
 for interface methods, since with single inheritance, you can't derive a class
 from multiple classes which give you default implementations for interface
 methods.



Ok, I see. I got the impression that you preferred listeners.


 Now, if you use template mixins, I believe that it's possible to use that
 to mixin default implementations for the functions in an interface, which
 should solve the problem for D. So, that's probably good enough for D
 without having to make it so that interface functions can have default
 implementations.



 Template mixins cause their own problems. You can't overload methods
 with template mixins, may it's possible to get around that with aliases,
 I don't remember.



 I thought that you could, since they can be virtual, unlike templated
 functions. I don't know though. It's not something that I've really had to
 worry about - particularly since so few of my D programs need classes, let
 alone interfaces (because most of my D programs are small).

 - Jonathan M Davis



Note that I'm saying "overload" not "override".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 16 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-16 22:08, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Thursday, February 16, 2012 20:17:22 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Note that I'm saying "overload" not "override".



 Ah, so you did. Yes, that would probably be a problem, though aliases can
 probably fix it (that's how you deal with having all of the overloads for a
 function in the same overload set for a derived class when you only override
 some of them). But I haven't tried it, so I don't know.

 - Jonathan M Davis



I know it works with derived classes but I haven't tried it with 
template mixins.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:11:20 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 You can create an abstract class that implements some parts of the
 interface. Then the user (developer) is free to choose to inherit from
 the interface or the abstract class.



Which results in a classic problem that you run into in Java all the time when 
dealing with event-based programming (since it deals with events via 
interfaces). If you have a class that only really needs to implement a couple 
of the functions from the interface of an event listener, then you can derive 
from the class which implements it and gives them all empty bodies. But if you 
need your class to implement multiple such interfaces, you can only do that 
with one of them, which gets really annoying, because then you have to create 
a bunch of empty method bodies yourself. It's one of the classic examples 
where multiple inheritance would be desirable.

The current situation in D is exactly the same (though, since we don't have a 
swing equivalent, I don't think that it's something that D programmers are 
frequently running into at the moment). AIUI, Java is going to be adding the 
ability to give interfaces default implementations such that that 
implementation is effectively copy-pasted into your class when you implement it 
and don't provide an implementation yourself (rather than the function in your 
class overidding it as would be the case with an abstract class). This nicely 
solves the event listener problem, and D doesn't have that. I assume that 
that's the sort of thing that the OP is looking for.

Now, if you use template mixins, I believe that it's possible to use that to 
mixin default implementations for the functions in an interface, which should 
solve the problem for D. So, that's probably good enough for D without having 
to make it so that interface functions can have default implementations.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lukasz" <wrzoski gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 10:24:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 On Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:11:20 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 You can create an abstract class that implements some parts of 
 the
 interface. Then the user (developer) is free to choose to 
 inherit from
 the interface or the abstract class.



 Which results in a classic problem that you run into in Java 
 all the time when dealing with event-based programming (since 
 it deals with events via interfaces). If you have a class that 
 only really needs to implement a couple of the functions from 
 the interface of an event listener, then you can derive from 
 the class which implements it and gives them all empty bodies. 
 But if you need your class to implement multiple such 
 interfaces, you can only do that with one of them, which gets 
 really annoying, because then you have to create a bunch of 
 empty method bodies yourself. It's one of the classic examples 
 where multiple inheritance would be desirable.

 The current situation in D is exactly the same (though, since 
 we don't have a swing equivalent, I don't think that it's 
 something that D programmers are frequently running into at the 
 moment). AIUI, Java is going to be adding the ability to give 
 interfaces default implementations such that that 
 implementation is effectively copy-pasted into your class when 
 you implement it and don't provide an implementation yourself 
 (rather than the function in your class overidding it as would 
 be the case with an abstract class). This nicely solves the 
 event listener problem, and D doesn't have that. I assume that 
 that's the sort of thing that the OP is looking for.

 Now, if you use template mixins, I believe that it's possible 
 to use that to mixin default implementations for the functions 
 in an interface, which should solve the problem for D. So, 
 that's probably good enough for D without having to make it so 
 that interface functions can have default implementations.

 - Jonathan M Davis



BlackHole from std.typeconst can be used for that purpose.



import std.typecons;
interface A
{
    void a();
    int b(void* arg);
}

interface B
{
    int c(string arg);
}

interface Common : A, B
{
}

class Good : BlackHole!Common
{
    override int b(void* arg)
    {
        return 0;
    }
}

void main()
{
    auto g = new Good;
    g.a();
    auto i = g.b(null);
    auto j = g.c("Hello");
}
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 13:26:59 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Since D have delegates I would use those for event handling and not
 listeners. I think they are a much better fit, as long as you don't have
 to force the user to handle many different events on the same object.



Oh, I'm not necessarily arguing that using interfaces far listeners is the way 
to go (in fact, I agree that delegates would be much better). It's just that 
that's a prime example of a situation where you want default implementations 
for interface methods, since with single inheritance, you can't derive a class 
from multiple classes which give you default implementations for interface 
methods.


 Now, if you use template mixins, I believe that it's possible to use that
 to mixin default implementations for the functions in an interface, which
 should solve the problem for D. So, that's probably good enough for D
 without having to make it so that interface functions can have default
 implementations.



 Template mixins cause their own problems. You can't overload methods
 with template mixins, may it's possible to get around that with aliases,
 I don't remember.



I thought that you could, since they can be virtual, unlike templated 
functions. I don't know though. It's not something that I've really had to 
worry about - particularly since so few of my D programs need classes, let 
alone interfaces (because most of my D programs are small).

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 20:17:22 Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Note that I'm saying "overload" not "override".



Ah, so you did. Yes, that would probably be a problem, though aliases can 
probably fix it (that's how you deal with having all of the overloads for a 
function in the same overload set for a derived class when you only override 
some of them). But I haven't tried it, so I don't know.

- Jonathan M Davis
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:01:51 -0500, Kevin <kevincox.ca gmail.com> wrote:


 I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
   - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a  
 variety of sources.
   - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

 For example, say I was writing a database class.  I could either name  
 the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or  
 something but that is ugly.  If I call the interface IDatabase, the  
 Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write  
 functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

 I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default  
 implementation.  This way, I could create my Database interface and  
 classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you  
 would still get a basic database.



Aside from what has been said already, if you wish to have methods that  
are not static defined in the interface, final methods currently work:

interface I
{
     void foo();
     final void callFoo() {writeln("about to call foo"); foo();  
writeln("ok, I called foo");}
}

This isn't exactly a "default implementation", since you can't override it.

Note that template methods are supposed to work (And also are implicitly  
final), but this doesn't currently work.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4174

-Steve
Feb 17 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-17 18:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:01:51 -0500, Kevin <kevincox.ca gmail.com> wrote:


 I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
 - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a
 variety of sources.
 - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

 For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name
 the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or
 something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the
 Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write
 functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

 I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default
 implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and
 classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you
 would still get a basic database.



 Aside from what has been said already, if you wish to have methods that
 are not static defined in the interface, final methods currently work:

 interface I
 {
 void foo();
 final void callFoo() {writeln("about to call foo"); foo(); writeln("ok,
 I called foo");}
 }

 This isn't exactly a "default implementation", since you can't override it.



But you could have one final method, the implementation and one virtual, 
the one you would override. It's an idea, I don't know if it's a good one.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 17 2012
prev sibling parent Kevin Cox <kevincox.ca gmail.com> writes:
--0015175cadb0b8d8db04b92fd4d7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I wasn't looking to implement meathods in the interface, I was looking to
have a default class that implements the interface that would be created if
you called `new Interface();`  I don't think this is possible. and now that
I think about it I think that it is for a good reason.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2012-02-17 18:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


 On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:01:51 -0500, Kevin <kevincox.ca gmail.com> wrote:

  I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.

 - A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a
 variety of sources.
 - Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

 For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name
 the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or
 something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the
 Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write
 functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

 I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default
 implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and
 classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you
 would still get a basic database.



 Aside from what has been said already, if you wish to have methods that
 are not static defined in the interface, final methods currently work:

 interface I
 {
 void foo();
 final void callFoo() {writeln("about to call foo"); foo(); writeln("ok,
 I called foo");}
 }

 This isn't exactly a "default implementation", since you can't override
 it.



 But you could have one final method, the implementation and one virtual,
 the one you would override. It's an idea, I don't know if it's a good one.


 --
 /Jacob Carlborg



--0015175cadb0b8d8db04b92fd4d7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I wasn&#39;t looking to implement meathods in the interface, I was looking =
to have a default class that implements the interface that would be created=
 if you called `new Interface();` =C2=A0I don&#39;t think this is possible.=
 and now that I think about it I think that it is for a good reason.<br>

<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jacob Carl=
borg <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:doob me.com">doob me.com</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class=3D"im">On 2012-02-17 18:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:01:51 -0500, Kevin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kevincox.ca=
 gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kevincox.ca gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.<br>
- A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a<br>
variety of sources.<br>
- Some basic implementations of these interfaces.<br>
<br>
For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name<br>
the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or<br>
something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the<br>
Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write<br>
functions that take IDatabases not Databases.<br>
<br>
I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default<br>
implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and<br>
classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you<br>
would still get a basic database.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Aside from what has been said already, if you wish to have methods that<br>
are not static defined in the interface, final methods currently work:<br>
<br>
interface I<br>
{<br>
void foo();<br>
final void callFoo() {writeln(&quot;about to call foo&quot;); foo(); writel=
n(&quot;ok,<br>
I called foo&quot;);}<br>
}<br>
<br>
This isn&#39;t exactly a &quot;default implementation&quot;, since you can&=
#39;t override it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
But you could have one final method, the implementation and one virtual, th=
e one you would override. It&#39;s an idea, I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s a =
good one.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
/Jacob Carlborg<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>

--0015175cadb0b8d8db04b92fd4d7--
Feb 17 2012