File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
http://aspose.com/file-tools
The moose likes Java in General and the fly likes Why can't interfaces be final? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Murach's Java Servlets and JSP this week in the Servlets forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Java in General
Bookmark "Why can Watch "Why can New topic
Author

Why can't interfaces be final?

Steve Simon Joseph Fernandez
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 35
When I try



I get "Illegal combination of modifiers: interface and final" I always thought you could declare an interface to be final....

_steve.
Rick O'Shay
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 531
As you proved an interface cannot be marked final. Just as well since it would serve no useful purpose.
Steve Simon Joseph Fernandez
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 17, 2005
Posts: 35
It would have lots of uses. Atleast logically, making an interface final would prevent anyone from extending it, but it would remain implementable.

_steve.
Stuart Gray
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 410
Well it is useful to make a regular class final to prevent extending classes from (for example) changing behaviour to circumvent security. But an interface has no behaviour to change! Like Rick says, I can't think of any useful purpose of making an interface final. Do you have a specific example in mind?
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
To Steve: What benefit would such a distinction serve? People are barely aware that interfaces extend other interfaces (rather than implement them) anyway. So OK, let's pretend they can be educated. You're proposing that "final" should prevent an interface from being extended, but not from being implemented. Why? What's a scenario where this would matter? And assuming such a scenario exists, why couldn't someone just create an abstract class which "implements" the interface, without actually providing a concrete implementation? I'm not sure why this would matter; I'm just observing that the difference between extending and implementing is foggy at best. Either way you're creating a subtype, inheriting the previous declarations - and you may or may not get around to actually implementing them with a particular class. Adding additional arbitrary rules at this point doesn't seem to help, in my opinion.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
D Rog
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 07, 2004
Posts: 472

Let's imagine that interface can be final.
final interface A {
void fooA();
}
If I want to create interface B inherited from A I can't do that. Ok. I'll define B as:
interface B {
void fooA();
void fooB();
}
Now let's define a class C,
class C implements B,A {
void fooA(){}
void fooB(){}
}

So where is benefit that A is final? Right, final makes sense when actual implementation can be inherited, but not just methods declaration.


Retire your iPod and start with HD Android music player Kamerton | Minimal J2EE container is here | Light weight full J2EE stack | and build tool | Co-author of "Windows programming in Turbo Pascal"
Kuldeep Vaishnav
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 23, 2004
Posts: 72
is not interface's main objective is to provide abstract implementation of methods to the implementing class so that every class can have its own implementation? so if you make interface final,it can be defined but can not be implemented, would not it kill the very purpose of defining an interface.


Kuldeep
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Why can't interfaces be final?
 
Similar Threads
dan chisolm exam question
nested classes within Interface
overriding member fields in interfaces
A member interface is implicitly static
Object Reference Casting