This week's giveaway is in the Android forum.
We're giving away four copies of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons and have Godfrey Nolan on-line!
See this thread for details.
The moose likes Beginning Java and the fly likes Loose Coupling Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons this week in the Android forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Beginning Java
Bookmark "Loose Coupling" Watch "Loose Coupling" New topic
Author

Loose Coupling

Mike Thomson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 07, 2007
Posts: 115


Can you please explain the above statement?


Somewhere I am missing to understand the above statement through coding. Please advice on it.
Steve Luke
Bartender

Joined: Jan 28, 2003
Posts: 4167
    
  21

The idea is that Class A doesn't really need to know about Class B, it just needs to know how to use Class B, which is to say it needs an interface to call, and doesn't really care who is calling it.

So if Class B looks like this:

And Class A needs to doSomething(), like you said, one way Class A could work is to call on an instance of B:


But now A has to know about B, and what happens when I want to change how B works, or add a different class C and let A work with either.

To make it so A doesn't really have to know about B (and so could work with C or D later on) we create an interface that mimics the methods A needs:

This just defines a method that can be used on any class that implements SomethingI. I can then code A against this interface:

And if I make B implement the SomethingI interface I can use it in A:


So now A is using B, but doesn't really know it - and doesn't care. A just cares about SomthingI. Which means when class C comes along I can use that without modifying A:


Steve
Mike Thomson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 07, 2007
Posts: 115
Great explanation. Thank you so much Steve Luke.

Can I mean to say that, I always try to use:
interface i = new B();

Instead of
B b = new B();

Code to interface instead of code to implementation. Am I right?
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 38036
    
  22
Originally posted by Mike Thomson:
Code to interface instead of code to implementation. Am I right?


"Code to the interface" is probably correct in 99% of cases.
"Don't code to the implementation" is probably correct in 99% of cases.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Loose Coupling
 
Similar Threads
Class defined inside an Interface
mock question regarding dynamic attribute
How come the instantiation of interface workes in my code
using interfaces
Reg:- Interface internal Syntex.