Interface-oriented programming (I)-ideological basis

I think the term "interface" must be familiar to all programmers using object-oriented programming languages, but I wonder if you have the following questions: What is the purpose of interfaces? It and abstraction
What are the differences between classes? Can I use abstract classes instead of interfaces? As a programmer, I often hear the phrase "interface-oriented programming". What does it mean? What is the ideological connotation? And Object-Oriented Programming
What is the relationship? This article will answer these questions one by one.

1. What is the relationship between interface-Oriented Programming and object-oriented programming?

First of all, interface-Oriented Programming and object-oriented programming are not at the same level. They are not an independent programming idea more advanced than object-oriented programming, but affiliated with the object-oriented ideology, is a part of it. Or, it is one of the core ideas in the object-oriented programming system.

2. essence of interfaces

An interface is a collection of several methods without subject code. It has a unique name and can be implemented (or inherited) by a class or other interfaces ). It may look like the following in form:

Interface interfacename
{
Void Method1 ();
Void method2 (INT para1 );
Void method3 (string para2, string para3 );
}

So what is the essence of interfaces? Or what is the meaning of an interface. In my opinion, we can consider the following two perspectives:

1) An interface is a set of rules that specifies a group of rules that must be owned by the class or interface that implements this interface. It reflects the natural world, "if you are ...... You must be able ......" Concept.

For example, in nature, people can eat, that is, "If you are a person, you must be able to eat ". Then simulate
In a computer program, there should be an iperson (traditionally, the interface name starts with "I") interface, and there is a method called eat (), and then we stipulate that, every class that represents "person" must be implemented
Iperson interface, which simulates the rule "if you are a human, you must be able to eat" in nature.

From here, I want you to see some object-oriented ideas. One of the core of Object-oriented thinking is to simulate the real world and abstract things in the real world into classes. The whole program relies on instances of various classes to communicate and collaborate with each other to complete system functions, this is very consistent with the real world's operating conditions and is also the essence of Object-oriented thinking.

2) an interface is an abstract representation of similar things in a certain granularity view. Note that I have emphasized a certain granularity view, because the concept of "similar things" is relative, it varies with the granularity view.

For example, in my eyes, I am a person, which is essentially different from a pig. I can accept that I am the same as my classmates.
But I cannot accept that I am similar to a pig. However, in the eyes of an animal scientist, I and pig should be similar, because we are both animals, and he can think that both "human" and "pig" have been implemented.
The ianimal interface, and when studying animal behavior, he will not treat me and pig separately, but will study the larger granularity of "animal, but he will think that there is a fundamental difference between me and a tree.

Now I have changed to a genetic scientist, and the situation is different. Because biology can be inherited, in his eyes, I am not only different from pigs, it's no different from a mosquito, a bacterial, a tree, a mushroom, or even a SARS virus, because he thinks we all implement the idescendable interface (Note: descend VI. genetics), that is, we are all genetic things. Instead of studying us separately, we will study all creatures as the same type. In his eyes, there is no human or virus, only genetic and non-genetic substances are available. But at least I am different from a rock.

Unfortunately, this happened. One day, there was a great man on the earth. His name was Lenin. he was familiar with the dialectical thinking of Marx and Engels.
After thinking about things, I had some experiences. So he made a famous definition: material is the objective reality that can be reflected by consciousness. So far, I am connected to a rock, a trace of air, an idiom, and the electromagnetic power that transmits mobile phone signals.
The field is no different, because in Lenin's eyes, we are all objective reality that can be reflected by consciousness. If Lenin was a programmer, he would say: the so-called material is all at the same time.
The instance generated by the class of the ireflectabe and iesse interfaces. (Note: reflect v. Reflect esse N. objectively and practically)

Maybe you will think that the above example is like a flaw, but this is exactly what the interface can mean. One of the object-oriented ideology and core is polymorphism,
What is polymorphism? To put it bluntly, it is to deal with similar things in a specific granularity view without additional treatment. The reason why I dare to do this is that there is an interface. Like the genetic scientist, he understands
A creature has implemented the idescendable interface. As long as it is a creature, it must have the descend () method. Therefore, it can be studied in a unified manner, instead of studying every creature separately and eventually exhausting it.

It may not give you an intuitive impression on the nature and function of interfaces. In the following examples and Analysis of Several design patterns, you will experience the connotation of interfaces more intuitively.

3. Overview of interface-Oriented Programming

Through the above, I think you have an understanding of the concept of interfaces and interfaces. What is interface-oriented programming? My personal definition is:In System Analysis and architecture, layers and dependencies are distinguished. Each layer does not directly provide services to the upper layer (that is, it is not directly instantiated in the upper layer), but is defined by a set of interfaces, only the interface function is exposed to the upper layer. The upper layer only depends on the lower layer, instead of the specific class..

The benefits of doing so are obvious. First, they are of great benefit to system flexibility. When the lower layer needs to be changed, as long as the interface and interface functions remain unchanged, the upper layer
No modifications are required. You can even replace the entire lower layer without modifying the upper layer code, just as we replace a WD 60 GB hard disk with a Seagate GB hard disk, and do not need to do anything else on the computer.
Change, but just remove the original hard disk and plug in the new hard disk, because the other part of the computer does not depend on the specific hard disk, but only depends on one ide interface, as long as the hard disk implements this interface, it can be replaced. Slave
Here, the interface in the program is very similar to the interface in reality, so I always think that the word interface is really similar!

Another advantage of using interfaces is that developers of different components or layers can start work in parallel, just like creating a hard disk without waiting for a CPU or a monitor, as long as the interfaces are consistent, it is well-designed and can be developed in parallel to improve efficiency.

This article is here first. Finally, I would like to say that the essence of Object-oriented thinking is simulated reality, which is also the soul of my article. Therefore, it is very helpful to improve the system analysis and design capability to think about object-oriented things from reality.

In the next article, I will use an instance to demonstrate the basic methods of interface programming.

In the third article, I will analyze some interface-oriented programming ideas in the classic design model and analyze the interface-oriented ideas in the. NET layered architecture.

Supplement to this article:

I have read your replies carefully and are very happy to discuss technical issues with you. I would like to thank my friends who have affirmed me and those who have raised comments and questions. This prompted me to think more deeply and hope to make progress accordingly. Here I want to add something to discuss some concentrated questions in the replies.

1. About the "interface" in "interface-oriented programming" and the "interface" in specific object-oriented languages

A friend suggested that the word "interface" in "interface-oriented programming" should be wider than the interface in a pure programming language. Jing
I think it makes sense. What I wrote here is indeed not reasonable. I think the "interface" in object-oriented language refers to a specific code structure, for example, the interface keyword defined in C #
Port. The "interface" in "interface-oriented programming" can be said to be a structural component used to hide the specific underlying classes and implement polymorphism from the perspective of the software architecture.. In this sense
If an abstract class is defined to realize polymorphism, it is reasonable to call this abstract class "interface. But is it unreasonable to use abstract classes to realize polymorphism? The second article is discussed below.

In summary, I think the two "interfaces" are different and interrelated.The interface in "interface-oriented programming" is an architectural component at the ideological level for realizing polymorphism and improving software flexibility and maintainability, the "interface" in a specific language is a means to implement the components in this idea into the code.

2. abstract classes and interfaces

This is a heated question. I am sorry that I did not discuss this issue weekly. My personal understanding of this issue is as follows:

From the perspective of specific code, these two concepts are easily vague, and even the interface is redundant, because from the perspective of specific functions, except for multiple inheritance (C #, java), abstract classes seem to completely replace interfaces. But does the interface exist to implement multi-inheritance? Of course not.In my opinion, the difference between an abstract class and an interface lies in the motivation for use. Abstract classes are used for code reuse, and interfaces are used for polymorphism.Therefore, if you are hesitant to use an interface or abstract class somewhere, you can think about your motivation.

My personal understanding is that the iperson interface should not be defined.
In the application. If women and man exist in our project, both inherit person, and most methods of women and man are the same, there is only one method.
Dosomethinginwc () is different (examples are vulgar, you may forgive me), so of course it is reasonable to define a abstractperson abstract class, because it can
Methods are included. Subclass defines only dosomethinginwc (), greatly reducing the amount of repeated code.

However, if the women and man classes in our program basically do not share the same code, and there is a personhandle class that needs to be instantiated, and they do not want to know that they are male and female, instead, it is necessary to define them as human beings and realize polymorphism.

All in all, the main difference between an interface and an abstract class lies in the motivation for use, not in itself. The definition of an item as an abstract class or interface depends on the context of the specific environment.

Furthermore, I think another difference between an interface and an abstract class is that the abstract class and its subclass should have a general and special relationship, while the interface is just
A set of rules that the Child class should implement. (Of course, sometimes there may be general and special relationships, but the purpose of using interfaces is not here.) For example, transportation tools are defined as abstract classes, and automobiles, airplanes, and ships are defined
Sub-classes are acceptable, because cars, airplanes, and ships are all special kinds of transportation tools. For example, the icomparable interface only means that the classes that implement this interface must be comparable,
This is a rule. If the car class implements icomparable, we just say that there is a way in our car to compare the two car instances, which may be more expensive than the car,
It doesn't matter if the car is bigger than the other one, but we can't say that "a car is a special comparison." It doesn't work in grammar.

Author:

M & Q

Source: http://www.cnblogs.com/MQ-zhang/articles/1534398.html