Today i heard from my friend, that encapsulation is not only achieving information hiding but also abstraction. How does it achieve?
public class employee {
There's two different things, information hiding and abstraction.
Information hiding makes abstraction possible, but it is something different. For example, using your code
public class employee {
private String name;
private int id;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
The id
field is actually hidden. This allows one to handle ids in a manner that is decoupled from the rest of the program. Your name field is actually hidden too, as you don't access the name field directly, but the code in getName
and setName
does.
Once you hide the structure of the data from the rest of the code, forcing access through methods, it is possible to create a number of replaceable implementations of an item. For example, an employee
is a conceptual kind of person
, so you could rewrite the above like so:
public interface Person {
public abstract String getName();
}
public class Employee implements Person {
private String name;
private int id;
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
Now your code can deal with the Employee
as a Person
. After rewriting the rest of the code that doesn't explicitly deal with Employee
s to deal with Person
s, you could implement other kinds of Person
s and leverage the non-Employee specific tasks that are now Person
tasks.
public Customer implements Person {
private String name;
private integer moneySpent;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
So a person searching routine, as long as it only indexes Person
objects can now include searches of both Employee
s and Customer
s. This is because the code dealing with Person
objects is actually dealing with a higher level abstraction that both Employee
and Customer
objects share.
When dealing with Objects on an abstract level, the names of the methods are shared across the abstraction; but, the actual code executed depends on the unmentioned underlying type of the object. In other words, if you ask a Person (who happens to be an employee) getName()
then it will respond with the Employee.getName()
function, while a Customer
will respond with a Customer.getName()
function. Since the code calling getName()
is operating on Person
s it has no idea which type of person it will be handling, but the apparent change in behavior (the selection of the right block of code on a per-object basis) still happens. This phenomena is known as Polymorphisim, and if you are first hitting these concepts, you'll hear Polymorphisim as a word used a lot.
An example of polymorpic behavior:
public interface Animal {
public abstract String makeSound();
}
public class Cow implements Animal {
public String makeSound() {
return "Moo Moo!";
}
}
public class Dog implements Animal {
public String makeSound() {
return "Ruff Ruff!";
}
}
public class Sheep implements Animal {
public String makeSound() {
return "Baa Baa!";
}
}
// this class demonstrates the polymorphic behavior
public class Farm {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ArrayList animals = new ArrayList();
animals.add(new Cow());
animals.add(new Sheep());
animals.add(new Dog());
for (Animal animal : animals) {
// this is where the polymorphisim occurs
// each animal will make a different sound
// because the makeSound method is getting
// bound to different blocks of code based
// on the exact type of animal class hiding
// under the Animal abstraction.
System.out.println(animal.makeSound());
}
}
}
expected output:
Moo Moo!
Baa Baa!
Ruff Ruff!
even though we never explicitly changed classes, and we never explicitly changed methods. It was the binding of the abstract method to the explicit subclass that was changing, which is something that only happens in systems that support polymorphisim.