I.e. why is the following \"cyclic dependency\" not possible?
public class Something implements Behavior {
public interface Behavior {
// ...
}
}
Relevant rules in spec:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/classes.html#8.1.4
A class C directly depends on a type T if T is mentioned in the extends or implements clause of C either as a superclass or superinterface, or as a qualifier of a superclass or superinterface name.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/interfaces.html#9.1.3
An interface I directly depends on a type T if T is mentioned in the extends clause of I either as a superinterface or as a qualifier within a superinterface name.
Therefore if A extends|implements B.C
, A depends on both C
and B
. Spec then forbids circular dependencies.
The motivation of including B
in the dependency is unclear. As you mentioned, if B.C
is promoted to top level C2
, not much is different as far as the type system is concerned, so why A extends C2
is ok, but not A extends B.C
? Granted a nested type B.C
does have some prviledged access to B
's content, but I can't find anything in spec that makes A extends B.C
troublesome.
The only problem is when C
is an inner class. Suppose B=A
, A extends A.C
should be forbidden, because there's a circular dependency of "enclosing instance". That is probably the real motivation - to forbid outer class from inheriting inner class. The actual rules are more generalized, because they are simpler, and make good sense anyway even for non-inner classes.