Should concrete implementation provide any public API not present in the interface it implements?

问题

"Code to interfaces" is considered good practice. Such code is easy to unit test and enables loose coupling. Users only know the interfaces and the onus of wiring concrete objects is upon the top-most level (this can be done in some init code or with the help of frameworks).

My question is about following the practice of code to interfaces: does it imply that a concrete class can never declare any public method which is not present in its interface?

Otherwise, it will force users to depend upon the concrete implementation. This will make such methods difficult for unit testing; if the test fails, determining if it failed due to an issue in the caller code or due to the concrete method will require extra effort. This will also break the Dependency Inversion Principle. It will induce type-checking and down-casting, which are considered bad practice.

回答1:

That is totally acceptable provided that the new methods aren't crucial to the operating of the class, and in particular to how it functions when someone thinks of it as the superclass or interface.

ArrayList provides good examples. It has methods that let you manage its internal memory, like ensureCapacity(int) or trimToSize(). Those are sometimes helpful if you know you're working with an ArrayList and need to be more precise about memory allocation, but they're not required for the basic operation of the ArrayList, and in particular, they're not required for having it operate as a general List.

In fact, interfaces themselves can add new methods in this way. Consider NavigableSet, which extends Set. It adds a whole bunch of methods that rely on the ordering of the set's elements (give me the first, the last, a subtree starting from here, etc). None of those methods are defined on Set, and even the fact that the elements are ordered isn't defined by the Set contract; but the Set methods all work just fine without the additional methods and ordering.

The advice to "code to the interface" is a good start, but it's a bit over-generalized. A refinement of that advice would be, "code to the most general interface that you need." If you don't need ArrayLists's methods (or its contract, such as its random-access performance), code to List; but if you do need them, then by all means use them.

回答2:

@yshavit's third paragraph hits it right. Implement an extension of the "not enough" base interface, as exampled with public interface NavigableSet<E> extends SortedSet<E> (which, BTW, extends Set<E> extends Collection<E> extends Iterable<E>).

It's his second paragraph that troubles me. Why have "non-crucial" methods of the API that are not surfaced in some interface being implemented? In the ArrayList example, why not have the size management methods declared in an interface? Perhaps ManagedSize which would describe clear behavior for ArrayList (and other) classes to implement, along with the several other interfaces it implements (my JRE source says: public class ArrayList<E> extends AbstractList<E> implements List<E>, RandomAccess, Cloneable, java.io.Serializable).

With such an approach, there is no need to decide which methods are "non-crucial," only to be surprised by some client code that depends on things like ensureSize to help avoid relocation during a time-critical phase, or trimToSize to release excessive overalloaction when it's algorthmically known that further growth will not be needed. Not that I'm promoting such algorthms as best practice, but even non-functional "behavior management" methods deserve their place in the light.

Finally, while I agree with sentiment of "Know Where the Lines Are, and yet Color As You See Fit" it doesn't give practical guidance. Here's attempt at such:

1. Always start by coding to an interface, ie. all concrete public methods should be declared in an interface:
   1. Use multiple interfaces as needed
   2. Each interface should partition the implemented API into coherent non-overlapping aspects, e.g. List, RandomAccess, Cloneable, Serializable
   3. Tend to start with larger scoped interfaces and break them up as the design develops (before coding ala Waterfall, or as code evolves ala Agile); interfaces are one of the easier design artefacts to refactor.
2. If a given interface you are implementing is "insufficient":
   1. Extend the base interface and add the methods you need, then implement that one, OR
   2. Create an augmenting interface (like the ManagedSize idea, above) with just the additional methods and then implement them both
3. Only when you find you can't do that, then relax only as much of the rule as you need to make things work (often, this will be an experimental trial-error "does it work, yet?" cycle).

Reasons for #3's "can't" will vary, but I expect them to be external to the application design, e.g. the ORM I'm using becomes confused, the IDE plug-in doesn't refactor it correctly, the DSL translator I'm forced to use fails when a class implements more than three interfaces...

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36376979/should-concrete-implementation-provide-any-public-api-not-present-in-the-interfa