Channels
#announcements
Title
# announcements
g
gildor
06/30/2017, 10:28 AMJust override with default value instead set it in
init Copy code
interface MyInterface {
var a: String
}
class ClassA : MyInterface {
override var a = ""
}k
kobiburnley
06/30/2017, 10:37 AMgildor: What I'm trying to say is that as opposed to methods, interface's members always must be overridden. I'm trying to understand why is that
In other words: Why default members (and constructors) are not possible, but default methods are
g
gildor
06/30/2017, 10:40 AMbecause interface
Copy code
interface MyInterface {
var a: String
} Copy code
interface MyInterface {
String getA();
String setA();
}Because default methods cannot hold any state, it’s stateless pease of code. But class field is a state and it’s impossible to keep state in interfaces
If you need default state you can just use class instead interface or delegate with default implementation
Copy code
interface MyInterface {
var a: String
}
class DefaultState : MyInterface {
override var a = ""
}
class ClassA : MyInterface by DefaultState() {
init {
//You have an access to `a` without override
val default = a == ""
}
}k
kobiburnley
06/30/2017, 10:50 AMCool I'll check it 🙂
It's a quite satisfying solution, although there are still annoying aspects. For example, a delegation class must override all interface members, meaning, in order to have partial default implementation, you should start splitting your interface to multiple interfaces and that's not ideal.
At the bottom line, if members compile to a get/set methods, and interface methods may have implementation - there is no reason an interface will not be able to implement default get/set for a member.
g
gildor
06/30/2017, 1:32 PMBut you able to add default getter and setter to interface
Copy code
interface MyInterface {
var a: String
get() = ""
set(value) = TODO()
}
class SomeImpl : MyInterfaceor even better replace
varval Copy code
interface MyInterface {
val a: String
get() = ""
}
class SomeImpl : MyInterfacebut to be honest this code smells.
Just curious what is your case?
delegation class must override all interface membersActually, from architecture point of view I see no problem with it. You can create partially implemented abstract class and then extend it and implement all other methods and provide resulting class as delegate to an another class (ClassA in you example). Only difference that you have now is separated implementation: 2 classes instead 1 (but it’s not a problem in Kotlin to have them in the same file). But it’s even better, because now you have better code separation and easy replace delegate implementation without changing target class
k
kobiburnley
07/01/2017, 9:18 AMAs I see it the big problem with delegation class is that it creates a new scope. For example:
Copy code
interface A {
var mem: String
fun f() {
print("A.f()")
}
}
class DefaultA : A {
override var mem: String = ""
set(value) {
field = value
f()
}
}
class B : A by DefaultA() {
override fun f() {
print("B.f()")
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val b = B()
b.mem = "a"
}Delegation class is a pretty good solution to my use-case, although I think default setters, getters, and constructors should be allowed in interfaces.
There must be a reason it's not allowed in Kotlin, but I'm still looking for the answer why.
The compiler can enforce a class to override a setter/getter/constructor if there are collisions of multiple inherited interfaces
g
gildor
07/01/2017, 11:31 AMI don’t understand what do you mean about “default setters, getters, and constructors should be allowed in interfaces”. Default getter and setters supported by Kotlin. I showed example above
But of course not Constructors, There is no multiple inheritance in JVM by default, and if your language emulates that you still have a lot of problems, especially with Java interoperability.
compiler can enforce a class to overrideWhat do you mean? Compiler force all clients to override all not implemented methods otherwise just throw exception
And you example with DefaultA is completely correct for me.
I mean it’s the only possible behavior.
Delegate of course cannot and shouldn’t have an access to outer class, like any class/method that called inside other class have no access to parent, otherwise it’s completely break incapsulation of any code.
In this example setter have access only to current class, as any other code.
Delegates called “delegates” because there is no inheritance, you just use public API of an another class, delegating calls.
Looks like you trying to achive multiple inheritance, but there is no such think in Kotlin or Java.
Maybe if you describe you case I, or someone else, could help with architecture of that
k
kobiburnley
07/01/2017, 6:20 PMIn your example interfaces setters and getters are very naive:
Copy code
interface MyInterface {
var a: String
get() = ""
set(value) = TODO()
}What I want to achieve is be able to add setter and getter implementation in interfaces. Refactoring my previous example (this code will not compile, but if it would it will print "B.f()"):
Copy code
interface A {
var mem: String = ""
set(value) {
field = value
f()
}
fun f() {
print("A.f()")
}
}
class B : A {
override fun f() {
print("B.f()")
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val b = B()
b.mem = "a"
}From architecture point of view there's always something that can be done. We did it in Java too (delegation classes / delegating a method to a static function). But I'm looking for ease of use, readability, and reduce of verbosity .
2 Views