When declaring an interface, I’ve kinda automatically defaulted to not exposing fields, but exposing...

# getting-started

[Stylianos Gakis]

When declaring an interface, I’ve kinda automatically defaulted to not exposing fields, but exposing functions directly, but not quite sure why.
I’ve now had this one case where I had an interface expose a StateFlow<Foo> and had it behind a function stateFlow(): StateFlow<Foo> but the implementation simply had the private declaration and the overridden function was simply doing return this.stateFlow.
So I wonder, is it weird for the interface to simply expose val stateFlow: StateFlow<Foo> instead? Are there any reasons why I would want to avoid that?

[Stephan Schröder]

your val is a getter and therefor also a function. I think it's fine in Kotlin, it's just something we're not used to in Java and that's why it feels weird.

[Stylianos Gakis]

Yes, that’s what I was thinking as well, I think that’s why it feels weird to me too, but I made the change and it’s just fine I think. Will keep it this way I think now 😄