When to use an interface instead of an abstract class and vice versa?

Solution 1:

I wrote an article about that:

Abstract classes and interfaces

Summarizing:

When we talk about abstract classes we are defining characteristics of an object type; specifying what an object is.

When we talk about an interface and define capabilities that we promise to provide, we are talking about establishing a contract about what the object can do.

Solution 2:

An abstract class can have shared state or functionality. An interface is only a promise to provide the state or functionality. A good abstract class will reduce the amount of code that has to be rewritten because it's functionality or state can be shared. The interface has no defined information to be shared

Solution 3:

Personally, I almost never have the need to write abstract classes.

Most times I see abstract classes being (mis)used, it's because the author of the abstract class is using the "Template method" pattern.

The problem with "Template method" is that it's nearly always somewhat re-entrant - the "derived" class knows about not just the "abstract" method of its base class that it is implementing, but also about the public methods of the base class, even though most times it does not need to call them.

(Overly simplified) example:

abstract class QuickSorter
{
    public void Sort(object[] items)
    {
        // implementation code that somewhere along the way calls:
        bool less = compare(x,y);
        // ... more implementation code
    }
    abstract bool compare(object lhs, object rhs);
}

So here, the author of this class has written a generic algorithm and intends for people to use it by "specializing" it by providing their own "hooks" - in this case, a "compare" method.

So the intended usage is something like this:

class NameSorter : QuickSorter
{
    public bool compare(object lhs, object rhs)
    {
        // etc.
    }
}

The problem with this is that you've unduly coupled together two concepts:

1. A way of comparing two items (what item should go first)
2. A method of sorting items (i.e. quicksort vs merge sort etc.)

In the above code, theoretically, the author of the "compare" method can re-entrantly call back into the superclass "Sort" method... even though in practise they will never want or need to do this.

The price you pay for this unneeded coupling is that it's hard to change the superclass, and in most OO languages, impossible to change it at runtime.

The alternative method is to use the "Strategy" design pattern instead:

interface IComparator
{
    bool compare(object lhs, object rhs);
}

class QuickSorter
{
    private readonly IComparator comparator;
    public QuickSorter(IComparator comparator)
    {
        this.comparator = comparator;
    }

    public void Sort(object[] items)
    {
        // usual code but call comparator.Compare();
    }
}

class NameComparator : IComparator
{
    bool compare(object lhs, object rhs)
    {
        // same code as before;
    }
}

So notice now: All we have are interfaces, and concrete implementations of those interfaces. In practise, you don't really need anything else to do a high level OO design.

To "hide" the fact that we've implemented "sorting of names" by using a "QuickSort" class and a "NameComparator", we might still write a factory method somewhere:

ISorter CreateNameSorter()
{
    return new QuickSorter(new NameComparator());
}

Any time you have an abstract class you can do this... even when there is a natural re-entrant relationship between the base and derived class, it usually pays to make them explicit.

One final thought: All we've done above is "compose" a "NameSorting" function by using a "QuickSort" function and a "NameComparison" function... in a functional programming language, this style of programming becomes even more natural, with less code.

Solution 4:

If you are looking at java as OOP language,

"interface does not provide method implementation" is no longer valid with Java 8 launch. Now java provides implementation in interface for default methods.

In simple terms, I would like to use

interface: To implement a contract by multiple unrelated objects. It provides "HAS A" capability.

abstract class: To implement the same or different behaviour among multiple related objects. It establishes "IS A" relation.

Oracle website provides key differences between interface and abstract class.

Consider using abstract classes if :

1. You want to share code among several closely related classes.
2. You expect that classes that extend your abstract class have many common methods or fields, or require access modifiers other than public (such as protected and private).
3. You want to declare non-static or non-final fields.

Consider using interfaces if :

1. You expect that unrelated classes would implement your interface. For example,many unrelated objects can implement Serializable interface.
2. You want to specify the behaviour of a particular data type, but not concerned about who implements its behaviour.
3. You want to take advantage of multiple inheritance of type.

Example:

Abstract class ( IS A relation)

Reader is an abstract class.

BufferedReader is a Reader

FileReader is a Reader

FileReader and BufferedReader are used for common purpose : Reading data, and they are related through Reader class.

Interface ( HAS A capability )

Serializable is an interface.

Assume that you have two classes in your application, which are implementing Serializable interface

Employee implements Serializable

Game implements Serializable

Here you can't establish any relation through Serializable interface between Employee and Game, which are meant for different purpose. Both are capable of Serializing the state and the comparasion ends there.

Have a look at these posts :

How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?