Women in Technology

Article:		10 Reasons We Need Java 3.0
Subject:		Interface naming collisions
Date:		2002-08-06 09:30:26
From:		nielsen
Here's something else that needs to be fixed. It requires a major redesign: I have two interfaces and both have a method with the same name, let's say 'close'. If I want to implement them in the same class but have different things happen for either close method, I can't. Basic design flaw.

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• Interface naming collisions
  2002-08-27 17:44:14  piobair [View]
  
  
  I'd say its more a design flaw in your model, then Java. If close() has two meanings you probably ought to be more explicit about what/how your closing.

• Interface naming collisions
  2002-08-06 10:40:32  wmshub [View]
  
  
  But there's already a solution! Just use an inner class instead. I almost never implement interfaces in my "main" classes, so instead of:
  
  public class Foo
  implements Bar, Baz {
  
  public void close() { /* Is this Bar.close or Baz.close? Oh no! */
  }
  }
  
  you can write:
  
  public class Foo {
  public final Bar bar = new Bar() {
  public void close() {
  barClose();
  }
  }
  
  public final Baz baz = new Baz() {
  public void close() {
  bazClose();
  }
  }
  
  private void barClose() { ... }
  private void bazClose() { ... }
  }
  
  Problem solved! Now just use foo.bar when you need the Bar interface and foo.baz when you need the Baz interface.
  
  My only complaint is that it's a very verbose mneumonic. I'd prefer "thin" classes, like:
  public thin Bar bar = Bar() { close=barClose };
  to say "Bar is an inner bar object, but its close is equal to the bazClose in the outer object". Much easier to read.

• Interface naming collisions
  2002-08-06 09:38:49  rpkrajewski [View]
  
  
  Amen !
  
  In Common Lisp, object functions are just functions and are thus subject to namespace/package partitioning. In Java, by contrast, member selection and the namespace syntax both use ".", which would make any new syntax for letting members belong to packages a bit ugly or different.