Why implement interfaces 'A' and 'B', when 'B' extends 'A'

Question

Suppose I have the following code...

interface A{
  void a();
}

interface B extends A{
  void b();
}

class ImplementOne implements B{ 
  public void a(){};
  public void b(){};
}     

class ImplementTwo implements B, A{ 
  public void a(){};
  public void b(){};
}

Regardless of whether class ImplementTwo implements both B and A, or just B, it would still need to implement method a() in interface A, since interface B extends interface A. Is there any reason one would explicitly do

...implements B, A

instead of just

...implements B

?

Look at existing awnsers: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10839131/implement-vs-extends-when-to-use-whats-the-difference — PieterSchool, Sep 09 '14 at 13:24
@PieterSchool that question doesn't answer this question, OP is not asking about the difference of extension vs. implementation, but about the stylistic difference of specifying multiple interfaces which extend each other. — WillBD, Sep 09 '14 at 13:30
Related: [why-does-arraylist-have-implements-list](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4387419/why-does-arraylist-have-implements-list) — Pshemo, Sep 09 '14 at 13:39
Does reimplementing an interface change which default implementation will be used when multiple defaults are available? — Jeffrey Bosboom, Sep 09 '14 at 13:47

score 5 · Answer 1 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:28

There is no difference between the two approaches in terms of behavior. In terms of bytecode information, there is a small difference when it comes to information about implemented interfaces. For example:

Class<?>[] interfaces = ImplementTwo.class.getInterfaces();
for (int i = 0; i < interfaces.length; i++) {
    System.out.println(interfaces[i]);
}

would return two class instances when implements B, A is used, whereas when using implements B it would return one instance.

Still, the following returns true using both approaches:

A.class.isAssignableFrom(ImplementTwo.class)

Interesting catch and the only not-boring answer so far, +1 – Marco13 Sep 09 '14 at 13:36 — Marco13, Sep 09 '14 at 13:36

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:25

2

IMO the only reason you would want to specify it explicitly like that is if you were attempting to make the code more easily readable by others who needed to interact with it. That even being said, really, a two-step indirection like this is not so abstract that it's difficult to follow, so I don't really think this would ever have a need to happen.

answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:25

WillBD

1,919
1
18
26

+1 A common reason this happens in the JDK is that it was added at one point and they are very reluctant to change something like this in case it break someone's code. i.e. with so much code out there, it is highly likely some one has written code which depends on this e.g. via reflection. – Peter Lawrey Sep 09 '14 at 14:04
I bet that in the past, interface B did not extend A, then later some realised that B should extend A. They then fixed 1 or 2 compiler errors for those implementations missing the 'a' method, while not bothering to modify the possibly numerous classes that already declared "implements A, B". – DJDaveMark Aug 24 '17 at 14:17

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:28

The most famous example is of the use of the interface Serializable.

This is often repeated for the purpose of: Should the super interface suddenly gets detached from Serializable interface, it's sub-interface will still remain Serializable since it's already defined as Serializable.

This often occurs doing code refactoring. Other than that, there is no difference.

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:24

1

Both variants are exactly the same semantically. You might prefer one over the other for stylistic reasons (for example, to make it immediately clear to the reader of the class that it implements both A and B).

answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:24

NPE

486,780
108
951
1,012

score 1 · Answer 5 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:25

1

There is no difference in how the code will behave (or compile).

Some people prefer explicitly listing all implemented interfaces even if they are enforced by another interface implemented. It's purely a matter of personal/code style preferences.

answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:25

Patrick Huy

975
1
8
19

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:26

0

Both approaches are equal. You might choose implements A, B instead of implements B to specify whole list of types for object ithout knowledge about A-B hierarchy

answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:26

mishadoff

10,719
2
33
55

score 0 · Answer 7 · answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:35

0

In this case it doesn't make difference. But technically you could have two interfaces which are not related one to other with same method declaration. And this implementation would implement method for both interfaces.

answered Sep 09 '14 at 13:35

Segg3r

466
3
6

Why implement interfaces 'A' and 'B', when 'B' extends 'A'

7 Answers7