Question on interfaces

[fatabass]

What does this mean:

In addition to casting objects to classes, you also can cast objects to interfaces, but only
if an object’s class or one of its superclasses actually implements the interface. Casting
an object to an interface means that you can call one of that interface’s methods even if
that object’s class does not actually implement that interface.

This is from book: SAMS Teach Yourself Java in 26 Days.

Casting an object to an interface means that you can call one of that interface’s methods even if
that object’s class does not actually implement that interface.

Does this make sense?

Doesn't a class have to implement all the methods it implements ?

And it says it has to implement the interface if you are to cast it.

I am confused.

[Fubarable]

I've never seen that done, and even if it compiles, it doesn't "smell" right to me. I think you are right to question this text.

edit: test code below shows that this compiles but as expected throws a ClassCastException:

public class InterfaceTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) {
      Fubar fubar = new Fubar();
      I myI = (I)fubar;
      myI.iMethod();
   }
}

class Fubar {
   public void iMethod() {
      System.out.println("in Fubar's iMethod");
   }
}

interface I {
   void iMethod();
}

Which proves that your worries are not unfounded, and the book looks to be wrong. I never liked that book and don't recommend it.

[fatabass]

Can I get book recommendations ?

I am trying to decide on a book to follow, but it looks more difficult than learning JAVA itself.

[fatabass]

Regarding your testcode:

I think you should implement interface I to class Foobar, because it says:

In addition to casting objects to classes, you also can cast objects to interfaces, but only
if an object’s class or one of its superclasses actually implements the interface.

But then, what does this mean:

Casting an object to an interface means that you can call one of that interface’s methods even if
that object’s class does not actually implement that interface.

Very confusing..

[Fubarable]

Regarding your testcode:

I think you should implement interface I to class Foobar, because it says:

Precisely.

But then, what does this mean:

Casting an object to an interface means that you can call one of that interface’s methods even if
that object’s class does not actually implement that interface.

Very confusing..

I think the second quote doesn't agree with the first quote. I think that the second quote is wrong.

Regarding book recommendations, it depends on your method of learning. Some love the head first book, others like Thinking in Java. Eventually you'll want more of a reference book such as the Core Java Vol 1 and 2 books.

[fatabass]

Thanks.

[Fubarable]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

[fatabass]

I will e - mail SAM , see if he has anything to say about this.

[Tolls]

I suppose technically you could cast to an interface that the object being cast does not implement and still call the method in the code.
It would compile, but would fail at runtime...:)

[JosAH]

What about this?

interface I { void m(); }
abstract class P implements I { }
class C extends P { public void m() { ... } }

Class P doesn't implement method m() although it claims to implement interface I (it can do so because class P is abstract). The following fragment runs without errors:

P p= new C(); 
I i= (I)p;

i.m();

kind regards,

Jos

[fatabass]

The problem is with :

Casting an object to an interface means that you can call one of that interface’s methods even if
that object’s class does not actually implement that interface.

Does "actually implement" means, Class C should be implementing I ?

If implementing an interface through extending a class that implements the interface is meant here, then I guess you are right.

[JosAH]

The problem is with :



Does "actually implement" means, Class C should be implementing I ?

If implementing an interface through extending a class that implements the interface is meant here, then I guess you are right.

Yep, class P in my example doesn't actually implement method m() as mentioned in interface I; it is class C that extends P, that implements method m() so everything will run fine.

kind regards,

Jos

[Tolls]

Ah, but "that object's class" is not P...it is C.
So that sentence is really badly worded if that is what they meant.

[JosAH]

Ah, but "that object's class" is not P...it is C.
So that sentence is really badly worded if that is what they meant.

Yep, I agree, but the example I sketched cowardly slipped through the wordings of that book ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

[fatabass]

Yeah I agree with Tolls.

It should work in this situation I guess, according to the book:

C p= new C(); 
I i= (I)p;
 
i.m();

[JosAH]

But it even works if the fist line were:

P p= new C();

... because class P implements interface I.

kind regards,

Jos

[Tolls]

Yep, I agree, but the example I sketched cowardly slipped through the wordings of that book ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

So does mine.
It just crashes at runtime...:D
The wording never says anything about actually running!