Seetharaman Venkatasamy wrote:this question discussed many times here. Please, SearchFirst
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
sai rama krishna wrote:Methods declared in an interface are implicitly abstract methods. so, by definition, they do not define the implementation of the method.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Rajiv Rai wrote:Why static methods are not allowed in interfaces?
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:I think (or I hope) that Rajiv's question is a general one, and it does have some merit (there's no particular logical reason I know of why an interface shouldn't be able to define a static method - indeed I believe some OO languages do allow it); it's just that you have a lot of other things to consider.
Matthew Brown wrote:If you're looking for a reason why one might choose not to allow it - I'd say that the point of an interface is to define a contract. And I'm having difficulty thinking of how a static method has a role to play in that.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
There are several of us who think that, in theory, it would be no bad thing; but there are a lot of layers to consider - not the least of which is the behaviour of a class that implements two interfaces, both of which define the same static method.
Winston
Rajiv Rai wrote:
The above problem applies to normal non static methods also i guess.. A class can implement 2 interfaces both of which can have same method
Rajiv Rai wrote:So , is there any specific disadvantage or design consideration that interfaces
were not allowed to have static methods
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime. |