Further, you should always use the least-specific type that makes sense.
For example, don't require a
List
or a
Set
if a
Collection
would do. It's not that you should never require a List
or a Set
on input; it is correct to do so if a method
depends on a property of one of these interfaces. For example,
many of the algorithms provided by the Java platform require a
List
on input because they depend on the fact that lists
are ordered. As a general rule, however, the best types to use on
input are the most general: Collection
and Map
.
collection
class and require objects
of this class on input. By doing this, you'd lose all the
benefits provided by the Java Collections Framework.
For example, one could imagine an image-processing package, called ImageList
, that returned objects of a new class that implements List
. In addition to the List
operations,
ImageList
could support any application-specific operations
that seemed desirable. For example, it might provide an
indexImage
operation that returned an image containing thumbnail
images of each graphic in the ImageList
. It's critical to
note that even if the API furnishes ImageList
instances
on output, it should accept arbitrary Collection
(or
perhaps List
) instances on input.
In one sense, return values should have the opposite behavior of
input parameters: It's best to return the most specific applicable
collection interface rather than the most general. For example,
if you're sure that you'll always return a SortedMap
,
you should give the relevant method the return type of
SortedMap
rather than Map
. SortedMap
instances are more time-consuming to build than ordinary
Map
instances and are also more powerful. Given that your
module has already invested the time to build a SortedMap
,
it makes good sense to give the user access to its increased power.
Furthermore, the user will be able to pass the returned object to methods
that demand a SortedMap
, as well as those that accept any Map
.
If possible, retrofit your legacy collection type to implement one
of the standard collection interfaces. Then all the collections you return will interoperate smoothly with other collection-based
APIs. If this is impossible (for example, because one or more of the
preexisting type signatures conflict with the standard collection
interfaces), define an adapter class that wraps one of your
legacy collections objects, allowing it to function as a standard
collection. (The Adapter
class is an example of a
custom implementation.)
Retrofit your API with new calls that follow the input guidelines to accept objects of a standard collection interface, if possible. Such calls can coexist with the calls that take the legacy collection type. If this is impossible, provide a constructor or static factory for your legacy type that takes an object of one of the standard interfaces and returns a legacy collection containing the same elements (or mappings). Either of these approaches will allow users to pass arbitrary collections into your API.