Why Can't I Declare Static Methods in an Interface

Why can't I define a static method in a Java interface?

Java 8 permits static interface methods

With Java 8, interfaces can have static methods. They can also have concrete instance methods, but not instance fields.

There are really two questions here:

1. Why, in the bad old days, couldn't interfaces contain static methods?
2. Why can't static methods be overridden?

Static methods in interfaces

There was no strong technical reason why interfaces couldn't have had static methods in previous versions. This is summed up nicely by the poster of a duplicate question. Static interface methods were initially considered as a small language change, and then there was an official proposal to add them in Java 7, but it was later dropped due to unforeseen complications.

Finally, Java 8 introduced static interface methods, as well as override-able instance methods with a default implementation. They still can't have instance fields though. These features are part of the lambda expression support, and you can read more about them in Part H of JSR 335.

Overriding static methods

The answer to the second question is a little more complicated.

Static methods are resolvable at compile time. Dynamic dispatch makes sense for instance methods, where the compiler can't determine the concrete type of the object, and, thus, can't resolve the method to invoke. But invoking a static method requires a class, and since that class is known statically—at compile time—dynamic dispatch is unnecessary.

A little background on how instance methods work is necessary to understand what's going on here. I'm sure the actual implementation is quite different, but let me explain my notion of method dispatch, which models observed behavior accurately.

Pretend that each class has a hash table that maps method signatures (name and parameter types) to an actual chunk of code to implement the method. When the virtual machine attempts to invoke a method on an instance, it queries the object for its class and looks up the requested signature in the class's table. If a method body is found, it is invoked. Otherwise, the parent class of the class is obtained, and the lookup is repeated there. This proceeds until the method is found, or there are no more parent classes—which results in a NoSuchMethodError.

If a superclass and a subclass both have an entry in their tables for the same method signature, the sub class's version is encountered first, and the superclass's version is never used—this is an "override".

Now, suppose we skip the object instance and just start with a subclass. The resolution could proceed as above, giving you a sort of "overridable" static method. The resolution can all happen at compile-time, however, since the compiler is starting from a known class, rather than waiting until runtime to query an object of an unspecified type for its class. There is no point in "overriding" a static method since one can always specify the class that contains the desired version.

---

Constructor "interfaces"

Here's a little more material to address the recent edit to the question.

It sounds like you want to effectively mandate a constructor-like method for each implementation of IXMLizable. Forget about trying to enforce this with an interface for a minute, and pretend that you have some classes that meet this requirement. How would you use it?

class Foo implements IXMLizable<Foo> {
  public static Foo newInstanceFromXML(Element e) { ... }
}

Foo obj = Foo.newInstanceFromXML(e);

Since you have to explicitly name the concrete type Foo when "constructing" the new object, the compiler can verify that it does indeed have the necessary factory method. And if it doesn't, so what? If I can implement an IXMLizable that lacks the "constructor", and I create an instance and pass it to your code, it is an IXMLizable with all the necessary interface.

Construction is part of the implementation, not the interface. Any code that works successfully with the interface doesn't care about the constructor. Any code that cares about the constructor needs to know the concrete type anyway, and the interface can be ignored.

Why can't I declare static methods in an interface?

There are a few issues at play here. The first is the issue of declaring a static method without defining it. This is the difference between

public interface Foo {
  public static int bar();
}

and

public interface Foo {
  public static int bar() {
    ...
  }
}

The first is impossible for the reasons that Espo mentions: you don't know which implementing class is the correct definition.

Java could allow the latter; and in fact, starting in Java 8, it does!

Why are class static methods inherited but not interface static methods?

Here's my guess.

Since Cat can only extend one class if Cat extends Animal then Cat.identify has only one meaning. Cat can implement multiple interfaces each of which can have a static implementation. Therefore, the compiler would not know which one to choose?

However, as pointed out by the author,

Java already has this problem, with default methods. If two interfaces
declare default void identify(), which one is used? It's a compile
error, and you have to implement an overriding method (which could
just be Animal.super.identify()). So Java already resolves this
problem for default methods – why not for static methods?

If I was to guess again, I'd say that with default the implementation is part of Cat's vtable. With static it cannot be. The main function must bind to something. At compile time Cat.identify could be replaced with Animal.identify by the compiler but the code wouldn't match reality if Cat was recompiled but not the class that contains main.

Why interface methods can't be static in class that implements the interface?

One could say: because @Override and static simply do not go together.

Keep in mind: polymorphism only works for non-static methods. static means that your method is "attached" to the containing class.

In other words: you know everything about static method invocations at compile time. But the process of determining which overridden method to invoke happens at runtime. These two concepts do not go together in Java.

Why can't interfaces specify static methods?

Suppose you could specify in an interface that a type had to have a particular static method... how would you call it? Polymorphism works through instances - whereas static members explicitly don't use instances.

Now, having said that, there's one situation in which I can see static interface members working: generic types. For example:

// This isn't valid code...
public void Foo<T>() where T : ICodeGenerator
{
    string type = T.GetDbConnectionType();
}

That would call the static member on the concrete type T.

I've blogged more about this, but I suspect the benefit doesn't justify the complexity.

In terms of alternatives - usually you'd have another interface, and have separate types to implement that interface. That works well in some contexts, but not in others.

Why can I define only default and static methods inside a java interface?

The reason we have default methods in interfaces is to allow the developers to add new methods to the interfaces without affecting the classes that implements these interfaces.
Here is link for complete article.

Why can't I use from the static method of the implemented interface?

From the Java Language Specification,

A class C inherits from its direct superclass all concrete methods m
(both static and instance) of the superclass for which all of the
following are true:

• [...]

A class C inherits from its direct superclass and direct
superinterfaces all abstract and default (§9.4) methods m for which
all of the following are true:

• [...]

A class does not inherit static methods from its superinterfaces.

So that method is not inherited.

You can statically import the member

import static com.example.Interface1.printName;
...
printName();

or use it with the fully qualified type name

com.example.Interface1.printName();

or import the type to which printName belongs and invoke it with its short name

import static com.example.Interface1;
...
Interface1.printName();

Why can't static methods be abstract in Java?

The abstract annotation to a method indicates that the method MUST be overriden in a subclass.

In Java, a static member (method or field) cannot be overridden by subclasses (this is not necessarily true in other object oriented languages, see SmallTalk.) A static member may be hidden, but that is fundamentally different than overridden.

Since static members cannot be overriden in a subclass, the abstract annotation cannot be applied to them.

As an aside - other languages do support static inheritance, just like instance inheritance. From a syntax perspective, those languages usually require the class name to be included in the statement. For example, in Java, assuming you are writing code in ClassA, these are equivalent statements (if methodA() is a static method, and there is no instance method with the same signature):

ClassA.methodA();

and

methodA();

In SmallTalk, the class name is not optional, so the syntax is (note that SmallTalk does not use the . to separate the "subject" and the "verb", but instead uses it as the statemend terminator):

ClassA methodA.

Because the class name is always required, the correct "version" of the method can always be determined by traversing the class hierarchy. For what it's worth, I do occasionally miss static inheritance, and was bitten by the lack of static inheritance in Java when I first started with it. Additionally, SmallTalk is duck-typed (and thus doesn't support program-by-contract.) Thus, it has no abstract modifier for class members.

---

Related Topics