54

It's legal to do this in Java:

 void spew(Appendable x)
 {
     x.append("Bleah!\n");
 }

How can I do this (syntax not legal):

 void spew(Appendable & Closeable x)
 {
     x.append("Bleah!\n");
     if (timeToClose())
         x.close();
 }

I would like if possible to force callers to use objects that are both Appendable and Closeable, without requiring a specific type. There are multiple standard classes that do this, e.g. BufferedWriter, PrintStream, etc.

If I define my own interface

 interface AppendableAndCloseable extends Appendable, Closeable {}

that won't work since the standard classes that implement Appendable and Closeable do not implement my interface AppendableAndCloseable (unless I don't understand Java as well as I think I do... empty interfaces still add uniqueness above and beyond their superinterfaces).

The closest I can think of is to do one of the following:

  1. pick one interface (e.g. Appendable), and use runtime tests to ensure the argument is an instanceof the others. Downside: problem not caught at compile time.

  2. require multiple arguments (catches compile-time correctness but looks dorky):

    void spew(Appendable xAppend, Closeable xClose)
    {
        xAppend.append("Bleah!\n");
        if (timeToClose())
            xClose.close();
    }
    
Jason S
  • 184,598
  • 164
  • 608
  • 970

1 Answers1

86

You could do it with generics:

public <T extends Appendable & Closeable> void spew(T t){
    t.append("Bleah!\n");
    if (timeToClose())
        t.close();
}

Your syntax was almost right, actually.

Michael Myers
  • 188,989
  • 46
  • 291
  • 292
  • Does this work for implements as well? I am trying to make a parameter object have to be serialzable? – Zapnologica Feb 17 '16 at 16:11
  • 1
    @Zapnologica: For implementing an interface? No, you can't put additional type restrictions on a generic parameter that was declared in the interface. – Michael Myers Feb 17 '16 at 16:42