113

Suppose you need to define a class which all it does is hold constants.

public static final String SOME_CONST = "SOME_VALUE";

What is the preferred way of doing this?

  1. Interface
  2. Abstract Class
  3. Final Class

Which one should I use and why?


Clarifications to some answers:

Enums - I'm not going to use enums, I am not enumerating anything, just collecting some constants which are not related to each other in any way.

Interface - I'm not going to set any class as one that implements the interface. Just want to use the interface to call constants like so: ISomeInterface.SOME_CONST.

tereško
  • 58,060
  • 25
  • 98
  • 150
Yuval Adam
  • 161,610
  • 92
  • 305
  • 395
  • There's some similar discussion here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/320588/interfaces-with-static-fields-in-java-for-sharing-constants . I would use a final class with a private constructor so that it cannot be instantiated. – Dan Dyer Jan 26 '09 at 12:13
  • 2
    Sorry but "I'm not going to use enums" turns this question into "what's the best way to do something stupid?" – cletus Jan 26 '09 at 12:14
  • What's the problem with Enum? You can allways use it to collect 'some constants which are not related to each other in any way'. Hmm? – gedevan Jan 26 '09 at 12:23
  • 9
    Conceptually, an enum is a bad choice if the constants are not related. An enum represents alternative values of the same type. These constants aren't alternatives and they may not even be the same type (some may be strings, some integers, etc.) – Dan Dyer Jan 26 '09 at 13:22
  • I don't think that enum is a bad choice for public static final String SOME_CONST = "SOME_VALUE" replacement. Even if constants are not related. I do not see problems here. – gedevan Feb 13 '09 at 22:49

11 Answers11

125

Use a final class, and define a private constructor to hide the public one.
For simplicity you may then use a static import to reuse your values in another class

public final class MyValues {

  private MyValues() {
    // No need to instantiate the class, we can hide its constructor
  }

  public static final String VALUE1 = "foo";
  public static final String VALUE2 = "bar";
}

in another class :

import static MyValues.*
//...

if (VALUE1.equals(variable)) {
  //...
}
Mattew Eon
  • 1,722
  • 1
  • 21
  • 38
user54579
  • 4,588
  • 4
  • 23
  • 19
  • 5
    Where's the benefit of creating a separate class here? While I normally don't hold the Calendar API up as a good example of design, it's fine in terms of "calendar-related constants are in the Calendar class". – Jon Skeet Jan 26 '09 at 13:19
  • 8
    the benefit is about not duplicating code, in case you need to reuse constants in more than one class. I guess you can easily see the advantage of this. – user54579 Jan 26 '09 at 13:55
  • 2
    Why would you duplicate code? Just refer to the other class. I find it relatively rare that a constant really stands alone. – Jon Skeet Jan 26 '09 at 14:50
  • 17
    For better readability I'd also have a private default constructor with no body (and a matching comment). – Ran Biron Jan 26 '09 at 19:33
  • 6
    Pretty old answer, and this comment is probably out of place, but I would use `VALUE1.equals(variable)` as it avoids NPE. – Aakash Jun 07 '17 at 07:48
45

Your clarification states: "I'm not going to use enums, I am not enumerating anything, just collecting some constants which are not related to each other in any way."

If the constants aren't related to each other at all, why do you want to collect them together? Put each constant in the class which it's most closely related to.

Jon Skeet
  • 1,421,763
  • 867
  • 9,128
  • 9,194
  • 5
    Jon - they are related in the sense they all belong to the same functionality. However, they are not an enumeration of anything... They do not hold the property that an object is "one of those things". – Yuval Adam Jan 26 '09 at 12:34
  • 15
    Okay. In that case just put them in the class which is closest to the functionality they're related to. – Jon Skeet Jan 26 '09 at 13:19
37

My suggestions (in decreasing order of preference):

1) Don't do it. Create the constants in the actual class where they are most relevant. Having a 'bag of constants' class/interface isn't really following OO best practices.

I, and everyone else, ignore #1 from time to time. If you're going to do that then:

2) final class with private constructor This will at least prevent anyone from abusing your 'bag of constants' by extending/implementing it to get easy access to the constants. (I know you said you wouldn't do this -- but that doesn't mean someone coming along after you won't)

3) interface This will work, but not my preference giving the possible abuse mention in #2.

In general, just because these are constants doesn't mean you shouldn't still apply normal oo principles to them. If no one but one class cares about a constant - it should be private and in that class. If only tests care about a constant - it should be in a test class, not production code. If a constant is defined in multiple places (not just accidentally the same) - refactor to eliminate duplication. And so on - treat them like you would a method.

user1438038
  • 5,821
  • 6
  • 60
  • 94
kenj0418
  • 6,688
  • 2
  • 27
  • 23
  • 4
    The problem of the 1 is that sometimes you will inject in your code some dependencies to another tier class just to fetch the constant. – amdev Jul 10 '18 at 13:47
  • 1
    All fields in an interface are implicitly public, static and final – Kodebetter Apr 16 '19 at 08:42
  • 2
    @Kodebetter But interfaces can be extended/implemented to add more fields. – Wit Jun 08 '20 at 09:40
14

As Joshua Bloch notes in Effective Java:

  • Interfaces should only be used to define types,
  • abstract classes don't prevent instanciability (they can be subclassed, and even suggest that they are designed to be subclassed).

You can use an Enum if all your constants are related (like planet names), put the constant values in classes they are related to (if you have access to them), or use a non instanciable utility class (define a private default constructor).

class SomeConstants
{
    // Prevents instanciation of myself and my subclasses
    private SomeConstants() {}

    public final static String TOTO = "toto";
    public final static Integer TEN = 10;
    //...
}

Then, as already stated, you can use static imports to use your constants.

Sébastien RoccaSerra
  • 16,731
  • 8
  • 50
  • 54
7

My preferred method is not to do that at all. The age of constants pretty much died when Java 5 introduced typesafe enums. And even before then Josh Bloch published a (slightly more wordy) version of that, which worked on Java 1.4 (and earlier).

Unless you need interoperability with some legacy code there's really no reason to use named String/integer constants anymore.

cletus
  • 616,129
  • 168
  • 910
  • 942
4

Aren't enums best choice for these kinds of stuff?

Pang
  • 9,564
  • 146
  • 81
  • 122
Boris Pavlović
  • 63,078
  • 28
  • 122
  • 148
4

enums are fine. IIRC, one item in effective Java (2nd Ed) has enum constants enumerating standard options implementing a [Java keyword] interface for any value.

My preference is to use a [Java keyword] interface over a final class for constants. You implicitly get the public static final. Some people will argue that an interface allows bad programmers to implement it, but bad programmers are going to write code that sucks no matter what you do.

Which looks better?

public final class SomeStuff {
     private SomeStuff() {
         throw new Error();
     }
     public static final String SOME_CONST = "Some value or another, I don't know.";
}

Or:

public interface SomeStuff {
     String SOME_CONST = "Some value or another, I don't know.";
}
Tom Hawtin - tackline
  • 145,806
  • 30
  • 211
  • 305
  • 1
    *but bad programmers are going to write code that sucks no matter what you do.* That's only so true. If you can take steps to mitigate bad programming, or eliminate it altogether, then you have a bit of a responsibility to do that; be as explicit as possible. A bad programmer can't extend a final class. – liltitus27 Nov 12 '13 at 20:23
  • 1
    @liltitus27 To some extent I agree. But do you really want uglified code just to stop one way of poor programmers writing bad code? The code they produce will still be hopeless, but now your code is less readable. – Tom Hawtin - tackline Nov 12 '13 at 23:13
3

Just use final class.

If you want to be able to add other values use an abstract class.

It doesn't make much sense using an interface, an interface is supposed to specify a contract. You just want to declare some constant values.

Megacan
  • 2,510
  • 3
  • 20
  • 31
3

The best approach for me, is enum:

public enum SomeApiConstants {;

    public static final String SOME_CONST = "SOME_VALUE";

    //may be in hierarchy
    public enum ApiMapping {;
        public static final String VERSION = "/version";
        public static final String VERSION_LIST = "/list/{type}";
    }
}

Pros:

  • clean code
  • the private constructor does not need to be defined
  • attempt to instantiate is validated in compile time as java: enum types may not be instantiated
  • prevents to clone and deserialization
kapitanrum
  • 131
  • 1
  • 4
1

Or 4. Put them in the class that contains the logic that uses the constants the most

... sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Simon Groenewolt
  • 10,607
  • 1
  • 36
  • 64
-1
  1. One of the disadvantage of private constructor is the exists of method could never be tested.

  2. Enum by the nature concept good to apply in specific domain type, apply it to decentralized constants looks not good enough

The concept of Enum is "Enumerations are sets of closely related items".

  1. Extend/implement a constant interface is a bad practice, it is hard to think about requirement to extend a immutable constant instead of referring to it directly.

  2. If apply quality tool like SonarSource, there are rules force developer to drop constant interface, this is a awkward thing as a lot of projects enjoy the constant interface and rarely to see "extend" things happen on constant interfaces

Guizhou Feng
  • 113
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
    "private constructor is the existence of method could never be tested": not true. If you (or your boss) is really paranoid about code coverage reports to be 100%, you can still test this by using reflection and ensuring constructor throws an exception. But, IMHO, this is just formality and doesn't really need to be tested. If you (or team) only really cares what is really important, 100% line coverage is not necessary. – L. Holanda May 03 '16 at 00:16