Constants should not be defined in interfaces

  • squid : S1214

According to Joshua Bloch, author of "Effective Java":

The constant interface pattern is a poor use of interfaces.

That a class uses some constants internally is an implementation detail. Implementing a constant interface causes this implementation detail to leak into the class's exported API. It is of no consequence to the users of a class that the class implements a constant interface. In fact, it may even confuse them. Worse, it represents a commitment: if in a future release the class is modified so that it no longer needs to use the constants, it still must implement the interface to ensure binary compatibility. If a nonfinal class implements a constant interface, all of its subclasses will have their namespaces polluted by the constants in the interface.

Noncompliant Code Example

interface Status {                      // Non-Compliant
   int OPEN = 1;
   int CLOSED = 2;
}

Compliant Solution

public enum Status {                    // Compliant
  OPEN,
  CLOSED;
}

or

public final class Status {             // Compliant
   public static final int OPEN = 1;
   public static final int CLOSED = 2;
}
Close