Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Why does the strategy pattern make use of implements instead of extends? Because I would assume that StrategyA is-a StrategyBase, which would rather lead me to extending the base strategy than implementing it as an interface.
So, would it be wrong to apply the strategy pattern with “extends”? And what are advantages if I’m using it with interface?
If you have no common code to put into your strategy base type, you are achieving nothing by using an abstract class instead of an interface, except for constraining the clients of such API to using a dedicated class for the strategy, where they would perhaps want a single class implement several interfaces.