Talk:Marker interface pattern

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Untitled

Maybe a bit offtopic, but I do not see the point having the clone() method in Object and a seperate interface making a call to clone "valid". Where is the advantage over letting Clonable have (is this correct english?) a method clone() (making this a non-marker interface) or is this for historical reasons? :) A better example for a marker interface would be appreciated.

I agree. It's exactly what I thought when I read the article. Alf Boggis (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it isn't why Cloneable exists. Nowhere do the docs say that Cloneable "indicates that the cloning functionality is actually supported in a proper manner". In fact, they're very specific about why Cloneable is used, and that it gives specific information to Object.clone().

Will be editing the article once I figure out Wikipedia's markup (rhetorical question: why do all wikis have a different set of codes?). Serializable is a better example of a marker interface, because Java provides multiple ways to write an object.

Introduction paragraph

In the last sentence of the introduction paragraph, the statement "If none of these tests pass, the method throws NotSerializableException." is made. My knowledge of java isn't that strong, but should it be "If any of these tests fail, the method throws NotSerializableException."? --WikiWizard (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification needed

I think a further clarification should be added why an interface is defined to be a marker interface. For instance, it is not clear to every reader

why the Serializable interface does not have a serialize(…) and a deserialize(…) method, say, so that all the "marked" classes have the same methods for the same task, and
why JavaBeans are not using a marker interface to mark them as beans as such in a conspicious way.

SAE1962 (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

The critique section imho shows an inappropriate example. The scenario appears to be a liskov violation. If this is resolved, the use of the tagging interface is perfectly sane in the example. This should be at least mentioned. On the other hand - and that would imho make a good critique point - if some state or ghost intrinsic to a class needs to be expressed with a marker and is not handled by other means, this smells a lot like there's a refactoring needed. If you deal with classes members "in a specific way" depending on an empty interface, this makes the use of the API which defines the members in the first place unsafe - and that should of course be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.64.180 (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]