Posted by Tony Marston on 12/07/06 11:56

There is a big difference between interface as in API (Application
Programming Interface) and interface as an OO construct which contains the
words "interface" and "implements".

In PHP I can access an object's method through its API, and I do not need
that additional declaration that contains the word "interface".

Simple, isn't it?

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

"Moot" <mootmail-googlegroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165424803.261177.164870@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> In PHP interfaces are NOT necessary.
>>
>> > They are how you interact with the object, and
>>
>> Wrong. You interact with an object by calling an object's method. The
>> fact
>> that a method may have an optional interface declaration has nothing to
>> do
>> with it.
>>
>
> I think what's happening here is the unfortunate result of one word
> having two different meanings. In this whole argument back and forth
> between you two (Tony and Jerry), you each keep using the opposite
> definition. Tony interprets "interface" to be the PHP language
> construct, while Jerry uses the term "interface" in its object-oriented
> context. Neither are wrong, but to have an intelligent, reasonable,
> (and hopefully friendly) debate, one needs to define the terms used
> beforehand to clear up any confusion.
>
> - PHP language construct "interface": a construct defined which
> declares a set of functions and parameters which must be implemented if
> an object claims to use that interface.
> - OO concept "interface": an abstract idea that the member functions
> which an object exposes to the outside (ie: public, but not private
> functions), comprise the interface to that object through which other
> objects may interact with it.
>
> The language construct interface is indeed optional and requires
> seperate code specifically written for this purpose. The OO concept of
> an interface is *implicit to an object* and requires no additional code
> to be written. Any public function of an object is automatically a
> part of this interface.
>
> For a physical world example, think of your car stereo. Its interface
> (in the OO context) consists of buttons, dials, and a screen (the
> public functions which you use to interact with it), while the laser
> which reads the CD's and it's power adapter are not part of the
> interface (they would be private functions which are used only inside
> the class). Now say that it has an iPod connector. In order to make
> sure that is sends and receives the correct signals to your iPod, it
> must implement some kind of standard, defined by Apple in the (language
> construct context) iPod Interface.
>
> So you see? You're both right in your own context. Everybody wins.
> Cookies and punch are available in the next room for anyone who wants
> to put this semantic pissing match to rest.
>
> - Moot
>

[Back to original message]