Java:: What is invokeDynamic

In my previous article, I discussed --How JVM determines which methods to call at runtime?Also, we learned that In bytecode level, java compiler uses 4 special opcodes for method invoking

Now, the question arises if all types of methods invoking (interface, static method, instance method, constructor etc.) are covered by 4 opcodes, why there is another opcode invokeDynamic has been introduced?
Why invokeDynamic?
To understand why invokedymic is required let dig down to a real problem,  for a moment think you are building a framework where based on the command passed from UI you load a class runtime and invoke a particular method of that class.
Say you are building a Web framework like Struts -- Now based on the URL you have to map a java class and invoke a specific method so you will create an XML(like struts-config.xml) where developer explicitly put the strategy -- which URL map to which class and which method to be called.
Let's see the prototype of the XML.

<controller url="/employee" class="">
<param key="add" method="executeAdd">
<param key="update" method="executeUpdate">
<param key="delete" method="executeDelete">
<goto key="success"  path="/success.jsp">
<goto key="faliure"  path="/error.jsp">
Seeing, this configuration XML one thing is clear, based on the action taken by the user in UI, different method will be called for EmployeController class, If user performs an add then internally an 'add' parameter will be passed and framework checks that which method has to call for 'add' parameter and found it is executeAdd. Until  User does not take an action no one can tell which method will be called, so all the decision has to be taken at runtime based on the parameters passed(add, edit, delete).
Think how you can design the same in java, what is the weapon available in java to implement the same, Of course, by the Reflection mechanism-- By the reflection you are able to load the Employee controller class and based on the parameter you can invoke the appropriate method.

Pseudocode will be like that.

Class controller = Class.forname("com.example.EmployeeController");
Controller empController = controller.newInstance();
Class inputParams[] = {javax.servlet.http.HttpRequest,javax.servlet.http.HttpResponse};
String methodSuffix = makeFirstLetterCapital(empController.getParam());//add to Add
Method tobeInvoked= Class.declaredMethod("execute"+methodSuffix,inputParams);
This runs very well, It will take the decision on runtime except for one problem. Reflection has huge performance penalties because it is always checking security constraints like what is the method access specifiers, is the caller has permission to call the method etc, so for this reflection is bit slow.
This is the one reason to introduce invokeDynamic in the place of reflection, it facilitates dynamic programming -- where type checking and method resolution done at runtime. So by that you can add remove methods programmatically -- You can do bytecode engineering runtime I mean, you can insert a new method which is not in the class definition !!! or override a method runtime!!! invokeDynamic provides this type of flexibility, unlike reflection.
invokeDynamic is as fast as other opcodes, but to introducing invoke dynamic in Java is not an easy task.
Java is a statically type so type checking is done at compile time also compiler checks a method is available in the class or not if the method is not available it throws compiler error so the questions is
How can we trick compiler in such a way where we can introduce a new method at runtime to be specific type checking and method resolution done at run-time?

How invokeDyamic works internally?
To work the invokeDynamic opcode correctly two important components are MethodHandle and CallSite
MethodHandle: Method handles wraps the metadata about a method-- It holds the method signature so by invoking it you can invoke a method on an Object at runtime.
CallSite : Callsite can hold Method handle and if the Call site is mutable we can change the Method handle time to time, so based on the parameter we can change the MethodHandle and as Method handle holds the method so runtime we can change the method call without altering the bytecode instruction that is invoked dynamic, so same method invocation can execute different methods based on the parameters.
Actually when the invokeDynamic instruction is read by the interpreter following procedure happens underhood--  invokedynamic instruction is associated with a special method called the bootstrap method (BSM). When the invokedynamic instruction is read by the interpreter, the BSM is invoked. It returns an object called Callsite (hold a method handle) that indicates which method actually execute.

So, Calliste works like the subline in the Train track-- Trani always runs on a straight track but when it needs to change it's direction Line Engineers are pull the liver of subline so it joins with another line according to the needs and Train just pass on that line and change the track, Calliste mimic the same methodology when based on parameter it changes the underlying method handle and same method invocation call diffrent method at runtime.
Let see the diagram,

Conclusion: invokeDynamic is a valuable inclusion in terms of framework level developer, By invokedynamic we can get the real essence of Dynamic programming in JVM, Many languages which run on JVM uses the invokedynamic to achieve dynamic type checking also Lamda uses invokedynamic, In my next tutorial I will show you how to write Callsite and MethodHandle and How you can changeMethodHandle under Callsite dynamically.

How does method dispatch happen in Java?

 Have you ever wondered when you call a method like a list.add("Shamik"), How the actual method invoke in runtime?
If you want to discover the How part then you are in the right place else you can easily skip the article as it is not related to coding perspective. we know in Java we maintain two steps process
Compiler compiles and make the bytecodes
The interpreter takes bytecode and changes the instruction to machine code.
But think, When your code compiles to bytecode how the method call looks like and in the runtime how the dynamic linking happens, In a simple word how JVM find the actual method and call that method.
In this tutorial, we will discuss the same.
In java(till Java7) we have four types of method

1. Static methods.
2. private, package private or public methods
3. Interface methods declaration.
4. Some special methods like the constructor, super etc.

Now, as the actual method call happens at runtime, somehow at compile time(bytecode) we have to instruct JVM where to find the method or location of the method. But for some cases it is not possible to tell earlier(compile time) which method will be invoked( like in case of overriding, Polymorphism) so compiler has to defer the lookup of the method until runtime, so there are different types of opcodes are used by compiler to tell JVM what to do in runtime.
At runtime, JVM maintains a runtime table called vtable where each entry represents the precise location of the method. The help of this vtable, JVM actually dispatches the call to an actual method.
In bytecode, java uses 4 opcodes still java6 but in java7 there is a new opcode introduced called invokedynamic, I will write a separate article on invokedynamic opcode but in this article, we will discuss the other opcodes.
invokestatic: invokestatic opcode is used at compile time to dispatch static methods.
invokevirtual: invokevirtual used to dispatch instance methods.
invokespecial: invokespecial is used to dispatch special methods like constructor or super or for the private method.
invokeinterface: invokeinterface is used to dispatch a method call via an interface.
Now, we will write a java example and try to see the bytecode representation of that example.

package com.example.methodcall;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;

public class MethodCall {

public void addCity() {
List<String> city = new ArrayList<String>();


public void addState() {
ArrayList<String> state = new ArrayList<String>();


public static void main(String[] args) {
MethodCall target = new MethodCall();


Now I want to see the bytecode representation of the above java program so I will run the following command 

javap -c MethodCall.class 

Bytecode will look like following

 public class com.example.methodcall.MethodCall {
  public com.example.methodcall.MethodCall();
       0: aload_0
       1: invokespecial #8                  // Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
       4: return

  public void addCity();
       0: new           #15                 // class java/util/ArrayList
       3: dup
       4: invokespecial #17                 // Method java/util/ArrayList."<init>":()V
       7: astore_1
       8: aload_1
       9: ldc           #18                 // String Kolkata
      11: invokeinterface #20,  2           // InterfaceMethod java/util/List.add:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      16: pop
      17: return

  public void addState();
       0: new           #15                 // class java/util/ArrayList
       3: dup
       4: invokespecial #17                 // Method java/util/ArrayList."<init>":()V
       7: astore_1
       8: aload_1
       9: ldc           #31                 // String WestBengal
      11: invokevirtual #33                 // Method java/util/ArrayList.add:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
      14: pop
      15: return

  public static void main(java.lang.String[]);
       0: new           #1                  // class com/example/methodcall/MethodCall
       3: dup
       4: invokespecial #39                 // Method "<init>":()V
       7: astore_1
       8: aload_1
       9: invokevirtual #40                 // Method addCity:()V
      12: aload_1
      13: invokevirtual #42                 // Method addState:()V
      16: return

Deep dive into the bytecode Representation :
In the above bytecode representation, except invokestatic all opcodes has been used.
If you noticed the bytecode minutely you can explore that for each method a section is entitled and each java line converted to a command. Let go through each method section

com.example.methodcall.MethodCall(): This is the constructor of MethodCall class, here you can find an invokespecial call because this opcode is used for calling a special method like constructor or super etc. if you pay attention to the commented line beside the invokespecial call you will find the method details
// Method java/lang/Object."<init>":() V: This says constructor can be found in java.lang.object which is detonated by a special symbol <init> and it takes nothing as an argument

 public void addCity() In this section bytecode use invokeinterface opcode for  the line
List<String> city = new ArrayList<String>();
and it is commented

// InterfaceMethod java/util/List.add:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z which means add is an interface method  which is in java.util.List and it takes Object as an input argument.

Here invokeInterface opcode is used because, as we did the polymorphic assignment so at the compile time there is no way to know where is the actual add method implementation, so compiler has to put such opcode which will instruct JVM to dispatch the call to exact method from Vtable at runtime, so method resolution happens at runtime.

 public void addState():
In this section bytecode use invokevirtual opcode for  the line
ArrayList<String> state = new ArrayList<String>();
and it is commented as

// Method java/util/ArrayList.add:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z which means add can be found in java.util.ArrayList and it takes Object as an input argument.

There, is very subtle difference in coding -- we use ArrayList instead of List so it is not a polymorphic assignment so it creates a huge difference in bytecode now bytecode knows the exact class where to find the add method at compile-time but still call will be dispatched in runtime as if some other class can extend ArrayList. But it uses Invokevirtual opcode which is used for calling an instance method.

public static void main(java.lang.String[]): The last section is entitled to the main method where we call two instance methods addCity and addState so it uses invokevirtual opcode.

Conclusion : In this article we have a fair bit of an idea how method call is happened using different opcodes, But in Java7 an important opcode has been added that is invokeDynamic, which opens the door to allow dynamic type language in JVM, so other languages which run on top of JVM uses this invokeDynamic opcode to make them dynamic language certain extent also Lambda Expression in Java8 uses the invokedynamic opcode, In my next tutorial I will give a detailed overview on -- invokeDynamic opcode.

Oogways on Value Types(Project Valhalla)

Oogways promised us to give a demonstration on Project Valhalla, which is in roadmap of Oracle, Project Valhalla mainly focus on two features
1. Value types
2. Generic Specialization.
In this Article, I will cover the talk on Value type given by Oogways.let us get started what Oogways told us-- me and 5 Ninja warriors.
Oogways : we all know, to support primitives in Collection API--The Wrapper Object concept is created and java5 introduced autoboxing /unboxing feature, basically the motto of Autoboxing is to uplift primitives as an Object, so we can treat them as Object and Object's methods(equals, hashcode,toString) can be inherited to the Boxed Object so it can act as an Object and user(coder) does not have to bother about Boxing the primitives in a wrapper class, It will be done automatically and Vice versa.
So in developer's perspective, it is a huge improvement as you can play with collections and primitives and under the hood, all primitives get promoted to Object(Wrapper class, int->Integer). But in case of performance, it is not so good, to make developer happy Oracle compromised on the performance. Let us take a detailed look why the performance is degraded.

package com.example.valhalla;
public class PerformanceTest {
Integer[] boxedArray = new Integer[1000];
int[] primitiveArray = new int[1000];
public void insert() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
boxedArray[i] = i;
primitiveArray[i] = i;
public void traveseBoxedArray() {
Long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<boxedArray.length;i++) {
Long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Time elapsed :: " + (end-start));
public void travesePrimitiveArray() {
Long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<primitiveArray.length;i++) {
Long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Time elapsed :: " + (end-start));
public static void main(String[] args) {
PerformanceTest test = new PerformanceTest();
Output :
Case of Boxed Time elapsed:: 9
Case of primitive Time elapsed:: 6
So, Just in case of traversing boxed version and primitive version, there is a 3 Ms lag for 1000 elements. Not only in traversal there is also the side effect of memory consumption.
Why this performance degradation in case of Boxed version?
The performance degradation occurs due to the following reasons
Memory consumption :  One of the differences between Java primitives and Object is --there is a cost associated with Object, just to box an int to Integer , it has to create a header(8-16 byte) and reference(4-8 bytes) in case of a reachable object, so instead of 4 bytes(int-4 bytes) it takes 4+8+4=16 bytes minimum. Imagine the same for 1000 elements each, so heap space is consumed rapidly as the elements in the array are increased (Not considering JIT optimization).
Traversing for Payload: When we wrap primitives into a wrapper class, it will act as Object so now array of Integers stores the pointers unlike the array of primitives where array store the value itself, so there is an unnecessary cost to traverse through the pointer to fetch the actual value/payload. It will certainly take much more time than storing the value directly in the array.
Lack of Inherent Locality : Think about the Java memory model map , in case of primitives , value will get stored in register and is pushed to stack memory. In case of array of primitives it will occupy same contiguous memory , so cache hits is bigger than cache miss and traversal will be optimized and faster. On the another hand in case of Object (Wrapper class) it will get stored in heap memory and we don't know where it belongs in heap memory as JVM there are different spaces like young generation, eden etc and Objects are moved to that spaces so there will no contiguous memory allocated for array of Objects. So the array of objects lacks the inherent locality and also cache miss is greater than cache hits, so traversing through pointer will take more time than directly find value from a contiguous location.
Due to the above reasons, Boxing is bad in terms of performance. But in Java, there are many use cases where we use Boxing to achieve some functionality which can't be achieved by only primitives.
I will tell you what are those areas where we use unnecessary boxing and compromise performance to achieve some programmatic design decision.
Value Types : In java, Often we design some Object which just carrier of some data, its primary goal represents a data structure nothing else, It does not hold any state so there is no identity check once the values are same we can say two objects are same , so they are only caring for value, not the reference and state. think about a Point object or a Money Object or a Pin Code Object, which are the associations of some primitives / Objects, If the value is same we can say those two objects are equal, think about Money Object, it is the combination of currency and value which is char and double respectively.

package com.example.valhalla;
public final class Money {
public final double value;
public final char currency;
public Money(double value,char currency) {
public final void display() {
System.out.println(value + currency);
So, Money is immutable in nature and we wrap the value and currency into a Money Object which acts as Wrapper Object, But this Money does not do anything apart from encapsulating the primitives values. So performance got affected as Money is an Object rather than a collection of primitives, and we can't store value and currency into an array as those are the heterogeneous types and array support homogeneous typing.To support heterogeneous type we have to opt for an object and compromise the performance.
Wrapper Object: All primitives Wrapper types are degrading the performance.
Iterator: Iterator creates a snapshot of the collections to be traversed so it wraps the collection into an Iterator Objects which is nothing but a wrapper and degrades the performance.
Multi valued returns : Some time we need to return more than one value and those are heterogeneous type( like int, char,Object etc)  from a method , in other languages we can do it by Tuples concept but in case of java we have to wrap the return   value in to an object and return that Object, say I have a method which returns Address of a customer, and Address contains flat number, location, zip code, city, country -- so we have to create a wrapper Object which contains all these properties and return the Address so here Address Object acts as wrapper/boxed Object.
In the all above cases, we see a common problem to associate heterogeneous types we have to wrap it into a Object which act as Boxed type and compromise the performance as there is no other way in Java we can achieve Class like behavior (tied data and behaviors) but act as primitive type so we can benefit local inherent, less memory and fast performance.
Java architects addressed these problems and came up with a remarkable idea called Value Type under Project Valhalla.
The slogan of the project is “Codes like a class, works like an int!”
Seeing this slogan we can understand what they want to achieve. They want to create a new Datatype -- From developer's perspective, this act as a class and they can tie data and method together but in JVM it will act as primitive-- means it has no reference and stays in Stack memory !!!
If they really build this new datatype, it will solve performance issue without compromising the encapsulation because all the heterogeneous types act as user-defined primitives and store into the register so no pointer traversing is needed for getting payload.
Although, it is a remarkable idea and solves all design issues stated earlier without compromising performance but the road is not smooth-- there are many assumptions  involved to create the new Value type-- which code like a class and act as an int.
I will try to give an overview of what considerations are needed to create a new Datatype.
Equality Check: As Value type does not has a pointer, so how you check the equality for two value Objects, As Value Object is a composite data Structure so a probable solution will call equals or == for all associated components.
Null keyword: We know for Object null is the default value, but Value type is not an Object so what will be its default value? Probable solution would be default Value of ValueObject is setting the default value to all is sub-fields/association that is the initial state of ValueObject and that is set when Value Object initialized. And the null keyword for ValueObject should be disallowed.
Reference Cast: Value type is not an Object so it is not Reference type and it is not pointed by a reference, But to support those APIs which play with  Reference casting is needed, Value type should able to upgrade to reference type and vice versa as we do in the case with primitive boxing and unboxing.
Polymorphism: One of the powerful features of java is Polymorphism where parent reference can hold all the subtypes, but this is valid for only reference types which have a pointer. So at runtime pointer points to the corresponding subclass implementation. As Value type is pointer less and immutable in nature so the question is, should Value type allow Polymorphism? The Answer is no, it is Just a Value type. Although you are coding it like a class, inheritance should be disallowed as Valuetype does not carry any header information and used for flattening the associated Objects.
Cloning: Value type carry only information so Cloning does not make sense but it can be used as Identity transformation.
Till now, we have found  various use cases for using Value types, Now we will see how a Value Type may look like

package com.example.valhalla;
public final _ByValue class Money {
public final double value;
public final char currency;
public Money(double value,char currency) {
public final void display() {
System.out.println(value + currency);
 public boolean equals(Money that) {
     return this.currency == that.currency && this.currency == that.currency;
Here, a new keyword _ByValue is used to instruct JVM to treat the class as a Value type so instead of pointing the Money Object it extracts Money's all component and create a space in the stack.
Next Question will come How we instantiate Value types.
Probably in the following way

Money money = __MakeValue(100, '$')
It will create a value type and store the currency and value properties into a stack.
So it flattens the Money Value type.

As Value type is neither Object and nor primitive we have still some questions about equality check. Let's see How Valuetype treats equality check.

Money money1 = __MakeValue(100, '$);
Money money2 = __MakeValue(100, '$);
money1 == money2 (Do the Value equality check)
money1.equals(money2) (Do the Value equality check)
Object moneyWrapper1 = money1// Reference type
Object moneyWrapper2 = money2// Reference type 
moneyWrapper1 == moneyWrapper2 // Refrence check
moneyWrapper1.equals(moneyWrapper2)  // call Money Value types equals
Ok, we are got a fair bit of idea what are the challenges and how Oracle architects are trying to deal with the same to offer Value type in Java.

But if it ends here that would be fine but still, it has some advanced things to deal with and the probable answer to those questions are.

Value type can extends Reference type? No, because it is not an Object this is a new type.
Reference type extends a value type? No, because Valuetype does not have reference/pointer.
 Can a Value type class extend another value type? No, because  value types are final.)
 Can a value type be abstract or non-final? No abstract value type seems not worthwhile
 Can a value type implement interfaces? Yes. Boxing may occur when we treat a value type as an interface instance.
 Can values participate in inheritance-based subtyping? No, polymorphism not allowed.
Containment :
 Can a value class contain a field of the reference type? Yes because of a value type code like a class.
  Can a reference class contain a field of value type? Yes because it is just another type.
  Can a value type contain a component field of value type? Yes it is work like a class
  Can an array contain elements of value type? Yes works like an int. And the array itself is an object.
  Can a value class contain a non-final field? No as Value type is immutable.     
  Can values have member types? Yes. Non-static member types have hidden fields that record containing values.
 Can values be member types? Yes. If non-static, they have hidden fields that point to containing objects.

        Are values objects? No, although they can be boxed into objects.
        Are primitives values? Possibly. (Value classes named int, boolean, etc., would provide good successors to the existing wrapper types.
        Can value types be serialized? Not by default, since that would violate encapsulation.
Conclusion: Value type is a rich concept, Oracle is working hard to release this concept to efficiently manage the memory wasted for tiny objects which are acting as a wrapper or as the data carriers.





Techniques for reducing Tight Coupling

“Tight Coupling is Bad” How many times you have heard this word from your seniors. Probably many many times.
But why Coupling is bad what are the implications comes if you do tight coupling?
What is actually a Tight coupling?
How we can fight with it.?
In this tutorials, we will dig the answers.

Coupling: In a simple term coupling is when a Class or Interface dependent on another class/interface i.e has a HAS-A relationship.

Example :

Class Vehicle{

private Wheel wheel =new Wheel();


In above example, Vehicle is dependent on Wheel, Which means without creating Wheel Object we can’t create Vehicle Object if anything goes wrong while creating Wheel Object vehicle will never be created. Also if we need to test Vehicle, first Wheel Object has to be created then Vehicle can be tested. Without, Wheel Vehicle has no existence. This type of coupling is called Tight Coupling, We know Vehicle must contain Wheel, To make the statement more generic sometimes we have requirements where a class must have to contains other classes to fulfill its purpose, they can't-do thing independently. So Coupling is inevitable, it can not be avoided but by programming technique we can make it pluggable in such a way so that we can reduce the degree of coupling so Dependable and Dependent class/interface can be changed without impacting each other. We called this technique as Loose coupling. I will show you some techniques which reduce the coupling between Objects.

Creation of Objects : Often while we doing coding we direct create the dependable Object instance, either in a init method or in Constructor or supply it through setter/constructor. But it is always risky. Once you have done that, Then you lose the flexibility if requirement changes in future you have to change the Dependent Object to accommodate the change in dependable Object. Let say All Ford cars use MRF Wheel So they are dependent on MRF wheel, Now if they change the mind and want to use Another company’s wheel then they have to change all car's Wheel Object creation so it is against the Open-Close principle.

public Class Ford{
MRFWheel wheel;
Ford(MRFWheel wheel){
this.wheel =wheel;// replaced by new JKWheel()


So the best practices would be If you think dependent object will be changed frequently or may have multiple implementations always create an Interface and use that interface as a reference so anytime you can change the implementation without affecting the dependent class. But if you are sure about the dependent Objects behavior will not change then unnecessary don’t create interface it again against YAGNI and KISS.

//wheel related methods

public class Ford{
IWheel wheel;
Ford(IWheel wheel){
this.wheel =wheel;// replaced by new JKWheel()


Assuming MRFWheel and JKWheel are the subclasses of the IWheel

new Ford(new MRFWheel());
new Ford(new JKWheel())

Use Static factory method for creating Object : While creating an Interface for multiple implementations is good as you can change implementation dynamically. But if the dependable Object implementation is changed then again you have to change the all dependant Object which again breaks the Open/close principle.

Say Now Wheel take Air Pressure as a Constructor arguments then the caller of the Ford car has to change its logic, as multiple cars have dependencies on Wheel every implementation will break due to this change.

new Ford(new MRFWheel(AirPressure pressure));
new Ford(new JKWheel(AirPressure pressure))

The problem is we do not centralize the Object creation so all the caller has a responsibility to create the Objects and when the project grows it is a tedious job to find all references and fix them in case of a change in business logic in dependable Object. We certainly reduce our effort, if we use a Static Factory method to create the instances, So we centralize the creation of dependable object all dependent objects refer static factory method to get the dependable Object.So if any implementation details change it will only affect the Static factory method, Unless the method signature of the Static factory method is changed.

public static IWheel createWheel(WHEEL wheel){
new MRFWheel(AirPressure pressure)
else if(WHEEL.JK.equals(wheel)
new JKWheel(AirPressure pressure)
New DumyWheel(AirPressure pressure)


new Ford(WheelFactory.createWheel(WHEEL.mrf)));
new Ford(WheelFactory.createWheel(WHEEL.JK)));

Don’t take dependable Object Responsibility : Often knowingly or unknowingly, caller take the responsibility of dependable Object, which is breaking the encapsulation and it is the most common coding mistake I have seen, Not judging the Cohesion properly and it breaks another principle Tell Don’t Ask. Which increases unnecessary coupling and gradually your code not welcoming any future changes. Let's take a Simple example how we take dependable Object responsibility.  Say Ford car has a method which shows the specifications of the car in very detail manner. So when it shows the Wheels Specifications often we do code like this in Ford Class.

public void FordSpecification(){
//Ford car specific specifications


But it has a severe problem if in future Wheel specification is changed if it adds or removes any attribute it has a direct impact on Ford class, So all Ford Car classes have to be changed to incorporate the specification changes of the wheel.

It is wheel specification changes so why Ford class would be the sufferer?
Because while coding we did not understand the Wheel class responsibility, It is wheel class responsibility to provide specification through a specification method which uses by the Ford.

In Wheel class

public void specification(){


In Ford Class

public void FordSpecification(){
//Ford car specific specifications


If wheel specification changes it does not impact the Ford class.

Try to reduce Hide-coupling :

Hide Coupling means from the API, you can’t understand there is and Dependency inside it.

It is a common programming technique where we hide the coupling from the user, Like create necessary Objects inside init method or constructor. I am not saying this is bad but , When you hide a Coupling think very carefully , If the Object is a kind of Utility, Connection pools, Worker thread that is fine but if it is a normal business Object, always provide an option for setting the Object from Outside, So user can set a Dummy or Mock Object while testing, Unless as a developer it is very hard to track down why the Object is not created as user does not aware of hiding coupling

Take the first example again

Public Class Ford{
MRFWheel wheel;
this.wheel =new MRFWheel();


From the API of Ford, it is impossible to say Ford has a dependency on MRFWheel. You will discover it in runtime if  MRFWheel Object is not created from the stack trace. But if you change the implementation.

Public Class Ford{
IWheel wheel;
Ford(IWheel wheel){
this.wheel =wheel;// replaced by new JKWheel()


Then we can inject a DummyWheel while unit testing the Ford specific method.

Conclusion : Tight Coupling always creates a Big Ball of Mud. And gradually loses the flexibility to incorporate changes. Always take a closer look for coupling while writing code-- A silly mistake can cost you very much in near future. If you take above best practices most of the time you will be on safer side.

Is Data Abstraction and Encapsulation a fancy term of Information Hiding?

I have seen many developer/Architect use the term interchangeably and has the reason for it but yes there are differences-- a huge difference in terms of hiding information. I try to explain it in a Simple way.
Let’s start by the definition.
Encapsulation: binds data and behaviors together in a Single unit and behaviors acts on the data.
Abstraction: Hiding the implementation details and expose the functionality to the world.

According to both definition, both try to hide data from rest of the world and expose some behaviors/method so other System/API can use it.

At this point Both are same so If someone uses those term Interchangeably they are correct.
But hold why then Two fancy concepts are side by side in OOP why they are not merged into a one and called it “Information hiding

To understand the same take a look Suppose you have to implement a car.
So when you rotate the steering lots of thing happening inside and eventually car is moving to the direction you rotate the steering.
Now let explain the Action in details
Input: Steering rotation direction.
Output: car moves in the Direction steering rotated.
but what is happening inside is a black box to the user—That is called Abstraction
So technically it says What to abstract from User?
Abstraction is a functionality which helps the developer to identify what is the functionality that should be abstracted and exposed as a function/method which takes User input and returns desired result what User wants.
In a car Steering functionality, Braking functionality, Auto parking --these are the functionalities has to be abstracted from User— User less interested How it works but what they interested is What should I do(Input) and What will be the Outcome. So according to me Abstraction is

Abstraction:  By Abstraction, developers identify the functions what should be published in API and what input it takes and What Output it returns.

So, another point of view is, Abstraction helps us to the generalization of a functionality-- So When you design a function’s input or output you should be very careful about the data type you used-- It should be supported all possible combination on which function can be applied.

Now come to Encapsulation It tells about How to achieve the functionality-- which has been identified by Abstraction.

So it tells us about the packaging the data and behaviors.
Take the same example use steering to move the car.
Encapsulation: identifies the different parts associate to move the car using user instruction like steering, Wheel, Engine.Petrol . Also, it identifies the algorithm/behaviors which will be applied to these data(wheel, steering, engine, petrol) to move the car, and help to binds or packaging as one single unit. In my perspective Encapsulation definition is.

Encapsulation:Encapsulation Helps to understand what are the data and functions, that should be bundled as a Single Unit so User can act on them without knowing internal details and get the job done.
Information Hiding
Explanation of the figure: When you design an API/Class always there is two perspective one is Developers View and one is API User view. From Developers View Abstraction is to identify the features to be provided and Encapsulation is the process to communicate with internals things and provide the functionality. So it makes sense to have two distinct terminology Abstraction and Encapsulation.

But for User of the API/Class, It is like what functionality is exposed and what is the input and what will be the output so functionality an API provides nothing but Opaque things to them they provide input and got Output --API or Class is a barrier or Facade for them So for them it is just an Information hiding so Abstraction and Encapsulation has no meaning for them. It can be used alternatively to mention information hiding.

Conclusion :  Abstraction and Encapsulation both are used for hiding information context but their purpose is different.  Abstraction helps to understand the functionality User interested for and providing the same to the user as a black box. Encapsulation is about the gathers the required data and algorithm to solve the purpose for the user and tied them in a single Unit so the user of the API  doesn't have to collects the data and apply the algorithm by itself to get the job done.