Item 40 contains the advice that you should use interfaces rather than classes as parameter types. More generally, you should favor the use of interfaces rather than classes to refer to objects. If appropriate interface types exist, then parameters, return values, variables, and fields should all be declared using interface types. The only time you really need to refer to an object’s class is when you’re creating it with a constructor. To make this concrete, consider the case of Vector, which is an implementation of the List interface. Get in the habit of typing this:
// Good - uses interface as type
List<Subscriber> subscribers = new Vector<Subscriber>();
rather than this:
// Bad - uses class as type!
Vector<Subscriber> subscribers = new Vector<Subscriber>();
If you get into the habit of using interfaces as types, your program will be much more flexible. If you decide that you want to switch implementations, all you have to do is change the class name in the constructor (or use a different static factory). For example, the first declaration could be changed to read
List<Subscriber> subscribers = new ArrayList<Subscriber>();
and all of the surrounding code would continue to work. The surrounding code was unaware of the old implementation type, so it would be oblivious to the change. There is one caveat: if the original implementation offered some special functionality not required by the general contract of the interface and the code depended on that functionality, then it is critical that the new implementation provide the same functionality.
It is entirely appropriate to refer to an object by a class rather than an interface if no appropriate interface exists. For example, consider value classes, such as String and BigInteger. Value classes are rarely written with multiple implementations in mind. They are often final and rarely have corresponding interfaces. It is perfectly appropriate to use such a value class as a
parameter, variable, field, or return type. More generally, if a concrete class has no associated interface, then you have no choice but to refer to it by its class whether or not it represents a value. The Random class falls into this category.
A second case in which there is no appropriate interface type is that of objects belonging to a framework whose fundamental types are classes rather than interfaces. If an object belongs to such a class-based framework, it is preferable to refer to it by the relevant base class, which is typically abstract, rather than by its implementation class. The java.util.TimerTask class falls into this category.
A final case in which there is no appropriate interface type is that of classes that implement an interface but provide extra methods not found in the interface— for example, LinkedHashMap. Such a class should be used to refer to its instances only if the program relies on the extra methods. It should rarely be used as a parameter type (Item 40).
These cases are not meant to be exhaustive but merely to convey the flavor of situations where it is appropriate to refer to an object by its class. In practice, it should be apparent whether a given object has an appropriate interface. If it does, your program will be more flexible if you use the interface to refer to the object; if not, just use the least specific class in the class hierarchy that provides the required functionality.
Reference: Effective Java 2nd Edition by Joshua Bloch