When does it make sense to choose an abstract class over an interface?

In Java, under what circumstances would you use abstract classes instead of interfaces? When you declare a method as abstract, can other nonabstract methods access it? In general, could you explain what abstract classes are and when you might use them?

Those are all excellent questions: the kind that everyone should ask as they begin to dig deeper into the Java language and object-oriented programming in general

Yes, other nonabstract methods can access a method that you declare as abstract.
But first, let's look at when to use normal class definitions and when to use interfaces. Then I'll tackle abstract classes.
Class vs. interface

Some say you should define all classes in terms of interfaces, but I think recommendation seems a bit extreme. I use interfaces when I see that something in my design will change frequently.
For example, the Strategy pattern lets you swap new algorithms and processes into your program without altering the objects that use them. A media player might know how to play CDs, MP3s, and wav files. Of course, you don't want to hardcode those playback algorithms into the player; that will make it difficult to add a new format like AVI. Furthermore, your code will be littered with useless case statements. And to add insult to injury, you will need to update those case statements each time you add a new algorithm. All in all, this is not a very object-oriented way to program.
With the Strategy pattern, you can simply encapsulate the algorithm behind an object. If you do that, you can provide new media plug-ins at any time. Let's call the plug-in class MediaStrategy. That object would have one method: playStream(Stream s). So to add a new algorithm, we simply extend our algorithm class. Now, when the program encounters the new media type, it simply delegates the playing of the stream to our media strategy. Of course, you'll need some plumbing to properly instantiate the algorithm strategies you will need.
This is an excellent place to use an interface. We've used the Strategy pattern, which clearly indicates a place in the design that will change. Thus, you should define the strategy as an interface. You should generally favor interfaces over inheritance when you want an object to have a certain type; in this case, MediaStrategy. Relying on inheritance for type identity is dangerous; it locks you into a particular inheritance hierarchy. Java doesn't allow multiple inheritance, so you can't extend something that gives you a useful implementation or more type identity.

Interface vs. abstract class

Choosing interfaces and abstract classes is not an either/or proposition. If you need to change your design, make it an interface. However, you may have abstract classes that provide some default behavior. Abstract classes are excellent candidates inside of application frameworks.
Abstract classes let you define some behaviors; they force your subclasses to provide others. For example, if you have an application framework, an abstract class may provide default services such as event and message handling. Those services allow your application to plug in to your application framework. However, there is some application-specific functionality that only your application can perform. Such functionality might include startup and shutdown tasks, which are often application-dependent. So instead of trying to define that behavior itself, the abstract base class can declare abstract shutdown and startup methods. The base class knows that it needs those methods, but an abstract class lets your class admit that it doesn't know how to perform those actions; it only knows that it must initiate the actions. When it is time to start up, the abstract class can call the startup method. When the base class calls this method, Java calls the method defined by the child class.
Many developers forget that a class that defines an abstract method can call that method as well. Abstract classes are an excellent way to create planned inheritance hierarchies. They're also a good choice for nonleaf classes in class hierarchies.




Thanks to Tony Sintes

What is the difference between an application server and a Web server ?

Taking a big step back, a Web server serves pages for viewing in a Web browser, while an application server provides methods that client applications can call. A little more precisely, you can say that:

A Web server exclusively handles HTTP requests, whereas an application server serves business logic to application programs through any number of protocols.

Let's examine each in more detail.

The Web server
A Web server handles the HTTP protocol. When the Web server receives an HTTP request, it responds with an HTTP response, such as sending back an HTML page. To process a request, a Web server may respond with a static HTML page or image, send a redirect, or delegate the dynamic response generation to some other program such as CGI scripts, JSPs (JavaServer Pages), servlets, ASPs (Active Server Pages), server-side JavaScript’s, or some other server-side technology. Whatever their purpose, such server-side programs generate a response, most often in HTML, for viewing in a Web browser.

Understand that a Web server's delegation model is fairly simple. When a request comes into the Web server, the Web server simply passes the request to the program best able to handle it. The Web server doesn't provide any functionality beyond simply providing an environment in which the server-side program can execute and pass back the generated responses. The server-side program usually provides for itself such functions as transaction processing, database connectivity, and messaging.

While a Web server may not itself support transactions or database connection pooling, it may employ various strategies for fault tolerance and scalability such as load balancing, caching, and clustering—features oftentimes erroneously assigned as features reserved only for application servers.

The application server
As for the application server, according to our definition, an application server exposes business logic to client applications through various protocols, possibly including HTTP. While a Web server mainly deals with sending HTML for display in a Web browser, an application server provides access to business logic for use by client application programs. The application program can use this logic just as it would call a method on an object (or a function in the procedural world).

Such application server clients can include GUIs (graphical user interface) running on a PC, a Web server, or even other application servers. The information traveling back and forth between an application server and its client is not restricted to simple display markup. Instead, the information is program logic. Since the logic takes the form of data and method calls and not static HTML, the client can employ the exposed business logic however it wants.

In most cases, the server exposes this business logic through a component API, such as the EJB (Enterprise JavaBean) component model found on J2EE (Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition) application servers. Moreover, the application server manages its own resources. Such gate-keeping duties include security, transaction processing, resource-pooling, and messaging. Like a Web server, an application server may also employ various scalability and fault-tolerance techniques.
An example

As an example, consider an online store that provides real-time pricing and availability information. Most likely, the site will provide a form with which you can choose a product. When you submit your query, the site performs a lookup and returns the results embedded within an HTML page. The site may implement this functionality in numerous ways. I'll show you one scenario that doesn't use an application server and another that does. Seeing how these scenarios differ will help you to see the application server's function.

Scenario 1: Web server without an application server
In the first scenario, a Web server alone provides the online store's functionality. The Web server takes your request, then passes it to a server-side program able to handle the request. The server-side program looks up the pricing information from a database or a flat file. Once retrieved, the server-side program uses the information to formulate the HTML response, then the Web server sends it back to your Web browser.

To summarize, a Web server simply processes HTTP requests by responding with HTML pages.

Scenario 2: Web server with an application server
Scenario 2 resembles Scenario 1 in that the Web server still delegates the response generation to a script. However, you can now put the business logic for the pricing lookup onto an application server. With that change, instead of the script knowing how to look up the data and formulate a response, the script can simply call the application server's lookup service. The script can then use the service's result when the script generates its HTML response.

In this scenario, the application server serves the business logic for looking up a product's pricing information. That functionality doesn't say anything about display or how the client must use the information. Instead, the client and application server send data back and forth. When a client calls the application server's lookup service, the service simply looks up the information and returns it to the client.

By separating the pricing logic from the HTML response-generating code, the pricing logic becomes far more reusable between applications. A second client, such as a cash register, could also call the same service as a clerk checks out a customer. In contrast, in Scenario 1 the pricing lookup service is not reusable because the information is embedded within the HTML page. To summarize, in Scenario 2's model, the Web server handles HTTP requests by replying with an HTML page while the application server serves application logic by processing pricing and availability requests.

Caveats
Recently, XML Web services have blurred the line between application servers and Web servers. By passing an XML payload to a Web server, the Web server can now process the data and respond much as application servers have in the past.

Additionally, most application servers also contain a Web server, meaning you can consider a Web server a subset of an application server. While application servers contain Web server functionality, developers rarely deploy application servers in that capacity. Instead, when needed, they often deploy standalone Web servers in tandem with application servers. Such a separation of functionality aids performance (simple Web requests won't impact application server performance), deployment configuration (dedicated Web servers, clustering, and so on), and allows for best-of-breed product selection.



Thanks to Tony Sintes