Jon Lin's got the solution you want. (+1 to Jon) An anonymous class is the way to go. Otherwise: if you want to use the same class more than once, a named local class can be used, just as you have it in your question. If you need it in more than one method, switch to a private inner class. If it helps other classes work with the parent class, then use a public inner class. If it's not tightly tied to its parent, put it in its own file.
The basic idea is encapsulation of the class (as opposed to data--a variable or field). The class itself should be known only to the code that needs to know about it. If you make it a nested class, someone looking at the reference has to go look for the class code and someone looking at the nested class code has to go looking for a reference. With a good IDE this is not too hard, but with local/anonymous classes its easy even when looking at the code in Notepad. And then there's the problem of getting data to and from the class....
Java is really good with this. Some other languages don't allow local classes. To be fair, they don't require them, either--a lot of standard Java classes are written with the idea the user can easily generate swarms of local, temporary classes. But, as in your case, local classes are quite handy even without the system classes that want them.
After looking at your designs, both your first and third iterations appear to be more elegant designs. However, you mention that you're a student and your professor gave you some feedback. Without knowing exactly what your assignment or the purpose of the class is or more information about what your professor suggested, I would take anything I say below with a grain of salt.
In your first design, you declare your RuleInterface to be an interface that defines how to handle each player's turn, how to determine if the game is over, and how to determine a winner after the game ends. It seems like that's a valid interface to a family of games that experiences variation. However, depending on the games, you might have duplicated code. I'd agree that the flexibility to change the rules of one game is a good thing, but I'd also argue that code duplication is terrible for defects. If you copy/paste defective code between implementations and one has a bug in it, you now have multiple bugs that need to be fixed in different locations. If you rewrite the implementations at different times, you could introduce defects in different locations. Neither of those is desirable.
Your second design seems rather complex, with a deep inheritance tree. At least, it's deeper than I would expect for solving this type of problem. You're also starting to break up implementation details into other classes. Ultimately, you are modeling and implementing a game. This might be an interesting approach if you were required mix-and-match your rules for determining the results of a move, the end of the game, and a winner, that doesn't seem to be in the requirements that you've mentioned. Your games are well defined sets of rules, and I'd try to encapsulate the games as much as I can into separate entities.
Your third design is one that I like the best. My only concern is that it's not at the right level of abstraction. Right now, you appear to be modeling a turn. I would recommend considering designing the game. Consider that you have players who are making moves on some kind of board, using stones. Your game requires these actors to be present. From there, your algorithm is not doTurn() but playGame(), which goes from the initial move to the final move, after which it terminates. After every player's move, it adjusts the state of the game, determines if the game is in a final state, and if it is, determines the winner.
I would recommend taking closer looks at your first and third designs and working with them. It might also help to think in terms of prototypes. What would the clients that use these interfaces look like? Does one design approach make more sense for implementing a client that's actually going to instantiate a game and play the game? You need to realize what it's interacting with. In your particular case, it's the Game class, and any other associated elements - you can't design in isolation.
Since you mention you're a student, I'd like to share a few things from a time when I was the TA for a software design course:
- Patterns are simply a way of capturing things that have worked in the past, but abstracting them to a point where they can be used in other designs. Each catalog of design patterns gives a name to a pattern, explains its intentions and where it can be used, and situations where it would ultimately constrain your design.
- Design comes with experience. The best way to get good at design isn't to simply focus on the modeling aspects, but realize what goes into the implementation of that model. The most elegant design is useful if it can't easily be implemented or it doesn't fit into the larger design of the system or with other systems.
- Very few designs are "right" or "wrong". As long as the design fulfills the requirements of the system, it can't be wrong. Once there's a mapping from each requirement into some representation of how the system is going to meet that requirement, the design can't be wrong. It's only a qualitative at this point about concepts such as flexibility or reusability or testability or maintainability.
Best Answer
Try this. Essentially, you cannot generalize "putInt" and "putString", but you can at least extrapolate them into their own method. Just provide a case for parameters you do not recognize as valid.