Develop Reference

How to implement multiple subclasses with the same methods that use encapsulation?

I want to create a simple game in Java.
I'm struggling to understand how to use inheritance to accomplish how to implement subclasses that use encapsulation without needing to write out the same methods in the subclasses.
Ideally I'd like to make one base class "character" with a bunch of methods that use encapsulation, so that I can just declare different values for the private members of the subclasses. So something like,
public class Character {
private int hitPoints;
public int getHitPoints(){return hitPoints;}
}
And then just declare different values for the variables.
public class subCharacter extends Character {
private int hitPoints=100;
//getHitPoints() already inherited and should return 100
}
But to properly get the hit points of the subclass. I have to declare the same method in the subclass to actually get the method to work.
So isn't encapsulation incompatible with inheritance? Is there something basic here I'm misunderstanding or completely overlooking?

You should make the variable hitPoints protected in you Character class, and set it to 100 in the constructor of the subCharacter class. There is no need for the declaration of the getHitPoints method in the subclass. The code would look like this:
public class Character {
protected int hitPoints;
public int getHitPoints(){return hitPoints;}
}
public class subCharacter extends Character {
public subCharacter () {
hitPoints = 100;
}
}
Example of a subCharacter object:
subCharacter sub = new subCharacter();
System.out.println(sub.getHitPoints()); // prints 100

The reason this doesn't work like you think it should is because the subclass's hitpoints field is different from the superclass's hitpoints field. So while the superclass method is defined, it's trying to refer to a variable that you never actually initialized because it's not the same variable named hitpoints.
As others have already said, you should use the protected access modifier instead of the private access modifier on fields you want to have inherited to a subclass.
Then again, you probably don't actually need the SubCharacter class to begin with, if this is what you're actually writing for. You just need to have a constructor that takes a variable argument for hitpoints, or any other field in Character that needs to take different values.
//I'm not going to reproduce everything.
Character(int hp, String nm, boolean someBooleanThatIJustMadeUpToGetTheConceptAcross){
hitpoints = hp;
name = nm;
randomBoolean = someBooleanThatIJustMadeUpToGetTheConceptAcross;
}
This is not to say, however, that you don't need a superclass/subclass if, say, you're using this Character class for both enemies and player characters, for instance.
For an example of when you'd use inheritance...
public class Circle{
protected int radius;
Circle(){//It's always a good idea to have default constructors, by the way.
radius = 1;
}
Circle(int rad){
radius = rad;
}
}
public class Wheel extends Circle{
protected int numspokes;
Wheel(){
super(); //Calls the constructor for Circle, instead of reimplementing the wheel. badpuns++;.
numspokes = 0;
}
Wheel(int rad, int spokes){
super(rad); //This passes the radius up to the Circle this Wheel also is, so that any calls to this Wheel AS IF IT WAS a Circle, like an array or ArrayList of Circles, will function, which is the point of inheritance.
numspokes = spokes;
}
}

In which situations we make variables as public and methods as private?

Currently I am learning basics of java and C++. I have read in book Let Us C++, that in almost every case we we make instance variables private and methods public for the security purposes. But it is also mentioned in this book that in some cases we make variables public and methods private..
I am continuously thinking, in which cases we will do so. Can anyone please explain this.

Private methods (or private member functions in C++ terminology) are mostly useful as helper functions. For example, think of the case that you want to implement fractions, but want to ensure that your fraction is always normalized. Then you could use a private member function normalize() which normalizes your fraction, and which is called after each operation which might result in a non-normalized fraction, for example (C++ code):
class Fraction
{
public:
Fraction(int num, int den = 1);
Fraction operator+=(Fraction const& other);
Fraction operator*=(Fraction const& other);
// ...
private:
int numerator, denominator;
};
Fraction::Fraction(int num, int den):
numerator(num),
denominator(den)
{
normalize();
}
Fraction Fraction::operator+=(Fraction const& other)
{
int new_den = denominator*other.denominator;
numerator = numerator*other.denominator + denominator*other.numerator;
denominator = new_den;
}
Fraction Fraction::operator*=(Fraction const& other)
{
numerator *= other.numerator;
denominator *= other.denominator;
normalize();
}
void Fraction::normalize()
{
int factor = gcd(numerator, denominator);
numerator /= factor;
denominator /= factor;
}
Another, C++ specific use of private functions is based on the fact that in C++ private is only about access control, not about visibility. This enables to do unoverridable pre-post-condition checking in the base class while making the actual function virtual:
class Base
{
public:
foo frobnicate(some arguments);
private:
virtual foo do_frobnicate(some arguments) = 0;
};
foo Base::frobnicate(some arguments)
{
check_precondition(arguments);
foo result = do_frobnicate(arguments);
check_post_condition(foo);
return foo;
}
Classes derived from Base will override do_frobnicate, while users will call frobnicate which always checks the pre/postconditions no matter what the derived class does.

Generally static final variables are public in a class. If you don't need to change the value of that variable and want other classes to access it then you make it public static final.
Private methods are used only within the class for doing the task, which is internal to that class. Like a utility method or some business calculation method. Or simply to break the code of public method into multiple private methods, so that methods don't grow too big.

When a method is to be used by other methods(public) of the class and you do not want the object to access that method directly, we make that method as private.
And in some cases, if you want to access your variable directly from the class object, then make it public.

If you don't need the varibale or methode in other classes don't make it public. This goes for methodes and variables.

private methods are for the internal use of the class. They can be called from other public classes. Those are private because you encapsualted from outer world.
For example
public void method1(){
method2();
}
private void method2(){
// for internal use
}
Public variables are mainly used for class variables in which cases there is no harm of direct accessing the variables from outside. For example
public static final int FLAG = true;
You can directly call the variable from outside.

It depends how much security you want for each class.
For example, if you have a Vector class, that only has 3 variables x, y and z, you should make them public. Many classes will probably use the Vector class and it's fine if they change values in it.
If you have a Person class that stores credit card number, background record, address etc, you should make them private to avoid security issues.
However, if you have all variables as private, and you provide accessors and mutators for all of them, you're effectively making them just like public (but with more work).
EDIT:
All constant variables should be public, because you cannot change them anyway.
Static variables could be both, depending on a situation. Probably better to have static get and set functions for static variables.

Private variables or functions can be use only in the class where they are declarated.
Public variables or functions can be use everywhere in your application.
So you should declarate private all those variables and functions that you are going to use ONLY in the class where they belong.
Example:
public class Car {
private String model;
public setModel(String model) {
if (model != null)
this.model = model;
}
public getModel() {
return model;
}
private doSomething() {
model = "Ford";
}
}
In the class Car we declarate the String model as private because we are going to use it only in the class Car, doing this we assure that other classes couldn't change the value of this String without using the function setModel.
The functions setModel and getModel are public, so we can access the private variable model from other classes ONLY using those methods.
In this example, the function setModel checks if the value its null, in which case it doesn't set the value. Here you can see that if you had declarated the String model as public, you wouldn't have control over what value it's being recorded.
The function doSomething is private and other classes can't use it. For other side, like this function is private and it belong to the same class where is the String model, it can change its value without using the method setModel.

A rule of thumb, you make methods public when it is okay for other classes to access them. internal methods or helper methods should either be protected or private.Protected if you want the method to be extendable by those extending your class however if you don't want this just mark them private.

What is the purpose of static keyword in this simple example? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When should a method be static?
Usually when writing a static method for a class, the method can be accessed using ClassName.methodName. What is the purpose of using 'static' in this simple example and why should/should not use it here? also does private static defeat the purpose of using static?
public class SimpleTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Printing...");
// Invoke the test1 method - no ClassName.methodName needed but works fine?
test1(5);
}
public static void test1(int n1) {
System.out.println("Number: " + n1.toString());
}
//versus
public void test2(int n1) {
System.out.println("Number: " + n1.toString());
}
//versus
private static void test3(int n1) {
System.out.println("Number: " + n1.toString());
}
}
I had a look at a few tutorials. E.g. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/classvars.html
My understanding of it is that instead of creating an instance of a class to use that method, you can just use the class name - saves memory in that certain situations there is no point in constructing an object every time to use a particular method.

The purpose of the static keyword is to be able to use a member without creating an instance of the class.
This is what happens here; all the methods (including the private ones) are invoked without creating an instance of SimpleTest.

In this Example,Static is used to directly to access the methods.A private static method defeats the purpose of "Data hiding".
Your main can directly call test1 method as it is also Static,it dosn't require any object to communicate.Main cannot refer non-static members,or any other non-static member cannot refer static member.
"non-static members cannot be referred from a static context"
You can refer This thread for more info about Static members.

static means that the function doesn't require an instance of the class to be called. Instead of:
SimpleTest st = new SimpleTest();
st.test2(5);
you can call:
SimpleTest.test1(5);
You can read more about static methods in this article.
A question about private static has already been asked here. The important part to take away is this:
A private static method by itself does not violate OOP per se, but when you have a lot of these methods on a class that don't need (and cannot*) access instance fields, you are not programming in an OO way, because "object" implies state + operations on that state defined together. Why are you putting these methods on that class, if they don't need any state? -eljenso

static means that the method is not associated with an instance of the class.
It is orthogonal to public/protected/private, which determine the accessibility of the method.

Calling test1 from main in your example works without using the class name because test1 is a static method in the same class as main. If you wanted to call test2 from main, you would need to instantiate an object of that class first because it is not a static method.

A static method does not need to be qualified with a class name when that method is in the same class.
That a method is private (static or not) simply means it can't be accessed from another class.
An instance method (test2 in your example) can only be called on an instance of a class, i.e:
new SimpleTest().test2(5);

Since main is a static method, if you want to call a method of the class without having to instantiate it, you need to make those methods also static.
In regards to making a private method static, it has more readability character than other. There isn't really that much of a difference behind the hoods.

You put in static methods all the computations which are not related to a specific instance of your class.
About the visibility, public static is used when you want to export the functionality, while private static is intended for instance-independent but internal use.
For instance, suppose that you want to assign an unique identifier to each instance of your class. The counter which gives you the next id isn't related to any specific instance, and you also don't want external code to modify it. So you can do something like:
class Foo {
private static int nextId = 0;
private static int getNext () {
return nextId ++;
}
public final int id;
public Foo () {
id = getNext(); // Equivalent: Foo.getNext()
}
}
If in this case you want also to know, from outside the class, how many instances have been created, you can add the following method:
public static int getInstancesCount () {
return nextId;
}
About the ClassName.methodName syntax: it is useful because it specifies the name of the class which provides the static method. If you need to call the method from inside the class you can neglect the first part, as the name methodName would be the closest in terms of namespace.

Why am I able to call private method?

I should not be able to invoke a private method of an instantiated object. I wonder why the code below works.
public class SimpleApp2 {
/**
* #param args
*/
private int var1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
SimpleApp2 s = new SimpleApp2();
s.method1(); // interesting?!
}
private void method1() {
System.out.println("this is method1");
this.method2(); // this is ok
SimpleApp2 s2 = new SimpleApp2();
s2.method2(); // interesting?!
System.out.println(s2.var1); // interesting?!
}
private void method2() {
this.var1 = 10;
System.out.println("this is method2");
}
}
I understand that a private method is accessible from within the class. But if a method inside a class instantiate an object of that same class, shouldn't the scope rules apply to that instantiated object?
Can static method like main access the non-static member of the class, as given in this example ?

Your main method is a method of SimpleApp, so it can call SimpleApp's private methods.
Just because it's a static method doesn't prevent it behaving like a method for the purposes of public, private etc. private only prevents methods of other classes from accessing SimpleApp's methods.

Because main is also a member of SimpleApp.

See below chart
Access Modifiers
**Same Class Same Package Subclass Other packages**
**public** Y Y Y Y
**protected** Y Y Y N
**no access modifier** Y Y N N
**private** Y N N N
As your method is inside car it's accessible based on above thumb rule.

From the Java Tutorial:
private modifier—the field is accessible only within its own class
The main method is inside the same class as the private method and thus has access to it.

private means "only stuff in this class can mess around with it". It doesn't mean "only this instance can call its methods", which seems to be what you're expecting. Any code in SimpleApp can use anything in any SimpleApp. The alternative would be to break encapsulation -- how would you make a proper equals method, for example, that didn't require access to another instance's fields, without making those fields protected or even public or requiring getters for data that should only be available inside the class?

The call you issue is from within the same class where your private method resides. This is allowed. This is the way 'private' is defined in java.

In the program, we created two instances of the class by using which we called two private methods. It's a kind of interesting to see this works is that this is the way we used to call public or default methods outside its class using object reference. In this case, it's all done inside the class definition, so it's valid. The same code put outside the class will result in error.

Because the private scope limits access to the class defining the method, and your main happens to be in the same class.
private modifier—the field is accessible only within its own class.
See Access Modifiers in the Java Documentation.

How and where to use Static modifier in Java?

How and where should we use a Static modifier for:
1. Field and
2. Method?
For example in java.lang.Math class, the fields methods like abs(), atan(), cos() etc are static, i.e. they can be accessed as: Math.abs()
But why is it a good practice?
Say, I don't keep it static and create an object of the class and access it, which anyways I can, I will just get a warning that, you are trying to access a static method in a non static way (as pointed out by #duffymo, not in case of Math class).
UPDATE 1:
So, utility method, should be static, i.e. whose work is only dependent on the method parameters. So, for example, can the method updateString(String inputQuery, String highlightDoc) should have been a static method in this question?

You can think of a 'static' method or field as if it were declared outside the class definition. In other words
There is only one 'copy' of a static field/method.
Static fields/methods cannot access non-static fields/methods.
There are several instances where you would want to make something static.
The canonical example for a field is to make a static integer field which keeps a count across all instances (objects) of a class. Additionally, singleton objects, for example, also typically employ the static modifier.
Similarly, static methods can be used to perform 'utility' jobs for which all the required dependencies are passed in as parameters to the method - you cannot reference the 'this' keyword inside of a static method.
In C#, you can also have static classes which, as you might guess, contain only static members:
public static class MyContainer
{
private static int _myStatic;
public static void PrintMe(string someString)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(someString);
_myStatic++;
}
public static int PrintedInstances()
{
return _myStatic;
}
}

Static uses less memory since it exists only once per Classloader.
To have methods static may save some time, beacuse you do not have to create an object first so you can call a function. You can/should use static methods when they stand pretty much on their own (ie. Math.abs(X) - there really is no object the function needs.) Basically its a convenience thing (at least as far as I see it - others might and will disagree :P)
Static fields should really be used with caution. There are quite a few patterns that need static fields... but the basics first:
a static field exists only once. So if you have a simple class (kinda pseudocode):
class Simple {
static int a;
int b;
}
and now you make objects with:
Simple myA = new Simple();
Simple myB = new Simple();
myA.a = 1;
myA.b = 2;
myB.a = 3;
myB.b = 4;
System.out.println(myA.a + myA.b + myB.a + myB.b);
you will get 3234 - because by setting myB.a you actually overwrite myA.a as well because a is static. It exists in one place in memory.
You normally want to avoid this because really weird things might happen. But if you google for example for Factory Pattern you will see that there are actually quite useful uses for this behaviour.
Hope that clears it up a little.

Try taking a look at this post, it also gives some examples of when to and when not to use static and final modifiers.
Most of the posts above are similar, but this post might offer some other insight. When to use Static Modifiers

Usually when the method only depends on the function parameters and not on the internal state of the object it's a static method (with singletone being the only exception). I can't imagine where static fields are really used (they're the same as global variables which should be avoided).
Like in your example the math functions only depend on the parameters.

For a field you should keep it static if you want all instances of a given class to have access to its value. For example if I have
public static int age = 25;
Then any instance of the class can get or set the value of age with all pointing to the same value. If you do make something static you run the risk of having two instances overwriting each others values and possibly causing problems.
The reason to create static methods is mostly for utility function where all the required data for the method is passed in and you do not want to take the over head of creating an instance of the class each time you want to call the method.

You can't instantiate an instance of java.lang.Math; there isn't a public constructor.
Try it:
public class MathTest
{
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Math math = new Math();
System.out.println("math.sqrt(2) = " + math.sqrt(2));
}
}
Here's what you'll get:
C:\Documents and Settings\Michael\My Documents\MathTest.java:5: Math() has private access in java.lang.Math
Math math = new Math();
^
1 error
Tool completed with exit code 1

class StaticModifier
{
{
System.out.println("Within init block");//third
}
public StaticModifier()
{
System.out.println("Within Constructor");//fourth
}
public static void main(String arr[])
{
System.out.println("Within Main:");//second
//StaticModifier obj=new StaticModifier();
}
static
{
System.out.print("Within static block");//first
}
}