Develop Reference

How can instanceof return true for a class that has a private constructor?

This is a question from this book: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0506/ConcSys/cs_a-2005.pdf page 28
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an
object that, when passed to the test method causes it to
print “Here!”? As I say in the code, editing the class A
itself, or using library features like reflection, serialization,
or native methods are considered cheating! I’ll provide
some hints in lectures if nobody can spot it in a week or
so. None of the PhD students has got it yet.
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
I know the question is a lot unclear. I can think of many different 'hack-ish' solutions but not sure if they will be counted as 'cheating' or not :)
I can't find the official answer so asking you for what would be a good answer.

If we consider that nesting class A does not "modify it" (as, technically, all lines of code are intact) then this solution is probably the only valid option:
class B
{
static
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
A.test(new A());
}
}
What I mean is, technically it follows all the rules:
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an object that, when passed to the test method causes it to print “Here!”? - Done
As I say in the code, editing the class A itself ... considered cheating! - Technically, the class is unedited. I copy pasted it into my code.
... or using library features like reflection, serialization, or native methods are considered cheating! - Done
If, however, you decide that nesting class A should not be allowed, then I believe there is no proper solution to the problem given the current definition. Also, given the section of the book this task is given in, I bet that the author wanted to make the constructor protected but not private.

Somehow, I don't like this sort of questions. It's from a lecture back in 2005, and according to websearches, it seems that nobody has found "the" solution until now, and no solution has been published.
The constraints are clear, but the question of what is allowed or not is somewhat fuzzy. Every solution could be considered as "cheating", in one or the other way, because a class with a private constructor is not meant to be subclassed. That's a critical security mechanism, and the responsible engineers are working hard to make sure that this security mechanism cannot be trivially circumvented.
So of course, you have to cheat in order to solve this.
Nevertheless, I spent quite a while with this, and here's how I eventually cheated it:
1.) Download the Apache Bytecode Engineering Library, and place the bcel-6.0.jar in one directory.
2.) Create a file CreateB.java in the same directory, with the following contents:
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import org.apache.bcel.Const;
import org.apache.bcel.generic.*;
public class CreateB
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ClassGen cg = new ClassGen("B", "A", "B.java",
Const.ACC_PUBLIC | Const.ACC_SUPER, new String[] {});
ConstantPoolGen cp = cg.getConstantPool();
InstructionList il = new InstructionList();
MethodGen method = new MethodGen(Const.ACC_PUBLIC, Type.VOID,
Type.NO_ARGS, new String[] {}, "<init>", "B", il, cp);
il.append(InstructionFactory.createReturn(Type.VOID));
method.setMaxStack();
method.setMaxLocals();
cg.addMethod(method.getMethod());
il.dispose();
cg.getJavaClass().dump(new FileOutputStream("B.class"));
}
}
3.) Compile and execute this class:
javac -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB.java
java -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB
(note: On linux, the ; must be a :). The result will be a file B.class.
4.) Copy the class that was given in the question (verbatim - without any modification) into the same directory and compile it.
5.) Create the following class in the same directory, and compile it:
public class TestA
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A.test(new B());
}
}
6.) The crucial step: Call
java -Xverify:none TestA
The output will be Here!.
The key point is that the CreateB class creates a class B that extends A, but does not invoke the super constructor. (Note that an implicit super constructor invocation would normally be added by the compiler. But there's no compiler involved here. The bytecode is created manually). All this would usually fail with a VerifyError when the class is loaded, but this verification can be switched off with -Xverify:none.
So in summary:
The class A itself is not edited (and also its byte code is not edited, I hope this is clear!)
No reflection
No serialization
No custom native methods

There are a few options here:
Create a class:
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
X.test(new Y());
}
}
And then edit the bytecode and remove the call to X.. Of course this violates the JVM specification and has to be run with -Xverify:none as said above. This is essentially the same as the one #Marco13.
Option 2:
import sun.misc.Unsafe;
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Unsafe uf = Unsafe.getUnsafe();
X.test((X) uf.allocateInstance(X.class));
}
}
Compile the code and run it by putting your classpath in the sysloader (otherwise it won't work):
$ java -Xbootclasspath/p:. Y
Both work for me :) Of course, they are both cheating. The first option isn't Java. The second is, well, evil :)
If I find out another way, I'll post it :)
In any case this can't be done without low-level tricks. The JVM Specification explicitly prohibits the creation of an object without calling the constructor as the object in the stack is uninitialized. And the JVM Specification explicitly prohibits not calling the super constructor. And the JVM Specification explicitly requires verification of access protection.
Still funny, though :)

Java can support unicode class name:)
The A in "if (o instanceof A)" could be different from the A in "public class A"
For example, the code below will print "Here!" instead of "bad".
A.java
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
// A: U+0041
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof А) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
А.java
public class А {
// A: U+0410, not A: U+0041
}
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.test(new А());
}
}

Instantiate Java lambda function by name

I would like to create a lambda function in Java 8, get it's classname and then later instantiate the function again from its classname.
This is what I try:
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class SimpleLambda
{
public static void call(String aLambdaClassName, String aArg) throws Exception
{
Class<Consumer<String>> lClass = (Class<Consumer<String>>) Class.forName(aLambdaClassName);
Consumer<String> newlamba = lClass.newInstance();
newlamba.accept(aArg);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
{
// Attempt with a static method as lambda
Consumer<String> lambda = Host::action;
String classname = lambda.getClass().getName();
call(classname, "Hello world");
}
{
// Attempt with a locally defined lambda
Consumer<String> lambda = (s) -> { System.out.println(s); };
String classname = lambda.getClass().getName();
call(classname, "Hello world");
}
}
}
class Host {
public static void action(String aMessage) {
System.out.println(aMessage);
}
}
However, with this code (in both variants, using the static method reference and using the locally declared lambda), I get an exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: mypackage.SimpleLambda$$Lambda$1/471910020
at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method)
at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:264)
at mypackage.SimpleLambda.main(SimpleLambda.java:12)
I would have expected that at I can at least re-instantiate the static method reference... nope, apparently not.
I have been using a similar approach with Groovy Closures and that worked nicely. So am I just doing something wrong with the Java 8 lambdas, or is it not possible to instantiate lambdas by name? I found some hints on the net that lambdas can be (de)serialized, so I would expect it should also be possible to instantiate them by name.

Well, it is a special property of Oracle’s JRE/OpenJDK to use “anonymous classes”, which can’t be accessed by name at all. But even without this, there is no reason why this ought to work:
Class.forName(String) tries to resolve the class via the caller’s ClassLoader. So even if lambda expressions were implemented using ordinary classes, there were not accessible if loaded via a different ClassLoader
Class.newInstance() only works if there is a public no-arg constructor. You can’t assume that there is a no-arg constructor nor that it is public
The assumption that the entire function’s logic has to reside in a single class is wrong. A counter-example would be java.lang.reflect.Proxy which generates interface implementations delegating to an InvocationHandler. Trying to re-instantiate such a proxy via its class name would fail, because you need the to pass the actual InvocationHandler instance to the proxy’s constructor. In principle, the JRE specific lambda expression implementation could use a similar pattern
Considering the points above, it should be clear that you can’t say that it worked with inner classes in general. There are a lot of constraints you have to fulfill for that.
Regarding Serialization, it works for serializable lambda expressions, because the persistent form is completely detached from the runtime implementation class, as described in this answer. So the name of the generated class is not contained in the serialized form and the deserializing end could have an entirely different runtime implementation.

Store the lambda instances in Map, keyed on the instance name. You can make the map globally available trough a singleton wrapper class (just watch out for synchronization issues).
class LambdaMap {
private HashMap<String, Consumer<String>> theMap;
private LambdaMap() {
theMap = new HashMap<>();
}
private static class INSTANCE_HOLDER {
private static LambdaMap INSTANCE = new LambdaMap();
}
public static LambdaMap getInstance() {
return INSTANCE_HOLDER.INSTANCE;
}
public Consumer<String> put(String key, Consumer<String> value) {
return theMap.put(key, value);
}
public static void Call(String aLambdaClassName, String aArg) {
Consumer<String> func = getInstance().theMap.get(aLambdaClassName);
if (func != null) {
func.accept(aArg);
}
}
}
class Host {
public static void action(String aMessage) {
System.out.println("Goodbye, " + aMessage);
}
}
public class GlobalLambdas {
public static void main(String[] args) {
LambdaMap.getInstance().put("print greeting", s -> {
System.out.println("Hello, " + s);
});
LambdaMap.getInstance().put("print goodbye", Host::action);
LambdaMap.Call("print greeting", "John");
LambdaMap.Call("print goodbye", "John");
}
}
run:
Hello, John
Goodbye, John

How is it possible to create object in Class definition itself?

I have some doubt on how this works, consider a simple Java program:
package com.example;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
t.print();
}
public void print() {
System.out.println("This is demo");
}
}
This is pretty straightforward program.
However, I have doubt at (1). We are creating an instance of Test, but this is still in the definition of Class Test. How is this possible?
Any explanation to help this would be great.

The instance will be created at run-time.
By then, compile-time is over and all of the code of your application (including all class definition) will be "ready".
Even if you call a constructor of a class that has not been encountered by the JVM up to that point, it will dynamically load the class (in its entirety) before executing the constructor call. Note that a) this might actually fail at run-time, in which case you get a ClassNotFoundError, and b) that cannot happen in your case, because you are calling the constructor of the class from itself (so it must have been loaded already).
The compiler does not run any of your code (not even things like static initializers) during compilation.
But it does make sure (during compilation) that every method or constructor that you are trying to call does in fact exist. Again, this could theoretically fail at runtime (if you mess up class files), in which case you would get a NoSuchMethodError.

First We have to Compile this Porgram using javac After Compilation It will give a Class File.
Now time to Execute Your Class Using java which Invokes JVM and load the Class File to the Class Loader.
java fileName.Class
And here
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
t.print();
}
All we know static Content (either it is Variable or Method In Java) Of class loaded when ClassLoader loads a Class
As You see Main Method is a static Method. and So, It will Automatically Load into the ClassLoader with class File.
Now JVM First find the public static void main(String... args) in class. Which is a static Content means Its a part of Class but not a part of Class Instance. There is no need of Class Instance to Invoke this MainMethod`.
main(String... args) will be Invoked without getting Instance of the Class. In that Main Method , Your Class is Getting Instantiated
Test t = new Test(); \\here t is reference Variable to Test Class Object.
Now Because Class is loaded into the class Loader new Test(); will create a New Object in Heap memory Area of JVM and your method
public void print() {
System.out.println("This is demo");
}
will be invoked using t.print() Which is a Instance Method (Not Static), So It needs Class Instance to Invoke print() Method.

Q: Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
A: Because of the "static" in public static void main(String[] args)
The "static" means that method "main()" is independent of any specific class object.
You can create any class object you want - including a new "Test" object.
One of the benefits of defining "main" to be static is that you can use "main()" as a test method for the class. Each class can have it's own "main", and you can test each class individually by specifying that class in your Java command line.
For example:
public class MyClass {
public int add2(int n) {
return n + 2;
}
public static void main (String[] args) {
MyClass unitTest = new MyClass ();
System.out.println ("add2(2)=" + unitTest.add2(2));
System.out.println("Expected result=4");
}
}
Then test as follows:
javac MyClass.java
java MyClass
add2(2)=4
Expected result=4
This question has actually been asked and answered many times. For example:
Why is the Java main method static?
==================================================================
Here are a few more examples that illustrate the point:
public class CreateMyself {
private int value = 0;
private static CreateMyself m_singleton = null;
// EXAMPLE 1: You can legally create an instance in the constructor ...
public CreateMyself () {
value++;
// CreateMyself o = new CreateMyself (); // BAD!!! This will cause infinite recursion and crash your stack!!!
System.out.println ("Leaving constructor, value=" + value + "...");
}
// EXAMPLE 2: You can legally create another instance in a normal class member
public void createAnother() {
// But ... WHY??? Is there anything you can't do directly, in your own instance?
CreateMyself newInstance = new CreateMyself ();
System.out.println ("Leaving createAnother, value=" + value + "...");
}
// EXAMPLE 3: This is a common idiom for creating a "singleton"
// NOTE: for this to work, you'd also make the constructor PRIVATE (or protected), so the client *must* call "getInstance()", instead of "new".
public static CreateMyself getInstance () {
if (m_singleton == null) {
m_singleton = new CreateMyself ();
}
System.out.println ("returning singleton instance...");
return m_singleton;
}
// EXAMPLE 4: Creating an instance in "static main()" is a common idiom
public static void main (String[] args) {
CreateMyself newInstance = new CreateMyself ();
newInstance.createAnother ();
}
}
There are many other possible uses. For example, maybe you'll have a static method that does a database lookup and returns a list matching objects.
Note that most of the cases where it's really useful for a class to have a method where it creates an instance of itself are probably static methods.

Expression that behaves differently inside a static method

I'm trying to write an expression or series of statements of Java source code that when written inside a static method evaluates to null, but if the method is non-static evaluates to this.
My initial idea was to 'overload' on static vs non-static, as below:
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
private static Object getThisOrNull() {
return null;
}
private Object getThisOrNull() {
return this;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
Unfortunately this isn't actually legal Java, you can't 'overload' like that and it just gives a compiler error:
test.java:14: error: method getThisOrNull() is already defined in class test
private Object getThisOrNull() {
^
1 error
Clearly in an ideal world I wouldn't write it like that to begin with, but the problem is this code will be generated automatically by a tool that is not really semantically or syntactically enough to distinguish between the static vs non-static case.
So, how can I write some source code that, although byte for byte identical compiles and behaves differently in depending on the presence of the static modifier for the method?

This can be achieved with a trick and a bit of help from Java's reflection facilities. It's ugly, but it works:
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
private static Object getThisOrNull(final Object o) {
for (Field f: o.getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (f.getType().equals(test.class)) {
try {
return f.get(o);
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// Omm nom nom...
}
}
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
This compiles and runs as hoped for:
test#183f74d
test#183f74d
null
The trick that makes this possible is the use of new Object(){}, which creates a new, anonymous class within the existing method that we're trying to figure out if it's static or not. The behaviour of this is subtly different between the two cases.
If the goal were just to figure out if the method is static or not we could write:
java.lang.reflect.Modifiers.isStatic(new Object(){}.getClass().getEnclosingMethod().getModifiers())
Since we want to get this (when available) we need to do something slightly different. Fortunately for us classes defined within the context of an instance of an object in Java get an implicit reference to the class that contains them. (Normally you'd access it with test.this syntax). We needed a way to access test.this if it existed, except we can't actually write test.this anywhere because it too would be syntactically invalid in the static case. It does however exist within the object, as a private member variable. This means that we can find it with reflection, which is what the getThisOrNull static method does with the local anonymous type.
The downside is that we create an anonymous class in every method we use this trick and it probably adds overheads, but if you're backed into a corner and looking for a way of doing this it does at least work.

Inner classes with the same name as an outer class?

Constraints:
I have a maven source code generator that I wrote that is creating POJO classes
from some data files that have nested namespaces. I want each namespace to
be nested as an inner class. In some cases out of my control I end up
with inner classes that are the same simple name as the outermost
class.
All the classes must be public scope as this is for a type safe
wrapper over something like a properties file, but hierarchical..
I can't change the names otherwise I am changing the names meaning and the namespace
that is enclosing data.
Given than I have the following code:
public class A
{
public class B
{
public class A
{
}
}
}
Inner classes should append the name of the outer class to form a unique namespace such as A$B$A.class, I haven't found a valid reason for this not to compile.
Is there any trick to get this to compile?

No. From the JLS section on class declarations:
It is a compile-time error if a class has the same simple name as any of its enclosing classes or interfaces.
Note: I somehow managed to miss this on my first pass through looking for an explicit rule. Check the edit history if you want the tortuous way I got here.

You asked: Is there any trick to get this to compile?.
The answer is: Well, maybe....
Create a class like the following:
public class A
{
public class B
{
public class X
{
}
}
}
And a class where this class is going to be used
public class AUse
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A.B.X aba = new A().new B().new X();
System.out.println("Created "+aba+" of class "+aba.getClass());
}
}
Then, download the Apache Byte Code Engineering Library (BCEL), and create and run the following class:
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import org.apache.bcel.Repository;
import org.apache.bcel.util.BCELifier;
public class CreateCreators
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
new BCELifier(
Repository.lookupClass("A"),
new FileOutputStream("ACreator.java")).start();
new BCELifier(
Repository.lookupClass("A$B"),
new FileOutputStream("A$BCreator.java")).start();
new BCELifier(
Repository.lookupClass("A$B$X"),
new FileOutputStream("A$B$XCreator.java")).start();
new BCELifier(
Repository.lookupClass("AUse"),
new FileOutputStream("AUseCreator.java")).start();
}
}
This uses the BCELifier class from the BCEL. This is a class that takes a .class file, and creates a .java file that can be compiled to a .class file, that, when it is executed, creates the .class file that it was originally fed with. (Side note: I love this library).
So the A$B$XCreator.java file that is created there contains the BCEL code that is necessary to create the A$B$X.class file. This consists of statements like the generation of the constant pool and the instructions:
...
_cg = new ClassGen("A$B$X", "java.lang.Object", "A.java",
ACC_PUBLIC | ACC_SUPER, new String[] { });
...
il.append(_factory.createFieldAccess("A$B$X", "this$1",
new ObjectType("A$B"), Constants.PUTFIELD));
Similarly, the AUseCreator.java contains the BCEL code that creates the AUse.class. For example, the instruction of the constructor invocation of `A$B$X':
...
il.append(_factory.createInvoke("A$B$X", "<init>", Type.VOID,
new Type[] { new ObjectType("A$B") }, Constants.INVOKESPECIAL));
Now you can simply replace the String occurrences of "A$B$X" with "A$B$A" in the A$B$XCreator.java and AUseCreator.java, and then compile and run these classes.
The result will be a A$B$A.class file, and a AUse.class file that uses the A$B$A.class. Executing the AUse will print
Created A$B$A#15f5897 of class class A$B$A
I'm not sure whether this is considered as a "trick", or whether it still can be called "compiling" at all, but there is a way, at least. The key point is here, of course, that the fact that it did not compile is solely due to a limitation of the language, but there is no reason why this should not be representable in form of class files, regardless of how they are created.

You can't get it to compile, but more importantly, why would you need to?
What's wrong with:
public class A
{
public class B
{
public class InnerA
{
}
}
}
This seems like a design problem that you need to fix. If you can't rename it, consider anonymous inner classes. Or take some of those classes outside. Or just don't even use them.

It's a bit of a hack, but this compiles at my machine:
class A
{
public class B
{
public class Α
{
}
}
}
Try it. Literally: copy-past this thing ;)
SPOILER:
The name of the inner class is a capital letter alpha of the Greek alphabet. It's a Unicode character.

Depending on what you're after, the following might work for you:
public class A {
class B extends C {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new A().new B().new A();
}
}
class C {
class A {
{
System.out.println(getClass());
}
}
}