I'm new to Java, learning Java from the Oracle Java tutorial.
I'm now learning about nested classes, static classes and inner classes.
I found the following explanation which seems odd, and I think it is wrong.
From: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html
A nested class is a member of its enclosing class. Non-static nested classes (inner classes) have access to other members of the enclosing class, even if they are declared private. Static nested classes do not have access to other members of the enclosing class
The last sentence "Static nested classes do not have access to other members of the enclosing class" is strange, but may refer to instance members, saying the static class is like a static method, having no access to instance variables.
But the next note is even stranger:
Note: A static nested class interacts with the instance members of its outer class (and other classes) just like any other top-level class. In effect, a static nested class is behaviorally a top-level class that has been nested in another top-level class for packaging convenience.
This seems odd, as it implies that a static class cannot access private instance members of the outer class. I've written the following code which compiles and runs, and demonstrates that a static class can access outer instance private variables.
public class A {
private int x;
static private int y;
static public class B{
static void doSomething(){
y++;
System.out.println("y is now " + y );
}
static void doSomethingElse(A a)
{
a.x++;
System.out.println("a.x is " + a.x );
}
}
}
// ------
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
A a = new A();
A.B b = new A.B();
b.doSomething();
b.doSomethingElse(a);
}
}
Is this a mistake in the tutorial, or am I maybe not understanding something well?
Thanks
Is this a mistake at the tutorial, or maybe I'm not understanding somwthing well?
The error is in your understanding, and the tutorials are correct. Nowhere within your nested static class is there any direct manipulation of the instance fields of the outer class. I'm talking about these fields without an instance attached -- nowhere can you directly manipulate x without having it attached to an A instance.
So you can do this:
static void doSomethingElse(A a) {
a.x++; // x is part of the A instance passed into a parameter
System.out.println("a.x is " + a.x );
}
but you can't do this:
static void doSomethingElse2() {
x++;
System.out.println("x is " + x );
}
And this code would be the same if B were static nested or a stand-alone non-nested class.
You ask:
"A static nested class interacts with the instance members of its outer class just like any other top-level class"?
Exactly as is shown above -- a non-static nested class can directly interact with the a field (as doSomethingElse2() shows) without need of a supporting A instance, while both a static nested class and a stand alone class cannot. They both require the separate A instance, here which is passed into your doSomethingElse(A a) method parameter.
The main difference between a static nested and a stand-alone is that the former, the nested class, has access to private members of the outer class while the stand-alone does not. Perhaps this is your source of confusion.
Is this a mistake in the tutorial, or am I maybe not understanding something well?
You are understanding perfectly. The tutorial page is misleading, at best.
There are two separate notions going on here:
Whether you have permission to access a thing within the rules of Java access control (e.g., private, package-private, protected, public).
The meaning of "static". An instance of an "inner" nested class is always associated with an instance of the enclosing class (storing a reference to the enclosing class instance in a hidden instance field of the inner class). A "static" nested class doesn't have that.
The tutorial page is confusing the two notions.
A nested class is a member of its enclosing class.
Yep.
Non-static nested classes (inner classes) have access to other members of the enclosing class, even if they are declared private. Static nested classes do not have access to other members of the enclosing class.
Nope.
By supplying the instance yourself, you see that static classes do indeed have access to members of the enclosing class, including private instance fields, hence why a.x++; in your example compiles. That's access.
By using the words "access" and "private", the paragraph strongly suggests it is talking about access control within the definition given in the Java Language Specification. But it isn't. It is only trying to explain notion #2, about how instances of enclosing classes are associated with nested classes. And even then, it's still wrong, because static nested classes certainly have access to static members of the enclosing class, which the paragraph says they don't. Whoever wrote that page was sloppy.
Note: A static nested class interacts with the instance members of its outer class (and other classes) just like any other top-level class. In effect, a static nested class is behaviorally a top-level class that has been nested in another top-level class for packaging convenience.
This paragraph is still talking about what static means. It is not trying to say anything about access control, although it has the potential to be misunderstood.
Here is the correct access control rule, given by JLS§6.6.1 – Determining Accessibility:
[If] the member or constructor is declared private, [..] access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top-level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
That definition is surprisingly short, but it covers everything relevant here.
It means that all nested classes (because they are "within the body of the top-level class") have access to all members and constructors of the enclosing class, regardless of whether the nested class is static or instance, and regardless of whether the accessed thing is static or instance.
Further, all nested classes also have access to all members and constructors of all other nested classes within the same top-level class.
And the top-level class has access to all members and constructors of all classes nested within it.
The sentence of the JLS I quoted refers to private access. But if the member or constructor is not private, then its access level can only be more permissive, at least package access, and classes enclosed within the same top-level type are inevitably in the same package too, so they would be accessible to each other even without special treatment.
Basically, the top-level (non-enclosed) class and everything within it constitute a nest. Everything within that nest can access everything else within it, in principle. If it's an instance member, you also need to somehow obtain an instance first, but that's always true.
Related
I observed that Outer classes can access inner classes private instance variables. How is this possible? Here is a sample code demonstrating the same:
class ABC{
class XYZ{
private int x=10;
}
public static void main(String... args){
ABC.XYZ xx = new ABC().new XYZ();
System.out.println("Hello :: "+xx.x); ///Why is this allowed??
}
}
Why is this behavior allowed?
The inner class is just a way to cleanly separate some functionality that really belongs to the original outer class. They are intended to be used when you have 2 requirements:
Some piece of functionality in your outer class would be most clear if it was implemented in a separate class.
Even though it's in a separate class, the functionality is very closely tied to way that the outer class works.
Given these requirements, inner classes have full access to their outer class. Since they're basically a member of the outer class, it makes sense that they have access to methods and attributes of the outer class -- including privates.
If you like to hide the private members of your inner class, you may define an Interface with the public members and create an anonymous inner class that implements this interface. Example bellow:
class ABC{
private interface MyInterface{
void printInt();
}
private static MyInterface mMember = new MyInterface(){
private int x=10;
public void printInt(){
System.out.println(String.valueOf(x));
}
};
public static void main(String... args){
System.out.println("Hello :: "+mMember.x); ///not allowed
mMember.printInt(); // allowed
}
}
The inner class is (for purposes of access control) considered to be part of the containing class. This means full access to all privates.
The way this is implemented is using synthetic package-protected methods: The inner class will be compiled to a separate class in the same package (ABC$XYZ). The JVM does not support this level of isolation directly, so that at the bytecode-level ABC$XYZ will have package-protected methods that the outer class uses to get to the private methods/fields.
There's a correct answer appearing on another question similar to this:
Why can the private member of an nested class be accessed by the methods of the enclosing class?
It says there's a definition of private scoping on JLS - Determining Accessibility:
Otherwise, if the member or constructor is declared private, then access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
Thilo added a good answer for your first question "How is this possible?". I wish to elaborate a bit on the second asked question: Why is this behavior allowed?
For starters, let's just be perfectly clear that this behavior is not limited to inner classes, which by definition are non-static nested types. This behavior is allowed for all nested types, including nested enums and interfaces which must be static and cannot have an enclosing instance. Basically, the model is a simplification down to the following statement: Nested code have full access to enclosing code - and vice versa.
So, why then? I think an example illustrate the point better.
Think of your body and your brain. If you inject heroin into your arm, your brain gets high. If the amygdala region of your brain see what he believe is a threat to your personally safety, say a wasp for example, he'll make your body turn the other way around and run for the hills without You "thinking" twice about it.
So, the brain is an intrinsic part of the body - and strangely enough, the other way around too. Using access control between such closely related entities forfeit their claim of relationship. If you do need access control, then you need to separate the classes more into truly distinct units. Until then, they are the same unit. A driving example for further studies would be to look at how a Java Iterator usually is implemented.
Unlimited access from enclosing code to nested code makes it, for the most part, rather useless to add access modifiers to fields and methods of a nested type. Doing so is adding clutter and might provide a false sense of safety for new comers of the Java programming language.
An IMHO important use case for inner classes is the factory pattern.
The enclosing class may prepare an instance of the inner class w/o access restrictions and pass the instance to the outside world, where private access will be honored.
In contradiction to abyx declaring the class static doesn't change access restrictions to the enclosing class, as shown below. Also the access restrictions between static classes in the same enclosing class are working. I was surprised ...
class MyPrivates {
static class Inner1 { private int test1 = 2; }
static class Inner2 { private int test2 = new Inner1().test1; }
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Inner : "+new Inner2().test2);
}
}
Access restrictions are done on a per class basis. There is no way for a method declared in a class to not be able to access all of the instance/class members. It this stands to reason that inner classes also have unfettered access to the members of the outer class, and the outer class has unfettered access to the members of the inner class.
By putting a class inside another class you are making it tightly tied to the implementation, and anything that is part of the implementation should have access to the other parts.
The logic behind inner classes is that if you create an inner class in an outer class, that's because they will need to share a few things, and thus it makes sense for them to be able to have more flexibility than "regular" classes have.
If, in your case, it makes no sense for the classes to be able to see each other's inner workings - which basically means that the inner class could simply have been made a regular class, you can declare the inner class as static class XYZ. Using static will mean they will not share state (and, for example new ABC().new XYZ() won't work, and you will need to use new ABC.XYZ().
But, if that's the case, you should think about whether XYZ should really be an inner class and that maybe it deserves its own file. Sometimes it makes sense to create a static inner class (for example, if you need a small class that implements an interface your outer class is using, and that won't be helpful anywhere else). But at about half of the time it should have been made an outer class.
Inner class is regarded as an attribute of the Outer class. Therefore, no matter the Inner class instance variable is private or not, Outer class can access without any problem just like accessing its other private attributes(variables).
class Outer{
private int a;
class Inner{
private int b=0;
}
void outMethod(){
a = new Inner().b;
}
}
Because your main() method is in the ABC class, which can access its own inner class.
My interviewer asked me about inner classes.. After explaining him everything he stopped me on my one sentence- if inner classes can access private members of outer class then doesn't it violate privacy?
I was unable to answer it.
From a JVM perspective, yes, an inner class accessing a private member of the outer class violates privacy.
But, from a Java perspective, no, it does not violate privacy.
JVM perspective
The Java Virtual Machine Specification, section 5.4.4. Access Control says:
A field or method R is accessible to a class or interface D if and only if any of the following is true:
[...]
R is private and is declared in D.
So, the JVM will only allow private members to be accessed from code in the same class, i.e. a nested class cannot access private members of the outer class.
Java perspective
The Java Language Specification, section 6.6.1. Determining Accessibility says:
A member (class, interface, field, or method) of a reference type, or a constructor of a class type, is accessible only if the type is accessible and the member or constructor is declared to permit access:
[...]
Otherwise, the member or constructor is declared private, and access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
So, a private member in a top-level class and/or nested class is accessible from code anywhere within that top-level class. Since nested classes by definition occur within the body of the enclosing top-level class, code in nested classes can access private members of the outer class.
Synthetic access
To solve the discrepancy, the Java compiler creates hidden (synthetic) methods for allowing "private" access between closely related classes, i.e. between a top-level class and all its nested classes.
This is an internal trick of the compiler and is not really documented in the specifications. JVMS, section 4.7.8. The Synthetic Attribute says:
[...] A class member that does not appear in the source code must be marked using a Synthetic attribute, or else it must have its ACC_SYNTHETIC flag set. [...]
The Synthetic attribute was introduced in JDK 1.1 to support nested classes and interfaces.
For more information, do a web search for java synthetic accessor.
See also: Synthetic accessor method warning
Answer is No as inner class is part of the outer class, just like other variable and methods are
All private variable/method of a class can be accessed inside all methods of the same class. An inner class is a special case where an instance of InnerClass can exist only within an instance of OuterClass. Hence it has direct access to the methods and fields of its enclosing instance.
The answer is NO, because inner class has internal link to the outer class and inner class does not exists without concrecte instance of outer class.
But if you add static to the inner class declaration, it means the it does not have link to the outer class and this is the same, when you declare class in it's own file.
That is all, clear and simple.
If you look closely at statement#1 and #2, you will find that the only difference between them is of one extra object (of inner class) that gets created in #1, rest everything access-wise is exactly same.
There is no violation because somewhere you're intentionally leaving the door open through some form of access specifier like public or protected. Inner class doesn't act (or is not capable to act) as a workaround in there, so no violation absolutely.
public class AccessPrivateMemberThruInnerClass {
private int getUniqueId() {
return 101;
}
private class AnInnerClass {
public int getParentID() {
return getUniqueId(); // invokes private method inside a public method.
}
}
public int getUniqueIdForce() {
return getUniqueId(); // invokes private method inside a public method.
}
public AnInnerClass getInnerClassObject(){
return new AnInnerClass();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
AccessPrivateMemberThruInnerClass obj = new AccessPrivateMemberThruInnerClass();
System.out.println(obj.getInnerClassObject().getParentID()); // #1
System.out.println(obj.getUniqueIdForce()); // #2
}
}
Answer : No inner class does not voilate the privacy of outer class.
Explanation : All instance methods defined in a class are able to access the private or not private fields and methods defined in the class. This happens as all the instance methods and fields belong to the current object of the class.
Same is true for any inner (non static) class, it has an implicit reference of outerclass current object.
This is the reason as why you can only create the object of inner (non static) class with the help of an object of outer class. If you create the object of inner class inside any instance method of outer class then it is created with the help of implicit current object reference of the outer class.
If you have inner class which is static, then it does not has implicit reference to current object of outer class. Any instance field or method belong to an Object of the class. Hence static inner class can not access any private or non private instance field or method of outer class.
You can set reference of outer container class object explicitly and then it can acess. Now with the help of this explicitly set reference of outer class you can access the private Fields and methods.
So now lets modify the question as why inner static class with an explicit reference of outer class can acess and modify private methods and fields ?
Answer is related to our decision for having such design. The intention of defining any entity within the scope of a class is belongingness. If belongingness is missing then you should reconsider your decision lf making the class as inner (static or non static). Inner classes should be made when we wish to encapsulate a sub responsibility to an entity. This makes the related responsibility still cohesive.
Iterator is a part of any Collection and hence it is inner class. Custom AsyncTask class defined in custom Activity class in android is often made as private static (with weak reference of outer class activity) to prevwnt activity leak as the intention is to modify the fields which are private.
P.S : Afer compiler compiles the code it generates separate files for inner class and you can refer the link to understand as how the interaction of fields of one class being accessible to other class happens when other class is defined as inner class
https://stackoverflow.com/a/24312109/504133 . Actually synthetic getters and setters are injected in the code by compiler so as nested static class can access private fields using these. But still this is backend task done by langauge tools.
How do I declare a static class in java? eclipse wants me to remove "static" from the declaration.
static public class Constants {
First to answer your question:
Only a Nested class can be declared static. A top level class cannot declared be static.
Secondly, Inner class is a nested class that is not explicitly declared static. See the java language spec. So contrary to some answers here, Inner classes cannot be static
To quote an example from the spec:
class HasStatic{
static int j = 100;
}
class Outer{
class Inner extends HasStatic{
static final int x = 3; // ok - compile-time constant
static int y = 4; // compile-time error, an inner class
}
static class NestedButNotInner{
static int z = 5; // ok, not an inner class
}
interface NeverInner{} // interfaces are never inner
}
If by 'static' you mean 'can have only static members', there's no such thing in Java.
Inner classes (and only them) can be static, but that's a different concept. Inner static classes can still have instance members.
Eclipse complains correctly, your code won't compile as Top level class can't be declared as static.
You need to first understand what static class means.
static class :
Top level class can't be declared as static. Only Member and Nested top-level classes can be defined as static.
You declare member classes when you want to use variables and methods of the containing class without explicit delegation. When you declare a member class, you can instantiate that member class only within the context of an object of the outer class in which this member class is declared. If you want to remove this restriction, you declare the member class a static class.When you declare a member class with a static modifier, it becomes a nested top-level class and can be used as a normal top-level class as explained above.
nested top-level class is a member classes with a static modifier. A nested top-level class is just like any other top-level class except that it is declared within another class or interface. Nested top-level classes are typically used as a convenient way to group related classes without creating a new package.
Also check when should we go for static class,variables and methods in java
As you have already been told from the other comments, classes cannot be declared static. However there are alternatives to this problem.
The most simple one is to precede all member variables and methods with the static modifier. This essentially does what you want.
A slightly more involved alternative is to make the class a singleton. This is a class in which through the use of a private constructor, and an instanceOf() method, or just an Enum, you can only have one instance of that class. Semantically and syntactically you treat that instance as an ordinary instance of whatever particular class you are making a singleton, but you can only have a single instance of that class, which you retrieve via SomeObject.instanceOf(), or in an Enum implementation, SomeObject.INSTANCE.
You would normally use Enums to implement this, minus the edge cases where you are extending another class.
For more complete information on singletons visit the link below.
Design Patterns in Java - Singleton
There is no direct equivalent of C# static classes in Java, but the closest thing in my opinion is an empty enum, which might seem weird at first, but makes sense the more you think about it. An enum in Java (unlike in C#) is essentially a set of singleton instances that all implement the same abstract base class and interfaces. The quickest and safest way to make a normal singleton in Java is like so:
enum Foo {
INSTANCE;
public Bar doSomething(Baz baz) {
return Bar.fromBaz(baz); // yadda yadda
}
}
So since we are dealing with sets of singletons, it make sense that we can have an empty set. And an empty set means there can be no instances. This is conceptually the same as a static class in C#.
enum MyUtilities {
;
static Bar doSomething(Baz baz) {
return Bar.fromBaz(baz); // yadda yadda
}
static final String SOME_CONSTANT = "QUX";
}
This is great because you won't lose test coverage because of hard to test private constructors in a final class, and the code is cleaner than a final class with an empty private constructor.
Now, if the static classes are meant to all work on a single Interface and you have control of that Interface, then you should implement the static methods on that Interface itself (something you can't do in C#).
All top level classes are implicitly static, meaning they can be accessed by everybody. So it makes sense only to make inner classes optionally static.
I observed that Outer classes can access inner classes private instance variables. How is this possible? Here is a sample code demonstrating the same:
class ABC{
class XYZ{
private int x=10;
}
public static void main(String... args){
ABC.XYZ xx = new ABC().new XYZ();
System.out.println("Hello :: "+xx.x); ///Why is this allowed??
}
}
Why is this behavior allowed?
The inner class is just a way to cleanly separate some functionality that really belongs to the original outer class. They are intended to be used when you have 2 requirements:
Some piece of functionality in your outer class would be most clear if it was implemented in a separate class.
Even though it's in a separate class, the functionality is very closely tied to way that the outer class works.
Given these requirements, inner classes have full access to their outer class. Since they're basically a member of the outer class, it makes sense that they have access to methods and attributes of the outer class -- including privates.
If you like to hide the private members of your inner class, you may define an Interface with the public members and create an anonymous inner class that implements this interface. Example bellow:
class ABC{
private interface MyInterface{
void printInt();
}
private static MyInterface mMember = new MyInterface(){
private int x=10;
public void printInt(){
System.out.println(String.valueOf(x));
}
};
public static void main(String... args){
System.out.println("Hello :: "+mMember.x); ///not allowed
mMember.printInt(); // allowed
}
}
The inner class is (for purposes of access control) considered to be part of the containing class. This means full access to all privates.
The way this is implemented is using synthetic package-protected methods: The inner class will be compiled to a separate class in the same package (ABC$XYZ). The JVM does not support this level of isolation directly, so that at the bytecode-level ABC$XYZ will have package-protected methods that the outer class uses to get to the private methods/fields.
There's a correct answer appearing on another question similar to this:
Why can the private member of an nested class be accessed by the methods of the enclosing class?
It says there's a definition of private scoping on JLS - Determining Accessibility:
Otherwise, if the member or constructor is declared private, then access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
Thilo added a good answer for your first question "How is this possible?". I wish to elaborate a bit on the second asked question: Why is this behavior allowed?
For starters, let's just be perfectly clear that this behavior is not limited to inner classes, which by definition are non-static nested types. This behavior is allowed for all nested types, including nested enums and interfaces which must be static and cannot have an enclosing instance. Basically, the model is a simplification down to the following statement: Nested code have full access to enclosing code - and vice versa.
So, why then? I think an example illustrate the point better.
Think of your body and your brain. If you inject heroin into your arm, your brain gets high. If the amygdala region of your brain see what he believe is a threat to your personally safety, say a wasp for example, he'll make your body turn the other way around and run for the hills without You "thinking" twice about it.
So, the brain is an intrinsic part of the body - and strangely enough, the other way around too. Using access control between such closely related entities forfeit their claim of relationship. If you do need access control, then you need to separate the classes more into truly distinct units. Until then, they are the same unit. A driving example for further studies would be to look at how a Java Iterator usually is implemented.
Unlimited access from enclosing code to nested code makes it, for the most part, rather useless to add access modifiers to fields and methods of a nested type. Doing so is adding clutter and might provide a false sense of safety for new comers of the Java programming language.
An IMHO important use case for inner classes is the factory pattern.
The enclosing class may prepare an instance of the inner class w/o access restrictions and pass the instance to the outside world, where private access will be honored.
In contradiction to abyx declaring the class static doesn't change access restrictions to the enclosing class, as shown below. Also the access restrictions between static classes in the same enclosing class are working. I was surprised ...
class MyPrivates {
static class Inner1 { private int test1 = 2; }
static class Inner2 { private int test2 = new Inner1().test1; }
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Inner : "+new Inner2().test2);
}
}
Access restrictions are done on a per class basis. There is no way for a method declared in a class to not be able to access all of the instance/class members. It this stands to reason that inner classes also have unfettered access to the members of the outer class, and the outer class has unfettered access to the members of the inner class.
By putting a class inside another class you are making it tightly tied to the implementation, and anything that is part of the implementation should have access to the other parts.
The logic behind inner classes is that if you create an inner class in an outer class, that's because they will need to share a few things, and thus it makes sense for them to be able to have more flexibility than "regular" classes have.
If, in your case, it makes no sense for the classes to be able to see each other's inner workings - which basically means that the inner class could simply have been made a regular class, you can declare the inner class as static class XYZ. Using static will mean they will not share state (and, for example new ABC().new XYZ() won't work, and you will need to use new ABC.XYZ().
But, if that's the case, you should think about whether XYZ should really be an inner class and that maybe it deserves its own file. Sometimes it makes sense to create a static inner class (for example, if you need a small class that implements an interface your outer class is using, and that won't be helpful anywhere else). But at about half of the time it should have been made an outer class.
Inner class is regarded as an attribute of the Outer class. Therefore, no matter the Inner class instance variable is private or not, Outer class can access without any problem just like accessing its other private attributes(variables).
class Outer{
private int a;
class Inner{
private int b=0;
}
void outMethod(){
a = new Inner().b;
}
}
Because your main() method is in the ABC class, which can access its own inner class.
class OuterClass {
class InnerClass {
static int i = 100; // compile error
static void f() { } // compile error
}
}
Although it's not possible to access the static field with OuterClass.InnerClass.i, if I want to record something that should be static, e.g. the number of InnerClass objects created, it would be helpful to make that field static. So why does Java prohibit static fields/methods in inner classes?
EDIT: I know how to make the compiler happy with static nested class (or static inner class), but what I want to know is why java forbids static fields/methods inside inner classes (or ordinary inner class) from both the language design and implementation aspects, if someone knows more about it.
what I want to know is why java forbids static fields/methods inside inner classes
Because those inner classes are "instance" inner classes. That is, they are like an instance attribute of the enclosing object.
Since they're "instance" classes, it doesn't make any sense to allow static features, for static is meant to work without an instance in the first place.
It's like you try to create a static/instance attribute at the same time.
Take the following example:
class Employee {
public String name;
}
If you create two instances of employee:
Employee a = new Employee();
a.name = "Oscar";
Employee b = new Employee();
b.name = "jcyang";
It is clear why each one has its own value for the property name, right?
The same happens with the inner class; each inner class instance is independent of the other inner class instance.
So if you attempt to create a counter class attribute, there is no way to share that value across two different instances.
class Employee {
public String name;
class InnerData {
static count; // ??? count of which ? a or b?
}
}
When you create the instance a and b in the example above, what would be a correct value for the static variable count? It is not possible to determine it, because the existence of the InnerData class depends completely on each of the enclosing objects.
That's why, when the class is declared as static, it doesn't need anymore a living instance, to live itself. Now that there is no dependency, you may freely declare a static attribute.
I think this sounds reiterative but if you think about the differences between instance vs. class attributes, it will make sense.
The idea behind inner classes is to operate in the context of the enclosing instance. Somehow, allowing static variables and methods contradicts this motivation?
8.1.2 Inner Classes and Enclosing Instances
An inner class is a nested class that is not explicitly or implicitly declared static. Inner classes may not declare static initializers (§8.7) or member interfaces. Inner classes may not declare static members, unless they are compile-time constant fields (§15.28).
InnerClass cannot have static members because it belongs to an instance (of OuterClass). If you declare InnerClass as static to detach it from the instance, your code will compile.
class OuterClass {
static class InnerClass {
static int i = 100; // no compile error
static void f() { } // no compile error
}
}
BTW: You'll still be able to create instances of InnerClass. static in this context allows that to happen without an enclosing instance of OuterClass.
From Java 16 onwards, this is no longer the case. Quoting from JEP 395 (on finalizing records):
Relax the longstanding restriction whereby an inner class cannot declare a member that is explicitly or implicitly static. This will become legal and, in particular, will allow an inner class to declare a member that is a record class.
Indeed, the following code can be compiled with Java 16 (tried with 16.ea.27):
public class NestingClasses {
public class NestedClass {
static final String CONSTANT = new String(
"DOES NOT COMPILE WITH JAVA <16");
static String constant() {
return CONSTANT;
}
}
}
Actually, you can declare static fields if they are constants and are written in compile time.
class OuterClass {
void foo() {
class Inner{
static final int a = 5; // fine
static final String s = "hello"; // fine
static final Object o = new Object(); // compile error, because cannot be written during compilation
}
}
}
class Initialization sequence is a critical reason.
As inner classes are dependent on the instance of enclosing/Outer class, so Outer class need to be initialized before the initialization of the Inner class.
This is JLS says about class Initialization. The point we need is, class T will be initialize if
A static field declared by T is used and the field is not a constant variable.
So if inner class have an static field accessing that will cause initializing the inner class, but that will not ensure that the enclosing class is initialized.
It would violate some basic rules. you can skip to the last section (to two cases) to avoid noob stuff
One thing about static nested class, when some nested class is static it will behave just like a normal class in every way and it is associated with the Outer class.
But the concept of Inner class/ non-static nested class is it will be associated with the instance of outer/enclosing class. Please note associated with instance not the class.
Now associating with instance clearly means that (from the concept of instance variable) it will exist inside a instance and will be different among instances.
Now, when we make something static we expect it will be initialized when the class is being loaded and should be shared among all instances. But for being non-static, even inner classes themselves (you can definitely forget about instance of inner class for now) are not shared with all instance of the outer/enclosing class (at least conceptually), then how can we expect that some variable of inner class will be shared among all the instance of the inner class.
So if Java allow us to use static variable inside not static nested class. there will be two cases.
If it is shared with all the instance of inner class it will violate the concept of context of instance(instance variable). It's a NO then.
If it is not shared with all instance it will violate the the concept of being static. Again NO.
Here is the motivation that I find best suitable for this "limit":
You can implement the behavior of a static field of an inner class as an instance field of the outer object;
So you do not need static fields/methods.
The behaviour I mean is that all inner class instances of some object share a field(or method).
So, suppose you wanted to count all the inner class instances, you would do:
public class Outer{
int nofInner; //this will count the inner class
//instances of this (Outer)object
//(you know, they "belong" to an object)
static int totalNofInner; //this will count all
//inner class instances of all Outer objects
class Inner {
public Inner(){
nofInner++;
totalNofInner++;
}
}
}
In simple words, non-static inner classes are instance variable for outer class, and they are created only when an outer class is created and an outer class object is created at run-time while static variables are created at class loading time.
So non-static inner class is runtime thing that's why static not the part of a non-static inner class.
NOTE: treat inner classes always like a variable for an outer class they may be static or non-static like any other variables.
Because it would cause ambiguity in the meaning of "static".
Inner classes cannot declare static members other than
compile-time constants. There would be an ambiguity about the meaning
of “static.” Does it mean there is only one instance in the virtual
machine? Or only one instance per outer object? The language designers
decided not to tackle this issue.
Taken from "Core Java SE 9 for the Impatient" by Cay S. Horstmann. Pg 90 Chapter 2.6.3
In the Java language designers' own words:
Since nested classes were first introduced to Java, nested class
declarations that are inner have been prohibited from declaring static
members... It simplifies the language's task of resolving and
validating references to in-scope variables, methods, etc.
There was never any particularly grand conceptual or philosophical reason to prohibit this.
Simplifying things for the language was deemed an insufficient reason to continue to maintain this restriction. Along with the introduction of records in Java 16, they made the decision to relax the restriction.
Class Inner will be initialize if a static field declared by Inner is used and the field is not a constant variable.
class Outer{
class Inner{
static Inner obj = new Inner();
}
public static void main(String[] args){
Inner i = Inner.obj; // It woulds violate the basic rule: without existing Outer class Object there is no chance of existing Inner class Object.
}
}
I guess it's for consistency. While there doesn't seem to be any technical limitation for it, you wouldn't be able to access static members of the internal class from the outside, i.e. OuterClass.InnerClass.i because the middle step is not static.