How prevent a method of super in subclass (java) [duplicate]

How prevent a method of super in subclass (java) [duplicate] - java

This question already has answers here:
Disabling inherited method on derived class
(11 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
please note to this.
I have a super class
class A
{
public void update(int num)
{...}
}
and have a other class. inherit of class A
class B extends A
{
public void update(string str)
{...}
}
B obj = new B();
obj.update(50); // oh no, bad
obj.update(""); // yes
now, i want that when i create new from class B the update() of class A not access. -in other words i want access to the update() method of B only

You can prevent that only when you have the same method name with same arguments in super type and sub type effectively overriding it. In your case, the method the signatues are different.. they take different arguments, hence based on what you pass as argument, it calls the respective method.

Actually you can override that method and throw an exception is a solution.
class A
{
public void update(int num)
{...}
}
class B extends A
{
public void update(int i) {
throw new UnsupprotedOperationException();
}
public void update(string str)
{...}
}
Or you can implement a class with generics. This may be not working but idea works.
class A<T>
{
public void update(T num)
{...}
}
class B extends A<String>
{
public void update(String str)
{...}
}

Make your base class method private.
class A
{
private void update(int num)
{
}
}

Related

Any way to specify a java generic type variable that extends any one of multiple classes?

So suppose I have 2 classes:
public class A
{
public void
f()
{
}
}
public class B
{
public void
f()
{
}
}
I would like to write a generic static method that could call f when passed an instance of A or B. I tried:
public class C
{
public static <T extends A & B> void
g(T t)
{
t.f();
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A a = new A();
g(a);
}
}
But the compiler claims A is not a valid substitute for "T extends A & B", which I assume is because T must extend BOTH A and B, which obviously A does not. I could not find a way to specify something like "T extends A OR B". Is something like this not achievable? I am a java neophyte, so any help with this would be appreciated.

You can only specify one generic type. Use interfaces instead.
An interface specifies a certain set of methods, each member of it has to have. A class can implement multiple interfaces.
In your example, I would define an interface with the method f():
public interface MyInterface {
void f();
}
Let A and B implement the interface:
public class A implements MyInterface
{
#Override
public void f() {
// ...
}
}
public class B implements MyInterface
{
#Override
public void f() {
// ...
}
}
Then you can just specify the interface as type of the argument for your method:
public static void g(MyInterface obj)
{
obj.f();
}
For more detail on interfaces, check the Java documentation: What Is an Interface?

Incorrect versions of methods called with java inheritance and interface [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Force invocation of base class method
(6 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have a simple hierarchy of inheritance and a single interface. Consider class A which will be extended by class B. I wish for both classes to implement interface I and for class A to be abstract. In java I have roughly the following:
public interface I {
public double foobar();
public void print();
}
public abstract class A implements I {
#Override public double foobar() { /*return foo*/}
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(foobar());
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override public double foobar() { /*return bar*/ }
#Override public void print() {
super.print();
System.out.print(foobar);
}
}
My intent is to, when I instantiate an object of type B and call its print(), have the object of type B print first the foo from class A and then the bar from class B; however, when I compile an execute this code it calls the foobar() from class B in both cases. For example, if foo were to equal 1 and bar to equal 2, the output of the above code would be the following:
2
2
But I would like it to be
1
2
I have tried calling the method with various typecasting but have had no luck. Any suggestions?
Edit: Thank you for the many suggestions and just to clarify, I want each of the potential subclasses of A to implement I and I apologise for not stating that explicitly. Additionally, I currently have working code by adding an additional method in A privateFooBar() which is called by both A's print and A's foobar; however, I still wonder if there are more elegant ways to accomplish this task.

foobar() is overridden in class B. So every time it's called on an instance of class B, the class B version of the method is called. That's what polymorphism is all about.
If you want the foobar() method in A to always return A's version of foobar, and don't want methods in subclasses to change that, foobar() should be made final in A.
Or you could delegate to a private method in A:
public abstract class A implements I {
#Override
public double foobar() {
return privateFoobar();
}
private double privateFoobar() {
/* return foo */
}
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(privateFoobar());
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override public double foobar() { /*return bar*/ }
#Override public void print() {
super.print();
System.out.print(foobar());
}
}

In your class A , you are calling foobar(), which is overriden in class B
public abstract class A implements I {
#Override public double foobar() { /*return foo*/}
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(foobar()); // HERE
}
}
You can either make the method final or private

This one is a round about way to foobar. You can call super.foobar() from B, and adjust the overridden print() method. final or private wont work, because then you cannot override the method. Here's the code:
PS: I changed the return types to String to return "foo" and "bar" :)
public class P4 {
public static void main (String[] args) {
new B().print();
System.out.println();
}}
interface I {
public String foobar();
public void print();
}
abstract class A implements I {
#Override public String foobar() { return "foo";}
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(foobar());
}
}
class B extends A {
#Override public String foobar() { return "bar"; }
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(super.foobar());
super.print();
}
}

As Class B Override the foobar method of Class A Class B always call the foobar of Class B version.
If you want that Class B will change method behavior of so print that it will print value of foo and bar both without calling super.print().
Define new method for bar in class B instead of Overriding method of Class A.
public class B extends A {
public double bar() { /*return bar*/ }
#Override public void print() {
System.out.print(bar());
System.out.print(foobar());
}
}
As you are changing the print() method it is right to Override print() and not foobar() method.

Inheritance and Private Methods

Given the following block of code:
public class Trial {
public static void main (String[] args){
B obj = new B();
obj.doMethod(); #prints "From A".
}
}
class A {
private void method(){System.out.print("from A");}
public void doMethod(){method();}
}
class B extends A {
public void method(){System.out.print("from B");}
public void doMethod(){super.doMethod();}
}
It turns out that the method() from class A is invoked. Why is this?

You explicitly implement it that way. super calls method from base class which is A
public void doMethod(){super.doMethod();}
So the method chaining is like this:
B.doMethod() -> A.doMethod() -> A.method() -> "from A"

I think your question is if in class A private void method(){System.out.print("from A");} is private then why is printing "from A" in class B.
Answer is very simple you can't call method() of A class form any other class .But you can call it with object of its own.
when you calls super.doMethod(); then its function of super and method() is its own method so it can call it.

Because, see below:
class B extends A {
public void method(){System.out.print("from B");}
public void doMethod(){super.doMethod();}
}
Here in Class B's doMethod() you're invoiking Class A's doMethod() using super.doMethod(). So obviously it's printing Class A's doMethod().

You call the doMethod with super keyword. It's means it will call parent implementation
More on super keyword

Your code gives simple object creation (B obj = new B();) and a call using super. Super is used like other people mentioned for parent class. Things could have been different if you try something like (A obj = new B();), which is more interesting.

method() in class A is private and private methods can't be overriden. And when overriding it's better to use #Override annotion.
class B extends A {
#Override
public void method(){System.out.print("from B");} // Compile error
}
A similar thing happens, if you change the method to a static method.
class A {
public static void method(){System.out.print("from A");}
}
class B extends A {
public static void method(){System.out.print("from B");}
}

Calling super super class method

Let's say I have three classes A, B and C.
B extends A
C extends B
All have a public void foo() method defined.
Now from C's foo() method I want to invoke A's foo() method (NOT its parent B's method but the super super class A's method).
I tried super.super.foo();, but it's invalid syntax.
How can I achieve this?

You can't even use reflection. Something like
Class superSuperClass = this.getClass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass();
superSuperClass.getMethod("foo").invoke(this);
would lead to an InvocationTargetException, because even if you call the foo-Method on the superSuperClass, it will still use C.foo() when you specify "this" in invoke. This is a consequence from the fact that all Java methods are virtual methods.
It seems you need help from the B class (e.g. by defining a superFoo(){ super.foo(); } method).
That said, it looks like a design problem if you try something like this, so it would be helpful to give us some background: Why you need to do this?

You can't - because it would break encapsulation.
You're able to call your superclass's method because it's assumed that you know what breaks encapsulation in your own class, and avoid that... but you don't know what rules your superclass is enforcing - so you can't just bypass an implementation there.

You can't do it in a simple manner.
This is what I think you can do:
Have a bool in your class B. Now you must call B's foo from C like [super foo] but before doing this set the bool to true. Now in B's foo check if the bool is true then do not execute any steps in that and just call A's foo.
Hope this helps.

To quote a previous answer "You can't - because it would break encapsulation." to which I would like to add that:
However there is a corner case where you can,namely if the method is static (public or protected). You can not overwrite the static method.
Having a public static method is trivial to prove that you can indeed do this.
For protected however, you need from inside one of your methods to perform a cast to any superclass in the inheritance path and that superclass method would be called.
This is the corner case I am exploring in my answer:
public class A {
static protected callMe(){
System.out.println("A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
static protected callMe(){
System.out.println("B");
}
}
public class C extends B {
static protected callMe(){
System.out.println("C");
C.callMe();
}
public void accessMyParents(){
A a = (A) this;
a.callMe(); //calling beyond super class
}
}
The answer remains still No, but just wanted to show a case where you can, although it probably wouldn't make any sense and is just an exercise.

Yes you can do it. This is a hack. Try not to design your program like this.
class A
{
public void method()
{ /* Code specific to A */ }
}
class B extends A
{
#Override
public void method()
{
//compares if the calling object is of type C, if yes push the call to the A's method.
if(this.getClass().getName().compareTo("C")==0)
{
super.method();
}
else{ /*Code specific to B*/ }
}
}
class C extends B
{
#Override
public void method()
{
/* I want to use the code specific to A without using B */
super.method();
}
}

There is a workaround that solved my similar problem:
Using the class A, B, and C scenario, there is a method that will not break encapsulation nor does it require to declare class C inside of class B. The workaround is to move class B's methods into a separate but protected method.
Then, if those class B's methods are not required simply override that method but don't use 'super' within that method. Overriding and doing nothing effectively neutralises that class B method.
public class A {
protected void callMe() {
System.out.println("callMe for A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
protected void callMe() {
super.callMe();
methodsForB(); // Class B methods moved out and into it's own method
}
protected void methodsForB() {
System.out.println("methods for B");
}
}
public class C extends B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new C().callMe();
}
protected void callMe() {
super.callMe();
System.out.println("callMe for C");
}
protected void methodsForB() {
// Do nothing thereby neutralising class B methods
}
}
The result will be:
callMe for A
callMe for C

It's not possible, we're limited to call the superclass implementations only.

I smell something fishy here.
Are you sure you are not just pushing the envelope too far "just because you should be able to do it"? Are you sure this is the best design pattern you can get? Have you tried refactoring it?

I had a problem where a superclass would call an top class method that was overridden.
This was my workaround...
//THIS WOULD FAIL CALLING SUPERCLASS METHODS AS a1() would invoke top class METHOD
class foo1{
public void a1(){
a2();
}
public void a2(){}
}
class foo2 extends foo1{
{
public void a1(){
//some other stuff
super.a1();
}
public void a2(){
//some other stuff
super.a2();
}
//THIS ENSURES THE RIGHT SUPERCLASS METHODS ARE CALLED
//the public methods only call private methods so all public methods can be overridden without effecting the superclass's functionality.
class foo1{
public void a1(){
a3();}
public void a2(){
a3();}
private void a3(){
//super class routine
}
class foo2 extends foo1{
{
public void a1(){
//some other stuff
super.a1();
}
public void a2(){
//some other stuff
super.a2();
}
I hope this helps.
:)

Before using reflection API think about the cost of it.
It is simply easy to do. For instance:
C subclass of B and B subclass of A. Both of three have method methodName() for example.
public abstract class A {
public void methodName() {
System.out.println("Class A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public void methodName() {
super.methodName();
System.out.println("Class B");
}
// Will call the super methodName
public void hackSuper() {
super.methodName();
}
}
public class C extends B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new C();
a.methodName();
}
#Override
public void methodName() {
/*super.methodName();*/
hackSuper();
System.out.println("Class C");
}
}
Run class C Output will be:
Class A
Class C
Instead of output:
Class A
Class B
Class C

In my simple case I had to inherit B and C from abstract class, that incapsulates equal methods of B and C. So that
A
|
Abstr
/ \
B C
While it doesn't solve the problem, it can be used in simple cases, when C is similar to B. For instance, when C is initialized, but doesn't want to use initializers of B. Then it simply calls Abstr methods.
This is a common part of B and C:
public abstract class Abstr extends AppCompatActivity {
public void showProgress() {
}
public void hideProgress() {
}
}
This is B, that has it's own method onCreate(), which exists in AppCompatActivity:
public class B extends Abstr {
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); // Call from AppCompatActivity.
setContentView(R.layout.activity_B); // B shows "activity_B" resource.
showProgress();
}
}
C shows its own layout:
public class C extends Abstr {
#Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); // Call from AppCompatActivity.
setContentView(R.layout.activity_C); // C shows "activity_C" resource.
showProgress();
}
}

This is not something that you should do normally but, in special cases where you have to workaround some bug from a third party library (if it allow to do so), you can achieve calling a super super class method that has already been overwritten using the delegation pattern and an inner class that extends the super super class to use as a bridge:
class A() {
public void foo() {
System.out.println("calling A");
}
}
class B extends A() {
#Overwrite
public void foo() {
System.out.println("calling B");
}
}
class C extends B() {
private final a;
public C() {
this.a = new AExtension();
}
#Overwrite
public void foo() {
a.foo();
}
private class AExtension extends A {
}
}
This way you will be able to not only call the super super method but also combine calls to other super super class methods with calls to methods of the super class or the class itself by using `C.super` or `C.this`.

Why is super.super.method(); not allowed in Java?

I read this question and thought that would easily be solved (not that it isn't solvable without) if one could write:
#Override
public String toString() {
return super.super.toString();
}
I'm not sure if it is useful in many cases, but I wonder why it isn't and if something like this exists in other languages.
What do you guys think?
EDIT:
To clarify: yes I know, that's impossible in Java and I don't really miss it. This is nothing I expected to work and was surprised getting a compiler error. I just had the idea and like to discuss it.

It violates encapsulation. You shouldn't be able to bypass the parent class's behaviour. It makes sense to sometimes be able to bypass your own class's behaviour (particularly from within the same method) but not your parent's. For example, suppose we have a base "collection of items", a subclass representing "a collection of red items" and a subclass of that representing "a collection of big red items". It makes sense to have:
public class Items
{
public void add(Item item) { ... }
}
public class RedItems extends Items
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isRed())
{
throw new NotRedItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
public class BigRedItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isBig())
{
throw new NotBigItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
That's fine - RedItems can always be confident that the items it contains are all red. Now suppose we were able to call super.super.add():
public class NaughtyItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
// I don't care if it's red or not. Take that, RedItems!
super.super.add(item);
}
}
Now we could add whatever we like, and the invariant in RedItems is broken.
Does that make sense?

I think Jon Skeet has the correct answer. I'd just like to add that you can access shadowed variables from superclasses of superclasses by casting this:
interface I { int x = 0; }
class T1 implements I { int x = 1; }
class T2 extends T1 { int x = 2; }
class T3 extends T2 {
int x = 3;
void test() {
System.out.println("x=\t\t" + x);
System.out.println("super.x=\t\t" + super.x);
System.out.println("((T2)this).x=\t" + ((T2)this).x);
System.out.println("((T1)this).x=\t" + ((T1)this).x);
System.out.println("((I)this).x=\t" + ((I)this).x);
}
}
class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new T3().test();
}
}
which produces the output:
x= 3
super.x= 2
((T2)this).x= 2
((T1)this).x= 1
((I)this).x= 0
(example from the JLS)
However, this doesn't work for method calls because method calls are determined based on the runtime type of the object.

I think the following code allow to use super.super...super.method() in most case.
(even if it's uggly to do that)
In short
create temporary instance of ancestor type
copy values of fields from original object to temporary one
invoke target method on temporary object
copy modified values back to original object
Usage :
public class A {
public void doThat() { ... }
}
public class B extends A {
public void doThat() { /* don't call super.doThat() */ }
}
public class C extends B {
public void doThat() {
Magic.exec(A.class, this, "doThat");
}
}
public class Magic {
public static <Type, ChieldType extends Type> void exec(Class<Type> oneSuperType, ChieldType instance,
String methodOfParentToExec) {
try {
Type type = oneSuperType.newInstance();
shareVars(oneSuperType, instance, type);
oneSuperType.getMethod(methodOfParentToExec).invoke(type);
shareVars(oneSuperType, type, instance);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static <Type, SourceType extends Type, TargetType extends Type> void shareVars(Class<Type> clazz,
SourceType source, TargetType target) throws IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException {
Class<?> loop = clazz;
do {
for (Field f : loop.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (!f.isAccessible()) {
f.setAccessible(true);
}
f.set(target, f.get(source));
}
loop = loop.getSuperclass();
} while (loop != Object.class);
}
}

I don't have enough reputation to comment so I will add this to the other answers.
Jon Skeet answers excellently, with a beautiful example. Matt B has a point: not all superclasses have supers. Your code would break if you called a super of a super that had no super.
Object oriented programming (which Java is) is all about objects, not functions. If you want task oriented programming, choose C++ or something else. If your object doesn't fit in it's super class, then you need to add it to the "grandparent class", create a new class, or find another super it does fit into.
Personally, I have found this limitation to be one of Java's greatest strengths. Code is somewhat rigid compared to other languages I've used, but I always know what to expect. This helps with the "simple and familiar" goal of Java. In my mind, calling super.super is not simple or familiar. Perhaps the developers felt the same?

There's some good reasons to do this. You might have a subclass which has a method which is implemented incorrectly, but the parent method is implemented correctly. Because it belongs to a third party library, you might be unable/unwilling to change the source. In this case, you want to create a subclass but override one method to call the super.super method.
As shown by some other posters, it is possible to do this through reflection, but it should be possible to do something like
(SuperSuperClass this).theMethod();
I'm dealing with this problem right now - the quick fix is to copy and paste the superclass method into the subsubclass method :)

In addition to the very good points that others have made, I think there's another reason: what if the superclass does not have a superclass?
Since every class naturally extends (at least) Object, super.whatever() will always refer to a method in the superclass. But what if your class only extends Object - what would super.super refer to then? How should that behavior be handled - a compiler error, a NullPointer, etc?
I think the primary reason why this is not allowed is that it violates encapsulation, but this might be a small reason too.

I think if you overwrite a method and want to all the super-class version of it (like, say for equals), then you virtually always want to call the direct superclass version first, which one will call its superclass version in turn if it wants.
I think it only makes rarely sense (if at all. i can't think of a case where it does) to call some arbitrary superclass' version of a method. I don't know if that is possible at all in Java. It can be done in C++:
this->ReallyTheBase::foo();

At a guess, because it's not used that often. The only reason I could see using it is if your direct parent has overridden some functionality and you're trying to restore it back to the original.
Which seems to me to be against OO principles, since the class's direct parent should be more closely related to your class than the grandparent is.

Calling of super.super.method() make sense when you can't change code of base class. This often happens when you are extending an existing library.
Ask yourself first, why are you extending that class? If answer is "because I can't change it" then you can create exact package and class in your application, and rewrite naughty method or create delegate:
package com.company.application;
public class OneYouWantExtend extends OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
// one way is to rewrite method() to call super.method() only or
// to doStuff() and then call super.method()
public void method() {
if (isDoStuff()) {
// do stuff
}
super.method();
}
protected abstract boolean isDoStuff();
// second way is to define methodDelegate() that will call hidden super.method()
public void methodDelegate() {
super.method();
}
...
}
public class OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
public void method() {...}
...
}
For instance, you can create org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner class in your application so this class should be loaded before the real one from jar. Then rewrite methods or constructors.
Attention: This is absolute hack, and it is highly NOT recommended to use but it's WORKING! Using of this approach is dangerous because of possible issues with class loaders. Also this may cause issues each time you will update library that contains overwritten class.

#Jon Skeet Nice explanation.
IMO if some one wants to call super.super method then one must be want to ignore the behavior of immediate parent, but want to access the grand parent behavior.
This can be achieved through instance Of. As below code
public class A {
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In A Class");
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
if (!(this instanceof C)) {
System.out.println("In B Class");
}
super.printClass();
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In C Class");
super.printClass();
}
}
Here is driver class,
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c = new C();
c.printClass();
}
}
Output of this will be
In C Class
In A Class
Class B printClass behavior will be ignored in this case.
I am not sure about is this a ideal or good practice to achieve super.super, but still it is working.

Look at this Github project, especially the objectHandle variable. This project shows how to actually and accurately call the grandparent method on a grandchild.
Just in case the link gets broken, here is the code:
import lombok.val;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.lang.invoke.*;
/*
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Please don't actually do this... :P
*/
public class ImplLookupTest {
private MethodHandles.Lookup getImplLookup() throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException {
val field = MethodHandles.Lookup.class.getDeclaredField("IMPL_LOOKUP");
field.setAccessible(true);
return (MethodHandles.Lookup) field.get(null);
}
#Test
public void test() throws Throwable {
val lookup = getImplLookup();
val baseHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Base.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
Sub.class);
val objectHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Object.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
// Must use Base.class here for this reference to call Object's toString
Base.class);
val sub = new Sub();
Assert.assertEquals("Sub", sub.toString());
Assert.assertEquals("Base", baseHandle.invoke(sub));
Assert.assertEquals(toString(sub), objectHandle.invoke(sub));
}
private static String toString(Object o) {
return o.getClass().getName() + "#" + Integer.toHexString(o.hashCode());
}
public class Sub extends Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Sub";
}
}
public class Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Base";
}
}
}
Happy Coding!!!!

I would put the super.super method body in another method, if possible
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
protected String DescribeMe() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
}
Or if you cannot change the super-super class, you can try this:
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe(super.toString());
}
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return fromSuper;
}
}
In both cases, the
new ChildClass().toString();
results to "I am super super"

It would seem to be possible to at least get the class of the superclass's superclass, though not necessarily the instance of it, using reflection; if this might be useful, please consider the Javadoc at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getSuperclass()

public class A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "A";
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "B";
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "C";
}
}
public class D extends C {
#Override
public String toString() {
String result = "";
try {
result = this.getClass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().newInstance().toString();
} catch (InstantiationException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
return result;
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
D d = new D();
System.out.println(d);
}
}
run:
A
BUILD SUCCESSFUL (total time: 0 seconds)

I have had situations like these when the architecture is to build common functionality in a common CustomBaseClass which implements on behalf of several derived classes.
However, we need to circumvent common logic for specific method for a specific derived class. In such cases, we must use a super.super.methodX implementation.
We achieve this by introducing a boolean member in the CustomBaseClass, which can be used to selectively defer custom implementation and yield to default framework implementation where desirable.
...
FrameworkBaseClass (....) extends...
{
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodX(...)
...
methodN(...){...}
}
/* CustomBaseClass overrides default framework functionality for benefit of several derived classes.*/
CustomBaseClass(...) extends FrameworkBaseClass
{
private boolean skipMethodX=false;
/* implement accessors isSkipMethodX() and setSkipMethodX(boolean)*/
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodN(...){...}
methodX(...){
if (isSkipMethodX()) {
setSKipMethodX(false);
super.methodX(...);
return;
}
... //common method logic
}
}
DerivedClass1(...) extends CustomBaseClass
DerivedClass2(...) extends CustomBaseClass
...
DerivedClassN(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
DerivedClassX(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
{
methodX(...){
super.setSKipMethodX(true);
super.methodX(...);
}
}
However, with good architecture principles followed in framework as well as app, we could avoid such situations easily, by using hasA approach, instead of isA approach. But at all times it is not very practical to expect well designed architecture in place, and hence the need to get away from solid design principles and introduce hacks like this.
Just my 2 cents...

IMO, it's a clean way to achieve super.super.sayYourName() behavior in Java.
public class GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(){
System.out.println("Grandma Fedora");
}
}
public class Mama extends GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName();
}else {
System.out.println("Mama Stephanida");
}
}
}
public class Daughter extends Mama {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName(lie);
}else {
System.out.println("Little girl Masha");
}
}
}
public class TestDaughter {
public static void main(String[] args){
Daughter d = new Daughter();
System.out.print("Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns ");
d.sayYourName(true);
System.out.print("Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns ");
d.sayYourName(false);
}
}
Output:
Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns Grandma Fedora
Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns Little girl Masha

I think this is a problem that breaks the inheritance agreement.
By extending a class you obey / agree its behavior, features
Whilst when calling super.super.method(), you want to break your own obedience agreement.
You just cannot cherry pick from the super class.
However, there may happen situations when you feel the need to call super.super.method() - usually a bad design sign, in your code or in the code you inherit !
If the super and super super classes cannot be refactored (some legacy code), then opt for composition over inheritance.
Encapsulation breaking is when you #Override some methods by breaking the encapsulated code.
The methods designed not to be overridden are marked
final.

In C# you can call a method of any ancestor like this:
public class A
internal virtual void foo()
...
public class B : A
public new void foo()
...
public class C : B
public new void foo() {
(this as A).foo();
}
Also you can do this in Delphi:
type
A=class
procedure foo;
...
B=class(A)
procedure foo; override;
...
C=class(B)
procedure foo; override;
...
A(objC).foo();
But in Java you can do such focus only by some gear. One possible way is:
class A {
int y=10;
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X!=A.class)
throw new Exception("Incorrect parameter of "+this.getClass().getName()+".foo("+X.getName()+")");
y++;
System.out.printf("A.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
}
void foo() throws Exception {
System.out.printf("A.foo()\n");
this.foo(this.getClass());
}
}
class B extends A {
int y=20;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==B.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s) calls B.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
}
class C extends B {
int y=30;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==C.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s) calls C.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
void DoIt() {
try {
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo():\n");
foo();
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(B):\n");
foo(B.class);
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(A):\n");
foo(A.class);
Show();
} catch(Exception e) {
//...
}
}
void Show() {
System.out.printf("Show: A.y=%d, B.y=%d, C.y=%d\n\n", ((A)this).y, ((B)this).y, ((C)this).y);
}
}
objC.DoIt() result output:
DoIt: foo():
A.foo()
C.foo(C): y=31
Show: A.y=10, B.y=20, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(B):
C.foo(B) calls C.super.foo(B)
B.foo(B): y=21
Show: A.y=10, B.y=21, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(A):
C.foo(A) calls C.super.foo(A)
B.foo(A) calls B.super.foo(A)
A.foo(A): y=11
Show: A.y=11, B.y=21, C.y=31

It is simply easy to do. For instance:
C subclass of B and B subclass of A. Both of three have method methodName() for example.
public abstract class A {
public void methodName() {
System.out.println("Class A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public void methodName() {
super.methodName();
System.out.println("Class B");
}
// Will call the super methodName
public void hackSuper() {
super.methodName();
}
}
public class C extends B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new C();
a.methodName();
}
#Override
public void methodName() {
/*super.methodName();*/
hackSuper();
System.out.println("Class C");
}
}
Run class C Output will be:
Class A
Class C
Instead of output:
Class A
Class B
Class C

If you think you are going to be needing the superclass, you could reference it in a variable for that class. For example:
public class Foo
{
public int getNumber()
{
return 0;
}
}
public class SuperFoo extends Foo
{
public static Foo superClass = new Foo();
public int getNumber()
{
return 1;
}
}
public class UltraFoo extends Foo
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println(new UltraFoo.getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().superClass.getNumber());
}
public int getNumber()
{
return 2;
}
}
Should print out:
2
1
0

public class SubSubClass extends SubClass {
#Override
public void print() {
super.superPrint();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubSubClass().print();
}
}
class SuperClass {
public void print() {
System.out.println("Printed in the GrandDad");
}
}
class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public void superPrint() {
super.print();
}
}
Output: Printed in the GrandDad

The keyword super is just a way to invoke the method in the superclass.
In the Java tutorial:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/super.html
If your method overrides one of its superclass's methods, you can invoke the overridden method through the use of the keyword super.
Don't believe that it's a reference of the super object!!! No, it's just a keyword to invoke methods in the superclass.
Here is an example:
class Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this); // It's a Cat! Not an animal!
System.out.println("Animal do sth.");
}
}
class Cat extends Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this);
System.out.println("Cat do sth.");
super.doSth();
}
}
When you call cat.doSth(), the method doSth() in class Animal will print this and it is a cat.

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.

How prevent a method of super in subclass (java) [duplicate] - java

You can prevent that only when you have the same method name with same arguments in super type and sub type effectively overriding it. In your case, the method the signatues are different.. they take different arguments, hence based on what you pass as argument, it calls the respective method.

Make your base class method private. class A { private void update(int num) { } }

Related

Any way to specify a java generic type variable that extends any one of multiple classes?

Incorrect versions of methods called with java inheritance and interface [duplicate]

Inheritance and Private Methods

Calling super super class method

Why is super.super.method(); not allowed in Java?

Categories

Resources