Related
In my codebase, I found a class like this:
public final class Klass
{
private static final long LONG_NUMBER = 10.0;
private Klass() {}
public static double calcSomethingUsingLongNumberAndParam(double param)
{
...
return something;
}
}
My IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) offers one 'improvement' to this class - change it to an enum. As a test, I made the change, and noted no other refactors done on any of the member fields or methods, not to any calls to the static methods contained.
Here is the generated Enum:
public enum Klass
{
;
private static final long LONG_NUMBER = 10.0;
private Klass() {}
public static double calcSomethingUsingLongNumberAndParam(double param)
{
...
return something;
}
}
Is there a benefit to changing a final class to an enum, or is this a quirk of the IDE?
My answer originally said that sure there are benefits, enums supersede old-style POJO singletons (which this is a special case of) in almost every way. However, it depends a bit on the use case and actual code involved. If you just replace "final class" with "enum", as IDE seems to be doing in this case, the benefits are minimal. Also, one of the main benefits of using enum is a better type checking for finite values, but since you seem to be using only a single, numeric value and it is private, it's of no benefit here.
Pros on using an enum vs. constant utility class:
Enums get away with almost the same functionality with less code - you don't need to declare functions or values as static, nor do you need a private constructor, which are just boilerplate that enum offers out of the box
it is immediately clear with enums that they are not meant to be instantiated, whereas for a class like this, it might need more investigation and a look at its details as a whole
with a class like this it is far easier for someone updating the code to mess up the singleton pattern by accident if he/she doesn't notice it's meant to be that way
Cons:
enum class itself are effectively final, but their internal design depends on the possibility to make subclasses for the enum values, so their protection from subclassing seems to me a bit hacky.
So, if this class is part of interface offered as an external library and we can be quite confident no one will change its own implementation, it is actually a bit more safe than using an enum here. However, if this code is maintained (especially by different developers) - and any code should be, I would argue an enum has more pros to offer, as it more clearly communicates its intent. Even the only con I could come up with, removal of protection from subclassing, seems quite marginal as enums are effectively final anyway outside their defining class.
For more discussion on the benefits of enums, see What are enums and why are they useful?. There is also another discussion on the benefits of having a final keyword in a constant utility class such as yours: Final Keyword in Constant utility class - the conclusion I get from that discussion is that the only benefit is that it is explicitly forbidden to subclass it, which wouldn't work anyway since you wouldn't be able to override the static stuff.
TLDR; recommendation to replace with enum seems reasonable, at least if you omit the things you don't have to explicitly declare with enums. However the differences are related to the readability and maintainability, not any difference in behaviour.
There is no outright benefit to changing this class to an enum.
The only thing it affords you is the ability to omit the private constructor (and the final on the class).
But you'd also need either a single value (that you don't need), or just have a random hanging ; to separate the (empty) value list from the rest of the class body.
This question already has answers here:
What is the point of "final class" in Java?
(24 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I know that when final keyword is used before a Class , the Class cannot be inherited by another Class.
But I have never seen its real usage in Java Coding except for immutable classes.
In which scenarios it will be really required to use final keyword before a Class?
And does not it reduce the reusability feature of Java language?
A final class cannot be subclassed. This is done for reasons of security and efficiency. Some of the classes in Java API are final, for example java.lang.System. Sometimes security and immutability is of far more importance than re usability.
According to this IBM developerWorks article :
The common perception is that declaring classes or methods final makes it easier for the compiler to inline method calls, but this perception is incorrect (or at the very least, greatly overstated).
final classes and methods can be a significant inconvenience when programming -- they limit your options for reusing existing code and extending the functionality of existing classes. While sometimes a class is made final for a good reason, such as to enforce immutability, the benefits of using final should outweigh the inconvenience. Performance enhancement is almost always a bad reason to compromise good object-oriented design principles, and when the performance enhancement is small or nonexistent, this is a bad trade-off indeed.
Also read this Open Closed Principle:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules, Functions, etc.) should be open for Extension, but closed for Modification.
final class can not be inherited. So if you want that nobody can inherit your class then you can declare it as final. So you have already answers your own questions. So main usage are
Immutable types
If you dont want someone extend the class.
Both are them are used for security reasons. To protect your system to be changed by using your critical classes. Is not it enough for being a reason?
final keyword can be used with a class in order to provide security. We can take the example of String. String class was made immutable as well as final to enhance security of file handling in java.
Though, performance is also a reason (assuming you are already aware of the internal String pool maintained for making sure that the same String object is used more than once without having to create/re-claim it those many times), but the main reason why String has been made immutable in Java is 'Security'. Surprised? Let's understand why.
Suppose you need to open a secure file which requires the users to authenticate themselves. Let's say there are two users named 'user1' and 'user2' and they have their own password files 'password1' and 'password2', respectively. Obviously 'user2' should not have access to 'password1' file.
As we know the filenames in Java are specified by using Strings. Even if you create a 'File' object, you pass the name of the file as a String only and that String is maintained inside the File object as one of its members.
Had String been mutable, 'user1' could have logged into using his credentials and then somehow could have managed to change the name of his password filename (a String object) from 'password1' to 'password2' before JVM actually places the native OS system call to open the file. This would have allowed 'user1' to open user2's password file. Understandably it would have resulted into a big security flaw in Java. I understand there are so many 'could have's here, but you would certainly agree that it would have opened a door to allow developers messing up the security of many resources either intentionally or un-intentionally.
With Strings being immutable, JVM can be sure that the filename instance member of the corresponding File object would keep pointing to same unchanged "filename" String object. The 'filename' instance member being a 'final' in the File class can anyway not be modified to point to any other String object specifying any other file than the intended one (i.e., the one which was used to create the File object).
More information can be found here Source A
Source B
I research this, and I read this on Hardcore Java, Publisher : O'Reilly ISBN : 0-596-00568-7
Why Classes are tagged Final:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.
A final class cannot be subclassed. This is necessary to improve security even if it has some drawbacks.
E.g. the class java.lang.String is final. Therefore you cannot subclass String and can be sure that a String parameter is never a subclass that does something harmful (e.g. sending the String somewhere).
I have seen much code where people write public static final String mystring = ...
and then just use a value.
Why do they have to do that? Why do they have to initialize the value as final prior to using it?
UPDATE
Ok, thanks all for all your answers, I understand the meaning of those key (public static final). What I dont understand is why people use that even if the constant will be used only in one place and only in the same class. why declaring it? why dont we just use the variable?
final indicates that the value of the variable won't change - in other words, a constant whose value can't be modified after it is declared.
Use public final static String when you want to create a String that:
belongs to the class (static: no instance necessary to use it), that
won't change (final), for instance when you want to define a String constant that will be available to all instances of the class, and to other objects using the class, and that
will be a publicly accessible part of the interface that the class shows the world.
Example:
public final static String MY_CONSTANT = "SomeValue";
// ... in some other code, possibly in another object, use the constant:
if (input.equals(MyClass.MY_CONSTANT)
Similarly:
public static final int ERROR_CODE = 127;
It isn't required to use final, but it keeps a constant from being changed inadvertently during program execution, and serves as an indicator that the variable is a constant.
Even if the constant will only be used - read - in the current class and/or in only one place, it's good practice to declare all constants as final: it's clearer, and during the lifetime of the code the constant may end up being used in more than one place.
Furthermore using final may allow the implementation to perform some optimization, e.g. by inlining an actual value where the constant is used.
Finally note that final will only make truly constant values out of primitive types, String which is immutable, or other immutable types. Applying final to an object (for instance a HashMap) will make the reference immutable, but not the state of the object: for instance data members of the object can be changed, array elements can be changed, and collections can be manipulated and changed.
Static means..You can use it without instantiate of the class or using any object.
final..It is a keyword which is used for make the string constant. You can not change the value of that string. Look at the example below:
public class StringTest {
static final String str = "Hello";
public static void main(String args[]) {
// str = "world"; // gives error
System.out.println(str); // called without the help of an object
System.out.println(StringTest.str);// called with class name
}
}
Thanks
The keyword final means that the value is constant(it cannot be changed). It is analogous to const in C.
And you can treat static as a global variable which has scope. It basically means if you change it for one object it will be changed for all just like a global variable(limited by scope).
Hope it helps.
static means that the object will only be created once, and does not have an instance object containing it. The way you have written is best used when you have something that is common for all objects of the class and will never change. It even could be used without creating an object at all.
Usually it's best to use final when you expect it to be final so that the compiler will enforce that rule and you know for sure. static ensures that you don't waste memory creating many of the same thing if it will be the same value for all objects.
final indicates that the value cannot be changed once set. static allows you to set the value, and that value will be the same for ALL instances of the class which utilize it. Also, you may access the value of a public static string w/o having an instance of a class.
ļ public makes it accessible across the other classes. You can use it without instantiate of the class or using any object.
ļ static makes it uniform value across all the class instances.
It ensures that you don't waste memory creating many of the same thing if it will be the same value for all the objects.
ļ final makes it non-modifiable value. It's a "constant" value which is same across all the class instances and cannot be modified.
You do not have to use final, but the final is making clear to everyone else - including the compiler - that this is a constant, and that's the good practice in it.
Why people doe that even if the constant will be used only in one place and only in the same class: Because in many cases it still makes sense. If you for example know it will be final during program run, but you intend to change the value later and recompile (easier to find), and also might use it more often later-on. It is also informing other programmers about the core values in the program flow at a prominent and combined place.
An aspect the other answers are missing out unfortunately, is that using the combination of public final needs to be done very carefully, especially if other classes or packages will use your class (which can be assumed because it is public).
Here's why:
Because it is declared as final, the compiler will inline this field during compile time into any compilation unit reading this field. So far, so good.
What people tend to forget is, because the field is also declared public, the compiler will also inline this value into any other compile unit. That means other classes using this field.
What are the consequences?
Imagine you have this:
class Foo {
public static final String VERSION = "1.0";
}
class Bar {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("I am using version " + Foo.VERSION);
}
}
After compiling and running Bar, you'll get:
I am using version 1.0
Now, you improve Foo and change the version to "1.1".
After recompiling Foo, you run Bar and get this wrong output:
I am using version 1.0
This happens, because VERSION is declared final, so the actual value of it was already in-lined in Bar during the first compile run. As a consequence, to let the example of a public static final ... field propagate properly after actually changing what was declared final (you lied!;), you'd need to recompile every class using it.
I've seen this a couple of times and it is really hard to debug.
If by final you mean a constant that might change in later versions of your program, a better solution would be this:
class Foo {
private static String version = "1.0";
public static final String getVersion() {
return version;
}
}
The performance penalty of this is negligible, since JIT code generator will inline it at run-time.
Usually for defining constants, that you reuse at many places making it single point for change, used within single class or shared across packages. Making a variable final avoid accidental changes.
Why do people use constants in classes instead of a variable?
readability and maintainability,
having some number like 40.023 in your code doesn't say much about what the number represents, so we replace it by a word in capitals like "USER_AGE_YEARS". Later when we look at the code its clear what that number represents.
Why do we not just use a variable? Well we would if we knew the number would change, but if its some number that wont change, like 3.14159.. we make it final.
But what if its not a number like a String? In that case its mostly for maintainability, if you are using a String multiple times in your code, (and it wont be changing at runtime) it is convenient to have it as a final string at the top of the class. That way when you want to change it, there is only one place to change it rather than many.
For example if you have an error message that get printed many times in your code, having final String ERROR_MESSAGE = "Something went bad." is easier to maintain, if you want to change it from "Something went bad." to "It's too late jim he's already dead", you would only need to change that one line, rather than all the places you would use that comment.
public makes it accessible across other classes.
static makes it uniform value across all the class instances.
final makes it non-modifiable value.
So basically it's a "constant" value which is same across all the class instances and which cannot be modified.
With respect to your concern "What I don't understand is why people use that even if the constant will be used only in one place and only in the same class. Why declaring it? Why don't we just use the variable?"
I would say since it is a public field the constant value can also be used elsewhere in some other class using ClassName.value. eg: a class named Math may have PI as final static long value which can be accessed as Math.PI.
It is kind of standard/best practice.
There are already answers listing scenarios, but for your second question:
Why do they have to do that? Why do they have to initialize the value as final prior to using it?
Public constants and fields initialized at declaration should be "static final" rather than merely "final"
These are some of the reasons why it should be like this:
Making a public constant just final as opposed to static final leads to duplicating its value for every instance of the class, uselessly increasing the amount of memory required to execute the application.
Further, when a non-public, final field isn't also static, it implies that different instances can have different values. However, initializing a non-static final field in its declaration forces every instance to have the same value owing to the behavior of the final field.
This is related to the semantics of the code. By naming the value assigning it to a variable that has a meaningful name (even if it is used only at one place) you give it a meaning. When somebody is reading the code that person will know what that value means.
In general is not a good practice to use constant values across the code. Imagine a code full of string, integer, etc. values. After a time nobody will know what those constants are. Also a typo in a value can be a problem when the value is used on more than one place.
I think these are all clear explanations. But, Let me clarify it by giving a java inbuild example.
In java, most would have used System.out.println()
The system is a class and out is a PrintStream class.
So what java says is I will take care of the initialization of the out object(PrintStream) and keep the initialization private to myself in the System class.
public final class System {
public final static PrintStream out = null;
//Some initialization done by system class which cannot be changed as it is final.
}
You just access the println method statically without worrying about its initialization.
We are in the process of refactoring some code. There is a feature that we have developed in one project that we would like to now use in other projects. We are extracting the foundation of this feature and making it a full-fledged project which can then be imported by its current project and others. This effort has been relatively straight-forward but we have one headache.
When the framework in question was originally developed, we chose to keep a variety of constant values defined as static fields in a single class. Over time this list of static members grew. The class is used in very many places in our code. In our current refactoring, we will be elevating some of the members of this class to our new framework, but leaving others in place. Our headache is in extracting the foundation members of this class to be used in our new project, and more specifically, how we should address those extracted members in our existing code.
We know that we can have our existing Constants class subclass this new project's Constants class and it would inherit all of the parent's static members. This would allow us to effect the change without touching the code that uses these members to change the class name on the static reference. However, the tight coupling inherent in this choice doesn't feel right.
before:
public class ConstantsA {
public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1";
public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2";
public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3";
}
after:
public class ConstantsA extends ConstantsB {
public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1";
}
public class ConstantsB {
public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2";
public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3";
}
In our existing code branch, all of the above would be accessible in this manner:
ConstantsA.CONSTANT2
I would like to solicit arguments about whether this is 'acceptable' and/or what the best practices are.
A class with only static fields is a code smell. It's not a class.
Some people use interfaces, so they can implement it to use the constants more easily. But an interface should be used only to model a behaviour of a class. (http://pmd.sourceforge.net/rules/design.html#AvoidConstantsInterface) Using static imports from Java 5 removes the need for simple constant usage at all.
Are your constants really Strings, or just used as Strings. If they are different options for some type (so called enumerations), you should used typesafe enumerations, using enum in Java 5 or the Enum provided by Commons Lang. Of course, converting your code to use enums might be a little work.
You should at least split the constants to groups of related constants in files with proper business name. Moving the final members is easy in IDE and will update all usages.
If you can afford it, convert them to enums then. (Think about using about a script to do that, often it's possible.) Class hierarchies are only usefull, if there is a relation between the constants/enums. You can keep the Strings if you have to but still think about them as entities, then extends might make sense for some (describing is-a relation). First enums can be simple classes made by yourself if serializing is not a problem. Enums are always favourable due to their type safe nature and the extra name showing intend or business/domain specific things.
If the constants are really String constants use a Properies or ResourceBundle, which can be configured by plain text files. Again you can script the refactoring using the constant names as resource bundle keys and generate both files automatically.
I don't like it, but it's probably the best you can do right now.
The right answer would be to break up the constants into coherent groups, fixing the code breaks as you go along. In C#, I'd use enums.
Peter Kofler has already discussed how you might wish to better organize constants. I'll share how to automate the transition:
The eclipse "Inline" refactoring can automatically replace constants by their defintion, saving you from having to hunt down and change each usage manually. So you'd simply change the code to:
public class ConstantsA {
public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1";
public static final String CONSTANT2 = ConstantsB.CONSTANTFOO;
public static final String CONSTANT3 = ConstantsB.CONSTANTBAR;
}
public class ConstantsB {
public static final String CONSTANTFOO = "constant.2";
public static final String CONSTANTBAR = "constant.3";
}
... and then have eclipse inline COONSTANT2 and CONSTANT3 (while all affected projects are checked out, if you can't do that, look into refactoring scripts), and you're done.
I've seen this done by putting the static final String on an interface, so that you can 'implement' it and not have to worry about what to do when you need a different base class. It's just as accessible that way.
In general though, enums are pretty good at what you are trying to do, and may get rid of the "I'm not sure" feeling you are experiencing, as that's the intention of enums.
I think what you are doing is fine. Yes, the classes are tightly-coupled, but that is kind of the point -- you want to be able to reference only a single class to see all of your project-wide constants.
You do have to be diligent to ensure that ConstantsB contains only constants that are generalizable amongst all your projects, and ConstantsA contains only project-specific constants. If, later on, you realize that there is a constant in ConstantsB that you seem to be overriding in your subclasses a lot, then that's an indication it should've never been put in ConstantsB in the first place.
I think what you've got is a good first step. The next step is to gradually replace all references to ConstantsA.CONSTANT2 and ConstantsA.CONSTANT3 with ConstantsB.CONSTANT2 and ConstantsB.CONSTANT3 until you can remove the extends.
Most IDEs can be configured to show a warning if you refer to a superclass constant via a subclass, and I'd guess static analysis tools like FindBugs can do it, too.
One idea that might be slightly cleaner:
make all the constants classes interfaces
move all the constants out of ConstantsA and call it something like LegacyConstants
have LegacyConstants extend all the other, modular Constants interfaces
deprecate LegacyConstants
The goal would be not to have any inheritance between the Constants interfaces. LegacyConstants would be the only place there's any inheritance, it wouldn't declare any constants of its own, and when it's no longer used -- when every class that did use it instead refers to the proper Constants interface -- you've finished refactoring.
When you extract your constants, have the old class reference the constant defined in the new class. There's really no need to create an inheritance relationship here.
I could be wrong, but I don't think we need constants at all. It just means that you can't change the value of the constants and you probably should.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
In Java, there is a practice of declaring every variable (local or class), parameter final if they really are.
Though this makes the code a lot more verbose, this helps in easy reading/grasping of the code and also prevents mistakes as the intention is clearly marked.
What are your thoughts on this and what do you follow?
I think it all has to do with good coding style. Of course you can write good, robust programs without using a lot of final modifiers anywhere, but when you think about it...
Adding final to all things which should not change simply narrows down the possibilities that you (or the next programmer, working on your code) will misinterpret or misuse the thought process which resulted in your code. At least it should ring some bells when they now want to change your previously immutable thing.
At first, it kind of looks awkward to see a lot of final keywords in your code, but pretty soon you'll stop noticing the word itself and will simply think, that-thing-will-never-change-from-this-point-on (you can take it from me ;-)
I think it's good practice. I am not using it all the time, but when I can and it makes sense to label something final I'll do it.
Obsess over:
Final fields - Marking fields as final forces them to be set by end of construction, making that field reference immutable. This allows safe publication of fields and can avoid the need for synchronization on later reads. (Note that for an object reference, only the field reference is immutable - things that object reference refers to can still change and that affects the immutability.)
Final static fields - Although I use enums now for many of the cases where I used to use static final fields.
Consider but use judiciously:
Final classes - Framework/API design is the only case where I consider it.
Final methods - Basically same as final classes. If you're using template method patterns like crazy and marking stuff final, you're probably relying too much on inheritance and not enough on delegation.
Ignore unless feeling anal:
Method parameters and local variables - I RARELY do this largely because I'm lazy and I find it clutters the code. I will fully admit that marking parameters and local variables that I'm not going to modify is "righter". I wish it was the default. But it isn't and I find the code more difficult to understand with finals all over. If I'm in someone else's code, I'm not going to pull them out but if I'm writing new code I won't put them in. One exception is the case where you have to mark something final so you can access it from within an anonymous inner class.
You really need to understand the full use of the final keyword before using it. It can apply to and has differing affects on variables, fields, methods and classes
Iād recommend checking out the article linked to below for more details.
Final Word On the final Keyword
The final modifier, especially for variables, is a means to have the compiler enforce a convention that is generally sensible: make sure a (local or instance) variable is assigned exactly once (no more no less). By making sure a variable is definitely assigned before it is used, you can avoid common cases of a NullPointerException:
final FileInputStream in;
if(test)
in = new FileInputStream("foo.txt");
else
System.out.println("test failed");
in.read(); // Compiler error because variable 'in' might be unassigned
By preventing a variable from being assigned more than once, you discourage overbroad scoping. Instead of this:
String msg = null;
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
msg = "We are at position " + i;
System.out.println(msg);
}
msg = null;
You are encouraged to use this:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
final String msg = "We are at position " + i;
System.out.println(msg);
}
Some links:
The final story (free chapter of the book "Hardcore Java")
Some final patterns
Definite assignment
I'm pretty dogmatic about declaring every possible variable final. This includes method parameters, local variables, and rarely, value object fields. I've got three main reasons for declaring final variables everywhere:
Declaring Intention: By declaring a final variable, I am stating that this variable is meant to be written to only once. It's a subtle hint to other developers, and a big hint to the compiler.
Enforcing Single-use Variables: I believe in the idea that each variable should have only one purpose in life. By giving each variable only one purpose, you reduce the time it takes to grok the purpose of that particular variable while debugging.
Allows for Optimization: I know that the compiler used to have performance enhancement tricks which relied specifically on the immutability of a variable reference. I like to think some of these old performance tricks (or new ones) will be used by the compiler.
However, I do think that final classes and methods are not nearly as useful as final variable references. The final keyword, when used with these declarations simply provide roadblocks to automated testing and the use of your code in ways that you could have never anticipated.
Effective Java has an item that says "Favour immutable objects". Declaring fields as final helps you take some small steps towards this, but there is of course much more to truly immutable objects than that.
If you know that objects are immutable they can be shared for reading among many threads/clients without synchronization worries, and it is easier to reason about how the program runs.
I have never been in a situation where having a final keyword on a variable has stopped me from making a mistake, so for the moment I think it's a giant waste of time.
Unless there is a real reason for doing it (as in you want to make a specific point about that variable being final) I would rather not do it since I find it makes the code less readable.
If, however, you don't find it makes the code harder to read or longer to write then by all means go for it.
Edit: As a clarification (and an attempt to win back down-votes), I'm not saying don't mark constants as final, I'm saying don't do stuff like:
public String doSomething() {
final String first = someReallyComplicatedExpressionToGetTheString();
final String second = anotherReallyComplicatedExpressionToGetAnother();
return first+second;
}
It just makes code (in my opinion) harder to read.
It's also worth remembering that all final does is prevent you from reassigning a variable, it doesn't make it immutable or anything like that.
Final should always be used for constants. It's even useful for short-lived variables (within a single method) when the rules for defining the variable are complicated.
For example:
final int foo;
if (a)
foo = 1;
else if (b)
foo = 2;
else if (c)
foo = 3;
if (d) // Compile error: forgot the 'else'
foo = 4;
else
foo = -1;
Sounds like one of the biggest argument against using the final keyword is that "it's unnecessary", and it "wastes space".
If we acknowledge the many benefits of "final" as pointed out by many great posts here, while admitting it takes more typing and space, I would argue that Java should have made variables "final" by default, and require that things be marked "mutable" if the coder wants it to be.
I use final all the time for object attributes.
The final keyword has visibility semantics when used on object attributes. Basically, setting the value of a final object attribute happens-before the constructor returns. This means that as long as you don't let the this reference escape the constructor and you use final for all you attributes, your object is (under Java 5 semantics) guarenteed to be properly constructed, and since it is also immutable it can be safely published to other threads.
Immutable objects is not just about thread-safety. They also make it a lot easier to reason about the state transitions in your program, because the space of what can change is deliberately and, if used consistently, thoroughly limited to only the things that should change.
I sometimes also make methods final, but not as often. I seldomly make classes final. I generally do this because I have little need to. I generally don't use inheritance much. I prefer to use interfaces and object composition instead - this also lends itself to a design that I find is often easier to test. When you code to interfaces instead of concrete classes, then you don't need to use inheritance when you test, as it is, with frameworks such as jMock, much easier to create mock-objects with interfaces than it is with concrete classes.
I guess I should make the majority of my classes final, but I just haven't gotten into the habbit yet.
I have to read a lot of code for my job. Missing final on instance variables is one of the top things to annoy me and makes understanding the code unnecessarily difficult. For my money, final on local variables causes more clutter than clarity. The language should have been designed to make that the default, but we have to live with the mistake. Sometimes it is useful particularly with loops and definite assignment with an if-else tree, but mostly it tends to indicate your method is too complicated.
final should obviously be used on constants, and to enforce immutability, but there is another important use on methods.
Effective Java has a whole item on this (Item 15) pointing out the pitfalls of unintended inheritance. Effectively if you didn't design and document your class for inheritance, inheriting from it can give unexpected problems (the item gives a good example). The recommendation therefore is that you use final on any class and/or method that wasn't intended to be inherited from.
That may seem draconian, but it makes sense. If you are writing a class library for use by others then you don't want them inheriting from things that weren't designed for it - you will be locking yourself into a particular implementation of the class for back compatibility. If you are coding in a team there is nothing to stop another member of the team from removing the final if they really have to. But the keyword makes them think about what they are doing, and warns them that the class they are inheriting from wasn't designed for it, so they should be extra careful.
Another caveat is that many people confuse final to mean that the contents of the instance variable cannot change, rather than that the reference cannot change.
Even for local variables, knowing that it is declared final means that I don't need to worry about the reference being changed later on. This means that when debugging and I see that variable later on, I am confident that it is referring to the same object. That is one less thing I need to worry about when looking for a bug.
A bonus is that if 99% of variables are declared final, then the few variables which really are variable stand out better.
Also, the final lets the compiler find some more possible stupid mistakes that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Choosing to type final for each parameter in each method will produce so much irritation both for coders and code readers.
Once irritation goes beyond reasonable switch to Scala where arguments are final by default.
Or, you can always use code styling tools that will do that automatically for you. All IDEs have them implemented or as plugins.
Final when used with variables in Java provides a substitute for constant in C++. So when final and static is used for a variable it becomes immutable. At the same time makes migrated C++ programmers pretty happy ;-)
When used with reference variables it does not allow you to re-reference the object, though the object can be manipulated.
When final is used with a method, it does not allow the method to be over-ridden by the subclasses.
Once the usage is very clear it should be used with care. It mainly depends on the design as using final on the method would not help polymorphism.
One should only use it for variables when you are damn sure that the value of the variable will/should never be changed. Also ensure that you follow the coding convention encouraged by SUN.for eg: final int COLOR_RED = 1; (Upper case seperated by underscore)
With a reference variable, use it only when we need a an immutable reference to a particular object.
Regarding the readability part, ensue that comments play a very important role when using the final modifier.
I never use them on local variables, there is little point for the added verbosity. Even if you don't think the variable should be reassigned, that will make little difference to the next person altering that code that thinks otherwise, and since the code is being changed, any original purpose for making it final may no longer be valid. If it is just for clarity, I believe it fails due to the negative effects of the verbosity.
Pretty much the same applies to member variables as well, as they provide little benefit, except for the case of constants.
It also has no bearing on immutability, as the best indicator of something being immutable is that it is documented as such and/or has no methods that can alter the object (this, along with making the class final is the only way to guarantee that it is immutable).
But hey, that's just my opinion :-)
I set up Eclipse to add final on all fields and attributes which are not modified. This works great using the Eclipse "save actions" which adds these final modifiers (among other things) when saving the file.
Highly recommended.
Check out my blog post of Eclipse Save Actions.
For arguments I'm think they're not needed. Mostley they just hurt readabillity. Rreassigning an argument variable is so insanely stupid that I should be pretty confident that they can be treated as constants anyway.
The fact that Eclipse colors final red makes it easier to spot variable declarations in the code which I think improves readbillity most of the time.
I try to enforce the rule that any and all variables should be final it there isn't an extremley valid reason not to. It's so much easier to answer the "what is this variable?" question if you just have to find the initilization and be confident that that is it.
I actually get rather nervous around non-final variables now a days. It's like the differnce between having a knife hanging in a thread abouve your head, or just having it you kitchen drawer...
A final variable is just a nice way to lable values.
A non-final variable is bound to part of some bug-prone algorithm.
One nice feature is that when the option to use a variable in out of the question for an algorithm most of the time the sollution is to write a method instead, which usually improves the code significantly.
I've been coding for a while now and using final whenever I can. After doing this for a while (for variables, method parameters and class attributes), I can say that 90% (or more) of my variables are actually final. I think the benefit of NOT having variables modified when you don't want to (I saw that before and it's a pain sometimes) pays for the extra typing and the extra "final" keywords in your code.
That being said, if I would design a language, I would make every variable final unless modified by some other keyword.
I don't use final a lot for classes and methods, thought. This is a more or less complicated design choice, unless your class is a utility class (in which case you should have only one private constructor).
I also use Collections.unmodifiable... to create unmodifiable lists when I need to.
Using anonymous local classes for event listeners and such is a common pattern in Java.
The most common use of the final keyword is to make sure that variables in scope are accessible to the even listener.
However, if you find yourself being required to put a lot of final statements in your code. That might be a good hint you're doing something wrong.
The article posted above gives this example:
public void doSomething(int i, int j) {
final int n = i + j; // must be declared final
Comparator comp = new Comparator() {
public int compare(Object left, Object right) {
return n; // return copy of a local variable
}
};
}
I use it for constants inside and outside methods.
I only sometimes use it for methods because I don't know if a subclass would NOT want to override a given method(for whatever reasons).
As far as classes, only for some infrastructure classes, have I used final class.
IntelliJ IDEA warns you if a function parameter is written to inside a function. So, I've stopped using final for function arguments. I don't see them inside java Runtime library as well.
I hardly use final on methods or classes because I like allowing people to override them.
Otherwise, I only use finally if it is a public/private static final type SOME_CONSTANT;
Marking the class final can also make some method bindings happen at compile time instead of runtime.
Consider "v2.foo()" below - the compiler knows that B cannot have a subclass, so foo() cannot be overridden so the implementation to call is known at compile time. If class B is NOT marked final, then it's possible that the actual type of v2 is some class that extends B and overrides foo().
class A {
void foo() {
//do something
}
}
final class B extends A {
void foo() {
}
}
class Test {
public void t(A v1, B v2) {
v1.foo();
v2.foo();
}
}
Using final for constants is strongly encouraged. However, I wouldn't use it for methods or classes (or at least think about it for a while), because it makes testing harder, if not impossible. If you absolutely must make a class or method final, make sure this class implements some interface, so you can have a mock implementing the same interface.