Related
I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.
The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}
You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)
The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.
"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}
There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.
this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}
Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.
#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)
Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.
Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html
when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.
this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.
this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}
With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.
To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.
Is it okay to pass an object type, or simply a type of any kind into the constructor of a new object then not use it inside of the constructor?
The purpose is to have the new object be created based on what parent class it resides in (it is aggregated) so it generates different variables for itself based on that fact.
Or is there a better way to do this?
public class ObjectA {
private MalleableObject obj;
public void createObject(){
obj = new MalleableObject(this);
}
}
public class ObjectB {
private MalleableObject obj;
public void createObject(){
obj = new MalleableObject(this);
}
}
public class MalleableObject{
private boolean doIBelongToA;
public MalleableObject(ObjectB obj){
doIBelongToA = false;
}
public MalleableObject(ObjectA obj){
doIBelongToA = true;
}
}
The approach you are taking will definitely work, But the question is whether it is a good idea or not, The answer is depends on the use case that you are trying to tackle.
You asked about taking a object as parameter in constructor and not using it
If you are not using the property of passed parameter then why to take that in parameter, for that we have empty constructor , even when you don't specify it is by default injected
public MalleableObject(ObjectB obj){
doIBelongToA = false; // if you are directly setting the value without
//using obj b then use default constructor.
}
public MalleableObject(ObjectA obj){
doIBelongToA = true;
}
/*If you are interested in setting the value based on the reference only there
is no problem with your approach as well, One alternative you can take to
combine both of them in single constructor and check the reference and set
the value accordingly*/
If you use the property of the object for creating new object then certainly it's a good idea,
Copy constructor if you are using same object as parameter, Prototype design pattern if you are creating your object with similiar object already created
The example that you gave is a very basic example which does not highlight any use case and hence the approach you have taken will not be suggested
The simpler approach would be just adding the boolean variable in the constructor of MalleableObject.
public class ObjectA {
private MalleableObject obj;
public void createObject(){
obj = new MalleableObject(true);
}
}
public class ObjectB {
private MalleableObject obj;
public void createObject(){
obj = new MalleableObject(false);
}
}
public class MalleableObject{
private boolean doIBelongToA;
public MalleableObject(boolean doIBelongToA){
this.doIBelongToA = doIBelongToA;
}
}
This would easily assure that the object made from class A has value true for doIBelongToA.
Also, you will not have to add different constructors for further classes, if added, ensuring extensibility
While you aren't using it directly, you are definitely using information from the parameter. Personally, I'd save the reference, or at least its type, for later use in case you need it and implement doIBelongToA as a method, but there's nothing technically wrong with your approach:
public class MalleableObject{
private Class ownerType;
public MalleableObject(Class ownerType) {
this.ownerType = ownerType;
}
public boolean doBelongToA() {
return ownerType.equals(ObjectA.class);
}
}
The above approach works but it's not a best practice and hence has some limitations. I would suggest you use builder pattern where you can create use of a builder to create an object and then have a method that defines the behavior. You will be able to extend this to add variables/business logic in the future.
I think the Factory pattern is also good
thing to look at
I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.
The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}
You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)
The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.
"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}
There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.
this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}
Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.
#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)
Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.
Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html
when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.
this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.
this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}
With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.
To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.
Is it possible to get the class type from inside the static initialization block?
This is a simplified version of what I currently have::
class Person extends SuperClass {
String firstName;
static{
// This function is on the "SuperClass":
// I'd for this function to be able to get "Person.class" without me
// having to explicitly type it in but "this.class" does not work in
// a static context.
doSomeReflectionStuff(Person.class); // IN "SuperClass"
}
}
This is closer to what I am doing, which is to initialize a data structure that holds information about the object and its annotations, etc... Perhaps I am using the wrong pattern?
public abstract SuperClass{
static void doSomeReflectionStuff( Class<?> classType, List<FieldData> fieldDataList ){
Field[] fields = classType.getDeclaredFields();
for( Field field : fields ){
// Initialize fieldDataList
}
}
}
public abstract class Person {
#SomeAnnotation
String firstName;
// Holds information on each of the fields, I used a Map<String, FieldData>
// in my actual implementation to map strings to the field information, but that
// seemed a little wordy for this example
static List<FieldData> fieldDataList = new List<FieldData>();
static{
// Again, it seems dangerous to have to type in the "Person.class"
// (or Address.class, PhoneNumber.class, etc...) every time.
// Ideally, I'd liken to eliminate all this code from the Sub class
// since now I have to copy and paste it into each Sub class.
doSomeReflectionStuff(Person.class, fieldDataList);
}
}
Edit
I picked the accepted answer based on what applied best to my problem, however it seems to me that all three of the current answers have their merits.
No, it's not possible without grabbing the stacktrace (which is imo nastier than your initial approach and for which I would in any way prefer Thread#getStackTrace() above new Exception()).
Rather do that job in a non-static initializer (or the default constructor) of the abstract class where you check the initialized status.
public abstract class SuperClass {
{
if (!isInitialized(getClass())) {
initialize(getClass());
}
}
}
The called methods in turn can be safely static.
yes, I use this often to initialize a static Log variable :
e.g. :
public class Project implements Serializable, Cloneable, Comparable<Project> {
private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Project.class);
...
To get a class at runtime, you could do something along the lines of
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
throw new Exception();
}
catch(Exception e){
StackTraceElement[] sTrace = e.getStackTrace();
// sTrace[0] will be always there
String className = sTrace[0].getClassName();
System.out.println(className);
}
}
}
Not pretty but will do the job (ripped from http://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=1&thread=155230).
This means you still make a call from the subclass (so is in the stack trace), but you don't need to include the XXX.class as an argument.
I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.
The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}
You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)
The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.
"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}
There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.
this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}
Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.
#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)
Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.
Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html
when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.
this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.
this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}
With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.
To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.