Why does the following code print "YO"? Whose printYo() is being called? I would think that this code would not compile because printYo() is private to t.
public class Test {
private void printYo() {
System.out.println("YO");
}
public void doubleTrouble(Test t) {
t.printYo();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.doubleTrouble(new Test());
}
}
What can I do to make sure the outer object doesn't mutate the argument class?
printYo() is private to t
No. That method is private in regards to the class Test. Any piece of code within Test can use it.
What can I do to make sure the outer object doesn't mutate the argument class?
Java does not have any built in mechanism to refuse access to members on a per instance basis. (If that is what you meant.)
You are calling the method with in the class , which sound correct for the output . Even if you call the main method from different class it gives the same output.
Related
I have some doubt on how this works, consider a simple Java program:
package com.example;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
t.print();
}
public void print() {
System.out.println("This is demo");
}
}
This is pretty straightforward program.
However, I have doubt at (1). We are creating an instance of Test, but this is still in the definition of Class Test. How is this possible?
Any explanation to help this would be great.
The instance will be created at run-time.
By then, compile-time is over and all of the code of your application (including all class definition) will be "ready".
Even if you call a constructor of a class that has not been encountered by the JVM up to that point, it will dynamically load the class (in its entirety) before executing the constructor call. Note that a) this might actually fail at run-time, in which case you get a ClassNotFoundError, and b) that cannot happen in your case, because you are calling the constructor of the class from itself (so it must have been loaded already).
The compiler does not run any of your code (not even things like static initializers) during compilation.
But it does make sure (during compilation) that every method or constructor that you are trying to call does in fact exist. Again, this could theoretically fail at runtime (if you mess up class files), in which case you would get a NoSuchMethodError.
First We have to Compile this Porgram using javac After Compilation It will give a Class File.
Now time to Execute Your Class Using java which Invokes JVM and load the Class File to the Class Loader.
java fileName.Class
And here
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
t.print();
}
All we know static Content (either it is Variable or Method In Java) Of class loaded when ClassLoader loads a Class
As You see Main Method is a static Method. and So, It will Automatically Load into the ClassLoader with class File.
Now JVM First find the public static void main(String... args) in class. Which is a static Content means Its a part of Class but not a part of Class Instance. There is no need of Class Instance to Invoke this MainMethod`.
main(String... args) will be Invoked without getting Instance of the Class. In that Main Method , Your Class is Getting Instantiated
Test t = new Test(); \\here t is reference Variable to Test Class Object.
Now Because Class is loaded into the class Loader new Test(); will create a New Object in Heap memory Area of JVM and your method
public void print() {
System.out.println("This is demo");
}
will be invoked using t.print() Which is a Instance Method (Not Static), So It needs Class Instance to Invoke print() Method.
Q: Test t = new Test(); (1) <---- How is this possible
A: Because of the "static" in public static void main(String[] args)
The "static" means that method "main()" is independent of any specific class object.
You can create any class object you want - including a new "Test" object.
One of the benefits of defining "main" to be static is that you can use "main()" as a test method for the class. Each class can have it's own "main", and you can test each class individually by specifying that class in your Java command line.
For example:
public class MyClass {
public int add2(int n) {
return n + 2;
}
public static void main (String[] args) {
MyClass unitTest = new MyClass ();
System.out.println ("add2(2)=" + unitTest.add2(2));
System.out.println("Expected result=4");
}
}
Then test as follows:
javac MyClass.java
java MyClass
add2(2)=4
Expected result=4
This question has actually been asked and answered many times. For example:
Why is the Java main method static?
==================================================================
Here are a few more examples that illustrate the point:
public class CreateMyself {
private int value = 0;
private static CreateMyself m_singleton = null;
// EXAMPLE 1: You can legally create an instance in the constructor ...
public CreateMyself () {
value++;
// CreateMyself o = new CreateMyself (); // BAD!!! This will cause infinite recursion and crash your stack!!!
System.out.println ("Leaving constructor, value=" + value + "...");
}
// EXAMPLE 2: You can legally create another instance in a normal class member
public void createAnother() {
// But ... WHY??? Is there anything you can't do directly, in your own instance?
CreateMyself newInstance = new CreateMyself ();
System.out.println ("Leaving createAnother, value=" + value + "...");
}
// EXAMPLE 3: This is a common idiom for creating a "singleton"
// NOTE: for this to work, you'd also make the constructor PRIVATE (or protected), so the client *must* call "getInstance()", instead of "new".
public static CreateMyself getInstance () {
if (m_singleton == null) {
m_singleton = new CreateMyself ();
}
System.out.println ("returning singleton instance...");
return m_singleton;
}
// EXAMPLE 4: Creating an instance in "static main()" is a common idiom
public static void main (String[] args) {
CreateMyself newInstance = new CreateMyself ();
newInstance.createAnother ();
}
}
There are many other possible uses. For example, maybe you'll have a static method that does a database lookup and returns a list matching objects.
Note that most of the cases where it's really useful for a class to have a method where it creates an instance of itself are probably static methods.
I came across a code which my colleague uses inside an eventListner, which is :
private void someActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) {
new className().methodName(); //public class and public void methodName()
}
I was pretty sure that :
private void someActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) {
className ref = new className(); //public class and public void
ref.methodName();
}
is the better option than his, as the previous method instantiates a class every time it is called.
Am I wrong? Any suggestion is appreciated, Please correct me if I am wrong
.
Both do the same thing, however one of them (the first) is 1 line shorter.
Your approach is usually recommended when you need to go through more than 2-3 objects, so new Foo().getBar1().getBar2().doStuff() is usually not recommended since it can degrade into spaghetti code and hinder the understandability of the code.
The first code-sample instantiates a new Object of Type className.methodName.
For this to work, methodName has to be a static nested class of Type className.
Attention: This could as well be a typo. Did you mean new className().methodName()?
The second sample creates a new instance of className and calls its method methodName.
Some example code:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test.test(); // instantiates the inner class
Test t = new Test(); // instantiates Test
t.test(); // calls method #test of Test-instance
}
public String test() {
return "Test";
}
public static class test {
}
}
In order to judge what's the best solution your example does not give enought information. Is the method some static utility code or is an instance of className useful? It depends...
Whenever an object is instantiated but is not assigned a reference variable, it is called anonymous object instantiation.
With anonymous object you can call it's instance method also:
new className().methodName();
In your case this is the anonymous object which doesn't have reference variable.
In the statements:
className ref = new className();
ref.methodName();
ref is the reference variable to hold the className object, so you can call instance methods of className on ref variable.
The benefit of using anonymous notation is, if you want to do only limited (may be calling single method and so on..) operation with the underlying object the it is a good approach. But if you needs to perform more operation with the underlying object then you need to keep that object in a reference variable so that you can use that reference to perform multiple operations with that object.
Regarding the performance there are not much difference as both are in methods scope, as soon as method completes both the objects are valid candidates for the garbage collection.
Both the methods instantiates a class in the code. If you want to reuse the class object every time the method is called, you can declare it as a member of the class where the method resides. For eg:
class AnotherClass{
private ClassName ref;
AnotherClass(){
ref = new ClassName()
}
private void someActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) {
ref.methodName();
}
}
This way, everytime your method someActionPerformed is called on an object of AnotherClass, it will reuse the ref object instead of instantiating it everytime.
About the edit,
public class ClassName {
static class InnerClass{
// A static inner class
}
public void methodName() {
// A method
}
}
class AnotherClass{
private void someActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt){
// This creates an instance of the inner class `InnerClass`
new ClassName.InnerClass();
// However I believe, you wanted to do:
new ClassName().methodName();
}
}
new className.methodName(); --> if you are using this convention in your code then calling another method name will result to different object's method name and you lose your values.
className ref = new className();
ref.methodName(); -> here you are creating a reference and make assiging a newly created object and you are calling the method's on it. Suppose if you want to call another method on the same object it will helps.
The first approach they will mostly use for listenere which is anonymous class.
Both options create a new Class every time they are called. The advantage of the second over the first option would be if you wanted to reuse that class later in the method.
IMHO this is a little bit more understandable code for the answer provided by DaniEll
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test.test(); // instantiates the inner class
Test t = new Test(); // instantiates Test
t.test(); // calls method #test of Test-instance
}
public void test() {
System.out.println("Outer class");
}
public static class test {
public test() {
System.out.println("Inner class");
}
}
}
I have a question. I have multiple classes in a package: Let's say package is
com.myPackage.first
And this package has the following classes:
firstGood
secondGood
thirdBad
fourthGood
Each of these classes have a method with the same name but different implementation. So say each have a one particular function called:
public void runMe(){
}
For now I want to come up with a way to given a class name, it'll go inside the class and run that particular method.
So conceptually, my method will look like those:
ArrayList<Class> classList ; // where classList is a list of classes I want to run
public void execute(){
for(Class c : classList){
// Go inside that class, (maybe create an intance of that class) and run the method called run me
}
}
or
public void execute(Class c, String methodToRun){
for(Class c : classList){
// Go inside that class, (maybe create an intance of that class) and run the method called run me
}
}
For now. what I have been able to do is get the name of the classes I want to run the
runMe()
method. So I have been able to come with a way to get the arraylist of classes I want to run. So what I need help with is coming up with a method such that it takes a class name and run the method I want it to. Any help is appreciated. Thanks
I suggest having a look at Class.forName ( ... ) to get the class object, Class.newInstance(); if your classes have a default constructor (or Class.getDeclaredConstructor(...) otherwise) to create a new instance and then Class.getDeclaredMethod( ... ) to find the method and invoke it.
All of this without any regard if your idea is really a good one, since I really didn't quite understand WHY you want to do what you want to do...
interface Me {
void runMe();
}
Then let all classes implement Me.
And have a list of Mes
List<Class<Me>> ...
Then
void test(Class<Me> cl) {
Me me = cl.newInstance();
me.runMe();
}
My adage is always use reflection to solve a problem - now you have two problems. In view of that have you considered a simple pattern like this:
interface Runner {
public void runMe();
}
static abstract class BaseRunner implements Runner {
public BaseRunner() {
// Automagically register all runners in the RunThem class.
RunThem.runners.add(this);
}
}
class FirstGood extends BaseRunner implements Runner {
#Override
public void runMe() {
System.out.println(this.getClass().getSimpleName() + ":runMe");
}
}
class SecondGood extends BaseRunner implements Runner {
#Override
public void runMe() {
System.out.println(this.getClass().getSimpleName() + ":runMe");
}
}
static class RunThem {
static final Set<Runner> runners = new HashSet<>();
static void runThem() {
for (Runner r : runners) {
r.runMe();
}
}
}
public void test() {
Runner f = new FirstGood();
Runner s = new SecondGood();
RunThem.runThem();
}
Here all of your runMe objects extend a base class whose constructor installs the object in a Set held by the class that calls their runMe methods.
inline
void execute() throws Exception{
for (Class<?> c : classesList)
{
//If you don't already have an instance then you need one
//note if the method is static no need for any existing instance.
Object obj = Class.forName(c.getName());
// name of the method and list of arguments to pass
Method m = c.getDeclaredMethod(methodName,null);
//method accessibility check
if(!m.isAccessible())
m.setAccessible(true);
//invoke method if method with arguements then pass them as new Object[]{arg0...} instead of null
//if method is static then m.innvoke(null,null)
m.invoke(obj, null);
}
}
I would recommend using an Interface that defines the runMe() method and then have all your classes implement that interface. Then you would have a list of this Interface:
List<MyInterface> classes = new ArrayList<MyInterface>();
Then you could easily iterate over it and invoke "runMe()" on all of them or if you only want to invoke it for instances of a certain class you could do it like this:
public void execute(Class classForWhichToExecute) {
for (MyInterface myInterface : classes) {
if (classForWhichToExecute.isAssignableForm(myInterface)) {
myInterface.runMe();
}
}
}
Of course this wouldn't work if your method is a static method - so adding more information from your side would help.
I would suggest to use an interface with a common method to override in each class. So that any class can be casted to interface and use its method to execute the method.
interface GoodAndBad{
public void runMe();
}
Implemented class
class FirstGood implements GoodAndBad{
#override
public void runMe(){
// Code to be executed
}
}
You can use execute() method as follows
public void execute(List<GoodAndBad> classList){
for(GoodAndBad c : classList){
c.runMe();
// Go inside that class, (maybe create an intance of that class) and
// run the method called run me
}
}
Change the Class to GoodAndBad interface to change the other method too.
This is loosely coupling objects to support favor over composition in Java Object Oriented Design Patterns.
Never use Strings of method names to execute a method at anytime. There are plenty of other cool solutions for that using design patterns.
I'm trying to write an expression or series of statements of Java source code that when written inside a static method evaluates to null, but if the method is non-static evaluates to this.
My initial idea was to 'overload' on static vs non-static, as below:
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull());
}
private static Object getThisOrNull() {
return null;
}
private Object getThisOrNull() {
return this;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
Unfortunately this isn't actually legal Java, you can't 'overload' like that and it just gives a compiler error:
test.java:14: error: method getThisOrNull() is already defined in class test
private Object getThisOrNull() {
^
1 error
Clearly in an ideal world I wouldn't write it like that to begin with, but the problem is this code will be generated automatically by a tool that is not really semantically or syntactically enough to distinguish between the static vs non-static case.
So, how can I write some source code that, although byte for byte identical compiles and behaves differently in depending on the presence of the static modifier for the method?
This can be achieved with a trick and a bit of help from Java's reflection facilities. It's ugly, but it works:
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
public class test {
public void method1() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
public static void method2() {
System.out.println(getThisOrNull(new Object(){}));
}
private static Object getThisOrNull(final Object o) {
for (Field f: o.getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (f.getType().equals(test.class)) {
try {
return f.get(o);
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// Omm nom nom...
}
}
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
test t = new test();
System.out.println(t);
t.method1();
t.method2();
}
}
This compiles and runs as hoped for:
test#183f74d
test#183f74d
null
The trick that makes this possible is the use of new Object(){}, which creates a new, anonymous class within the existing method that we're trying to figure out if it's static or not. The behaviour of this is subtly different between the two cases.
If the goal were just to figure out if the method is static or not we could write:
java.lang.reflect.Modifiers.isStatic(new Object(){}.getClass().getEnclosingMethod().getModifiers())
Since we want to get this (when available) we need to do something slightly different. Fortunately for us classes defined within the context of an instance of an object in Java get an implicit reference to the class that contains them. (Normally you'd access it with test.this syntax). We needed a way to access test.this if it existed, except we can't actually write test.this anywhere because it too would be syntactically invalid in the static case. It does however exist within the object, as a private member variable. This means that we can find it with reflection, which is what the getThisOrNull static method does with the local anonymous type.
The downside is that we create an anonymous class in every method we use this trick and it probably adds overheads, but if you're backed into a corner and looking for a way of doing this it does at least work.
I've got three classes:
One class which handles my main game operations. Its name is 'PlatformerGame'.
Note: Removed all game-related stuff.
public class PlatformerGame {
public PlatformerGame()
{
}
}
Then, I've got a class called 'PlatformerSingleton' which is meant to provide exactly one instance of the PlatformerGame.
public class PlatformerSingleton {
private static PlatformerGame game;
protected PlatformerSingleton()
{}
public static PlatformerGame getGame()
{
if (game == null)
game = new PlatformerGame();
return game;
}
}
And lastly, I've got the entry point of my application which is supposed to do nothing but get the instance of PlatformerGame and call its 'start' method.
public class Entry {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start();
}
}
However, this is where the error happens:
What does this error mean and how can I prevent it? Also, are there any better approaches to implement this?
Note: I require access to the singleton instance from multiple classes, therefore I need this singleton class.
Don't add new in the line new PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start();
just change your line to:
PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start();
you are not creating new object here, you are just calling the static method of PlatformerSingleton class in which the object of the class is created using Singleton Design Pattern
Remove the new in that call:
new PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start();
Currently, it looks like you're trying to instantiate a class called PlatformerSingleton.getGame (a static nested class called getGame inside PlatformerSingleton).
You're looking for the static method inside PlatformerSingleton. Since it's static, you don't want to instantiate using new at all.
The compiler sees that the syntax is correct, but it doesn't find such class and thus throws an error. These kinds of errors are a bit tougher to correctly debug (as the actual error is syntactical), so you need to look a bit farther to fix it.
Just remove the newkeyword (you don't need new because you're creating PlatformerGameinstance inside of the getGame method):
public static void main(String[] args) {
PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start();
}
Since getGame() is a static method, you do not need to use the new keyword to call the method.
public static void main(String[] args) {
PlatformerSingleton.getGame().start(); // new keyword is not required
}
If getGame() was not static, only then it would have required an instance of PlatformerSingleton class for it to be called and that would have looked like
public static void main(String[] args) {
new PlatformerSingleton().getGame().start(); // if getGame() was a non-static method
}