Develop Reference

Constructor behaving like a method

I'm new to Java so not really sure if it's an error on my part. My project has two packages within. I'm trying to use an object belonging to a class of package lovo in an object of a class of package j2. The constructor of object belonging to package lovo is now being treated as a method. Why is that?
package j2;
import lovo.kulo;
public class J2
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
kulo kla ;
kla = new kulo();
//kla.kulo();
}
}
package lovo;
public class kulo {
public void kulo(){
System.out.print("This is supposed to be a constructor");}
}
When i run there is no output, however when i remove the comment and add it as code there is an output. Since it's a constructor shouldn't it print as soon as the object is created?

It is indeed a method. To make it a constructor, remove the void return type. It'll also be less confusing if you follow Java naming conventions and begin class names (and therefore constructor names) with an uppercase letter.

How can instanceof return true for a class that has a private constructor?

This is a question from this book: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0506/ConcSys/cs_a-2005.pdf page 28
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an
object that, when passed to the test method causes it to
print “Here!”? As I say in the code, editing the class A
itself, or using library features like reflection, serialization,
or native methods are considered cheating! I’ll provide
some hints in lectures if nobody can spot it in a week or
so. None of the PhD students has got it yet.
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
I know the question is a lot unclear. I can think of many different 'hack-ish' solutions but not sure if they will be counted as 'cheating' or not :)
I can't find the official answer so asking you for what would be a good answer.

If we consider that nesting class A does not "modify it" (as, technically, all lines of code are intact) then this solution is probably the only valid option:
class B
{
static
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof A) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
A.test(new A());
}
}
What I mean is, technically it follows all the rules:
Can you write an additional Java class which creates an object that, when passed to the test method causes it to print “Here!”? - Done
As I say in the code, editing the class A itself ... considered cheating! - Technically, the class is unedited. I copy pasted it into my code.
... or using library features like reflection, serialization, or native methods are considered cheating! - Done
If, however, you decide that nesting class A should not be allowed, then I believe there is no proper solution to the problem given the current definition. Also, given the section of the book this task is given in, I bet that the author wanted to make the constructor protected but not private.

Somehow, I don't like this sort of questions. It's from a lecture back in 2005, and according to websearches, it seems that nobody has found "the" solution until now, and no solution has been published.
The constraints are clear, but the question of what is allowed or not is somewhat fuzzy. Every solution could be considered as "cheating", in one or the other way, because a class with a private constructor is not meant to be subclassed. That's a critical security mechanism, and the responsible engineers are working hard to make sure that this security mechanism cannot be trivially circumvented.
So of course, you have to cheat in order to solve this.
Nevertheless, I spent quite a while with this, and here's how I eventually cheated it:
1.) Download the Apache Bytecode Engineering Library, and place the bcel-6.0.jar in one directory.
2.) Create a file CreateB.java in the same directory, with the following contents:
import java.io.FileOutputStream;
import org.apache.bcel.Const;
import org.apache.bcel.generic.*;
public class CreateB
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
ClassGen cg = new ClassGen("B", "A", "B.java",
Const.ACC_PUBLIC | Const.ACC_SUPER, new String[] {});
ConstantPoolGen cp = cg.getConstantPool();
InstructionList il = new InstructionList();
MethodGen method = new MethodGen(Const.ACC_PUBLIC, Type.VOID,
Type.NO_ARGS, new String[] {}, "<init>", "B", il, cp);
il.append(InstructionFactory.createReturn(Type.VOID));
method.setMaxStack();
method.setMaxLocals();
cg.addMethod(method.getMethod());
il.dispose();
cg.getJavaClass().dump(new FileOutputStream("B.class"));
}
}
3.) Compile and execute this class:
javac -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB.java
java -cp .;bcel-6.0.jar CreateB
(note: On linux, the ; must be a :). The result will be a file B.class.
4.) Copy the class that was given in the question (verbatim - without any modification) into the same directory and compile it.
5.) Create the following class in the same directory, and compile it:
public class TestA
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A.test(new B());
}
}
6.) The crucial step: Call
java -Xverify:none TestA
The output will be Here!.
The key point is that the CreateB class creates a class B that extends A, but does not invoke the super constructor. (Note that an implicit super constructor invocation would normally be added by the compiler. But there's no compiler involved here. The bytecode is created manually). All this would usually fail with a VerifyError when the class is loaded, but this verification can be switched off with -Xverify:none.
So in summary:
The class A itself is not edited (and also its byte code is not edited, I hope this is clear!)
No reflection
No serialization
No custom native methods

There are a few options here:
Create a class:
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
X.test(new Y());
}
}
And then edit the bytecode and remove the call to X.. Of course this violates the JVM specification and has to be run with -Xverify:none as said above. This is essentially the same as the one #Marco13.
Option 2:
import sun.misc.Unsafe;
public class Y extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Unsafe uf = Unsafe.getUnsafe();
X.test((X) uf.allocateInstance(X.class));
}
}
Compile the code and run it by putting your classpath in the sysloader (otherwise it won't work):
$ java -Xbootclasspath/p:. Y
Both work for me :) Of course, they are both cheating. The first option isn't Java. The second is, well, evil :)
If I find out another way, I'll post it :)
In any case this can't be done without low-level tricks. The JVM Specification explicitly prohibits the creation of an object without calling the constructor as the object in the stack is uninitialized. And the JVM Specification explicitly prohibits not calling the super constructor. And the JVM Specification explicitly requires verification of access protection.
Still funny, though :)

Java can support unicode class name:)
The A in "if (o instanceof A)" could be different from the A in "public class A"
For example, the code below will print "Here!" instead of "bad".
A.java
public class A {
// Private constructor tries to prevent A
// from being instantiated outside this
// class definition
//
// Using reflection is cheating :-)
private A() {
// A: U+0041
}
// ’test’ method checks whether the caller has
// been able to create an instance of the ’A’
// class. Can this be done even though the
// constructor is private?
public static void test(Object o) {
if (o instanceof А) {
System.out.println("Here!");
}
}
}
А.java
public class А {
// A: U+0410, not A: U+0041
}
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.test(new А());
}
}

What is the best way to approximate class.getSimpleName() without loading class?

Given a fully qualified class name that can be loaded with Class.forName(), is there a way to transform the name into what would be the result of loading the class and invoking getSimpleName() without actually attempting to load the class?
I need this capability for reflection purposes.

I'm going to say that you can't do it simply based on the name.
You can try to split on . and $, but this example code demonstrates that it is not always obvious where the simple name begins:
class Ideone
{
private static class Bar {};
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
class Foo$o {
class Bar$bar {}
};
class Foo$o$Bar {
class Bar$bar {}
};
class Foo$o$Bar$Bar$bar {}
print(Ideone.class);
print(Bar.class);
print(Foo$o.class);
print(Foo$o.Bar$bar.class);
print(Foo$o$Bar.Bar$bar.class);
print(Foo$o$Bar$Bar$bar.class);
}
private static void print(Class<?> clazz) {
System.out.printf("fqn=%s, sn=%s%n", clazz.getName(), clazz.getSimpleName());
}
}
Output:
fqn=Ideone, sn=Ideone
fqn=Ideone$Bar, sn=Bar
fqn=Ideone$1Foo$o, sn=Foo$o
fqn=Ideone$1Foo$o$Bar$bar, sn=Bar$bar
fqn=Ideone$1Foo$o$Bar$Bar$bar, sn=Bar$bar
fqn=Ideone$2Foo$o$Bar$Bar$bar, sn=Foo$o$Bar$Bar$bar
Ideone demo
i.e. if you were to say "the bit of the name after the final $ or .", you'd be wrong.
The only conclusive way to do this is to load the class, potentially without initializing it:
Class<?> clazz = Class.forName(className, false, someClassLoadeR);

As demonstrated by the answer of #AndyTurner you cannot derive the simple name from the qualified class string in all cases.
But if the constraint without actually attempting to load the class does not forbid to read the contents of the class file, you could do the following (for the edge cases):
Get a InputStream for the class file contents via Class.getResourceAsStream()
Parse the beginning of the class file and read the super class name from the constant pool.
(as commented by #shmosel) Implement the logic of Class.getSimpleName(). The super class name allows you to replace Class.getSimpleBinaryString() which relies on an already loaded class.

Overwrite method inside an objective-c class as in Java

I often use this statement for extending class without needs of writing a whole separate file. Supposing ClassFromFramework is a class being part of a framework included in library.
public ClassFromFramework {
public String myMethod() {
// operations
}
//lot of other methods....
}
Then in my class I could do the following:
import com.framework.ClassFromFramework;
public MyClass {
public void method() {
ClassFromFramework m = new ClassFromFramework() {
#Override
public String myMethod() {
// do operations...
}
}
m.myMethod();
}
}
I wonder if I can achieve the same with Objective-c without declaring a new combination .h .m files and import in my using class.

You can make a new subclass, and override methods, but all new classes must be in their own .h & .m files. That's how Obj-C operates. In this case, it would make sense to have the additional files.
You can also call the parent method with the word super. This is done all the time when subclassing a ViewController, such as in viewDidLoad.

Two public classes in one file java

Ok, this might be kiddies question in java. We can't define two public classes in one file. But, in one of the examples from the book SCJP study guide, this example was mentioned:
public abstract class A{
public abstract void show(String data);
}
public class B extends A{
public void show(String data){
System.out.println("The string data is "+data);
}
public static void main(String [] args){
B b = new B();
b.show("Some sample string data");
}
}
When I copy pasted this into netbeans immediately compile error was thrown, that public class A should me mentioned in separate file. Is that example from SCJP styudy guide really wrong? Also in some of the mock test I found many questions having such pattern but in none of the options was a compiler error was mentioned. Getting worried here

yes, 2 top level public classes are not allowed in one file

Well, if one is being so picky: you can have multiple classes defined with a public modifier in the same file, that is, using the static nested(inner) class.
like this:
File -> Test.java
public class Test {
public static class SomeNestedClass {
}
}

Yes you can have two classes in the same file. You can have them by removing the public access modifier from both the class name, like shown below,
abstract class A{
public abstract void show(String data);
}
class B extends A{
public void show(String data){
System.out.println("The string data is "+data);
}
public static void main(String [] args){
B b = new B();
b.show("Some sample string data");
}
}

you can make 2 public classes in one file , inside a class that contains them .
it's also recommended to add "static" for them , if you do not need any reference to the container class .

You can put two public classes in one file, for example in the file Circle.java:
public class Test {
public static void main(String args[]) {
double cir = Circle.findCircumference(7.5);
System.out.print("Circumference of circle=" + cir);
}
}
public class Circle {
public static double findCircumference(double radius) {
return 2 * Math.PI * radius;
}
}
If you then run javac Circle.java, you will get an error:
Circle.java:1: error: class Test is public, should be declared in a file named Test.java
public class Test {
^
1 error
But if you run it with java Circle.java, then it will work.
Why? Probably because the java command, since java 11 (see here), can run also single source-file programs.

Imagine you could place two public classes in one file, then think about the work of the compiler: it has to build a .class file from your .java file that represents exactly one class (otherwise the .class ending wouldn't make any sense).
The way the JAVA Compiler works it will simply create a .class file with the name of your file and will search for the class with the name of the file in your given file – so it depends on your file name which class will be correctly compiled and which will not.
Long story short: no, you can't put two public classes in one file because the compiler wouldn't be able to handle that correctly.
(Edit: it of course is possible to define new classes INSIDE the one public class that has the same name as your file.)