Related
Is there any advantage for either approach?
Example 1:
class A {
B b = new B();
}
Example 2:
class A {
B b;
A() {
b = new B();
}
}
There is no difference - the instance variable initialization is actually put in the constructor(s) by the compiler.
The first variant is more readable.
You can't have exception handling with the first variant.
There is additionally the initialization block, which is as well put in the constructor(s) by the compiler:
{
a = new A();
}
Check Sun's explanation and advice
From this tutorial:
Field declarations, however, are not part of any method, so they cannot be executed as statements are. Instead, the Java compiler generates instance-field initialization code automatically and puts it in the constructor or constructors for the class. The initialization code is inserted into a constructor in the order it appears in the source code, which means that a field initializer can use the initial values of fields declared before it.
Additionally, you might want to lazily initialize your field. In cases when initializing a field is an expensive operation, you may initialize it as soon as it is needed:
ExpensiveObject o;
public ExpensiveObject getExpensiveObject() {
if (o == null) {
o = new ExpensiveObject();
}
return o;
}
And ultimately (as pointed out by Bill), for the sake of dependency management, it is better to avoid using the new operator anywhere within your class. Instead, using Dependency Injection is preferable - i.e. letting someone else (another class/framework) instantiate and inject the dependencies in your class.
Another option would be to use Dependency Injection.
class A{
B b;
A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
This removes the responsibility of creating the B object from the constructor of A. This will make your code more testable and easier to maintain in the long run. The idea is to reduce the coupling between the two classes A and B. A benefit that this gives you is that you can now pass any object that extends B (or implements B if it is an interface) to A's constructor and it will work. One disadvantage is that you give up encapsulation of the B object, so it is exposed to the caller of the A constructor. You'll have to consider if the benefits are worth this trade-off, but in many cases they are.
I got burned in an interesting way today:
class MyClass extends FooClass {
String a = null;
public MyClass() {
super(); // Superclass calls init();
}
#Override
protected void init() {
super.init();
if (something)
a = getStringYadaYada();
}
}
See the mistake? It turns out that the a = null initializer gets called after the superclass constructor is called. Since the superclass constructor calls init(), the initialization of a is followed by the a = null initialization.
my personal "rule" (hardly ever broken) is to:
declare all variables at the start of
a block
make all variables final unless they
cannot be
declare one variable per line
never initialize a variable where
declared
only initialize something in a
constructor when it needs data from
the constructor to do the
initialization
So I would have code like:
public class X
{
public static final int USED_AS_A_CASE_LABEL = 1; // only exception - the compiler makes me
private static final int A;
private final int b;
private int c;
static
{
A = 42;
}
{
b = 7;
}
public X(final int val)
{
c = val;
}
public void foo(final boolean f)
{
final int d;
final int e;
d = 7;
// I will eat my own eyes before using ?: - personal taste.
if(f)
{
e = 1;
}
else
{
e = 2;
}
}
}
This way I am always 100% certain where to look for variables declarations (at the start of a block), and their assignments (as soon as it makes sense after the declaration). This winds up potentially being more efficient as well since you never initialize a variable with a value that is not used (for example declare and init vars and then throw an exception before half of those vars needed to have a value). You also do not wind up doing pointless initialization (like int i = 0; and then later on, before "i" is used, do i = 5;.
I value consistency very much, so following this "rule" is something I do all the time, and it makes it much easier to work with the code since you don't have to hunt around to find things.
Your mileage may vary.
Example 2 is less flexible. If you add another constructor, you need to remember to instantiate the field in that constructor as well. Just instantiate the field directly, or introduce lazy loading somewhere in a getter.
If instantiation requires more than just a simple new, use an initializer block. This will be run regardless of the constructor used. E.g.
public class A {
private Properties properties;
{
try {
properties = new Properties();
properties.load(Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResourceAsStream("file.properties"));
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new ConfigurationException("Failed to load properties file.", e); // It's a subclass of RuntimeException.
}
}
// ...
}
Using either dependency injection or lazy initialization is always preferable, as already explained thoroughly in other answers.
When you don't want or can't use those patterns, and for primitive data types, there are three compelling reasons that I can think of why it's preferable to initialize the class attributes outside the constructor:
avoided repetition = if you have more than one constructor, or when you will need to add more, you won't have to repeat the initialization over and over in all the constructors bodies;
improved readability = you can easily tell with a glance which variables will have to be initialized from outside the class;
reduced lines of code = for every initialization done at the declaration there will be a line less in the constructor.
I take it is almost just a matter of taste, as long as initialization is simple and doesn't need any logic.
The constructor approach is a bit more fragile if you don't use an initializer block, because if you later on add a second constructor and forget to initialize b there, you'll get a null b only when using that last constructor.
See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/initial.html for more details about initialization in Java (and for explanations on initalizer blocks and other not well known initialization features).
I've not seen the following in the replies:
A possible advantage of having the initialisation at the time of declaration might be with nowadays IDE's where you can very easily jump to the declaration of a variable (mostly
Ctrl-<hover_over_the_variable>-<left_mouse_click>) from anywhere in your code. You then immediately see the value of that variable. Otherwise, you have to "search" for the place where the initialisation is done (mostly: constructor).
This advantage is of course secondary to all other logical reasonings, but for some people that "feature" might be more important.
Both of the methods are acceptable. Note that in the latter case b=new B() may not get initialized if there is another constructor present. Think of initializer code outside constructor as a common constructor and the code is executed.
I think Example 2 is preferable. I think the best practice is to declare outside the constructor and initialize in the constructor.
The second is an example of lazy initialization. First one is more simple initialization, they are essentially same.
There is one more subtle reason to initialize outside the constructor that no one has mentioned before (very specific I must say). If you are using UML tools to generate class diagrams from the code (reverse engineering), most of the tools I believe will note the initialization of Example 1 and will transfer it to a diagram (if you prefer it to show the initial values, like I do). They will not take these initial values from Example 2. Again, this is a very specific reason - if you are working with UML tools, but once I learned that, I am trying to take all my default values outside of constructor unless, as was mentioned before, there is an issue of possible exception throwing or complicated logic.
The second option is preferable as allows to use different logic in ctors for class instantiation and use ctors chaining. E.g.
class A {
int b;
// secondary ctor
A(String b) {
this(Integer.valueOf(b));
}
// primary ctor
A(int b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
So the second options is more flexible.
It's quite different actually:
The declaration happens before construction. So say if one has initialized the variable (b in this case) at both the places, the constructor's initialization will replace the one done at the class level.
So declare variables at the class level, initialize them in the constructor.
class MyClass extends FooClass {
String a = null;
public MyClass() {
super(); // Superclass calls init();
}
#Override
protected void init() {
super.init();
if (something)
a = getStringYadaYada();
}
}
Regarding the above,
String a = null;
null init could be avoided since anyway it's the default.
However, if you were to need another default value,
then, because of the uncontrolled initialization order,
I would fix as follow:
class MyClass extends FooClass
{
String a;
{
if( a==null ) a="my custom default value";
}
...
a can only be final here. Why? How can I reassign a in onClick() method without keeping it as private member?
private void f(Button b, final int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
}
});
}
How can I return the 5 * a when it clicked? I mean,
private void f(Button b, final int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
return b; // but return type is void
}
});
}
As noted in comments, some of this becomes irrelevant in Java 8, where final can be implicit. Only an effectively final variable can be used in an anonymous inner class or lambda expression though.
It's basically due to the way Java manages closures.
When you create an instance of an anonymous inner class, any variables which are used within that class have their values copied in via the autogenerated constructor. This avoids the compiler having to autogenerate various extra types to hold the logical state of the "local variables", as for example the C# compiler does... (When C# captures a variable in an anonymous function, it really captures the variable - the closure can update the variable in a way which is seen by the main body of the method, and vice versa.)
As the value has been copied into the instance of the anonymous inner class, it would look odd if the variable could be modified by the rest of the method - you could have code which appeared to be working with an out-of-date variable (because that's effectively what would be happening... you'd be working with a copy taken at a different time). Likewise if you could make changes within the anonymous inner class, developers might expect those changes to be visible within the body of the enclosing method.
Making the variable final removes all these possibilities - as the value can't be changed at all, you don't need to worry about whether such changes will be visible. The only ways to allow the method and the anonymous inner class see each other's changes is to use a mutable type of some description. This could be the enclosing class itself, an array, a mutable wrapper type... anything like that. Basically it's a bit like communicating between one method and another: changes made to the parameters of one method aren't seen by its caller, but changes made to the objects referred to by the parameters are seen.
If you're interested in a more detailed comparison between Java and C# closures, I have an article which goes into it further. I wanted to focus on the Java side in this answer :)
There is a trick that allows anonymous class to update data in the outer scope.
private void f(Button b, final int a) {
final int[] res = new int[1];
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
res[0] = a * 5;
}
});
// But at this point handler is most likely not executed yet!
// How should we now res[0] is ready?
}
However, this trick is not very good due to the synchronization issues. If handler is invoked later, you need to 1) synchronize access to res if handler was invoked from the different thread 2) need to have some sort of flag or indication that res was updated
This trick works OK, though, if anonymous class is invoked in the same thread immediately. Like:
// ...
final int[] res = new int[1];
Runnable r = new Runnable() { public void run() { res[0] = 123; } };
r.run();
System.out.println(res[0]);
// ...
An anonymous class is an inner class and the strict rule applies to inner classes (JLS 8.1.3):
Any local variable, formal method parameter or exception handler parameter used but not declared in an inner class must be declared final. Any local variable, used but not declared in an inner class must be definitely assigned before the body of the inner class.
I haven't found a reason or an explanation on the jls or jvms yet, but we do know, that the compiler creates a separate class file for each inner class and it has to make sure, that the methods declared on this class file (on byte code level) at least have access to the values of local variables.
(Jon has the complete answer - I keep this one undeleted because one might interested in the JLS rule)
You can create a class level variable to get returned value. I mean
class A {
int k = 0;
private void f(Button b, int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
k = a * 5;
}
});
}
now you can get value of K and use it where you want.
Answer of your why is :
A local inner class instance is tied to Main class and can access the final local variables of its containing method. When the instance uses a final local of its containing method, the variable retains the value it held at the time of the instance's creation, even if the variable has gone out of scope (this is effectively Java's crude, limited version of closures).
Because a local inner class is neither the member of a class or package, it is not declared with an access level. (Be clear, however, that its own members have access levels like in a normal class.)
To understand the rationale for this restriction, consider the following program:
public class Program {
interface Interface {
public void printInteger();
}
static Interface interfaceInstance = null;
static void initialize(int val) {
class Impl implements Interface {
#Override
public void printInteger() {
System.out.println(val);
}
}
interfaceInstance = new Impl();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
initialize(12345);
interfaceInstance.printInteger();
}
}
The interfaceInstance remains in memory after the initialize method returns, but the parameter val does not. The JVM can’t access a local variable outside its scope, so Java makes the subsequent call to printInteger work by copying the value of val to an implicit field of the same name within interfaceInstance. The interfaceInstance is said to have captured the value of the local parameter. If the parameter weren’t final (or effectively final) its value could change, becoming out of sync with the captured value, potentially causing unintuitive behavior.
Well, in Java, a variable can be final not just as a parameter, but as a class-level field, like
public class Test
{
public final int a = 3;
or as a local variable, like
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final int a = 3;
If you want to access and modify a variable from an anonymous class, you might want to make the variable a class-level variable in the enclosing class.
public class Test
{
public int a;
public void doSomething()
{
Runnable runnable =
new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
System.out.println(a);
a = a+1;
}
};
}
}
You can't have a variable as final and give it a new value. final means just that: the value is unchangeable and final.
And since it's final, Java can safely copy it to local anonymous classes. You're not getting some reference to the int (especially since you can't have references to primitives like int in Java, just references to Objects).
It just copies over the value of a into an implicit int called a in your anonymous class.
The reason why the access has been restricted only to the local final variables is that if all the local variables would be made accessible then they would first required to be copied to a separate section where inner classes can have access to them and maintaining multiple copies of mutable local variables may lead to inconsistent data. Whereas final variables are immutable and hence any number of copies to them will not have any impact on the consistency of data.
When an anonymous inner class is defined within the body of a method, all variables declared final in the scope of that method are accessible from within the inner class. For scalar values, once it has been assigned, the value of the final variable cannot change. For object values, the reference cannot change. This allows the Java compiler to "capture" the value of the variable at run-time and store a copy as a field in the inner class. Once the outer method has terminated and its stack frame has been removed, the original variable is gone but the inner class's private copy persists in the class's own memory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_%28Java%29)
Methods within an anonomyous inner class may be invoked well after the thread that spawned it has terminated. In your example, the inner class will be invoked on the event dispatch thread and not in the same thread as that which created it. Hence, the scope of the variables will be different. So to protect such variable assignment scope issues you must declare them final.
private void f(Button b, final int a[]) {
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
a[0] = a[0] * 5;
}
});
}
As Jon has the implementation details answer an other possible answer would be that the JVM doesn't want to handle write in record that have ended his activation.
Consider the use case where your lambdas instead of being apply, is stored in some place and run later.
I remember that in Smalltalk you would get an illegal store raised when you do such modification.
Try this code,
Create Array List and put value inside that and return it :
private ArrayList f(Button b, final int a)
{
final ArrayList al = new ArrayList();
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
al.add(b);
}
});
return al;
}
Java anonymous class is very similar to Javascript closure, but Java implement that in different way. (check Andersen's answer)
So in order not to confuse the Java Developer with the strange behavior that might occur for those coming from Javascript background. I guess that's why they force us to use final, this is not the JVM limitation.
Let's look at the Javascript example below:
var add = (function () {
var counter = 0;
var func = function () {
console.log("counter now = " + counter);
counter += 1;
};
counter = 100; // line 1, this one need to be final in Java
return func;
})();
add(); // this will print out 100 in Javascript but 0 in Java
In Javascript, the counter value will be 100, because there is only one counter variable from the beginning to end.
But in Java, if there is no final, it will print out 0, because while the inner object is being created, the 0 value is copied to the inner class object's hidden properties. (there are two integer variable here, one in the local method, another one in inner class hidden properties)
So any changes after the inner object creation (like line 1), it will not affect the inner object. So it will make confusion between two different outcome and behaviour (between Java and Javascript).
I believe that's why, Java decide to force it to be final, so the data is 'consistent' from the beginning to end.
Java final variable inside an inner class[About]
inner class can use only
reference from outer class
final local variables from out of scope which are a reference type (e.g. Object...)
value(primitive) (e.g. int...) type can be wrapped by a final reference type. IntelliJ IDEA can help you covert it to one element array
When a non static nested (inner class) is generated by compiler - a new class - <OuterClass>$<InnerClass>.class is created and bounded parameters are passed into constructor[Local variable on stack] It is similar to closure[Swift about]
final variable is a variable which can not be reassign. final reference variable still can be changed by modifying a state
If it was be possible it would be weird because as a programmer you could make like this
//Not possible
private void foo() {
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); //Case 1: myClass address is 1
int a = 5; //Case 2: a = 5
//just as an example
new Button().addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
/*
myClass.something(); //<- what is the address - 1 or 2?
int b = a; //<- what is the value - 5 or 10 ?
//illusion that next changes are visible for Outer class
myClass = new MyClass();
a = 15;
*/
}
});
myClass = new MyClass(); //Case 1: myClass address is 2
int a = 10; //Case 2: a = 10
}
Maybe this trick gives u an idea
Boolean var= new anonymousClass(){
private String myVar; //String for example
#Overriden public Boolean method(int i){
//use myVar and i
}
public String setVar(String var){myVar=var; return this;} //Returns self instane
}.setVar("Hello").method(3);
How can I make scope of a String variable(In Java) global.So that it is accessed from another function
Eg
//String b="null"; I don't want to do this... because if i do this, fun2 will print Null
public int func1(String s)
{
String b=s;
}
public int func2(String q)
{
System.out.println(b);//b should be accessed here and should print value of s
}
Any Help... Thanks
One of the fundamental concepts in OOP is the concept of scope: in almost all cases it is wise to reduce the scope of a variable (i.e. where it is visible from) to its minimum viable range.
I'm going to assume you absolutely require the use of that variable in both functions. Therefore, the minimum viable scope in this case would cover both functions.
public class YourClass
{
private String yourStringVar;
public int pleaseGiveYourFunctionProperNames(String s){
this.yourStringVar = s;
}
public void thisFunctionPrintsValueOfMyStringVar(){
System.out.println(yourStringVar);
}
}
Depending on the situation, you must assess the required scope of a variable, and you must understand the implications of increasing the scope (more access = potentially more dependencies = harder to keep track).
As an example, let's say you absolutely needed it to be a GLOBAL variable (as you call it in your question). A variable with Global scope can be accessed by anything within the application. This is exceptionally dangerous, which I will demonstrate.
To make a variable with global scope (there are no such things as global variables, exactly, in Java), you create a class with a static variable.
public class GlobalVariablesExample
{
public static string GlobalVariable;
}
If I were to alter the original code, it would now look like this.
public class YourClass
{
public int pleaseGiveYourFunctionProperNames(String s){
GlobalVariablesExample.GlobalVariable = s;
}
public void thisFunctionPrintsValueOfMyStringVar(){
System.out.println(GlobalVariablesExample.GlobalVariable);
}
}
This can be exceptionally powerful, and exceptionally dangerous as it can lead to weird behaviour that you do not expect, and you lose many of the abilities that object oriented programming gives you, so use it carefully.
public class YourApplication{
public static void main(String args[]){
YourClass instance1 = new YourClass();
YourClass instance2 = new YourClass();
instance1.pleaseGiveYourFunctionProperNames("Hello");
instance1.thisFunctionPrintsValueOfMyStringVar(); // This prints "Hello"
instance2.pleaseGiveYourFunctionProperNames("World");
instance2.thisFunctionPrintsValueOfMyStringVar(); // This prints "World"
instance1.thisFunctionPrintsValueOfMyStringVar(); // This prints "World, NOT Hello, as you'd expect"
}
}
Always assess the minimum viable scope for your variables. Do not make it more accessible than it needs to be.
Also, please don't name your variables a,b,c. And don't name your variables func1,func2. It doesn't make your application any slower, and it won't kill you to type in a few extra letters.
Hmm. You clearly need some lessons in object-oriented programming. In OO there is no "global" variable. But any variable defined as a member in a class (outside a method) is global within that class.
public class MyClass {
private String myVar; // this can be accessed everywhere in MyClass
public void func1(String s) {
myVar = s;
}
public void func2(String q) { // why is q needed here? It's not used
System.out.println(myVar);
}
}
So func2 will output the value of s ONLY IF you call func1 first.
final Myclass myClass = new MyClass();
myClass.func1("value");
myClass.func2("whatever"); // will output "value"
Also, why are the methods returning int in your example? They should be void.
a can only be final here. Why? How can I reassign a in onClick() method without keeping it as private member?
private void f(Button b, final int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
}
});
}
How can I return the 5 * a when it clicked? I mean,
private void f(Button b, final int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
return b; // but return type is void
}
});
}
As noted in comments, some of this becomes irrelevant in Java 8, where final can be implicit. Only an effectively final variable can be used in an anonymous inner class or lambda expression though.
It's basically due to the way Java manages closures.
When you create an instance of an anonymous inner class, any variables which are used within that class have their values copied in via the autogenerated constructor. This avoids the compiler having to autogenerate various extra types to hold the logical state of the "local variables", as for example the C# compiler does... (When C# captures a variable in an anonymous function, it really captures the variable - the closure can update the variable in a way which is seen by the main body of the method, and vice versa.)
As the value has been copied into the instance of the anonymous inner class, it would look odd if the variable could be modified by the rest of the method - you could have code which appeared to be working with an out-of-date variable (because that's effectively what would be happening... you'd be working with a copy taken at a different time). Likewise if you could make changes within the anonymous inner class, developers might expect those changes to be visible within the body of the enclosing method.
Making the variable final removes all these possibilities - as the value can't be changed at all, you don't need to worry about whether such changes will be visible. The only ways to allow the method and the anonymous inner class see each other's changes is to use a mutable type of some description. This could be the enclosing class itself, an array, a mutable wrapper type... anything like that. Basically it's a bit like communicating between one method and another: changes made to the parameters of one method aren't seen by its caller, but changes made to the objects referred to by the parameters are seen.
If you're interested in a more detailed comparison between Java and C# closures, I have an article which goes into it further. I wanted to focus on the Java side in this answer :)
There is a trick that allows anonymous class to update data in the outer scope.
private void f(Button b, final int a) {
final int[] res = new int[1];
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
res[0] = a * 5;
}
});
// But at this point handler is most likely not executed yet!
// How should we now res[0] is ready?
}
However, this trick is not very good due to the synchronization issues. If handler is invoked later, you need to 1) synchronize access to res if handler was invoked from the different thread 2) need to have some sort of flag or indication that res was updated
This trick works OK, though, if anonymous class is invoked in the same thread immediately. Like:
// ...
final int[] res = new int[1];
Runnable r = new Runnable() { public void run() { res[0] = 123; } };
r.run();
System.out.println(res[0]);
// ...
An anonymous class is an inner class and the strict rule applies to inner classes (JLS 8.1.3):
Any local variable, formal method parameter or exception handler parameter used but not declared in an inner class must be declared final. Any local variable, used but not declared in an inner class must be definitely assigned before the body of the inner class.
I haven't found a reason or an explanation on the jls or jvms yet, but we do know, that the compiler creates a separate class file for each inner class and it has to make sure, that the methods declared on this class file (on byte code level) at least have access to the values of local variables.
(Jon has the complete answer - I keep this one undeleted because one might interested in the JLS rule)
You can create a class level variable to get returned value. I mean
class A {
int k = 0;
private void f(Button b, int a){
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
k = a * 5;
}
});
}
now you can get value of K and use it where you want.
Answer of your why is :
A local inner class instance is tied to Main class and can access the final local variables of its containing method. When the instance uses a final local of its containing method, the variable retains the value it held at the time of the instance's creation, even if the variable has gone out of scope (this is effectively Java's crude, limited version of closures).
Because a local inner class is neither the member of a class or package, it is not declared with an access level. (Be clear, however, that its own members have access levels like in a normal class.)
To understand the rationale for this restriction, consider the following program:
public class Program {
interface Interface {
public void printInteger();
}
static Interface interfaceInstance = null;
static void initialize(int val) {
class Impl implements Interface {
#Override
public void printInteger() {
System.out.println(val);
}
}
interfaceInstance = new Impl();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
initialize(12345);
interfaceInstance.printInteger();
}
}
The interfaceInstance remains in memory after the initialize method returns, but the parameter val does not. The JVM can’t access a local variable outside its scope, so Java makes the subsequent call to printInteger work by copying the value of val to an implicit field of the same name within interfaceInstance. The interfaceInstance is said to have captured the value of the local parameter. If the parameter weren’t final (or effectively final) its value could change, becoming out of sync with the captured value, potentially causing unintuitive behavior.
Well, in Java, a variable can be final not just as a parameter, but as a class-level field, like
public class Test
{
public final int a = 3;
or as a local variable, like
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final int a = 3;
If you want to access and modify a variable from an anonymous class, you might want to make the variable a class-level variable in the enclosing class.
public class Test
{
public int a;
public void doSomething()
{
Runnable runnable =
new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
System.out.println(a);
a = a+1;
}
};
}
}
You can't have a variable as final and give it a new value. final means just that: the value is unchangeable and final.
And since it's final, Java can safely copy it to local anonymous classes. You're not getting some reference to the int (especially since you can't have references to primitives like int in Java, just references to Objects).
It just copies over the value of a into an implicit int called a in your anonymous class.
The reason why the access has been restricted only to the local final variables is that if all the local variables would be made accessible then they would first required to be copied to a separate section where inner classes can have access to them and maintaining multiple copies of mutable local variables may lead to inconsistent data. Whereas final variables are immutable and hence any number of copies to them will not have any impact on the consistency of data.
When an anonymous inner class is defined within the body of a method, all variables declared final in the scope of that method are accessible from within the inner class. For scalar values, once it has been assigned, the value of the final variable cannot change. For object values, the reference cannot change. This allows the Java compiler to "capture" the value of the variable at run-time and store a copy as a field in the inner class. Once the outer method has terminated and its stack frame has been removed, the original variable is gone but the inner class's private copy persists in the class's own memory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_%28Java%29)
Methods within an anonomyous inner class may be invoked well after the thread that spawned it has terminated. In your example, the inner class will be invoked on the event dispatch thread and not in the same thread as that which created it. Hence, the scope of the variables will be different. So to protect such variable assignment scope issues you must declare them final.
private void f(Button b, final int a[]) {
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
a[0] = a[0] * 5;
}
});
}
As Jon has the implementation details answer an other possible answer would be that the JVM doesn't want to handle write in record that have ended his activation.
Consider the use case where your lambdas instead of being apply, is stored in some place and run later.
I remember that in Smalltalk you would get an illegal store raised when you do such modification.
Try this code,
Create Array List and put value inside that and return it :
private ArrayList f(Button b, final int a)
{
final ArrayList al = new ArrayList();
b.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
int b = a*5;
al.add(b);
}
});
return al;
}
Java anonymous class is very similar to Javascript closure, but Java implement that in different way. (check Andersen's answer)
So in order not to confuse the Java Developer with the strange behavior that might occur for those coming from Javascript background. I guess that's why they force us to use final, this is not the JVM limitation.
Let's look at the Javascript example below:
var add = (function () {
var counter = 0;
var func = function () {
console.log("counter now = " + counter);
counter += 1;
};
counter = 100; // line 1, this one need to be final in Java
return func;
})();
add(); // this will print out 100 in Javascript but 0 in Java
In Javascript, the counter value will be 100, because there is only one counter variable from the beginning to end.
But in Java, if there is no final, it will print out 0, because while the inner object is being created, the 0 value is copied to the inner class object's hidden properties. (there are two integer variable here, one in the local method, another one in inner class hidden properties)
So any changes after the inner object creation (like line 1), it will not affect the inner object. So it will make confusion between two different outcome and behaviour (between Java and Javascript).
I believe that's why, Java decide to force it to be final, so the data is 'consistent' from the beginning to end.
Java final variable inside an inner class[About]
inner class can use only
reference from outer class
final local variables from out of scope which are a reference type (e.g. Object...)
value(primitive) (e.g. int...) type can be wrapped by a final reference type. IntelliJ IDEA can help you covert it to one element array
When a non static nested (inner class) is generated by compiler - a new class - <OuterClass>$<InnerClass>.class is created and bounded parameters are passed into constructor[Local variable on stack] It is similar to closure[Swift about]
final variable is a variable which can not be reassign. final reference variable still can be changed by modifying a state
If it was be possible it would be weird because as a programmer you could make like this
//Not possible
private void foo() {
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); //Case 1: myClass address is 1
int a = 5; //Case 2: a = 5
//just as an example
new Button().addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
/*
myClass.something(); //<- what is the address - 1 or 2?
int b = a; //<- what is the value - 5 or 10 ?
//illusion that next changes are visible for Outer class
myClass = new MyClass();
a = 15;
*/
}
});
myClass = new MyClass(); //Case 1: myClass address is 2
int a = 10; //Case 2: a = 10
}
Maybe this trick gives u an idea
Boolean var= new anonymousClass(){
private String myVar; //String for example
#Overriden public Boolean method(int i){
//use myVar and i
}
public String setVar(String var){myVar=var; return this;} //Returns self instane
}.setVar("Hello").method(3);
Is there any advantage for either approach?
Example 1:
class A {
B b = new B();
}
Example 2:
class A {
B b;
A() {
b = new B();
}
}
There is no difference - the instance variable initialization is actually put in the constructor(s) by the compiler.
The first variant is more readable.
You can't have exception handling with the first variant.
There is additionally the initialization block, which is as well put in the constructor(s) by the compiler:
{
a = new A();
}
Check Sun's explanation and advice
From this tutorial:
Field declarations, however, are not part of any method, so they cannot be executed as statements are. Instead, the Java compiler generates instance-field initialization code automatically and puts it in the constructor or constructors for the class. The initialization code is inserted into a constructor in the order it appears in the source code, which means that a field initializer can use the initial values of fields declared before it.
Additionally, you might want to lazily initialize your field. In cases when initializing a field is an expensive operation, you may initialize it as soon as it is needed:
ExpensiveObject o;
public ExpensiveObject getExpensiveObject() {
if (o == null) {
o = new ExpensiveObject();
}
return o;
}
And ultimately (as pointed out by Bill), for the sake of dependency management, it is better to avoid using the new operator anywhere within your class. Instead, using Dependency Injection is preferable - i.e. letting someone else (another class/framework) instantiate and inject the dependencies in your class.
Another option would be to use Dependency Injection.
class A{
B b;
A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
This removes the responsibility of creating the B object from the constructor of A. This will make your code more testable and easier to maintain in the long run. The idea is to reduce the coupling between the two classes A and B. A benefit that this gives you is that you can now pass any object that extends B (or implements B if it is an interface) to A's constructor and it will work. One disadvantage is that you give up encapsulation of the B object, so it is exposed to the caller of the A constructor. You'll have to consider if the benefits are worth this trade-off, but in many cases they are.
I got burned in an interesting way today:
class MyClass extends FooClass {
String a = null;
public MyClass() {
super(); // Superclass calls init();
}
#Override
protected void init() {
super.init();
if (something)
a = getStringYadaYada();
}
}
See the mistake? It turns out that the a = null initializer gets called after the superclass constructor is called. Since the superclass constructor calls init(), the initialization of a is followed by the a = null initialization.
my personal "rule" (hardly ever broken) is to:
declare all variables at the start of
a block
make all variables final unless they
cannot be
declare one variable per line
never initialize a variable where
declared
only initialize something in a
constructor when it needs data from
the constructor to do the
initialization
So I would have code like:
public class X
{
public static final int USED_AS_A_CASE_LABEL = 1; // only exception - the compiler makes me
private static final int A;
private final int b;
private int c;
static
{
A = 42;
}
{
b = 7;
}
public X(final int val)
{
c = val;
}
public void foo(final boolean f)
{
final int d;
final int e;
d = 7;
// I will eat my own eyes before using ?: - personal taste.
if(f)
{
e = 1;
}
else
{
e = 2;
}
}
}
This way I am always 100% certain where to look for variables declarations (at the start of a block), and their assignments (as soon as it makes sense after the declaration). This winds up potentially being more efficient as well since you never initialize a variable with a value that is not used (for example declare and init vars and then throw an exception before half of those vars needed to have a value). You also do not wind up doing pointless initialization (like int i = 0; and then later on, before "i" is used, do i = 5;.
I value consistency very much, so following this "rule" is something I do all the time, and it makes it much easier to work with the code since you don't have to hunt around to find things.
Your mileage may vary.
Example 2 is less flexible. If you add another constructor, you need to remember to instantiate the field in that constructor as well. Just instantiate the field directly, or introduce lazy loading somewhere in a getter.
If instantiation requires more than just a simple new, use an initializer block. This will be run regardless of the constructor used. E.g.
public class A {
private Properties properties;
{
try {
properties = new Properties();
properties.load(Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResourceAsStream("file.properties"));
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new ConfigurationException("Failed to load properties file.", e); // It's a subclass of RuntimeException.
}
}
// ...
}
Using either dependency injection or lazy initialization is always preferable, as already explained thoroughly in other answers.
When you don't want or can't use those patterns, and for primitive data types, there are three compelling reasons that I can think of why it's preferable to initialize the class attributes outside the constructor:
avoided repetition = if you have more than one constructor, or when you will need to add more, you won't have to repeat the initialization over and over in all the constructors bodies;
improved readability = you can easily tell with a glance which variables will have to be initialized from outside the class;
reduced lines of code = for every initialization done at the declaration there will be a line less in the constructor.
I take it is almost just a matter of taste, as long as initialization is simple and doesn't need any logic.
The constructor approach is a bit more fragile if you don't use an initializer block, because if you later on add a second constructor and forget to initialize b there, you'll get a null b only when using that last constructor.
See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/initial.html for more details about initialization in Java (and for explanations on initalizer blocks and other not well known initialization features).
I've not seen the following in the replies:
A possible advantage of having the initialisation at the time of declaration might be with nowadays IDE's where you can very easily jump to the declaration of a variable (mostly
Ctrl-<hover_over_the_variable>-<left_mouse_click>) from anywhere in your code. You then immediately see the value of that variable. Otherwise, you have to "search" for the place where the initialisation is done (mostly: constructor).
This advantage is of course secondary to all other logical reasonings, but for some people that "feature" might be more important.
Both of the methods are acceptable. Note that in the latter case b=new B() may not get initialized if there is another constructor present. Think of initializer code outside constructor as a common constructor and the code is executed.
I think Example 2 is preferable. I think the best practice is to declare outside the constructor and initialize in the constructor.
The second is an example of lazy initialization. First one is more simple initialization, they are essentially same.
There is one more subtle reason to initialize outside the constructor that no one has mentioned before (very specific I must say). If you are using UML tools to generate class diagrams from the code (reverse engineering), most of the tools I believe will note the initialization of Example 1 and will transfer it to a diagram (if you prefer it to show the initial values, like I do). They will not take these initial values from Example 2. Again, this is a very specific reason - if you are working with UML tools, but once I learned that, I am trying to take all my default values outside of constructor unless, as was mentioned before, there is an issue of possible exception throwing or complicated logic.
The second option is preferable as allows to use different logic in ctors for class instantiation and use ctors chaining. E.g.
class A {
int b;
// secondary ctor
A(String b) {
this(Integer.valueOf(b));
}
// primary ctor
A(int b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
So the second options is more flexible.
It's quite different actually:
The declaration happens before construction. So say if one has initialized the variable (b in this case) at both the places, the constructor's initialization will replace the one done at the class level.
So declare variables at the class level, initialize them in the constructor.
class MyClass extends FooClass {
String a = null;
public MyClass() {
super(); // Superclass calls init();
}
#Override
protected void init() {
super.init();
if (something)
a = getStringYadaYada();
}
}
Regarding the above,
String a = null;
null init could be avoided since anyway it's the default.
However, if you were to need another default value,
then, because of the uncontrolled initialization order,
I would fix as follow:
class MyClass extends FooClass
{
String a;
{
if( a==null ) a="my custom default value";
}
...