Related
This question already has answers here:
Non-static variable cannot be referenced from a static context
(15 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
The very common beginner mistake is when you try to use a class property "statically" without making an instance of that class. It leaves you with the mentioned error message:
You can either make the non static method static or make an instance of that class to use its properties.
What the reason behind this? Am not concern with the solution, rather the reason.
private java.util.List<String> someMethod(){
/* Some Code */
return someList;
}
public static void main(String[] strArgs){
// The following statement causes the error.
java.util.List<String> someList = someMethod();
}
You can't call something that doesn't exist. Since you haven't created an object, the non-static method doesn't exist yet. A static method (by definition) always exists.
The method you are trying to call is an instance-level method; you do not have an instance.
static methods belong to the class, non-static methods belong to instances of the class.
The essence of object oriented programming is encapsulating logic together with the data it operates on.
Instance methods are the logic, instance fields are the data. Together, they form an object.
public class Foo
{
private String foo;
public Foo(String foo){ this.foo = foo; }
public getFoo(){ return this.foo; }
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println( getFoo() );
}
}
What could possibly be the result of running the above program?
Without an object, there is no instance data, and while the instance methods exist as part of the class definition, they need an object instance to provide data for them.
In theory, an instance method that does not access any instance data could work in a static context, but then there isn't really any reason for it to be an instance method. It's a language design decision to allow it anyway rather than making up an extra rule to forbid it.
I just realized, I think people shouldn't be exposed to the concept of "static" very early.
Static methods should probably be the exception rather than the norm. Especially early on anyways if you want to learn OOP. (Why start with an exception to the rule?) That's very counter-pedagogical of Java, that the "first" thing you should learn is the public static void main thing. (Few real Java applications have their own main methods anyways.)
I think it is worth pointing out that by the rules of the Java language the Java compiler inserts the equivalent of "this." when it notices that you're accessing instance methods or instance fields without an explicit instance. Of course, the compiler knows that it can only do this from within an instance method, which has a "this" variable, as static methods don't.
Which means that when you're in an instance method the following are equivalent:
instanceMethod();
this.instanceMethod();
and these are also equivalent:
... = instanceField;
... = this.instanceField;
The compiler is effectively inserting the "this." when you don't supply a specific instance.
This (pun intended) bit of "magic help" by the compiler can confuse novices: it means that instance calls and static calls sometimes appear to have the same syntax while in reality are calls of different types and underlying mechanisms.
The instance method call is sometimes referred to as a method invocation or dispatch because of the behaviors of virtual methods supporting polymorphism; dispatching behavior happens regardless of whether you wrote an explicit object instance to use or the compiler inserted a "this.".
The static method call mechanism is simpler, like a function call in a non-OOP language.
Personally, I think the error message is misleading, it could read "non-static method cannot be referenced from a static context without specifying an explicit object instance".
What the compiler is complaining about is that it cannot simply insert the standard "this." as it does within instance methods, because this code is within a static method; however, maybe the author merely forgot to supply the instance of interest for this invocation — say, an instance possibly supplied to the static method as parameter, or created within this static method.
In short, you most certainly can call instance methods from within a static method, you just need to have and specify an explicit instance object for the invocation.
The answers so far describe why, but here is a something else you might want to consider:
You can can call a method from an instantiable class by appending a method call to its constructor,
Object instance = new Constuctor().methodCall();
or
primitive name = new Constuctor().methodCall();
This is useful it you only wish to use a method of an instantiable class once within a single scope. If you are calling multiple methods from an instantiable class within a single scope, definitely create a referable instance.
If we try to access an instance method from a static context , the compiler has no way to guess which instance method ( variable for which object ), you are referring to. Though, you can always access it using an object reference.
A static method relates an action to a type of object, whereas the non static method relates an action to an instance of that type of object. Typically it is a method that does something with relation to the instance.
Ex:
class Car might have a wash method, which would indicate washing a particular car, whereas a static method would apply to the type car.
if a method is not static, that "tells" the compiler that the method requires access to instance-level data in the class, (like a non-static field). This data would not be available unless an instance of the class has been created. So the compiler throws an error if you try to call the method from a static method.. If in fact the method does NOT reference any non-static member of the class, make the method static.
In Resharper, for example, just creating a non-static method that does NOT reference any static member of the class generates a warning message "This method can be made static"
The compiler actually adds an argument to non-static methods. It adds a this pointer/reference. This is also the reason why a static method can not use this, because there is no object.
So you are asking for a very core reason?
Well, since you are developing in Java, the compiler generates an object code that the Java Virtual Machine can interpret. The JVM anyway is a binary program that run in machine language (probably the JVM’s version specific for your operating system and hardware was previously compiled by another programming language like C in order to get a machine code that can run in your processor). At the end, any code is translated to machine code. So, create an object (an instance of a class) is equivalent to reserve a memory space (memory registers that will be processor registers when the CPU scheduler of the operating system put your program at the top of the queue in order to execute it) to have a data storage place that can be able to read and write data. If you don’t have an instance of a class (which happens on a static context), then you don’t have that memory space to read or write the data. In fact, like other people had said, the data don’t exist (because from the begin you never had written neither had reserved the memory space to store it).
Sorry for my english! I'm latin!
The simple reason behind this is that Static data members of parent class
can be accessed (only if they are not overridden) but for instance(non-static)
data members or methods we need their reference and so they can only be
called through an object.
A non-static method is dependent on the object. It is recognized by the program once the object is created.
Static methods can be called even before the creation of an object. Static methods are great for doing comparisons or operations that aren't dependent on the actual objects you plan to work with.
This question already has answers here:
Non-static variable cannot be referenced from a static context
(15 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
The very common beginner mistake is when you try to use a class property "statically" without making an instance of that class. It leaves you with the mentioned error message:
You can either make the non static method static or make an instance of that class to use its properties.
What the reason behind this? Am not concern with the solution, rather the reason.
private java.util.List<String> someMethod(){
/* Some Code */
return someList;
}
public static void main(String[] strArgs){
// The following statement causes the error.
java.util.List<String> someList = someMethod();
}
You can't call something that doesn't exist. Since you haven't created an object, the non-static method doesn't exist yet. A static method (by definition) always exists.
The method you are trying to call is an instance-level method; you do not have an instance.
static methods belong to the class, non-static methods belong to instances of the class.
The essence of object oriented programming is encapsulating logic together with the data it operates on.
Instance methods are the logic, instance fields are the data. Together, they form an object.
public class Foo
{
private String foo;
public Foo(String foo){ this.foo = foo; }
public getFoo(){ return this.foo; }
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println( getFoo() );
}
}
What could possibly be the result of running the above program?
Without an object, there is no instance data, and while the instance methods exist as part of the class definition, they need an object instance to provide data for them.
In theory, an instance method that does not access any instance data could work in a static context, but then there isn't really any reason for it to be an instance method. It's a language design decision to allow it anyway rather than making up an extra rule to forbid it.
I just realized, I think people shouldn't be exposed to the concept of "static" very early.
Static methods should probably be the exception rather than the norm. Especially early on anyways if you want to learn OOP. (Why start with an exception to the rule?) That's very counter-pedagogical of Java, that the "first" thing you should learn is the public static void main thing. (Few real Java applications have their own main methods anyways.)
I think it is worth pointing out that by the rules of the Java language the Java compiler inserts the equivalent of "this." when it notices that you're accessing instance methods or instance fields without an explicit instance. Of course, the compiler knows that it can only do this from within an instance method, which has a "this" variable, as static methods don't.
Which means that when you're in an instance method the following are equivalent:
instanceMethod();
this.instanceMethod();
and these are also equivalent:
... = instanceField;
... = this.instanceField;
The compiler is effectively inserting the "this." when you don't supply a specific instance.
This (pun intended) bit of "magic help" by the compiler can confuse novices: it means that instance calls and static calls sometimes appear to have the same syntax while in reality are calls of different types and underlying mechanisms.
The instance method call is sometimes referred to as a method invocation or dispatch because of the behaviors of virtual methods supporting polymorphism; dispatching behavior happens regardless of whether you wrote an explicit object instance to use or the compiler inserted a "this.".
The static method call mechanism is simpler, like a function call in a non-OOP language.
Personally, I think the error message is misleading, it could read "non-static method cannot be referenced from a static context without specifying an explicit object instance".
What the compiler is complaining about is that it cannot simply insert the standard "this." as it does within instance methods, because this code is within a static method; however, maybe the author merely forgot to supply the instance of interest for this invocation — say, an instance possibly supplied to the static method as parameter, or created within this static method.
In short, you most certainly can call instance methods from within a static method, you just need to have and specify an explicit instance object for the invocation.
The answers so far describe why, but here is a something else you might want to consider:
You can can call a method from an instantiable class by appending a method call to its constructor,
Object instance = new Constuctor().methodCall();
or
primitive name = new Constuctor().methodCall();
This is useful it you only wish to use a method of an instantiable class once within a single scope. If you are calling multiple methods from an instantiable class within a single scope, definitely create a referable instance.
If we try to access an instance method from a static context , the compiler has no way to guess which instance method ( variable for which object ), you are referring to. Though, you can always access it using an object reference.
A static method relates an action to a type of object, whereas the non static method relates an action to an instance of that type of object. Typically it is a method that does something with relation to the instance.
Ex:
class Car might have a wash method, which would indicate washing a particular car, whereas a static method would apply to the type car.
if a method is not static, that "tells" the compiler that the method requires access to instance-level data in the class, (like a non-static field). This data would not be available unless an instance of the class has been created. So the compiler throws an error if you try to call the method from a static method.. If in fact the method does NOT reference any non-static member of the class, make the method static.
In Resharper, for example, just creating a non-static method that does NOT reference any static member of the class generates a warning message "This method can be made static"
The compiler actually adds an argument to non-static methods. It adds a this pointer/reference. This is also the reason why a static method can not use this, because there is no object.
So you are asking for a very core reason?
Well, since you are developing in Java, the compiler generates an object code that the Java Virtual Machine can interpret. The JVM anyway is a binary program that run in machine language (probably the JVM’s version specific for your operating system and hardware was previously compiled by another programming language like C in order to get a machine code that can run in your processor). At the end, any code is translated to machine code. So, create an object (an instance of a class) is equivalent to reserve a memory space (memory registers that will be processor registers when the CPU scheduler of the operating system put your program at the top of the queue in order to execute it) to have a data storage place that can be able to read and write data. If you don’t have an instance of a class (which happens on a static context), then you don’t have that memory space to read or write the data. In fact, like other people had said, the data don’t exist (because from the begin you never had written neither had reserved the memory space to store it).
Sorry for my english! I'm latin!
The simple reason behind this is that Static data members of parent class
can be accessed (only if they are not overridden) but for instance(non-static)
data members or methods we need their reference and so they can only be
called through an object.
A non-static method is dependent on the object. It is recognized by the program once the object is created.
Static methods can be called even before the creation of an object. Static methods are great for doing comparisons or operations that aren't dependent on the actual objects you plan to work with.
This question already has answers here:
Non-static variable cannot be referenced from a static context
(15 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last year and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
The very common beginner mistake is when you try to use a class property "statically" without making an instance of that class. It leaves you with the mentioned error message:
You can either make the non static method static or make an instance of that class to use its properties.
What the reason behind this? Am not concern with the solution, rather the reason.
private java.util.List<String> someMethod(){
/* Some Code */
return someList;
}
public static void main(String[] strArgs){
// The following statement causes the error.
java.util.List<String> someList = someMethod();
}
You can't call something that doesn't exist. Since you haven't created an object, the non-static method doesn't exist yet. A static method (by definition) always exists.
The method you are trying to call is an instance-level method; you do not have an instance.
static methods belong to the class, non-static methods belong to instances of the class.
The essence of object oriented programming is encapsulating logic together with the data it operates on.
Instance methods are the logic, instance fields are the data. Together, they form an object.
public class Foo
{
private String foo;
public Foo(String foo){ this.foo = foo; }
public getFoo(){ return this.foo; }
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println( getFoo() );
}
}
What could possibly be the result of running the above program?
Without an object, there is no instance data, and while the instance methods exist as part of the class definition, they need an object instance to provide data for them.
In theory, an instance method that does not access any instance data could work in a static context, but then there isn't really any reason for it to be an instance method. It's a language design decision to allow it anyway rather than making up an extra rule to forbid it.
I just realized, I think people shouldn't be exposed to the concept of "static" very early.
Static methods should probably be the exception rather than the norm. Especially early on anyways if you want to learn OOP. (Why start with an exception to the rule?) That's very counter-pedagogical of Java, that the "first" thing you should learn is the public static void main thing. (Few real Java applications have their own main methods anyways.)
I think it is worth pointing out that by the rules of the Java language the Java compiler inserts the equivalent of "this." when it notices that you're accessing instance methods or instance fields without an explicit instance. Of course, the compiler knows that it can only do this from within an instance method, which has a "this" variable, as static methods don't.
Which means that when you're in an instance method the following are equivalent:
instanceMethod();
this.instanceMethod();
and these are also equivalent:
... = instanceField;
... = this.instanceField;
The compiler is effectively inserting the "this." when you don't supply a specific instance.
This (pun intended) bit of "magic help" by the compiler can confuse novices: it means that instance calls and static calls sometimes appear to have the same syntax while in reality are calls of different types and underlying mechanisms.
The instance method call is sometimes referred to as a method invocation or dispatch because of the behaviors of virtual methods supporting polymorphism; dispatching behavior happens regardless of whether you wrote an explicit object instance to use or the compiler inserted a "this.".
The static method call mechanism is simpler, like a function call in a non-OOP language.
Personally, I think the error message is misleading, it could read "non-static method cannot be referenced from a static context without specifying an explicit object instance".
What the compiler is complaining about is that it cannot simply insert the standard "this." as it does within instance methods, because this code is within a static method; however, maybe the author merely forgot to supply the instance of interest for this invocation — say, an instance possibly supplied to the static method as parameter, or created within this static method.
In short, you most certainly can call instance methods from within a static method, you just need to have and specify an explicit instance object for the invocation.
The answers so far describe why, but here is a something else you might want to consider:
You can can call a method from an instantiable class by appending a method call to its constructor,
Object instance = new Constuctor().methodCall();
or
primitive name = new Constuctor().methodCall();
This is useful it you only wish to use a method of an instantiable class once within a single scope. If you are calling multiple methods from an instantiable class within a single scope, definitely create a referable instance.
If we try to access an instance method from a static context , the compiler has no way to guess which instance method ( variable for which object ), you are referring to. Though, you can always access it using an object reference.
A static method relates an action to a type of object, whereas the non static method relates an action to an instance of that type of object. Typically it is a method that does something with relation to the instance.
Ex:
class Car might have a wash method, which would indicate washing a particular car, whereas a static method would apply to the type car.
if a method is not static, that "tells" the compiler that the method requires access to instance-level data in the class, (like a non-static field). This data would not be available unless an instance of the class has been created. So the compiler throws an error if you try to call the method from a static method.. If in fact the method does NOT reference any non-static member of the class, make the method static.
In Resharper, for example, just creating a non-static method that does NOT reference any static member of the class generates a warning message "This method can be made static"
The compiler actually adds an argument to non-static methods. It adds a this pointer/reference. This is also the reason why a static method can not use this, because there is no object.
So you are asking for a very core reason?
Well, since you are developing in Java, the compiler generates an object code that the Java Virtual Machine can interpret. The JVM anyway is a binary program that run in machine language (probably the JVM’s version specific for your operating system and hardware was previously compiled by another programming language like C in order to get a machine code that can run in your processor). At the end, any code is translated to machine code. So, create an object (an instance of a class) is equivalent to reserve a memory space (memory registers that will be processor registers when the CPU scheduler of the operating system put your program at the top of the queue in order to execute it) to have a data storage place that can be able to read and write data. If you don’t have an instance of a class (which happens on a static context), then you don’t have that memory space to read or write the data. In fact, like other people had said, the data don’t exist (because from the begin you never had written neither had reserved the memory space to store it).
Sorry for my english! I'm latin!
The simple reason behind this is that Static data members of parent class
can be accessed (only if they are not overridden) but for instance(non-static)
data members or methods we need their reference and so they can only be
called through an object.
A non-static method is dependent on the object. It is recognized by the program once the object is created.
Static methods can be called even before the creation of an object. Static methods are great for doing comparisons or operations that aren't dependent on the actual objects you plan to work with.
I ran across a class that was set up like this:
public class MyClass {
private static boolean started = false;
private MyClass(){
}
public static void doSomething(){
if(started){
return;
}
started = true;
//code below that is only supposed to run
//run if not started
}
}
My understanding with static methods is that you should not use class variables in them unless they are constant, and do not change. Instead you should use parameters. My question is why is this not breaking when called multiple times by doing MyClass.doSomething(). It seems to me like it should not work but does. It will only go pass the if statement once.
So could anyone explain to me why this does not break?
The method doSomething() and the variable started are both static, so there is only one copy of the variable and it is accessible from doSomething(). The first time doSomething() is called, started is false, so it sets started to true and then does... well, something. The second and subsequent times it's called, started is true, so it returns without doing anything.
There's no reason why using a static variable wouldn't work. I'm not saying it's particularly good practice, but it will work.
What should happen is:
The first call is made. The class is initialised, started is false.
doSomething is called. The if fails and the code bypasses it. started is set to true and the other code runs.
doSomething is called again. The if passes and execution stops.
The one thing to note is that there is no synchronization here, so if doSomething() was called on separate threads incredibly close together, each thread could read started as false, bypass the if statement and do the work i.e. there is a race condition.
The code given is not thread safe. The easy way to make this code thread safe would be to do something like
public class MyClass {
private static AtomicBoolean started = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private MyClass(){
}
public static void doSomething(){
boolean oldValue = started.getAndSet(true);
if (oldValue)
return;
}
//code below that is only supposed to run
//run if not started
}
}
This should be thread safe as the AtomicBoolean getAndSet is synchronized.
Admittedly this is not an issue if you do not use threads (please note that a webapp can use quite a lot of threads handling various requests without you being aware of that).
It's not particularly nice code - generally designs should use object instances where state changes, but there's nothing illegal with it.
My understanding with static methods is that you should not use class variables in them unless they are constant, and do not change.
You seem to have extrapolated from a design guideline to a language feature. Read one of the many Java tutorials available on line as to what is actually allowed in the language. You can use non-final static fields freely in static methods, but it leads to procedural rather than object-oriented code.
Instead you should use parameters.
It's hard to see how an started parameter would be used - if the caller knew that the process has been started, why would they call the method?
Within static method, you are allowed to invoke or access static members within the same class.
Disregarding multiple threads scenarios,
The first call to doSomething will make the boolean static variable to true, therefore, the second call will execute the code of if block which just simply exit the method.
You static method is talking to a static class variable, so it should be fine. You could think of this as global code and a global variable, tho it IS in the namespace of the class.
If you tried to access a non-static member variable:
private int foo = 0;
from within the static method, the compiler will and should complain.
started is false - initial state.
MyClass.doSomething() - statered is now true
MyClass.doSomething() - started is STILL true
MyClass foo = new MyClass();
foo.started -> it's STILL true, because it's static
foo.doSomething() - not sure you can do this in Java, but if you can, it's be STILL TRUE!
Now, there are issues in the above code with thread safety, but aside from that, it appears to be working as designed.
Just remember the thumb rule that "Static variables are class-level variables and all non-static variables are instance variables". Then you won't have any confusion at all!
i.e.
For static variable, All references made in code to the variable point to same memory location. And for non-static variable, new memory allocation is done whenever new instance of that class is created (so every reference made in code to the variable points to a different memory location allocated for calling class instance).
The code above works completely well (unless it runs in a multithreaded environment). Why do you think it should break?
My understanding with static methods is that you should not use class variables in them unless they are constant, and do not change
I guess only static members can be accessed. It need not be constant!
My question is why is this not breaking when called multiple times by doing MyClass.doSomething(). It seems to me like it should not work but does. It will only go pass the if statement once
Per the existing logic. Only the first call runs the //code to be run part
I have a constructor like as follows:
public Agent(){
this.name = "John";
this.id = 9;
this.setTopWorldAgent(this, "Top_World_Agent", true);
}
I'm getting a null pointer exception here in the method call. It appears to be because I'm using 'this' as an argument in the setTopWorldAgent method. By removing this method call everything appears fine. Why does this happen? Has anyone else experienced this?
You can pass this to methods, but setTopWorldAgent() cannot be abstract. You can't make a virtual call in the constructor.
In the constructor of an object, you can call methods defined in that object or base classes, but you cannot expect to call something that will be provided by a derived class, because parts of the derived class are not constructed yet. I would have expected some kind of compiler error if setTopWorldAgent() was abstract.
In Java, you can get surprising behavior with the contructor and derived classes -- here is an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_functions#Java_3
If you are used to C# or C++, you might think it's safe to call virtual functions and not be calling overridden ones. In Java, the virtual call is made even though the derived class is not fully constructed.
If this isn't what's happening, then presumably, all of the parts of this that setTopWorldAgent() needs are initialized -- if not, it's probably one of the members of this that needs to be initialized.
Edit: thought this was C#
Out of curiousity, why are you passing 'this' to a member function of the same class? setTopWorldAgent() can use 'this' directly. It doesn't look like your constructor or setTopWorldAgent() are static, so I'm not sure why you would pass a member function something it already has access to.
Unless I'm missing something...
Why would setTopWorldAgent need this as an argument? Based on the invocation, it's an instance method, so it could reference this without needing to receive it as a parameter.
"this" should never be null. Are you sure that the exception is being thrown because of that?
Something to beware of is that if the method is virtual, or calls any virtual methods, then a method belonging to a subclass might be run before the subclass's variables are initialised.
I think more to the point, why on earth are you passing 'this' as a parameter to a method in 'this'?
The following would test what you say is happening to you and I have no troubles with it.
public class Test {
public Test() {
this.hi(this);
}
public void hi(Test t) {
System.out.println(t);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Test t = new Test();
}
}
Given that setTopWorldAgent appears to be an instance method, why are you passing through this to it anyway?
The error must be somewhere else because the above code definitely works, the null reference must be something else.
If your Agent is implementing ITopWorldAgent then you should actually do this:
Agent agent = new Agent("John", 9);
agent.setTopWorldAgent(agent, "Top_World_Agent", true);
If not, then why you are setting something in the manner you are?
I presume that something in the setTopWorldAgent method is using a value that hasn't been initialised yet in your constructor.
this is not null, that much is sure. It's been allocated.
That said, there's no need to pass this into the method, it's automatically available in all instance methods. If the method's static, you may want refactor it into an instance method.
The rules of Java state that you should never pass 'this' to another method from its constructor, for the simple reason that the object has not been fully constructed. The object it references may be in an inconsistent state. I'm surprised that the actual 'this' reference is null, but not at all surprised that some member of 'this' is null when it is passed to setTopWorldAgent, and that the method is throwing the exception because of this.
Usually you can get away with passing 'this' from constructors as long as you don't actually access any members or call methods for example if you want to set a reference to 'this' in another object.
In this case of course the argument is unnecessary as the method already has a reference to 'this'.
Glad you got to an answer. I'd like to add that passing 'this' as a parameter can lead to unexpected concurrency issues. You basically are providing the possibility of the state of the object to be unsafely manipulated by potentially non-thread safe code.