Related
During one of my interview, I was asked "If we can instantiate an abstract class?"
My reply was "No. we can't". But, interviewer told me "Wrong, we can."
I argued a bit on this. Then he told me to try this myself at home.
abstract class my {
public void mymethod() {
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
class poly {
public static void main(String a[]) {
my m = new my() {};
m.mymethod();
}
}
Here, I'm creating instance of my class and calling method of abstract class. Can anyone please explain this to me? Was I really wrong during my interview?
Here, i'm creating instance of my class
No, you are not creating the instance of your abstract class here. Rather you are creating an instance of an anonymous subclass of your abstract class. And then you are invoking the method on your abstract class reference pointing to subclass object.
This behaviour is clearly listed in JLS - Section # 15.9.1: -
If the class instance creation expression ends in a class body, then
the class being instantiated is an anonymous class. Then:
If T denotes a class, then an anonymous direct subclass of the class named by T is declared. It is a compile-time error if the
class denoted by T is a final class.
If T denotes an interface, then an anonymous direct subclass of Object that implements the interface named by T is declared.
In either case, the body of the subclass is the ClassBody given in the class instance creation expression.
The class being instantiated is the anonymous subclass.
Emphasis mine.
Also, in JLS - Section # 12.5, you can read about the Object Creation Process. I'll quote one statement from that here: -
Whenever a new class instance is created, memory space is allocated
for it with room for all the instance variables declared in the class
type and all the instance variables declared in each superclass of the
class type, including all the instance variables that may be hidden.
Just before a reference to the newly created object is returned as the
result, the indicated constructor is processed to initialize the new
object using the following procedure:
You can read about the complete procedure on the link I provided.
To practically see that the class being instantiated is an Anonymous SubClass, you just need to compile both your classes. Suppose you put those classes in two different files:
My.java:
abstract class My {
public void myMethod() {
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
Poly.java:
class Poly extends My {
public static void main(String a[]) {
My m = new My() {};
m.myMethod();
}
}
Now, compile both your source files:
javac My.java Poly.java
Now in the directory where you compiled the source code, you will see the following class files:
My.class
Poly$1.class // Class file corresponding to anonymous subclass
Poly.class
See that class - Poly$1.class. It's the class file created by the compiler corresponding to the anonymous subclass you instantiated using the below code:
new My() {};
So, it's clear that there is a different class being instantiated. It's just that, that class is given a name only after compilation by the compiler.
In general, all the anonymous subclasses in your class will be named in this fashion:
Poly$1.class, Poly$2.class, Poly$3.class, ... so on
Those numbers denote the order in which those anonymous classes appear in the enclosing class.
The above instantiates an anonymous inner class which is a subclass of the my abstract class. It's not strictly equivalent to instantiating the abstract class itself. OTOH, every subclass instance is an instance of all its super classes and interfaces, so most abstract classes are indeed instantiated by instantiating one of their concrete subclasses.
If the interviewer just said "wrong!" without explaining, and gave this example, as a unique counterexample, I think he doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
= my() {}; means that there's an anonymous implementation, not simple instantiation of an object, which should have been : = my(). You can never instantiate an abstract class.
Just observations you could make:
Why poly extends my? This is useless...
What is the result of the compilation? Three files: my.class, poly.class and poly$1.class
If we can instantiate an abstract class like that, we can instantiate an interface too... weird...
Can we instantiate an abstract class?
No, we can't. What we can do is, create an anonymous class (that's the third file) and instantiate it.
What about a super class instantiation?
The abstract super class is not instantiated by us but by java.
EDIT: Ask him to test this
public static final void main(final String[] args) {
final my m1 = new my() {
};
final my m2 = new my() {
};
System.out.println(m1 == m2);
System.out.println(m1.getClass().toString());
System.out.println(m2.getClass().toString());
}
output is:
false
class my$1
class my$2
You can simply answers, in just one line
No, you can never instance Abstract Class
But, interviewer still not agree, then you can tell him/her
all you can do is, you can create an Anonymous Class.
And, according to Anonymous class, class declared and instantiate at the same place/line
So, it might be possible that, interviewer would be interested to check your confidence level and how much you know about the OOPs .
The technical part has been well-covered in the other answers, and it mainly ends in:
"He is wrong, he doesn't know stuff, ask him to join SO and get it all cleared :)"
I would like to address the fact(which has been mentioned in other answers) that this might be a stress-question and is an important tool for many interviewers to know more about you and how do you react to difficult and unusual situations. By giving you incorrect codes, he probably wanted to see if you argued back. To know whether you have the confidence to stand up against your seniors in situations similar to this.
P.S: I don't know why but I have a feeling that the interviewer has read this post.
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed. See This Link
The best example is
Although Calender class has a abstract method getInstance(), but when you say Calendar calc=Calendar.getInstance();
calc is referring to the class instance of class GregorianCalendar as "GregorianCalendar extends Calendar "
Infact annonymous inner type allows you to create a no-name subclass of the abstract class and an instance of this.
Technical Answer
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated - this is by definition and design.
From the JLS, Chapter 8. Classes:
A named class may be declared abstract (§8.1.1.1) and must be declared
abstract if it is incompletely implemented; such a class cannot be
instantiated, but can be extended by subclasses.
From JSE 6 java doc for Classes.newInstance():
InstantiationException - if this Class represents an abstract class, an interface, an array
class, a primitive type, or void; or if the class has no nullary constructor; or if the
instantiation fails for some other reason.
You can, of course, instantiate a concrete subclass of an abstract class (including an anonymous subclass) and also carry out a typecast of an object reference to an abstract type.
A Different Angle On This - Teamplay & Social Intelligence:
This sort of technical misunderstanding happens frequently in the real world when we deal with complex technologies and legalistic specifications.
"People Skills" can be more important here than "Technical Skills". If competitively and aggressively trying to prove your side of the argument, then you could be theoretically right, but you could also do more damage in having a fight / damaging "face" / creating an enemy than it is worth. Be reconciliatory and understanding in resolving your differences. Who knows - maybe you're "both right" but working off slightly different meanings for terms??
Who knows - though not likely, it is possible the interviewer deliberately introduced a small conflict/misunderstanding to put you into a challenging situation and see how you behave emotionally and socially. Be gracious and constructive with colleagues, follow advice from seniors, and follow through after the interview to resolve any challenge/misunderstanding - via email or phone call. Shows you're motivated and detail-oriented.
It is a well-established fact that abstract class can not be instantiated as everyone answered.
When the program defines anonymous class, the compiler actually creates a new class with different name (has the pattern EnclosedClassName$n where n is the anonymous class number)
So if you decompile this Java class you will find the code as below:
my.class
abstract class my {
public void mymethod()
{
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
poly$1.class (the generated class of the "anonymous class")
class poly$1 extends my
{
}
ploly.cass
public class poly extends my
{
public static void main(String[] a)
{
my m = new poly.1(); // instance of poly.1 class NOT the abstract my class
m.mymethod();
}
}
About Abstract Classes
Cannot create object of an abstract class
Can create variables (can behave like datatypes)
If a child can not override at least of one abstract method of the parent, then child also becomes abstract
Abstract classes are useless without child classes
The purpose of an abstract class is to behave like a base. In inheritance hierarchy you will see abstract classes towards the top.
No, you can't instantite an abstract class.We instantiate only anonymous class.In abstract class we declare abstract methods and define concrete methods only.
Extending a class doesn't mean that you are instantiating the class. Actually, in your case you are creating an instance of the subclass.
I am pretty sure that abstract classes do not allow initiating. So, I'd say no: you can't instantiate an abstract class. But, you can extend it / inherit it.
You can't directly instantiate an abstract class. But it doesn't mean that you can't get an instance of class (not actully an instance of original abstract class) indirectly. I mean you can not instantiate the orginial abstract class, but you can:
Create an empty class
Inherit it from abstract class
Instantiate the dervied class
So you get access to all the methods and properties in an abstract class via the derived class instance.
It's impossible to instantiate an abstract class.
What you really can do, has implement some common methods in an abstract class and let others unimplemented (declaring them abstract) and let the concrete descender implement them depending on their needs.
Then you can make a factory, which returns an instance of this abstract class (actually his implementer). In the factory you then decide, which implementer to choose. This is known as a factory design pattern:
public abstract class AbstractGridManager {
private LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm;
// ... more private fields
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
//Methods common to all implementors
public Grid calculateNextLifecicle(Grid grid){
return this.getLifecicleAlgorithm().calculateNextLifecicle(grid);
}
public LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface getLifecicleAlgorithm() {
return lifecicleAlgorithm;
}
public void setLifecicleAlgorithm(LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm) {
this.lifecicleAlgorithm = lifecicleAlgorithm;
}
// ... more common logic and getters-setters pairs
}
The concrete implementer only needs to implement the methods declared as abstract, but will have access to the logic implemented in those classes in an abstract class, which are not declared abstract:
public class FileInputGridManager extends AbstractGridManager {
private String filePath;
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
public class FileInputGridManager extends AbstractGridManager {
private String filePath;
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
public Grid initGrid(String filePath) {
List<Cell> cells = new ArrayList<>();
char[] chars;
File file = new File(filePath); // for example foo.txt
// ... more logic
return grid;
}
}
Then finally the factory looks something like this:
public class GridManagerFactory {
public static AbstractGridManager getGridManager(LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm, String... args){
AbstractGridManager manager = null;
// input from the command line
if(args.length == 2){
CommandLineGridManager clManager = new CommandLineGridManager();
clManager.setWidth(Integer.parseInt(args[0]));
clManager.setHeight(Integer.parseInt(args[1]));
// possibly more configuration logic
...
manager = clManager;
}
// input from the file
else if(args.length == 1){
FileInputGridManager fiManager = new FileInputGridManager();
fiManager.setFilePath(args[0]);
// possibly more method calls from abstract class
...
manager = fiManager ;
}
//... more possible concrete implementors
else{
manager = new CommandLineGridManager();
}
manager.setLifecicleAlgorithm(lifecicleAlgorithm);
return manager;
}
}
The receiver of AbstractGridManager would call the methods on him and get the logic, implemented in the concrete descender (and partially in the abstract class methods) without knowing what is the concrete implementation he got. This is also known as inversion of control or dependency injection.
You can say: we can't instantiate an abstract class, but we can use new keyword to create an anonymous class instance by just adding {} as implement body at the the end of the abstract class.
No, we can't create the object of abstract class, but create the reference variable of the abstract class. The reference variable is used to refer to the objects of derived classes (Sub classes of Abstract class)
Here is the example that illustrates this concept
abstract class Figure {
double dim1;
double dim2;
Figure(double a, double b) {
dim1 = a;
dim2 = b;
}
// area is now an abstract method
abstract double area();
}
class Rectangle extends Figure {
Rectangle(double a, double b) {
super(a, b);
}
// override area for rectangle
double area() {
System.out.println("Inside Area for Rectangle.");
return dim1 * dim2;
}
}
class Triangle extends Figure {
Triangle(double a, double b) {
super(a, b);
}
// override area for right triangle
double area() {
System.out.println("Inside Area for Triangle.");
return dim1 * dim2 / 2;
}
}
class AbstractAreas {
public static void main(String args[]) {
// Figure f = new Figure(10, 10); // illegal now
Rectangle r = new Rectangle(9, 5);
Triangle t = new Triangle(10, 8);
Figure figref; // this is OK, no object is created
figref = r;
System.out.println("Area is " + figref.area());
figref = t;
System.out.println("Area is " + figref.area());
}
}
Here we see that we cannot create the object of type Figure but we can create a reference variable of type Figure. Here we created a reference variable of type Figure and Figure Class reference variable is used to refer to the objects of Class Rectangle and Triangle.
Actually we can not create an object of an abstract class directly. What we create is a reference variable of an abstract call. The reference variable is used to Refer to the object of the class which inherits the Abstract class i.e. the subclass of the abstract class.
I show written by me example, it is caused by the fact that I don't understand some thing in java puzzlers:
public class A {
public A foo() {return new A();}
}
package library;
public class C extends A {
static class X extends A {}
#Override
public A foo(){
return new X();
}
}
package library;
public class B extends A {
public static class Y extends A { }
#Override
public A foo(){
return new Y();
}
}
package client;
import library.A;
import library.B;
import library.C;
class Client {
public static void main (String[] args){
A b = new B();
A c = new C();
A bb = b.foo();
A cc = c.foo();
cc.hashCode(); // for me, it should causes compile error
}
}
As you can see, foo method is public.
A cc = c.foo(); - cc is instance of non-public type X
A bb = b.foo(); - bb is instance of public type Y
So, when we invoke cc.hashCode() we invoke public method from non-public type which comes from different package. Why does it is correct?
Why I think so ?
In java puzzlers book I found:
You cannot legally access a member of nonpublic type from another
package.
Moreover,
You can avoid this whole category of problem if you use reflection
only for instantiation and use interfaces to invoke methods from the
class that implements them and provides a high level of type-safety.
Can anyone explain it ? What does it mean in human-language?
Can anyone explain it ? What does it mean in human-language?
Explanation:
The Java Puzzlers book is probably referring to something else. (But who knows: you haven't given us the context.)
The Java Puzzlers book is not designed to be a specification, textbook or tutorial for the Java language. We should therefore not try to use it as such ... and we should not treat its explanations as either complete or definitive.
In fact you can call methods of a non-public class if they implement or override methods declared in a public superclass or interface of the non-public class.
The technical explanation is that
A cc = c.foo();
is accessing a foo() method that is declared in A ... which is a public class. The fact that foo() is overridden in a non-public class does not make the overriding method non-accessible. And if it did, that would violate the principle of substitutability which is principle that makes polymorphism1 work.
Or to put it more simply.
c is an instance of A.
Every A has a foo() method.
Anything to which the declaration of A::foo() is visible must be able to see the method on any instance of A.
If it can see it, it can invoke it.
1 - Strictly speaking, we are talking about subtype polymorphism here. There are other kinds of polymorphism as well to which LSP does not apply.
The first question is inside the code. The second question is why static methods can't be overridden to be non-static methods? The third is why can't static and abstract go together?
class A {
public void display() {
System.out.println("Display of Class A called");
}
}
class B extends A {
public void display() {
System.out.println("Display of Class B called");
}
}
class C extends B {
public void display() {
System.out.println("Display of Class C called");
super.display(); // calls B's Display
// Is there a way to call A's display() from here?
}
}
[B] // Is there a way to call A's Display from here???[/B]
No, you can't go two steps up in the class hierarchy. You could implement and call a method in B which would invoke the A implementation.
why static methods can't be overridden to be non-static methods
static methods are associated with a class. Polymorphism (and thus overriding) is a concept that applies to objects and therefore does not apply to them.
why can't static and abstract go together
For the same reason given above. An abstract method is a method that should be implemented in a sub class because the sub class inherited it. Since a sub class does not inherit a static method, a static method cannot be abstract.
First question: no you can't call the bass class's bass class directly, since in class C's view, it has no idea that class B has a bass class and it's class A. All that's know by C is that it has a base class, and it's B.
Second question: static methods are simply a neat way to organize global methods. There's no inheritance. You just put that method to a class so when you write code to call it, you know where to locate it.
Third question: abstract means "this is what the class to do, here are some basic functionality, but I cannot finish this; inherit me and finish whatever is left to get it working". As mentioned earlier, static method is just a way to put methods that "stand by themselves", requires no initialization and no context. The two does not go together.
As shown in http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/override.html, Java does allow
Overriding an instance method by an instance method and
Hiding a static method by a static method
My question is why Java doesn't allow hiding a static superclass method by an instance method. This could be done like this:
class Base {
static void foo () {}
}
class Derived extends Base {
void foo () {}
void access () {
foo ();
Base.foo ();
}
}
I don't see any particular issue with the above approach - it is only as "messy/complex" as the (allowed) hiding of statics already is.
I suspect it is to avoid confusion with dealing with the base class. In fact I imagine the designers didn't see an obvious way this should behave.
class Base {
static void foo () {}
}
class Derived extends Base {
void foo () {} // say this compiled
}
Base b = new Derived()
b.foo(); // should the static or the virtual method be called?
Should b.foo() call Base.foo() or should it potentially call Derived.foo()?
Simple answer: that would be the mess.
Concrete answer: what to call in that case Derived.foo()? Base.foo() can't be called as it's hidden (as per you), Derived.foo() can't be called as it's not static.
Because, one are like Bananas and the other ones are Apples.
Explaination:
Static Methods are created when reading the Class-Structure
Methods are created when a object of a class is created.
Example:
Foo.bar();
is something different than
new Foo().bar();
Guess which one is called?
Foo f = new Foo();
f.bar();
Another to add here is:
1. Static methods belong at the class level. So u cannot override method in the derived class.
as simple its called hiding. :)
2. Instance methods belong to the objects, so objects are overrided. So we can override in the derived class.
Above other comments give a good example have a look into it..
Regards
Punith
During one of my interview, I was asked "If we can instantiate an abstract class?"
My reply was "No. we can't". But, interviewer told me "Wrong, we can."
I argued a bit on this. Then he told me to try this myself at home.
abstract class my {
public void mymethod() {
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
class poly {
public static void main(String a[]) {
my m = new my() {};
m.mymethod();
}
}
Here, I'm creating instance of my class and calling method of abstract class. Can anyone please explain this to me? Was I really wrong during my interview?
Here, i'm creating instance of my class
No, you are not creating the instance of your abstract class here. Rather you are creating an instance of an anonymous subclass of your abstract class. And then you are invoking the method on your abstract class reference pointing to subclass object.
This behaviour is clearly listed in JLS - Section # 15.9.1: -
If the class instance creation expression ends in a class body, then
the class being instantiated is an anonymous class. Then:
If T denotes a class, then an anonymous direct subclass of the class named by T is declared. It is a compile-time error if the
class denoted by T is a final class.
If T denotes an interface, then an anonymous direct subclass of Object that implements the interface named by T is declared.
In either case, the body of the subclass is the ClassBody given in the class instance creation expression.
The class being instantiated is the anonymous subclass.
Emphasis mine.
Also, in JLS - Section # 12.5, you can read about the Object Creation Process. I'll quote one statement from that here: -
Whenever a new class instance is created, memory space is allocated
for it with room for all the instance variables declared in the class
type and all the instance variables declared in each superclass of the
class type, including all the instance variables that may be hidden.
Just before a reference to the newly created object is returned as the
result, the indicated constructor is processed to initialize the new
object using the following procedure:
You can read about the complete procedure on the link I provided.
To practically see that the class being instantiated is an Anonymous SubClass, you just need to compile both your classes. Suppose you put those classes in two different files:
My.java:
abstract class My {
public void myMethod() {
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
Poly.java:
class Poly extends My {
public static void main(String a[]) {
My m = new My() {};
m.myMethod();
}
}
Now, compile both your source files:
javac My.java Poly.java
Now in the directory where you compiled the source code, you will see the following class files:
My.class
Poly$1.class // Class file corresponding to anonymous subclass
Poly.class
See that class - Poly$1.class. It's the class file created by the compiler corresponding to the anonymous subclass you instantiated using the below code:
new My() {};
So, it's clear that there is a different class being instantiated. It's just that, that class is given a name only after compilation by the compiler.
In general, all the anonymous subclasses in your class will be named in this fashion:
Poly$1.class, Poly$2.class, Poly$3.class, ... so on
Those numbers denote the order in which those anonymous classes appear in the enclosing class.
The above instantiates an anonymous inner class which is a subclass of the my abstract class. It's not strictly equivalent to instantiating the abstract class itself. OTOH, every subclass instance is an instance of all its super classes and interfaces, so most abstract classes are indeed instantiated by instantiating one of their concrete subclasses.
If the interviewer just said "wrong!" without explaining, and gave this example, as a unique counterexample, I think he doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
= my() {}; means that there's an anonymous implementation, not simple instantiation of an object, which should have been : = my(). You can never instantiate an abstract class.
Just observations you could make:
Why poly extends my? This is useless...
What is the result of the compilation? Three files: my.class, poly.class and poly$1.class
If we can instantiate an abstract class like that, we can instantiate an interface too... weird...
Can we instantiate an abstract class?
No, we can't. What we can do is, create an anonymous class (that's the third file) and instantiate it.
What about a super class instantiation?
The abstract super class is not instantiated by us but by java.
EDIT: Ask him to test this
public static final void main(final String[] args) {
final my m1 = new my() {
};
final my m2 = new my() {
};
System.out.println(m1 == m2);
System.out.println(m1.getClass().toString());
System.out.println(m2.getClass().toString());
}
output is:
false
class my$1
class my$2
You can simply answers, in just one line
No, you can never instance Abstract Class
But, interviewer still not agree, then you can tell him/her
all you can do is, you can create an Anonymous Class.
And, according to Anonymous class, class declared and instantiate at the same place/line
So, it might be possible that, interviewer would be interested to check your confidence level and how much you know about the OOPs .
The technical part has been well-covered in the other answers, and it mainly ends in:
"He is wrong, he doesn't know stuff, ask him to join SO and get it all cleared :)"
I would like to address the fact(which has been mentioned in other answers) that this might be a stress-question and is an important tool for many interviewers to know more about you and how do you react to difficult and unusual situations. By giving you incorrect codes, he probably wanted to see if you argued back. To know whether you have the confidence to stand up against your seniors in situations similar to this.
P.S: I don't know why but I have a feeling that the interviewer has read this post.
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed. See This Link
The best example is
Although Calender class has a abstract method getInstance(), but when you say Calendar calc=Calendar.getInstance();
calc is referring to the class instance of class GregorianCalendar as "GregorianCalendar extends Calendar "
Infact annonymous inner type allows you to create a no-name subclass of the abstract class and an instance of this.
Technical Answer
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated - this is by definition and design.
From the JLS, Chapter 8. Classes:
A named class may be declared abstract (§8.1.1.1) and must be declared
abstract if it is incompletely implemented; such a class cannot be
instantiated, but can be extended by subclasses.
From JSE 6 java doc for Classes.newInstance():
InstantiationException - if this Class represents an abstract class, an interface, an array
class, a primitive type, or void; or if the class has no nullary constructor; or if the
instantiation fails for some other reason.
You can, of course, instantiate a concrete subclass of an abstract class (including an anonymous subclass) and also carry out a typecast of an object reference to an abstract type.
A Different Angle On This - Teamplay & Social Intelligence:
This sort of technical misunderstanding happens frequently in the real world when we deal with complex technologies and legalistic specifications.
"People Skills" can be more important here than "Technical Skills". If competitively and aggressively trying to prove your side of the argument, then you could be theoretically right, but you could also do more damage in having a fight / damaging "face" / creating an enemy than it is worth. Be reconciliatory and understanding in resolving your differences. Who knows - maybe you're "both right" but working off slightly different meanings for terms??
Who knows - though not likely, it is possible the interviewer deliberately introduced a small conflict/misunderstanding to put you into a challenging situation and see how you behave emotionally and socially. Be gracious and constructive with colleagues, follow advice from seniors, and follow through after the interview to resolve any challenge/misunderstanding - via email or phone call. Shows you're motivated and detail-oriented.
It is a well-established fact that abstract class can not be instantiated as everyone answered.
When the program defines anonymous class, the compiler actually creates a new class with different name (has the pattern EnclosedClassName$n where n is the anonymous class number)
So if you decompile this Java class you will find the code as below:
my.class
abstract class my {
public void mymethod()
{
System.out.print("Abstract");
}
}
poly$1.class (the generated class of the "anonymous class")
class poly$1 extends my
{
}
ploly.cass
public class poly extends my
{
public static void main(String[] a)
{
my m = new poly.1(); // instance of poly.1 class NOT the abstract my class
m.mymethod();
}
}
About Abstract Classes
Cannot create object of an abstract class
Can create variables (can behave like datatypes)
If a child can not override at least of one abstract method of the parent, then child also becomes abstract
Abstract classes are useless without child classes
The purpose of an abstract class is to behave like a base. In inheritance hierarchy you will see abstract classes towards the top.
No, you can't instantite an abstract class.We instantiate only anonymous class.In abstract class we declare abstract methods and define concrete methods only.
Extending a class doesn't mean that you are instantiating the class. Actually, in your case you are creating an instance of the subclass.
I am pretty sure that abstract classes do not allow initiating. So, I'd say no: you can't instantiate an abstract class. But, you can extend it / inherit it.
You can't directly instantiate an abstract class. But it doesn't mean that you can't get an instance of class (not actully an instance of original abstract class) indirectly. I mean you can not instantiate the orginial abstract class, but you can:
Create an empty class
Inherit it from abstract class
Instantiate the dervied class
So you get access to all the methods and properties in an abstract class via the derived class instance.
It's impossible to instantiate an abstract class.
What you really can do, has implement some common methods in an abstract class and let others unimplemented (declaring them abstract) and let the concrete descender implement them depending on their needs.
Then you can make a factory, which returns an instance of this abstract class (actually his implementer). In the factory you then decide, which implementer to choose. This is known as a factory design pattern:
public abstract class AbstractGridManager {
private LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm;
// ... more private fields
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
//Methods common to all implementors
public Grid calculateNextLifecicle(Grid grid){
return this.getLifecicleAlgorithm().calculateNextLifecicle(grid);
}
public LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface getLifecicleAlgorithm() {
return lifecicleAlgorithm;
}
public void setLifecicleAlgorithm(LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm) {
this.lifecicleAlgorithm = lifecicleAlgorithm;
}
// ... more common logic and getters-setters pairs
}
The concrete implementer only needs to implement the methods declared as abstract, but will have access to the logic implemented in those classes in an abstract class, which are not declared abstract:
public class FileInputGridManager extends AbstractGridManager {
private String filePath;
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
public class FileInputGridManager extends AbstractGridManager {
private String filePath;
//Method implemented in concrete Manager implementors
abstract public Grid initGrid();
public Grid initGrid(String filePath) {
List<Cell> cells = new ArrayList<>();
char[] chars;
File file = new File(filePath); // for example foo.txt
// ... more logic
return grid;
}
}
Then finally the factory looks something like this:
public class GridManagerFactory {
public static AbstractGridManager getGridManager(LifecicleAlgorithmIntrface lifecicleAlgorithm, String... args){
AbstractGridManager manager = null;
// input from the command line
if(args.length == 2){
CommandLineGridManager clManager = new CommandLineGridManager();
clManager.setWidth(Integer.parseInt(args[0]));
clManager.setHeight(Integer.parseInt(args[1]));
// possibly more configuration logic
...
manager = clManager;
}
// input from the file
else if(args.length == 1){
FileInputGridManager fiManager = new FileInputGridManager();
fiManager.setFilePath(args[0]);
// possibly more method calls from abstract class
...
manager = fiManager ;
}
//... more possible concrete implementors
else{
manager = new CommandLineGridManager();
}
manager.setLifecicleAlgorithm(lifecicleAlgorithm);
return manager;
}
}
The receiver of AbstractGridManager would call the methods on him and get the logic, implemented in the concrete descender (and partially in the abstract class methods) without knowing what is the concrete implementation he got. This is also known as inversion of control or dependency injection.
You can say: we can't instantiate an abstract class, but we can use new keyword to create an anonymous class instance by just adding {} as implement body at the the end of the abstract class.
No, we can't create the object of abstract class, but create the reference variable of the abstract class. The reference variable is used to refer to the objects of derived classes (Sub classes of Abstract class)
Here is the example that illustrates this concept
abstract class Figure {
double dim1;
double dim2;
Figure(double a, double b) {
dim1 = a;
dim2 = b;
}
// area is now an abstract method
abstract double area();
}
class Rectangle extends Figure {
Rectangle(double a, double b) {
super(a, b);
}
// override area for rectangle
double area() {
System.out.println("Inside Area for Rectangle.");
return dim1 * dim2;
}
}
class Triangle extends Figure {
Triangle(double a, double b) {
super(a, b);
}
// override area for right triangle
double area() {
System.out.println("Inside Area for Triangle.");
return dim1 * dim2 / 2;
}
}
class AbstractAreas {
public static void main(String args[]) {
// Figure f = new Figure(10, 10); // illegal now
Rectangle r = new Rectangle(9, 5);
Triangle t = new Triangle(10, 8);
Figure figref; // this is OK, no object is created
figref = r;
System.out.println("Area is " + figref.area());
figref = t;
System.out.println("Area is " + figref.area());
}
}
Here we see that we cannot create the object of type Figure but we can create a reference variable of type Figure. Here we created a reference variable of type Figure and Figure Class reference variable is used to refer to the objects of Class Rectangle and Triangle.
Actually we can not create an object of an abstract class directly. What we create is a reference variable of an abstract call. The reference variable is used to Refer to the object of the class which inherits the Abstract class i.e. the subclass of the abstract class.