Automatically add private qualifier to fields in eclipse - java

Is there a way to automatically add the private qualifier while new variables are declared in Eclipse?
In a way I would like to override the default access to private


I don't know of a way to do this.
However, the way i write code, it would rarely be necessary. That's because i rarely define fields by hand; instead, i let Eclipse create them, and when it does that, it makes them private.
Say i want to create a class Foo with a single field bar of type int. Start with:
public class Foo {
}
Put the cursor in the class body, hit control-space, and choose 'default constructor' from the proposals menu. You now have:
public class Foo {
public Foo() {
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub
}
}
Delete the helpful comment. Now manually add a constructor parameter for bar:
public class Foo {
public Foo(int bar) {
}
}
Now put the cursor on the declaration of bar and hit control-1. From the proposals menu, choose 'assign parameter to new field':
public class Foo {
private final int bar;
public Foo(int bar) {
this.bar = bar;
}
}
Bingo. You now have a private field.
There is a similar sequence of automatic operations which can create a field from an existing expression in a method (first creating a local variable, then promoting it to a field).


If you consider it more important to you than performance and readability, I suppose you could configure a relatively convenient solution as follows. I wouldn't do this myself.
For class and instance variables, modify the class template in preferences to incorporate this:
private static Object fields = new Object () {
// declare all class variables here
};
private Object vars = new Object () {
// declare all instance variables here
};
For local variables, modify the method template in preferences to incorporate this:
private Object locals = new Object () {
// declare all local variables here
};
Class variable x will be declared in fields. It will be private at this.class.fields.x.
Instance variable y will be declared in vars. It will be private at this.vars.y.
Local variable z will be declared in locals. It will be private at locals.z.
If you do this, you can expect your entire program to be slower and use more memory that it would otherwise.

Related

Use "this." when register widget in android studio [duplicate]

I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?

The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.

The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}

You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)

The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.

"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}

There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.

this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}

Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.

#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)

Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.

Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html

when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.

this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}

Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.

this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}

With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.

To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.

Creating objects inside the Constructor [duplicate]

I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?

The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.

The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}

You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)

The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.

"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}

There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.

this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}

Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.

#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)

Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.

Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html

when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.

this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}

Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.

this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}

With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.

To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.

In override equal method, this keyword is not pass as a parameter while comparing the attributes? [duplicate]

I know that this refers to a current object. But I do not know when I really need to use it. For example, will be there any difference if I use x instead of this.x in some of the methods? May be x will refer to a variable which is local for the considered method? I mean variable which is seen only in this method.
What about this.method()? Can I use it? Should I use it. If I just use method(), will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?

The this keyword is primarily used in three situations. The first and most common is in setter methods to disambiguate variable references. The second is when there is a need to pass the current class instance as an argument to a method of another object. The third is as a way to call alternate constructors from within a constructor.
Case 1: Using this to disambiguate variable references. In Java setter methods, we commonly pass in an argument with the same name as the private member variable we are attempting to set. We then assign the argument x to this.x. This makes it clear that you are assigning the value of the parameter "name" to the instance variable "name".
public class Foo
{
private String name;
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
Case 2: Using this as an argument passed to another object.
public class Foo
{
public String useBarMethod() {
Bar theBar = new Bar();
return theBar.barMethod(this);
}
public String getName() {
return "Foo";
}
}
public class Bar
{
public void barMethod(Foo obj) {
obj.getName();
}
}
Case 3: Using this to call alternate constructors. In the comments, trinithis correctly pointed out another common use of this. When you have multiple constructors for a single class, you can use this(arg0, arg1, ...) to call another constructor of your choosing, provided you do so in the first line of your constructor.
class Foo
{
public Foo() {
this("Some default value for bar");
//optional other lines
}
public Foo(String bar) {
// Do something with bar
}
}
I have also seen this used to emphasize the fact that an instance variable is being referenced (sans the need for disambiguation), but that is a rare case in my opinion.

The second important use of this (beside hiding with a local variable as many answers already say) is when accessing an outer instance from a nested non-static class:
public class Outer {
protected int a;
public class Inner {
protected int a;
public int foo(){
return Outer.this.a;
}
public Outer getOuter(){
return Outer.this;
}
}
}

You only need to use this - and most people only use it - when there's an overlapping local variable with the same name. (Setter methods, for example.)
Of course, another good reason to use this is that it causes intellisense to pop up in IDEs :)

The only need to use the this. qualifier is when another variable within the current scope shares the same name and you want to refer to the instance member (like William describes). Apart from that, there's no difference in behavior between x and this.x.

"this" is also useful when calling one constructor from another:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(String foo) {
this(foo, null);
}
public MyClass(String foo, String bar) {
...
}
}

There are a lot of good answers, but there is another very minor reason to put this everywhere. If you have tried opening your source codes from a normal text editor (e.g. notepad etc), using this will make it a whole lot clearer to read.
Imagine this:
public class Hello {
private String foo;
// Some 10k lines of codes
private String getStringFromSomewhere() {
// ....
}
// More codes
public class World {
private String bar;
// Another 10k lines of codes
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
bar = s;
}
}
}
This is very clear to read with any modern IDE, but this will be a total nightmare to read with a regular text editor.
You will struggle to find out where foo resides, until you use the editor's "find" function. Then you will scream at getStringFromSomewhere() for the same reason. Lastly, after you have forgotten what s is, that bar = s is going to give you the final blow.
Compare it to this:
public void doSomething() {
// More codes
Hello.this.foo = "FOO";
// More codes
String s = Hello.this.getStringFromSomewhere();
// More codes
this.bar = s;
}
You know foo is a variable declared in outer class Hello.
You know getStringFromSomewhere() is a method declared in outer class as well.
You know that bar belongs to World class, and s is a local variable declared in that method.
Of course, whenever you design something, you create rules. So while designing your API or project, if your rules include "if someone opens all these source codes with a notepad, he or she should shoot him/herself in the head," then you are totally fine not to do this.

this is useful in the builder pattern.
public class User {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public User(Builder builder){
firstName = builder.firstName;
surname = builder.surname;
}
public String getFirstName(){
return firstName;
}
public String getSurname(){
return surname;
}
public static class Builder {
private String firstName;
private String surname;
public Builder setFirstName(String firstName) {
this.firstName = firstName;
return this;
}
public Builder setSurname(String surname) {
this.surname = surname;
return this;
}
public User build(){
return new User(this);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
User.Builder builder = new User.Builder();
User user = builder.setFirstName("John").setSurname("Doe").build();
}
}

Unless you have overlapping variable names, its really just for clarity when you're reading the code.

#William Brendel answer provided three different use cases in nice way.
Use case 1:
Offical java documentation page on this provides same use-cases.
Within an instance method or a constructor, this is a reference to the current object — the object whose method or constructor is being called. You can refer to any member of the current object from within an instance method or a constructor by using this.
It covers two examples :
Using this with a Field and Using this with a Constructor
Use case 2:
Other use case which has not been quoted in this post: this can be used to synchronize the current object in a multi-threaded application to guard critical section of data & methods.
synchronized(this){
// Do some thing.
}
Use case 3:
Implementation of Builder pattern depends on use of this to return the modified object.
Refer to this post
Keeping builder in separate class (fluent interface)

Google turned up a page on the Sun site that discusses this a bit.
You're right about the variable; this can indeed be used to differentiate a method variable from a class field.
private int x;
public void setX(int x) {
this.x=x;
}
However, I really hate that convention. Giving two different variables literally identical names is a recipe for bugs. I much prefer something along the lines of:
private int x;
public void setX(int newX) {
x=newX;
}
Same results, but with no chance of a bug where you accidentally refer to x when you really meant to be referring to x instead.
As to using it with a method, you're right about the effects; you'll get the same results with or without it. Can you use it? Sure. Should you use it? Up to you, but given that I personally think it's pointless verbosity that doesn't add any clarity (unless the code is crammed full of static import statements), I'm not inclined to use it myself.

Following are the ways to use ‘this’ keyword in java :
Using this keyword to refer current class instance variables
Using this() to invoke current class constructor
Using this keyword to return the current class instance
Using this keyword as method parameter
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/thiskey.html

when there are two variables one instance variable and other local variable of the same name then we use this. to refer current executing object to avoid the conflict between the names.

this is a reference to the current object. It is used in the constructor to distinguish between the local and the current class variable which have the same name. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle(int x){
this.x =x;
//class variable =local variable
}
}
this can also be use to call one constructor from another constructor. e.g.:
public class circle {
int x;
circle() {
this(1);
}
circle(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
}

Will be there any difference if I use "x" instead of "this.x" in some of the methods?
Usually not. But it makes a difference sometimes:
class A {
private int i;
public A(int i) {
this.i = i; // this.i can be used to disambiguate the i being referred to
}
}
If I just use "method()", will it not be, by default, applied to the current object?
Yes. But if needed, this.method() clarifies that the call is made by this object.

this does not affect resulting code - it is compilation time operator and the code generated with or without it will be the same. When you have to use it, depends on context. For example you have to use it, as you said, when you have local variable that shadows class variable and you want refer to class variable and not local one.
edit: by "resulting code will be the same" I mean of course, when some variable in local scope doesn't hide the one belonging to class. Thus
class POJO {
protected int i;
public void modify() {
i = 9;
}
public void thisModify() {
this.i = 9;
}
}
resulting code of both methods will be the same. The difference will be if some method declares local variable with the same name
public void m() {
int i;
i = 9; // i refers to variable in method's scope
this.i = 9; // i refers to class variable
}

With respect to William Brendel's posts and dbconfessions question, regarding case 2. Here is an example:
public class Window {
private Window parent;
public Window (Window parent) {
this.parent = parent;
}
public void addSubWindow() {
Window child = new Window(this);
list.add(child);
}
public void printInfo() {
if (parent == null) {
System.out.println("root");
} else {
System.out.println("child");
}
}
}
I've seen this used, when building parent-child relation's with objects. However, please note that it is simplified for the sake of brevity.

To make sure that the current object's members are used. Cases where thread safety is a concern, some applications may change the wrong objects member values, for that reason this should be applied to the member so that the correct object member value is used.
If your object is not concerned with thread safety then there is no reason to specify which object member's value is used.

Can final parameters be qualified in some way to resolve naming conflicts with anonymous class members?

"Why are you doing this what is wrong with you?" notwithstanding, is there any way to accomplish this without changing the final method parameter name?
private Foo createAnonymousFoo(final Bar bar) {
return new Foo() {
private Bar bar = SomeUnknownScopeQualifier.bar;
public Bar getBar() {
return bar;
}
public void doSomethingThatReassignsBar() {
bar = bar.createSomeDerivedInstanceOfBar();
}
};
}
Obviously without the doSomethingThatReassignsBar call, you wouldn't need the member Bar and so on. In this case, the simple fix is to change final Bar bar to something like final Bar startBar and then the assignment is fine. But out of curiosity, is it possible to specifically refer to the final Bar (Similar to the way you would say Super.this)?

I think the answer to your question is "no". From the Java Language Specification:
A local variable (§14.4), formal parameter (§8.4.1), exception parameter (§14.20), and local class (§14.3) can only be referred to using a simple name (§6.2), not a qualified name (§6.6).
In other words, there's nothing you can replace SomeUnknownScopeQualifier with in your example code to make the assignment statement in the inner class refer to the formal parameter name.

I think it's not possible to do that. Rename the involved variables or create an alias:
private Foo createAnonymousFoo(final Bar bar) {
final Bar alias = bar;
return new Foo() {
private Bar bar = alias;
// ...
};
}

Setting a final class attribute

Is it possible to set a value for a final attribute from a Private method called from the Constructor of that Object?
public class FinalTest {
private final Object a;
//Constructor
public FinalTest() {
setA();
}
private void setA() {
a = new Object;
}
}
For the above class, compiler gives me an error saying I can't set the value for 'a' from the method.
I understand that its not possible to set value for a final variable from outside a constructor, but in the above case, I am actually doing it in a way within the constructor. So why isn't this allowed?

It's not allowed because you could call setA() via some other non-constructor method later on which would violate the final protection. Since final is a compile time enforced operation, the compiler enforces final by forcing initialization to occur in constructors or in-line.
In your simple example, all looks good but if you later updated your class to something like the following, the problem become more obvious...
public class FinalTest {
private final Object a;
//Constructor
public FinalTest() {
setA();
}
private void setA() {
a = new Object;
}
public void doSomething() {
this.setA(); // not good because a is final
}
}

Just a note: The compiler has to assume the worst case scenario. By declaring an attribute "final", the compiler has to ensure that the attribute cannot be modified outside of the constructor.
In a case where the method is called using reflection (for example), the compiler would never see it, ever. It's a lot easier to prove something is possible than impossible, that is why the compiler works the way it does.

Final checking is done at compile time not at runtime time. In your case compiler can't be sure that setA would not be called from some other method.

Why do you need to set the value of final variable from a private method ?
You may do it in this way :
public class FinalTest {
private final Object a;
{
a=new Object();
}
//Constructor
public FinalTest() {
}
}
In this case the object will be initialized on every FinalTest initialization.

Categories

Resources