I have a java class containing my Database settings (username, password). I want to use this class in all the packages of my plugin but I don't want it to be available to other plugins.
How can I do that? Removing the public attribute of the class hides it from all other packages and leaving it public exposes it to all other plugins wich is bad in my case.
Isn't there some kind of keyword like protected for functions and variables?
How can I do that?
Instead of having credentials in class, create a configuration file and use it in classes where required.
If your database information is stored as plain text variables, it doesn't matter what visibility you set. Anyone interested will easily find those strings.
I'm not sure what you are plugging into, but most platforms that I have used have a way of stating which packages should be shared/hidden. This would be specific to the platform (Netbeans, Eclipse, etc...)
Aside from that, if you make your class/variables protected then only classes in the same package or which extend it would be able to use them. If no visibility modifier is set, then it defaults to package and use is restricted to classes in the same package.
Related
I am creating a library (android). I keeping things as packages like
com.domain.libname.datamodel; com.domain.libname.exceptions; etc.
I want the freedom of initializing some data model objects within my library which public can read, but public should not initialize those objects. Though 'package' access modifier does this within a package, i would like to do this across packages within the same project/library.
Is there a way? Or is it indicates i am not packaging things in the right manner?
The package structure in Java is flat: If you want something to be visible outside of your package it will be visible to all packages; there is no way to restrict visibility to "subpackages" or to packages with a certain prefix.
My opinion is that a package should implement a feature, so that classes that have to cooperate can do so without having to expose needless cruft to the outside. This means that you wouldn't have "artificial" packages like "datamodel" or "exceptions"; instead the data models and exceptions would be in the package that actually needs them to implement a set of use cases. But I can see how in a large application or library that can become impractical.
I am developing a generic Android game engine that will be used in many of my Android apps as the base system. The problem is that in all of my Java files I currently have to hardcode the package name like this:
package com.example.mygameengine;
But because I want to use the code of my generic game engine in many different apps, I need to find a way to specify the package name for the Java files at compile time because I do not want to keep several copies of my Java sources just because of differences in the package name. I want to have one central source tree and the package name should be dynamically changeable depending on the app I'm about to compile.
So is there a way to do something like this:
package $(PACKAGE_NAME)
In the Java sources where $(PACKAGE_NAME) is to be substituted with the real package name at compile time? Maybe javac has an option that allows me to specify a package name for the file it is passed instead of taking it from the file itself? Note that I'm not using Eclipse but barebones command line tools like ant and make.
EDIT: I do not understand why this is tagged as a duplicate. I've asked a fundamental question about whether the "package" directive in the Java language requires a hard-coded string argument in the source code or whether it is also possible to set this package name at compile time using a compiler directive. That's quite a different question than the one that has been linked here as the presumedly "original" question which is much more closely tied to the Android build system. My question is about the fundamentals of the Java language, not about the Android build system.
Can you build your generic game engine code into a stand alone JAR.
Then you can include it as a dependency into each of your Android app that uses it.
With proper versioning you will then have just one central place where this code is stored.
You can't. And that's not the proper approach to code reuse.
Simply package your commonly used code in a jar and include that jar in every project you want (in Android you do that by adding the class to the classpath, and then marking it as exported in the "Order & Export" tab)
It's not possible, because its part of core meta-data about your class
A package is a collection of related Java entities (such as classes, interfaces, exceptions, errors and enums). Packages are used for:
Resolving naming conflict of classes by prefixing the class name with a package name. For example, com.zzz.Circle and com.yyy.Circle are two distinct classes. Although they share the same class name Circle, but they belong to two different packages: com.zzz and com.yyy. These two classes can be used in the same program and distinguished using the fully-qualified class name - package name plus class name. This mechanism is called Namespace Management.
Access Control: Besides public and private, Java has two access control modifiers – protected and default – that are related to package. A protected entity is accessible by classes in the same package and its subclasses. An entity without access control modifier (i.e., default) is accessible by classes in the same package only.
For distributing a collection of reusable classes, usually in a format known as Java Archive (JAR) file.
I'm making an SDK and I'm trying to separate classes to different packages, those classes use some other shared classes. The issue is if I made the shared classes public everyone will be able to see them, not only my classes. What's the right way to make them only accessible by my application?
Example :
Package a
MyClass1
Package b
MyClass2
Package c
public MySharedClass
Because c is public MySharedClass will be able to access it, but the issue is that it will also will be visible to the world, how could I prevent that?
Create a package that is documented as an internal package, not to be used by clients.
There is no way in Java to make a class public only for certain packages: It either is public for everyone or package-private (public only in the declared package).
I think there's a proposal for modules to allow better control in the visibility of classes, but we'll have to wait, at least, for Java 8.
The packages are all "public" in Java, what you can protect is the classes within a package. For limiting the visibility of a class to only a given package, declare it like this (without the public visibility modifier):
class MyClass {
// ...
}
In that way, only the classes in the same package as MyClass will be able to see it.
Non trivial:
The shared classes could be defined by a generally accessible set of interfaces. The actual implementation should be loaded explicitly via a Classloader. After that, simply apply Java Security Management mechanisms to control access to the implementation classes. Anyone can see the interfaces and access to actual implementation will be restricted to your SDK.
(A varient of above is what every web/app server needs to do. How do you think Tomcat prevents you from accessing some other app's "public" classes?)
edit: note above is a runtime mechanism. There are static (post) compile approaches as well. APT for example, could be effective here. Naturally I am not addressing a restructuring of your package (in OP) and only addressing how to secure access to a general approach. But these are a bit 'hacky' -- the runtime mechanism of class loading is canonical and imo strictly more correct.
If the class is shared by classes from two different packages, it could be a good indication that these two classes should be in the same package, along with the shared class, which wouldn't be public and would thus only be usable by classes of the same package.
If it's really not an option, just document the shared class appropriately, to indicate that it's not supposed to be used outside of the SDK internal code, that it's subject to changes in future versions, and make it even clearer by naming the package "internal" or somthing like this.
protected modifier can use,in case of your class will access only in same package. otherwise there is no possibility.
How can I export a jar without some class or package which I don't want others to use,but which is needed in project,means I can't delete them.
This doesn't make a lot of sense.
If the classes are needed to compile the project, then there are likely to be static dependencies on them in other classes. (Otherwise ... you would be able to just delete it / them.)
But if there are static dependencies on those classes, then you won't be able to run the applications unless those classes are present in the JAR file. If you leave the classes out of the JAR to stop people using them (or whatever), your application will die on startup with "class not found" exceptions.
If you want to stop people using the classes directly, you could try the following:
Change the classes access to "package private". This doesn't make it impossible to use them, but it makes it more difficult.
Change your project so that the dependencies on the classes are entirely dynamic; e.g. via Class.forName(...) or dependency injection. Then you can exclude the classes from the JAR as required. But once again, if your application needs to use the classes, they have to be accessible at runtime (somehow), and it will therefore be possible (somehow) for other people to get hold of them.
Change your project to allow you remove the classes entirely. This is the only sure-fire solution.
Finally, before you go to all of this trouble you should ask yourself why you are even bothering to do this. Why don't you just let people use the classes anyway? What is to stop them getting the classes from somewhere else ... or implementing their own versions from scratch?
If the class is needed for your program to work, you can't omit it from the JAR.
You can put classes in a package that has something like "internal" in its name — e.g. com.example.internal — to indicate that the classes aren't meant for others to use or rely on. It can't prevent anyone from using your class for their own purposes, but it at least indicates that they do so at their own risk, that your internal interfaces might change in future versions of the program, etc.
A simple way is to use the package private access modifier for classes. That will make it difficult for others to access the classes, but it will also affect your ability to use them from other packages.
A more advanced way would be to use OSGi and only publish those classes you want others to use. That will make it impossible for others to access the classes while not restricting your access to them.
Put them into a separate jar file, include that jar file (as a single file, maybe with a nondescript name) into your jar file, create a custom class loader to open that embedded jar file from your code, bootstrap an entry point with reflection (because you cannot have static dependencies on it) into that new class loader .
Or just accept the fact that since the code is in there somewhere, any amount of obfuscation is just an inconvenience to everyone and cannot really hide anything.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a newbie and just learned that if I define say
package my.first.group.here;
...
then the Java files that are in this package will be placed under my/first/group/here directory.
What is the main purpose of putting some Java files in a package? Also, if I choose to adopt this, how should I group them?
Thank you
EDIT: For anyone who might have the same question again, I just found this tutorial on packages from Sun.
Let's start with the definition of a "Java package", as described in the Wikipedia article:
A Java package is a mechanism for
organizing Java classes into
namespaces similar to the modules of
Modula. Java packages can be stored in
compressed files called JAR files,
allowing classes to download faster as
a group rather than one at a time.
Programmers also typically use
packages to organize classes belonging
to the same category or providing
similar functionality.
So based on that, packages in Java are simply a mechanism used to organize classes and prevent class name collisions. You can name them anything you wish, but Sun has published some naming conventions that you should use when naming packages:
Packages
The prefix of a unique package name is
always written in all-lowercase ASCII
letters and should be one of the
top-level domain names, currently com,
edu, gov, mil, net, org, or one of the
English two-letter codes identifying
countries as specified in ISO Standard
3166, 1981.
Subsequent components of the package
name vary according to an
organization's own internal naming
conventions. Such conventions might
specify that certain directory name
components be division, department,
project, machine, or login names.
Examples:
com.sun.eng
com.apple.quicktime.v2
edu.cmu.cs.bovik.cheese
I a large application, you are bound to have two files named exactly the same (java.util.Date and java.sql.Date), especially when you start bringing in third party jars. So basically, you can use packages to ensure uniqueness.
Most importantly, in my opinion, packaging breaks down projects into meaningful segments. So my SQL package has sql-related code, and my logger package handles logging.
In addition to the namespacing mentioned in other answers, you can limit access to methods and fields based on the scope declared on that member.
Members with the public scope are freely accessible, to limit access you normally define them as private (i.e. hidden outside the class).
You can also use the protected scope to limit access to the type and its children.
There is also the default scope (a member with no qualifier has the default scope) which allows child types and types in the same package access to the member. This can be an effective way of sharing fields and methods without making them too widely available, and can help with testing.
For example the method below would be visible to all other members of the same package.
public class Foo {
int doSomething() {
return 1;
}
}
To test the method you could define another type in the same package (but probably a different source location), that type would be able to access the method.
public class FooTest {
#Test
int testDoSomething() {
Foo foo = new Foo();
assertEquals(1, foo.doSomething());
}
}
It allows the program to be composed from multiple different programs/components/libraries, so that their class names will not conflict and the components are easier to organize. See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/package/index.html
In Java it's customary to name packages as reverse domain names. For example, if your company's domain is "initech.com" and you are making a program called "Gizmo", the package names are typically prefixed "com.initech.gizmo", with subpackages for different components of the program.
Packages are important for giving flexibility of classes separation. They can be used for:
separating projects
separating modules
separating application layers (business, web, dao)
further finer grained code separation
For example
com.mycompany.thisproject.thismodule.web
Could indicate the web layer of some module.
Ultimately, there are 3 core reasons we want to use packages in Java.
1) Easier Maintenance
Organizing classes into packages follows the separation of concerns principle by encapsulation and allows for better cohesion in the overall system design. Moving further, packaging-by-feature allows teams of developers to find relevant classes and interfaces for making changes, supporting vertical-slicing techniques for scaled approaches used in agile methodology. For more information, see blog post: Package your classes by Feature and not by Layers and Coding: Packaging by vertical slice.
2) Provide Package security
Packages allow external access to only public access modifiers on methods in contained classes. Using the protected or no modifier will only be accessible to classes within the same package. For more information, see post:
Which Java access modifier allows a member to be accessed only by the subclasses in other package?
3) Avoid similar naming
Similar to the namespaces of .NET, class names are contained within the scope of their containing package. This means that two mutually exclusive packages can contain classes with the same name. This is because the packages themselves have different names and therefore, the fully qualified names are different. For more information, see tutorial [Naming a Package: The Java Tutorials][3].
From the Wikipedia page on the topic:
"A Java package is a mechanism for organizing Java classes into namespaces similar to the modules of Modula. Java packages can be stored in compressed files called JAR files, allowing classes to download faster as a group rather than one at a time. Programmers also typically use packages to organize classes belonging to the same category or providing similar functionality."
also, if i choose to adopt this, how
should i group them?
This depends largely on the design pattern(s) you will employ in your project. For the most part (particularly, if you're quite new) you'll want to group them by functionality or some other logical similarity.
Other people have provided very Java-specific answers which are fine, but here's an analogy: why do you organize files into directories on your hard drive? Why not just have a flat file system with everything in one directory?
The answer, of course, is that packages provide organization. The part of the program that interfaces with the database is different than the part of the program that displays a UI to the user, so they'll be in different packages.
Like directories, it also provides a way to solve name conflicts. You can have a temp.txt in a couple different directories in the same way that you could have two classes that appear in different packages. This becomes important (1) when you start combining code with other people out there on the internet or (2) even realize how Java's classloading works.
Another important thing about packages is the protected member for access control.
Protected is somewhere between public (everyone can access) and private (only class internal can access). Things marked as protected can be accessed from within the same package or from subclasses. This means that for limited access you don't have to put everything in the same class.
Java is very exact in its implementation. It doesn't really leave room for fudging.
If everyone were to use the same package, they would have to find some "World Wide" way to ensure that no two class names ever collided.
This lets every single class ever written fit into its own "Place" that you don't have to look at if you don't want to.
You may have different "Point" objects defined in 4 different places on your system, but your class will only use the one you expect (because you import that one).
The way they ensure that everyone has their own space is to use your reverse domain, so mine is "tv.kress.bill". I own that domain--Actually I share it with my brother "tv.kress.doug" and even though we share the same domain, we can't have a collision.
If a hundred divisions in your company each develop in Java, they can do so without collision and knowing exactly how to divide it.
Systems that don't do this kind of division seem really flaky to me now. I might use them to hack together a script for something personal, but I'd feel uncomfortable developing anything big without some strict packaging going on.