I'm fairly new to OO programming specifically with Java. I have a question pertaining to inheritance.
I have a printing method that I'd like to be common among subclasses. The code in the print method is usable for all subclasses except for a response object that is specific to each individual subclass.
I'm thinking that i need to probably just override the method in each subclass providing the specific implementation. However it feels like there would be a slicker way to keep the common method in the super class and while somehow supplying the specific response object based on the subclass accessing it.
Any thoughts? Sorry if this seems elementary....
You will want an abstract base class that defines what is done, while the child classes define how it is done. Here's a hint as to how such a thing might look
public abstract class BaseClass{
public final String print(){
return "response object: " + responseObject();
}
protected abstract Object responseObject();
}
This is loosely related to the Template Method pattern, which might be of interest to you.
You are absolutely right, there is a better way. If your implementations share a great deal of code, you can use template method pattern to reuse as much implementation as possible.
Define a printReponse method in the superclass, and make it abstract. Then write your print method in the superclass that does the common thing and calls printResponse when needed. Finally, override only printResponse in the subclasses.
public abstract class BasePrintable {
protected abstract void printResponse();
public void print() {
// Print the common part
printResponse();
// Print more common parts
}
}
public class FirstPrintable extends BasePrintable {
protected void printResponse() {
// first implementation
}
}
public class SecondPrintable extends BasePrintable {
protected void printResponse() {
// second implementation
}
}
You can do something like this
public class A {
protected String getResponse(){ return "Response from A"; }
public void print(){
System.out.println( this.getName() );
}
}
public class B extends A {
protected String getResponse(){ return "Response from B"; }
}
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
a.print(); // Response from A
b.print(); // Response from B
i.e. you dont need to override the print method, just the getResponse
Related
Which access modifier, in an abstract class, do I have to use for a method,
so the subclasses can decide whether it should be public or not? Is it possible to "override" a modifier in Java or not?
public abstract class A {
??? void method();
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public void method(){
// TODO
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
private void method(){
// TODO
}
}
I know that there will be a problem with static binding, if
someone calls:
// Will work
A foo = new B()
foo.method();
// Compiler ?
A foo = new C();
foo.method();
But maybe there is another way. How I can achieve that?
It is possible to relax the restriction, but not to make it more restrictive:
public abstract class A {
protected void method();
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public void method(){ // OK
}
}
public class C extends A {
#Override
private void method(){ // not allowed
}
}
Making the original method private won't work either, since such method isn't visible in subclasses and therefore cannot be overriden.
I would recommend using interfaces to selectively expose or hide the method:
public interface WithMethod {
// other methods
void method();
}
public interface WithoutMethod {
// other methods
// no 'method()'
}
public abstract class A {
protected void method();
}
public class B extends A implements WithMethod {
#Override
public void method(){
//TODO
}
}
public class C extends B implements WithoutMethod {
// no 'method()'
}
... then only work with the instances through the interfaces.
When overriding methods, you can only change the modifier to a wider one, not vice versa. For example this code would be valid:
public abstract class A {
protected void method();
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public void method() { }
}
However, if you try to narrow down the visibility, you'd get a compile-time error:
public abstract class A {
protected void method();
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
private void method() {}
}
For your case, I'd suggest to make C not implementing A, as A's abstraction implies that there's a non-private method():
public class C {
private void method(){
//TODO
}
}
Another option is to make the method() implementation in C throwing a RuntimeException:
public class C extends A {
#Override
public void method(){
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("C doesn't support callbacks to method()");
}
}
What you are asking for is not possible for very good reasons.
The Liskov substitution principle basically says: a class S is a subclass of another class T only then, when you can replace any occurrence of some "T object" with some "S object" - without noticing.
If you would allow that S is reducing a public method to private, then you can't do that any more. Because all of a sudden, that method that could be called while using some T ... isn't available any more to be called on S.
Long story short: inheritance is not something that simply falls out of the sky. It is a property of classes that you as the programmer are responsible for. In other words: inheritance means more than just writing down "class S extends T" in your source code!
This is impossible because of the polymorphism. Consider the following. You have the method in class A with some access modifier which is not private. Why not private? Because if it was private, then no other class could even know of its existence. So it has to be something else, and that something else must be accessible from somewhere.
Now let's suppose that you pass an instance of class C to somewhere. But you upcast it to A beforehand, and so you end up having this code somewhere:
void somewhereMethod(A instance) {
instance.method(); // Ouch! Calling a private method on class C.
}
One nice example how this got broken is QSaveFile in Qt. Unlike Java, C++ actually allows to lower access privileges. So they did just that, forbidding the close() method. What they ended up with is a QIODevice subclass that is not really a QIODevice any more. If you pass a pointer to QSaveFile to some method accepting QIODevice*, they can still call close() because it's public in QIODevice. They “fixed” this by making QSaveFile::close() (which is private) call abort(), so if you do something like that, your program immediately crashes. Not a very nice “solution”, but there is no better one. And it's just an example of bad OO design. That's why Java doesn't allow it.
Edit
Not that I missed that your class is abstract, but I also missed the fact that B extends C, not A. This way what you want to do is completely impossible. If the method is public in B, it will be public in all subclasses too. The only thing you can do is document that it shouldn't be called and maybe override it to throw UnsupportedOperationException. But that would lead to the same problems as with QSaveFile. Remember that users of your class may not even know that it's an instance of C so they won't even have a chance to read its documentation.
Overall it's just a very bad idea OO-wise. Perhaps you should ask another question about the exact problem you're trying to solve with this hierarchy, and maybe you'll get some decent advises on how to do it properly.
Here is a part of the #Override contract.
The answer is : there isn't any possibility to achieve what you have.
The access level cannot be more restrictive than the overridden
method's access level. For example: if the superclass method is
declared public then the overridding method in the sub class cannot be
either private or protected.
This is not a problem concerning abstract classes only but all classes and methods.
THEORY:
You have the determined modifiers order:
public <- protected <- default-access X<- private
When you override the method, you can increase, but not decrease the modifier level. For example,
public -> []
protected -> [public]
default-access -> [public, default-access]
private -> []
PRACTICE:
In your case, you cannot turn ??? into some modifier, because private is the lowest modifier and private class members are not inherited.
What is the best java programming practice to call a method on all inherited classes. Consider this pseudo code:
class TopLevel extends (SecondLevel extends Base)
If all these classes have the method 'serializeToString', then how can I call this method throughout the inheritance structure? Te reason for this requirement, is that each class has its own variables it needs to serialize.
Also, there is a further requirement:
Each the class 'TopLevel' and 'SecondLevel' are not asbstract, and will need to be the entry point for serializing their entire inheritance.
Eg,
SecondLevel.serializeToString()
will need to call the method on 'Base' along with itself
And:
TopLevel.serializeToString()
Would need to call the method on both 'SecondLevel' and 'Base'.
Currently, I have the serializeToString method in base, which then calls a method 'addSerialization' on the entire inheritance (and each implementation must call through to super to propagate the call)
While this works, it seems messy in my code to have two methods working to acheive one (simple?) thing.
What would the best way to acheive this be?
The same overriden method in each class in an inheritance structure callling super will give you a chain of calls towards the base class, each one calling the superclass overriden method.
If you don't need to pass extra parameters and the return type is compatible with your logic, you can call super.serializeToString() in each class to call the superclass implementation.
class TopLevel {
#Override public String serializeToString() {
return super.serializeToString() // calls SecondLevel implementation
+ ", topLevelAttribute: 1";
}
}
class SecondLevel {
#Override public String serializeToString() {
return super.serializeToString() // calls Base implementation
+ ", secondLevelAttribute: 2";
}
}
// and so on ...
Now, if above solution doesn't fit you logic, you can't avoid creating another method that is called from the superclass.
class Base {
public String serializeToString() {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
appendSerializedTo(sb);
return sb.toString();
}
// can be abstract if there's no implementation here
protected void appendSerializedTo(StringBuilder sb) {
sb.append("baseAttribute: 3");
}
}
class SecondLevel {
#Override protected void appendSerializedTo(StringBuilder sb) {
super.appendSerializedTo(sb); // calls Base implementation
sb.append("secondLevelAttribute: 2");
}
}
// and so on...
I would like to prevent a class from calling its own method. The method shall only be callable by its super class.
Right now, I cannot think of any way to achieve this (cleanly). But maybe someone knows a solution?
In code:
public abstract class A {
protected abstract void foo();
private void barA() {
//do smth
foo();
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
protected void foo() {
//do smth
}
private void barB() {
//must not be able to call foo() here
}
}
Edit: the explanation why I would like to do this:
A is lets say a vehicle. B can be a car or an airplane. The method foo() would be startEngines(). -> I want to make sure that the engines can only be started by calling the method barA().... does that make any sense?
There is a way to do it, but you need to use Google Error Prone. This is an extension of the Java compiler that aims to provide more and more helpful warnings and errors (similar to FindBugs and PMD, but with less false alarms). I can only recommend it, it has already helped us to find some bugs.
Specifically, it contains an annotation #ForOverride and an according compile-time check. This annotation is meant to be used for protected methods that the sub-class and any other class should not call, but only the defining class.
So using
public abstract class A {
#ForOverride
protected abstract void foo();
private void barA() {
//do smth
foo();
}
}
would exactly achieve what you want.
You can integrate Error Prone into most build systems like Maven and Ant. Of course, it won't help if somebody compiles your source without Error Prone (for example in Eclipse), but using it in a continous-integration system would still allow you to find such issues. The source code still stays compatible with regular Java compilers (provided you have error_prone_annotations.jar on the class path), other compilers will simply not do the additional checks.
this answer has a good hint.
add below method in your class (class B):
public static String getMethodName(final int depth)
{
final StackTraceElement[] ste = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
return ste[ste.length - 1 - depth].getMethodName();
}
and change the foo method in class B to this:
#Override
protected void foo() {
//....
if (getMethodName(0)=="barB"){
// tell you are not able to call barB
}
}
Considering your vehicle and engine scenario, I think you need to reconsider your design a bit.
Your vehicle could be a car, aeroplane, etc but car, aeroplane, ... each have separate engines and therefore different startEngine method. So declare your class vehicle as abstract like you did and class startEngine as abstract method . Next , subclass Vehicle and implement startEngine in them , now you can invoke startEngine on the subclass instances
abstract class Vehicle{
abstract void startEngine();
}
public class Car extends Vehicle{
public void startEngine(){
//implementation
}
public static void main(String[] arg){
Vehicle v=new Car();
v.startEngine();
}
}
Add Anonymouse inner class to barA method via Interface, so you will need to implement a method for foo() (functional interface). It won't be part of Class B.
you could put an interface as a member in the super class given to it via the constructor. the child class implements the method but can't call it except by making it static.
interface Foo {
void stopEngines();
void startEngines();
}
abstract class Base {
final private Foo foo;
public Base(final Foo foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
private void barA() {
// do smth
foo.startEngines();
}
}
class Child extends Base {
public Child() {
super(new Foo() {
boolean engineRunning;
#Override
public void stopEngines() {
this.engineRunning = false;
}
#Override
public void startEngines() {
this.engineRunning = true;
}
});
}
private void barB() {
// can't call startEngines() or stopEngines() here
}
}
class Child2 extends Base {
public Child2() {
super(new Foo() {
#Override
public void stopEngines() {
stopEngines();
}
#Override
public void startEngines() {
startEngines();
}
});
}
static void stopEngines() {
// influence some static state?
}
static void startEngines() {
// influence some static state?
}
private void barB() {
// can call stopEngines() and startEngines(), but at least they have to be static
}
}
Of course, this is not really what you asked for, but about as much as you can do about it in Java, I guess.
Seeing the startEngines explanation, this solution might even suffice.
I guess you wouldn't care about the class calling its static methods, since they can only influence a static state, which is used seldom. The methods within the anonymous interface implementation can mutually call each other, but I guess that would be OK, since you only seem to be trying to prevent others to start the engines in some different way.
I guess this is similar to the problem AWT/Swing has with overriding the paint(Graphics g) method on a component (or onCreate(..) in Android Activities). Here you are overriding the paint method but you should never call it.
I think the best thing you can do is add documentation to the method to clarify that it should never be explicitly called by the subclasses OR re-evaluate your design.
Given this class:
abstract class Foo{
public Foo(){...}
public abstract void checkable();
public void calledWhenCheckableIsCalled(){
System.out.println("checkable was called");
}
}
Is there any code I can put in Foo's constructor to make calledWhenCheckableIsCalled get called when checkable is called?
Note: This is a gross simplification of an actual project I am working on.
Edit: I have already implemented a template pattern workaround. I just wondered if there was another way to do this I am missing. (Perhaps using reflection.)
Looks like a template method pattern.
But then you must implement Foo.checkable() and introduce another abstract method to delegate to.
abstract class Foo{
public Foo(){}
public void checkable(){
calledWhenCheckableIsCalled();
doCheckable();
}
protected abstract void doCheckable();
public void calledWhenCheckableIsCalled(){
System.out.println("checkable was called");
}
}
I would also suggest to make checkable() final in this case so that you can be sure that checkable() can not implemented in another way as you expected.
In addition to Brian Roach's comment
The downside is that the protected can be expanded to public in the subclass, so you can't explicitly enforce it.
That's true, but you can prevent a Foo instance from being instantiated if a subclass increases the visibility of doCheckable. Therefore you have to introduce a verification whenever an object is instantiated. I would recommend to use an initializer code so that the verification is executed on every constructor that exists. Then it can not be forgotten to invoke and therefore be by-passed.
For example:
abstract class Foo {
{ // instance initializer code ensures that enforceDoCheckableVisibility
// is invoked for every constructor
enforceDoCheckableVisibility();
}
public Foo() {...}
public Foo(Object o) {...}
private void enforceDoCheckableVisibility() {
Class<?> currentClass = getClass();
while (currentClass != Foo.class) {
try {
Method doCheckableMethod = currentClass.getDeclaredMethod("doCheckable");
if (Modifier.isPublic(doCheckableMethod.getModifiers())) {
throw new RuntimeException("Visibility of "
+ currentClass.getSimpleName()
+ ".doCheckable() must not be public");
}
} catch (SecurityException | NoSuchMethodException e) {}
currentClass = currentClass.getSuperclass();
}
}
}
Since the check is implemented using reflection the downside is that it is only checked at runtime. So you will not have compiler support of course. But this approach let you enforce that an instance of a Foo can only exist if it fulfills your contract.
No, the constructor will get invoked once during the object initialisation. You can however get your subclass that provides the implementation to call the method in the super class:
class Bar extends Foo {
// implementation of abstract method
public void checkable(){
super.calledWhenCheckableIsCalled(); // call to parent's method
...
}
}
EDIT
You could achieve this with aspects. Using an aspect you can intercept each call to a method by referring to the abstract parent method. This leaves you free from interfering eith the child code. Your calledWhenCheckableIsCalled code would then become part of the intercepting code.
abstract class Foo {
// use pointcut to intercept here
public void checkable();
}
There is no way as you are forcing that method to implement in child.
An awkward suggestion will be know from child implementation. I mean there is no clean way AFAIK
abstract class foo {
public abstract void bar();
public void moo() {
System.out.println("some code");
this.bar();
System.out.println("more code");
}
}
now if moo is called, the underlying implementation of bar will be used, it is just a small paradigm shift from what you want.
so your end user would call moo instead of bar, but he still needs to implement bar
Nope, an abstract method doesn't have a body. You could, however, chain your method like this:
abstract class Foo {
void callMeInstead() {
// do common
callMeImplementation();
}
abstract void callMeImplementation();
}
It looks to me like you're looking for the template pattern:
public abstract class Template {
public final void checkable() {
calledWhenCheckableIsCalled();
doCheckable();
}
protected abstract void doCheckable();
private void calledWhenCheckableIsCalled() {
System.out.println("checkable was called");
}
}
Now, each time checkable() is called, calledWhenCheckableIsCalled() is also called. And the suclass must still provide the actual implementation of checkable(), by implementing the doCheckable() method.
Note that making checkable() final prevents a subclass from overriding it and thus bypassing the call to calledWhenCheckableIsCalled().
public class Testing extends JDialog {
public MyClass myClass;
public Testing() {
}
}
given the above code, is it possible to override a method in myClass in Testing class?
say myClass has a method named computeCode(), will it be possible for me to override it's implementations in Testing? sorry it's been a long time since I've coded.
if you want to override a method from MyClass then your testing class must extend that. for overriding a method one must complete IS-A relationship whereas your code comes under HAS-A relationship.
Yes, it is generally possible (note that as others have correctly mentioned - you'd need to extend it to override the method). Refer to this sample:
public class Animal {
public void testInstanceMethod() {
System.out.println("The instance method in Animal.");
}
}
public class Cat extends Animal {
public void testInstanceMethod() {
System.out.println("The instance method in Cat.");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Cat myCat = new Cat();
Animal myAnimal = myCat;
myAnimal.testInstanceMethod();
}
}
Not only is it possible, but it is a key feature in polymorphism an code reusability.
Note, however, that MyClass.computeCode might be final - in this case, it cannot be overridden.
You override methods of classes that you extend. Therefore, in your example your Testing class could override the various existing methods of JDialog. If you wanted to override computeCode() from MyClass (assuming it's not final), you should make Testing extend MyClass.
public class Testing extends MyClass
{
#Override
public int computeCode()
{
return 1;
}
}
You can override a class's method only in a subclass (a class that extends the class whose method you want to override). However, given your skeletal code, you can (within Testing) have a nested class that extends MyClass and force an instance of that nested class into the myClass instance variable... so, the answer must be "yes".
Whether that's the best choice (as opposed to using interfaces, rather than subclassing concrete classes, and relying on Dependency Injection to get the implementations most suited for your testing), that's a different question (and my answer would be, unless you're testing legacy code that you can't seriously refactor until it's well test-covered... then, probably not;-).
See, if you want to override method from MyClass then you need to extend it.
As per your code, it seems you want to make a wrapper wround MyClass.
Wrapper means, calling implemented class method will call method of MyClass.
I am just clearing how wrapping works as below.
public class Testing extends JDialog {
public MyClass myClass;
public Testing() {
}
public void someMethod() {
//Add some more logic you want...
...
..
myClass.computeCode();
}
}
thanks.
The wording of the question is confused and lost.
Here are some key points:
You can't #Override something that you didn't inherit to begin with
You can't #Override something that is final
Here's a small example:
import java.util.*;
public class OverrideExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>(
Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c")
) {
#Override public String toString() {
return "I'm a list and here are my things : " + super.toString();
}
};
System.out.println(list);
// prints "I'm a list and here are my things : [a, b, c]"
}
}
Here, we have an anonymous class that #Override the toString() method inherited from java.util.ArrayList.
Note that here, it's not class OverrideExample that overrides the ArrayList.toString(); it's the anonymous class that (implicitly) extends ArrayList that does.
All the above answers are valid. But, if you want to extend JDialog but still if you want to override a method of another class it is possible through interfaces. Interfaces won't have method definitions but will have method declarations. More about interfaces, you can read at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/interface.html
In your case, you can make use of interface like this
public interface MyInterface{
public void myMethod();
}
public class Testing extends javax.swing.JDialog implements MyIterface{
public void myMethod(){
// code for your method
}
}
Since Testing class has already inherited JDialog, there is no way let it inherit MyClass again unless to implement an interface. What you can do is to use some design pattern. However this is not overriding, since there is no inheritance. The Adapter is the one you need. Again you are losing the flexibility of polymorphism.
public class Testing extends JDialog {
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
public Testing() {
}
public void methodA(){
myClass.methodA();
}
}
class MyClass {
public void methodA(){}
}