What I'm trying to do is instantiate an object in the parent class called "pObject" (assume the type to be protected Boolean). One child class which extends the parent class sets "object" to "true". The other child class which also extends the parent class will check to see if "object" is set to true.
Is this possible in Java?
public abstract class parentClassAction{
protected Boolean pObject;
}
public class childClass1Action extends parentClassAction{
super.pObject = true;
}
public class childClass2Action extends parentClassAction{
if(super.pObject!=null){
if(super.pObject == true){
System.out.println("Success");
}
}
}
You can make pObject static and access it as parentClassAction.pObject.
If you have 2 different instances of subclasses - they do not share any state. Each of them has independent instance of pObject, so if you change one object it will not be seen in another one.
There are many ways to solve your problem. The easiest way: you can make this field pObject to be static - it will work for simple example, but this can be also serious limitation (if you want to have more than one instance of pObject).
Yes. If pObject is static it will be shared:
public class Legit {
public static abstract class A {
protected static Boolean flag;
}
public static class B extends A {
public void setFlag(boolean flag) {
super.flag = flag;
}
}
public static class C extends A {
public boolean getFlag() {
return super.flag;
}
}
public static void main (String [] args) {
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
b.setFlag(true);
System.out.println(c.getFlag());
b.setFlag(false);
System.out.println(c.getFlag());
}
}
You can access non private fields of a super class using the syntax:
super.myBoolean = true;
Note: If the field has the default visibility (absence of modifier) it is accessible only if the sub class is in the same package.
Edited: I add information due to the new code added to the question.
It seems that you like to check a variable from two different objects. It is possible only if that variable is static. So declare it as protected static in the parent class. The rest of code rest the same.
I have a very simple question.
Can 2 classes share the same Super class instance? I know the answer is no, because super is the instance itself, but I was really there was some workaround...
public class Parent{
private final int parentId;
private static final HashMap<Integer,Parent> parentMap = new HashMap<Integer,Parent>();
private Parent(int i){
parentId = i;
parentMap.put(i,this);
}
public static Parent newInstance(int i)
{
if(parentMap.containsKey(i))
return parentMap.get(i);
return new Parent(i);
}
}
/* Other class */
public class ExtendedParent extends Parent{
public ExtendedParent(int i){
super(i);//I should use the factory at this point...
}
public static main(String[] args){
/*What I am trying to achieve*/
Parent p1 = new ExtendedParent(1);
Parent p2 = new ExtendedParent(1);
if(p1.equals(p2))
System.out.println("This is what i aim to get!!!!");
}
}
Remade the code to demonstrate my problem clearly.
Can someone help me out? =D
Thanks in advance!
I see two alternatives:
Make the relevant parent's attributes and methods static, so that they are shared among all descendants.
Replace the parent class with an interface and share an attribute of the original parent class between subclass instances.
Make ExtendedParent instances forward calls to a Parent instance they keep as a member. And methods that should not only forward the calls, add the additional processing that distinguishes ExtendedParent from Parent.
You can use inner class. You can even make several distinct types share same parent class object.This would not be inheritance, but the result will be exactly what you are looking for:
public class Test {
private final String text;
Test(String text) {
this.text = text;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Test t = new Test("Text");
A a = t.new A();
B b = t.new B();
a.printA();
b.printB();
}
class B {
public void printB() {
System.out.println(text);
}
}
class A {
public void printA() {
System.out.println(text);
}
}
}
I have an abstract class that should implement a public field, this field is an interface or another abstract classe.
something like this:
public abstract class GenericContainer {
public GenericChild child;
}
public abstract class GenericChild {
public int prop1=1;
}
public abstract class SpecialChild extends GenericChild {
public int prop1=2;
}
Now i have another specialized class Container:
public abstract class SpecialContainer extends GenericContainer {
public SpecialChild child=new SpecialChild(); //PAY ATTENTION HERE!
}
Java allow me to compile this, and i IMAGINE that the field child in SpecialContainer is automatically overloading the field child of the GenericContainer...
The questions are:
Am i right on this? The automatic 'overloading' of child will happen?
And, more important question, if i have another class like this:
public class ExternalClass {
public GenericContainer container=new SpecialContainer();
public int test() {
return container.child.prop1
}
}
test() will return 1 or 2? i mean the GenericContainer container field what prop1 will call, the generic or the special?
And what if the special prop1 was declared as String (yes java allow me to compile also in this case)?
Thanks!
In Java, data members/attributes are not polymorphic. Overloading means that a field will have a different value depending from which class it's accessed. The field in the subclass will hide the field in the super-class, but both exists. The fields are invoked based on reference types, while methods are used of actual object. You can try it yourself.
It's called, variable hiding/shadowing, for more details look on here
It isn't overriding anything, you're just hiding the original field at the current class scope. If you use a variable with the subtype you will still be able to access the original property. Example:
abstract class GenericContainer {
public GenericChild child;
}
abstract class GenericChild {
public int prop1=1 ;
}
class SpecialChild extends GenericChild {
public int prop1=2;
}
class SpecialContainer extends GenericContainer {
public SpecialChild child;
}
public class Main {
public static void main( String ... args ) {
GenericContainer container = new SpecialContainer();
container.child = new SpecialChild();
System.out.println( container.child.prop1 );
SpecialChild child = (SpecialChild) container.child;
System.out.println( child.prop1 );
}
}
This prints 1 and then 2.
From SpecialChild you would also be able to go up one level using super:
class SpecialChild extends GenericChild {
public int prop1=2;
public int getOriginalProp1() {
return super.prop1;
}
}
Regarding
....and i IMAGINE that the field "child" in SpecialContainer is automatically overloading the field 'child' of the GenericContainer...
No. Fields don't get overridden, only methods do.
This is one reason why use of (overridable) getter and setter methods are preferred to direct access to fields. Your fields should almost all be private.
As for your design, there's no need for your SpecialContainer class to have a SpecialChild field, but instead the SpecialChild object should be placed in the GenericChild field.
Why nobody is observing that program will throw NullPointerException.
subclass's field with same name will hide super class's field. There is no overriding with field. Overriding is only possible with methods.
Original Code by Author:
public abstract class GenericContainer {
public GenericChild child;
}
public abstract class GenericChild {
public int prop1=1;
}
public abstract class SpecialChild extend GenericChild {
public int prop1=2;
}
public abstract class SpecialContainer extends GenericContainer {
public SpecialChild child=new SpecialChild(); //PAY ATTENTION HERE!
}
public class ExternalClass {
public GenericContainer container=new SpecialContainer();
public int test() {
return container.child.prop1
}
}
Java allow me to compile this, and i IMAGINE that the field "child" in
SpecialContainer is automatically overloading the field 'child' of the
GenericContainer...
Firstly, Inheritence doesn't apply to variables. Fields(Insatnce variables) are not overridden in your sub-class.they are only visible in your subclass if they are marked with either public, protected or default.
To answer your question it maintains both instances. And depending on how you refer to the container (either through the abstract or the impl) determines which variable you are referring to.
public class Test {
public abstract class Container{
public Generic gen = new Generic();
}
public class ContainerImpl extends Container{
public GenericImpl gen = new GenericImpl();
}
public class Generic{
public int prop = 0;
}
public class GenericImpl extends Generic{
public int prop = 1;
}
public Test(){
Container c = new ContainerImpl();
System.out.println(c.gen.prop); // Outputs "0"
System.out.println(((ContainerImpl)c).gen.prop); // Output "1"
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test();
}
}
The bigger question at hand is, why would you design something like this? I'm assuming you are asking from a theoretical perspective.
My 2 cents, this isn't great OO design. You would be better off making the public variables private and assigning their values through a constructor or property setter. As-is, it will lead to unexpected results in your code.
This is a question I was asked in an interview: I have class A with private members and Class B extends A. I know private members of a class cannot be accessed, but the question is: I need to access private members of class A from class B, rather than create variables with the same value in class B.
The interviewer was either testing your knowledge of access modifiers, or your approach to changing existing classes, or both.
I would have listed them (public, private, protected, package private) with an explanation of each. Then gone on to say that class A would need to be modified to allow access to those members from class B, either by adding setters and getters, or by changing the access modifiers of the members. Or class B could use reflection. Finally, talk about the pros and cons of each approach.
Reflection? Omitting imports, this should work:
public class A {
private int ii = 23;
}
public class B extends A {
private void readPrivateSuperClassField() throws Exception {
Class<?> clazz = getClass().getSuperclass();
Field field = clazz.getDeclaredField("ii");
field.setAccessible(true);
System.out.println(field.getInt(this));
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
new B().readPrivateSuperClassField();
}
}
It'll not work if you do something like that before the of invocation readPrivateSuperClassField();:
System.setSecurityManager(new SecurityManager() {
#Override
public void checkMemberAccess(Class<?> clazz, int which) {
if (clazz.equals(A.class)) {
throw new SecurityException();
} else {
super.checkMemberAccess(clazz, which);
}
}
});
And there are other conditions under which the Reflection approach won't work. See the API docs for SecurityManager and AccessibleObject for more info. Thanks to CPerkins for pointing that out.
I hope they were just testing your knowledge, not looking for a real application of this stuff ;-) Although I think an ugly hack like this above can be legit in certain edge cases.
The architecture is broken. Private members are private because you do not want them accessed outside the class and friends.
You can use friend hacks, accessors, promote the member, or #define private public (heh). But these are all short term solutions - you will probably have to revisit the broken architecture at some stage.
By using public accessors (getters & setters) of A's privates members ...
You cannot access private members from the parent class. You have make it protected or have protected/public method that has access to them.
EDIT : It is true you can use reflection. But that is not usual and not good idea to break encapsulation.
A nested class can access to all the private members of its enclosing class—both fields and methods. Therefore, a public or protected nested class inherited by a subclass has indirect access to all of the private members of the superclass.
public class SuperClass
{
private int a = 10;
public void makeInner()
{
SubClass in = new SubClass();
in.inner();
}
class SubClass
{
public void inner()
{
System.out.println("Super a is " + a);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
SuperClass.SubClass s = new SuperClass().new SubClass();
s.inner();
}
}
If I'm understanding the question correctly, you could change private to protected. Protected variables are accessible to subclasses but behave like private variables otherwise.
By using setters and getters u can access it
From JLS §8.3. Field Declarations:
A private field of a superclass might be accessible to a subclass - for example, if both classes are members of the same class. Nevertheless, a private field is never inherited by a subclass.
I write the example code:
public class Outer
{
class InnerA
{
private String text;
}
class InnerB extends InnerA
{
public void setText(String text)
{
InnerA innerA = this;
innerA.text = text;
}
public String getText()
{
return ((InnerA) this).text;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final InnerB innerB = new Outer().new InnerB();
innerB.setText("hello world");
System.out.println(innerB.getText());
}
}
The explanation of the accessibility of InnerA.text is here JLS §6.6.1. Determining Accessibility:
Otherwise, the member or constructor is declared private, and access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
You can use the setters and getters of class A. Which gives same feeling as if You are using a class A's object.
Have you thought about making them protected ? Just to be sure you are aware of this option, if you are then pardon me for bringing up this trivia ;)
Private members cant be accessed in derived class
If you want to access means you can use getter and setter methods.
class A
{
private int a;
void setA(int a)
{
this.a=a;
}
int getA()
{
return a;
}
}
Class B extends A
{
public static void main(String[] arg)
{
B obj= new B();
obj.setA(10);
System.out.println("The value of A is:"+obj.getA());
}
}
Private will be hidden until you have been given the right access to it. For instance Getters or setters by the programmer who wrote the Parent. If they are not visible by that either then accept the fact that they are just private and not accessible to you. Why exactly you want to do that??
I don't know about Java, but in some languages nested types can do this:
class A {
private string someField;
class B : A {
void Foo() {
someField = "abc";
}
}
}
Otherwise, use an accessor method or a protected field (although they are often abused).
A private member is accessible in subclass in a way that you cannot change the variable, but you are able to access the variable as read only.
Obviously, making them protected, or adding setters/getters is the preferred technique. Reflection is a desperation option.
Just to show off to the interviewer, IF "access" means read access, and IF Class A generates XML or JSON etc., you could serialize A and parse the interesting fields.
Class A
{
private int i;
int getValue()
{
return i;
}
}
class B extends A
{
void getvalue2()
{
A a1= new A();
sop(a1.getValue());
}
}
To access private variables of parent class in subclass you can use protected or add getters and setters to private variables in parent class..
You can't access directly any private variables of a class from outside directly.
You can access private member's using getter and setter.
Ways to access the superclass private members in subclass :
If you want package access just change the private fields to protected. It allows access to same package subclass.
If you have private fields then just provide some Accessor Methods(getters) and you can access them in your subclass.
You can also use inner class e.g
public class PrivateInnerClassAccess {
private int value=20;
class InnerClass {
public void accessPrivateFields() {
System.out.println("Value of private field : " + value);
}
}
public static void main(String arr[])
{
PrivateInnerClassAccess access = new PrivateInnerClassAccess();
PrivateInnerClassAccess.InnerClass innerClass = access.new InnerClass();
innerClass.accessPrivateFields();
}
}
4 .You can also use Reflection e.g
public class A {
private int value;
public A(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
}
public class B {
public void accessPrivateA()throws Exception
{
A a = new A(10);
Field privateFields = A.class.getDeclaredField("value");
privateFields.setAccessible(true);
Integer value = (Integer)privateFields.get(a);
System.out.println("Value of private field is :"+value);
}
public static void main(String arr[]) throws Exception
{
B b = new B();
b.accessPrivateA();
}
}
You can use Accessors (getter and setter method) in your Code.
By using setter method you can use else with the help of refection you can use private member of class by setting that member say a -
take a from class
and set a.setAccessible(true);
You may want to change it to protected.
Kindly refer this
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html
If this is something you have to do at any cost just for the heck of doing it you can use reflection. It will give you list of all the variables defined in the class- be it public, private or protected. This surely has its overhead but yes, it is something which will let you use private variables. With this, you can use it in any of the class. It does not have to be only a subclass
Please refer to the example below. This may have some compilation issues but you can get the basic idea and it works
private void getPropertiesFromPrivateClass(){
Field[] privateVariablesArray = PrivateClassName.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
Set<String> propertySet = new HashSet<String>();
Object propertyValue;
if(privateVariablesArray.length >0){
for(Field propertyVariable :privateVariablesArray){
try {
if (propertyVariable.getType() == String.class){
propertyVariable.setAccessible(true);
propertyValue = propertyVariable.get(envtHelper);
System.out.println("propertyValue");
}
} catch (IllegalArgumentException illegalArgumentException) {
illegalArgumentException.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalAccessException illegalAccessException) {
illegalAccessException.printStackTrace();
}
}
Hope this be of some help.
Happy Learning :)
Below is the example for accessing the private members of superclass in the object of subclass.
I am using constructors to do the same.
Below is the superclass Fruit
public class Fruit {
private String type;
public Fruit() {
}
public Fruit(String type) {
super();
this.type = type;
}
public String getType() {
return type;
}
public void setType(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
}
Below is subclass Guava which is inheriting from Fruit
public class Guava extends Fruit{
private String name;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public Guava(String name,String type) {
super(type);
this.name=name;
}
}
Below is the main function where we are creating an object of subclass and also displaying the member of superclass.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Guava G1=new Guava("kanpuria", "red");
System.out.println(G1.getName()+" "+G1.getType());
}
}
Note that a private field of a superclass might be accessible to a subclass (for example,if both classes are memebers of the same class),Nevertheless,a private field is never inherited
by a subclass
Simple!!!
public class A{
private String a;
private String b;
//getter and setter are here
}
public class B extends A{
public B(String a, String b){ //constructor
super(a,b)//from here you got access with private variable of class A
}
}
thanks
Directly we can't access it. but Using Setter and Getter we can access,
Code is :
class AccessPrivate1 {
private int a=10; //private integer
private int b=15;
int getValueofA()
{
return this.a;
}
int getValueofB()
{
return this.b;
}
}
public class AccessPrivate{
public static void main(String args[])
{
AccessPrivate1 obj=new AccessPrivate1();
System.out.println(obj.getValueofA()); //getting the value of private integer of class AccessPrivate1
System.out.println(obj.getValueofB()); //getting the value of private integer of class AccessPrivate1
}
}
Modifiers are keywords that you add to those definitions to change their meanings. The Java language has a wide variety of modifiers, including the following:
Java Access Modifiers
Non Access Modifiers
To use a modifier, you include its keyword in the definition of a class, method, or variable. The modifier precedes the rest of the statement.
There is more information here:
http://tutorialcorejava.blogspot.in/p/java-modifier-types.html
In a Java program, I have multiple subclasses inheriting from a parent (which is abstract). I wanted to express that every child should have a member that is set once only (which I was planning to do from the constructor). My plan was to code s.th. like this:
public abstract class Parent {
protected final String birthmark;
}
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(String s) {
this.birthmark = s;
}
}
However, this seems to not please the Java gods. In the parent class, I get the message that birthmark "might not have been initialized", in the child class I get "The final field birthmark cannot be accessed".
So what's the Java way for this? What am I missing?
You can't do it because while comparing the parent class, the compiler can't be sure that the subclass will initialize it. You'll have to initialize it in the parent's constructor, and have the child call the parent's constructor:
public abstract class Parent {
protected final String birthmark;
protected Parent(String s) {
birthmark = s;
}
}
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(String s) {
super(s);
...
}
}
Pass it to the parent constructor:
public abstract class Parent {
private final String birthmark;
public Parent(String s) {
birthmark = s;
}
}
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(String s) {
super(s);
}
}
Another Java-ish way to do this is probably to have the parent class to define an abstract "getter", and have the children implement it. It's not a great way to do it in this case, but it in some cases it can be exactly what you want.
I would do it like this:
public abstract class Parent
{
protected final String birthmark;
protected Parent(final String mark)
{
// only if this makes sense.
if(mark == null)
{
throw new IllegalArgumentException("mark cannot be null");
}
birthmark = mark;
}
}
public class Child
extends Parent
{
public Child(final String s)
{
super(s);
}
}
final means that the variable can be initialized once per instance. The compiler isn't able to make sure that every subclass will provide the assignment to birthmark so it forces the assignment to happen in the constructor of the parent class.
I added the checking for null just to show that you also get the benefit of being able to check the arguments in one place rather than each cosntructor.
Why not delegate initialization to a method. Then override the method in the parent class.
public class Parent {
public final Object x = getValueOfX();
public Object getValueOfX() {
return y;
}
}
public class Child {
#Override
public Object getValueOfX() {
// whatever ...
}
}
This should allow custom initialization.
Yes, the final members are to be assigned in the class in which they are declared. You need to add a constructor with a String argument to Parent.
Declare a constructor in the superclass that's called by the subclass.
You must set the field in the superclass to make sure it's initialized, or the compiler can't be sure the field is initialized.
You probably want to have a Parent(String birthmark) constructor so that you can ensure in your Parent class that final is always initialized. Then you can call super(birthmark) from your Child() constructor.