A friend of mine was asked that question in his on-phone job interview a couple of days a go.
I don't have a clue. can anyone suggest a solution?
(His job interview is over. just out of curiosity now )
10x.
Mark constructor as private
Provide a static method on the class to create instance of a class. This will allow you to instantiate objects of that class
I don't know what they mean exactly mean by a final class. If they mean a class that cannot be extended by inheritence, than clearly this cannot be done, except by marking that class with final (or sealed, or whatever the language keyword is).
But if the mean final as in immutable, such that a derived class can't modify the value of the fields in the class,than the base class should have all of the fileds and accessor methods private.
Create a private constructor without parameters?
public class Base
{
private Base()
{
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
//Cannot access private constructor here error
}
Make all the constructors of that class as private to stop inheriting, Though not recommended.
public class Immutable {
private int val;
public Immutable(int v)
{
this.val = v;
}
public int getVal() { return this.val; }
}
You can make your class immutable without using final keyword as:
Make instance variable as private.
Make constructor private.
Create a factory method which will return the instance of this class.
I am providing immutable class here in Java.
class Immutable {
private int i;
private Immutable(int i){
this.i = i;
}
public static Immutable createInstance(int i){
return new Immutable(i);
}
public int getI(){return i;}
}
class Main {
public static void main(string args[]){
Immutable obj = Immutable.createInstance(5);
}
}
Static classes can't be inherited from
Related
I have a base class
public class base
{
//some stuff
}
and several subclasses
public class sub1 extends base
{
static int variable;
}
public class sub2 extends base
{
static int variable;
}
etc
The static int variable exists in every subclass because I store in it information that is characteristic for every subclass. But it would be better if there was a way to move static int variable to base class in the way that it still will be different for every subclass.
In the way that it is now I am repeating myself, when adding some another subclass, it's a bad practice.
So anyone has some idea how to acomplish this? Maybe there's a design pattern that fits to this situation?
You cannot move all the different static variables from derived classes into the base class, because static variables are one-per-class; you want your variables to be one-per-subclass, which is not allowed.
You could work around this issue by defining a registry of subclasses in your base class, and store the int for each subclass there. However, this would add a lot more complexity, and it is not clear how you would differentiate between subclasses in the superclass.
Your current solution appears optimal.
Don't use a static field for this - that's not the way to go, because static fields of a subclass do not "override" those of a super class.
Instead, because the values are constant for a given class, use a final instance field:
public class Base {
protected final int variable;
public Base() {
this(5);
}
protected Base(int v) {
variable = v;
}
}
public class Sub1 extends Base {
private static int v = 7;
public Sub1() {
super(v);
}
}
Now the variable is fixed and accessible to all instances.
You can certainly move variable into the base class, but it cannot be static. Alternatively, you can make static getters which you override in each subclass. Here is an example of both:
public class base {
protected int variable;
protected static int getVariable() {
return -1;
}
}
public class Sub1 extends base {
public Base() {
variable = 0;
}
protected static int getVariable() {
return 0;
}
}
public class Sub2 extends base {
public Sub2() {
variable = 1;
}
protected static int getVariable() {
return 1;
}
}
As a design principle, it is somewhat rare (in my opinion) that you genuinely want static methods. Usually you will have some instance of the class around that you are working with. If you want a whole bunch of objects to share some common behavior which you configure at runtime, you might want to check out the flyweight pattern.
public abstract class Test {
private static int value = 100;
}
And
public abstract class Test {
private int value = 100;
}
Since Test is abstract, it can't be instantiated, and therefore it doesn't make any difference whether value is static or not, right?
Is there any difference when a field is static or not when it belongs to an abstract class?
Yes, there is. Even thou your class is abstract, it can have non-abstract non-static methods working with non-static private fields. It is usefull sometimes.
Dummy exaple:
Consider following: you want to hold one integer and give everyone the ability to change it, but you dont want them to set negative values, or values bigger then 15, but the condition isn't known (in general) by everyone, so you want to ensure that when someone sets incorect value, it gets fixed automaticly.
Here is one possible solution:
abstract class MyInt {
private int myInt;
public int getMyInt() {
return myInt;
}
public void setMyInt(int i) {
myInt = checkMyInt(i);
}
protected abstract int checkMyInt(int i);
}
Now you can inplement any logic in checkMyInt() and hand over the instance declared as MyInt
pastebin exaplme
PS: this probably isnt the best solution and i would use interfaces here, but as an example it is enought i hope
Abstract classes can't be instantiated directly. But the whole point of abstract classes is to have subclasses that are instantiated:
public abstract class Test
protected int value;
}
public class TestImpl extends Test {
public TestImpl(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
In the above example, each instance of TestImpl (and thus of Test) has its own value. With a static field, the field is scoped to the Test class, and shared by all instances.
The difference between static and non-static fields is thus exactly the same as with any other non-abstract class.
An abstract class is a normal (base) class, just declared to be missing some things, like abstract methods.
So there is definite a difference.
Can you please help me how to create a class which is not inheritable and should be static in behavior (Means we should not be able to create instance of it). I need this class to store constant values. Thanks.
public final class MyClass {
private MyClass() { }
}
The final keyword makes it not inheritable, and making the constructor(s) private will help stopping it from being instantiated.
you can use final keyword to class can not be inherited.
But I would recommend you to Use Enums. Enums can not be inherited and only one instance exists per constant value. Also you can do lot more with enums.
public enum DaysOfweek
{
SUNDAY,MONDAY.....
}
You can read more about Enums here Enum Types
Why not use an interface which has a couple of static and final variables?
For the first case, you can use final class as they can't be inherited..
For your second case, you can use interface, they are very well used to store Constants.
But you cannot have both of them together (As having an interface which cannot be implemented does not make sense)..
So, the best is you can mix the property of both in one class.. You can have a final class with public static final variables, as this is what makes a variable constant in interface, will serve the purpose of constants..
public final class A {
public static final int YOUR_CONST = 5;
}
If you don't want to make instance of this class, you can have a private 0-arg constructor in it..
public final class A {
public static final int YOUR_CONST = 5;
private A() {}
}
Declare it as final which will not allow other classes to extend it, and make its constructors private so no one else (except your own class) will be able to instantiate it:
public final class MyClass {
private MyClass() {
// Private so noone else can instantiate this
}
}
Below is an example of the class to contain a constant value:
public final class Trial // it is the FINAL
{
private static final int CONSTANT_VALUE = 666;
private Trial() // it is PRIVATE instead of PUBLIC
{
}
public static int getConstantValue()
{
return CONSTANT_VALUE;
}
}
And below is an example of how to test the above class:
public class Bully //extends Trial ////"extends" WILL NOT COMPILE
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
//Trial trial = new Trial(); ////"new Trial()" WILL NOT COMPILE
// The only thing can be done is getting a constant value from "Trial"
int acquiredValue = Trial.getConstantValue();
System.out.println(acquiredValue);
}
}
Hope that helps :))
public final class MyClass {
public static string MY_STRING;
public static int MY_INT;
private MyClass() {}
}
final : Make a class final that means this class can not be inherite further more.
static : If all methods are static the you do not need to create instance of this class. and should be static in behavior.
Singleton pattern : If your all methods are not static and you do not want to create more than one instance then you can make constructor private and keep one variable of class object in the class. And create once if it is null, and if not null then return same instance always.
Thanks
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
Lets say I have a concrete class Class1 and I am creating an anonymous class out of it.
Object a = new Class1(){
void someNewMethod(){
}
};
Now is there any way I could overload the constructor of this anonymous class. Like shown below
Object a = new Class1(){
void someNewMethod(){
}
public XXXXXXXX(int a){
super();
System.out.println(a);
}
};
With something at xxxxxxxx to name the constructor?
From the Java Language Specification, section 15.9.5.1:
An anonymous class cannot have an
explicitly declared constructor.
Sorry :(
EDIT: As an alternative, you can create some final local variables, and/or include an instance initializer in the anonymous class. For example:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final int fakeConstructorArg = 10;
Object a = new Object() {
{
System.out.println("arg = " + fakeConstructorArg);
}
};
}
}
It's grotty, but it might just help you. Alternatively, use a proper nested class :)
That is not possible, but you can add an anonymous initializer like this:
final int anInt = ...;
Object a = new Class1()
{
{
System.out.println(anInt);
}
void someNewMethod() {
}
};
Don't forget final on declarations of local variables or parameters used by the anonymous class, as i did it for anInt.
Here's another way around the problem:
public class Test{
public static final void main(String...args){
new Thread(){
private String message = null;
Thread initialise(String message){
this.message = message;
return this;
}
public void run(){
System.out.println(message);
}
}.initialise(args[0]).start();
}
}
I know the thread is too old to post an answer. But still i think it is worth it.
Though you can't have an explicit constructor, if your intention is to call a, possibly protected, constructor of the super class, then the following is all you have to do.
StoredProcedure sp = new StoredProcedure(datasource, spName) {
{// init code if there are any}
};
This is an example of creating a StoredProcedure object in Spring by passing a DataSource and a String object.
So the Bottom line is, if you want to create an anonymous class and want to call the super class constructor then create the anonymous class with a signature matching the super class constructor.
Yes , It is right that you can not define construct in an Anonymous class but it doesn't mean that anonymous class don't have constructor. Confuse...
Actually you can not define construct in an Anonymous class but compiler generates an constructor for it with the same signature as its parent constructor called. If the parent has more than one constructor, the anonymous will have one and only one constructor
You can have a constructor in the abstract class that accepts the init parameters. The Java spec only specifies that the anonymous class, which is the offspring of the (optionally) abstract class or implementation of an interface, can not have a constructor by her own right.
The following is absolutely legal and possible:
static abstract class Q{
int z;
Q(int z){ this.z=z;}
void h(){
Q me = new Q(1) {
};
}
}
If you have the possibility to write the abstract class yourself, put such a constructor there and use fluent API where there is no better solution. You can this way override the constructor of your original class creating an named sibling class with a constructor with parameters and use that to instantiate your anonymous class.
If you dont need to pass arguments, then initializer code is enough, but if you need to pass arguments from a contrcutor there is a way to solve most of the cases:
Boolean var= new anonymousClass(){
private String myVar; //String for example
#Overriden public Boolean method(int i){
//use myVar and i
}
public String setVar(String var){myVar=var; return this;} //Returns self instane
}.setVar("Hello").method(3);
Peter Norvig's The Java IAQ: Infrequently Answered Questions
http://norvig.com/java-iaq.html#constructors - Anonymous class contructors
http://norvig.com/java-iaq.html#init - Construtors and initialization
Summing, you can construct something like this..
public class ResultsBuilder {
Set<Result> errors;
Set<Result> warnings;
...
public Results<E> build() {
return new Results<E>() {
private Result[] errorsView;
private Result[] warningsView;
{
errorsView = ResultsBuilder.this.getErrors();
warningsView = ResultsBuilder.this.getWarnings();
}
public Result[] getErrors() {
return errorsView;
}
public Result[] getWarnings() {
return warningsView;
}
};
}
public Result[] getErrors() {
return !isEmpty(this.errors) ? errors.toArray(new Result[0]) : null;
}
public Result[] getWarnings() {
return !isEmpty(this.warnings) ? warnings.toArray(new Result[0]) : null;
}
}
It doesn't make any sense to have a named overloaded constructor in an anonymous class, as there would be no way to call it, anyway.
Depending on what you are actually trying to do, just accessing a final local variable declared outside the class, or using an instance initializer as shown by Arne, might be the best solution.
In my case, a local class (with custom constructor) worked as an anonymous class:
Object a = getClass1(x);
public Class1 getClass1(int x) {
class Class2 implements Class1 {
void someNewMethod(){
}
public Class2(int a){
super();
System.out.println(a);
}
}
Class1 c = new Class2(x);
return c;
}