Related
This question already has answers here:
Can a Java class add a method to itself at runtime?
(11 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
There is a much better question (linked below). My question encouraged bad coding practices without outlining the risks of those practices.
Can a Java class add a method to itself at runtime?
The original question was the following:
Is there a way to add a method to a class definition at runtime?
For example, lets say I had the following interface
public interface Singleton<T> {
#StaticContract
T getInstanceStatic();
}
At runtime, I would scan all classes for methods with the annotation "StaticContract" and add a static version of the implemented method to the class definition. However, I have no idea how I would go about doing this or if this is even possible.
In my current implemention, if runtime reflection doesn't find a static method for a method during initialization, I throw a NoSuchMethodError. The big problem is that the developer might not know that they are supposed to create a static method if they aren't familiar with the interface. Non-static getInstanceStatic() doesn't really make sense with Singletons. It just serves as a reminder to create the static method.
Combined with the ability to recover the erased type using reflection, this would allow me to use generics for far more than they were intended. For example, you would no longer have to define and pass a factory object. You could just define the method in the class that the factory produces.
Also, if there isn't a way to do this during runtime, is there a way to do it during compile time?
What you want is possible!
But not like this. The answer to your actual question is a simple, flat out 'No'. But you don't want what you describe in your question.
Let me elaborate.
Let's first say that you could add methods at runtime. You can't*, but let's say you could.
That would accomplish nothing whatsoever; given:
public class Example implements Singleton<Example> {
#StaticContract Example getInstanceStatic() { return new Example(); }
}
We can already see issues here (this method is.. public. It has to be, that's the rule of interfaces. But given that you want this to be a singleton, that'd be very bad news).
But let's carry on for a moment. The idea is that you want to be able to write, in other code:
Example.instance();
but - how? The compiler won't LET YOU do that, because the method isn't there, and if we go with your plan (of adding the method at runtime), then at compile time it'll never be there, and javac will refuse to compile this. If somehow it DID compile this, then at runtime, where you pull your magic trick and somehow add this method, all would be well, but that's a moot point - short of hacking together a class file with a bytecode editor, there's no way to obtain a class file with the compiled version of Example.instance().
You don't want to add this at runtime.
But maybe you want to add it at compile time.
And THAT? That you can do!
Strategy #1: Lombok
Project Lombok lets you write #UtilityClass which makes it act singleton-esque. Lombok intentionally does not have #Singleton because as a concept, singletons are so universally deriled as bad code style. I guess you could fork lombok and add it if you must have this.
Strategy #2: Annotation Processors
Other than lombok, annotation processors cannot add things to existing source files. But they can make new ones! Given as actual real bytes on disk source file:
#SingletonizeMe
public class Example {
Example() {} // without lombok you're going to have to write this yourself to ensure nobody outside of the package can instantiate this...
}
then you can write an annotation processor which means that javac will automatically produce this file:
// generated code
package same.pkg.as.your.example;
public class ExampleUtil {
public static final Example EXAMPLE_INSTANCE = new Example();
}
and compile it as part of the build, and any code that contains ExampleUtil.EXAMPLE_INSTANCE will just be compiled right along, without any complaints. Annotation Processors solve the problem of 'okay, maybe at runtime this would work but how do I explain to javac to just do what I want without it refusing to compile code that it thinks stands no chance of working at runtime?'.
Strategy #3: Dependency injection systems
From dagger to spring to guice, there are tons of libraries out there that do 'dependency injection', and pretty much all of them have an option to inject things singleton style. Give those 3 libraries a quick look, it should be fairly obvious how that works once you follow their get-started-quick tutorials.
*) You'd think the answer is yes, what with instrumention and the ability to use agent technology to reload a class file. But is that 'adding a method to a class'? No, it is not - it is reloading a class, which does not normally work if you try to add any new members; the hot code replace tech built into VMs doesn't let you change (or add, or remove) any signatures.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
What are the best practices for using Java's #Override annotation and why?
It seems like it would be overkill to mark every single overridden method with the #Override annotation. Are there certain programming situations that call for using the #Override and others that should never use the #Override?
Use it every time you override a method for two benefits. Do it so that you can take advantage of the compiler checking to make sure you actually are overriding a method when you think you are. This way, if you make a common mistake of misspelling a method name or not correctly matching the parameters, you will be warned that you method does not actually override as you think it does. Secondly, it makes your code easier to understand because it is more obvious when methods are overwritten.
Additionally, in Java 1.6 you can use it to mark when a method implements an interface for the same benefits. I think it would be better to have a separate annotation (like #Implements), but it's better than nothing.
I think it is most useful as a compile-time reminder that the intention of the method is to override a parent method. As an example:
protected boolean displaySensitiveInformation() {
return false;
}
You will often see something like the above method that overrides a method in the base class. This is an important implementation detail of this class -- we don't want sensitive information to be displayed.
Suppose this method is changed in the parent class to
protected boolean displaySensitiveInformation(Context context) {
return true;
}
This change will not cause any compile time errors or warnings - but it completely changes the intended behavior of the subclass.
To answer your question: you should use the #Override annotation if the lack of a method with the same signature in a superclass is indicative of a bug.
There are many good answers here, so let me offer another way to look at it...
There is no overkill when you are coding. It doesn't cost you anything to type #override, but the savings can be immense if you misspelled a method name or got the signature slightly wrong.
Think about it this way: In the time you navigated here and typed this post, you pretty much used more time than you will spend typing #override for the rest of your life; but one error it prevents can save you hours.
Java does all it can to make sure you didn't make any mistakes at edit/compile time, this is a virtually free way to solve an entire class of mistakes that aren't preventable in any other way outside of comprehensive testing.
Could you come up with a better mechanism in Java to ensure that when the user intended to override a method, he actually did?
Another neat effect is that if you don't provide the annotation it will warn you at compile time that you accidentally overrode a parent method--something that could be significant if you didn't intend to do it.
I always use the tag. It is a simple compile-time flag to catch little mistakes that I might make.
It will catch things like tostring() instead of toString()
The little things help in large projects.
Using the #Override annotation acts as a compile-time safeguard against a common programming mistake. It will throw a compilation error if you have the annotation on a method you're not actually overriding the superclass method.
The most common case where this is useful is when you are changing a method in the base class to have a different parameter list. A method in a subclass that used to override the superclass method will no longer do so due the changed method signature. This can sometimes cause strange and unexpected behavior, especially when dealing with complex inheritance structures. The #Override annotation safeguards against this.
To take advantage from compiler checking you should always use Override annotation. But don’t forget that Java Compiler 1.5 will not allow this annotation when overriding interface methods. You just can use it to override class methods (abstract, or not).
Some IDEs, as Eclipse, even configured with Java 1.6 runtime or higher, they maintain compliance with Java 1.5 and don’t allow the use #override as described above. To avoid that behaviour you must go to: Project Properties ->Java Compiler -> Check “Enable Project Specific Settings” -> Choose “Compiler Compliance Level” = 6.0, or higher.
I like to use this annotation every time I am overriding a method independently, if the base is an interface, or class.
This helps you avoiding some typical errors, as when you are thinking that you are overriding an event handler and then you see nothing happening. Imagine you want to add an event listener to some UI component:
someUIComponent.addMouseListener(new MouseAdapter(){
public void mouseEntered() {
...do something...
}
});
The above code compiles and run, but if you move the mouse inside someUIComponent the “do something” code will note run, because actually you are not overriding the base method mouseEntered(MouseEvent ev). You just create a new parameter-less method mouseEntered(). Instead of that code, if you have used the #Override annotation you have seen a compile error and you have not been wasting time thinking why your event handler was not running.
#Override on interface implementation is inconsistent since there is no such thing as "overriding an interface" in java.
#Override on interface implementation is useless since in practise it catches no bugs that the compilation wouldn't catch anyway.
There is only one, far fetched scenario where override on implementers actually does something: If you implement an interface, and the interface REMOVES methods, you will be notified on compile time that you should remove the unused implementations. Notice that if the new version of the interface has NEW or CHANGED methods you'll obviously get a compile error anyways as you're not implementing the new stuff.
#Override on interface implementers should never have been permitted in 1.6, and with eclipse sadly choosing to auto-insert the annotations as default behavior, we get a lot of cluttered source files. When reading 1.6 code, you cannot see from the #Override annotation if a method actually overrides a method in the superclass or just implements an interface.
Using #Override when actually overriding a method in a superclass is fine.
Its best to use it for every method intended as an override, and Java 6+, every method intended as an implementation of an interface.
First, it catches misspellings like "hashcode()" instead of "hashCode()" at compile-time. It can be baffling to debug why the result of your method doesn't seem to match your code when the real cause is that your code is never invoked.
Also, if a superclass changes a method signature, overrides of the older signature can be "orphaned", left behind as confusing dead code. The #Override annotation will help you identify these orphans so that they can be modified to match the new signature.
If you find yourself overriding (non-abstract) methods very often, you probably want to take a look at your design. It is very useful when the compiler would not otherwise catch the error. For instance trying to override initValue() in ThreadLocal, which I have done.
Using #Override when implementing interface methods (1.6+ feature) seems a bit overkill for me. If you have loads of methods some of which override and some don't, that probably bad design again (and your editor will probably show which is which if you don't know).
#Override on interfaces actually are helpful, because you will get warnings if you change the interface.
Another thing it does is it makes it more obvious when reading the code that it is changing the behavior of the parent class. Than can help in debugging.
Also, in Joshua Block's book Effective Java (2nd edition), item 36 gives more details on the benefits of the annotation.
It makes absolutely no sense to use #Override when implementing an interface method. There's no advantage to using it in that case--the compiler will already catch your mistake, so it's just unnecessary clutter.
Whenever a method overrides another method, or a method implements a signature in an interface.
The #Override annotation assures you that you did in fact override something. Without the annotation you risk a misspelling or a difference in parameter types and number.
I use it every time. It's more information that I can use to quickly figure out what is going on when I revisit the code in a year and I've forgotten what I was thinking the first time.
The best practive is to always use it (or have the IDE fill them for you)
#Override usefulness is to detect changes in parent classes which has not been reported down the hierarchy.
Without it, you can change a method signature and forget to alter its overrides, with #Override, the compiler will catch it for you.
That kind of safety net is always good to have.
I use it everywhere.
On the topic of the effort for marking methods, I let Eclipse do it for me so, it's no additional effort.
I'm religious about continuous refactoring.... so, I'll use every little thing to make it go more smoothly.
Used only on method declarations.
Indicates that the annotated method
declaration overrides a declaration
in supertype.
If used consistently, it protects you from a large class of nefarious bugs.
Use #Override annotation to avoid these bugs:
(Spot the bug in the following code:)
public class Bigram {
private final char first;
private final char second;
public Bigram(char first, char second) {
this.first = first;
this.second = second;
}
public boolean equals(Bigram b) {
return b.first == first && b.second == second;
}
public int hashCode() {
return 31 * first + second;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Set<Bigram> s = new HashSet<Bigram>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
for (char ch = 'a'; ch <= 'z'; ch++)
s.add(new Bigram(ch, ch));
System.out.println(s.size());
}
}
source: Effective Java
Be careful when you use Override, because you can't do reverse engineer in starUML afterwards; make the uml first.
It seems that the wisdom here is changing. Today I installed IntelliJ IDEA 9 and noticed that its "missing #Override inspection" now catches not just implemented abstract methods, but implemented interface methods as well. In my employer's code base and in my own projects, I've long had the habit to only use #Override for the former -- implemented abstract methods. However, rethinking the habit, the merit of using the annotations in both cases becomes clear. Despite being more verbose, it does protect against the fragile base class problem (not as grave as C++-related examples) where the interface method name changes, orphaning the would-be implementing method in a derived class.
Of course, this scenario is mostly hyperbole; the derived class would no longer compile, now lacking an implementation of the renamed interface method, and today one would likely use a Rename Method refactoring operation to address the entire code base en masse.
Given that IDEA's inspection is not configurable to ignore implemented interface methods, today I'll change both my habit and my team's code review criteria.
The annotation #Override is used for helping to check whether the developer what to override the correct method in the parent class or interface. When the name of super's methods changing, the compiler can notify that case, which is only for keep consistency with the super and the subclass.
BTW, if we didn't announce the annotation #Override in the subclass, but we do override some methods of the super, then the function can work as that one with the #Override. But this method can not notify the developer when the super's method was changed. Because it did not know the developer's purpose -- override super's method or define a new method?
So when we want to override that method to make use of the Polymorphism, we have better to add #Override above the method.
I use it as much as can to identify when a method is being overriden. If you look at the Scala programming language, they also have an override keyword. I find it useful.
It does allow you (well, the compiler) to catch when you've used the wrong spelling on a method name you are overriding.
Override annotation is used to take advantage of the compiler, for checking whether you actually are overriding a method from parent class. It is used to notify if you make any mistake like mistake of misspelling a method name, mistake of not correctly matching the parameters
i think it's best to code the #override whenever allowed. it helps for coding. however, to be noted, for ecipse Helios, either sdk 5 or 6, the #override annotation for implemented interface methods is allowed. as for Galileo, either 5 or 6, #override annotation is not allowed.
Annotations do provide meta data about the code to the Compiler and the annotation #Override is used in case of inheritance when we are overriding any method of base class. It just tells the compiler that you are overriding method. It can avoide some kinds common mistakes we can do like not following the proper signature of the method or mispelling in name of the method etc. So its a good practice to use #Override annotation.
For me the #Override ensures me I have the signature of the method correct. If I put in the annotation and the method is not correctly spelled, then the compiler complains letting me know something is wrong.
Simple–when you want to override a method present in your superclass, use #Override annotation to make a correct override. The compiler will warn you if you don't override it correctly.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
What are the best practices for using Java's #Override annotation and why?
It seems like it would be overkill to mark every single overridden method with the #Override annotation. Are there certain programming situations that call for using the #Override and others that should never use the #Override?
Use it every time you override a method for two benefits. Do it so that you can take advantage of the compiler checking to make sure you actually are overriding a method when you think you are. This way, if you make a common mistake of misspelling a method name or not correctly matching the parameters, you will be warned that you method does not actually override as you think it does. Secondly, it makes your code easier to understand because it is more obvious when methods are overwritten.
Additionally, in Java 1.6 you can use it to mark when a method implements an interface for the same benefits. I think it would be better to have a separate annotation (like #Implements), but it's better than nothing.
I think it is most useful as a compile-time reminder that the intention of the method is to override a parent method. As an example:
protected boolean displaySensitiveInformation() {
return false;
}
You will often see something like the above method that overrides a method in the base class. This is an important implementation detail of this class -- we don't want sensitive information to be displayed.
Suppose this method is changed in the parent class to
protected boolean displaySensitiveInformation(Context context) {
return true;
}
This change will not cause any compile time errors or warnings - but it completely changes the intended behavior of the subclass.
To answer your question: you should use the #Override annotation if the lack of a method with the same signature in a superclass is indicative of a bug.
There are many good answers here, so let me offer another way to look at it...
There is no overkill when you are coding. It doesn't cost you anything to type #override, but the savings can be immense if you misspelled a method name or got the signature slightly wrong.
Think about it this way: In the time you navigated here and typed this post, you pretty much used more time than you will spend typing #override for the rest of your life; but one error it prevents can save you hours.
Java does all it can to make sure you didn't make any mistakes at edit/compile time, this is a virtually free way to solve an entire class of mistakes that aren't preventable in any other way outside of comprehensive testing.
Could you come up with a better mechanism in Java to ensure that when the user intended to override a method, he actually did?
Another neat effect is that if you don't provide the annotation it will warn you at compile time that you accidentally overrode a parent method--something that could be significant if you didn't intend to do it.
I always use the tag. It is a simple compile-time flag to catch little mistakes that I might make.
It will catch things like tostring() instead of toString()
The little things help in large projects.
Using the #Override annotation acts as a compile-time safeguard against a common programming mistake. It will throw a compilation error if you have the annotation on a method you're not actually overriding the superclass method.
The most common case where this is useful is when you are changing a method in the base class to have a different parameter list. A method in a subclass that used to override the superclass method will no longer do so due the changed method signature. This can sometimes cause strange and unexpected behavior, especially when dealing with complex inheritance structures. The #Override annotation safeguards against this.
To take advantage from compiler checking you should always use Override annotation. But don’t forget that Java Compiler 1.5 will not allow this annotation when overriding interface methods. You just can use it to override class methods (abstract, or not).
Some IDEs, as Eclipse, even configured with Java 1.6 runtime or higher, they maintain compliance with Java 1.5 and don’t allow the use #override as described above. To avoid that behaviour you must go to: Project Properties ->Java Compiler -> Check “Enable Project Specific Settings” -> Choose “Compiler Compliance Level” = 6.0, or higher.
I like to use this annotation every time I am overriding a method independently, if the base is an interface, or class.
This helps you avoiding some typical errors, as when you are thinking that you are overriding an event handler and then you see nothing happening. Imagine you want to add an event listener to some UI component:
someUIComponent.addMouseListener(new MouseAdapter(){
public void mouseEntered() {
...do something...
}
});
The above code compiles and run, but if you move the mouse inside someUIComponent the “do something” code will note run, because actually you are not overriding the base method mouseEntered(MouseEvent ev). You just create a new parameter-less method mouseEntered(). Instead of that code, if you have used the #Override annotation you have seen a compile error and you have not been wasting time thinking why your event handler was not running.
#Override on interface implementation is inconsistent since there is no such thing as "overriding an interface" in java.
#Override on interface implementation is useless since in practise it catches no bugs that the compilation wouldn't catch anyway.
There is only one, far fetched scenario where override on implementers actually does something: If you implement an interface, and the interface REMOVES methods, you will be notified on compile time that you should remove the unused implementations. Notice that if the new version of the interface has NEW or CHANGED methods you'll obviously get a compile error anyways as you're not implementing the new stuff.
#Override on interface implementers should never have been permitted in 1.6, and with eclipse sadly choosing to auto-insert the annotations as default behavior, we get a lot of cluttered source files. When reading 1.6 code, you cannot see from the #Override annotation if a method actually overrides a method in the superclass or just implements an interface.
Using #Override when actually overriding a method in a superclass is fine.
Its best to use it for every method intended as an override, and Java 6+, every method intended as an implementation of an interface.
First, it catches misspellings like "hashcode()" instead of "hashCode()" at compile-time. It can be baffling to debug why the result of your method doesn't seem to match your code when the real cause is that your code is never invoked.
Also, if a superclass changes a method signature, overrides of the older signature can be "orphaned", left behind as confusing dead code. The #Override annotation will help you identify these orphans so that they can be modified to match the new signature.
If you find yourself overriding (non-abstract) methods very often, you probably want to take a look at your design. It is very useful when the compiler would not otherwise catch the error. For instance trying to override initValue() in ThreadLocal, which I have done.
Using #Override when implementing interface methods (1.6+ feature) seems a bit overkill for me. If you have loads of methods some of which override and some don't, that probably bad design again (and your editor will probably show which is which if you don't know).
#Override on interfaces actually are helpful, because you will get warnings if you change the interface.
Another thing it does is it makes it more obvious when reading the code that it is changing the behavior of the parent class. Than can help in debugging.
Also, in Joshua Block's book Effective Java (2nd edition), item 36 gives more details on the benefits of the annotation.
It makes absolutely no sense to use #Override when implementing an interface method. There's no advantage to using it in that case--the compiler will already catch your mistake, so it's just unnecessary clutter.
Whenever a method overrides another method, or a method implements a signature in an interface.
The #Override annotation assures you that you did in fact override something. Without the annotation you risk a misspelling or a difference in parameter types and number.
I use it every time. It's more information that I can use to quickly figure out what is going on when I revisit the code in a year and I've forgotten what I was thinking the first time.
The best practive is to always use it (or have the IDE fill them for you)
#Override usefulness is to detect changes in parent classes which has not been reported down the hierarchy.
Without it, you can change a method signature and forget to alter its overrides, with #Override, the compiler will catch it for you.
That kind of safety net is always good to have.
I use it everywhere.
On the topic of the effort for marking methods, I let Eclipse do it for me so, it's no additional effort.
I'm religious about continuous refactoring.... so, I'll use every little thing to make it go more smoothly.
Used only on method declarations.
Indicates that the annotated method
declaration overrides a declaration
in supertype.
If used consistently, it protects you from a large class of nefarious bugs.
Use #Override annotation to avoid these bugs:
(Spot the bug in the following code:)
public class Bigram {
private final char first;
private final char second;
public Bigram(char first, char second) {
this.first = first;
this.second = second;
}
public boolean equals(Bigram b) {
return b.first == first && b.second == second;
}
public int hashCode() {
return 31 * first + second;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Set<Bigram> s = new HashSet<Bigram>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
for (char ch = 'a'; ch <= 'z'; ch++)
s.add(new Bigram(ch, ch));
System.out.println(s.size());
}
}
source: Effective Java
Be careful when you use Override, because you can't do reverse engineer in starUML afterwards; make the uml first.
It seems that the wisdom here is changing. Today I installed IntelliJ IDEA 9 and noticed that its "missing #Override inspection" now catches not just implemented abstract methods, but implemented interface methods as well. In my employer's code base and in my own projects, I've long had the habit to only use #Override for the former -- implemented abstract methods. However, rethinking the habit, the merit of using the annotations in both cases becomes clear. Despite being more verbose, it does protect against the fragile base class problem (not as grave as C++-related examples) where the interface method name changes, orphaning the would-be implementing method in a derived class.
Of course, this scenario is mostly hyperbole; the derived class would no longer compile, now lacking an implementation of the renamed interface method, and today one would likely use a Rename Method refactoring operation to address the entire code base en masse.
Given that IDEA's inspection is not configurable to ignore implemented interface methods, today I'll change both my habit and my team's code review criteria.
The annotation #Override is used for helping to check whether the developer what to override the correct method in the parent class or interface. When the name of super's methods changing, the compiler can notify that case, which is only for keep consistency with the super and the subclass.
BTW, if we didn't announce the annotation #Override in the subclass, but we do override some methods of the super, then the function can work as that one with the #Override. But this method can not notify the developer when the super's method was changed. Because it did not know the developer's purpose -- override super's method or define a new method?
So when we want to override that method to make use of the Polymorphism, we have better to add #Override above the method.
I use it as much as can to identify when a method is being overriden. If you look at the Scala programming language, they also have an override keyword. I find it useful.
It does allow you (well, the compiler) to catch when you've used the wrong spelling on a method name you are overriding.
Override annotation is used to take advantage of the compiler, for checking whether you actually are overriding a method from parent class. It is used to notify if you make any mistake like mistake of misspelling a method name, mistake of not correctly matching the parameters
i think it's best to code the #override whenever allowed. it helps for coding. however, to be noted, for ecipse Helios, either sdk 5 or 6, the #override annotation for implemented interface methods is allowed. as for Galileo, either 5 or 6, #override annotation is not allowed.
Annotations do provide meta data about the code to the Compiler and the annotation #Override is used in case of inheritance when we are overriding any method of base class. It just tells the compiler that you are overriding method. It can avoide some kinds common mistakes we can do like not following the proper signature of the method or mispelling in name of the method etc. So its a good practice to use #Override annotation.
For me the #Override ensures me I have the signature of the method correct. If I put in the annotation and the method is not correctly spelled, then the compiler complains letting me know something is wrong.
Simple–when you want to override a method present in your superclass, use #Override annotation to make a correct override. The compiler will warn you if you don't override it correctly.
So, I need to dynamically create (or inject) methods into an object that have a specific return type and method signature, because a Java tool we're using will be finding this methods via Reflection and checks for void type. Method names will be determined at runtime.
Using metaClass. = { ... } however adds a closure which doesn't show up as a regular method (even if it can be used as one) and also has a return type.
I can't modify the method finding code, and it it not Groovy-aware.
I can't use methodMissing() or invokeMethod() because the method needs to actually exist. If I could overload class.getMethods() I think it would be possible, but I can't figure out how.
Is there any way to do this in Groovy?
You could use AST Transformations to add the code at compile time, but it wont work on classes that you don't compile, so I'm guessing that probably wont work.
You could probably replace the object with a CGLIB based proxy. If you can be more specific about the code in question...
EDIT: A little more info. Groovy metaClass magic is not available in Java unless the Java code were to explicitly call groovyClass.invokeMethod("someMethod",args);. So there isn't a way to do what you're asking with MetaClasses. CGLIB maybe.
I am working on a project in which, to resolve a versioning issue, I am creating many classes which will never be tested and must not ever be used - they just need to be there to keep the compiler happy. I'd like to make sure they are never used. This morning I had the idea of throwing an exception in a static initialization block:
public class Dummy {
static {
throw new IllegalStateException("Do not use this class!");
}
}
But the compiler doesn't like it. Can you think of any way to do this?
EDIT: to be clear (my fault I wasn't clear before), these won't just be empty classes. There will be all sorts of code in here, and by "keep the compiler happy" I did indeed mean that elsewhere I will be instantiating them, calling methods etc etc. I want this code elsewhere to compile but fail at runtime. I have accepted Jon's answer but will also be using #Deprecated and documenting extensively as appropriate.
#Deprecated
A program element annotated #Deprecated is one that programmers are discouraged from using, typically because it is dangerous, or because a better alternative exists. Compilers warn when a deprecated program element is used or overridden in non-deprecated code.
Just add a dummy condition:
public class Dummy {
static {
if (true) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Do not use this class!");
}
}
}
I'm not really sure I like this, but it may do what you want it to. Are you sure there's no alternatively which would let you get away without having a completely useless class like this?
Give it a private default constructor, and make the class final.
Assuming you don't want IllegalStateExceptions potentially being thrown in your production code, use assertions and make sure they are enabled on your QA/Test environment. The code is slightly nicer too:
public class Dummy {
static {
//This class should never be initialised!
assert false : "This class should never be initialised";
}
...
}
You may get around the compiler with something like:
public class Dummy {
static {
if (true)
throw new IllegalStateException("Do not use this class!");
}
}
But that would be cheating ;-)
If they are never referenced, make the classes default scope, so no other types outside of the package can see them. If they can't see them they can't reference them (without using reflection that is).
class Dummy {
//no-op
}
Why don't you just not put that class into the jar that gets deployed. That way it'll be there at compile time but if someone tried to access it at runtime you'll get a ClassNotFoundException.
Use AssertionError instead of IllegalStateException
I don't think you can do that, though you can put a #deprecated tag before the class declaration. This way the compiler will give you a warning if you try to use it, but it will still compile.
You could use your own ClassLoader and check every class against a black list of classes.
What do you mean by "use"? If you need to have them in there, it sounds like the compiler needs to be able to create the classes. However, if you don't want any instances of the class to be created, then create an Assertion or throw an exception in the actual constructor.