Develop Reference

Calling static methods using an instance of that class [duplicate]

I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.

Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.

Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.

They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.

Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.

The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.

Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}

It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.

The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.

Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)

There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.

It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")

I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.

Framework to populate common field in unrelated classes

I'm attempting to write a framework to handle an interface with an external library and its API. As part of that, I need to populate a header field that exists with the same name and type in each of many (70ish) possible message classes. Unfortunately, instead of having each message class derive from a common base class that would contain the header field, each one is entirely separate.
As as toy example:
public class A
{
public Header header;
public Integer aData;
}
public class B
{
public Header header;
public Long bData;
}
If they had designed them sanely where A and B derived from some base class containing the header, I could just do:
public boolean sendMessage(BaseType b)
{
b.header = populateHeader();
stuffNecessaryToSendMessage();
}
But as it stands, Object is the only common class. The various options I've thought of would be:
A separate method for each type. This would work, and be fast, but the code duplication would be depressingly wasteful.
I could subclass each of the types and have them implement a common Interface. While this would work, creating 70+ subclasses and then modifying the code to use them instead of the original messaging classes is a bridge too far.
Reflection. Workable, but I'd expect it to be too slow (performance is a concern here)
Given these, the separate method for each seems like my best bet, but I'd love to have a better option.

I'd suggest you the following. Create a set of interfaces you'd like to have. For example
public interface HeaderHolder {
public void setHeader(Header header);
public Header getHeader();
}
I'd like your classes to implement them, i.e you's like that your class B is defined as
class B implements HeaderHolder {...}
Unfortunately it is not. Now problem!
Create facade:
public class InterfaceWrapper {
public <T> T wrap(Object obj, Class<T> api) {...}
}
You can implement it at this phase using dynamic proxy. Yes, dynamic proxy uses reflection, but forget about this right now.
Once you are done you can use your InterfaceWrapper as following:
B b = new B();
new IntefaceWrapper().wrap(b, HeaderHolder.class).setHeader("my header");
As you can see now you can set headers to any class you want (if it has appropriate property). Once you are done you can check your performance. If and only if usage of reflection in dynamic proxy is a bottleneck change the implementation to code generation (e.g. based on custom annotation, package name etc). There are a lot of tools that can help you to do this or alternatively you can implement such logic yourself. The point is that you can always change implementation of IntefaceWrapper without changing other code.
But avoid premature optimization. Reflection works very efficiently these days. Sun/Oracle worked hard to achieve this. They for example create classes on the fly and cache them to make reflection faster. So probably taking in consideration the full flow the reflective call does not take too much time.

How about dynamically generating those 70+ subclasses in the build time of your project ? That way you won't need to maintain 70+ source files while keeping the benefits of the approach from your second bullet.

The only library I know of that can do this Dozer. It does use reflection, but the good news is that it'll be easier to test if it's slow than to write your own reflection code to discover that it's slow.
By default, dozer will call the same getter/setters on two objects even if they are completely different. You can configure it in much more complex ways though. For example, you can also tell it to access the fields directly. You can give it a custom converter to convert a Map to a List, things like that.
You can just take one populated instance, or perhaps even your own BaseType and say, dozer.map(baseType, SubType.class);

How to unit test a private functionality

I have a question regarding unit testing.
I have a function which does the following thing:
void myFunction(List<MyClass> myList) {
// 1. Sort the list
// 2. Post Process the list
}
Now I want to test this function. But the problem is I should not test these two things at the same time. I am therefore thinking to extract the "Post Process the list" part as a separate function.
But the problem is the task of "Post Process the list" is only used by myFunction and I want to make it private to the class.
If I make it private I won't be able to test it from outside.
What is the general rule of this kind of scenario? Must I change a private function to public only for testing?
Or if there are any other patterns I should use?
Many thanks

The test method only needs to be package-local.
You can call private methods using reflections and there are mocking libraries which allow you to test private methods. But I would just make it package-local as it shows the method is access from elsewhere in the package (which it is either way)

As others have said, you don't need to make the method public, just package visible.
Google Guava has a #VisibleForTesting annotation which is meant for situations like this. You put this annotation on a method, just to document that the reason that the method isn't private is only for testing. The annotation doesn't do anything, it's just meant as a warning for programmers that they shouldn't call it from outside the class. (Some static code checking tool could in principle check if methods with this annotation aren't called from anywhere except inside the class or from test code).
Ofcourse it's kind of ugly to have to modify your code to do this just for testing. If you want to avoid this, you can do tricks with reflection to call the private method:
public class Sandbox {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Example e = new Example();
Method m = Example.class.getDeclaredMethod("myFunction", List.class);
m.setAccessible(true);
m.invoke(e, Arrays.asList("one", "two", "three"));
}
}
class Example {
private void myFunction(List<String> data) {
System.out.println("Hey, what are you doing! " + data);
}
}

In general, you should always test the functionality through public methods. If there is some functionality in private methods, which cannot otherwise be tested well enough, that's an indication that the method has a responsibility which should be moved to its own class (this also helps to achieve high cohesion). Then that newly extracted class can be tested directly though its public methods.

Another vote for package-local. Just ensure that your newly exposed method is clearly named and documented so that in future it is not called inappropriately.

It depends.
Dose the sub routine contains common behavior that you should extract ?
Take your first sub routine as example. If you're not sorting your list by Comparator<T>, you should refactor it, then test that Comprartor<T> class instead of your private method. If Post process are actually some algorithm or common business logic, you might want to refactor it using Strategy pattern then test those class you just extract.
The point is, if a private method is complex enough to require a unit-test, then chance is probably you should not put them there, otherwise you should just test through it's public API.
It's a legacy system, and it will take forever to refactor that method.
check Bad Smells in Code : Long method for long method refactor, Method Object is a good strategy for things like this.
It's fine, I just want to test them.
Then you can test through Java reflection API, and I believe there are some mocking framework like PowerMock can also help you.

Below things you may consider for testing a private method.
1.create public method written only for the purpose of testing. (or)
2.create nested class for testing (or)
3.use reflection to test it.
useful link,another useful link from stackoverflow

I typically consider private methods to be part of the method under test. They typically consist of code that has been moved out of the original method to make it leaner and shorter, and more modular. However from a test perspective you would be testing the same code if you moved the content of the private method into your method under test.
The question of trying to isolate the return values of private methods to simulate various conditions is is often valid though. I think its' part of the larger question of how to write testable code.
One approach with very little overhead is to rely on basic overriding of methods. You can make your private methods protected virtual instead, and override them in your test:
Here's an example of that too :
http://www.unit-testing.net/CurrentArticle/How-To-Remove-Data-Dependencies-In-Unit-Tests.html
The example is C#, but the concept applies to all object oriented languages

How to change a method's behavior according to the application which is calling it?

I have a common jar that uses some unmarshaling of a String object. The method should act differently depending on which application it is called from, how can I do that besides from the fact that I can identify the application by trying to load some unique class it has (don't like that). Is there some design pattern that solves this issue?

As I alluded to in my comment, the best thing to do is to break that uber-method up into different methods that encapsulate the specific behaviors, and likely also another method (used by all of the app-specific ones) that deals with the common behaviors.
The most important thing to remember is that behavior matters. If something is behaving differently in different scenarios, a calling application effectively cannot use that method because it doesn't have any control over what happens.
If you still really want to have a single method that all of your applications call that behaves differently in each one, you can do it, using a certain design pattern, in a way that makes sense and is maintainable. The pattern is called "Template Method".
The general idea of it is that the calling application passes in a chunk of logic that the called method wraps around and calls when it needs to. This is very similar to functional programming or programming using closures, where you are passing around chunks of logic as if it were data. While Java proper doesn't support closures, other JVM-based languages like Groovy, Scala, Clojure, JRuby, etc. do support closures.
This same general idea is very powerful in certain circumstances, and may apply in your case, but such a question requires very intimate knowledge of the application domain and architecture and there really isn't enough information in your posted question do dig too much deeper.

Actually, I think a good OO oriented solution is, in the common jar, to have one base class, and several derived classes. The base class would contain the common logic for the method being called, and each derived class would contain specific behavior.
So, in your jar, you might have the following:
public abstact class JarClass {
public method jarMethod() {
//common code here
}
}
public class JarClassVersion1 extends JarClass {
public method jarMethod() {
// initiailzation code specific to JarClassVerion1
super.jarMethod();
// wrapup code specific to JarClassVerion1
}
}
public class JarClassVersion2 extends JarClass {
public method jarMethod() {
// initiailzation code specific to JarClassVerion2
super.jarMethod();
// wrapup code specific to JarClassVerion2
}
}
As to how the caller works, if you are willing to design your code so that the knowledge of which derived class to use resides with the caller, then you obviously just have the caller create the appropriate derived class and call jarMethod.
However, I take it from your question, you want the knowledge of which class to use to reside in the jar. In that case, there are several solutions. But a fairly easy one is to define a factory method inside the jar which creates the appropriate derived class. So, inside the abstract JarClass, you might define the following method:
public static JarClass createJarClass(Class callerClass) {
if (callerClass.equals(CallerClassType1.class)) {
return new JarClassVersion1();
} else if (callerClass.equals(CallerClassType2.class)) {
return new JarClassVersion1();
// etc. for all derived classess
}
And then the caller would simply do the following:
JarClass.createJarClass(this.getClass()).jarMethod();

Java abstract static Workaround

I understand that neither a abstract class nor an interface can contain a method that is both abstract and static because of ambiguity problems, but is there a workaround?
I want to have either an abstract class or an interface that mandates the inclusion of a static method in all of the classes that extend/implement this class/interface. Is there a way to do this in Java? If not, this may be my final straw with Java...
EDIT 1: The context of this problem is that I have a bunch of classes, call them Stick, Ball, and Toy for now, that have a bunch of entries in a database. I want to create a superclass/interface called Fetchable that requires a static method getFetchables() in each of the classes below it. The reason the methods in Stick, Ball, and Toy have to be static is because they will be talking to a database to retrieve all of the entries in the database for each class.
EDIT 2: To those who say you cannot do this in any language, that is not true. You can certainly do this in Ruby where class methods are inherited. This is not a case of someone not getting OO, this is a case of missing functionality in the Java language. You can try to argue that you should never need to inherit static (class) methods, but that is utterly wrong and I will ignore any answers that make such points.

You have a couple of options:
Use reflection to see if the method exists and then call it.
Create an annotation for the static method named something like #GetAllWidgetsMethod.
As others have said, try to not use a static method.

There are lots of answers about 'this does'nt make sense..' but indeed I met a similar problem just yesterday.
I wanted to use inheritance with my unit tests. I have an API and several its implementations. So I need only 1 set of unit tests for all implementations but with different setUp methods which are static.
Workaround: all tests are abstract classes, with some static fields with protected access modifier. In all implementations I added static methods which set these static fields. It works rather nice, and I avoided copy and paste.

I too am dealing with this problem. For those that insist that it "doesn't make sense", I would invite you to think outside of that semantic box for a moment. The program I am working with is inherently about reflection.
Reflection, as you know, can take three orders of magnitude longer than straight-up binary function calling. That is an inevitable problem, and the software needs to port to as many machines as possible, some of which will be 32 bit and slower than my development machine to begin with. Thus, the applicability of a class to the requested operation needs to be checked via a static method, and all of the reflective methods are run at once during module booting.
Everything works, first and foremost. I've built the entire thing. The only catch is that a module can be compiled in a .class without compile time checking to see if the identifying static function exists at all, resulting in an innately useless class. Without the identifier, and its included information, for security's sake the module is not loaded.
I clearly understand the issue with the complete definition of "abstract" and "static", and understand that they don't make sense together. However, the ability to have a class method that is compiler-enforced for inclusion is lacking in Java, and as much as I like the language, I miss it. Thus, this is a human constraint on every programmer that ever works on the software, which I'm sure we can all agree is a pain.

There's a lot of 'this makes no sense' or 'this can't be because' and 'why do you want it?' (or worse: 'you don't have to want it!') in all those answers. However, these answers also indirectly give reasons why it should be possible.
It must be differentiated between the concept and the implementation.
Sure, overriding a static method makes no sense. And it also isn't what the question was about.
It was asked for a way to force implementation of a certain static method (or constant or whatever) in every derived class of an abstract class. Why this is required it the matter of the one who wants to write an appllication with Jave, and no business of anyone else.
This has nothing to do with how the compiler compiles the method and how it is done at runtime.
Why shoudl it be possible? because there are things that are class specific (and not instance specific) and therefore should be static, while they NEED to be impleented in every single subclass (or class that implements an interface).
Let's say there is an abstract class 'Being'. Now there are subclasses like 'animals' and 'plants'.
Now there are only mammals and fishes allowed for animals. This information is specific to the animals class, not to any instance nor doe sit belong to any superclass or subclass. However, this information must be provided by teh class, not an instance, because it is required to properly construct an animal instance. So it MUST be there and it CANNOT be in the instance.
In fact, Java has such a thing- Every object has a class specific field 'class'. It is class-specific, not inherited, no override and it must be there. Well the compiler creates it implicitly, but obviously the compiler CAN do it. So why not allowing this for own fields too.
After all, it is just a matter of definition how the combination 'abstract static' is interpreted when the compiler checks the intheritance chain for abstract functions.
Nobody was ever demanding that there should be an inheritance of the superclass class functions (which could still make some sense, depending on what this function actually does - after all classes inherit static functions of their superclasses, even though you might get a warning that you should access it directly when you call it by the subclass))
But to summarize: the Java language offers no way to do it at compile time while there is no reason (othe rthan plain dogmatic) to not doing so.
The only way is to write a static final function to the abstract class that tries to find the static function/field of the subclass when it is loaded (or loads all existing subclasses and checks them). If properly made, it gives a runtime error on first use. Complex and dirty but better than nothing. At least it prevents bugs where you get the information from the wrong superclass.
It won't work for interfaces, though.

A type system allows you to express some constraints among types, but it's limited. That's why javadocs are littered with constraints in human language, asking people to follow rules that the compiler cannot check.
if you want to extend it beyond what language provides natively, you can write your own static analysis tool. that is not uncommon. for example: findbug. also IDEs do that too, they checking thing beyond what language dictates. you can write a plug in to enforce that a subclass must have a static method of such signature.
in your case, it's not worth it. have javadoc in the superclass urge implementors to include a static method, that's good enough.
I'll provide a convoluted way of expressing your constraint anyway, but DO NO DO IT. people get really carried away of make everything checkable at compile time, at the price of making code unreadable.
interface WidgetEnumerator
{
List getAllWidgets();
}
public class Abs<T extends WidgetEnumerator>
{
static List getAllWidgets(Class<? extends Abs> clazz){ ... }
}
public class Sub extends Abs<SubWidgetEnumerator>
{
}
public class SubWidgetEnumerator implements WidgetEnumerator
{
public List getAllWidgets() { ... }
}
How it works: for any subclass of Abs, it is forced to provide an implementation of WidgetEnumerator. subclass author cannot forget that. Now invocation Abs.getAllWidgets(Sub.class) contains sufficient information to resolve that implementation, i.e. SubWidgetEnumerator. It is done through reflection, but it is type safe, there are no string literals involved.

I think I can give you a better answer after seeing your edits--your best bet is probably a factory pattern. (Not lovely, but better than singleton).
abstract class Widget
public static Widget[] getAllWidgetsOfType(Class widgetType) {
if(widgetType instanceof ...)
}
class Ball extends Widget
class Stick extends Widget
class Toy extends Widget
This is not a very good way to do it, but it's typical. Hibernate is the tool you would normally use to solve this problem, this is exactly what it's designed for.
The big problem is that it requires editing the base class whenever you add a new class of a given type. This can't be gotten around without reflection. If you want to use reflection, then you can implement it this way (Psuedocode, I'm not going to look up the exact syntax for the reflection, but it's not much more complex than this):
public static Widget[] getAllWidgetsOfType(Class widgetType) {
Method staticMethod=widgetType.getStaticMethod("getAllInstances");
return staticMethod.invoke();
}
This would give the solution you were asking for (to be bothered by the need to modify the base class each time you add a child class is a good instinct).
You could also make it an instance method instead of a static. It's not necessary, but you could then prototype the method (abstract) in Widget.
Again, all this is unnecessary and sloppy compared to Hibernate...
Edit: If you passed in a live "Empty" instance of a ball, stick or toy instead of it's "Class" object, you could then just call an inherited method and not use reflection at all. This would also work but you have to expand the definition of a Widget to include an "Empty" instance used as a key.

Static methods are relevant to an entire class of object, not the individual instances. Allowing a static method to be overridden breaks this dictum.
The first thing I would consider is to access your database from a non-static context. This is actually the norm for Java apps.
If you absolutely must use a static method, then have it parameterised with instance specific arguments (of a generic type) to allow the different subclasses to interact with it. Then call that single static method from you polymorphic methods.

No. You can't do that. If you're willing to compromise and make the method non-static or provide an implementation of the static method in your abstract class, you'll be able to code this in Java.

Is there a way to do this in Java?
I don't think there is a way to do this in any language. There's no point to it, since static methods belong to a class and can't be called polymorphically. And enabling polymorphic calls is the only reason for interfaces and abstract classes to exist.

Create a context interface containing your method with a name that matches your problem domain. (Name it "World" if you absolutely have to, but most of the time there's a better name)
Pass around implementation instances of the context object.

Ok, maybe my question was poorly asked, it seems like most of you didn't get what I was trying to do. Nonetheless, I have a solution that is somewhat satisfactory.
In the abstract super class, I am going to have a static method getAllWidgets(Class type). In it I'll check the class you passed it and do the correct fetching based on that. Generally I like to avoid passing around classes and using switches on stuff like this, but I'll make an exception here.

static methods can't be abstract because they aren't virtual. Therefore anywhere that calls them has to have the concrete type with the implementation. If you want to enforce that all implementations of an interface have a certain static method, then that suggests a unit test is required.
abstract class A
{
public static void foo()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("A::foo");
}
public void bar()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("A::bar");
}
}
class B extends A
{
public static void foo()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("B::foo");
}
public void bar()
{
java.lang.System.out.println("B::bar");
}
}
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
B b = new B();
b.foo();
b.bar();
A a = b;
a.foo();
a.bar();
}
}

For what it is worth I know exactly what you are trying to do.
I found this article while searching for the reasons I can't do it either.
In my case I have HUNDREDS of classes that inherit from a central base base and I want simply to get a reference like this:
ValueImSearchingFor visf = StaticClass.someArbitraryValue()
I do NOT want to write/maintain someArbitraryValue() for each and every one of hundreds of the inherited classes -- I just want to write logic once and have it calc a Unique Class-Sepcific value for each and every future written class WITHOUT touching the base class.
Yes I completely get OO - I've been writing Java for about as long as it's been available.
These specific classes are more like "Definitions" as opposed to actual Objects and I don't want to instantiate one every time I just need to see what someArbitraryValue() actually is.
Think of it as a PUBLIC STATIC FINAL that allows you to run a Method ONCE to set it initially. (Kinda like you can do when you define an Enum actually...)

I'd make a WidgetCollection class with an abstract Widget inner class.
You can extend the WidgetCollection.Widget class for each of your types of Widget.
No static methods necessary.
Example (not compiled or tested):
class WidgetCollection<W extends Widget> {
Set<W> widgets = new HashSet<W>();
Set<W> getAll() {
return widgets;
}
abstract class Widget {
Widget() {
widgets.add(this);
}
abstract String getName();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
WidgetCollection<AWidget> aWidgets = new WidgetCollection<AWidget>();
a.new AWidget();
Set<AWidget> widgets = aWidgets.getAll();
}
}
class AWidget extends Widget {
String getName() {
return "AWidget";
}
}

It doesn't make sense to do what you're asking:
Why can't static methods be abstract in Java