Develop Reference

IDE recommends change from final class to Enum

In my codebase, I found a class like this:
public final class Klass
{
private static final long LONG_NUMBER = 10.0;
private Klass() {}
public static double calcSomethingUsingLongNumberAndParam(double param)
{
...
return something;
}
}
My IDE (IntelliJ IDEA) offers one 'improvement' to this class - change it to an enum. As a test, I made the change, and noted no other refactors done on any of the member fields or methods, not to any calls to the static methods contained.
Here is the generated Enum:
public enum Klass
{
;
private static final long LONG_NUMBER = 10.0;
private Klass() {}
public static double calcSomethingUsingLongNumberAndParam(double param)
{
...
return something;
}
}
Is there a benefit to changing a final class to an enum, or is this a quirk of the IDE?

My answer originally said that sure there are benefits, enums supersede old-style POJO singletons (which this is a special case of) in almost every way. However, it depends a bit on the use case and actual code involved. If you just replace "final class" with "enum", as IDE seems to be doing in this case, the benefits are minimal. Also, one of the main benefits of using enum is a better type checking for finite values, but since you seem to be using only a single, numeric value and it is private, it's of no benefit here.
Pros on using an enum vs. constant utility class:
Enums get away with almost the same functionality with less code - you don't need to declare functions or values as static, nor do you need a private constructor, which are just boilerplate that enum offers out of the box
it is immediately clear with enums that they are not meant to be instantiated, whereas for a class like this, it might need more investigation and a look at its details as a whole
with a class like this it is far easier for someone updating the code to mess up the singleton pattern by accident if he/she doesn't notice it's meant to be that way
Cons:
enum class itself are effectively final, but their internal design depends on the possibility to make subclasses for the enum values, so their protection from subclassing seems to me a bit hacky.
So, if this class is part of interface offered as an external library and we can be quite confident no one will change its own implementation, it is actually a bit more safe than using an enum here. However, if this code is maintained (especially by different developers) - and any code should be, I would argue an enum has more pros to offer, as it more clearly communicates its intent. Even the only con I could come up with, removal of protection from subclassing, seems quite marginal as enums are effectively final anyway outside their defining class.
For more discussion on the benefits of enums, see What are enums and why are they useful?. There is also another discussion on the benefits of having a final keyword in a constant utility class such as yours: Final Keyword in Constant utility class - the conclusion I get from that discussion is that the only benefit is that it is explicitly forbidden to subclass it, which wouldn't work anyway since you wouldn't be able to override the static stuff.
TLDR; recommendation to replace with enum seems reasonable, at least if you omit the things you don't have to explicitly declare with enums. However the differences are related to the readability and maintainability, not any difference in behaviour.

There is no outright benefit to changing this class to an enum.
The only thing it affords you is the ability to omit the private constructor (and the final on the class).
But you'd also need either a single value (that you don't need), or just have a random hanging ; to separate the (empty) value list from the rest of the class body.

When using static classes in java

I am not very familiar with java. I created a jersey web server. There is different functions such as startRodio(), stopRadio(), setRadioIp()... I created one RequestHandler class to handle the http requests and one other Radio class that implement them. All the properties and methods of the Radio class are static. it looks like
Radio
class Radio{
public static boolean radionOn;
public static String radioIpadress;
public static boolean startRadio(){
radioOn = true;
// some other operation
}
...
RequestHandler
classe RequestHandler {
#path(/startRodio)
.....
if (!Rodio.radioOn)
Radio.startRadio();
Is it a good architecture for my programm? is it a good practice to make all the properties and method static in this way?

I would say, that making properties static in default as you have made above is not good practice at all.
If you have only one instance of such object as Radio is, then use singleton pattern and private properties with proper getters and setters. This is generally best approach, because you separate public interface from private implementation and change in the implementation (e.g. renaming variable) would cause problems in other parts of application and need of refactoring.
Static variables should serve just for some common properties for defined type/class. You can for example count existing instances of class in static variable.

Better avoid using static variables. This is not a good practice. Static variables have global scopes which leaves you testing so hard. Also anything can be able to modify the static variables. more over, using static is not thread safety. Also you don't have control over the static variable i terms of their creation and destruction. SO its not advisable to use statics.

Just don't use static variables. It directly couples several of
your classes.
You can use singletons in place of static if you're sure that you
need only one object.

Simply spoken: don't use static.
static is an abnormality in good OO design. It leads to direct coupling between your classes. It makes it hard to later replace "implementation"; and it makes it hard to write reasonable unit tests.
Meaning: by default, you do not use static. There might be situations when it is fine to use; but the example code you are showing does not at all look like you should be using static.
Instead, you should be defining an interface that denotes the functionality of your Radio; allowing for different implementations behind that interfaces.

It depends on what are you looking for.
Lets say you are creating 4 objects of Radio.
radioOne....,radioFour...
Now if you want all Radios to start at same time, you should go for static variable because static properties are characteristics of all objects of a class. They are not exclusive to any particular object and in practice they should be assessed using class like :
Radio.radionOn=true;
and not radioOne.radioOn=true;
So, I would suggest you to make only those properties static which will be common to all objects. If all the properties will fall under that ambit,
then it would mean you want only one object for the class because all your objects would behave the same .So better to have one object . In that case go for singleton pattern for object creation.

final static variables and their use [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
private final static attribute vs private final attribute
(22 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I've created an interface with the following code
final static char RIVER = '~';
final static char PATH = 'Y';
The list will increase (not hundres or even tens but maybe at most 15 symbols)
Originally I was just coding the values directly into the object but I started wondering why I couldn't just create a single file with the global constansts (for the symbols on the map and only the symbols) for easy access.
I'm aware that per OO logic, encapsulation is how we should program. At the same time, final static variables exist so surely they do have a purpose.
My question then is there a reason for me to avoid using the global constants and go back to putting each symbol with each object? Does global constants have a role to play within OO programming at all or is it purely for Procedural Programming?
This is a project that only I will ever work on however I am using as a testbed to improve my standards and as such I would like to use the best method possible (in terms of standard).

Defining global constants in an interface is an anti-pattern. Either use classes to define constants and then use static imports. Or simply use enums, which gives more flexibility.

Defining global (public static) constants is okay. It helps to keep you code clear and maintainable, by giving certain values meaningful names.
What you should not do, is define global constants in an interface and then add an implements-clause to each class that uses these constants. The reason for this, that you pollute the public signature of your class in this way. Instead, alsways refer to the constants by their full name (e.g. SomeClass.SOME_CONSTANT) or statically import them (import SomeClass.SOME_CONSTANT).
I would not define all global constants in one single file however, but define each of them in the class or interface that makes the most sense, for example because they define methods that return these constants or where the constants are typical arguments.

There are several benefits in use the constants, these are some of them:
Readability: If you hard code the number, when you or some other programmer have to use the code, they have to know what the value means. If a constant is used, a meaningful name is provided.
Reusability: If the same constant needs to be used in several place, when a modification is needed, you only have to change the value in one place instead of all the places where the constant is used.
Maintainability: If you have your constants in a single place instead of multiple places in the code, it is easier to modify.
It is considered a bad practice to use interfaces to hold the constants, use classes instead. If the constants are related with the class, you can define the constants within the class. If they are general purpose constants and used in several classes, you can create an utility class to hold all the constants.
public class MyUtilityClass {
public static final int MY_INT_CONSTANT = 1234;
public static final String MY_STRING_CONSTANT = "example";
...
/* Create a private constructor to avoid creation of instances of this class */
private MyUtilityClass() {
}
}

Global constants are absolutely fine.
That having been said, do not even try programming without the maximum number* of compiler warnings enabled. If you had enough warnings enabled, your compiler would be telling you that fields in interfaces do not need to be declared final and they do not need to be declared static.
(* warnings that make sense. Every compiler has its own set of warnings that are rather nonsensical and best disabled, but these are generally few.)

Encapsulation is the mechanism which protects you from changes - for example, changing the implementation of a class, will not affect the rest of your code as long as the interface (the public or protected methods) does not change.
So you can apply this reasoning to your case. Will future changes of these constants affect the rest of the code? If not, then putting all those constants as final static instances in a single class is fine. But think of this. What if you want to change how you represent your map? (from the names of the variables I assume you're using them to represent a map) Maybe you want to use special objects which also have their own behaviour, not just how to represent them on the map. Then maybe you'll want to abstract those in new classes, and not use constants anymore. And this will affect all the code where you reference these constants - probably lots of classes.
Of course, you can start with this simple representation, and if at a later point you find it's not working anymore, then you can switch. This is what I would do. I don't think it's wrong.

Java Class That Has 90% Static Members. Good Practice Or What?

I'm 14 and have been learning java for about 4/5 months. I'm coding a game now called super mario winshine and i wanted to know if it is good practice to have a class that is mostly static variables.
The class is the one that holds all the information for the game's level/world. Since I only need one version of this class, and lots of other classes will be using it, I choose to make all the variables static. Is this good practice?
I have considered the fact that i could keep the variables "non-static" and just clone the main object i use for that class, but I thought i would rather sacrifice "O-O" for memory in this case.

As soon as you want to have two or more worlds this will fail. Say, when your first release is a runaway success and you want to add the "parallel universe" expansion set.
In my experience, 90% of the time when marketing says "oh, don't worry, there will only be one Application/Window/Database/User" they are wrong.
ADDED
I would also avoid using a true Singleton pattern with World.getInstance() etc. Those are for the rare cases where it really is an essential requirement that there only be one of something. In your case, you are using it as a convenience, not a requirement.
There is no perfect fix, YMMV, but I'd consider a single static method, something like
World World.getWorld(String name)
and then you call real (non-static) methods on the World that is returned. For V1 of your program, allow null to mean "the default world".
Some might put that method into a class named WorldManager, or, perhaps showing my age, a more clever name like Amber. :-)

It all depends upon what your methods and classes are. There is no problem in defining utility methods as static methods in a class. There is no need to make it a singleton as others are suggesting. Look at the Math class from java.lang package. It has lot of utility methods but it isn't a singleton.
Also check out static imports functionality. Using this you doesn't need to qualify method calls with the class name.

Well, what you are doing is definitely an option. Or you could use a singleton pattern:
public class World {
private static World instance = new World();
private World() {
}
public static World getInstance() {
return instance;
}
}
Now just use World.getInstance() everywhere to have a unique object of this type per application.

I would say it's definitely not a good practice.
I've not seen your code, but having several static variables in a class that other classes access freely seems to indicate that you're not really using object orientation/classes but more just writing procedural code in Java. Classes should generally encapsulate/hide all their variables - static or not - from access from other classes so that other classes don't depend on how the class is implemented.
The static part also causes problems with making threads work (global variables are hard to lock in a good way so that nothing deadlocks) and with unit testing (mocking is all but impossible)
I also agree with the other posters, if you need "global variables", at least make them singletons. That allows you to change strategy easier later and does not lock you to one world.
Edit: I'm definitely not advocating singletons as a good pattern here if someone read it like that, but it does solve some problems with static variables, esp. regarding testing/mocking compared to just statics so I'd say it's a ever so slightly lighter shade of gray :) It is also a pattern that is easier to gradually replace with better patterns by for example using a IoC container.

I think it is fine as long as you don't need anything more sophisticated, in other words, static fields are OK as long as different objects (including subclasses if there will be any) do not need different values.
You code by yourself, refactoring is easy with modern tools, me says don't fix it until it is broken, and focus on the algorithmic aspects of your project.
Perhaps you may think to encapsulate all those static fields within a different static class, as it is a good principle to "keep what changes seperate from what does not". Chances are one day you will want to initiate that static class with different values, for example want to read the initial values from an XML file and/or registry, add behaviour, etc. so instead of a static class you will implement it with a Singleton pattern.
But clearly that is not the concern of today. Till then, enjoy!

You may wish to look into implementing this class as a singleton, while there is nothing particularly wrong with your approach it may lead to some inflexibility further down the road.
Also you should take in to consideration the purpose of static members which is to be a member of the class and 'act' on/with the class not an instance of it. For example the static method in a singleton returns either a new instance of the class if one doesn't already exist or returns the instance, and because the method is static you do not instantiate a new one. This is probably worth a read because it can be somewhat confusing when determining the appropriate use of static members

I'm not sure what you are really talking about from your short description, so I'll try this:
public class Level {
static List<Mushroom> mushrooms;
static List<Coin> coins;
...
}
Is that you were describing?
You asked if this is "good practice" and I can tell you that this looks very odd, so, no, it's not.
You gain absolutely nothing by doing this. You make it impossible to have more than one Level, which brings no advantage, but it could cause trouble in the future.
I didn't understand your last paragraph where you say you made most things static to save memory. You would usually create one Level and it would be passed around (without cloning) to the various classes/methods that read from it or modify it.

What is the point of "final class" in Java?

I am reading a book about Java and it says that you can declare the whole class as final. I cannot think of anything where I'd use this.
I am just new to programming and I am wondering if programmers actually use this on their programs. If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?

First of all, I recommend this article: Java: When to create a final class
If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
A final class is simply a class that can't be extended.
(It does not mean that all references to objects of the class would act as if they were declared as final.)
When it's useful to declare a class as final is covered in the answers of this question:
Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java?
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
In some sense yes.
By marking a class as final you disable a powerful and flexible feature of the language for that part of the code. Some classes however, should not (and in certain cases can not) be designed to take subclassing into account in a good way. In these cases it makes sense to mark the class as final, even though it limits OOP. (Remember however that a final class can still extend another non-final class.)

In Java, items with the final modifier cannot be changed!
This includes final classes, final variables, and final methods:
A final class cannot be extended by any other class
A final variable cannot be reassigned another value
A final method cannot be overridden

One scenario where final is important, when you want to prevent inheritance of a class, for security reasons. This allows you to make sure that code you are running cannot be overridden by someone.
Another scenario is for optimization: I seem to remember that the Java compiler inlines some function calls from final classes. So, if you call a.x() and a is declared final, we know at compile-time what the code will be and can inline into the calling function. I have no idea whether this is actually done, but with final it is a possibility.

The best example is
public final class String
which is an immutable class and cannot be extended.
Of course, there is more than just making the class final to be immutable.

If you imagine the class hierarchy as a tree (as it is in Java), abstract classes can only be branches and final classes are those that can only be leafs. Classes that fall into neither of those categories can be both branches and leafs.
There's no violation of OO principles here, final is simply providing a nice symmetry.
In practice you want to use final if you want your objects to be immutable or if you're writing an API, to signal to the users of the API that the class is just not intended for extension.

Relevant reading: The Open-Closed Principle by Bob Martin.
Key quote:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules,
Functions, etc.) should be open for
Extension, but closed for
Modification.
The final keyword is the means to enforce this in Java, whether it's used on methods or on classes.

The keyword final itself means something is final and is not supposed to be modified in any way. If a class if marked final then it can not be extended or sub-classed. But the question is why do we mark a class final? IMO there are various reasons:
Standardization: Some classes perform standard functions and they are not meant to be modified e.g. classes performing various functions related to string manipulations or mathematical functions etc.
Security reasons: Sometimes we write classes which perform various authentication and password related functions and we do not want them to be altered by anyone else.
I have heard that marking class final improves efficiency but frankly I could not find this argument to carry much weight.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it
stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
Perhaps yes, but sometimes that is the intended purpose. Sometimes we do that to achieve bigger benefits of security etc. by sacrificing the ability of this class to be extended. But a final class can still extend one class if it needs to.
On a side note we should prefer composition over inheritance and final keyword actually helps in enforcing this principle.

final class can avoid breaking the public API when you add new methods
Suppose that on version 1 of your Base class you do:
public class Base {}
and a client does:
class Derived extends Base {
public int method() { return 1; }
}
Then if in version 2 you want to add a method method to Base:
class Base {
public String method() { return null; }
}
it would break the client code.
If we had used final class Base instead, the client wouldn't have been able to inherit, and the method addition wouldn't break the API.

A final class is a class that can't be extended. Also methods could be declared as final to indicate that cannot be overridden by subclasses.
Preventing the class from being subclassed could be particularly useful if you write APIs or libraries and want to avoid being extended to alter base behaviour.

In java final keyword uses for below occasions.
Final Variables
Final Methods
Final Classes
In java final variables can't reassign, final classes can't extends and final methods can't override.

Be careful when you make a class "final". Because if you want to write an unit test for a final class, you cannot subclass this final class in order to use the dependency-breaking technique "Subclass and Override Method" described in Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". In this book, Feathers said, "Seriously, it is easy to believe that sealed and final are a wrong-headed mistake, that they should never have been added to programming languages. But the real fault lies with us. When we depend directly on libraries that are out of our control, we are just asking for trouble."

If the class is marked final, it means that the class' structure can't be modified by anything external. Where this is the most visible is when you're doing traditional polymorphic inheritance, basically class B extends A just won't work. It's basically a way to protect some parts of your code (to extent).
To clarify, marking class final doesn't mark its fields as final and as such doesn't protect the object properties but the actual class structure instead.

TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.

One advantage of keeping a class as final :-
String class is kept final so that no one can override its methods and change the functionality. e.g no one can change functionality of length() method. It will always return length of a string.
Developer of this class wanted no one to change functionality of this class, so he kept it as final.

The other answers have focused on what final class tells the compiler: do not allow another class to declare it extends this class, and why that is desirable.
But the compiler is not the only reader of the phrase final class. Every programmer who reads the source code also reads that. It can aid rapid program comprehension.
In general, if a programmer sees Thing thing = that.someMethod(...); and the programmer wants to understand the subsequent behaviour of the object accessed through the thing object-reference, the programmer must consider the Thing class hierarchy: potentially many types, scattered over many packages. But if the programmer knows, or reads, final class Thing, they instantly know that they do not need to search for and study so many Java files, because there are no derived classes: they need study only Thing.java and, perhaps, it's base classes.

Yes, sometimes you may want this though, either for security or speed reasons. It's done also in C++. It may not be that applicable for programs, but moreso for frameworks.
http://www.glenmccl.com/perfj_025.htm

think of FINAL as the "End of the line" - that guy cannot produce offspring anymore. So when you see it this way, there are ton of real world scenarios that you will come across that requires you to flag an 'end of line' marker to the class. It is Domain Driven Design - if your domain demands that a given ENTITY (class) cannot create sub-classes, then mark it as FINAL.
I should note that there is nothing stopping you from inheriting a "should be tagged as final" class. But that is generally classified as "abuse of inheritance", and done because most often you would like to inherit some function from the base class in your class.
The best approach is to look at the domain and let it dictate your design decisions.

As above told, if you want no one can change the functionality of the method then you can declare it as final.
Example: Application server file path for download/upload, splitting string based on offset, such methods you can declare it Final so that these method functions will not be altered. And if you want such final methods in a separate class, then define that class as Final class. So Final class will have all final methods, where as Final method can be declared and defined in non-final class.

Let's say you have an Employee class that has a method greet. When the greet method is called it simply prints Hello everyone!. So that is the expected behavior of greet method
public class Employee {
void greet() {
System.out.println("Hello everyone!");
}
}
Now, let GrumpyEmployee subclass Employee and override greet method as shown below.
public class GrumpyEmployee extends Employee {
#Override
void greet() {
System.out.println("Get lost!");
}
}
Now in the below code have a look at the sayHello method. It takes Employee instance as a parameter and calls the greet method hoping that it would say Hello everyone! But what we get is Get lost!. This change in behavior is because of Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public class TestFinal {
static Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestFinal testFinal = new TestFinal();
testFinal.sayHello(grumpyEmployee);
}
private void sayHello(Employee employee) {
employee.greet(); //Here you would expect a warm greeting, but what you get is "Get lost!"
}
}
This situation can be avoided if the Employee class was made final. Just imagine the amount of chaos a cheeky programmer could cause if String Class was not declared as final.

Final class cannot be extended further. If we do not need to make a class inheritable in java,we can use this approach.
If we just need to make particular methods in a class not to be overridden, we just can put final keyword in front of them. There the class is still inheritable.

Final classes cannot be extended. So if you want a class to behave a certain way and don't someone to override the methods (with possibly less efficient and more malicious code), you can declare the whole class as final or specific methods which you don't want to be changed.
Since declaring a class does not prevent a class from being instantiated, it does not mean it will stop the class from having the characteristics of an object. It's just that you will have to stick to the methods just the way they are declared in the class.

Android Looper class is a good practical example of this.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Looper.html
The Looper class provides certain functionality which is NOT intended to be overridden by any other class. Hence, no sub-class here.

I know only one actual use case: generated classes
Among the use cases of generated classes, I know one: dependency inject e.g. https://github.com/google/dagger

Object Orientation is not about inheritance, it is about encapsulation. And inheritance breaks encapsulation.
Declaring a class final makes perfect sense in a lot of cases. Any object representing a “value” like a color or an amount of money could be final. They stand on their own.
If you are writing libraries, make your classes final unless you explicitly indent them to be derived. Otherwise, people may derive your classes and override methods, breaking your assumptions / invariants. This may have security implications as well.
Joshua Bloch in “Effective Java” recommends designing explicitly for inheritance or prohibiting it and he notes that designing for inheritance is not that easy.