I am using some classes from a JAR file and they belong to a package (com.abc.xyz).
The class am writing also belongs to that package but I won't be able to bundle my file into that JAR file. Is it possible to have classes that belong to the same package spread across multiple JAR files?
By default, absolutely.
However, if you want to make sure that classes from a particular package are only loaded from one jar file, you can add that information to the manifest.
It is quite doable unless the JAR has sealed the package.
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. All that matters is that the classes are in the classpath.
It's probably not something that you should want to do. If it's in the same package, should it not be packaged together (I believe Jigsaw intends to allow splitting packages between modules, but that's a different kettle of fish).
It can be blocked if either package is marked sealed in the manifest. I would recommend marking whole jars as sealed as a matter of course.
It can also be blocked if there are different signers on the classes and the classes are loaded by the same class loader.
If you load classes using a different class loader, although the "namespace" will be the same, you won't actually get package (and relevant part of protected) access.
Sometimes you have to do that if you want to extend the functionality of third party libraries but they are not open sourcve and/or you don't have sources
Related
I want to understand the packing methodology in real big projects.
Suppose we have a package com.abc.xyz, and for this, we really have a path like com/abc/xyz.
Is it possible to have multiple same package names in different directory structure like:
Directory path 1:
/home/user1/project/module1/src/java/com/abc/xyz
Directory path 2:
/home/user1/project/module2/src/java/com/abc/xyz
And finally when we create jar for the whole project, do we create jar with respect to com directory?
When some application uses import com.abc.xyz, how does it know which directory path's package it is referring to?
And finally, is there any good book/resource which gives guidelines about packaging, how to divide project into modules, package names etc.
One more thing, does a project have common package base name like in above case:
com.abc.xyz (e.g., org.apache.hadoop ).
Thanks,
Vipin
Packages created in different source directories are the same package, as far as the classloader is concerned. It also doesn't matter if the class files are in the same jar or different jars. The JVM does not discriminate based on where the source code came from.
(Of course if you have two jars loaded by different classloaders those are going to be treated differently.)
One case where you frequently have different source trees with the same package is when you have tests in a different directory (using the usual Maven convention where the code is under src/main/java and the tests are in src/test/java) but with the same package as the code that they exercise. These tests are able to exercise protected and package-private parts of the code under test, because they're in the same package as that code.
The path of directories inside the jar should start at the root of the package. (The topmost directory should be /, then one called com or org or whatever, etc.) Packages do form a tree-like structure, and when you put your code in a filesystem you end up having a hierarchy of packages, but the language itself doesn't recognize a concept of "subpackage" (except that packages that start with java are special and get special treatment by the classloader).
Organizing code into packages is done differently by different people. Some people like to organize their code by layer (putting all controllers in one package, all services in another package, all daos in still another package), some like to organize their code by feature.
Package-by-layer is the conventional way of organizing code, it seems to be the preferred practice in the Java community. One consequence of this is that when code implements a feature as a vertical slice at right angles to the package structure (as it may require a new controller endpoint, maybe a new service method, etc.), so closely-related bits of code for the same feature end up scattered across different directories. The Java Practices website makes an interesting case for package-by-feature:
Package By Feature Package-by-feature uses packages to reflect
the feature set. It tries to place all items related to a single
feature (and only that feature) into a single directory/package. This
results in packages with high cohesion and high modularity, and with
minimal coupling between packages. Items that work closely together
are placed next to each other. They aren't spread out all over the
application. It's also interesting to note that, in some cases,
deleting a feature can reduce to a single operation - deleting a
directory. (Deletion operations might be thought of as a good test for
maximum modularity: an item has maximum modularity only if it can be
deleted in a single operation.)
Here's an SO question asking about package by feature or layer.
Yes, you could make duplicate packages in separate directories, but I can't think of a good reason to do it. If the classes within the package have the same names you can certainly get namespace collisions. I am not sure what "module" means in this context but I'd recommend
com.abc.module1.xyz
com.abc.module2.xyz
instead. Those would be distinct packages to the classloader. You can still keep your /home/user1/project/module1/ directory structure up front, that doesn't matter.
From 2 modules you will have two seperate jar files: module1.jar and module2.jar. Both will be loaded into ClassLoader when application starts.
When some application uses import com.abc.xyz, how does it know which directory path's package it is referring to?
Classloader will handle that. http://www.javaworld.com/article/2077260/learn-java/the-basics-of-java-class-loaders.html
If you trying to develop multi module application i recommend you to check Maven tool:
http://maven.apache.org/
Why maven? What are the benefits?
For guidance for package organization you can just google 'java packages' phrase.
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_packages.htm
https://www.facebook.com/Niranthara-Jaya-JavaSocial-Media-Apps-Software-Project-Management-244119296136021/
This page is for people who wish to know how to work with real world Java projects. Send a message to this page and check out the articles.
I am building a tool from several different open source libraries. My buildpath is in the following order:
My first JAR file, stanford-corenlp-3.3.0.jar, contains a package called edu.stanford.nlp.process, which has the Morphology.class class.
My second JAR file, ark-tweet-nlp-0.3.2.jar, contains an identical package name (edu.stanford.nlp.process), and an identical class name Morphology.class.
In both JARS, inside their respective Morphology classes there exists a method called stem(). However, the constructors for these methods are different. I want to use the stem(String, String) method from my second JAR file, but since the import statement (import edu.stanford.nlp.process.Morphology;) does not specify which JAR to use, I get an error since it thinks the first JAR on the buildpath is the one I want to implement.
I don't want to change the order of my buildpath since it would throw off my other method calls.
How can I specify which JAR's Morphology class to use? Is there an import statement that specifies the JAR, along with the package.class?
EDIT: What about a way to combine my two JARs so that the two Morphology classes merge, giving me two methods with different constructors?
As several others pointed out above, it is possible to tweak Java's classloader mechanism to load classes from certain places… but this is not what you are looking for, believe me.
You hit a known problem. Instead of worrying how to tell Java to use a class from one JAR and not from the other, you should consider using a different version of ArkTweet.
Fetch the ArkTweet JAR from Maven Central. It does not contain Stanford classes.
When you notice that people package third-party classes in their JARs, I'd recommend pointing out to them that this is generally not a good idea and to encourage them to refrain from doing so. If a project provides a runnable fat-jar including all dependencies, that is fine. But, it should not be the only JAR they provide. A plain JAR or set of JARs without any third-party code should also be offered. In the rare cases that third-party code was modified and must be included, it should be done under the package namespace of the provider, not of the original third-party.
Finally, for real solutions to building modular Java applications and handling classloader isolation, check out one of the several OSGi implementations or project Jigsaw.
The default ClassLoader will only load one of the jars, ignoring the second one, so this can't be done out of the box. Maybe a custom ClassLoader can help.
For more info about ClassLoaders start from here.
Good luck!
EDIT: We are looking at some horrible packaging choices causing as side effect this Jar Hell here. The author of this "Ark Twitter" library decided it was a good idea to release a JAR artifact that includes a third party library (the Stanford NLP library). This leads to unnecessarily tight coupling between Ark Twitter and the specific version of the Stanford NLP library used by it. This is a very bad practice that should be discouraged in any case: this violates the whole idea about transitive dependencies.
EDIT (continued): One possible (and hopefully working) solution is to rebuild the Ark Twitter JAR so that it does not include the aforementioned library but only its own code (basically the cmu.arktweetnlp package only) and hoping that the version of NLP required by your project works with Ark Twitter. Ideally you should submit a pull request to the author of the library but in the meantime you can get away with un-jarring and re-jarring the existing JAR file.
EDIT 2: Looking at the JAR file again, it's much worse that I originally thought: ALL the dependencies are repackaged in the released JAR file. This is really the worst possible solution for releasing a library. Good luck.
I think your problem can be solved simply by using the lemma(String word, String tag) method in the current CoreNLP's Morphology class:
String word = ...;
String tag = ...;
String lemma = morphology.lemma(word, tag);
WordTag wt = new WordTag(lemma, tag);
When the class was revised a couple of years ago, the method you're looking for was deleted. The feeling was that with most of the Stanford NLP code moving to using CoreLabels, methods that return WordTag are less useful (though deleting all such methods is still a work in progress).
No there isn't. This is a weakness of Java, that cannot be simply solved. You should use only one of the libraries. Having both on the classpath will make java always select the first one.
This problem is named as Jar hell.
The order in the buildpath generally determines the order in which the classloader will search for the class. In general, though, you don't want duplicates of the same class in your build path--and it sure doesn't seem like ark-tweet-nlp-0.3.2.jar should have a edu.stanford package within it.
When you load a class, it's loaded at given address, and that address is then placed in the header of objects created from the class, so that (among other things) the methods in the class can be located.
So if you somehow load ClassA, with method abc(String), from zip file XYZ.zip, that loads into address 12345. Then (using a class loader trick) you load another ClassA, with method abc(String, String), from zip file ZYX.zip, and that loads into address 67890.
Now create an instance of the first ClassA. In its header will the class address 12345. If you could somehow attempt to invoke the method abc(String,String) on that class, that method would not be found in the class at 12345. (In actuality, you will not even be able to attempt the call, since the verifier will stop you because, to it, the two classes are entirely different and you're trying to use one where the other is called for, just as if their names were entirely different.)
Since I have many separate classes for my program I created 2 folders (I'm using JDeveloper) in my project called "panels" and "buttons" where I've placed the corresponding classes that extend JPanel or JButton. I've used the same package for all my classes so that those that are placed in a folder can be referenced by the rest of the classes that are not placed in the same folder without importing (all my classes belong to the same package, e.g. mypackage).
My question is should I change this and make the classes of a directory belong to a separate package (e.g. classes in "panels" directory to belong to the mypackage.panels package and classes in "buttons" dir to belong to mypackage.buttons)? The first way works fine and has the benefit of lacking the need to import but I was wondering if this is the "correct" way to do this...
Yes, in general I'd strongly encourage you to make your directory structure match your package structure. Some IDEs will enforce this, and other developers are likely to expect it - it's useful to know exactly where to find a particular file.
Now whether you really want separate packages for these controls is a different question, and one we can't answer.
At least on my machine when I put 2 Java class files on the same folder, without making them part of the same package, they already see one another, so from one file I can call a public class from the other file and vice-versa.
Questions:
Is this the general case or a coincidence that may not work on every platform?
If this is not a coincidence, I am guessing the purpose of packages is to allow you to organize your class files and make they share stuff, even if they are spread across different folders and paths. Is this correct or I am missing something?
If no package name is specified, the classes in the file go into a special unnamed package. And this is the same case for all files with no explicit package specification. Hence, they all fall into the special unnamed package, and exhibit the behavior that you are seeing.
You might want to go through this for a better understanding.
If they're in the same directory then they're in the same package, or are you copying .class files around after they've been written by the compiler?
Packages are a way of organising classes into a namespace. There are plenty of reasons to do this, the best bet is to start with the tutorial.
I sure it is general case, but it is bad approach.
You are right, but more general reason to use package is to separate namespaces, for example, you have to create Car class, but there are many people who want to use this classname, thats why you have to use package, for example: com.yourcompany.yourproject. In such case you can use your Car class from your package without implicitly defining package and you also can use other Car classes in such manner: new com.google.general.Car();
In the java rules, it is recommend to use domain name right-to-left for providing unique package name.
How can I export a jar without some class or package which I don't want others to use,but which is needed in project,means I can't delete them.
This doesn't make a lot of sense.
If the classes are needed to compile the project, then there are likely to be static dependencies on them in other classes. (Otherwise ... you would be able to just delete it / them.)
But if there are static dependencies on those classes, then you won't be able to run the applications unless those classes are present in the JAR file. If you leave the classes out of the JAR to stop people using them (or whatever), your application will die on startup with "class not found" exceptions.
If you want to stop people using the classes directly, you could try the following:
Change the classes access to "package private". This doesn't make it impossible to use them, but it makes it more difficult.
Change your project so that the dependencies on the classes are entirely dynamic; e.g. via Class.forName(...) or dependency injection. Then you can exclude the classes from the JAR as required. But once again, if your application needs to use the classes, they have to be accessible at runtime (somehow), and it will therefore be possible (somehow) for other people to get hold of them.
Change your project to allow you remove the classes entirely. This is the only sure-fire solution.
Finally, before you go to all of this trouble you should ask yourself why you are even bothering to do this. Why don't you just let people use the classes anyway? What is to stop them getting the classes from somewhere else ... or implementing their own versions from scratch?
If the class is needed for your program to work, you can't omit it from the JAR.
You can put classes in a package that has something like "internal" in its name — e.g. com.example.internal — to indicate that the classes aren't meant for others to use or rely on. It can't prevent anyone from using your class for their own purposes, but it at least indicates that they do so at their own risk, that your internal interfaces might change in future versions of the program, etc.
A simple way is to use the package private access modifier for classes. That will make it difficult for others to access the classes, but it will also affect your ability to use them from other packages.
A more advanced way would be to use OSGi and only publish those classes you want others to use. That will make it impossible for others to access the classes while not restricting your access to them.
Put them into a separate jar file, include that jar file (as a single file, maybe with a nondescript name) into your jar file, create a custom class loader to open that embedded jar file from your code, bootstrap an entry point with reflection (because you cannot have static dependencies on it) into that new class loader .
Or just accept the fact that since the code is in there somewhere, any amount of obfuscation is just an inconvenience to everyone and cannot really hide anything.