We Keep Coding

Why does IntelliJ sometimes throw an unused warning but sometimes not?

I have many Java classes with two constructors:
a private constructor with no arguments and with unused warning suppression called by gson;
a public constructor with arguments.
In one class IntelliJ informs me with a warning that the public constructor is never used. In all other classes there isn't the warning, but if I click Find Usage for the method it displays "Nothing found in project files".
Why is there a warning in some cases and not in others? How can I make IntelliJ always behave in the same way?
This is the class where the public constructor throws the warning:
public class ShopMarketAction extends Action {
private Boolean inRow = null;
private Integer index = null;
#SuppressWarnings("unused") // Called by gson
private ShopMarketAction() {
super(ActionType.SHOP_MARKET);
}
// THIS METHOD THROWS AN UNUSED WARNING
public ShopMarketAction(boolean inRow, int index) {
super(ActionType.SHOP_MARKET);
this.inRow = inRow;
this.index = index;
}
}
This is an example class where the public constructor doesn't throw the warning:
public class ProductionAction extends Action {
private Integer cardIndex = null;
#SuppressWarnings("unused") // Called by gson
private ProductionAction() {
super(ActionType.PRODUCE);
}
// THIS METHOD DOESN'T THROW THE WARNING BUT IS NEVER USED
public ProductionAction(int cardIndex) {
super(ActionType.PRODUCE);
this.cardIndex = cardIndex;
}
}
I specify that in both classes the method is not used yet.
The Action class that both classes extends:
public abstract class Action {
#SuppressWarnings({"unused", "FieldCanBeLocal"})
private final ActionType type; // Used by gson
protected Action(ActionType type) {
this.type = type;
}
}
The ActionType enum:
public enum ActionType {
SHOP_MARKET, PRODUCE;
}

I found what causes the problem: I have a non-Java file (an UXF file created by another application) which contains the name of all these methods and for some reason IntelliJ consider them as used because of this.

How can I refer the objcet that calls a method in the method in Java? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
When should I use "this" in a class?
(17 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm trying to get an understanding of what the the java keyword this actually does.
I've been reading Sun's documentation but I'm still fuzzy on what this actually does.

The this keyword is a reference to the current object.
class Foo
{
private int bar;
public Foo(int bar)
{
// the "this" keyword allows you to specify that
// you mean "this type" and reference the members
// of this type - in this instance it is allowing
// you to disambiguate between the private member
// "bar" and the parameter "bar" passed into the
// constructor
this.bar = bar;
}
}
Another way to think about it is that the this keyword is like a personal pronoun that you use to reference yourself. Other languages have different words for the same concept. VB uses Me and the Python convention (as Python does not use a keyword, simply an implicit parameter to each method) is to use self.
If you were to reference objects that are intrinsically yours you would say something like this:
My arm or my leg
Think of this as just a way for a type to say "my". So a psuedocode representation would look like this:
class Foo
{
private int bar;
public Foo(int bar)
{
my.bar = bar;
}
}

The keyword this can mean different things in different contexts, that's probably the source of your confusion.
It can be used as a object reference which refers to the instance the current method was called on: return this;
It can be used as a object reference which refers to the instance the current constructor is creating, e.g. to access hidden fields:
MyClass(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
It can be used to invoke a different constructor of a a class from within a constructor:
MyClass()
{
this("default name");
}
It can be used to access enclosing instances from within a nested class:
public class MyClass
{
String name;
public class MyClass
{
String name;
public String getOuterName()
{
return MyClass.this.name;
}
}
}

"this" is a reference to the current object.
See details here

The keyword this is a reference to the current object. It's best explained with the following piece of code:
public class MyClass {
public void testingThis()
{
// You can access the stuff below by
// using this (although this is not mandatory)
System.out.println(this.myInt);
System.out.println(this.myStringMethod());
// Will print out:
// 100
// Hello World
}
int myInt = 100;
string myStringMethod()
{
return "Hello World";
}
}
It's not used a lot unless you have code standard at your place telling you to use the this keyword. There is one common use for it, and that's if you follow a code convention where you have parameter names that are the same as your class attributes:
public class ProperExample {
private int numberOfExamples;
public ProperExample(int numberOfExamples)
{
this.numberOfExamples = numberOfExamples;
}
}
One proper use of the this keyword is to chain constructors (making constructing object consistent throughout constructors):
public class Square {
public Square()
{
this(0, 0);
}
public Square(int x_and_y)
{
this(x_and_y, x_and_y);
}
public Square(int x, int y)
{
// finally do something with x and y
}
}
This keyword works the same way in e.g. C#.

An even better use of this
public class Blah implements Foo {
public Foo getFoo() {
return this;
}
}
It allows you to specifically "this" object in the current context. Another example:
public class Blah {
public void process(Foo foo) {
foo.setBar(this);
}
}
How else could you do these operations.

"this" keyword refers to current object due to which the method is under execution. It is also used to avoid ambiguity between local variable passed as a argument in a method and instance variable whenever instance variable and local variable has a same name.
Example ::
public class ThisDemo1
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A a1=new A(4,5);
}
}
class A
{
int num1;
int num2;
A(int num1)
{
this.num1=num1; //here "this" refers to instance variable num1.
//"this" avoids ambigutiy between local variable "num1" & instance variable "num1"
System.out.println("num1 :: "+(this.num1));
}
A(int num, int num2)
{
this(num); //here "this" calls 1 argument constructor within the same class.
this.num2=num2;
System.out.println("num2 :: "+(this.num2));
//Above line prints value of the instance variable num2.
}
}

The keyword 'this' refers to the current object's context. In many cases (as Andrew points out), you'll use an explicit this to make it clear that you're referring to the current object.
Also, from 'this and super':
*There are other uses for this. Sometimes, when you are writing an instance method, you need to pass the object that contains the method to a subroutine, as an actual parameter. In that case, you can use this as the actual parameter. For example, if you wanted to print out a string representation of the object, you could say "System.out.println(this);". Or you could assign the value of this to another variable in an assignment statement.
In fact, you can do anything with this that you could do with any other variable, except change its value.*
That site also refers to the related concept of 'super', which may prove to be helpful in understanding how these work with inheritance.

It's a reference of actual instance of a class inside a method of the same class.
coding
public class A{
int attr=10;
public int calc(){
return this.getA()+10;
}
/**
*get and set
**/
}//end class A
In calc() body, the software runs a method inside the object allocated currently.
How it's possible that the behaviour of the object can see itself? With the this keyword, exactly.
Really, the this keyword not requires a obligatory use (as super) because the JVM knows where call a method in the memory area, but in my opinion this make the code more readeable.

It can be also a way to access information on the current context.
For example:
public class OuterClass
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
OuterClass oc = new OuterClass();
}
OuterClass()
{
InnerClass ic = new InnerClass(this);
}
class InnerClass
{
InnerClass(OuterClass oc)
{
System.out.println("Enclosing class: " + oc + " / " + oc.getClass());
System.out.println("This class: " + this + " / " + this.getClass());
System.out.println("Parent of this class: " + this.getClass().getEnclosingClass());
System.out.println("Other way to parent: " + OuterClass.this);
}
}
}

Think of it in terms of english, "this object" is the object you currently have.
WindowMaker foo = new WindowMaker(this);
For example, you are currently inside a class that extends from the JFrame and you want to pass a reference to the WindowMaker object for the JFrame so it can interact with the JFrame. You can pass a reference to the JFrame, by passing its reference to the object which is called "this".

Every object can access a reference to itself with keyword this (sometimes called the this
reference).
First lets take a look on code
public class Employee {
private int empId;
private String name;
public int getEmpId() {
return this.empId;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public void setEmpId(int empId) {
this.empId = empId;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
In the above method getName() return instance variable name.
Now lets take another look of similar code is
public class Employee {
private int empId;
private String name;
public int getEmpId() {
return this.empId;
}
public String getName() {
String name="Yasir Shabbir";
return name;
}
public void setEmpId(int empId) {
this.empId = empId;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public static void main(String []args){
Employee e=new Employee();
e.setName("Programmer of UOS");
System.out.println(e.getName());
}
}
Output
Yasir Shabbir
this operator always work with instance variable(Belong to Object)
not any class variable(Belong to Class)
this always refer to class non static attribute not any other parameter or local variable.
this always use in non static method
this operator cannot work on static variable(Class variable)
**NOTE:**It’s often a logic error when a method contains a parameter or local variable that has the
same name as a field of the class. In this case, use reference this if you wish to access the
field of the class—otherwise, the method parameter or local variable will be referenced.

What 'this' does is very simply. It holds the reference of current
object.
This keyword holds the reference of instance of current class
This keyword can not be used inside static function or static blocks
This keyword can be used to access shadowed variable of instance
This keyword can be used to pass current object as parameter in function calls
This keyword can be used to create constructor chain
Source: http://javaandme.com/core-java/this-word

How do I make variables in a Main accessible to other classes?

For example I have a MovieDatabase class that contains a list of Movie objects. In my main code, I initialize all the objects in the MovieDatabase. However I wish to call this MovieDatabase in another class to access the library. How would I do this?
Do I add in get methods in my main code and return it? Or is there another way (eg. changing the list of objects to protected/public?)
Thanks!
Code's supposed to be 3 seperate classes, Main, MovieDatabase & Movie.
An instance of movieDatabase is initialized in Main. Upon construction, it calls loadMovieList() and populates the list from a text file. However I wish to call the same instantiation of movieDatabase from another class in order to access the movies, so that I do not have to repeat the loading.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MovieDatabase movieDatabase = new MovieDatabase();
}
public class MovieDatabase {
ArrayList<Movie>movieList = new ArrayList<Movie>();
String fileAddress = "D:/Users/Mine/School/Java/CZ2002_Assignment/src/MovieDatabase/movieDatabase.txt";
public MovieDatabase()
{
numOfMovie=0;
loadMovieList();
}
public int getNumOfMovie() {
return numOfMovie;
}
public void addMovieToList(Movie movie) {
movieList.add(movie);
numOfMovie++;
}
public Movie selMovieByID(int movieID) {
int index=-1;
for (Movie m : movieList) {
index++;
if (m.getMovieID() == movieID)
break;
}
return selMovieByIndex(index);
}
public Movie selMovieByIndex(int index) {
return movieList.get(index);
}
public void loadMovieList()
{
//loads through text file
addMovieToList(new Movie(tempMovie));
System.out.println("Movie Database loaded");
}
public class Movie{
private int movieID;
private String movieName;
private int movieDuration; //in minutes;
private String movieRating; //G; PG; PG13; NC16; M18; R21;
private boolean has3D;
private boolean status;
}

If you have a class that depends on a NameLibrary, you should inject it via the constructor or a set method.

Firstly, its difficult to assess what issues you truly have without any code to show us.
However you mention main method, as in
public static void main(String args[]){};
this main method is designed specifically to run the application, your compiler needs that specific method, it is not designed to be used as an accessor method
e.g.
public int getValue(){
return value;}
this is not the only reason you can't access the main method variable. main doesn't have a return type (due to the use of void) plus the idea of SCOPE (each method has a scope, any method that contains a variable can see that variable, but nothing outside of it can directly see it without a return type) you use scope to limit what can be accessed or what cannot be accessed outside of the methods or classes (thats why class variables usually will have private, in order to limit accessibility)

Create a getter-method which returns the list inside your NameLibrary. if your other class extends from NameLibrary you can call this getter-method with the object reference to your NameLibrary class.

If you want int x to be accessible from other classes, you write:
public class myClass{
public int x = 0;
}
To access it from other classes, you simply write:
myClass.x ... (do something)

Determine which subclass to choose by accessing static variables from the Class object

I am trying to implement an interface in Java to use different types of databases for one application.
My though was to create an abstract class with the common interface and two static variables which are then overwritten by the subclasses. I then wanted to add a Class[] List with the classes of all available subclasses to the abstract class as well as a couple of functions that allow the determination of the correct class to be used.
The goal is to first get a list of all available database types and let the user choose one. Afterwards another function should translate the name (which could be localized) to the IDENTIFIER which is specified in the subclass. Finally a third function allows the instantiation of an object by giving such an IDENTIFIER.
My abstract class would look something like this:
public abstract class DataBase {
public static final IDENTIFIER = "";
public static final NAME = "";
private static final Class[] dbTypes = new Class[]{PostgreSQL.class, MySQL.class};
public static String[] getNameList() {
String[] names = new String[dbTypes.length];
for(int i = 0; i < dbTypes.length; i++){
names[i] = dbTypes[i].NAME; //Cannot access the static variable this way.
}
return names;
}
public static String getIdentifierForName(String name) {
for(int i = 0; i < dbTypes.length; i++){
if(name.equals(dbTypes[i].NAME){
return dbTypes[i].IDENTIFIER;
}
}
return "";
}
public static DataBase getInstanceOf(String identifier) {
for(int i = 0; i < dbTypes.length; i++){
if(identifier.equals(dbTypes[i].IDENTIFIER) {
return dbTypes[i].newInstance();
}
}
return null;
}
}
The Child classes would look something like this:
public class MySQL extends DataBase {
public static final IDENTIFIER = "ab.cde.MySQL";
public static final NAME = "MySQL";
...
}
public class PostgreSQL extends DataBase{
public static final IDENTIFIER = "ab.cde.PostgreSQL";
public static final NAME = "PostgreSQL";
...
}
My problem now is, that I cannot access the static variables from the Class object. Obviously the dbTypes list does not contain any typed classes. I tried changing the type of the Array to Class<? extends DataBase>, but I get an error Cannot create a generic array of Class<? extends DataBase> I also tried checking the classes with isAssignableFrom() and then casting the class, but I was still not able to access the static variables.
For now I have two solutions which are working:
Hardcode all existing subclasses into each function if(PostgreSQL.NAME.equals(name)){...}etc.
However, if I add new subclasses, I only want to have to add them at one point in my implementation.
Instead of using a Class[] array, I can use an array of DataBase[] with instances of each class. However, I would think this is bad practice to instantiate each available DataBase subclass, even though I only need one in the end.
Since I have never done such a thing before I might also be approaching the problem completely wrong. Maybe I am missing the correct way in which something like this is usually done?
Thank you for your help.

There are no "abstract properties" in Java. You have to create two astract methods in the DataBase class, like this:
public abstract class DataBase {
// No "abstract propeties"
public abstract String getDBName();
public abstract String getDBIdentifier();
// etc etc...
}
and then, in each subclass:
public class MySQL extends DataBase {
public static final IDENTIFIER = "ab.cde.MySQL";
public static final NAME = "MySQL";
#Override
public String getDBName() {
return NAME;
}
#Override
public String getDBIdentifier() {
return IDENTIFIER;
}
// etc etc...
}
When using the classes, you can just cast to DataBase (not MySQL or PostgreSQL) and call the two abstract methods.
Therefore, in order to solve your "pick a database class" problem, I would create a configuration file that contains the names of the databases and the corresponding class, and instantiate it with reflection (newInstance()) as needed.
As an alternative, you can use reflection to access the static variables like Nikita's answers suggested, or you can just use the name of the class as the identifier of the database it supports, like this (not tested):
public abstract class DataBase {
private static final Class[] dbTypes = new Class[]{PostgreSQL.class, MySQL.class};
public static Class getDBClass(String type) {
for (Class c : dbTypes) {
if (c.getSimpleName().toLowerCase().equals(type.toLowerCase())) {
return c;
}
}
return null;
}
public static Set<String> getSupportedDB() { // <-- you populate a dropdown menu with this
Set<String> supported = new HashSet<String>();
for (Class c : dbTypes) {
supported.add(c.getSimpleName());
}
return supported;
}
// etc etc...
}
However, I don't like this solution and I would not use it.

You can use reflection to get values for each class:
public static String[] getNameList(){
String[] names = new String[dbTypes.length];
for(int i=0; i<dbTypes.length; i++){
Field f = dbTypes[i].getField("NAME");
names[i] = f.get(null);
}
return names;
}
But it might be slow.
Also I'd suggest to create separate enum DBRegistry that will contain names, identifiers and classes:
public enum DBRegistry {
MYSQL("ab.cde.MySQL", "MySQL", MySQL.class),
POSTGRESQL("ab.cde.PostgreSQL", "PostgreSQL", PostgreSQL.class);
private String name;
private String identifier;
private Class<?> dbClass;
private DBRegistry(String identifier, String name, Class<?> dbClass) {
this.identifier = identifier;
this.name = name;
this.dbClass = dbClass;
}
// Getters...
}
You can iterate on all items in registry using DBRegistry.values

Not tested, but I would suggest something like this. You could register databases by calling DataBase.registerDataBase(new DataBase(...))); which may be invoked from the main file.
public class DataBase {
private final static List<DataBase> INSTANCES = new ArrayList<DataBase>();
private final String identifier;
private final String name;
private final Class<?> dbType;
public DataBase(String identifier, String name, Class<?> dbType) {
this.identifier=identifier.toString();
this.name=name.toString();
this.dbType=dbType;
}
String getIdentifier() {return identifier;}
String getName() {return identifier;}
Class<?> getDbType() {return dbtype;}
public synchronized static void registerDatabase(DataBase database) {
database.getClass();
INSTANCES.add(database);
//may check if already registered and either fail or replace it
}
public synchronized static List<DataBase> getNameList() {
return new ArrayList<DataBase>(INSTANCES);
}
public synchronized static List<String> getNameList() {
List<String> names = new ArrayList<String>(INSTANCES.size());
for (Database db:INSTANCES) names.add(db.getName());
return names;
}
public synchronized static String getIdentifierForName(String name) {
for(DataBase db:INSTANCES){
if(name.equals(db.getName())) return db;
}
return null;
}
public synchronized static DataBase getInstanceOf(String identifier) {
for(DataBase db:INSTANCES){
if(identifier.equals(db.getIdentifier())) return db;
}
return null;
}
}
}

I would advise to keep it simple, never more than necessary to utilize in the actual application. It is easier to extend things than to re-factor code to accomodate for additional complexity. Most of the stuff you mention are merely artefacts of your problem solving, not the actual requirements of your application per se. And it so happens, that a modern object-oriented language has everything you need, and you can implement a good design without reflection and without resorting to static properties and string identifiers.
Remember to rely on the compiler rather than runtime for whatever you know in advance - anything that is known not to change from one application run to another, does not need reflection, because it does not involve runtime variables! I would go for interfaces, classes implementing them, and more importantly the Factory pattern to abstract using these classes:
interface Database
{
void query(String sqlString);
}
class MySQLDatabase implements Database
{
public void query(String sqlString)
{
}
}
class PostgreSQLDatabase implements Database
{
public void query(String sqlString)
{
}
}
class DatabaseFactory
{
Database connectDatabase()
{
/// F.e. return new MySQLDatabase();
}
}
The whole "database abstraction layer" has been done to death already anyway, giving birth to DBA, ODBC and other software stacks that solve your problem. You should let yourself be inspired by these, unless you are sure your particular way of solving this yields advantages that can be proven. If you want to go about this in a professional way, of course. If you want to educate yourself, by all means, use reflection, strings in place of more specific objects, and tight-coupling instead of aggressive modularity.

How to create an immutable class in Java without using final keyword [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Implement a final class without the “final” keyword
I want to create an immutable class in Java without using the final keyword.

I think smt like should work fine
class Immutable {
private int i;
public static Immutable create(int i){
return new Immutable(i);
}
private Immutable(int i){this.i = i;}
public int getI(){return i;}
}
But final is preferable.

The final keyword won't make your class inmutable. It will avoid your class to be extended from another class.
public final class Foo {
//....
}
public class Bar extends Foo {
//COMPILATION ERROR!
}
An adecuated class design is what will make you class inmutable, as you can see at duffymo answer.
Note that you can declare as final the fields that you will initialize at the constructor:
class Foo {
private final int state
public Foo(int v) {
this.state=v;
}
//....
}
The difference is that, while at duffymo example, the value ccould be changed from inner routines (i.e, a method adds one to the value, kind of a counter), at my example you wouldn't be able to do so.
Let's try to avoid absolutely the use of the final keyword:
public class Foo {
private int state;
private Foo(int v) {
this.state=v;
}
public static Foo getInstance(int value) {
return new Foo(value);
}
}
You only can get an instance of Foo accesing the Foo.getInstance method.
But anyway, you can extend the Foo class and make it mutable
I was wrong here. I won't compile, as you can acceess the Foo constructor.
public class Bar extends Foo {
private int ohNopes;
//COMPILATION ERROR!
public Bar(int v) {
this.ohNopes=v;
}
}
So, it seems it can be done, after all.

The problem with an immutable class not being final is that, subclasses may not be immutable.
Here is an example from the Java API, java.lang.String is immutable and final, if a string is passed to one of your methods you can be sure that it will remain in a consistent state.
the following will not compile because String is final:
public class MyString extends java.Lang.String {
public MyString(String original) {
Super(original);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.valueOf(System.currentTimeMillis());
}
On the other hand, java.ma.BigDecimal itself is immutable, but it is not final and allowed to be subclassed. This opens up a range of issues. If a BigDecimal is passes to one of your methods you can't rely on the fact that no one has overridden BigDecimal like you can with String. subclasses of BigDecimal could potentially replace its methods with others which give unpredictable results.
The following will compile because BigDecimal is not immutable:
public class MyBigDecimal extends java.math.BigDecimal {
public MyBigDecimal(double val) {
super(val);
}
private int count = 0;
// override intValue which changes the state of this instance
#Override
public int intValue() {
return count++;
}
// rinse and repeat for the rest of the BigDecimal methods...
}
You cannot rely on he state of BigDecimal instances passed into your code, you should make Defensive copies of non final classes if you need to rely on their immutability.

I can't imagine why you object to using final, but here's a class that will get the job done. I know there are subtleties regarding serialization and reflection, but this can't be changed without special shenanigans:
public class Immutable
{
private int value;
public Immutable(int v)
{
this.value = v;
}
public int getValue() { return this.value; }
}

The class should set all its values in the constructor, and provide no setters (methods that modify class members).

You can create a class then create a .jar and use the jar as resource.