Related
I read this question and thought that would easily be solved (not that it isn't solvable without) if one could write:
#Override
public String toString() {
return super.super.toString();
}
I'm not sure if it is useful in many cases, but I wonder why it isn't and if something like this exists in other languages.
What do you guys think?
EDIT:
To clarify: yes I know, that's impossible in Java and I don't really miss it. This is nothing I expected to work and was surprised getting a compiler error. I just had the idea and like to discuss it.
It violates encapsulation. You shouldn't be able to bypass the parent class's behaviour. It makes sense to sometimes be able to bypass your own class's behaviour (particularly from within the same method) but not your parent's. For example, suppose we have a base "collection of items", a subclass representing "a collection of red items" and a subclass of that representing "a collection of big red items". It makes sense to have:
public class Items
{
public void add(Item item) { ... }
}
public class RedItems extends Items
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isRed())
{
throw new NotRedItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
public class BigRedItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isBig())
{
throw new NotBigItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
That's fine - RedItems can always be confident that the items it contains are all red. Now suppose we were able to call super.super.add():
public class NaughtyItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
// I don't care if it's red or not. Take that, RedItems!
super.super.add(item);
}
}
Now we could add whatever we like, and the invariant in RedItems is broken.
Does that make sense?
I think Jon Skeet has the correct answer. I'd just like to add that you can access shadowed variables from superclasses of superclasses by casting this:
interface I { int x = 0; }
class T1 implements I { int x = 1; }
class T2 extends T1 { int x = 2; }
class T3 extends T2 {
int x = 3;
void test() {
System.out.println("x=\t\t" + x);
System.out.println("super.x=\t\t" + super.x);
System.out.println("((T2)this).x=\t" + ((T2)this).x);
System.out.println("((T1)this).x=\t" + ((T1)this).x);
System.out.println("((I)this).x=\t" + ((I)this).x);
}
}
class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new T3().test();
}
}
which produces the output:
x= 3
super.x= 2
((T2)this).x= 2
((T1)this).x= 1
((I)this).x= 0
(example from the JLS)
However, this doesn't work for method calls because method calls are determined based on the runtime type of the object.
I think the following code allow to use super.super...super.method() in most case.
(even if it's uggly to do that)
In short
create temporary instance of ancestor type
copy values of fields from original object to temporary one
invoke target method on temporary object
copy modified values back to original object
Usage :
public class A {
public void doThat() { ... }
}
public class B extends A {
public void doThat() { /* don't call super.doThat() */ }
}
public class C extends B {
public void doThat() {
Magic.exec(A.class, this, "doThat");
}
}
public class Magic {
public static <Type, ChieldType extends Type> void exec(Class<Type> oneSuperType, ChieldType instance,
String methodOfParentToExec) {
try {
Type type = oneSuperType.newInstance();
shareVars(oneSuperType, instance, type);
oneSuperType.getMethod(methodOfParentToExec).invoke(type);
shareVars(oneSuperType, type, instance);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static <Type, SourceType extends Type, TargetType extends Type> void shareVars(Class<Type> clazz,
SourceType source, TargetType target) throws IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException {
Class<?> loop = clazz;
do {
for (Field f : loop.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (!f.isAccessible()) {
f.setAccessible(true);
}
f.set(target, f.get(source));
}
loop = loop.getSuperclass();
} while (loop != Object.class);
}
}
I don't have enough reputation to comment so I will add this to the other answers.
Jon Skeet answers excellently, with a beautiful example. Matt B has a point: not all superclasses have supers. Your code would break if you called a super of a super that had no super.
Object oriented programming (which Java is) is all about objects, not functions. If you want task oriented programming, choose C++ or something else. If your object doesn't fit in it's super class, then you need to add it to the "grandparent class", create a new class, or find another super it does fit into.
Personally, I have found this limitation to be one of Java's greatest strengths. Code is somewhat rigid compared to other languages I've used, but I always know what to expect. This helps with the "simple and familiar" goal of Java. In my mind, calling super.super is not simple or familiar. Perhaps the developers felt the same?
There's some good reasons to do this. You might have a subclass which has a method which is implemented incorrectly, but the parent method is implemented correctly. Because it belongs to a third party library, you might be unable/unwilling to change the source. In this case, you want to create a subclass but override one method to call the super.super method.
As shown by some other posters, it is possible to do this through reflection, but it should be possible to do something like
(SuperSuperClass this).theMethod();
I'm dealing with this problem right now - the quick fix is to copy and paste the superclass method into the subsubclass method :)
In addition to the very good points that others have made, I think there's another reason: what if the superclass does not have a superclass?
Since every class naturally extends (at least) Object, super.whatever() will always refer to a method in the superclass. But what if your class only extends Object - what would super.super refer to then? How should that behavior be handled - a compiler error, a NullPointer, etc?
I think the primary reason why this is not allowed is that it violates encapsulation, but this might be a small reason too.
I think if you overwrite a method and want to all the super-class version of it (like, say for equals), then you virtually always want to call the direct superclass version first, which one will call its superclass version in turn if it wants.
I think it only makes rarely sense (if at all. i can't think of a case where it does) to call some arbitrary superclass' version of a method. I don't know if that is possible at all in Java. It can be done in C++:
this->ReallyTheBase::foo();
At a guess, because it's not used that often. The only reason I could see using it is if your direct parent has overridden some functionality and you're trying to restore it back to the original.
Which seems to me to be against OO principles, since the class's direct parent should be more closely related to your class than the grandparent is.
Calling of super.super.method() make sense when you can't change code of base class. This often happens when you are extending an existing library.
Ask yourself first, why are you extending that class? If answer is "because I can't change it" then you can create exact package and class in your application, and rewrite naughty method or create delegate:
package com.company.application;
public class OneYouWantExtend extends OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
// one way is to rewrite method() to call super.method() only or
// to doStuff() and then call super.method()
public void method() {
if (isDoStuff()) {
// do stuff
}
super.method();
}
protected abstract boolean isDoStuff();
// second way is to define methodDelegate() that will call hidden super.method()
public void methodDelegate() {
super.method();
}
...
}
public class OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
public void method() {...}
...
}
For instance, you can create org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner class in your application so this class should be loaded before the real one from jar. Then rewrite methods or constructors.
Attention: This is absolute hack, and it is highly NOT recommended to use but it's WORKING! Using of this approach is dangerous because of possible issues with class loaders. Also this may cause issues each time you will update library that contains overwritten class.
#Jon Skeet Nice explanation.
IMO if some one wants to call super.super method then one must be want to ignore the behavior of immediate parent, but want to access the grand parent behavior.
This can be achieved through instance Of. As below code
public class A {
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In A Class");
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
if (!(this instanceof C)) {
System.out.println("In B Class");
}
super.printClass();
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In C Class");
super.printClass();
}
}
Here is driver class,
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c = new C();
c.printClass();
}
}
Output of this will be
In C Class
In A Class
Class B printClass behavior will be ignored in this case.
I am not sure about is this a ideal or good practice to achieve super.super, but still it is working.
Look at this Github project, especially the objectHandle variable. This project shows how to actually and accurately call the grandparent method on a grandchild.
Just in case the link gets broken, here is the code:
import lombok.val;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.lang.invoke.*;
/*
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Please don't actually do this... :P
*/
public class ImplLookupTest {
private MethodHandles.Lookup getImplLookup() throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException {
val field = MethodHandles.Lookup.class.getDeclaredField("IMPL_LOOKUP");
field.setAccessible(true);
return (MethodHandles.Lookup) field.get(null);
}
#Test
public void test() throws Throwable {
val lookup = getImplLookup();
val baseHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Base.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
Sub.class);
val objectHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Object.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
// Must use Base.class here for this reference to call Object's toString
Base.class);
val sub = new Sub();
Assert.assertEquals("Sub", sub.toString());
Assert.assertEquals("Base", baseHandle.invoke(sub));
Assert.assertEquals(toString(sub), objectHandle.invoke(sub));
}
private static String toString(Object o) {
return o.getClass().getName() + "#" + Integer.toHexString(o.hashCode());
}
public class Sub extends Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Sub";
}
}
public class Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Base";
}
}
}
Happy Coding!!!!
I would put the super.super method body in another method, if possible
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
protected String DescribeMe() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
}
Or if you cannot change the super-super class, you can try this:
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe(super.toString());
}
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return fromSuper;
}
}
In both cases, the
new ChildClass().toString();
results to "I am super super"
It would seem to be possible to at least get the class of the superclass's superclass, though not necessarily the instance of it, using reflection; if this might be useful, please consider the Javadoc at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getSuperclass()
public class A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "A";
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "B";
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "C";
}
}
public class D extends C {
#Override
public String toString() {
String result = "";
try {
result = this.getClass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().newInstance().toString();
} catch (InstantiationException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
return result;
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
D d = new D();
System.out.println(d);
}
}
run:
A
BUILD SUCCESSFUL (total time: 0 seconds)
I have had situations like these when the architecture is to build common functionality in a common CustomBaseClass which implements on behalf of several derived classes.
However, we need to circumvent common logic for specific method for a specific derived class. In such cases, we must use a super.super.methodX implementation.
We achieve this by introducing a boolean member in the CustomBaseClass, which can be used to selectively defer custom implementation and yield to default framework implementation where desirable.
...
FrameworkBaseClass (....) extends...
{
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodX(...)
...
methodN(...){...}
}
/* CustomBaseClass overrides default framework functionality for benefit of several derived classes.*/
CustomBaseClass(...) extends FrameworkBaseClass
{
private boolean skipMethodX=false;
/* implement accessors isSkipMethodX() and setSkipMethodX(boolean)*/
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodN(...){...}
methodX(...){
if (isSkipMethodX()) {
setSKipMethodX(false);
super.methodX(...);
return;
}
... //common method logic
}
}
DerivedClass1(...) extends CustomBaseClass
DerivedClass2(...) extends CustomBaseClass
...
DerivedClassN(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
DerivedClassX(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
{
methodX(...){
super.setSKipMethodX(true);
super.methodX(...);
}
}
However, with good architecture principles followed in framework as well as app, we could avoid such situations easily, by using hasA approach, instead of isA approach. But at all times it is not very practical to expect well designed architecture in place, and hence the need to get away from solid design principles and introduce hacks like this.
Just my 2 cents...
IMO, it's a clean way to achieve super.super.sayYourName() behavior in Java.
public class GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(){
System.out.println("Grandma Fedora");
}
}
public class Mama extends GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName();
}else {
System.out.println("Mama Stephanida");
}
}
}
public class Daughter extends Mama {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName(lie);
}else {
System.out.println("Little girl Masha");
}
}
}
public class TestDaughter {
public static void main(String[] args){
Daughter d = new Daughter();
System.out.print("Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns ");
d.sayYourName(true);
System.out.print("Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns ");
d.sayYourName(false);
}
}
Output:
Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns Grandma Fedora
Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns Little girl Masha
I think this is a problem that breaks the inheritance agreement.
By extending a class you obey / agree its behavior, features
Whilst when calling super.super.method(), you want to break your own obedience agreement.
You just cannot cherry pick from the super class.
However, there may happen situations when you feel the need to call super.super.method() - usually a bad design sign, in your code or in the code you inherit !
If the super and super super classes cannot be refactored (some legacy code), then opt for composition over inheritance.
Encapsulation breaking is when you #Override some methods by breaking the encapsulated code.
The methods designed not to be overridden are marked
final.
In C# you can call a method of any ancestor like this:
public class A
internal virtual void foo()
...
public class B : A
public new void foo()
...
public class C : B
public new void foo() {
(this as A).foo();
}
Also you can do this in Delphi:
type
A=class
procedure foo;
...
B=class(A)
procedure foo; override;
...
C=class(B)
procedure foo; override;
...
A(objC).foo();
But in Java you can do such focus only by some gear. One possible way is:
class A {
int y=10;
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X!=A.class)
throw new Exception("Incorrect parameter of "+this.getClass().getName()+".foo("+X.getName()+")");
y++;
System.out.printf("A.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
}
void foo() throws Exception {
System.out.printf("A.foo()\n");
this.foo(this.getClass());
}
}
class B extends A {
int y=20;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==B.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s) calls B.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
}
class C extends B {
int y=30;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==C.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s) calls C.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
void DoIt() {
try {
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo():\n");
foo();
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(B):\n");
foo(B.class);
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(A):\n");
foo(A.class);
Show();
} catch(Exception e) {
//...
}
}
void Show() {
System.out.printf("Show: A.y=%d, B.y=%d, C.y=%d\n\n", ((A)this).y, ((B)this).y, ((C)this).y);
}
}
objC.DoIt() result output:
DoIt: foo():
A.foo()
C.foo(C): y=31
Show: A.y=10, B.y=20, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(B):
C.foo(B) calls C.super.foo(B)
B.foo(B): y=21
Show: A.y=10, B.y=21, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(A):
C.foo(A) calls C.super.foo(A)
B.foo(A) calls B.super.foo(A)
A.foo(A): y=11
Show: A.y=11, B.y=21, C.y=31
It is simply easy to do. For instance:
C subclass of B and B subclass of A. Both of three have method methodName() for example.
public abstract class A {
public void methodName() {
System.out.println("Class A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public void methodName() {
super.methodName();
System.out.println("Class B");
}
// Will call the super methodName
public void hackSuper() {
super.methodName();
}
}
public class C extends B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new C();
a.methodName();
}
#Override
public void methodName() {
/*super.methodName();*/
hackSuper();
System.out.println("Class C");
}
}
Run class C Output will be:
Class A
Class C
Instead of output:
Class A
Class B
Class C
If you think you are going to be needing the superclass, you could reference it in a variable for that class. For example:
public class Foo
{
public int getNumber()
{
return 0;
}
}
public class SuperFoo extends Foo
{
public static Foo superClass = new Foo();
public int getNumber()
{
return 1;
}
}
public class UltraFoo extends Foo
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println(new UltraFoo.getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().superClass.getNumber());
}
public int getNumber()
{
return 2;
}
}
Should print out:
2
1
0
public class SubSubClass extends SubClass {
#Override
public void print() {
super.superPrint();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubSubClass().print();
}
}
class SuperClass {
public void print() {
System.out.println("Printed in the GrandDad");
}
}
class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public void superPrint() {
super.print();
}
}
Output: Printed in the GrandDad
The keyword super is just a way to invoke the method in the superclass.
In the Java tutorial:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/super.html
If your method overrides one of its superclass's methods, you can invoke the overridden method through the use of the keyword super.
Don't believe that it's a reference of the super object!!! No, it's just a keyword to invoke methods in the superclass.
Here is an example:
class Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this); // It's a Cat! Not an animal!
System.out.println("Animal do sth.");
}
}
class Cat extends Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this);
System.out.println("Cat do sth.");
super.doSth();
}
}
When you call cat.doSth(), the method doSth() in class Animal will print this and it is a cat.
I read this question and thought that would easily be solved (not that it isn't solvable without) if one could write:
#Override
public String toString() {
return super.super.toString();
}
I'm not sure if it is useful in many cases, but I wonder why it isn't and if something like this exists in other languages.
What do you guys think?
EDIT:
To clarify: yes I know, that's impossible in Java and I don't really miss it. This is nothing I expected to work and was surprised getting a compiler error. I just had the idea and like to discuss it.
It violates encapsulation. You shouldn't be able to bypass the parent class's behaviour. It makes sense to sometimes be able to bypass your own class's behaviour (particularly from within the same method) but not your parent's. For example, suppose we have a base "collection of items", a subclass representing "a collection of red items" and a subclass of that representing "a collection of big red items". It makes sense to have:
public class Items
{
public void add(Item item) { ... }
}
public class RedItems extends Items
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isRed())
{
throw new NotRedItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
public class BigRedItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
if (!item.isBig())
{
throw new NotBigItemException();
}
super.add(item);
}
}
That's fine - RedItems can always be confident that the items it contains are all red. Now suppose we were able to call super.super.add():
public class NaughtyItems extends RedItems
{
#Override
public void add(Item item)
{
// I don't care if it's red or not. Take that, RedItems!
super.super.add(item);
}
}
Now we could add whatever we like, and the invariant in RedItems is broken.
Does that make sense?
I think Jon Skeet has the correct answer. I'd just like to add that you can access shadowed variables from superclasses of superclasses by casting this:
interface I { int x = 0; }
class T1 implements I { int x = 1; }
class T2 extends T1 { int x = 2; }
class T3 extends T2 {
int x = 3;
void test() {
System.out.println("x=\t\t" + x);
System.out.println("super.x=\t\t" + super.x);
System.out.println("((T2)this).x=\t" + ((T2)this).x);
System.out.println("((T1)this).x=\t" + ((T1)this).x);
System.out.println("((I)this).x=\t" + ((I)this).x);
}
}
class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new T3().test();
}
}
which produces the output:
x= 3
super.x= 2
((T2)this).x= 2
((T1)this).x= 1
((I)this).x= 0
(example from the JLS)
However, this doesn't work for method calls because method calls are determined based on the runtime type of the object.
I think the following code allow to use super.super...super.method() in most case.
(even if it's uggly to do that)
In short
create temporary instance of ancestor type
copy values of fields from original object to temporary one
invoke target method on temporary object
copy modified values back to original object
Usage :
public class A {
public void doThat() { ... }
}
public class B extends A {
public void doThat() { /* don't call super.doThat() */ }
}
public class C extends B {
public void doThat() {
Magic.exec(A.class, this, "doThat");
}
}
public class Magic {
public static <Type, ChieldType extends Type> void exec(Class<Type> oneSuperType, ChieldType instance,
String methodOfParentToExec) {
try {
Type type = oneSuperType.newInstance();
shareVars(oneSuperType, instance, type);
oneSuperType.getMethod(methodOfParentToExec).invoke(type);
shareVars(oneSuperType, type, instance);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static <Type, SourceType extends Type, TargetType extends Type> void shareVars(Class<Type> clazz,
SourceType source, TargetType target) throws IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException {
Class<?> loop = clazz;
do {
for (Field f : loop.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (!f.isAccessible()) {
f.setAccessible(true);
}
f.set(target, f.get(source));
}
loop = loop.getSuperclass();
} while (loop != Object.class);
}
}
I don't have enough reputation to comment so I will add this to the other answers.
Jon Skeet answers excellently, with a beautiful example. Matt B has a point: not all superclasses have supers. Your code would break if you called a super of a super that had no super.
Object oriented programming (which Java is) is all about objects, not functions. If you want task oriented programming, choose C++ or something else. If your object doesn't fit in it's super class, then you need to add it to the "grandparent class", create a new class, or find another super it does fit into.
Personally, I have found this limitation to be one of Java's greatest strengths. Code is somewhat rigid compared to other languages I've used, but I always know what to expect. This helps with the "simple and familiar" goal of Java. In my mind, calling super.super is not simple or familiar. Perhaps the developers felt the same?
There's some good reasons to do this. You might have a subclass which has a method which is implemented incorrectly, but the parent method is implemented correctly. Because it belongs to a third party library, you might be unable/unwilling to change the source. In this case, you want to create a subclass but override one method to call the super.super method.
As shown by some other posters, it is possible to do this through reflection, but it should be possible to do something like
(SuperSuperClass this).theMethod();
I'm dealing with this problem right now - the quick fix is to copy and paste the superclass method into the subsubclass method :)
In addition to the very good points that others have made, I think there's another reason: what if the superclass does not have a superclass?
Since every class naturally extends (at least) Object, super.whatever() will always refer to a method in the superclass. But what if your class only extends Object - what would super.super refer to then? How should that behavior be handled - a compiler error, a NullPointer, etc?
I think the primary reason why this is not allowed is that it violates encapsulation, but this might be a small reason too.
I think if you overwrite a method and want to all the super-class version of it (like, say for equals), then you virtually always want to call the direct superclass version first, which one will call its superclass version in turn if it wants.
I think it only makes rarely sense (if at all. i can't think of a case where it does) to call some arbitrary superclass' version of a method. I don't know if that is possible at all in Java. It can be done in C++:
this->ReallyTheBase::foo();
At a guess, because it's not used that often. The only reason I could see using it is if your direct parent has overridden some functionality and you're trying to restore it back to the original.
Which seems to me to be against OO principles, since the class's direct parent should be more closely related to your class than the grandparent is.
Calling of super.super.method() make sense when you can't change code of base class. This often happens when you are extending an existing library.
Ask yourself first, why are you extending that class? If answer is "because I can't change it" then you can create exact package and class in your application, and rewrite naughty method or create delegate:
package com.company.application;
public class OneYouWantExtend extends OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
// one way is to rewrite method() to call super.method() only or
// to doStuff() and then call super.method()
public void method() {
if (isDoStuff()) {
// do stuff
}
super.method();
}
protected abstract boolean isDoStuff();
// second way is to define methodDelegate() that will call hidden super.method()
public void methodDelegate() {
super.method();
}
...
}
public class OneThatContainsDesiredMethod {
public void method() {...}
...
}
For instance, you can create org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner class in your application so this class should be loaded before the real one from jar. Then rewrite methods or constructors.
Attention: This is absolute hack, and it is highly NOT recommended to use but it's WORKING! Using of this approach is dangerous because of possible issues with class loaders. Also this may cause issues each time you will update library that contains overwritten class.
#Jon Skeet Nice explanation.
IMO if some one wants to call super.super method then one must be want to ignore the behavior of immediate parent, but want to access the grand parent behavior.
This can be achieved through instance Of. As below code
public class A {
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In A Class");
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
if (!(this instanceof C)) {
System.out.println("In B Class");
}
super.printClass();
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
protected void printClass() {
System.out.println("In C Class");
super.printClass();
}
}
Here is driver class,
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c = new C();
c.printClass();
}
}
Output of this will be
In C Class
In A Class
Class B printClass behavior will be ignored in this case.
I am not sure about is this a ideal or good practice to achieve super.super, but still it is working.
Look at this Github project, especially the objectHandle variable. This project shows how to actually and accurately call the grandparent method on a grandchild.
Just in case the link gets broken, here is the code:
import lombok.val;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.lang.invoke.*;
/*
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Please don't actually do this... :P
*/
public class ImplLookupTest {
private MethodHandles.Lookup getImplLookup() throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException {
val field = MethodHandles.Lookup.class.getDeclaredField("IMPL_LOOKUP");
field.setAccessible(true);
return (MethodHandles.Lookup) field.get(null);
}
#Test
public void test() throws Throwable {
val lookup = getImplLookup();
val baseHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Base.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
Sub.class);
val objectHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Object.class, "toString",
MethodType.methodType(String.class),
// Must use Base.class here for this reference to call Object's toString
Base.class);
val sub = new Sub();
Assert.assertEquals("Sub", sub.toString());
Assert.assertEquals("Base", baseHandle.invoke(sub));
Assert.assertEquals(toString(sub), objectHandle.invoke(sub));
}
private static String toString(Object o) {
return o.getClass().getName() + "#" + Integer.toHexString(o.hashCode());
}
public class Sub extends Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Sub";
}
}
public class Base {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Base";
}
}
}
Happy Coding!!!!
I would put the super.super method body in another method, if possible
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
protected String DescribeMe() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe();
}
}
Or if you cannot change the super-super class, you can try this:
class SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return "I am super super";
}
}
class SuperClass extends SuperSuperClass {
public String toString() {
return DescribeMe(super.toString());
}
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return "I am super";
}
}
class ChildClass extends SuperClass {
protected String DescribeMe(string fromSuper) {
return fromSuper;
}
}
In both cases, the
new ChildClass().toString();
results to "I am super super"
It would seem to be possible to at least get the class of the superclass's superclass, though not necessarily the instance of it, using reflection; if this might be useful, please consider the Javadoc at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getSuperclass()
public class A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "A";
}
}
public class B extends A {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "B";
}
}
public class C extends B {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "C";
}
}
public class D extends C {
#Override
public String toString() {
String result = "";
try {
result = this.getClass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().getSuperclass().newInstance().toString();
} catch (InstantiationException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(D.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
return result;
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
D d = new D();
System.out.println(d);
}
}
run:
A
BUILD SUCCESSFUL (total time: 0 seconds)
I have had situations like these when the architecture is to build common functionality in a common CustomBaseClass which implements on behalf of several derived classes.
However, we need to circumvent common logic for specific method for a specific derived class. In such cases, we must use a super.super.methodX implementation.
We achieve this by introducing a boolean member in the CustomBaseClass, which can be used to selectively defer custom implementation and yield to default framework implementation where desirable.
...
FrameworkBaseClass (....) extends...
{
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodX(...)
...
methodN(...){...}
}
/* CustomBaseClass overrides default framework functionality for benefit of several derived classes.*/
CustomBaseClass(...) extends FrameworkBaseClass
{
private boolean skipMethodX=false;
/* implement accessors isSkipMethodX() and setSkipMethodX(boolean)*/
methodA(...){...}
methodB(...){...}
...
methodN(...){...}
methodX(...){
if (isSkipMethodX()) {
setSKipMethodX(false);
super.methodX(...);
return;
}
... //common method logic
}
}
DerivedClass1(...) extends CustomBaseClass
DerivedClass2(...) extends CustomBaseClass
...
DerivedClassN(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
DerivedClassX(...) extends CustomBaseClass...
{
methodX(...){
super.setSKipMethodX(true);
super.methodX(...);
}
}
However, with good architecture principles followed in framework as well as app, we could avoid such situations easily, by using hasA approach, instead of isA approach. But at all times it is not very practical to expect well designed architecture in place, and hence the need to get away from solid design principles and introduce hacks like this.
Just my 2 cents...
IMO, it's a clean way to achieve super.super.sayYourName() behavior in Java.
public class GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(){
System.out.println("Grandma Fedora");
}
}
public class Mama extends GrandMa {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName();
}else {
System.out.println("Mama Stephanida");
}
}
}
public class Daughter extends Mama {
public void sayYourName(boolean lie){
if(lie){
super.sayYourName(lie);
}else {
System.out.println("Little girl Masha");
}
}
}
public class TestDaughter {
public static void main(String[] args){
Daughter d = new Daughter();
System.out.print("Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns ");
d.sayYourName(true);
System.out.print("Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns ");
d.sayYourName(false);
}
}
Output:
Request to lie: d.sayYourName(true) returns Grandma Fedora
Request not to lie: d.sayYourName(false) returns Little girl Masha
I think this is a problem that breaks the inheritance agreement.
By extending a class you obey / agree its behavior, features
Whilst when calling super.super.method(), you want to break your own obedience agreement.
You just cannot cherry pick from the super class.
However, there may happen situations when you feel the need to call super.super.method() - usually a bad design sign, in your code or in the code you inherit !
If the super and super super classes cannot be refactored (some legacy code), then opt for composition over inheritance.
Encapsulation breaking is when you #Override some methods by breaking the encapsulated code.
The methods designed not to be overridden are marked
final.
In C# you can call a method of any ancestor like this:
public class A
internal virtual void foo()
...
public class B : A
public new void foo()
...
public class C : B
public new void foo() {
(this as A).foo();
}
Also you can do this in Delphi:
type
A=class
procedure foo;
...
B=class(A)
procedure foo; override;
...
C=class(B)
procedure foo; override;
...
A(objC).foo();
But in Java you can do such focus only by some gear. One possible way is:
class A {
int y=10;
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X!=A.class)
throw new Exception("Incorrect parameter of "+this.getClass().getName()+".foo("+X.getName()+")");
y++;
System.out.printf("A.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
}
void foo() throws Exception {
System.out.printf("A.foo()\n");
this.foo(this.getClass());
}
}
class B extends A {
int y=20;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==B.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("B.foo(%s) calls B.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
}
class C extends B {
int y=30;
#Override
void foo(Class X) throws Exception {
if(X==C.class) {
y++;
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s): y=%d\n",X.getName(),y);
} else {
System.out.printf("C.foo(%s) calls C.super.foo(%s)\n",X.getName(),X.getName());
super.foo(X);
}
}
void DoIt() {
try {
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo():\n");
foo();
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(B):\n");
foo(B.class);
Show();
System.out.printf("DoIt: foo(A):\n");
foo(A.class);
Show();
} catch(Exception e) {
//...
}
}
void Show() {
System.out.printf("Show: A.y=%d, B.y=%d, C.y=%d\n\n", ((A)this).y, ((B)this).y, ((C)this).y);
}
}
objC.DoIt() result output:
DoIt: foo():
A.foo()
C.foo(C): y=31
Show: A.y=10, B.y=20, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(B):
C.foo(B) calls C.super.foo(B)
B.foo(B): y=21
Show: A.y=10, B.y=21, C.y=31
DoIt: foo(A):
C.foo(A) calls C.super.foo(A)
B.foo(A) calls B.super.foo(A)
A.foo(A): y=11
Show: A.y=11, B.y=21, C.y=31
It is simply easy to do. For instance:
C subclass of B and B subclass of A. Both of three have method methodName() for example.
public abstract class A {
public void methodName() {
System.out.println("Class A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public void methodName() {
super.methodName();
System.out.println("Class B");
}
// Will call the super methodName
public void hackSuper() {
super.methodName();
}
}
public class C extends B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new C();
a.methodName();
}
#Override
public void methodName() {
/*super.methodName();*/
hackSuper();
System.out.println("Class C");
}
}
Run class C Output will be:
Class A
Class C
Instead of output:
Class A
Class B
Class C
If you think you are going to be needing the superclass, you could reference it in a variable for that class. For example:
public class Foo
{
public int getNumber()
{
return 0;
}
}
public class SuperFoo extends Foo
{
public static Foo superClass = new Foo();
public int getNumber()
{
return 1;
}
}
public class UltraFoo extends Foo
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println(new UltraFoo.getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().getNumber());
System.out.println(new SuperFoo().superClass.getNumber());
}
public int getNumber()
{
return 2;
}
}
Should print out:
2
1
0
public class SubSubClass extends SubClass {
#Override
public void print() {
super.superPrint();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubSubClass().print();
}
}
class SuperClass {
public void print() {
System.out.println("Printed in the GrandDad");
}
}
class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public void superPrint() {
super.print();
}
}
Output: Printed in the GrandDad
The keyword super is just a way to invoke the method in the superclass.
In the Java tutorial:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/super.html
If your method overrides one of its superclass's methods, you can invoke the overridden method through the use of the keyword super.
Don't believe that it's a reference of the super object!!! No, it's just a keyword to invoke methods in the superclass.
Here is an example:
class Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this); // It's a Cat! Not an animal!
System.out.println("Animal do sth.");
}
}
class Cat extends Animal {
public void doSth() {
System.out.println(this);
System.out.println("Cat do sth.");
super.doSth();
}
}
When you call cat.doSth(), the method doSth() in class Animal will print this and it is a cat.
Okay, so I'm not sure if this question already exists because I don't know how to format it, but here's the problem: can a same method produce different result depending on a constructor? (I apologize if I'm repeating the question or if it's a stupid question.)
For example, let's say that I have an interface MyInterface with function public void foo();. Let's say we have class:
public class MyClass implements MyInterface {
public MyClass() {
// I want foo() to print "Empty constructor" with sysout.
}
public MyClass(int x) {
// I want foo() to print "Constructor with int" with sysout.
}
}
So now, if create two references MyClass mc1 = new MyClass(); and MyClass mc2 = new MyClass(5); and then call mc1.foo(); and mc2.foo();, the result should be:
Empty constructor.
Constructor with int.
I tried with new MyInterface { #Override public void foo() { ... } } inside constructors but doesn't seem to work.
Yes. Store the variable and check it in the foo method.
public class MyClass implements MyInterface {
private int x;
public MyClass() {
// I want foo() to print "Empty constructor" with sysout.
}
public MyClass(int x) {
// I want foo() to print "Constructor with int" with sysout.
this.x = x;
}
public void foo(){
if(x > 0)
System.out.println("Constructor with int");
else
System.out.println("Empty constructor");
}
}
To answer the question: Not to my knowledge. Or at least not directly, you could start to read byte code and change it during run time, make it adapt-- so again, the answer is no.
Now the weird parts are the override and depending on constructor. It is not in the scope of overriding.
A method doing different things depending on the state of the Class is not too odd. However, making the method unique of how the class was instantiated I've never heard of. That being said, here is a fairly ugly solution to it.
public class Test
{
private final boolean intConstructorUsed;
public Test () {
intConstructorUsed = false;
}
public Test (int x) {
intConstructorUsed = true;
}
public void foo () {
if (intConstructorUsed == true) {
// do this
} else {
// do that
}
}
}
The foo method isn't that weird. The weird part is that you basically have to different implementations of foo depending on which constructor, you are sure you do not want an abstract class behind, with all shared methods except for one abstract void foo () that you override? Sure the classes will almost look identical, however they are not, as they do not share their foo ().
Yes, it's what's multiple constructors are designed to allow for - variation via object creation.
public class MyClass implements MyInterface {
private final String message;
public MyClass() {
message = "Empty constructor";
}
public MyClass(int x) {
message = "Constructor with int";
}
#Override
public void foo() {
System.out.println(message);
}
}
It's even threadsafe.
The thing to note here is that the implementation of the method is exactly the same, the variation is in the constructor. And it's the constructor which is called differently depending on what the caller wants to happen.
i currently have a problem with generics. i want to transfer existing java code into c#. can anybody tell me, how i can do following in c# ?
For example i have a class named module with a generic parameter which inherits from basicdata. i want to add many of this objects to a handler so that they all can be updated in a single method.
in java i have something like this:
public class BasicData
{
}
public abstract class Modul<T extends BasicData>
{
T value;
abstract void update(); // do something with the value
}
public class Handler
{
LinkedList<Modul<?>> modulCollection = new LinkedList<Data<?>>();
void add(Modul<?> m)
{
this.dataCollection.add(m);
}
void update(){
for(Modul<?> d : this.modulCollection){
d.update();
}
}
}
the list should contain various modul-objects, where the value field itself can have various types but they all inherit BasicData.
i searched a while, but i only found exotic solutions. is there no easy way to do the similar thing in c#? i dont want to rewrite my whole design.
at first i thought i could declare the list like this in c#:
LinkedList<Modul<BasicData>> collection;
void add(Modul<BasicData> m)
{
this.dataCollection.add(m);
}
and then add the various objects like this:
class DataImpl : Modul<int>
{
}
handler.add(new DataImpl());
but i found out that you cannot cast this Modul.
is there a solution to do something like that?
thanks in advance,
mick
C# does not have the ? wildcard mechanics as Java has - What is the equivalent of Java wildcards in C# generics, so there is no direct native solution for this problem.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
1. Use base non-generic class or interface for your Modul:
public abstract class ModulBase : BasicData
{
abstract void update(); // do something with the value
}
public abstract class Modul<T> : ModulBase ...
or
public interface IUpdateable
{
void Update();
}
public abstract class Modul<T> : BasicData, IUpdateable...
And use it like:
public class Handler
{
LinkedList<IUpdateable> modulCollection = new LinkedList<IUpdateable>();
void add<T>(Modul<T> m) // It is generic now
{
this.dataCollection.add(m);
}
void update(){
foreach (IUpdateable d in this.modulCollection){
d.update();
}
}
}
Your Handler.moduelCollection is no longer generic with such an approach, but in any case(even in Java) you would not have been able to access different generics in a simple manner without casting - and that is not the best way to handle different datatypes put into one collection.
You could try the same in C# like below:
public abstract class Module<T> where T : BasicData
{
}
I think I got a solution for you. It kinda uses what others and you said and combines it with something not mention here.
If you have class Foo
class Foo {
public virtual void Method1() {
//Do something
}
public void Method2() {
//Do something
}
//class code
}
Now, you have a class Bar which inherits from Foo
class Bar : Foo {
public override void Method1() {
//Do something
}
public new void Method2() {
//Do something
}
//class code
}
If you declare a variable of the class Bar and try to convert it to Foo, it is completely acceptable and you don't loose any data. However, the next time you want to use the extra properties, methods and variables, you will need to convert it back to Bar. Though, if common members are an override, they should behave as if they were called by a Bar variable, otherwise, if the object is cloned or cast backwards, the common members should behave as if they were called by an Foo instance.
For example:
Bar myBar = new Bar();
Foo myFoo = myBar; //Now myFoo and myBar refer to the same memory address
Foo myFoo2 = myBar.Clone() as Foo; //myFoo2 and myBar do not refer to the same memory address
//These should do exactly the same thing because Method1 is an override
myBar.Method1();
myFoo.Method1();
//These should not do exactly the same thing unless Method2 was not changed in Bar
myBar.Method2();
myFoo.Method2();
//These should do exactly the same thing because Method1 is an override
myBar.Method1();
myFoo2.Method1();
//These should not do exactly the same thing unless Method2 was not changed in Bar
myBar.Method2();
myFoo2.Method2();
Bar myBarConvertedBack = (Bar)myFoo; //No data lost
Now back to the question. Try this:
public abstract class Module<T> where T : BasicData {
protected T value;
public abstract void Update();
public virtual T Value {
get;
set;
}
}
public class Handler
{
LinkedList<Modul<BasicData>> modulCollection = new LinkedList<Data<BasicData>>();
pulic void Add(Modul<BasicData> m)
{
this.modulCollection.add(m);
}
public void Update() {
foreach (Modul<BasicData> d in this.modulCollection)
d.update();
}
}
Consider this class as possible derived class from Module:
public class Class1: Module<BasicData> {
public Class1(BasicData val) {
base.value = val;
}
public override void Update() {
//Do something here
}
public override BasicData Value {
get {
return base.value;
}
set {
base.value = value;
}
}
}
Also see more cases in stackoverflow in the Related or Linked to this question if it is clear. Furthermore, if I'm wrong somewhere correct me
I am trying right now to dig into anonymous classes and one question was just arised I'd prefer not to refer to much details and to pose my question straightforward: How can I invoke the method sizzle() in the following anonymous class:
public class Popcorn {
public void pop() {
System.out.println("popcorn");
}
}
class Food {
Popcorn p = new Popcorn() {
public void sizzle() {
System.out.println("anonymous sizzling popcorn");
}
public void pop() {
System.out.println("anonymous popcorn");
}
};
public void popIt() {
p.pop(); // OK, Popcorn has a pop() method
p.sizzle(); // Not Legal! Popcorn does not have sizzle()
}
}
It is known and definite in polymorphism rules that a refernce of a superclass cannot invoke methods of subclass without downcasting (even if it refers to an object of the given subclass). However in the above case what is the "key" to invoke the sizzle() method?
The sizzle() method simply cannot be accessed from the outside, because the class is anonymous.
The p reference is a type Popcorn, and that doesn't define sizzle().
Anonymous classes are meant to be one-shot, and are heavily used in some design patterns (like Observer) because Java doesn't have first class function, ie you can't pass function objects around.
I kind of didn't expect this to work, but it does:
new Object() {
public void foo() {}
}.foo();
The above will compile and work as expected. The explanation is that the type of the expression new Object() {} is the anonymous type that expression defines, not Object. However, you can't have a variable (or method parameter) of that type, which means that you can't invoke the method anywhere else except chained after the new expression.
Since this doesn't really solve your (unsolvable) problem, I admit it's more of a supplementary answer.
When you call p.sizzle(), you need to have the p variable to be of a type that has the sizzle() method.
The only way is to use a subclass or an interface.
You can even cast, if you don't want to change the type of p, but you can't cast to a anonymous type.
If you need that class only inside the Food class, you should declare it in there
class Food {
EdiblePopcorn p = new EdiblePopcorn() {
#Override
public void sizzle() {
System.out.println("anonymous sizzling popcorn");
}
#Override
public void pop() {
System.out.println("anonymous popcorn");
}
};
public void popIt() {
p.pop(); // OK, Popcorn has a pop() method
p.sizzle(); // Also legal! EdiblePopcorn now has sizzle()
}
private abstract class EdiblePopcorn extends Popcorn {
// if the sizzle body is always the same, you can declare it here.
void sizzle();
}
}