Related
Why can I not have a interface inside of a inner class? Why are they inherently static? Sorry if it's a stupid question, I've tried my best to google this again and again but I can't seem to wrap it around my head. As in why cannot I declare these in inner classes/local classes?
Also just as a confirmation, the reason we can have static final variables in a interface is because they do not specify the state or any of that sort of the implementation right? If we lose static and use just a final, we need a instance which makes no sense cause you can't instantiate a interface. Sorry, I really am confused, and I know I should just make another question but I think these two questions are somewhat related.
Think about what static means - "not related to a particular instance". So, as you point out, a static field of class Foo is a field that does not belong to any Foo instance, but rather belongs to the Foo class itself.
Now think about what an interface is - it's a contract, a list of methods that classes which implement it promise to provide. Another way of thinking about this is that an interface is a set of methods that is "not related to a particular class" - any class can implement it, as long as it provides those methods.
So, if an interface is not related to any particular class, clearly one could not be related to an instance of a class - right?
*Note, as #Owlstead points out, there are ways of defining interfaces within classes. But, for the purposes of wrapping your head around what an interface is (which seems to be what you're working on), I would ignore those possibilities for now as they distract from and possibly obscure the purpose of interfaces in general.
Why are they [interfaces] inherently static?
The difference between a static and a non-static nested class is in whether their instances have implicit references to enclosing instances (of the containing class), as well as to local variables from the containing scope. Before Java 8, there was no way for an interface to make use of such implicit references, because an interface could not initialize any non-static fields or provide any method implementations. (It still can't initialize non-static fields, though now it can provide default method implementations.) So before Java 8, there was no meaning in a non-static nested interface.
Also, from an implementation standpoint, these implicit references are implemented as an extra fields on the inner class, and they also require extra arguments to the inner-class constructor (in order to initialize these fields). Interfaces don't have fields, or constructors, so there's no way to implement this.
(Note: I don't usually recommend trying to understand language design decisions in terms of the implementation, because a single language feature can have many different correct implementations. But I think this is one case where understanding the implementation helps to understand the specification, hence the previous paragraph.)
Why can I not have a interface inside of a inner class?
Because interfaces are implicitly static: JLS §8.5.1:
A member interface is implicitly static (§9.1.1). It is permitted for the declaration of a member interface to redundantly specify the static modifier.
and you can't have non-final statics in an inner class.
Why are they implicitly static?
Because that's the way they designed it.
why cannot I declare these in inner classes/local classes?
Because they're implicitly static.
the reason we can have static final variables in a interface is because they do not specify the state or any of that sort of the implementation right?
Right.
If we lose static and use just a final, we need a instance
Right.
which makes no sense cause you can't instantiate a interface.
Yes you can. You can instantiate a class which implements the interface, or you can instantiate a method-local anonymous implementation of it. The real issue here is multiple inheritance of interfaces.
You cannot have an interface inside of an inner class because an inner class only exists within the context of an instance of an 'outer class'. Since this is the case, your interface would be de facto non-static.
You can, however have an interface inside of a nested class. See #owlstead answer. By placing the 'static' keyword on a the declaration of an 'inner class', it becomes a first class citizen, referencable from outside the outer class and (mostly) independent of the context of the outer class. Nested classes can be instantiated outside of the outer class; inner classes cannot.
After Java 16 release we can have static members inside Inner classes and static variables can be declared if they are final or effectively final. See this image
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/language/java-language-changes.html#GUID-8FD2B5E3-46C7-4C6C-8E8A-64AB49ABF855
class Orange{
Orange(){
}
}
What is the difference between the usage of the modifier - in this case, package-private - in front of the class and in front of the constructor? I think the modifier in front of the constructor means it is allowed to instantiate an instance of the class Orange. But what about the modifier in front of the class?
To start with there are 4 access levels created by 3 access modifiers.
public - accessible everywhere
protected - accessible in the same package and in the children
default - accessible only in the same package
private - accessible only in the same class.
You are correct about - Modifiers at the level of constructors are directly related to the instantiation of the class.
Modifiers at the level of Class decide the accessibility of the Class.
First, to assuage any fears, the code you've provided is perfectly valid Java syntax.
In effect, you've created a class that can only be instantiated/used by other classes in the default package. It would also work if you defined it in a package (e.g. package foo;) since only the classes in package foo could see this class).
Now, to the crux of the question.
There are different ways to control access to fields and members. and they each do different things.
private visibility is the least visible. Only the defining class can access the field.
No modifier, or package private is the second least visible. The defining class and all classes within the package may access the field, but subclasses and the rest of the world cannot.
protected is the second most visible. Only other classes are prohibited from accessing the field.
public is the most visible. Everything can access the field.
Modifiers at the level of the class get interesting. This comes from the Java Language Specification, §8.1.1:
The access modifier public (§6.6) pertains only to top level classes
(§7.6) and to member classes (§8.5), not to local classes (§14.3) or
anonymous classes (§15.9.5).
The access modifiers protected and private (§6.6) pertain only to
member classes within a directly enclosing class or enum declaration
(§8.5).
The modifier static pertains only to member classes (§8.5.1), not to
top level or local or anonymous classes.
It is a compile-time error if the same modifier appears more than once
in a class declaration.
If two or more (distinct) class modifiers appear in a class
declaration, then it is customary, though not required, that they
appear in the order consistent with that shown above in the production
for ClassModifier.
In general, a class declaration appears something like this:
ClassDeclaration:
NormalClassDeclaration
EnumDeclaration
NormalClassDeclaration:
ClassModifiers(opt) class Identifier TypeParameters(opt)
Super(opt) Interfaces(opt) ClassBody
Anything with (opt) is considered optional.
So, what does this pare down to?
The JLS mandates that a class does not need a [class] modifier.
The JLS mandates that, if a [class] modifier is present, then it follows one of these rules:
If the modifier is public, then it is only applicable to top level classes and member classes.
If the modifier is protected or private, then it is only applicable to member classes within a directly enclosing class or enumeration.
The static modifier may appear, but is only applicable to member classes.
Constructors have a similar rule set.
ConstructorDeclaration:
ConstructorModifiers(opt) ConstructorDeclarator
Throws(opt) ConstructorBody
ConstructorDeclarator:
TypeParameters(opt) SimpleTypeName ( FormalParameterList(opt) )
Again, this breaks down to:
The JLS mandates that a constructor does not need a [constructor] modifier.
The JLS mandates that a constructor modifier cannot contain abstract, static, final, native, strictfp, or synchronized.
The JLS mandates, if no access modifier is specified for the constructor of a normal class, the constructor has default access (§8.8.3, emphasis mine).
You can only declare a public or default class (in case of top level classes only) in Java and these modifiers decide the accessiblity of the class.
I also suggest you to see "Why can't a class or an interface receive private or protected access modifiers?"
Now as for as constructor concerns, a constructor will have aaccess-control of type default when no access-modifier is defined explicitly. So this constructor will have a Package Level Access. Only those class which are defined within that package as that of the class with this default constructor will be able to access it. See "Aren't Java constructors public by default?"
If the constructor is made private, then only the code within that class can access this.
For a better understanding of modifiers, you need to see "Access Modifiers In Java"
Modifier of class defines who can access the class. For example public class can be accessed by classes from any package, if no modifier is written the class can be accessed by classes from the same package only.
Modifier of constructor, method and field has the same meaning. However private and protected have more sense. Private can be accessed from the current class only. Protected from its subclasses as far as from just classes from the same package.
Concerning to your question about constructor. Class can have several constructors. Some of them can be private, some other public. You are right that there is no sense to make constructor public if class is package protected: no-one outside package can call this class anyway.
This is exactly like writing public constructors for abstract classes. Since abstract class cannot be instantiated itself its constructors should be protected or private although compiler does not care about this.
BTW using default package is not commonly used and not recommended technique.
The use and types of class level modifiers:
http://javapapers.com/core-java/access-modifiers-in-java-explain/
The use and types of constructor level modifiers:
http://www.careercup.com/question?id=296844#commentThread302715
Class modifiers work similarly to method modifiers. Public, private, final, abstract, etc. work.
Public allows the class and its methods to be accessed by classes from any package.
No modifier only allows classes to be access from it's defined package.
Private would prevent all access (no point to this if using with a top-level class).
Abstract classes allow you to create child classes derived from the parent (abstract) class. For example, you can make an Abstract Shape class and have a Rectangle class extend shape, inheriting all its methods, variables, and forcing it to define any abstract methods.
Access Modifiers:
Public - {Can access anywhere in the project}
Private - {Can access only inside the class}
Protected - {Can access within the package and sub classes}
Default - {can access within the package}
Non-Access Modifiers:
Static - {for creating class variable and method}
Final - {for creating finalized variable and method}
Abstract - {for creating abstract method and class}
Synchronized - {for threads}
Some brief discussion on the above modifiers in this link. Refer it for the better understanding.
I find the best visibility level in Java to be the default visibility i.e. package visibility, because it enables unit test classes to access all the methods, if the test is placed in the same package as the main class.
Also package visibility is shorter to write since you can omit the visibility declaration, so there is less boiler plate.
The second best visibility level is protected, since in some cases you can create your test classes as sub-classes of your main class. However, as stated before, package visibility works better in most cases, if you use packages properly.
Third, typically if you run Sonar and do code review and static analysis on large projects, I have found out that typically 80% of the methods are public, and 20% are private/protected. Thus, the main idea of using private or protected methods is to protect the data/properties from being accessed by bypassing the accessors. Most of the methods will be typically public anyways.
The most useless visibility level (but unfortunately commonly used) is private as it's impossible to test (without using Reflection and modifying the visibility to something else). Also, private prohibits code re-use in sub-classes, which is the main idea of using object oriented paradigm in the first place, and thus should be avoided. For the same reasons keyword final should be avoided in most cases.
Thus, I find your example to be the best practice how to define the visibility levels, except that your constructor is not public :). However, you are missing the package declaration and unit tests.
So I have looked around google and SO , I cannot find a example or explanation of : What is the purpose of static final methods in enum?
What I understand :
Methods declare static can be accessed like function/procedural languages.
final means you can't override it. Can't change the reference. As assylias pointed out in comments static can't be overridden either.
enums can't be subclassed, explained here.
So what's the point of static final methods in enums if it will never be overridden since there won't be a subclass?
By making a static method final, you prevent it from being hidden (only instance methods can be overriden) by a subclass.
Since enum can't be subclassed, making a static method final is superfluous but not forbidden.
Note: technically, each enum constant that has a class body implicitly defines an anonymous class that extends the enum. But since inner classes may not declare static methods, the static final method could not be hidden in such a constant's class body.
It's easy to see why static methods make sense, so I guess the question is about the final modifier.
final serves no purpose here, except maybe make the code a bit easier to read, but not by much.
It's similar to the way interface methods are often written as public void foo();, even though interface members are always public anyway.
In Java Enum types are used to represent fixed set of constants and making it static final helps its initialisation only once, single copy to be shared across all instances, accessing the variable with the class name and with final its more like a read-only
When you declare instances of an enum you can override the enum's methods, essentially enum instances are implemented as (or thought of) as subclasses. static methods can't be overridden in any case but the implication in the OP and other answers that final is superfluous for an enum is false.
Alright, I know it's the rule:
According to JLS: 8.1.3 Inner Classes and Enclosing Instances, inner
classes may not declare static initializers or member interfaces.
Inner classes may not declare static members, unless they are
compile-time constant fields.
According to 8.5.2 Static Member Type Declarations, "Member interfaces
are always implicitly static. It is permitted but not required for the
declaration of a member interface to explicitly list the static
modifier". They are always top-level, not inner.
I just wonder why. What may happen if we are allowed to declare interface within an inner class? Won't inner class become top-level class if I put it into another Class file?
Won't inner class become top-level class if I put it into another Class file?
No, it still is an inner class, which the filename indicates (IIRC it's OuterClass$InnerClass.class).
Inner classes have access to the outer class' attributes, i.e. they depend on their outer class' instance. With interfaces you couldn't do this. Think of a completely unrelated class that would have to be created by the corresponding outer class' instance. How would that be done if the outer class doesn't know who implements that interface?
What you can do is declare static interfaces in your outer class, thus merely using the outer as a namespace:
public class OuterClass {
public static interface InnerInterface { //protected and private would be fine too, depending on what makes sense
}
}
Edit: actually, I misread the question and since interfaces are static anyways, here's an updated code snippet:
public class OuterClass {
public static InnerClass { //static inner class making OuterClass just be a namespace
public interface InnerInnerInterface { //protected and private would be fine too, depending on what makes sense
}
}
}
As a workaround you could define an abstract inner inner class, with the drawback that you have to stick to the single inheritance constraint.
Think of it in terms of static vs. non-static context. A "top-level" class establishes a static context because it can be accessed without any enclosing instance. I.e. you can access top-level classes from a main method. The same applies to any static members of a top-level class. An inner class, however, neither exists in* nor establishes any static context. Therefore it can't have any static members, and it can only be accessed via an instance of its containing class, like constructors and other instance members. From a main method, you wouldn't be able to say Outer.Inner.SOME_FIELD because members of an inner class only have meaning with respect to the containing class.
*sort of
By definition a top level class and its inner class(es) are tightly coupled. Interfaces are a means of reducing coupling.
Inner classes are supposed to be implementation details of the top-level class and should therefore be invisible to the client. Any functionality you wish to access of an inner class should be done so through the top-level class, because conceptually speaking, that functionality should be visible only as functionality of the top-level class, so that the class designer can swap out or otherwise drastically change inner classes without breaking clients' builds.
I just started reading a Java book and wondered; which access specifier is the default one, if none is specified?
The default visibility is known as “package-private” (though you can't use this explicitly), which means the field will be accessible from inside the same package to which the class belongs.
As mdma pointed out, it isn't true for interface members though, for which the default is "public".
See Java's Access Specifiers
The default specifier depends upon context.
For classes, and interface declarations, the default is package private. This falls between protected and private, allowing only classes in the same package access. (protected is like this, but also allowing access to subclasses outside of the package.)
class MyClass // package private
{
int field; // package private field
void calc() { // package private method
}
}
For interface members (fields and methods), the default access is public. But note that the interface declaration itself defaults to package private.
interface MyInterface // package private
{
int field1; // static final public
void method1(); // public abstract
}
If we then have the declaration
public interface MyInterface2 extends MyInterface
{
}
Classes using MyInterface2 can then see field1 and method1 from the super interface, because they are public, even though they cannot see the declaration of MyInterface itself.
If no access specifier is given, it's package-level access (there is no explicit specifier for this) for classes and class members. Interface methods are implicitly public.
The default visibility (no keyword) is package which means that it will be available to every class that is located in the same package.
Interesting side note is that protected doesn't limit visibility to the subclasses but also to the other classes in the same package
It depends on what the thing is.
Top-level types (that is, classes, enums, interfaces, and annotation types not declared inside another type) are package-private by default. (JLS §6.6.1)
In classes, all members (that means fields, methods, and nested type declarations) and constructors are package-private by default. (JLS §6.6.1)
When a class has no explicitly declared constructor, the compiler inserts a default zero-argument constructor which has the same access specifier as the class. (JLS §8.8.9) The default constructor is commonly misstated as always being public, but in rare cases that's not equivalent.
In enums, constructors are private by default. Indeed, enum contructors must be private, and it is an error to specify them as public or protected. Enum constants are always public, and do not permit any access specifier. Other members of enums are package-private by default. (JLS §8.9)
In interfaces and annotation types, all members (again, that means fields, methods, and nested type declarations) are public by default. Indeed, members of interfaces and annotation types must be public, and it is an error to specify them as private or protected. (JLS §9.3 to 9.5)
Local classes are named classes declared inside a method, constructor, or initializer block. They are scoped to the {..} block in which they are declared and do not permit any access specifier. (JLS §14.3) Using reflection, you can instantiate local classes from elsewhere, and they are package-private, although I'm not sure if that detail is in the JLS.
Anonymous classes are custom classes created with new which specify a class body directly in the expression. (JLS §15.9.5) Their syntax does not permit any access specifier. Using reflection, you can instantiate anonymous classes from elsewhere, and both they and their generated constructors are are package-private, although I'm not sure if that detail is in the JLS.
Instance and static initializer blocks do not have access specifiers at the language level (JLS §8.6 & 8.7), but static initializer blocks are implemented as a method named <clinit> (JVMS §2.9), so the method must, internally, have some access specifier. I examined classes compiled by javac and by Eclipse's compiler using a hex editor and found that both generate the method as package-private. However, you can't call <clinit>() within the language because the < and > characters are invalid in a method name, and the reflection methods are hardwired to deny its existence, so effectively its access specifier is no access. The method can only be called by the VM, during class initialization. Instance initializer blocks are not compiled as separate methods; their code is copied into each constructor, so they can't be accessed individually, even by reflection.
default is a keyword that is used as an access modifier for methods and variables.
Using this access modifier will make your class, variable, method or constructor acessible from own class or package, it will be also is set if no access modifier is present.
Access Levels
Modifier Class Package Subclass EveryWhere
public Y Y Y Y
protected Y Y Y N
default Y Y N N
private Y N N N
if you use a default in a interface you will be able to implement a method there like this exemple
public interface Computer {
default void Start() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Error");
}
}
However it will only works from the 8 Java version
Official Documentation
Access Modifiers in Java
See here for more details. The default is none of private/public/protected, but a completely different access specification. It's not widely used, and I prefer to be much more specific in my access definitions.
the default access specifier is package.Classes can access the members of other classes in the same package.but outside the package it appears as private
Here is a quote about package level visibility from an interview with James Gosling, the creator of Java:
Bill Venners: Java has four access levels. The default is package. I
have always wondered if making package access default was convenient
because the three keywords that people from C++ already knew about
were private, protected, and public. Or if you had some particular
reason that you felt package access should be the default.
James Gosling: A package is generally a set of things that are kind of
written together. So generically I could have done one of two things.
One was force you always to put in a keyword that gives you the
domain. Or I could have had a default value. And then the question is,
what makes a sensible default? And I tend to go for what is the least
dangerous thing.
So public would have been a really bad thing to make the default.
Private would probably have been a bad thing to make a default, if
only because people actually don't write private methods that often.
And same thing with protected. And in looking at a bunch of code that
I had, I decided that the most common thing that was reasonably safe
was in the package. And C++ didn't have a keyword for that, because
they didn't have a notion of packages.
But I liked it rather than the friends notion, because with friends
you kind of have to enumerate who all of your friends are, and so if
you add a new class to a package, then you generally end up having to
go to all of the classes in that package and update their friends,
which I had always found to be a complete pain in the butt.
But the friends list itself causes sort of a versioning problem. And
so there was this notion of a friendly class. And the nice thing that
I was making that the default -- I'll solve the problem so what should
the keyword be?
For a while there actually was a friendly keyword. But because all the
others start with "P," it was "phriendly" with a "PH." But that was
only in there for maybe a day.
http://www.artima.com/intv/gosling2P.html
Update Java 8 usage of default keyword:
As many others have noted The default visibility (no keyword)
the field will be accessible from inside the same package to which the
class belongs.
Not to be confused with the new Java 8 feature (Default Methods) that allows an interface to provide an implementation when its labeled with the default keyword.
See: Access modifiers
There is an access modifier called "default" in JAVA, which allows direct instance creation of that entity only within that package.
Here is a useful link:
Java Access Modifiers/Specifiers
First of all let me say one thing there is no such term as "Access specifier" in java. We should call everything as "Modifiers". As we know that final, static, synchronised, volatile.... are called as modifiers, even Public, private, protected, default, abstract should also be called as modifiers . Default is such a modifiers where physical existence is not there but no modifiers is placed then it should be treated as default modifiers.
To justify this take one example:
public class Simple{
public static void main(String args[]){
System.out.println("Hello Java");
}
}
Output will be: Hello Java
Now change public to private and see what compiler error you get:
It says "Modifier private is not allowed here"
What conclusion is someone can be wrong or some tutorial can be wrong but compiler cannot be wrong.
So we can say there is no term access specifier in java everything is modifiers.