Imagine I created two associated classes (Building and Person). A building can accommodate n people (persons) and a person can only be in a building at a time.
The code (just the relevant part of it) so far is:
public class Building {
//some attributes like name, location...
private List<Person> person;
//constructor
//some methods
}
public class Person {
//some attributes like name, age...
private Building building;
//constructor
//some methods
}
Ok, now I need to have more detail on Person so I extend this class to other two (Doctors and Parents), which have their own methods, some of them specifics for each Class.
The code:
public class Parent extends Person {
// some specific attributs
public boolean born;
//constructor
//some methods
public void setChildBorn() {
this.born = true;
}
}
public class Doctor extends Person {
// some specific attributs
// constructor
// some methods
public void maternityWard() {
//HERE THE QUESTION
}
}
So, once arrived here, from maternityWardmethod I would need to:
Iterate over the Building's Person-ListArray where the Doctor is (that's ok, there's a method for this to get them).
For those objects on the ListArray who are instance of Parent (I can use instanceof Parent, so no point here), call the method setChildBorn().
A brief schema would be this:
Building < association > Person
/ extends \
Doctor Parent
And at last, the question: Is it possible to call an exclusive method in a subclass from another subclass?
If yes, how would be that code?
In case it's possible, I believe that there's some casting here, but I'm not sure how to do this.
Thanks in advance for your help.
You can do this using instanceof operator and casting
public class Doctor extends Person {
//..some code
public void maternityWard() {
for(Person p : building.getPersonList()){
if(p instanceof Parent){
Parent parent = (Parent)p;
parent.setChildBorn();
}
}
}
P.S.
Though this will help you invoking the method of Parent but this is a Bad Practice, though good to understand the language semantics and syntax.
Few good application design practices
higher and lower label modules should depend on only Abstractions. Depending on concrete class and not on the abstractions injects high coupling. Application should be designed to achieve low coupling and high cohesiveness between classes.
Encapsulation (Building should not expose its state directly for access and modification, but should rather expose methods to handle its state)
instanceof and casting is a code smell, avoid both of them.
You can, but you always have the risk of getting a ClassCastException if there was a Doctor object in the person list, and you forgot to use instanceof. If not, lets say you store the Person in a variable called p. Then, to access the method do:
((Parent) p).setChildBorn();
Is it possible to call an exclusive method in a subclass from another
subclass?
An exclusive method's visibility in other subclasses (i.e. sibling classes) is the same as that in a non-sibling class and it follows the same access control as applicable for any non-sibling class.
Related
I have the following classes
class Person {
private String name;
void getName(){...}}
class Student extends Person{
String class;
void getClass(){...}
}
class Teacher extends Person{
String experience;
void getExperience(){...}
}
This is just a simplified version of my actual schema. Initially I don't know the type of person that needs to be created, so the function that handles the creation of these objects takes the general Person object as a parameter.
void calculate(Person p){...}
Now I want to access the methods of the child classes using this parent class object. I also need to access parent class methods from time to time so I CANNOT MAKE IT ABSTRACT.
I guess I simplified too much in the above example, so here goes , this is the actual structure.
class Question {
// private attributes
:
private QuestionOption option;
// getters and setters for private attributes
:
public QuestionOption getOption(){...}
}
class QuestionOption{
....
}
class ChoiceQuestionOption extends QuestionOption{
private boolean allowMultiple;
public boolean getMultiple(){...}
}
class Survey{
void renderSurvey(Question q) {
/*
Depending on the type of question (choice, dropdwn or other, I have to render
the question on the UI. The class that calls this doesnt have compile time
knowledge of the type of question that is going to be rendered. Each question
type has its own rendering function. If this is for choice , I need to access
its functions using q.
*/
if(q.getOption().getMultiple())
{...}
}
}
The if statement says "cannot find getMultiple for QuestionOption." OuestionOption has many more child classes that have different types of methods that are not common among the children (getMultiple is not common among the children)
NOTE: Though this is possible, it is not at all recommended as it kind of destroys the reason for inheritance. The best way would be to restructure your application design so that there are NO parent to child dependencies. A parent should not ever need to know its children or their capabilities.
However.. you should be able to do it like:
void calculate(Person p) {
((Student)p).method();
}
a safe way would be:
void calculate(Person p) {
if(p instanceof Student) ((Student)p).method();
}
A parent class should not have knowledge of child classes. You can implement a method calculate() and override it in every subclass:
class Person {
String name;
void getName(){...}
void calculate();
}
and then
class Student extends Person{
String class;
void getClass(){...}
#Override
void calculate() {
// do something with a Student
}
}
and
class Teacher extends Person{
String experience;
void getExperience(){...}
#Override
void calculate() {
// do something with a Teacher
}
}
By the way. Your statement about abstract classes is confusing. You can call methods defined in an abstract class, but of course only of instances of subclasses.
In your example you can make Person abstract and the use getName() on instanced of Student and Teacher.
Many of the answers here are suggesting implementing variant types using "Classical Object-Oriented Decomposition". That is, anything which might be needed on one of the variants has to be declared at the base of the hierarchy. I submit that this is a type-safe, but often very bad, approach. You either end up exposing all internal properties of all the different variants (most of which are "invalid" for each particular variant) or you end up cluttering the API of the hierarchy with tons of procedural methods (which means you have to recompile every time a new procedure is dreamed up).
I hesitate to do this, but here is a shameless plug for a blog post I wrote that outlines about 8 ways to do variant types in Java. They all suck, because Java sucks at variant types. So far the only JVM language that gets it right is Scala.
http://jazzjuice.blogspot.com/2010/10/6-things-i-hate-about-java-or-scala-is.html
The Scala creators actually wrote a paper about three of the eight ways. If I can track it down, I'll update this answer with a link.
UPDATE: found it here.
Why don't you just write an empty method in Person and override it in the children classes? And call it, when it needs to be:
void caluculate(Person p){
p.dotheCalculate();
}
This would mean you have to have the same method in both children classes, but i don't see why this would be a problem at all.
I had the same situation and I found a way around with a bit of engineering as follows - -
You have to have your method in parent class without any parameter and use - -
Class<? extends Person> cl = this.getClass(); // inside parent class
Now, with 'cl' you can access all child class fields with their name and initialized values by using - -
cl.getDeclaredFields(); cl.getField("myfield"); // and many more
In this situation your 'this' pointer will reference your child class object if you are calling parent method through your child class object.
Another thing you might need to use is Object obj = cl.newInstance();
Let me know if still you got stucked somewhere.
class Car extends Vehicle {
protected int numberOfSeats = 1;
public int getNumberOfSeats() {
return this.numberOfSeats;
}
public void printNumberOfSeats() {
// return this.numberOfSeats;
System.out.println(numberOfSeats);
}
}
//Parent class
class Vehicle {
protected String licensePlate = null;
public void setLicensePlate(String license) {
this.licensePlate = license;
System.out.println(licensePlate);
}
public static void main(String []args) {
Vehicle c = new Vehicle();
c.setLicensePlate("LASKF12341");
//Used downcasting to call the child method from the parent class.
//Downcasting = It’s the casting from a superclass to a subclass.
Vehicle d = new Car();
((Car) d).printNumberOfSeats();
}
}
One possible solution can be
class Survey{
void renderSurvey(Question q) {
/*
Depending on the type of question (choice, dropdwn or other, I have to render
the question on the UI. The class that calls this doesnt have compile time
knowledge of the type of question that is going to be rendered. Each question
type has its own rendering function. If this is for choice , I need to access
its functions using q.
*/
if(q.getOption() instanceof ChoiceQuestionOption)
{
ChoiceQuestionOption choiceQuestion = (ChoiceQuestionOption)q.getOption();
boolean result = choiceQuestion.getMultiple();
//do something with result......
}
}
}
So as far as I understand the Substitution principle doesn't allow a subclass to have fields which have a weaker access privilege because otherwise it could potentially violate information hiding and also because a subclass should always offer at least the same behavior of its parent one. That makes sense to me.
but at the same time I don't understand how it could make sense to extend a field or method access level? I have a private field in the parent class while public in the child class. Could you give me an example of why this makes sense? Or is it just because of a design choice?
it is not true as you mentioned for private field. you can't extend a private field from super class to subclass. if you declare a field with that same name, you define a new field for that subclass.
However, you can change package access and protected access to something more like public and this doesn't make any problem because super class doesn't provide that for it's subclass but subclass maybe change its behavior depend on its state and wants to provide that for other users.
For example when it protected you can only access that in that package and in subclass. however maybe you do some works in it that doesn't good for public implementation. (if you make something public, you must support it for future release) however in subclass you might want to override it and add some new feature to it and provide a result that is usable by other people.
A good example (always java provide best example):
If you see, java declared this in Object class:
class Object {
protected native Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException;
}
so no one can call clone() on it. it is good because maybe I don't want to provide clone() for my class. however if I want it, it is easy to override that and make it public for other people and also call super.clone() in it for use feature which is implemented before for create a new copy of my class. Isn't great?!
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/hidevariables.html
The parent and child have 2 separate instances of test. As you can see in this example.
public class Main {
public class Parent{
private String test = "parent test";
String getTest() {
return test;
}
}
public class Child extends Parent {
public String test = "child test"; // defining it here hides the parent field
#Override
String getTest() {
return test;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main main = new Main();
Parent parent = main.new Parent();
System.out.println(parent.getTest());
Child child = main.new Child();
System.out.println(child.getTest());
}
}
Output:
parent test
child test
it could potentially violate information hiding
Information hiding, while a good practice, has little to do with the Liskov substitution principle.
(A) subclass should always offer at least the same behavior of its parent (class).
This is true, but is achieved by disallowing a stricter access modifier on an inherited member. A weaker access modifier surfaces additional behavior.
class A {
private int lastInput;
protected int getLastInput() {
return lastInput;
}
public int getSquareValue(int input) {
lastInput = input;
return getLastInput()*getLastInput();
}
}
class B extends A {
public int getLastInput() {
return super.getLastInput();
}
}
A aa = new A();
B bb = new B();
A ab = bb;
// All behaviors of A exist in B as well.
// B can be substituted for A.
System.out.println(aa.getSquareValue(5)); // 25
System.out.println(ab.getSquareValue(5)); // 25
// B also has new behaviors that A did not surface.
// This does not prevent B from substituting for A.
System.out.println(bb.getLastInput()); // 5
I'm implementing a visitor pattern for a particular domain, where I have some BaseVisitor, ie:
public class BaseVisitor {
someC someInstance;
visitA(...) {
...
}
visitB(...) {
...
}
}
and a class that changes one particular functionality, ExtendedVisitor, ie:
public class ExtendedVisitor extends BaseVisitor {
visitA(...) {
...
}
}
This ExtendedVisitor has a different implementation of visitA.
What I want to do is that when I'm in visitB of BaseVisitor, in special case I want to use the method of the ExtendedVisitor (visitA) as opposed to the regular visitA of the BaseVisitor itself. This works fine, ie.:
visitB(...) {
if (...)
new ExtendedVisitor().visitA();
else
visitA();
}
Now obviously, in the BaseVisitor there are many visit methods, and so the visitA of ExtendedVisitor will call them (ie. the original implementation of those methods - in BaseVisitor). The problem is that at this point I lost the instance of someInstance (ie. it is null). Is there a way for the two classes to share the variables? Ie. let the child use parent's variables?
Since you are calling to new ExtendedVisitor() you are creating a new instance of that class and of course someInstance will be null. You could create a constructor like
public ExtendedVisitor(someC someInstance ){
this.someInstance = someInstance
}
But it doesn't sound a great idea...
With your design you are forcing your parent class to know the functionality of its children classes. I see a coupling issue here. Probably you should rethink your code and use inheritance and polimorfism in a better way.
In the spirit of well designed OO, a certain class I am extending has marked one of its fields protected. This class has also generously provided a public setter, yet no getter.
I am extending this class with a base class that is in turn extended by several children. How can I restrict access to the protected variable from my children while still being able to manipulate it privately and set it publicly?
See example below:
public abstract class ThirdPartyClass {
protected Map propertyMap;
public void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap){
this.propertyMap= propertyMap;
}
// Other methods that use propertyMap.
}
public abstract class MyBaseClass extends ThirdPartyClass{
// Accessor methods for entries in propertyMap.
public getFoo(){
propertyMap.get("Foo");
}
public getBar(){
propertyMap.get("Bar");
}
// etc...
}
public class OneOfManyChildren extends MyBaseClass {
// Should only access propertyMap via methods in MyBaseClass.
}
I have already found that I can revoke access by making the field private final in MyBaseClass. However that also hinders using the setter provided by the super class.
I am able to circumvent that limitation with the "cleverness" below yet it also results in maintaining two copies of the same map as well as an O(n) operation to copy over every element.
public abstract class MyBaseClass extends ThirdPartyClass{
private final Map propertyMap = new HashMap(); // Revokes access for children.
/** Sets parent & grandparent maps. */
#Override
public final void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap){
super.setPropertyMap(propertyMap);
this.propertyMap.clear();
this.propertyMap.putAll(propertyMap);
}
}
Are there any better ways of accomplishing this?
Note: This is only one example of the real question: How to restrict access to protected fields without maintaining multiple copies?
Note: I also know that if the field were made private in the first place with a protected accessor, this would be a non-issue. Sadly I have no control over that.
Note: IS-A relatonship (inheritance) required.
Note: This could easily apply to any Collection, DTO, or complex object.
Metaphor for those misunderstanding the question:
This is akin to a grandparent having a cookie jar that they leave accessible to all family members and anyone else in their house (protected). A parent, with young children, enters the house and, for reasons of their own, wishes to prevent their children from digging into the cookie jar ad nauseam. Instead, the child should ask the parent for a chocolate chip cookie and see it magically appear; likewise for a sugar cookie or Oreo. They need never know that the cookies are all stored in the same jar or if there even is a jar (black box). This could be easily accomplished if the jar belonged to the parent, if the grandparent could be convinced to put away the cookies, or if the grandparents themselves did not need access. Short of creating and maintaining two identical jars, how can access be restricted for children yet unimpeded for the parent & grandparent?
This might not be possible for you, but if you could derive an interface from ThirdPartyClass and make ThirdPartyClass implement it ?
Then have MyBaseClass act as a decorator by implementing the interface by delegating to a private member ThirdPartyClassImpl.
I.e.
public interface ThirdParty ...
public class ThirdPartyClass implements ThirdParty
public class MyBaseClass implements ThirdParty {
private ThirdParty decorated = new ThirdPartyClass();
public class SubclassOne extends MyBaseClass....
etc
Ok, cheating mode on:
How about you overwrite de public setter and change the map implementation to a inner class of MyBaseClass. This implementation could throw a exception on all methods of map you dont want your children to access and your MyBaseClass could expose the methods they should use by using an internal method your map implementation...
Still has to solve how the ThirdPartyMethod will access those properties, but you could force your code to call a finalizationMethod on your MyBaseClass before use it... I'm just divagating here
EDIT
Like This:
public abstract class MyBaseClass extends ThirdPartyClass{
private class InnerMapImpl implements Map{
... Throw exception for all Map methods you dont want children to use
private Object internalGet(K key){
return delegate.get(key);
}
}
public void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap){
this.propertyMap= new InnerMapImpl(propertyMap);
}
public Object getFoo(){
return ((InnerMapImpl) propertyMap).internalGet("Foo");
}
}
Sadly, there's nothing you can do. If this field is protected, it is either a conscious design decision (a bad one IMO), or a mistake. Either way, there's nothing you can do now about it, as you cannot reduce the accessibility of a field.
I have already found that I can revoke access by making the field private final in MyBaseClass.
This isn't exactly true. What you are doing is called variable hiding. Since you are using the same variable name in your subclass, references to the propertyMap variable now point to your private variable in MyBaseClass. However, you can get around this variable hiding very easily, as shown in the code below:
public class A
{
protected String value = "A";
public String getValue ()
{
return value;
}
}
public class B extends A
{
private String value = "B";
}
public class C extends B
{
public C ()
{
// super.value = "C"; --> This isn't allowed, as B.value is private; however the next line works
((A)this).value = "C";
}
}
public class TestClass
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
A a = new A ();
B b = new B ();
C c = new C ();
System.out.println (new A ().getValue ()); // Prints "A"
System.out.println (new B ().getValue ()); // Prints "A"
System.out.println (new C ().getValue ()); // Prints "C"
}
}
So, there's no way you can "revoke" access to the protected class member in the super class ThirdPartyClass. There aren't a lot of options left to you:
If your child class do not need to know about the class hierarchy above MyBaseClass (i.e. they won't refer to ThirdPartyClass at all), and if you don't need them to be subclasses of ThirdPartyClass then you could make MyBaseClass a class which does not extend from ThirdPartyClass. Instead, MyBaseClass would hold an instance of ThirdPartyClass, and delegate all calls to this object. This way you can control which part of ThirdPartyClass's API you really expose to your subclasses.
public class MyBaseClass
{
private ThirdPartyClass myclass = new ThirdPartyClass ();
public void setPropertyMap (Map<?,?> propertyMap)
{
myclass.setPropertyMap (propertyMap);
}
}
If you need a direct access to the propertyMap member of ThirdPartyClass from MyBaseClass, then you could define a private inner class and use it to access the member:
public class MyBaseClass
{
private MyClass myclass = new MyClass ();
public void setPropertyMap (Map<?,?> propertyMap)
{
myclass.setPropertyMap (propertyMap);
}
private static class MyClass extends ThirdPartyClass
{
private Map<?,?> getPropertyMap ()
{
return propertyMap;
}
}
}
If the first solution doesn't apply to your case, then you should document exactly what subclasses of MyBaseClass can do, and what they shouldn't do, and hope they respect the contract described in your documentation.
I am able to circumvent that limitation with the "cleverness" below yet it also results in maintaining two copies of the same map as well as an O(n) operation to copy over every element.
Laf already pointed out, that this solution can easily be circumvented by casting the child classes into the third party class. But if this is ok for you and you just want to hide the protected parent map from your child classes without maintaining two copies of the map, you could try this:
public abstract class MyBaseClass extends ThirdPartyClass{
private Map privateMap;
public Object getFoo(){
return privateMap.get("Foo");
}
public Object getBar(){
return privateMap.get("Bar");
}
#Override
public final void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap) {
super.setPropertyMap(this.privateMap =propertyMap);
}
}
Note also, that it doesn't really matter, if the parents map is protected or not. If one really wants to access this field through a child class, one could always use reflection to access the field:
public class OneOfManyChildren extends MyBaseClass {
public void clearThePrivateMap() {
Map propertyMap;
try {
Field field =ThirdPartyClass.class.getDeclaredField("privateMap");
field.setAccessible(true);
propertyMap = (Map) field.get(this);
} catch (NoSuchFieldException | SecurityException | IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return;
}
propertyMap.clear();
}
}
So it actually comes down to the question, why you want the field not to be accessible by the child classes:
1) Is it just for convenience, so it is immediately clear how your api should be used? - then it is perhaps fine to simply hide the field from the sub classes.
2) Is it because of security reasons? Then you should definitely search for another solution and use a special SecurityManager that also prohibits accessing private fields through reflection...
That said there is perhaps another design you could try: Instead of extending the third party class, keep a final inner instance of this class and provide public access to the inner class like this:
public abstract class MyBaseClass {
private Map privateMap;
private final ThirdPartyClass thirdPartyClass = new ThirdPartyClass(){
public void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap) {
super.setPropertyMap(MyBaseClass.this.privateMap = propertyMap);
};
};
public Object getFoo(){
return privateMap.get("Foo");
}
public Object getBar(){
return privateMap.get("Bar");
}
public void setPropertyMap(Map propertyMap) {
thirdPartyClass.setPropertyMap(propertyMap);
}
public final ThirdPartyClass asThirdPartyClass(){
return this.thirdPartyClass;
}
}
Then, whenever you need to access the third party library with an instance of the third party class, you do something like this:
OneOfManyChildren child;
thirdpartyLibrary.methodThatRequiresThirdPartyClass(child.asThirdPartyClass());
What about creating another protected variable called propertyMap ? That should over shadow if for your child classes. You can also implement it such that calling any method on it will cause an exception.
However, as accessor methods are defined in the base class, they will not see your second shadowed version and still set it appropriately.
How can I restrict access to the protected variable from my children while still being able to manipulate it privately and set it publicly?
So you want the public to have more rights than you do? You can't do that since they could always just call the public method... it's public.
Visibility on variables is just like visibility on methods, you are not going to be able to reduce that visibility. Remember that protected variables are visible outside the direct subclass. It can be accessed from the parent by other members of the package See this Answer for Details
The ideal solution would be to mess with the parent level class. You have mentioned that making the object private is a non-starter, but if you have access to the class but just cannot downscope (perhaps due to existing dependencies), you can jiggle your class structure by abstracting out a common interface with the methods, and having both the ThirdPartyClass and your BaseClass use this interface. Or you can have your grandparent class have two maps, inner and outer, which point to the same map but the grandparent always uses the inner. This will allow the parent to override the outer without breaking the grandparent.
However, given that you call it a 3rd party class, I will assume you have no access at all to the base class.
If you are willing to break some functionality on the master interface, you can get around this with runtime exceptions (mentioned above). Basically, you can override the public variable to throw errors when they do something you do not like. This answer is mentioned above, but I would do it at the variable (Map) level instead of your interface level.
If you want to allow READ ONLY access top the map:
protected Map innerPropertyMap = propertyMap;
propertyMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap(innerPropertyMap)
You can obviously replace propertyMap with a custom implementation of map instead. However, this only really works if you want to disable for all callers on the map, disabling for only some callers would be a pain. (I am sure there is a way to do if(caller is parent) then return; else error; but it would be very very very messy). This means the parents use of the class will fail.
Remember, even if you want to hide it from children, if they add themselves to the same package, they can get around ANY restrictions you put with the following:
ThirdPartyClass grandparent = this;
// Even if it was hidden, by the inheritance properties you can now access this
// Assuming Same Package
grandparent.propertyMap.get("Parent-Blocked Chocolate Cookie")
Thus you have two options:
Modify the Parent Object. If you can modify this object (even if you can't make the field private), you have a few structural solutions you can pursue.
Change property to fail in certain use-cases. This will include access by the grandparent and the child, as the child can always get around the parent restrictions
Again, its easiest to think about it like a method: If someone can call it on a grandparent, they can call it on a grandchild.
Use a wrapper. A anti decorator pattern, that instead of adding new methods removes them by not providing a method to call it.
Take a look at this code (from here)
abstract class EntityA {
AssocA myA;
abstract void meet();
}
abstract class AssocA {
int something;
abstract void greet();
}
class AssocAConcrete extends AssocA {
void greet() {
System.out.println("hello");
}
void salute() {
System.out.println("I am saluting.")
}
}
class EntityAConcrete extends EntityA {
void meet() {
System.out.println("I am about to meet someone");
((AssocAConcrete)myA).salute();
}
}
There are two parallel inheritance trees, for a parent class and an associated class. The problem is with line 23:
((AssocAConcrete)myA).salute();
It is a pain and I have that kind of thing all over my code. Even though that line is part of the concrete implementation of Entity, I need to remind it that I want to use the concrete implementation of AssocA, AssocAConcrete.
Is there some kind of annotation to declare that relationship? Or is there a better, more colloquial Java way to express this design? Thanks!
This is in response to #Dave, because I want to put some code in...
Interesting! So the invocation would look something like this:
AssocAConcrete myAssoc = new Assoca();
EnitityA<T extends AssocA> myEntity = new EntityA<AssocAConcrete>();
myEntity.setAssoc(myAssoc);
myAssoc.salute();
Yes? That's really cool. I think I will use it!
I would think this is a lot neater using generics...
abstract class EntityA<T extends AssocA> {
// Basically, this means myA is at least an AssocA but possibly more...
T myA;
abstract void meet();
}
abstract class AssocA {
int something;
abstract void greet();
}
class AssocAConcrete extends AssocA {
void greet() {
System.out.println("hello");
}
void salute() {
System.out.println("I am saluting.");
}
}
class EntityAConcrete extends EntityA<AssocAConcrete> {
void meet() {
System.out.println("I am about to meet someone");
myA.salute();
}
}
Aside from avoiding the casting, this also makes it much easier to add different functionality in your AssocA implementations. There should always be a way to do things without using dummy implementations (ie methods that just throw "NotImplementedException") or casting. Even though it isn't always easy or worth the refactoring time to do so. In other words, no one is going to blame you for casting (well...maybe some people will but you can't please everyone).
EDIT (Notes on instantiation):
From #pitosalas' comments below...
//Won't work...can't call 'new' on abstract class AssocA
AssocAConcrete myAssoc = new Assoca();
//Instead, do this...
AssocAConcrete myAssoc = new AssocAConcrete();
And then....
// Again, won't work. T is only declaring the type inside your class/method.
// When using it to declare a variable, you have to say EXACTLY what you're making,
// or at least something as exact as the methods you're trying to invoke
EnitityA<T extends AssocA> myEntity = new EntityA<AssocAConcrete>();
//Instead do this...
EnitityA<AssocAConcrete> myEntity = new EntityAConcrete();
// Or this...
EntityAConcrete myEntity = new EntityAConcrete();
And then this should be good...
// Assuming this is defined as `public void setAssoc(T newAssoc) {this.myA = newAssoc;}`
myEntity.setAssoc(myAssoc);
myAssoc.salute();
Looks suspicious to me. There is nothing terrible about casting, but in this case, you could resolve the issue by bringing the salute method into AssocA. Subclasses of AssocA can provide their implementations; that's part of the benefit of inheritance.
What you are doing now is saying all EntityA instances have an AssocA instance, but then in your meet method you basically force the AssocA instance to be an AssocAConcrete instance. That's the part that is suspicious; why does AssocA exist if you really need an AssocAConcrete.
Another option (based on your comments) is to invoke salute in the greet method. That way, the specific subclass has specified behavior greet, defined in the superclass, and does what it wants. In this case, salute could become private or protected. Another implementation can easily do something different, like runLikeHell.
The problem of parallel class hierarchies is very real and really sucks. The logical coupling that AssocAConcrete always go with EntityAConcrete can not be expressed with the type system.
You can not specialize the type of myA in EntityAConcrete to be AssocAConcrete, without hiding it from a superclass. I think the closest work that addressed that was "Family polymorphism", but that's not mainstream.
If you have a large part of code where you are using the reference "myA" you could declare another reference like that:
public AssocAConcrete myAConcrete = (AssocAConcrete)myA;
now you can use the new reference myAConcrete and access the functions of the AssocAConcrete Class.
If you need to do this a lot like hvgotcodes mentioned you should probbably consider moving the method up to the AssocA Class.