I'm familiar with basic java but I'm very new to Spring. Previously I worked in php Laravel. I'm sorry if I sound dumb. I wanted to know if there's any way to declare and handle Helper methods in Spring framework like Laravel?
Edit:
public class Helper {
publin int help() {...}
}
What I wanted was to call help() without Helper object or class name (considering the help() method is static). I simply wanted to call help() from anywhere in the project like
public class X {
public void genericMethod() {
int i = help(); //If it is posssible
}
}
Any type of help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
If you want to call a method without having an object, the method needs to be static.
public class Helper{
public static void help(){}
}
You can then call it from anywhere in the same project by adding an import to the Helper class and writing Helper.help(). Or, you can add a static import to Helper.help and just write help(). All of this is explained in the Java tutorial. It is not possible in Java to have global project-wide imports that can be called from anywhere.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question but I think you are talking about having custom Utility classes. To have a Helper class you can write it using public static methods.
public class Helper {
public static help() {
// insert helpful things here
}
}
That way you can access it from any class by calling Helper.help().
Related
I've recently (4 days ago) started programming in JAVA. I have some overall programming experience from C++ and PHP. My question is: can we implement a function in JAVA, that is available in all classes? I'm thinking of some global logging function, that I need to call in several places (log events, errors, etc.).
Imagine I have two classes, A and B. I need to call logging function in both of them, but I don't want to copy whole function body (awful thing I believe), and I want to call it strict (without creating another class, instantiating it, and then calling from the instance), like logEvent(someVariable). So I should use an abstract class C, which A and B will extend, BUT they are already an extension of other class (built-in). Since multiple inheritance isn't allowed (is it?), I need to do some trick. Singleton is not pleasing me too. In PHP or C++ I would just create separate file with function body and then include it.
Here is how I want to use it:
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
logEvent(error);
}
public class B extends SomeOtherClass {
String error = "Error from class B";
logEvent(error);
}
Put a static method in any class (it could be a utils class, or whatever), then call it like this: ClassName.functionName()
Static methods belong to the class, not instances of the class, so you don't need to instantiate the class to access the method
But everything in Java has to be in a class, so you can't access it without the class name.
You should use static method:
package xxx;
public class Util{
public static void logEvent(String error){
...
}
}
and import static:
import static xxx.Util.*;
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
logEvent(error);
}
You may use static method.
Define a class with a static method:
public class Util{
public static void logEvent(String error){
...
}
}
Then, you can use static metod like this way:
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
Util.logEvent(error);
}
you may take a look here to learn more about static method, http://www.leepoint.net/notes-java/flow/methods/50static-methods.html
Okay so I'm doing some practice with JUnit Test cases and I'm trying to call a method from a different class in Java, but I can't figure it out. The classes are in different SOURCE FOLDERS so not sure if that could be a reason?
Below is a small snippet of the code, with the constructors and an example of how I'm trying to call the method.
package common;
public class MathTest {
#Test
public void test1(){
if (mMultiply(5, 6)== 30){
System.out.println("mMultiply Test has passesd");
} else {
System.out.println("mMultiply Test has failed");
fail("Multiply failed for inputted parameters. ");
And now here's the the other class with the method I'm trying to call
package common;
public class math {
public static int mMultiply(int x, int y){
return x*y;
}
Since it's a static method, just import the class in your JUnit file test. Then use the Assert class of JUnit to test your function. In this case, use assertEquals.
So I would rewrite the test as :
#Test
public void test1(){
assertEquals(math.mMultiply(5, 6),30);
}
You need to tell your method which class the static method is in i.e.:
if (math.mMultiply(5, 6)== 30){
System.out.println("mMultiply Test has passesd");
}
Incidentally, all Java classes should start with a capital letter, and there's already a core Java class called Math, so you might want to find another name.
try math.mMultiply It is a static method so you must specify in which class it resides
When you call mMultiply(5,6), do it like this: math.mMultiply(5,6).
Since it's a static method, you call it with its class name before it:
math.mMultiply(value1, value2).
Also, check the java code writing manuals. Class names begin with capital letter, so I would change the class of the math class to Math.
Very simple problem but im not understanding static correctly.
I have java file which holds my main and its call testMain.
With my testMain it makes many classes with use other classes.
E.g. testMain>>GUI and testMain>>model and testMain>>controller
Now i have a class called generatorTester which i would like to declare once like:
public static utils.generatorTester randomGen = new utils.generatorTester ();
(utils is my custom package for my common classes)
Why does the above line not aloud me to do the following
classNameOfMainFunction.randomGen
Im i programming wrong here? Is this even possbile.
I bassicly want to make the class globably and use it any where.
A public static field of a public class can be used anywhere, you just need to use the right syntax to access it.
If you declare:
package foo;
public class Global {
public static Some thing;
}
And do
import foo.Global;
you can access the field with
Global.thing
Alternatively, you can do
import static foo.Global.thing;
and access it with
thing
About the best you can get is this:
public abstract class GloballyUsed {
public static int method() { return 4;
/* determined by fair
* dice roll, guaranteed to be random */
}
and:
GloballyUsed.method();
to call elsewhere.
Note per comment (I just learned this) since Java 5 you can import just a specific method name as:
import static {package}.GloballyUsed.method;
Note I added the keyword abstract, this is to further convince you that you never actually instantiate GloballyUsed. It has no instances. You probably have some reading to do on what static means.
I have built a small (and 3 methods only!) api for myself, and I want to be able to call it like how you would call a method in Powerbot (A Runescape botting tool (I use it, but for programming purposes, not for actual cheating purposes)), without creating an Object of the file you'd require. How would i be able to do this?
You will need to create static methods, so you will need to do something like so:
public class A
{
public static void foo()
{
...
}
}
And then, you can call them like so:
public class B
{
...
A.foo();
}
Note however that static methods need to be self contained.
EDIT: As recommended in one of the answers below, you can make it work like so:
package samples.examples
public class Test
{
public static void A()
{
...
}
}
And then do this:
import static sample.examples.Test.A;
public class Test2
{
...
A();
}
If you use the static keyword when importing your class, you can use its methods as if they belong to the class you're importing them to. See:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html
And of course your "api methods" need to be static as well.
The best way i found out for me was to extend my activity (If i said it right)...
MAIN CLASS
public class myMainActivity extends myMiniApi{
...
}
I think this is a better way (my opinion) to do this, Just call your method like you normally would as if it were in the same class. example:
randomMethod();
I know that an interface must be public. However, I don't want that.
I want my implemented methods to only be accessible from their own package, so I want my implemented methods to be protected.
The problem is I can't make the interface or the implemented methods protected.
What is a work around? Is there a design pattern that pertains to this problem?
From the Java guide, an abstract class wouldn't do the job either.
read this.
"The public access specifier indicates that the interface can be used by any class in any package. If you do not specify that the interface is public, your interface will be accessible only to classes defined in the same package as the interface."
Is that what you want?
You class can use package protection and still implement an interface:
class Foo implements Runnable
{
public void run()
{
}
}
If you want some methods to be protected / package and others not, it sounds like your classes have more than one responsibility, and should be split into multiple.
Edit after reading comments to this and other responses:
If your are somehow thinking that the visibility of a method affects the ability to invoke that method, think again. Without going to extremes, you cannot prevent someone from using reflection to identify your class' methods and invoke them. However, this is a non-issue: unless someone is trying to crack your code, they're not going to invoke random methods.
Instead, think of private / protected methods as defining a contract for subclasses, and use interfaces to define the contract with the outside world.
Oh, and to the person who decided my example should use K&R bracing: if it's specified in the Terms of Service, sure. Otherwise, can't you find anything better to do with your time?
When I have butted up against this I use a package accessible inner or nested class to implement the interface, pushing the implemented method out of the public class.
Usually it's because I have a class with a specific public API which must implement something else to get it's job done (quite often because the something else was a callback disguised as an interface <grin>) - this happens a lot with things like Comparable. I don't want the public API polluted with the (forced public) interface implementation.
Hope this helps.
Also, if you truly want the methods accessed only by the package, you don't want the protected scope specifier, you want the default (omitted) scope specifier. Using protected will, of course, allow subclasses to see the methods.
BTW, I think that the reason interface methods are inferred to be public is because it is very much the exception to have an interface which is only implemented by classes in the same package; they are very much most often invoked by something in another package, which means they need to be public.
This question is based on a wrong statement:
I know that an interface must be public
Not really, you can have interfaces with default access modifier.
The problem is I can't make the interface or the implemented methods protected
Here it is:
C:\oreyes\cosas\java\interfaces>type a\*.java
a\Inter.java
package a;
interface Inter {
public void face();
}
a\Face.java
package a;
class Face implements Inter {
public void face() {
System.out.println( "face" );
}
}
C:\oreyes\cosas\java\interfaces>type b\*.java
b\Test.java
package b;
import a.Inter;
import a.Face;
public class Test {
public static void main( String [] args ) {
Inter inter = new Face();
inter.face();
}
}
C:\oreyes\cosas\java\interfaces>javac -d . a\*.java b\Test.java
b\Test.java:2: a.Inter is not public in a; cannot be accessed from outside package
import a.Inter;
^
b\Test.java:3: a.Face is not public in a; cannot be accessed from outside package
import a.Face;
^
b\Test.java:7: cannot find symbol
symbol : class Inter
location: class b.Test
Inter inter = new Face();
^
b\Test.java:7: cannot find symbol
symbol : class Face
location: class b.Test
Inter inter = new Face();
^
4 errors
C:\oreyes\cosas\java\interfaces>
Hence, achieving what you wanted, prevent interface and class usage outside of the package.
Here's how it could be done using abstract classes.
The only inconvenient is that it makes you "subclass".
As per the java guide, you should follow that advice "most" of the times, but I think in this situation it will be ok.
public abstract class Ab {
protected abstract void method();
abstract void otherMethod();
public static void main( String [] args ) {
Ab a = new AbImpl();
a.method();
a.otherMethod();
}
}
class AbImpl extends Ab {
protected void method(){
System.out.println( "method invoked from: " + this.getClass().getName() );
}
void otherMethod(){
System.out.println("This time \"default\" access from: " + this.getClass().getName() );
}
}
Here's another solution, inspired by the C++ Pimpl idiom.
If you want to implement an interface, but don't want that implementation to be public, you can create a composed object of an anonymous inner class that implements the interface.
Here's an example. Let's say you have this interface:
public interface Iface {
public void doSomething();
}
You create an object of the Iface type, and put your implementation in there:
public class IfaceUser {
private int someValue;
// Here's our implementor
private Iface impl = new Iface() {
public void doSomething() {
someValue++;
}
};
}
Whenever you need to invoke doSomething(), you invoke it on your composed impl object.
I just came across this trying to build a protected method with the intention of it only being used in a test case. I wanted to delete test data that I had stuffed into a DB table. In any case I was inspired by #Karl Giesing's post. Unfortunately it did not work. I did figure a way to make it work using a protected inner class.
The interface:
package foo;
interface SomeProtectedFoo {
int doSomeFoo();
}
Then the inner class defined as protected in public class:
package foo;
public class MyFoo implements SomePublicFoo {
// public stuff
protected class ProtectedFoo implements SomeProtectedFoo {
public int doSomeFoo() { ... }
}
protected ProtectedFoo pFoo;
protected ProtectedFoo gimmeFoo() {
return new ProtectedFoo();
}
}
You can then access the protected method only from other classes in the same package, as my test code was as show:
package foo;
public class FooTest {
MyFoo myFoo = new MyFoo();
void doProtectedFoo() {
myFoo.pFoo = myFoo.gimmeFoo();
myFoo.pFoo.doSomeFoo();
}
}
A little late for the original poster, but hey, I just found it. :D
You can go with encapsulation instead of inheritance.
That is, create your class (which won't inherit anything) and in it, have an instance of the object you want to extend.
Then you can expose only what you want.
The obvious disadvantage of this is that you must explicitly pass-through methods for everything you want exposed. And it won't be a subclass...
I would just create an abstract class. There is no harm in it.
With an interface you want to define methods that can be exposed by a variety of implementing classes.
Having an interface with protected methods just wouldn't serve that purpose.
I am guessing your problem can be solved by redesigning your class hierarchy.
One way to get around this is (depending on the situation) to just make an anonymous inner class that implements the interface that has protected or private scope. For example:
public class Foo {
interface Callback {
void hiddenMethod();
}
public Foo(Callback callback) {
}
}
Then in the user of Foo:
public class Bar {
private Foo.Callback callback = new Foo.Callback() {
#Override public void hiddenMethod() { ... }
};
private Foo foo = new Foo(callback);
}
This saves you from having the following:
public class Bar implements Foo.Callback {
private Foo foo = new Foo(this);
// uh-oh! the method is public!
#Override public void hiddenMethod() { ... }
}
I think u can use it now with Java 9 release. From the openJdk notes for Java 9,
Support for private methods in interfaces was briefly in consideration
for inclusion in Java SE 8 as part of the effort to add support for
Lambda Expressions, but was withdrawn to enable better focus on higher
priority tasks for Java SE 8. It is now proposed that support for
private interface methods be undertaken thereby enabling non abstract
methods of an interface to share code between them.
refer https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8071453