So, I'm beginning to learn Java and I think it's an awesome programming language, however I've come across the static keyword which, to my understanding, makes sure a given method or member variable is accessible through the class (e.g. MyClass.main()) rather than solely through the object (MyObject.main()). My question is, is it possible to make certain methods only accessible through the class and not through the object, so that MyClass.main() would work, however MyObject.main() would not? Whilst I'm not trying to achieve anything with this, I'd just like to know out of curiosity.
In my research I couldn't find this question being asked anywhere else, but if it is elsewhere I'd love to be pointed to it!
Forgive me if it's simple, however I've been thinking on this for a while and getting nowhere.
Thanks!
Any static method or member belongs to the class, whereas non-static members belong to the object.
Calling a static method (or using a static member) by doing myObject.method() is actually exactly the same as MyClass.method() and any proper IDE will give a suggestion to change it to the second one, since that one is actually what you are doing regardless of which of the two you use.
Now to answer the actual question:
is it possible to make certain methods only accessible through the class and not through the object
No, not as far as i know, but like I said, any proper IDE will give a warning, since it makes little sense and it gives other readers of the code an instant hint that you're dealing with static members.
Yes, short answer is no.
But you can put your static members in a dedicated class, so that no instances share any one of them.
MyObject is instance of MyClass, and you aggregate all you static parts in MyStaticThing.
Using static member on an instance can be misleading, so it is a bad practice
http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.sonarsource.java/java-checks/3.4/org/sonar/l10n/java/rules/squid/S2209.html
While it is possible to access static members
from a class instance, it's bad form, and considered by most to be
misleading because it implies to the readers of your code thatthere's
an instance of the member per class instance.
Another thing, do not use static things, because you cannot do abstraction and replace implementations to extend your code.
Being able to switch between implementations is useful for maintenance and tests.
In Java, you can crete an object with these keywords.(new keyword, newInstance() method, clone() method, factory method and deserialization) And when you create an object,it can also use classes abilities which is like static methods.
Short answer:No.
Is it possible to make certain methods only accessible through the class and not through the object?
Yes, it is. You achieve this by preventing any instances of the class to ever be created, by making the class non-instantiable: declare its constructor private.
public final class NonInstantiable {
private NonInstantiable() {
throw new RuntimeException(
"This class shouldn't be instantiated -- not even through reflection!");
}
/* static methods here... */
}
Now, it only makes sense to declare any methods of the class static -- and they can only be called through the class name. Such a class is often called a utility class.
I am reading a book about Java and it says that you can declare the whole class as final. I cannot think of anything where I'd use this.
I am just new to programming and I am wondering if programmers actually use this on their programs. If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
First of all, I recommend this article: Java: When to create a final class
If they do, when do they use it so I can understand it better and know when to use it.
A final class is simply a class that can't be extended.
(It does not mean that all references to objects of the class would act as if they were declared as final.)
When it's useful to declare a class as final is covered in the answers of this question:
Good reasons to prohibit inheritance in Java?
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
In some sense yes.
By marking a class as final you disable a powerful and flexible feature of the language for that part of the code. Some classes however, should not (and in certain cases can not) be designed to take subclassing into account in a good way. In these cases it makes sense to mark the class as final, even though it limits OOP. (Remember however that a final class can still extend another non-final class.)
In Java, items with the final modifier cannot be changed!
This includes final classes, final variables, and final methods:
A final class cannot be extended by any other class
A final variable cannot be reassigned another value
A final method cannot be overridden
One scenario where final is important, when you want to prevent inheritance of a class, for security reasons. This allows you to make sure that code you are running cannot be overridden by someone.
Another scenario is for optimization: I seem to remember that the Java compiler inlines some function calls from final classes. So, if you call a.x() and a is declared final, we know at compile-time what the code will be and can inline into the calling function. I have no idea whether this is actually done, but with final it is a possibility.
The best example is
public final class String
which is an immutable class and cannot be extended.
Of course, there is more than just making the class final to be immutable.
If you imagine the class hierarchy as a tree (as it is in Java), abstract classes can only be branches and final classes are those that can only be leafs. Classes that fall into neither of those categories can be both branches and leafs.
There's no violation of OO principles here, final is simply providing a nice symmetry.
In practice you want to use final if you want your objects to be immutable or if you're writing an API, to signal to the users of the API that the class is just not intended for extension.
Relevant reading: The Open-Closed Principle by Bob Martin.
Key quote:
Software Entities (Classes, Modules,
Functions, etc.) should be open for
Extension, but closed for
Modification.
The final keyword is the means to enforce this in Java, whether it's used on methods or on classes.
The keyword final itself means something is final and is not supposed to be modified in any way. If a class if marked final then it can not be extended or sub-classed. But the question is why do we mark a class final? IMO there are various reasons:
Standardization: Some classes perform standard functions and they are not meant to be modified e.g. classes performing various functions related to string manipulations or mathematical functions etc.
Security reasons: Sometimes we write classes which perform various authentication and password related functions and we do not want them to be altered by anyone else.
I have heard that marking class final improves efficiency but frankly I could not find this argument to carry much weight.
If Java is object oriented, and you declare a class final, doesn't it
stop the idea of class having the characteristics of objects?
Perhaps yes, but sometimes that is the intended purpose. Sometimes we do that to achieve bigger benefits of security etc. by sacrificing the ability of this class to be extended. But a final class can still extend one class if it needs to.
On a side note we should prefer composition over inheritance and final keyword actually helps in enforcing this principle.
final class can avoid breaking the public API when you add new methods
Suppose that on version 1 of your Base class you do:
public class Base {}
and a client does:
class Derived extends Base {
public int method() { return 1; }
}
Then if in version 2 you want to add a method method to Base:
class Base {
public String method() { return null; }
}
it would break the client code.
If we had used final class Base instead, the client wouldn't have been able to inherit, and the method addition wouldn't break the API.
A final class is a class that can't be extended. Also methods could be declared as final to indicate that cannot be overridden by subclasses.
Preventing the class from being subclassed could be particularly useful if you write APIs or libraries and want to avoid being extended to alter base behaviour.
In java final keyword uses for below occasions.
Final Variables
Final Methods
Final Classes
In java final variables can't reassign, final classes can't extends and final methods can't override.
Be careful when you make a class "final". Because if you want to write an unit test for a final class, you cannot subclass this final class in order to use the dependency-breaking technique "Subclass and Override Method" described in Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code". In this book, Feathers said, "Seriously, it is easy to believe that sealed and final are a wrong-headed mistake, that they should never have been added to programming languages. But the real fault lies with us. When we depend directly on libraries that are out of our control, we are just asking for trouble."
If the class is marked final, it means that the class' structure can't be modified by anything external. Where this is the most visible is when you're doing traditional polymorphic inheritance, basically class B extends A just won't work. It's basically a way to protect some parts of your code (to extent).
To clarify, marking class final doesn't mark its fields as final and as such doesn't protect the object properties but the actual class structure instead.
TO ADDRESS THE FINAL CLASS PROBLEM:
There are two ways to make a class final. The first is to use the keyword final in the class declaration:
public final class SomeClass {
// . . . Class contents
}
The second way to make a class final is to declare all of its constructors as private:
public class SomeClass {
public final static SOME_INSTANCE = new SomeClass(5);
private SomeClass(final int value) {
}
Marking it final saves you the trouble if finding out that it is actual a final, to demonstrate look at this Test class. looks public at first glance.
public class Test{
private Test(Class beanClass, Class stopClass, int flags)
throws Exception{
// . . . snip . . .
}
}
Unfortunately, since the only constructor of the class is private, it is impossible to extend this class. In the case of the Test class, there is no reason that the class should be final. The Test class is a good example of how implicit final classes can cause problems.
So you should mark it final when you implicitly make a class final by making it's constructor private.
One advantage of keeping a class as final :-
String class is kept final so that no one can override its methods and change the functionality. e.g no one can change functionality of length() method. It will always return length of a string.
Developer of this class wanted no one to change functionality of this class, so he kept it as final.
The other answers have focused on what final class tells the compiler: do not allow another class to declare it extends this class, and why that is desirable.
But the compiler is not the only reader of the phrase final class. Every programmer who reads the source code also reads that. It can aid rapid program comprehension.
In general, if a programmer sees Thing thing = that.someMethod(...); and the programmer wants to understand the subsequent behaviour of the object accessed through the thing object-reference, the programmer must consider the Thing class hierarchy: potentially many types, scattered over many packages. But if the programmer knows, or reads, final class Thing, they instantly know that they do not need to search for and study so many Java files, because there are no derived classes: they need study only Thing.java and, perhaps, it's base classes.
Yes, sometimes you may want this though, either for security or speed reasons. It's done also in C++. It may not be that applicable for programs, but moreso for frameworks.
http://www.glenmccl.com/perfj_025.htm
think of FINAL as the "End of the line" - that guy cannot produce offspring anymore. So when you see it this way, there are ton of real world scenarios that you will come across that requires you to flag an 'end of line' marker to the class. It is Domain Driven Design - if your domain demands that a given ENTITY (class) cannot create sub-classes, then mark it as FINAL.
I should note that there is nothing stopping you from inheriting a "should be tagged as final" class. But that is generally classified as "abuse of inheritance", and done because most often you would like to inherit some function from the base class in your class.
The best approach is to look at the domain and let it dictate your design decisions.
As above told, if you want no one can change the functionality of the method then you can declare it as final.
Example: Application server file path for download/upload, splitting string based on offset, such methods you can declare it Final so that these method functions will not be altered. And if you want such final methods in a separate class, then define that class as Final class. So Final class will have all final methods, where as Final method can be declared and defined in non-final class.
Let's say you have an Employee class that has a method greet. When the greet method is called it simply prints Hello everyone!. So that is the expected behavior of greet method
public class Employee {
void greet() {
System.out.println("Hello everyone!");
}
}
Now, let GrumpyEmployee subclass Employee and override greet method as shown below.
public class GrumpyEmployee extends Employee {
#Override
void greet() {
System.out.println("Get lost!");
}
}
Now in the below code have a look at the sayHello method. It takes Employee instance as a parameter and calls the greet method hoping that it would say Hello everyone! But what we get is Get lost!. This change in behavior is because of Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public class TestFinal {
static Employee grumpyEmployee = new GrumpyEmployee();
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestFinal testFinal = new TestFinal();
testFinal.sayHello(grumpyEmployee);
}
private void sayHello(Employee employee) {
employee.greet(); //Here you would expect a warm greeting, but what you get is "Get lost!"
}
}
This situation can be avoided if the Employee class was made final. Just imagine the amount of chaos a cheeky programmer could cause if String Class was not declared as final.
Final class cannot be extended further. If we do not need to make a class inheritable in java,we can use this approach.
If we just need to make particular methods in a class not to be overridden, we just can put final keyword in front of them. There the class is still inheritable.
Final classes cannot be extended. So if you want a class to behave a certain way and don't someone to override the methods (with possibly less efficient and more malicious code), you can declare the whole class as final or specific methods which you don't want to be changed.
Since declaring a class does not prevent a class from being instantiated, it does not mean it will stop the class from having the characteristics of an object. It's just that you will have to stick to the methods just the way they are declared in the class.
Android Looper class is a good practical example of this.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Looper.html
The Looper class provides certain functionality which is NOT intended to be overridden by any other class. Hence, no sub-class here.
I know only one actual use case: generated classes
Among the use cases of generated classes, I know one: dependency inject e.g. https://github.com/google/dagger
Object Orientation is not about inheritance, it is about encapsulation. And inheritance breaks encapsulation.
Declaring a class final makes perfect sense in a lot of cases. Any object representing a “value” like a color or an amount of money could be final. They stand on their own.
If you are writing libraries, make your classes final unless you explicitly indent them to be derived. Otherwise, people may derive your classes and override methods, breaking your assumptions / invariants. This may have security implications as well.
Joshua Bloch in “Effective Java” recommends designing explicitly for inheritance or prohibiting it and he notes that designing for inheritance is not that easy.
So I consider myself a junior java/android developer
I've always come across these but never really liked them and concidered them as dirty code
class herp{
private class derp extends OnclickListener{
...
}
private class gerp AsyncTask{
...
}
}
so should I try to avoid these? or even make sure I never use these?
What is and isn't dirty code is highly subjective.
What can be said is that nested classes can be very useful. Often times they don't need to be nested like that, as they could just as easily be anonymous classes in all likelihood.
The idea is that: you want as few other classes as necessary to access your little class there. You wouldn't want to make your own package, because you really belong in the package you're already in. Instead, you make a private class. Now only you can use it, which is good because it's tailored just for your class.
Now, how many derp instances will you have? Chances are you'd have one. So instead of doing that, I would do this:
OnClickListener derp = new OnClickListener() {
// fill in methods to override here
}
It does basically the same thing, but I can't reuse the class for anything, which is good - no one should be reusing the one-shot class!
What is and isn't clean code is often times personal preference based upon experience. Nesting classes isn't messes per say, however you should be certain that it is an appropriate situation.
If you desperately need some specific functionality for a class which extends something like the OnClickListener in your question, then it is a question of how many times do you need this class? If the answer is once, then an anonymous class would be a cleaner solution. If the answer is in every single method in the class, then a nested class clearly makes more sense.
More or less every feature in Java has a time and place in which it is considered appropriate. Private nested classes such as the ones you have in your question should be reserved in my mind for cases where you satisfy two conditions:
a) you absolutely have to have a separate class that will only be used in this class and no where else
AND
b) you will need to use that class in multiple locations within the class.
At the end of the day, nested private classes are not inherently dirty or hard to maintain, but as with any other feature of an programming language, make sure you need them.
There is no fixed answer on this question. It mainly comes down to your own coding style, preferences, and your team's coding conventions.
Private inner classes are useful for many reasons. You can use them to provide an implementation of an interface (e.g. a List implementation might define its own Iterator implementation as a private inner class) without making the concrete class visible. It protects the implementation, and allows you to provide just enough details to a user of your API/class so he can use it correctly, without cluttering your documentation with useless details (your concrete class).
You can also use private inner classes as a implementation for listeners, even though some might disagree with this philosophy. I do prefer using private inner classes to anonymous classes when the listener has some complex logic.
You might want to use them also to separate code logic into separate classes, but don't wish to expose those classes outsite your outer class.
Keep in mind that every solution using a private inner class can also be implemented without using them. And as with many things in life, using private inner classes isn't a bad practice per se, but abuse is a bad practice.
It's fine. You may consider making them static inner classes, otherwise you'll need an instance of herp to create one (although that might be what you want):
class herp {
private static class derp extends OnclickListener{
...
}
private static class gerp AsyncTask{
...
}
}
The difference demonstrated is:
public static void main(String[] args) {
// With static:
new derp();
// Without static:
new herp().new derp();
}
I had been looking at some code developed by an off-shore group. I see at least one "constant interface" per module defined.
Example (not real world) :
public interface RequestConstants{
//a mix of different constants(int,string,...)
public static final int MAX_REQUESTS = 9999;
public static final String SAMPLE_REQUEST = "Sample Request";
}
Per my understanding it is an anti-pattern as these does not any utility in run-time, and should be avoided or tackled in a different way.
What are elegant ways to represent this? Can enums be used instead?
I prefer to put constants in the class where they make they're most relevant, and then if I have to refer to them elsewhere, just do so - possibly using static imports if that makes sense (e.g. for Math.PI).
The only real reason to put constants in interfaces was to allow you to "implement" the method-free interface and get access to the constants via their simple names without any further qualification. Static imports remove that reason.
En enum is probably not a good idea unless all the parameters are closely related. With the two parameters in your example I'd say they are not closely enough related to qualify as an enum.
But it's not necessarily a Bad Idea to include a constants class / interface like this. It does have the advantage of being centralized, which means this configuration stuff can easily be moved outside of the program -- for instance to a properties file, a command-line decoder, a database or even a socket interface -- with minimal impact to the other classes. It's really a question of what direction the design will take.
Unless you are thinking of going down that path, however, I'd say static finals in the classes where the respective parameters are used is the way to go, as has been suggested already.
Turn the interface into a final class with a private constructor.
Use final non-instantiable class, i.e. one with a private constructor.
In his book Effective Java, Joshua Bloch recommends against using Interfaces to hold constants,
The constant interface pattern is a poor use of interfaces. That a class uses some constants internally is an implementation detail. Implementing a constant interface causes this implementation detail to leak into the class’s exported API. It is of no consequence to the users of a class that the class implements a constant interface. In fact, it may even confuse them. Worse, it represents a commitment: if in a future release the class is modified so that it no longer needs to use the con-stants, it still must implement the interface to ensure binary compatibility. If a nonfinal class implements a constant interface, all of its subclasses will have their namespaces polluted by the constants in the interface.
His reasoning makes sense to me and it seems to be the prevailing logic whenever the question is brought up but it overlooks storing constants in interfaces and then NOT implementing them.
For instance,
public interface SomeInterface {
public static final String FOO = "example";
}
public class SomeOtherClass {
//notice that this class does not implement anything
public void foo() {
thisIsJustAnExample("Designed to be short", SomeInteface.FOO);
}
}
I work with someone who uses this method all the time. I tend to use class with private constructors to hold my constants, but I've started using interfaces in this manner to keep our code a consistent style. Are there any reasons to not use interfaces in the way I've outlined above?
Essentially it's a short hand that prevents you from having to make a class private, since an interface can not be initialized.
I guess it does the job, but as a friend once said: "You can try mopping a floor with an octopus; it might get the job done, but it's not the right tool".
Interfaces exist to specify contracts, which are then implemented by classes. When I see an interface, I assume that there are some classes out there that implement it. So I'd lean towards saying that this is an example of abusing interfaces rather than using them, simply because I don't think that's the way interfaces were meant to be used.
I guess I don't understand why these values are public in the first place if they're simply going to be used privately in a class. Why not just move them into the class? Now if these values are going to be used by a bunch of classes, then why not create an enum? Another pattern that I've seen is a class that just holds public constants. This is similar to the pattern you've described. However, the class can be made final so that it cannot be extended; there is nothing that stops a developer from implementing your interface. In these situations, I just tend to use enum.
UPDATE
This was going to be a response to a comment, but then it got long. Creating an interface to hold just one value is even more wasteful! :) You should use a private constant for that. While putting unrelated values into a single enum is bad, you could group them into separate enums, or simply use private constants for the class.
Also, if it appears that all these classes are sharing these unrelated constants (but which make sense in the context of the class), why not create an abstract class where you define these constants as protected? All you have to do then is extend this class and your derived classes will have access to the constants.
I don't think a class with a private constructor is any better than using an interface.
What the quote says is that using implements ConstantInterface is not best pratice because this interface becomes part of the API.
However, you can use static import or qualified names like SomeInteface.FOO of the values from the interface instead to avoid this issue.
Constants are a bad thing anyway. Stuffing a bunch of strings in a single location is a sign that your application has design problems from the get go. Its not object oriented and (especially for String Constants) can lead to the development of fragile API's
If a class needs some static values then they should be local to that class. If more classes need access to those values they should be promoted to an enumeration and modeled as such. If you really insist on having a class full of constants then you create a final class with a private no args constructor. With this approach you can at least ensure that the buck stops there. There are no instantiations allowed and you can only access state in a static manner.
This particular anti-pattern has one serious problem. There is no mechanism to stop someone from using your class that implements this rouge constants interface.Its really about addressing a limitation of java that allows you to do non-sensical things.
The net out is that it reduces the meaningfulness of the application's design because the grasp on the principles of the language aren't there. When I inherit code with constants interfaces, I immediately second guess everything because who knows what other interesting hacks I'll find.
Creating a separate class for constants seems silly. It's more work than making an enum, and the only reason would be to do it would be to keep unrelated constants all in one place just because presumably they all happen to be referenced by the same chunks of code. Hopefully your Bad Smell alarm goes of when you think about slapping a bunch of unrelated stuff together and calling it a class.
As for interfaces, as long as you're not implementing the interface it's not the end of the world (and the JDK has a number of classes implementing SwingConstants for example), but there may be better ways depending on what exactly you're doing.
You can use enums to group related constants together, and even add methods to them
you can use Resource Bundles for UI text
use a Map<String,String> passed through Collections.unmodifiableMap for more general needs
you could also read constants from a file using java.util.Properties and wrap or subclass it to prevent changes
Also, with static imports there's no reason for lazy people to implement an interface to get its constants when you can be lazy by doing import static SomeInterface.*; instead.