I am wondering about replacing Java's 'extends' keyword somehow for dynamically extending a class based on a parameter(file, environment variable, db...basically anything). Is this even possible because playing with class loaders or calling constructors does not achieve this. I am not asking "should I use interface or superclass hierarchy" rather what is extending really mean under the hood in JAVA because there aren't any good description about it just the good old inheritance jargon:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/subclasses.html
The only way to "replace the extends keyword" is to dynamically create classes at runtime, which is entirely possible but non-trivial. Vert.x is a good example of a project that makes extensive use of dynamically-generated classes.
Java wasn't designed as a dynamic language in that sense. There are several dynamic languages out there (some of which can run on the JVM), such as JavaScript.
rather what is extending really mean under the hood...
Without getting into a long treatise on OOP, when you say Derived extends Base, it means that Derived inherits both the public and protected API of Base (which it can then add to) and also the implementation of that API. It means that code expecting to see a Base instance can accept a Derived instance, because Derived "is a" Base. This link is created a compile-time. At runtime, instantiating an instance of Derived involves all of the plumbing that instantiating a Base instance involves, plus then the added plumbing for Derived.
To achieve this you need to maintain various versions of a class based on the condition and you have to customise class loader as well because at a point when you find that you have to load a particular instance, you need to load that class which is not loaded by default class loader on JVM startup.
Its better to maintain multiple versions of the class and let JVM do its job which it does perfectly.
You can't do that with a language like Java. The information about "inheritance" is not only used by the compiler, it is also "hard-baked" into the compiled byte code.
If you really want to such kind of "dynamic" meta programming; you are better of using languages that allow you to do so; instead of "violating" a language that was never intended for such kind of usage.
To use some stupid comparison: just because you happen to know "screws" and "hammer" ... you wouldn't start to use a hammer to get those screws into the wall, would you? Instead, you would be looking for a tool that works better with "screws" than a hammer.
If you still want your code to run within a JVM; you might consider languages like jython or jruby.
Related
While declaring a class as final , we cannot Inheritance this class , my question is why ? - from the java internals perspective.
I assume that the same principle apply to methods and instance as well.
is it somehow related to the class loader as well ? who is actually stopping me from override it?
There's nothing related to the JVM or internals (not really sure what exaclty you mean by that), it's a compile issue simply because you're breaking the rules.
If I think myself as a Java compiler, after parsing the tokens in your code I'm just going to look around for logical errors (semantic analysis) e.g. a circular inheritance scheme. The moment I see someone's attempt at extending a final class, I'm gonna go bazooka. That's it. No need to wake up the big bosses, the JVM or any other internals because the program cannot be correctly compiled in the first place.
If you want to know how the compiler works the way it does internally, think that while the compiler parses your code, it creates and fills some structures internal to itself for the purpose of error-checking and bytecode-translation. Also imagine in a simplified scenario that the final keyword attached to a class just sets a field in one of these structures attached to your class. After syntactic analysis, the compiler goes on with "logical" (semantic) analysis and checks (among other things) if some lunatic tries extending a final class. Even a brute search in an inheritance graph can pull that off. If a class is final and still has children, halt and notify the lunatic. The issue won't get more internal than the compiler.
It is nothing to do with Java internals.
The purpose of declaring a class to be final it to prevent it from being subclassed.
My question was what happening "underground" while declaring final ...
Well ... when a class is declared as final a flag is set in the class file to say this. If you then attempt to load a class that purports to be a subclass of a final class, the classloader will throw a VerifyError exception. The checks are done in the ClassLoader.defineClass(...) methods ... which are also final, so that normal programs can't interfere with them.
This aspect of classfile verification needs to be watertight for Java security reasons. If it wasn't then you could probably cause mayhem in a Java security sandbox by tricking trusted code into using (say) a mutable subtype of String.
The Java compiler also checks that you don't extend a final class, but you could subvert that by (for example) creating ".class" files by hand. Hence the need for load-time checks ...
Who is actually stopping me from override it?
Actually, it is the classloader. See above.
Let's look at it elementally, When you declare a variable as final, you did that because you don't want the value of that variable be changed for any reason afterwards, Right?.
Okay, under the assumption that you agree to that. The same principle is also applicable to classes.
Let's look at it this way: Why will you ever want to inherit a class? Probably because you want get access to the properties of the class and her behaviors (methods), Right? Once you have inherited these properties and behaviors you have the right the modify the accessible behavior to suite your precise need without having to re-implement all other behaviors. This is the value and power of in inheritance.
Hence, declaring a class as final implies that you don't want anyone to modify any behavior of the class. You tries to state that who so ever that will want use your class should use it as IS.
Therefore, any attempt to modify a final class is illogical and should be considered as error.
Eg.
Imaging if someone should be able to inherit your final Authentication class and modifying the actual authentication behavior (method). This should be a security bridge as it might compromise your reasons for setting the class as final.
Hence, it is a design practice.
I hope that make some sense?
Every other class in Java inherits from the Object class.
Is it possible to add a second, completely separate, class hierarchy in Java based around my own FastObject class?
My original goal in doing so was to create smaller, faster objects with less functionality specifically designed for certain algorithms. But let me be clear, I am not interested in whether or not this is a "good idea". I just want to know if it is possible; I have not been able to find a way to do so. Would it require a change to the JVM? New boot classpath functionality? Is the real solution to ignore Object and look at replacing java.lang.Class? Would using a direct Java compiler instead of a VM make my job any easier?
To be clear, I don't just want to edit the root Object class. That would require potentially re-writing the entire Java library. I don't want to replace the current hierarchy, I just want to create a separate one I can use in the same code.
No, this is not possible.
All created classes extend another class, either explicitly or implicitly. If you create a class and explicitly define which class it extends, then it extends that class. If not, then it implicitly extends Object. There is no way around this, just as there is no way to overload operators or anything of that sort. It is a fundamental design decision of the Java programming language.
All classes extend Object. The only things that don't are primitive types. The exception to this is Object itself, of course, which does not extend itself.
It may be possible for you to inject your own Object implementation by mucking with the boot classpath. However, I don't think there is any way to use a base object other than Object. You could try some byte code manipulation, but it is entirely possible that your modified class will be rejected by the class loader.
I have two classes, one which is hardware-dependent and one which is not (let's call them HardwareDependent and HardwareIndependent respectively). The Hardware dependent class extends the hardware independent class. Now I have another class which at least must be an extension of the HardwareIndependent, but I would prefer it to be an extension of HardwareDependent when possible so it may leverage the additional functionality. Is there a possibility of using reflection or something else to accomplish this? Or is this a total technical impossibility? I suppose if all else fails, I could write the class twice, but it seems to me that is an ineffective approach. Thanks for any help in advance.
Inheritance is fixed at compile time.
It sounds like you don't want your new class to extend HardwareIndependent or HardwareDependent; you want it to use an object which could be either. You want composition and not inheritance. You're third class (we'll call it HardwareComposite) has a reference to a HardwareIndependent. Then, you can check if it is HardwareDependent at runtime with the instanceof operator, and if so cast it to HardwareDependent and use the additional facilities that provides.
If your design is forcing you to mix concepts of inheritance and composition, you might look into the Facade and Factory patterns.
Sometimes we have several classes that have some methods with the same signature, but that don't correspond to a declared Java interface. For example, both JTextField and JButton (among several others in javax.swing.*) have a method
public void addActionListener(ActionListener l)
Now, suppose I wish to do something with objects that have that method; then, I'd like to have an interface (or perhaps to define it myself), e.g.
public interface CanAddActionListener {
public void addActionListener(ActionListener l);
}
so that I could write:
public void myMethod(CanAddActionListener aaa, ActionListener li) {
aaa.addActionListener(li);
....
But, sadly, I can't:
JButton button;
ActionListener li;
...
this.myMethod((CanAddActionListener)button,li);
This cast would be illegal. The compiler knows that JButton is not a CanAddActionListener, because the class has not declared to implement that interface ... however it "actually" implements it.
This is sometimes an inconvenience - and Java itself has modified several core classes to implement a new interface made of old methods (String implements CharSequence, for example).
My question is: why this is so? I understand the utility of declaring that a class implements an interface. But anyway, looking at my example, why can't the compiler deduce that the class JButton "satisfies" the interface declaration (looking inside it) and accept the cast? Is it an issue of compiler efficiency or there are more fundamental problems?
My summary of the answers: This is a case in which Java could have made allowance for some "structural typing" (sort of a duck typing - but checked at compile time). It didn't. Apart from some (unclear for me) performance and implementations difficulties, there is a much more fundamental concept here: In Java, the declaration of an interface (and in general, of everything) is not meant to be merely structural (to have methods with these signatures) but semantical: the methods are supposed to implement some specific behavior/intent. So, a class which structurally satisfies some interface (i.e., it has the methods with the required signatures) does not necessarily satisfies it semantically (an extreme example: recall the "marker interfaces", which do not even have methods!). Hence, Java can assert that a class implements an interface because (and only because) this has been explicitly declared. Other languages (Go, Scala) have other philosophies.
Java's design choice to make implementing classes expressly declare the interface they implement is just that -- a design choice. To be sure, the JVM has been optimized for this choice and implementing another choice (say, Scala's structural typing) may now come at additional cost unless and until some new JVM instructions are added.
So what exactly is the design choice about? It all comes down to the semantics of methods. Consider: are the following methods semantically the same?
draw(String graphicalShapeName)
draw(String handgunName)
draw(String playingCardName)
All three methods have the signature draw(String). A human might infer that they have different semantics from the parameter names, or by reading some documentation. Is there any way for the machine to tell that they are different?
Java's design choice is to demand that the developer of a class explicitly state that a method conforms to the semantics of a pre-defined interface:
interface GraphicalDisplay {
...
void draw(String graphicalShapeName);
...
}
class JavascriptCanvas implements GraphicalDisplay {
...
public void draw(String shape);
...
}
There is no doubt that the draw method in JavascriptCanvas is intended to match the draw method for a graphical display. If one attempted to pass an object that was going to pull out a handgun, the machine can detect the error.
Go's design choice is more liberal and allows interfaces to be defined after the fact. A concrete class need not declare what interfaces it implements. Rather, the designer of a new card game component may declare that an object that supplies playing cards must have a method that matches the signature draw(String). This has the advantage that any existing class with that method can be used without having to change its source code, but the disadvantage that the class might pull out a handgun instead of a playing card.
The design choice of duck-typing languages is to dispense with formal interfaces altogether and simply match on method signatures. Any concept of interface (or "protocol") is purely idiomatic, with no direct language support.
These are but three of many possible design choices. The three can be glibly summarized like this:
Java: the programmer must explicitly declare his intent, and the machine will check it. The assumption is that the programmer is likely to make a semantic mistake (graphics / handgun / card).
Go: the programmer must declare at least part of his intent, but the machine has less to go on when checking it. The assumption is that the programmer is likely to might make a clerical mistake (integer / string), but not likely to make a semantic mistake (graphics / handgun / card).
Duck-typing: the programmer needn't express any intent, and there is nothing for the machine to check. The assumption is that programmer is unlikely to make either a clerical or semantic mistake.
It is beyond the scope of this answer to address whether interfaces, and typing in general, are adequate to test for clerical and semantic mistakes. A full discussion would have to consider build-time compiler technology, automated testing methodology, run-time/hot-spot compilation and a host of other issues.
It is acknowledged that the draw(String) example are deliberately exaggerated to make a point. Real examples would involve richer types that would give more clues to disambiguate the methods.
Why can't the compiler deduce that the class JButton "satisfies" the interface declaration (looking inside it) and accept the cast? Is it an issue of compiler efficiency or there are more fundamental problems?
It is a more fundamental issue.
The point of an interface is to specify that there is a common API / set of behaviors that a number of classes support. So, when a class is declared as implements SomeInterface, any methods in the class whose signatures match method signatures in the interface are assumed to be methods that provide that behavior.
By contrast, if the language simply matched methods based on signatures ... irrespective of the interfaces ... then we'd be liable to get false matches, when two methods with the same signature actually mean / do something semantically unrelated.
(The name for the latter approach is "duck typing" ... and Java doesn't support it.)
The Wikipedia page on type systems says that duck typing is neither "nominative typing" or "structural typing". By contrast, Pierce doesn't even mention "duck typing", but he defines nominative (or "nominal" as he calls it) typing and structural typing as follows:
"Type systems like Java's, in which names [of types] are significant and subtyping is explicitly declared, are called nominal. Type systems like most of the ones in this book in which names are inessential and subtyping is defined directly on the structure of the types, are called structural."
So by Pierce's definition, duck typing is a form of structural typing, albeit one that is typically implemented using runtime checks. (Pierce's definitions are independent of compile-time versus runtime-checking.)
Reference:
"Types and Programming Languages" - Benjamin C Pierce, MIT Press, 2002, ISBN 0-26216209-1.
Likely it's a performance feature.
Since Java is statically typed, the compiler can assert the conformance of a class to an identified interface. Once validated, that assertion can be represented in the compiled class as simply a reference to the conforming interface definition.
Later, at runtime, when an object has its Class cast to the interface type, all the runtime needs to do is check the meta data of the class to see if the class that it is being cast too is compatible (via the interface or the inheritance hierarchy).
This is a reasonably cheap check to perform since the compiler has done most of the work.
Mind, it's not authoritative. A class can SAY that it conforms to an interface, but that doesn't mean that the actual method send about to be executed will actually work. The conforming class may well be out of date and the method may simply not exist.
But a key component to the performance of java is that while it still must actually do a form of dynamic method dispatch at runtime, there's a contract that the method isn't going to suddenly vanish behind the runtimes back. So once the method is located, its location can be cached in the future. In contrast to a dynamic language where methods may come and go, and they must continue to try and hunt the methods down each time one is invoked. Obviously, dynamic languages have mechanisms to make this perform well.
Now, if the runtime were to ascertain that an object complies with an interface by doing all of the work itself, you can see how much more expensive that can be, especially with a large interface. A JDBC ResultSet, for example, has over 140 methods and such in it.
Duck typing is effectively dynamic interface matching. Check what methods are called on an object, and map it at runtime.
All of that kind of information can be cached, and built at runtime, etc. All of this can (and is in other languages), but having much of this done at compile time is actually quite efficient both on the runtimes CPU and its memory. While we use Java with multi GB heaps for long running servers, it's actually pretty suitable for small deployments and lean runtimes. Even outside of J2ME. So, there is still motivation to try and keep the runtime footprint as lean as possible.
Duck typing can be dangerous for the reasons Stephen C discussed, but it is not necessarily the evil that breaks all static typing. A static and more safe version of duck typing lies at the heart of Go's type system, and a version is available in Scala where it is called "structural typing." These versions still perform a compile time check to make sure the object obeys the requirements, but have potential problems because they break the design paradigm that has implementing an interface always an intentional decision.
See http://markthomas.info/blog/?p=66 and http://programming-scala.labs.oreilly.com/ch12.html and http://beust.com/weblog/2008/02/11/structural-typing-vs-duck-typing/ for a discusion of the Scala feature.
I can't say I know why certain design decisions were made by the Java development team. I also caveat my answer with the fact that those individuals are far smarter than I'll ever be with regards to software development and (particularly) language design. But, here's a crack at trying to answer your question.
In order to understand why they may not have chosen to use an interface like "CanAddActionListener" you have to look at the advantages of NOT using an interface and, instead, preferring abstract (and, ultimately, concrete) classes.
As you may know, when declaring abstract functionality, you can provide default functionality to subclasses. Okay...so what? Big deal, right? Well, particularly in the case of designing a language, it is a big deal. When designing a language, you will need to maintain those base classes over the life of the language (and you can be sure that there will be changes as your language evolves). If you had chosen to use interfaces, instead of providing base functionality in an abstract class, any class that implements the interface will break. This is particularly important after publication - once customers (developers in this case) start using your libraries, you can't change up the interfaces on a whim or you are going to have a lot of pissed of developers!
So, my guess is that the Java development team fully realized that many of their AbstractJ* classes shared the same method names, it would not be advantageous in having them share a common interface as it would make their API rigid and inflexible.
To sum it up (thank you to this site here):
Abstract classes can easily be extended by adding new (non-abstract) methods.
An interface cannot be modified without breaking its contract with the classes that implement it. Once an interface has been shipped, its member set is permanently fixed. An API based on interfaces can only be extended by adding new interfaces.
Of course, this is not to say that you could do something like this in your own code, (extend AbstractJButton and implement CanAddActionListener interface) but be aware of the pitfalls in doing so.
Interfaces represent a form of substitution class. A reference of type which implements or inherits from a particular interface may be passed to a method which expects that interface type. An interface will generally not only specify that all implementing classes must have methods with certain names and signatures, but it will generally also have an associated contract which specifies that all legitimate implementing classes must have methods with certain names and signatures, which behave in certain designated ways. It is entirely possible that even if two interfaces contain members with the same names and signatures, an implementation may satisfy the contract of one but not the other.
As a simple example, if one were designing a framework from scratch, one might start out with an Enumerable<T> interface (which can be used as often as desired to create an enumerator which will output a sequence of T's, but different requests may yield different sequences), but then derive from it an interface ImmutableEnumerable<T> which would behave as above but guarantee that every request would return the same sequence. A mutable collection type would support all of the members required for ImmutableEnumerable<T>, but since requests for enumeration received after a mutation would report a different sequence from requests made before, it would not abide by the ImmutableEnumerable contract.
The ability of an interface to be regarded as encapsulating a contract beyond the signatures of its members is one of the things that makes interface-based programming more semantically powerful than simple duck-typing.
Is it really impossible to hide some classes in a jar file?
I wanted not to allow direct instantiation of the classes to keep it more flexible. Only the factory (or a facade) should be visible of this jar.
Is there any other way than solve this problem than creating two projects?
(Two projects: the first one contains the classes (implementation) and the other one references to the first one and contains the factory; later only the second one will be referenced)
I'm understanding you're not looking to hide the actual classes, just prevent their construction outside a factory class. This I think can be quite easily achieved by using package private (default) visibility in the class constructors. The only limitation is that you'll need to have the classes and the factory in the same package so in a medium to large codebase things may get unnecessarily complex.
If I understand your question correctly, you would like to make sure that users of your library are forced to use your factory to instantiate their objects rather than using the constructors themselves.
As I see it there are two possibilities, one of which is silly but usable in few, specific cases, and the other one is the most practical and probably most commonly used way of doing it.
You could make all your classes into
private inner classes of the
factory. This would work if you had
one factory per class, but is hardly
workable if you have a lot of
different classes being managed
through one factory.
You could use the protected access modifier to
restrict access to your class
constructors. This is common
practice when using the factory
pattern.
I think you will have either compiler failure or warning if your public factory method try to return something which is "hidden".
No, you can not hide a public class without reimplementing your own ClassLoader or using OSGi or anything similar.
What you can do is to separate interface api from the implementation, e.g. have one project which contains only the interfaces and another porject which contains the implmentations. However, you still cannot hide the implementation classes.
Obfuscation can help you somehow.
With standard classloaders and plain old jar files, this is not possible. OSGi has this concept of making visible only some packages to another bundle(i.e. separation of public api and internal implementation).
If you are using eclipse, you may enforce such rules with this
If I understand you correctly when you say "not to allow direct instantiation of the classes to keep it more flexible", a properly executed facade pattern will handle this.
Restrict the constructors of all the classes you want to hide to package scope. Open the facade class to public scope.
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/packagescope.html
"If you have a variable or method in
your class that you don’t want clients
of your class directly accessing,
don’t give it a public, protected or
private declaration. Due to an
oversight in the design of Java, you
can’t explicitly declare the default
“package” accessibility. Other members
of the package will be able to see it,
but classes outside the package that
inherit from yours, won’t. The
protected accessibility attribute
offers slightly more visibibily. A
protected method is visible to
inheriting classes, even not part of
the same package. A package scope
(default) method is not. That is the
only difference between protected and
package scope. "
There are two solutions to your question that don't involve keeping all classes in the same package.
The first is to use the Friend Accessor/Friend Package pattern described in (Practical API Design, Tulach 2008).
The second is to use OSGi. There is an article here explaining how OSGi accomplishes this.
Related Questions: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
You can do such magics with a custom class loader but:
the correct separation will be available only in a project staffed with your class loader;
it's really doubtful that the effort to create such loader is worthy.
In such situations I would do something similar to what we may see in the standard Java. E.g.you see javax.xml.stream.XMLInputFactory but somewhere you have com.sun.xml.internal.stream.XMLInputFactoryImpl. It is perfectly compilable if you write:
new com.sun.xml.internal.stream.XMLInputFactoryImpl()
though you will hardly do it :-) With a system property you may control the actual implementation that is being loaded. To me such approach is fine in many situations.
I hope I have understood your question correctly ;)
Cheers!