We Keep Coding

Access property/constant in extended classes

I'm trying to achieve the following:
I have a parent class, with some logic. In the child class, I "redefine" constants/properties. Is there any way to make the child properties accessible by methods defined in the parent class? Or to be more specific - is there any way to force the "out" method to write extended rather than base in the following example?
public class BaseTest {
public static final String x = "base";
public void out() {
System.out.println(x);
}
}
public class ExtendedTest extends BaseTest{
public static final String x = "extended";
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BaseTest base = new BaseTest();
ExtendedTest extended = new ExtendedTest();
base.out(); // base (as expected)
extended.out(); // base (extended expected)
System.out.println(extended.x); // extended (as expected)
}
}
I come mainly from the world of PHP, where this approach works just fine. Dunno if I'm missing something or if the very design of Java does not allow this.
Thank you.
Note: This is not important whether the property is static or not. I just wanted to be able to override a property of any kind in a child class (just like I can override a method) which, on basis of the answers I've received so far, doesn't seem to be possible in Java. In PHP it is absolutely possible and that was why I asked the question.

static fields are not subject to inheritance. The x in the body of the out() method refers to BaseTest.x. Since you are not overriding out(), the body of the out() method still prints the value of BaseTest.x.

Static members are resolved at compile-time, and adding an ExtendedTest.x does not affect the also-existing BaseTest.x, which is what the BaseTest#out() method is linked to.
To accomplish what you're wanting, you need an overridden method:
public class BaseTest {
public String x() {
return "base";
}
public final void out() {
System.out.println(x());
}
}
public class ExtendedTest extends BaseTest {
#Override
public String x() {
return "extended";
}
}
This pattern is commonly used with an abstract method in the base class or interface to require the subclass to define an attribute such as a name or a key.

How to generate constructor that calls superclass constructor using JavaPoet

I want to generate a class that extends other class using JavaPoet.
For example I have this class:
#MyAnnotation
public class ClassA {
public ClassA(String paramA, int paramB) {
// some code
}
}
and I want to generate new class like this one:
public class Generated_ClassA extends ClassA {
public Generated_ClassA (String paramA, int paramB) {
super(paramA, paramB);
}
}
However, I don't see any ready-to-use API in JavaPoet to create constructors which are calling superclass constructors. How it is possible to do this and what are the best practices?

You can do it by using MethodSpec.Builder#addStatement
MethodSpec.constructorBuilder()
.addModifiers(Modifier.PUBLIC)
.addParameter(String.class, "paramA")
.addParameter(Integer.TYPE, "paramB")
.addStatement("super(paramA, paramB)")
.build();
You can also also use MethodSpec.Builder#addCode and build same code using CodeBlock.Builder#addStatement but unfortunately AFAIK there is no specific builders available for calling super.

remove duplicate code in java

class A extends ApiClass
{
public void duplicateMethod()
{
}
}
class B extends AnotherApiClass
{
public void duplicateMethod()
{
}
}
I have two classes which extend different api classes. The two class has some duplicate
methods(same method repeated in both class) and how to remove this duplication?
Edit
Both ApiClass and AnotherApiClass are not under my control

Depending on what the code is you could do something like:
public class Util
{
public static void duplicateMethod()
{
// code goes here
}
}
and then just have the other two duplicateMethods call that one. So the code would not be duplicated, but the method name and the call to the Util.duplicateMethod would be.
If the code in the Util.duplicateMethod needed to access instance/class variables of the A and B class it wouldn't work out so nicely, but it could potentially be done (let me know if you need that).
EDIT (based on comment):
With instance variables it gets less pretty... but can be done. Something like:
interface X
{
int getVar();
void setVar(A a);
}
class A
extends ApiClass
implements X
{
}
class B
extends AnotherApiClass
implements X
{
}
class Util
{
public static void duplicateMethod(X x)
{
int val = x.getVal();
x.setVal(val + 1);
}
}
So, for each variable you need to access you would make a method for get (and set if needed). I don't like this way since it make the get/set methods public which may mean you are making things available that you don't want to be available. An alternative would be to do something with reflection, but I'd like that even less :-)

Sounds like a case for the "Strategy Pattern".
class A extends ApiClass {
private ClassContainingDupMethod strategy;
}
class N extends AnotherApiClass {
private ClassContainingDupMethod strategy;
public methodCallingDupMethod(){
strategy.dupMethod();
}
}
class ClassContainingDupMethod{
public dupMethod(){;}
}
Or is the dupMethod inherted from the Api classes?

Duplicate methods that rely on member variables imply duplicate member variables, too - and that starts to smell like too-large classes. What would those specific member variables, with the method(s), look like, if you were to extract them into their own class, and then compose that class into your other classes? Prefer composition over inheritance.

class BaseApiClass
{
public void duplicateMethod()
{
}
}
class ApiClass extends BaseApiClass
{
}
class AnotherApiClass extends BaseApiClass
{
}
class A extends ApiClass
{
}
class B extends AnotherApiClass
{
}

You need to combine the classes into one object and then all classes using th other two classes, modify their code to use the single class.

Inner class within Interface

Is it possible to create an inner class within an interface?
If it is possible why would we want to create an inner class like that since
we are not going to create any interface objects?
Do these inner classes help in any development process?

Yes, we can have classes inside interfaces. One example of usage could be
public interface Input
{
public static class KeyEvent {
public static final int KEY_DOWN = 0;
public static final int KEY_UP = 1;
public int type;
public int keyCode;
public char keyChar;
}
public static class TouchEvent {
public static final int TOUCH_DOWN = 0;
public static final int TOUCH_UP = 1;
public static final int TOUCH_DRAGGED = 2;
public int type;
public int x, y;
public int pointer;
}
public boolean isKeyPressed(int keyCode);
public boolean isTouchDown(int pointer);
public int getTouchX(int pointer);
public int getTouchY(int pointer);
public float getAccelX();
public float getAccelY();
public float getAccelZ();
public List<KeyEvent> getKeyEvents();
public List<TouchEvent> getTouchEvents();
}
Here the code has two nested classes which are for encapsulating information about event objects which are later used in method definitions like getKeyEvents(). Having them inside the Input interface improves cohesion.

Yes, you can create both a nested class or an inner class inside a Java interface (note that contrarily to popular belief there's no such thing as an "static inner class": this simply makes no sense, there's nothing "inner" and no "outter" class when a nested class is static, so it cannot be "static inner").
Anyway, the following compiles fine:
public interface A {
class B {
}
}
I've seen it used to put some kind of "contract checker" directly in the interface definition (well, in the class nested in the interface, that can have static methods, contrarily to the interface itself, which can't). Looking like this if I recall correctly.
public interface A {
static class B {
public static boolean verifyState( A a ) {
return (true if object implementing class A looks to be in a valid state)
}
}
}
Note that I'm not commenting on the usefulness of such a thing, I'm simply answering your question: it can be done and this is one kind of use I've seen made of it.
Now I won't comment on the usefulness of such a construct and from I've seen: I've seen it, but it's not a very common construct.
200KLOC codebase here where this happens exactly zero time (but then we've got a lot of other things that we consider bad practices that happen exactly zero time too that other people would find perfectly normal so...).

A valid use, IMHO, is defining objects that are received or returned by the enclosing interface methods. Tipically data holding structures. In that way, if the object is only used for that interface, you have things in a more cohesive way.
By example:
interface UserChecker {
Ticket validateUser(Credentials credentials);
class Credentials {
// user and password
}
class Ticket {
// some obscure implementation
}
}
But anyway... it's only a matter of taste.

Quote from the Java 7 spec:
Interfaces may contain member type declarations (§8.5).
A member type declaration in an interface is implicitly static and public. It is permitted to redundantly specify either or both of these modifiers.
It is NOT possible to declare non-static classes inside a Java interface, which makes sense to me.

An interesting use case is to provide sort of a default implementation to interface methods through an inner class as described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3442218/454667 (to overcome the problem of single-class-inheritance).

Yes it is possible to have static class definitions inside an interface, but maybe the most useful aspect of this feature is when using enum types (which are special kind of static classes). For example you can have something like this:
public interface User {
public enum Role {
ADMIN("administrator"),
EDITOR("editor"),
VANILLA("regular user");
private String description;
private Role(String description) {
this.description = description;
}
public String getDescription() {
return description;
}
}
public String getName();
public void setName(String name);
public Role getRole();
public void setRole(Role role);
...
}

It certainly is possible, and one case where I've found it useful is when an interface has to throw custom exceptions. You the keep the exceptions with their associated interface, which I think is often neater than littering your source tree with heaps of trivial exception files.
interface MyInterface {
public static class MyInterfaceException extends Exception {
}
void doSomething() throws MyInterfaceException;
}

What #Bachi mentions is similar to traits in Scala and are actually implemented using a nested class inside an interface. This can be simulated in Java. See also java traits or mixins pattern?

Maybe when you want more complex constructions like some different implementation behaviours, consider:
public interface A {
public void foo();
public static class B implements A {
#Override
public void foo() {
System.out.println("B foo");
}
}
}
This is your interface and this will be the implementee:
public class C implements A {
#Override
public void foo() {
A.B b = new A.B();
b.foo();
}
public static void main(String[] strings) {
C c = new C();
c.foo();
}
}
May provide some static implementations, but won't that be confusing, I don't know.

I found a use fir this type of construct.
You can use this construct to defines and group all the static final constants.
Since, it is an interface you can implement this on an class.
You have access to all the constants grouped; name of the class acts as a namespace in this case.

You can also create "Helper" static classes for common functionality for the objects that implement this interface:
public interface A {
static class Helper {
public static void commonlyUsedMethod( A a ) {
...
}
}
}

I'm needing one right now. I have an interface where it would be convenient to return a unique class from several of it's methods. This class only makes sense
as a container for responses from methods of this interface.
Hence, it would be convenient to have a static nested class definition, which is associated only with this interface, since this interface should be the only place where this results container class is ever created.

For instance traits (smth like interface with implemented methods) in Groovy. They are compiled to an interface which contains inner class where all methods are implemented.

Interfaces in Java: cannot make implemented methods protected or private

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