We Keep Coding

Which part of the JLS talks about accessibility of members of local classes?

The java syntax allows member fields/methods of local classes to have access modifiers. But they have no effect at all. This seems to apply to anonymous classes as well.
This feels very counterintuitive. Is this behavior specified in the JLS?
Code:
class Foo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
class Bar {
private int a = 1;
protected int b = 2;
public int c = 3;
}
var bar = new Bar();
System.out.println(bar.a); // works for private a
System.out.println(bar.b); // works for protected b
System.out.println(bar.c); // works for public c
}
}

Yes. Just in the section about access modifiers - there is no separate section about 'the meaning of access modifiers specifically in the context of local classes' for the same reason there is no section about 'the meaning of access modifiers specifically when there's a full moon out' - there's nothing that changes here.
JLS §6.6.1 covers everything you need to determine exactly what happens (and conclude that they, indeed, have no effect here). I've intentionally picked JLS8, because 9+ muddies the waters somewhat due to module scope stuff.
A member (class, interface, field, or method) of a reference type, or a constructor of a class type, is accessible only if the type is accessible and the member or constructor is declared to permit access:
Emphasis mine: The type is not accessible for any and all code, except the code inside the very method you've declared your local class in. That trivially means that access modifiers are completely irrelevant here for all code outside of your method - they can't even access Bar, therefore the accessibility of field a is moot.
Thus, we can restrict determining what each access modifier would do solely to '... to the code that tries to access it, which must therefore live in this very method, because anywhere else its trivially inaccessible due to the type being inaccessible'. Then:
public
Trivially, the code in the method can access public things.
nothing (package private)
Trivially, code in the method is in the same package as the local class is, by definition - package statements can only exist at the compilation unit level and these things are neccessarily in the same unit. Thus, yes, code in the method can access package private things.
protected
... is a superset of package private, therefore, yes, code in the method can access protected things.
private
From the JLS 6.6.1:
Otherwise, the member or constructor is declared private, and access is permitted if and only if it occurs within the body of the top level class (§7.6) that encloses the declaration of the member or constructor.
By definition the local class is not a top-level class; the job of 'walk upwards in the syntax tree until you hit a top-level class', when applied to a local class, leads to the same answer, guaranteed, as when you apply it to the other code in the method the local class is in. Thus, yes, you can access private things.
Thus...
for all 4 access levels, the answer is the exact same thing: Yeah, you can. Hence, access modifiers are irrelevant. This isn't called out in the JLS because that's the result of applying the rules.
Guesses about intent
I did not personally design java-the-language. So, these are merely guesses:
Explicitly making any specification about the nature of access modifiers in local classes means the JLS is longer than it needs to be - the above behaviour is sensible enough (what else would you want here? Let's say that you wanted private stuff to be inaccessible - why? That's not how private works anywhere else in java, why should local classes be the one exception?)
Disallowing them entirely could be worthwhile, saving some 'room' in the mental model and the compiler specs, perhaps. However, that's problematic - local classes can implement things and extend something - and that may require certain access level (you cannot override a method and reduce its access level). The spec would then also have to say that for local classes the 'cannot reduce access level' rule is waived, and then would complicate everything for no reason.

The reason And example of why it is useful to be able to specify access modifiers is to allow local and anonymous classes to implement interfaces, which require the implementing methods to be public, or to allow local and anonymous classes to extend other classes and override public methods. (You cannot make the access specifier of a method more restrictive when you override it).
For example:
class Foo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Comparator<String> byLength = new Comparator<String>() {
// Need to make this method public because the method
// in interface Comparator is public
#Override
public int compare(String o1, String o2) {
return Integer.compare(o1.length(), o2.length());
}
};
// ...
}
}
For other use cases, the Java language designers probably simply didn't bother to add extra rules to explicitly forbid access modifiers. It would just have made the rules of the language more complicated, and the ability to specify access modifiers here isn't useful, but doesn't do any harm either.

The use of visibility modifiers in Java

class Orange{
Orange(){
}
}
What is the difference between the usage of the modifier - in this case, package-private - in front of the class and in front of the constructor? I think the modifier in front of the constructor means it is allowed to instantiate an instance of the class Orange. But what about the modifier in front of the class?

To start with there are 4 access levels created by 3 access modifiers.
public - accessible everywhere
protected - accessible in the same package and in the children
default - accessible only in the same package
private - accessible only in the same class.
You are correct about - Modifiers at the level of constructors are directly related to the instantiation of the class.
Modifiers at the level of Class decide the accessibility of the Class.

First, to assuage any fears, the code you've provided is perfectly valid Java syntax.
In effect, you've created a class that can only be instantiated/used by other classes in the default package. It would also work if you defined it in a package (e.g. package foo;) since only the classes in package foo could see this class).
Now, to the crux of the question.
There are different ways to control access to fields and members. and they each do different things.
private visibility is the least visible. Only the defining class can access the field.
No modifier, or package private is the second least visible. The defining class and all classes within the package may access the field, but subclasses and the rest of the world cannot.
protected is the second most visible. Only other classes are prohibited from accessing the field.
public is the most visible. Everything can access the field.
Modifiers at the level of the class get interesting. This comes from the Java Language Specification, §8.1.1:
The access modifier public (§6.6) pertains only to top level classes
(§7.6) and to member classes (§8.5), not to local classes (§14.3) or
anonymous classes (§15.9.5).
The access modifiers protected and private (§6.6) pertain only to
member classes within a directly enclosing class or enum declaration
(§8.5).
The modifier static pertains only to member classes (§8.5.1), not to
top level or local or anonymous classes.
It is a compile-time error if the same modifier appears more than once
in a class declaration.
If two or more (distinct) class modifiers appear in a class
declaration, then it is customary, though not required, that they
appear in the order consistent with that shown above in the production
for ClassModifier.
In general, a class declaration appears something like this:
ClassDeclaration:
NormalClassDeclaration
EnumDeclaration
NormalClassDeclaration:
ClassModifiers(opt) class Identifier TypeParameters(opt)
Super(opt) Interfaces(opt) ClassBody
Anything with (opt) is considered optional.
So, what does this pare down to?
The JLS mandates that a class does not need a [class] modifier.
The JLS mandates that, if a [class] modifier is present, then it follows one of these rules:
If the modifier is public, then it is only applicable to top level classes and member classes.
If the modifier is protected or private, then it is only applicable to member classes within a directly enclosing class or enumeration.
The static modifier may appear, but is only applicable to member classes.
Constructors have a similar rule set.
ConstructorDeclaration:
ConstructorModifiers(opt) ConstructorDeclarator
Throws(opt) ConstructorBody
ConstructorDeclarator:
TypeParameters(opt) SimpleTypeName ( FormalParameterList(opt) )
Again, this breaks down to:
The JLS mandates that a constructor does not need a [constructor] modifier.
The JLS mandates that a constructor modifier cannot contain abstract, static, final, native, strictfp, or synchronized.
The JLS mandates, if no access modifier is specified for the constructor of a normal class, the constructor has default access (§8.8.3, emphasis mine).

You can only declare a public or default class (in case of top level classes only) in Java and these modifiers decide the accessiblity of the class.
I also suggest you to see "Why can't a class or an interface receive private or protected access modifiers?"
Now as for as constructor concerns, a constructor will have aaccess-control of type default when no access-modifier is defined explicitly. So this constructor will have a Package Level Access. Only those class which are defined within that package as that of the class with this default constructor will be able to access it. See "Aren't Java constructors public by default?"
If the constructor is made private, then only the code within that class can access this.
For a better understanding of modifiers, you need to see "Access Modifiers In Java"

Modifier of class defines who can access the class. For example public class can be accessed by classes from any package, if no modifier is written the class can be accessed by classes from the same package only.
Modifier of constructor, method and field has the same meaning. However private and protected have more sense. Private can be accessed from the current class only. Protected from its subclasses as far as from just classes from the same package.
Concerning to your question about constructor. Class can have several constructors. Some of them can be private, some other public. You are right that there is no sense to make constructor public if class is package protected: no-one outside package can call this class anyway.
This is exactly like writing public constructors for abstract classes. Since abstract class cannot be instantiated itself its constructors should be protected or private although compiler does not care about this.
BTW using default package is not commonly used and not recommended technique.

The use and types of class level modifiers:
http://javapapers.com/core-java/access-modifiers-in-java-explain/
The use and types of constructor level modifiers:
http://www.careercup.com/question?id=296844#commentThread302715

Class modifiers work similarly to method modifiers. Public, private, final, abstract, etc. work.
Public allows the class and its methods to be accessed by classes from any package.
No modifier only allows classes to be access from it's defined package.
Private would prevent all access (no point to this if using with a top-level class).
Abstract classes allow you to create child classes derived from the parent (abstract) class. For example, you can make an Abstract Shape class and have a Rectangle class extend shape, inheriting all its methods, variables, and forcing it to define any abstract methods.

Access Modifiers:
Public - {Can access anywhere in the project}
Private - {Can access only inside the class}
Protected - {Can access within the package and sub classes}
Default - {can access within the package}
Non-Access Modifiers:
Static - {for creating class variable and method}
Final - {for creating finalized variable and method}
Abstract - {for creating abstract method and class}
Synchronized - {for threads}
Some brief discussion on the above modifiers in this link. Refer it for the better understanding.

I find the best visibility level in Java to be the default visibility i.e. package visibility, because it enables unit test classes to access all the methods, if the test is placed in the same package as the main class.
Also package visibility is shorter to write since you can omit the visibility declaration, so there is less boiler plate.
The second best visibility level is protected, since in some cases you can create your test classes as sub-classes of your main class. However, as stated before, package visibility works better in most cases, if you use packages properly.
Third, typically if you run Sonar and do code review and static analysis on large projects, I have found out that typically 80% of the methods are public, and 20% are private/protected. Thus, the main idea of using private or protected methods is to protect the data/properties from being accessed by bypassing the accessors. Most of the methods will be typically public anyways.
The most useless visibility level (but unfortunately commonly used) is private as it's impossible to test (without using Reflection and modifying the visibility to something else). Also, private prohibits code re-use in sub-classes, which is the main idea of using object oriented paradigm in the first place, and thus should be avoided. For the same reasons keyword final should be avoided in most cases.
Thus, I find your example to be the best practice how to define the visibility levels, except that your constructor is not public :). However, you are missing the package declaration and unit tests.

In Java, what happens when you have a method with an unspecified visibility keyword?

I have been working with android for a few years now, not once have I had a teacher or anyone to tell me what to do.
This whole time I have wondered to myself this.
When you have a method I generally see...
public void method(){
//Stuff
}
or
private void method(){
//stuff
}
I know that a void is a method with no return value, and that public is the visibility of the method in a way but would it matter if I just used something like this...
void method(){
//stuff
}
Because then the methods visibility would just be default anyway?
I have no idea if I am right or not, is it just good practice to specify "public" or "private" ?

Not specifying anything has a specific meaning:
public - any class can access this member
protected - subclasses can access this member (as well as code in the same class or in the same package)
private - only code in the same class can access this member
nothing ("default" access) - only code in the same package can access this member
Arguably the last case should have had its own keyword, but we're stuck with it now. Unless you really mean to use default visibility, it's poor form to not specify anything - did you really need package visibility for some reason, or did you just default to package visibility for everything? Best practice is to explicitly use private for non-public members unless you need one of the others.

Java has four levels of visibility: public, protected, (default), private
Visible to the package. the default. No modifiers are needed.
Visible to the class only (private).
Visible to the world (public).
Visible to the package and all subclasses (protected).
Default Access Modifier - No keyword:
Default access modifier means we do not explicitly declare an access
modifier for a class, field, method etc.
A variable or method declared without any access control modifier is
available to any other class in the same package. The default modifier
cannot be used for methods, fields in an interface.
Private Access Modifier - private:
Methods, Variables and Constructors that are declared private can only
be accessed within the declared class itself.
Private access modifier is the most restrictive access level. Class
and interfaces cannot be private.
Variables that are declared private can be accessed outside the class
if public getter methods are present in the class.
Using the private modifier is the main way that an object encapsulates
itself and hide data from the outside world.
Public Access Modifier - public:
A class, method, constructor, interface etc declared public can be
accessed from any other class. Therefore fields, methods, blocks
declared inside a public class can be accessed from any class
belonging to the Java Universe.
However if the public class we are trying to access is in a different
package, then the public class still need to be imported.
Because of class inheritance, all public methods and variables of a
class are inherited by its subclasses.
Protected Access Modifier - protected:
Variables, methods and constructors which are declared protected in a
superclass can be accessed only by the subclasses in other package or
any class within the package of the protected members' class.
The protected access modifier cannot be applied to class and
interfaces. Methods, fields can be declared protected, however methods
and fields in a interface cannot be declared protected.
Protected access gives the subclass a chance to use the helper method
or variable, while preventing a nonrelated class from trying to use
it.

Java has four levels of visibility: public, protected, (default), private. The meaning of these is as follows:
public - makes your methods accessible to any other class.
protected - makes your methods accessible to any class in the same package OR any subclass of your class.
(default, i.e. no modifier) - makes your methods accessible only to classes in the same package.
private - makes your methods accessible only to the current class.
The same rules apply when specifying the access modifiers on classes, methods and fields.

What is the default access specifier in Java?

I just started reading a Java book and wondered; which access specifier is the default one, if none is specified?

The default visibility is known as “package-private” (though you can't use this explicitly), which means the field will be accessible from inside the same package to which the class belongs.
As mdma pointed out, it isn't true for interface members though, for which the default is "public".
See Java's Access Specifiers

The default specifier depends upon context.
For classes, and interface declarations, the default is package private. This falls between protected and private, allowing only classes in the same package access. (protected is like this, but also allowing access to subclasses outside of the package.)
class MyClass // package private
{
int field; // package private field
void calc() { // package private method
}
}
For interface members (fields and methods), the default access is public. But note that the interface declaration itself defaults to package private.
interface MyInterface // package private
{
int field1; // static final public
void method1(); // public abstract
}
If we then have the declaration
public interface MyInterface2 extends MyInterface
{
}
Classes using MyInterface2 can then see field1 and method1 from the super interface, because they are public, even though they cannot see the declaration of MyInterface itself.

If no access specifier is given, it's package-level access (there is no explicit specifier for this) for classes and class members. Interface methods are implicitly public.

The default visibility (no keyword) is package which means that it will be available to every class that is located in the same package.
Interesting side note is that protected doesn't limit visibility to the subclasses but also to the other classes in the same package

It depends on what the thing is.
Top-level types (that is, classes, enums, interfaces, and annotation types not declared inside another type) are package-private by default. (JLS §6.6.1)
In classes, all members (that means fields, methods, and nested type declarations) and constructors are package-private by default. (JLS §6.6.1)
When a class has no explicitly declared constructor, the compiler inserts a default zero-argument constructor which has the same access specifier as the class. (JLS §8.8.9) The default constructor is commonly misstated as always being public, but in rare cases that's not equivalent.
In enums, constructors are private by default. Indeed, enum contructors must be private, and it is an error to specify them as public or protected. Enum constants are always public, and do not permit any access specifier. Other members of enums are package-private by default. (JLS §8.9)
In interfaces and annotation types, all members (again, that means fields, methods, and nested type declarations) are public by default. Indeed, members of interfaces and annotation types must be public, and it is an error to specify them as private or protected. (JLS §9.3 to 9.5)
Local classes are named classes declared inside a method, constructor, or initializer block. They are scoped to the {..} block in which they are declared and do not permit any access specifier. (JLS §14.3) Using reflection, you can instantiate local classes from elsewhere, and they are package-private, although I'm not sure if that detail is in the JLS.
Anonymous classes are custom classes created with new which specify a class body directly in the expression. (JLS §15.9.5) Their syntax does not permit any access specifier. Using reflection, you can instantiate anonymous classes from elsewhere, and both they and their generated constructors are are package-private, although I'm not sure if that detail is in the JLS.
Instance and static initializer blocks do not have access specifiers at the language level (JLS §8.6 & 8.7), but static initializer blocks are implemented as a method named <clinit> (JVMS §2.9), so the method must, internally, have some access specifier. I examined classes compiled by javac and by Eclipse's compiler using a hex editor and found that both generate the method as package-private. However, you can't call <clinit>() within the language because the < and > characters are invalid in a method name, and the reflection methods are hardwired to deny its existence, so effectively its access specifier is no access. The method can only be called by the VM, during class initialization. Instance initializer blocks are not compiled as separate methods; their code is copied into each constructor, so they can't be accessed individually, even by reflection.

default is a keyword that is used as an access modifier for methods and variables.
Using this access modifier will make your class, variable, method or constructor acessible from own class or package, it will be also is set if no access modifier is present.
Access Levels
Modifier Class Package Subclass EveryWhere
public Y Y Y Y
protected Y Y Y N
default Y Y N N
private Y N N N
if you use a default in a interface you will be able to implement a method there like this exemple
public interface Computer {
default void Start() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Error");
}
}
However it will only works from the 8 Java version
Official Documentation
Access Modifiers in Java

See here for more details. The default is none of private/public/protected, but a completely different access specification. It's not widely used, and I prefer to be much more specific in my access definitions.

the default access specifier is package.Classes can access the members of other classes in the same package.but outside the package it appears as private

Here is a quote about package level visibility from an interview with James Gosling, the creator of Java:
Bill Venners: Java has four access levels. The default is package. I
have always wondered if making package access default was convenient
because the three keywords that people from C++ already knew about
were private, protected, and public. Or if you had some particular
reason that you felt package access should be the default.
James Gosling: A package is generally a set of things that are kind of
written together. So generically I could have done one of two things.
One was force you always to put in a keyword that gives you the
domain. Or I could have had a default value. And then the question is,
what makes a sensible default? And I tend to go for what is the least
dangerous thing.
So public would have been a really bad thing to make the default.
Private would probably have been a bad thing to make a default, if
only because people actually don't write private methods that often.
And same thing with protected. And in looking at a bunch of code that
I had, I decided that the most common thing that was reasonably safe
was in the package. And C++ didn't have a keyword for that, because
they didn't have a notion of packages.
But I liked it rather than the friends notion, because with friends
you kind of have to enumerate who all of your friends are, and so if
you add a new class to a package, then you generally end up having to
go to all of the classes in that package and update their friends,
which I had always found to be a complete pain in the butt.
But the friends list itself causes sort of a versioning problem. And
so there was this notion of a friendly class. And the nice thing that
I was making that the default -- I'll solve the problem so what should
the keyword be?
For a while there actually was a friendly keyword. But because all the
others start with "P," it was "phriendly" with a "PH." But that was
only in there for maybe a day.
http://www.artima.com/intv/gosling2P.html

Update Java 8 usage of default keyword:
As many others have noted The default visibility (no keyword)
the field will be accessible from inside the same package to which the
class belongs.
Not to be confused with the new Java 8 feature (Default Methods) that allows an interface to provide an implementation when its labeled with the default keyword.
See: Access modifiers

There is an access modifier called "default" in JAVA, which allows direct instance creation of that entity only within that package.
Here is a useful link:
Java Access Modifiers/Specifiers

First of all let me say one thing there is no such term as "Access specifier" in java. We should call everything as "Modifiers". As we know that final, static, synchronised, volatile.... are called as modifiers, even Public, private, protected, default, abstract should also be called as modifiers . Default is such a modifiers where physical existence is not there but no modifiers is placed then it should be treated as default modifiers.
To justify this take one example:
public class Simple{  
    public static void main(String args[]){  
     System.out.println("Hello Java");  
    }  
}  
Output will be: Hello Java
Now change public to private and see what compiler error you get:
It says "Modifier private is not allowed here"
What conclusion is someone can be wrong or some tutorial can be wrong but compiler cannot be wrong.
So we can say there is no term access specifier in java everything is modifiers.

Java - Method accessibility inside package-private class?

If I have a java class which is package-private (declared with "class", not "public class"), there is really no difference if the methods inside are declared public or protected or package-private, right? So which should I use, or when should I use which? I'm a bit confused.

If I have a java class which is package-private (declared with "class", not "public class"), there is really no difference if the methods inside are declared public or protected or package-private, right?
Well maybe not immediately. But if you then (or in the future) declare a 'protected' or 'public' class that inherits from the package-private class, then the visibility of the members of the original class do matter.
As #kmccoy points out, declaring the class as final removes the possibility of subclasses.
But this is really only window-dressing. If you then decide that you really need to create subclasses, you simply remove the final ... and then you are back in the situation where the choice of access modifiers does matter.
IMO, the bottom line is that you should pick the most appropriate modifiers ... even if it is not necessary right now. If nothing else, your choice of modifiers should document your intent as to where the abstraction boundaries lie.

Public methods inside a package class are public to classes in the same package. But, private methods will not be accessible by classes in the same package.