why use super when constructing a subclass [duplicate]

why use super when constructing a subclass [duplicate] - java

Java requires that if you call this() or super() in a constructor, it must be the first statement. Why?
For example:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(int x) {}
}
public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
int c = a + b;
super(c); // COMPILE ERROR
}
}
The Sun compiler says, call to super must be first statement in constructor. The Eclipse compiler says, Constructor call must be the first statement in a constructor.
However, you can get around this by re-arranging the code a little bit:
public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
super(a + b); // OK
}
}
Here is another example:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(List list) {}
}
public class MySubClassA extends MyClass {
public MySubClassA(Object item) {
// Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
List list = new ArrayList();
list.add(item);
super(list); // COMPILE ERROR
}
}
public class MySubClassB extends MyClass {
public MySubClassB(Object item) {
// Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
super(Arrays.asList(new Object[] { item })); // OK
}
}
So, it is not stopping you from executing logic before the call to super(). It is just stopping you from executing logic that you can't fit into a single expression.
There are similar rules for calling this(). The compiler says, call to this must be first statement in constructor.
Why does the compiler have these restrictions? Can you give a code example where, if the compiler did not have this restriction, something bad would happen?

The parent class' constructor needs to be called before the subclass' constructor. This will ensure that if you call any methods on the parent class in your constructor, the parent class has already been set up correctly.
What you are trying to do, pass args to the super constructor is perfectly legal, you just need to construct those args inline as you are doing, or pass them in to your constructor and then pass them to super:
public MySubClassB extends MyClass {
public MySubClassB(Object[] myArray) {
super(myArray);
}
}
If the compiler did not enforce this you could do this:
public MySubClassB extends MyClass {
public MySubClassB(Object[] myArray) {
someMethodOnSuper(); //ERROR super not yet constructed
super(myArray);
}
}
In cases where a parent class has a default constructor the call to super is inserted for you automatically by the compiler. Since every class in Java inherits from Object, objects constructor must be called somehow and it must be executed first. The automatic insertion of super() by the compiler allows this. Enforcing super to appear first, enforces that constructor bodies are executed in the correct order which would be: Object -> Parent -> Child -> ChildOfChild -> SoOnSoForth

I've found a way around this by chaining constructors and static methods. What I wanted to do looked something like this:
public class Foo extends Baz {
private final Bar myBar;
public Foo(String arg1, String arg2) {
// ...
// ... Some other stuff needed to construct a 'Bar'...
// ...
final Bar b = new Bar(arg1, arg2);
super(b.baz()):
myBar = b;
}
}
So basically construct an object based on constructor parameters, store the object in a member, and also pass the result of a method on that object into super's constructor. Making the member final was also reasonably important as the nature of the class is that it's immutable. Note that as it happens, constructing Bar actually takes a few intermediate objects, so it's not reducible to a one-liner in my actual use case.
I ended up making it work something like this:
public class Foo extends Baz {
private final Bar myBar;
private static Bar makeBar(String arg1, String arg2) {
// My more complicated setup routine to actually make 'Bar' goes here...
return new Bar(arg1, arg2);
}
public Foo(String arg1, String arg2) {
this(makeBar(arg1, arg2));
}
private Foo(Bar bar) {
super(bar.baz());
myBar = bar;
}
}
Legal code, and it accomplishes the task of executing multiple statements before calling the super constructor.

Because the JLS says so. Could the JLS be changed in a compatible manner to allow it? Yup.
However, it would complicate the language spec, which is already more than complicated enough. It wouldn't be a highly useful thing to do and there are ways around it (call another constructor with the result of a static method or lambda expression this(fn()) - the method is called before the other constructor, and hence also the super constructor). So the power to weight ratio of doing the change is unfavourable.
Note that this rule alone does not prevent use of fields before the super class has completed construction.
Consider these illegal examples.
super(this.x = 5);
super(this.fn());
super(fn());
super(x);
super(this instanceof SubClass);
// this.getClass() would be /really/ useful sometimes.
This example is legal, but "wrong".
class MyBase {
MyBase() {
fn();
}
abstract void fn();
}
class MyDerived extends MyBase {
void fn() {
// ???
}
}
In the above example, if MyDerived.fn required arguments from the MyDerived constructor they would need to be sleazed through with a ThreadLocal. ;(
Incidentally, since Java 1.4, the synthetic field that contains the outer this is assigned before inner classes super constructor is called. This caused peculiar NullPointerException events in code compiled to target earlier versions.
Note also, in the presence of unsafe publication, construction can be viewed reordered by other threads, unless precautions are made.
Edit March 2018: In message Records: construction and validation Oracle is suggesting this restriction be removed (but unlike C#, this will be definitely unassigned (DU) before constructor chaining).
Historically, this() or super() must be first in a constructor. This
restriction was never popular, and perceived as arbitrary. There were
a number of subtle reasons, including the verification of
invokespecial, that contributed to this restriction. Over the years,
we've addressed these at the VM level, to the point where it becomes
practical to consider lifting this restriction, not just for records,
but for all constructors.

Simply because this is the inheritance philosophy. And according to the Java language specification, this is how the constructor's body is defined:
ConstructorBody:
{ ExplicitConstructorInvocationopt BlockStatementsopt }
The first statement of a constructor body may be either
an explicit invocation of another constructor of the same class (by using the keyword "this"); or
an explicit invocation of the direct superclass (by using the keyword "super")
If a constructor body does not begin with an explicit constructor invocation and the constructor being declared is not part of the primordial class Object, then the constructor body implicitly begins with a superclass constructor invocation "super();", an invocation of the constructor of its direct superclass that takes no arguments. And so on.. there will be a whole chain of constructors called all the way back to the constructor of Object; "All Classes in the Java platform are Descendants of Object". This thing is called "Constructor Chaining".
Now why is this?
And the reason why Java defined the ConstructorBody in this way, is that they needed to maintain the hierarchy of the object. Remember the definition of the inheritance; It's extending a class. With that being said, you cannot extend something that doesn't exist. The base (the superclass) needs to be created first, then you can derive it (the subclass). That's why they called them Parent and Child classes; you can't have a child without a parent.
On a technical level, a subclass inherits all the members (fields, methods, nested classes) from its parent. And since Constructors are NOT members (They don't belong to objects. They are responsible of creating objects) so they are NOT inherited by subclasses, but they can be invoked. And since at the time of object creation only ONE constructor is executed. So how do we guarantee the creation of the superclass when you create the subclass object? Thus the concept of "constructor chaining"; so we have the ability to invoke other constructors (i.e. super) from within the current constructor. And Java required this invocation to be the FIRST line in the subclass constructor to maintain the hierarchy and guarantee it. They assume that if you don't explicitly create the parent object FIRST (like if you forgot about it), they will do it implicitly for you.
This check is done during compilation. But I'm not sure what would happen on runtime, what kind of runtime error we would get, IF Java doesn't throw a compile-error when we explicitly try to execute a base constructor from within a subclass's constructor in the middle of its body and not from the very first line ...

I am fairly sure (those familiar with the Java Specification chime in) that it is to prevent you from (a) being allowed to use a partially-constructed object, and (b), forcing the parent class's constructor to construct on a "fresh" object.
Some examples of a "bad" thing would be:
class Thing
{
final int x;
Thing(int x) { this.x = x; }
}
class Bad1 extends Thing
{
final int z;
Bad1(int x, int y)
{
this.z = this.x + this.y; // WHOOPS! x hasn't been set yet
super(x);
}
}
class Bad2 extends Thing
{
final int y;
Bad2(int x, int y)
{
this.x = 33;
this.y = y;
super(x); // WHOOPS! x is supposed to be final
}
}

You asked why, and the other answers, imo, don't really say why it's ok to call your super's constructor, but only if it's the very first line. The reason is that you're not really calling the constructor. In C++, the equivalent syntax is
MySubClass: MyClass {
public:
MySubClass(int a, int b): MyClass(a+b)
{
}
};
When you see the initializer clause on its own like that, before the open brace, you know it's special. It runs before any of the rest of the constructor runs and in fact before any of the member variables are initialized. It's not that different for Java. There's a way to get some code (other constructors) to run before the constructor really starts, before any members of the subclass are initialized. And that way is to put the "call" (eg super) on the very first line. (In a way, that super or this is kind of before the first open brace, even though you type it after, because it will be executed before you get to the point that everything is fully constructed.) Any other code after the open brace (like int c = a + b;) makes the compiler say "oh, ok, no other constructors, we can initialize everything then." So it runs off and initializes your super class and your members and whatnot and then starts executing the code after the open brace.
If, a few lines later, it meets some code saying "oh yeah when you're constructing this object, here are the parameters I want you to pass along to the constructor for the base class", it's too late and it doesn't make any sense. So you get a compiler error.

So, it is not stopping you from executing logic before the call to
super. It is just stopping you from executing logic that you can't fit
into a single expression.
Actually you can execute logic with several expessions, you just have to wrap your code in a static function and call it in the super statement.
Using your example:
public class MySubClassC extends MyClass {
public MySubClassC(Object item) {
// Create a list that contains the item, and pass the list to super
super(createList(item)); // OK
}
private static List createList(item) {
List list = new ArrayList();
list.add(item);
return list;
}
}

I totally agree, the restrictions are too strong. Using a static helper method (as Tom Hawtin - tackline suggested) or shoving all "pre-super() computations" into a single expression in the parameter is not always possible, e.g.:
class Sup {
public Sup(final int x_) {
//cheap constructor
}
public Sup(final Sup sup_) {
//expensive copy constructor
}
}
class Sub extends Sup {
private int x;
public Sub(final Sub aSub) {
/* for aSub with aSub.x == 0,
* the expensive copy constructor is unnecessary:
*/
/* if (aSub.x == 0) {
* super(0);
* } else {
* super(aSub);
* }
* above gives error since if-construct before super() is not allowed.
*/
/* super((aSub.x == 0) ? 0 : aSub);
* above gives error since the ?-operator's type is Object
*/
super(aSub); // much slower :(
// further initialization of aSub
}
}
Using an "object not yet constructed" exception, as Carson Myers suggested, would help, but checking this during each object construction would slow down execution. I would favor a Java compiler that makes a better differentiation (instead of inconsequently forbidding an if-statement but allowing the ?-operator within the parameter), even if this complicates the language spec.

I found a woraround.
This won't compile :
public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
int c = a + b;
super(c); // COMPILE ERROR
doSomething(c);
doSomething2(a);
doSomething3(b);
}
}
This works :
public class MySubClass extends MyClass {
public MySubClass(int a, int b) {
this(a + b);
doSomething2(a);
doSomething3(b);
}
private MySubClass(int c) {
super(c);
doSomething(c);
}
}

My guess is they did this to make life easier for people writing tools that process Java code, and to some lesser degree also people who are reading Java code.
If you allow the super() or this() call to move around, there are more variations to check for. For example if you move the super() or this() call into a conditional if() it might have to be smart enough to insert an implicit super() into the else. It might need to know how to report an error if you call super() twice, or use super() and this() together. It might need to disallow method calls on the receiver until super() or this() is called and figuring out when that is becomes complicated.
Making everyone do this extra work probably seemed like a greater cost than benefit.

Can you give a code example where, if the compiler did not have this restriction, something bad would happen?
class Good {
int essential1;
int essential2;
Good(int n) {
if (n > 100)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("n is too large!");
essential1 = 1 / n;
essential2 = n + 2;
}
}
class Bad extends Good {
Bad(int n) {
try {
super(n);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Exception is ignored
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Bad b = new Bad(0);
// b = new Bad(101);
System.out.println(b.essential1 + b.essential2);
}
}
An exception during construction almost always indicates that the object being constructed could not be properly initialized, now is in a bad state, unusable, and must be garbage collected. However, a constructor of a subclass has got the ability to ignore an exception occurred in one of its superclasses and to return a partially initialized object. In the above example, if the argument given to new Bad() is either 0 or greater than 100, then neither essential1 nor essential2 are properly initialized.
You may say that ignoring exceptions is always a bad idea. OK, here's another example:
class Bad extends Good {
Bad(int n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
super(i);
}
}
Funny, isn't it? How many objects are we creating in this example? One? Two? Or maybe nothing...
Allowing to call super() or this() in the middle of a constructor would open a Pandora's box of heinous constructors.
On the other hand, I understand a frequent need to include some static part before a call to super() or this(). This might be any code not relying on this reference (which, in fact, already exists at the very beginning of a constructor, but cannot be used orderly until super() or this() returns) and needed to make such call. In addition, like in any method, there's a chance that some local variables created before the call to super() or this() will be needed after it.
In such cases, you have the following opportunities:
Use the pattern presented at this answer, which allows to circumvent the restriction.
Wait for the Java team to allow pre-super() and pre-this() code. It may be done by imposing a restriction on where super() or this() may occur in a constructor. Actually, even today's compiler is able to distinguish good and bad (or potentially bad) cases with the degree enough to securely allow static code addition at the beginning of a constructor. Indeed, assume that super() and this() return this reference and, in turn, your constructor has
return this;
at the end. As well as the compiler rejects the code
public int get() {
int x;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
x = i;
return x;
}
public int get(int y) {
int x;
if (y > 0)
x = y;
return x;
}
public int get(boolean b) {
int x;
try {
x = 1;
} catch (Exception e) {
}
return x;
}
with the error "variable x might not have been initialized", it could do so on this variable, making its checks on it just like on any other local variable. The only difference is this cannot be assigned by any means other than super() or this() call (and, as usual, if there is no such call at a constructor, super() is implicitly inserted by compiler in the beginning) and might not be assigned twice. In case of any doubt (like in the first get(), where x is actually always assigned), the compiler could return an error. That would be better than simply return error on any constructor where there is something except a comment before super() or this().

You can use anonymous initializer blocks to initialize fields in the child before calling it's constructor. This example will demonstrate :
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Child();
}
}
class Parent {
public Parent() {
System.out.println("In parent");
}
}
class Child extends Parent {
{
System.out.println("In initializer");
}
public Child() {
super();
System.out.println("In child");
}
}
This will output :
In parent
In initializer
In child

It makes sense that constructors complete their execution in order of
derivation. Because a superclass has no knowledge of any subclass, any
initialization it needs to perform is separate from and possibly
prerequisite to any initialization performed by the subclass.
Therefore, it must complete its execution first.
A simple demonstration:
class A {
A() {
System.out.println("Inside A's constructor.");
}
}
class B extends A {
B() {
System.out.println("Inside B's constructor.");
}
}
class C extends B {
C() {
System.out.println("Inside C's constructor.");
}
}
class CallingCons {
public static void main(String args[]) {
C c = new C();
}
}
The output from this program is:
Inside A's constructor
Inside B's constructor
Inside C's constructor

I know I am a little late to the party, but I've used this trick a couple of times (and I know it's a bit unusual):
I create an generic interface InfoRunnable<T> with one method:
public T run(Object... args);
And if I need to do something before passing it to the constructor I just do this:
super(new InfoRunnable<ThingToPass>() {
public ThingToPass run(Object... args) {
/* do your things here */
}
}.run(/* args here */));

Actually, super() is the first statement of a constructor because to make sure its superclass is fully-formed before the subclass being constructed. Even if you don't have super() in your first statement, the compiler will add it for you!

That's because your constructor depends on other constructors. To your constructor work correctly its necessary to other constructor works correctly which is dependent. That's why its necessary to check dependent constructors first which called by either this() or super() in your constructor. If other constructors which called by either this() or super() have a problem so whats point execute other statements because all will fail if called constructor fails.

The question of why Java does this has already been answered, but since I stumbled upon this question hoping to find a better alternative to the one-liner, I'll hereby share my work-around:
public class SomethingComplicated extends SomethingComplicatedParent {
private interface Lambda<T> {
public T run();
}
public SomethingComplicated(Settings settings) {
super(((Lambda<Settings>) () -> {
// My modification code,
settings.setting1 = settings.setting2;
return settings;
}).run());
}
}
Calling a static function should perform better, but I would use this if I insist on having the code "inside" the constructor, or if I have to alter multiple parameters and find defining many static methods bad for readability.

This is official replay:
Historically, this() or super() must be first in a constructor. This
restriction was never popular, and perceived as arbitrary. There were a
number of subtle reasons, including the verification of invokespecial,
that contributed to this restriction. Over the years, we've addressed
these at the VM level, to the point where it becomes practical to
consider lifting this restriction, not just for records, but for all
constructors.

Tldr:
The other answers have tackled the "why" of the question. I'll provide a hack around this limitation:
The basic idea is to hijack the super statement with your embedded statements. This can be done by disguising your statements as expressions.
Tsdr:
Consider we want to do Statement1() to Statement9() before we call super():
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(T1 _1, T2 _2, T3 _3) {
Statement_1();
Statement_2();
Statement_3(); // and etc...
Statement_9();
super(_1, _2, _3); // compiler rejects because this is not the first line
}
}
The compiler will of course reject our code. So instead, we can do this:
// This compiles fine:
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(T1 _1, T2 _2, T3 _3) {
super(F(_1), _2, _3);
}
public static T1 F(T1 _1) {
Statement_1();
Statement_2();
Statement_3(); // and etc...
Statement_9();
return _1;
}
}
The only limitation is that the parent class must have a constructor which takes in at least one argument so that we can sneak in our statement as an expression.
Here is a more elaborate example:
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(int i, String s, T1 t1) {
i = i * 10 - 123;
if (s.length() > i) {
s = "This is substr s: " + s.substring(0, 5);
} else {
s = "Asdfg";
}
t1.Set(i);
T2 t2 = t1.Get();
t2.F();
Object obj = Static_Class.A_Static_Method(i, s, t1);
super(obj, i, "some argument", s, t1, t2); // compiler rejects because this is not the first line
}
}
Reworked into:
// This compiles fine:
public class Child extends Parent {
public Child(int i, String s, T1 t1) {
super(Arg1(i, s, t1), Arg2(i), "some argument", Arg4(i, s), t1, Arg6(i, t1));
}
private static Object Arg1(int i, String s, T1 t1) {
i = Arg2(i);
s = Arg4(s);
return Static_Class.A_Static_Method(i, s, t1);
}
private static int Arg2(int i) {
i = i * 10 - 123;
return i;
}
private static String Arg4(int i, String s) {
i = Arg2(i);
if (s.length() > i) {
s = "This is sub s: " + s.substring(0, 5);
} else {
s = "Asdfg";
}
return s;
}
private static T2 Arg6(int i, T1 t1) {
i = Arg2(i);
t1.Set(i);
T2 t2 = t1.Get();
t2.F();
return t2;
}
}
In fact, compilers could have automated this process for us. They'd just chosen not to.

Before you can construct child object your parent object has to be created.
As you know when you write class like this:
public MyClass {
public MyClass(String someArg) {
System.out.println(someArg);
}
}
it turns to the next (extend and super are just hidden):
public MyClass extends Object{
public MyClass(String someArg) {
super();
System.out.println(someArg);
}
}
First we create an Object and then extend this object to MyClass. We can not create MyClass before the Object.
The simple rule is that parent's constructor has to be called before child constructor.
But we know that classes can have more that one constructor. Java allow us to choose a constructor which will be called (either it will be super() or super(yourArgs...)).
So, when you write super(yourArgs...) you redefine constructor which will be called to create a parent object. You can't execute other methods before super() because the object doesn't exist yet (but after super() an object will be created and you will be able to do anything you want).
So why then we cannot execute this() after any method?
As you know this() is the constructor of the current class. Also we can have different number of constructors in our class and call them like this() or this(yourArgs...). As I said every constructor has hidden method super(). When we write our custom super(yourArgs...) we remove super() with super(yourArgs...). Also when we define this() or this(yourArgs...) we also remove our super() in current constructor because if super() were with this() in the same method, it would create more then one parent object.
That is why the same rules imposed for this() method. It just retransmits parent object creation to another child constructor and that constructor calls super() constructor for parent creation.
So, the code will be like this in fact:
public MyClass extends Object{
public MyClass(int a) {
super();
System.out.println(a);
}
public MyClass(int a, int b) {
this(a);
System.out.println(b);
}
}
As others say you can execute code like this:
this(a+b);
also you can execute code like this:
public MyClass(int a, SomeObject someObject) {
this(someObject.add(a+5));
}
But you can't execute code like this because your method doesn't exists yet:
public MyClass extends Object{
public MyClass(int a) {
}
public MyClass(int a, int b) {
this(add(a, b));
}
public int add(int a, int b){
return a+b;
}
}
Also you are obliged to have super() constructor in your chain of this() methods. You can't have an object creation like this:
public MyClass{
public MyClass(int a) {
this(a, 5);
}
public MyClass(int a, int b) {
this(a);
}
}

class C
{
int y,z;
C()
{
y=10;
}
C(int x)
{
C();
z=x+y;
System.out.println(z);
}
}
class A
{
public static void main(String a[])
{
new C(10);
}
}
See the example if we are calling the constructor C(int x) then value of z is depend on y if we do not call C() in the first line then it will be the problem for z. z would not be able to get correct value.

The main goal of adding the super() in the sub-class constructors is that the main job of the compiler is to make a direct or indirect connection of all the classes with the Object class that's why the compiler checks if we have provided the super(parameterized) then compiler doesn't take any responsibility.
so that all the instance member gets initialized from Object to the sub - classes.

Related

Why is this final variable null? [duplicate]

I have a Wicket page class that sets the page title depending on the result of an abstract method.
public abstract class BasicPage extends WebPage {
public BasicPage() {
add(new Label("title", getTitle()));
}
protected abstract String getTitle();
}
NetBeans warns me with the message "Overridable method call in constructor", but what should be wrong with it? The only alternative I can imagine is to pass the results of otherwise abstract methods to the super constructor in subclasses. But that could be hard to read with many parameters.

On invoking overridable method from constructors
Simply put, this is wrong because it unnecessarily opens up possibilities to MANY bugs. When the #Override is invoked, the state of the object may be inconsistent and/or incomplete.
A quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 17: Design and document for inheritance, or else prohibit it:
There are a few more restrictions that a class must obey to allow inheritance. Constructors must not invoke overridable methods, directly or indirectly. If you violate this rule, program failure will result. The superclass constructor runs before the subclass constructor, so the overriding method in the subclass will be invoked before the subclass constructor has run. If the overriding method depends on any initialization performed by the subclass constructor, the method will not behave as expected.
Here's an example to illustrate:
public class ConstructorCallsOverride {
public static void main(String[] args) {
abstract class Base {
Base() {
overrideMe();
}
abstract void overrideMe();
}
class Child extends Base {
final int x;
Child(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
#Override
void overrideMe() {
System.out.println(x);
}
}
new Child(42); // prints "0"
}
}
Here, when Base constructor calls overrideMe, Child has not finished initializing the final int x, and the method gets the wrong value. This will almost certainly lead to bugs and errors.
Related questions
Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor
State of Derived class object when Base class constructor calls overridden method in Java
Using abstract init() function in abstract class’s constructor
See also
FindBugs - Uninitialized read of field method called from constructor of superclass
On object construction with many parameters
Constructors with many parameters can lead to poor readability, and better alternatives exist.
Here's a quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters:
Traditionally, programmers have used the telescoping constructor pattern, in which you provide a constructor with only the required parameters, another with a single optional parameters, a third with two optional parameters, and so on...
The telescoping constructor pattern is essentially something like this:
public class Telescope {
final String name;
final int levels;
final boolean isAdjustable;
public Telescope(String name) {
this(name, 5);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels) {
this(name, levels, false);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels, boolean isAdjustable) {
this.name = name;
this.levels = levels;
this.isAdjustable = isAdjustable;
}
}
And now you can do any of the following:
new Telescope("X/1999");
new Telescope("X/1999", 13);
new Telescope("X/1999", 13, true);
You can't, however, currently set only the name and isAdjustable, and leaving levels at default. You can provide more constructor overloads, but obviously the number would explode as the number of parameters grow, and you may even have multiple boolean and int arguments, which would really make a mess out of things.
As you can see, this isn't a pleasant pattern to write, and even less pleasant to use (What does "true" mean here? What's 13?).
Bloch recommends using a builder pattern, which would allow you to write something like this instead:
Telescope telly = new Telescope.Builder("X/1999").setAdjustable(true).build();
Note that now the parameters are named, and you can set them in any order you want, and you can skip the ones that you want to keep at default values. This is certainly much better than telescoping constructors, especially when there's a huge number of parameters that belong to many of the same types.
See also
Wikipedia/Builder pattern
Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters (excerpt online)
Related questions
When would you use the Builder Pattern?
Is this a well known design pattern? What is its name?

Here's an example which helps to understand this:
public class Main {
static abstract class A {
abstract void foo();
A() {
System.out.println("Constructing A");
foo();
}
}
static class C extends A {
C() {
System.out.println("Constructing C");
}
void foo() {
System.out.println("Using C");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c = new C();
}
}
If you run this code, you get the following output:
Constructing A
Using C
Constructing C
You see? foo() makes use of C before C's constructor has been run. If foo() requires C to have a defined state (i.e. the constructor has finished), then it will encounter an undefined state in C and things might break. And since you can't know in A what the overwritten foo() expects, you get a warning.

Invoking an overridable method in the constructor allows subclasses to subvert the code, so you can't guarantee that it works anymore. That's why you get a warning.
In your example, what happens if a subclass overrides getTitle() and returns null ?
To "fix" this, you can use a factory method instead of a constructor, it's a common pattern of objects instanciation.

Here is an example that reveals the logical problems that can occur when calling an overridable method in the super constructor.
class A {
protected int minWeeklySalary;
protected int maxWeeklySalary;
protected static final int MIN = 1000;
protected static final int MAX = 2000;
public A() {
setSalaryRange();
}
protected void setSalaryRange() {
throw new RuntimeException("not implemented");
}
public void pr() {
System.out.println("minWeeklySalary: " + minWeeklySalary);
System.out.println("maxWeeklySalary: " + maxWeeklySalary);
}
}
class B extends A {
private int factor = 1;
public B(int _factor) {
this.factor = _factor;
}
#Override
protected void setSalaryRange() {
this.minWeeklySalary = MIN * this.factor;
this.maxWeeklySalary = MAX * this.factor;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B(2);
b.pr();
}
The result would actually be:
minWeeklySalary: 0
maxWeeklySalary: 0
This is because the constructor of class B first calls the constructor of class A, where the overridable method inside B gets executed. But inside the method we are using the instance variable factor which has not yet been initialized (because the constructor of A has not yet finished), thus factor is 0 and not 1 and definitely not 2 (the thing that the programmer might think it will be). Imagine how hard would be to track an error if the calculation logic was ten times more twisted.
I hope that would help someone.

If you call methods in your constructor that subclasses override, it means you are less likely to be referencing variables that don’t exist yet if you divide your initialization logically between the constructor and the method.
Have a look on this sample link http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=215

I certainly agree that there are cases where it is better not to call some methods from a constructor.
Making them private takes away all doubt: "You shall not pass".
However, what if you DO want to keep things open.
It's not just the access modifier that is the real problem, as I tried to explain here. To be completely honest, private is a clear showstopper where protected usually will still allow a (harmful) workaround.
A more general advice:
don't start threads from your constructor
don't read files from your constructor
don't call APIs or services from your constructor
don't load data from a database from your constructor
don't parse json or xml documents from your constructor
Don't do so (in)directly from your constructor. That includes doing any of these actions from a private/protected function which is called by the constructor.
Calling an start() method from your constructor could certainly be a red flag.
Instead, you should provide a public init(), start() or connect() method. And leave the responsibility to the consumer.
Simply put, you want to separate the moment of "preparation" from the "ignition".
if a constructor can be extended then it shouldn't self-ignite.
If it self-ignites then it risks being launched before being fully constructed.
After all, some day more preparation could be added in the constructor of a subclass. And you don't have any control over the order of execution of the constructor of a super class.
PS: consider implementing the Closeable interface along with it.

In the specific case of Wicket: This is the very reason why I asked the Wicket
devs to add support for an explicit two phase component initialization process in the framework's lifecycle of constructing a component i.e.
Construction - via constructor
Initialization - via onInitilize (after construction when virtual methods work!)
There was quite an active debate about whether it was necessary or not (it fully is necessary IMHO) as this link demonstrates http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-WICKET-3218-Component-onInitialize-is-broken-for-Pages-td3341090i20.html)
The good news is that the excellent devs at Wicket did end up introducing two phase initialization (to make the most aweseome Java UI framework even more awesome!) so with Wicket you can do all your post construction initialization in the onInitialize method that is called by the framework automatically if you override it - at this point in the lifecycle of your component its constructor has completed its work so virtual methods work as expected.

I guess for Wicket it's better to call add method in the onInitialize() (see components lifecycle) :
public abstract class BasicPage extends WebPage {
public BasicPage() {
}
#Override
public void onInitialize() {
add(new Label("title", getTitle()));
}
protected abstract String getTitle();
}

Why is this variable's type its own class? [duplicate]

What is the use of anonymous classes in Java? Can we say that usage of anonymous class is one of the advantages of Java?

By an "anonymous class", I take it you mean anonymous inner class.
An anonymous inner class can come useful when making an instance of an object with certain "extras" such as overriding methods, without having to actually subclass a class.
I tend to use it as a shortcut for attaching an event listener:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
#Override
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do something
}
});
Using this method makes coding a little bit quicker, as I don't need to make an extra class that implements ActionListener -- I can just instantiate an anonymous inner class without actually making a separate class.
I only use this technique for "quick and dirty" tasks where making an entire class feels unnecessary. Having multiple anonymous inner classes that do exactly the same thing should be refactored to an actual class, be it an inner class or a separate class.

Anonymous inner classes are effectively closures, so they can be used to emulate lambda expressions or "delegates". For example, take this interface:
public interface F<A, B> {
B f(A a);
}
You can use this anonymously to create a first-class function in Java. Let's say you have the following method that returns the first number larger than i in the given list, or i if no number is larger:
public static int larger(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n > i)
return n;
return i;
}
And then you have another method that returns the first number smaller than i in the given list, or i if no number is smaller:
public static int smaller(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n < i)
return n;
return i;
}
These methods are almost identical. Using the first-class function type F, we can rewrite these into one method as follows:
public static <T> T firstMatch(final List<T> ts, final F<T, Boolean> f, T z) {
for (T t : ts)
if (f.f(t))
return t;
return z;
}
You can use an anonymous class to use the firstMatch method:
F<Integer, Boolean> greaterThanTen = new F<Integer, Boolean> {
Boolean f(final Integer n) {
return n > 10;
}
};
int moreThanMyFingersCanCount = firstMatch(xs, greaterThanTen, x);
This is a really contrived example, but its easy to see that being able to pass functions around as if they were values is a pretty useful feature. See "Can Your Programming Language Do This" by Joel himself.
A nice library for programming Java in this style: Functional Java.

Anonymous inner class is used in following scenario:
1.) For Overriding(subclassing), when class definition is not usable except current case:
class A{
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("methodA");
}
}
class B{
A a = new A() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA");
}
};
}
2.) For implementing an interface, when implementation of interface is required only for current case:
interface InterfaceA{
public void methodA();
}
class B{
InterfaceA a = new InterfaceA() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA implementer");
}
};
}
3.) Argument Defined Anonymous inner class:
interface Foo {
void methodFoo();
}
class B{
void do(Foo f) { }
}
class A{
void methodA() {
B b = new B();
b.do(new Foo() {
public void methodFoo() {
System.out.println("methodFoo");
}
});
}
}

I use them sometimes as a syntax hack for Map instantiation:
Map map = new HashMap() {{
put("key", "value");
}};
vs
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put("key", "value");
It saves some redundancy when doing a lot of put statements. However, I have also run into problems doing this when the outer class needs to be serialized via remoting.

They're commonly used as a verbose form of callback.
I suppose you could say they're an advantage compared to not having them, and having to create a named class every time, but similar concepts are implemented much better in other languages (as closures or blocks)
Here's a swing example
myButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do stuff here...
}
});
Although it's still messily verbose, it's a lot better than forcing you to define a named class for every throw away listener like this (although depending on the situation and reuse, that may still be the better approach)

You use it in situations where you need to create a class for a specific purpose inside another function, e.g., as a listener, as a runnable (to spawn a thread), etc.
The idea is that you call them from inside the code of a function so you never refer to them elsewhere, so you don't need to name them. The compiler just enumerates them.
They are essentially syntactic sugar, and should generally be moved elsewhere as they grow bigger.
I'm not sure if it is one of the advantages of Java, though if you do use them (and we all frequently use them, unfortunately), then you could argue that they are one.

GuideLines for Anonymous Class.
Anonymous class is declared and initialized simultaneously.
Anonymous class must extend or implement to one and only one class or interface resp.
As anonymouse class has no name, it can be used only once.
eg:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent arg0) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
});

Yes, anonymous inner classes is definitely one of the advantages of Java.
With an anonymous inner class you have access to final and member variables of the surrounding class, and that comes in handy in listeners etc.
But a major advantage is that the inner class code, which is (at least should be) tightly coupled to the surrounding class/method/block, has a specific context (the surrounding class, method, and block).

new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception message: " + e.getMessage());
System.out.println("Exception cause: " + e.getCause());
}
}
}.start();
This is also one of the example for anonymous inner type using thread

An inner class is associated with an instance of the outer class and there are two special kinds: Local class and Anonymous class. An anonymous class enables us to declare and instantiate a class at same time, hence makes the code concise. We use them when we need a local class only once as they don't have a name.
Consider the example from doc where we have a Person class:
public class Person {
public enum Sex {
MALE, FEMALE
}
String name;
LocalDate birthday;
Sex gender;
String emailAddress;
public int getAge() {
// ...
}
public void printPerson() {
// ...
}
}
and we have a method to print members that match search criteria as:
public static void printPersons(
List<Person> roster, CheckPerson tester) {
for (Person p : roster) {
if (tester.test(p)) {
p.printPerson();
}
}
}
where CheckPerson is an interface like:
interface CheckPerson {
boolean test(Person p);
}
Now we can make use of anonymous class which implements this interface to specify search criteria as:
printPersons(
roster,
new CheckPerson() {
public boolean test(Person p) {
return p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25;
}
}
);
Here the interface is very simple and the syntax of anonymous class seems unwieldy and unclear.
Java 8 has introduced a term Functional Interface which is an interface with only one abstract method, hence we can say CheckPerson is a functional interface. We can make use of Lambda Expression which allows us to pass the function as method argument as:
printPersons(
roster,
(Person p) -> p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25
);
We can use a standard functional interface Predicate in place of the interface CheckPerson, which will further reduce the amount of code required.

i use anonymous objects for calling new Threads..
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// you code
}
}).start();

Anonymous inner class can be beneficial while giving different implementations for different objects. But should be used very sparingly as it creates problem for program readability.

One of the major usage of anonymous classes in class-finalization which called finalizer guardian. In Java world using the finalize methods should be avoided until you really need them. You have to remember, when you override the finalize method for sub-classes, you should always invoke super.finalize() as well, because the finalize method of super class won't invoke automatically and you can have trouble with memory leaks.
so considering the fact mentioned above, you can just use the anonymous classes like:
public class HeavyClass{
private final Object finalizerGuardian = new Object() {
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable{
//Finalize outer HeavyClass object
}
};
}
Using this technique you relieved yourself and your other developers to call super.finalize() on each sub-class of the HeavyClass which needs finalize method.

You can use anonymous class this way
TreeSet treeSetObj = new TreeSet(new Comparator()
{
public int compare(String i1,String i2)
{
return i2.compareTo(i1);
}
});

Seems nobody mentioned here but you can also use anonymous class to hold generic type argument (which normally lost due to type erasure):
public abstract class TypeHolder<T> {
private final Type type;
public TypeReference() {
// you may do do additional sanity checks here
final Type superClass = getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
this.type = ((ParameterizedType) superClass).getActualTypeArguments()[0];
}
public final Type getType() {
return this.type;
}
}
If you'll instantiate this class in anonymous way
TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>> holder =
new TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>>() {};
then such holder instance will contain non-erasured definition of passed type.
Usage
This is very handy for building validators/deserializators. Also you can instantiate generic type with reflection (so if you ever wanted to do new T() in parametrized type - you are welcome!).
Drawbacks/Limitations
You should pass generic parameter explicitly. Failing to do so will lead to type parameter loss
Each instantiation will cost you additional class to be generated by compiler which leads to classpath pollution/jar bloating

An Anonymous Inner Class is used to create an object that will never be referenced again. It has no name and is declared and created in the same statement.
This is used where you would normally use an object's variable. You replace the variable with the new keyword, a call to a constructor and the class definition inside { and }.
When writing a Threaded Program in Java, it would usually look like this
ThreadClass task = new ThreadClass();
Thread runner = new Thread(task);
runner.start();
The ThreadClass used here would be user defined. This class will implement the Runnable interface which is required for creating threads. In the ThreadClass the run() method (only method in Runnable) needs to be implemented as well.
It is clear that getting rid of ThreadClass would be more efficient and that's exactly why Anonymous Inner Classes exist.
Look at the following code
Thread runner = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//Thread does it's work here
}
});
runner.start();
This code replaces the reference made to task in the top most example. Rather than having a separate class, the Anonymous Inner Class inside the Thread() constructor returns an unnamed object that implements the Runnable interface and overrides the run() method. The method run() would include statements inside that do the work required by the thread.
Answering the question on whether Anonymous Inner Classes is one of the advantages of Java, I would have to say that I'm not quite sure as I am not familiar with many programming languages at the moment. But what I can say is it is definitely a quicker and easier method of coding.
References: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days Seventh Edition

The best way to optimize code. also, We can use for an overriding method of a class or interface.
import java.util.Scanner;
abstract class AnonymousInner {
abstract void sum();
}
class AnonymousInnerMain {
public static void main(String []k){
Scanner sn = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter two vlaues");
int a= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
int b= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
AnonymousInner ac = new AnonymousInner(){
void sum(){
int c= a+b;
System.out.println("Sum of two number is: "+c);
}
};
ac.sum();
}
}

One more advantage:
As you know that Java doesn't support multiple inheritance, so if you use "Thread" kinda class as anonymous class then the class still has one space left for any other class to extend.

Constructor invoke overridable method in Java [duplicate]

I have a Wicket page class that sets the page title depending on the result of an abstract method.
public abstract class BasicPage extends WebPage {
public BasicPage() {
add(new Label("title", getTitle()));
}
protected abstract String getTitle();
}
NetBeans warns me with the message "Overridable method call in constructor", but what should be wrong with it? The only alternative I can imagine is to pass the results of otherwise abstract methods to the super constructor in subclasses. But that could be hard to read with many parameters.

On invoking overridable method from constructors
Simply put, this is wrong because it unnecessarily opens up possibilities to MANY bugs. When the #Override is invoked, the state of the object may be inconsistent and/or incomplete.
A quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 17: Design and document for inheritance, or else prohibit it:
There are a few more restrictions that a class must obey to allow inheritance. Constructors must not invoke overridable methods, directly or indirectly. If you violate this rule, program failure will result. The superclass constructor runs before the subclass constructor, so the overriding method in the subclass will be invoked before the subclass constructor has run. If the overriding method depends on any initialization performed by the subclass constructor, the method will not behave as expected.
Here's an example to illustrate:
public class ConstructorCallsOverride {
public static void main(String[] args) {
abstract class Base {
Base() {
overrideMe();
}
abstract void overrideMe();
}
class Child extends Base {
final int x;
Child(int x) {
this.x = x;
}
#Override
void overrideMe() {
System.out.println(x);
}
}
new Child(42); // prints "0"
}
}
Here, when Base constructor calls overrideMe, Child has not finished initializing the final int x, and the method gets the wrong value. This will almost certainly lead to bugs and errors.
Related questions
Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor
State of Derived class object when Base class constructor calls overridden method in Java
Using abstract init() function in abstract class’s constructor
See also
FindBugs - Uninitialized read of field method called from constructor of superclass
On object construction with many parameters
Constructors with many parameters can lead to poor readability, and better alternatives exist.
Here's a quote from Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters:
Traditionally, programmers have used the telescoping constructor pattern, in which you provide a constructor with only the required parameters, another with a single optional parameters, a third with two optional parameters, and so on...
The telescoping constructor pattern is essentially something like this:
public class Telescope {
final String name;
final int levels;
final boolean isAdjustable;
public Telescope(String name) {
this(name, 5);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels) {
this(name, levels, false);
}
public Telescope(String name, int levels, boolean isAdjustable) {
this.name = name;
this.levels = levels;
this.isAdjustable = isAdjustable;
}
}
And now you can do any of the following:
new Telescope("X/1999");
new Telescope("X/1999", 13);
new Telescope("X/1999", 13, true);
You can't, however, currently set only the name and isAdjustable, and leaving levels at default. You can provide more constructor overloads, but obviously the number would explode as the number of parameters grow, and you may even have multiple boolean and int arguments, which would really make a mess out of things.
As you can see, this isn't a pleasant pattern to write, and even less pleasant to use (What does "true" mean here? What's 13?).
Bloch recommends using a builder pattern, which would allow you to write something like this instead:
Telescope telly = new Telescope.Builder("X/1999").setAdjustable(true).build();
Note that now the parameters are named, and you can set them in any order you want, and you can skip the ones that you want to keep at default values. This is certainly much better than telescoping constructors, especially when there's a huge number of parameters that belong to many of the same types.
See also
Wikipedia/Builder pattern
Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 2: Consider a builder pattern when faced with many constructor parameters (excerpt online)
Related questions
When would you use the Builder Pattern?
Is this a well known design pattern? What is its name?

Here's an example which helps to understand this:
public class Main {
static abstract class A {
abstract void foo();
A() {
System.out.println("Constructing A");
foo();
}
}
static class C extends A {
C() {
System.out.println("Constructing C");
}
void foo() {
System.out.println("Using C");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c = new C();
}
}
If you run this code, you get the following output:
Constructing A
Using C
Constructing C
You see? foo() makes use of C before C's constructor has been run. If foo() requires C to have a defined state (i.e. the constructor has finished), then it will encounter an undefined state in C and things might break. And since you can't know in A what the overwritten foo() expects, you get a warning.

Invoking an overridable method in the constructor allows subclasses to subvert the code, so you can't guarantee that it works anymore. That's why you get a warning.
In your example, what happens if a subclass overrides getTitle() and returns null ?
To "fix" this, you can use a factory method instead of a constructor, it's a common pattern of objects instanciation.

Here is an example that reveals the logical problems that can occur when calling an overridable method in the super constructor.
class A {
protected int minWeeklySalary;
protected int maxWeeklySalary;
protected static final int MIN = 1000;
protected static final int MAX = 2000;
public A() {
setSalaryRange();
}
protected void setSalaryRange() {
throw new RuntimeException("not implemented");
}
public void pr() {
System.out.println("minWeeklySalary: " + minWeeklySalary);
System.out.println("maxWeeklySalary: " + maxWeeklySalary);
}
}
class B extends A {
private int factor = 1;
public B(int _factor) {
this.factor = _factor;
}
#Override
protected void setSalaryRange() {
this.minWeeklySalary = MIN * this.factor;
this.maxWeeklySalary = MAX * this.factor;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B(2);
b.pr();
}
The result would actually be:
minWeeklySalary: 0
maxWeeklySalary: 0
This is because the constructor of class B first calls the constructor of class A, where the overridable method inside B gets executed. But inside the method we are using the instance variable factor which has not yet been initialized (because the constructor of A has not yet finished), thus factor is 0 and not 1 and definitely not 2 (the thing that the programmer might think it will be). Imagine how hard would be to track an error if the calculation logic was ten times more twisted.
I hope that would help someone.

If you call methods in your constructor that subclasses override, it means you are less likely to be referencing variables that don’t exist yet if you divide your initialization logically between the constructor and the method.
Have a look on this sample link http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=215

I certainly agree that there are cases where it is better not to call some methods from a constructor.
Making them private takes away all doubt: "You shall not pass".
However, what if you DO want to keep things open.
It's not just the access modifier that is the real problem, as I tried to explain here. To be completely honest, private is a clear showstopper where protected usually will still allow a (harmful) workaround.
A more general advice:
don't start threads from your constructor
don't read files from your constructor
don't call APIs or services from your constructor
don't load data from a database from your constructor
don't parse json or xml documents from your constructor
Don't do so (in)directly from your constructor. That includes doing any of these actions from a private/protected function which is called by the constructor.
Calling an start() method from your constructor could certainly be a red flag.
Instead, you should provide a public init(), start() or connect() method. And leave the responsibility to the consumer.
Simply put, you want to separate the moment of "preparation" from the "ignition".
if a constructor can be extended then it shouldn't self-ignite.
If it self-ignites then it risks being launched before being fully constructed.
After all, some day more preparation could be added in the constructor of a subclass. And you don't have any control over the order of execution of the constructor of a super class.
PS: consider implementing the Closeable interface along with it.

In the specific case of Wicket: This is the very reason why I asked the Wicket
devs to add support for an explicit two phase component initialization process in the framework's lifecycle of constructing a component i.e.
Construction - via constructor
Initialization - via onInitilize (after construction when virtual methods work!)
There was quite an active debate about whether it was necessary or not (it fully is necessary IMHO) as this link demonstrates http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-WICKET-3218-Component-onInitialize-is-broken-for-Pages-td3341090i20.html)
The good news is that the excellent devs at Wicket did end up introducing two phase initialization (to make the most aweseome Java UI framework even more awesome!) so with Wicket you can do all your post construction initialization in the onInitialize method that is called by the framework automatically if you override it - at this point in the lifecycle of your component its constructor has completed its work so virtual methods work as expected.

I guess for Wicket it's better to call add method in the onInitialize() (see components lifecycle) :
public abstract class BasicPage extends WebPage {
public BasicPage() {
}
#Override
public void onInitialize() {
add(new Label("title", getTitle()));
}
protected abstract String getTitle();
}

What does the following code snippet do? [duplicate]

What is the use of anonymous classes in Java? Can we say that usage of anonymous class is one of the advantages of Java?

By an "anonymous class", I take it you mean anonymous inner class.
An anonymous inner class can come useful when making an instance of an object with certain "extras" such as overriding methods, without having to actually subclass a class.
I tend to use it as a shortcut for attaching an event listener:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
#Override
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do something
}
});
Using this method makes coding a little bit quicker, as I don't need to make an extra class that implements ActionListener -- I can just instantiate an anonymous inner class without actually making a separate class.
I only use this technique for "quick and dirty" tasks where making an entire class feels unnecessary. Having multiple anonymous inner classes that do exactly the same thing should be refactored to an actual class, be it an inner class or a separate class.

Anonymous inner classes are effectively closures, so they can be used to emulate lambda expressions or "delegates". For example, take this interface:
public interface F<A, B> {
B f(A a);
}
You can use this anonymously to create a first-class function in Java. Let's say you have the following method that returns the first number larger than i in the given list, or i if no number is larger:
public static int larger(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n > i)
return n;
return i;
}
And then you have another method that returns the first number smaller than i in the given list, or i if no number is smaller:
public static int smaller(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n < i)
return n;
return i;
}
These methods are almost identical. Using the first-class function type F, we can rewrite these into one method as follows:
public static <T> T firstMatch(final List<T> ts, final F<T, Boolean> f, T z) {
for (T t : ts)
if (f.f(t))
return t;
return z;
}
You can use an anonymous class to use the firstMatch method:
F<Integer, Boolean> greaterThanTen = new F<Integer, Boolean> {
Boolean f(final Integer n) {
return n > 10;
}
};
int moreThanMyFingersCanCount = firstMatch(xs, greaterThanTen, x);
This is a really contrived example, but its easy to see that being able to pass functions around as if they were values is a pretty useful feature. See "Can Your Programming Language Do This" by Joel himself.
A nice library for programming Java in this style: Functional Java.

Anonymous inner class is used in following scenario:
1.) For Overriding(subclassing), when class definition is not usable except current case:
class A{
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("methodA");
}
}
class B{
A a = new A() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA");
}
};
}
2.) For implementing an interface, when implementation of interface is required only for current case:
interface InterfaceA{
public void methodA();
}
class B{
InterfaceA a = new InterfaceA() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA implementer");
}
};
}
3.) Argument Defined Anonymous inner class:
interface Foo {
void methodFoo();
}
class B{
void do(Foo f) { }
}
class A{
void methodA() {
B b = new B();
b.do(new Foo() {
public void methodFoo() {
System.out.println("methodFoo");
}
});
}
}

I use them sometimes as a syntax hack for Map instantiation:
Map map = new HashMap() {{
put("key", "value");
}};
vs
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put("key", "value");
It saves some redundancy when doing a lot of put statements. However, I have also run into problems doing this when the outer class needs to be serialized via remoting.

They're commonly used as a verbose form of callback.
I suppose you could say they're an advantage compared to not having them, and having to create a named class every time, but similar concepts are implemented much better in other languages (as closures or blocks)
Here's a swing example
myButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do stuff here...
}
});
Although it's still messily verbose, it's a lot better than forcing you to define a named class for every throw away listener like this (although depending on the situation and reuse, that may still be the better approach)

You use it in situations where you need to create a class for a specific purpose inside another function, e.g., as a listener, as a runnable (to spawn a thread), etc.
The idea is that you call them from inside the code of a function so you never refer to them elsewhere, so you don't need to name them. The compiler just enumerates them.
They are essentially syntactic sugar, and should generally be moved elsewhere as they grow bigger.
I'm not sure if it is one of the advantages of Java, though if you do use them (and we all frequently use them, unfortunately), then you could argue that they are one.

GuideLines for Anonymous Class.
Anonymous class is declared and initialized simultaneously.
Anonymous class must extend or implement to one and only one class or interface resp.
As anonymouse class has no name, it can be used only once.
eg:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent arg0) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
});

Yes, anonymous inner classes is definitely one of the advantages of Java.
With an anonymous inner class you have access to final and member variables of the surrounding class, and that comes in handy in listeners etc.
But a major advantage is that the inner class code, which is (at least should be) tightly coupled to the surrounding class/method/block, has a specific context (the surrounding class, method, and block).

new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception message: " + e.getMessage());
System.out.println("Exception cause: " + e.getCause());
}
}
}.start();
This is also one of the example for anonymous inner type using thread

An inner class is associated with an instance of the outer class and there are two special kinds: Local class and Anonymous class. An anonymous class enables us to declare and instantiate a class at same time, hence makes the code concise. We use them when we need a local class only once as they don't have a name.
Consider the example from doc where we have a Person class:
public class Person {
public enum Sex {
MALE, FEMALE
}
String name;
LocalDate birthday;
Sex gender;
String emailAddress;
public int getAge() {
// ...
}
public void printPerson() {
// ...
}
}
and we have a method to print members that match search criteria as:
public static void printPersons(
List<Person> roster, CheckPerson tester) {
for (Person p : roster) {
if (tester.test(p)) {
p.printPerson();
}
}
}
where CheckPerson is an interface like:
interface CheckPerson {
boolean test(Person p);
}
Now we can make use of anonymous class which implements this interface to specify search criteria as:
printPersons(
roster,
new CheckPerson() {
public boolean test(Person p) {
return p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25;
}
}
);
Here the interface is very simple and the syntax of anonymous class seems unwieldy and unclear.
Java 8 has introduced a term Functional Interface which is an interface with only one abstract method, hence we can say CheckPerson is a functional interface. We can make use of Lambda Expression which allows us to pass the function as method argument as:
printPersons(
roster,
(Person p) -> p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25
);
We can use a standard functional interface Predicate in place of the interface CheckPerson, which will further reduce the amount of code required.

i use anonymous objects for calling new Threads..
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// you code
}
}).start();

Anonymous inner class can be beneficial while giving different implementations for different objects. But should be used very sparingly as it creates problem for program readability.

One of the major usage of anonymous classes in class-finalization which called finalizer guardian. In Java world using the finalize methods should be avoided until you really need them. You have to remember, when you override the finalize method for sub-classes, you should always invoke super.finalize() as well, because the finalize method of super class won't invoke automatically and you can have trouble with memory leaks.
so considering the fact mentioned above, you can just use the anonymous classes like:
public class HeavyClass{
private final Object finalizerGuardian = new Object() {
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable{
//Finalize outer HeavyClass object
}
};
}
Using this technique you relieved yourself and your other developers to call super.finalize() on each sub-class of the HeavyClass which needs finalize method.

You can use anonymous class this way
TreeSet treeSetObj = new TreeSet(new Comparator()
{
public int compare(String i1,String i2)
{
return i2.compareTo(i1);
}
});

Seems nobody mentioned here but you can also use anonymous class to hold generic type argument (which normally lost due to type erasure):
public abstract class TypeHolder<T> {
private final Type type;
public TypeReference() {
// you may do do additional sanity checks here
final Type superClass = getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
this.type = ((ParameterizedType) superClass).getActualTypeArguments()[0];
}
public final Type getType() {
return this.type;
}
}
If you'll instantiate this class in anonymous way
TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>> holder =
new TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>>() {};
then such holder instance will contain non-erasured definition of passed type.
Usage
This is very handy for building validators/deserializators. Also you can instantiate generic type with reflection (so if you ever wanted to do new T() in parametrized type - you are welcome!).
Drawbacks/Limitations
You should pass generic parameter explicitly. Failing to do so will lead to type parameter loss
Each instantiation will cost you additional class to be generated by compiler which leads to classpath pollution/jar bloating

An Anonymous Inner Class is used to create an object that will never be referenced again. It has no name and is declared and created in the same statement.
This is used where you would normally use an object's variable. You replace the variable with the new keyword, a call to a constructor and the class definition inside { and }.
When writing a Threaded Program in Java, it would usually look like this
ThreadClass task = new ThreadClass();
Thread runner = new Thread(task);
runner.start();
The ThreadClass used here would be user defined. This class will implement the Runnable interface which is required for creating threads. In the ThreadClass the run() method (only method in Runnable) needs to be implemented as well.
It is clear that getting rid of ThreadClass would be more efficient and that's exactly why Anonymous Inner Classes exist.
Look at the following code
Thread runner = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//Thread does it's work here
}
});
runner.start();
This code replaces the reference made to task in the top most example. Rather than having a separate class, the Anonymous Inner Class inside the Thread() constructor returns an unnamed object that implements the Runnable interface and overrides the run() method. The method run() would include statements inside that do the work required by the thread.
Answering the question on whether Anonymous Inner Classes is one of the advantages of Java, I would have to say that I'm not quite sure as I am not familiar with many programming languages at the moment. But what I can say is it is definitely a quicker and easier method of coding.
References: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days Seventh Edition

The best way to optimize code. also, We can use for an overriding method of a class or interface.
import java.util.Scanner;
abstract class AnonymousInner {
abstract void sum();
}
class AnonymousInnerMain {
public static void main(String []k){
Scanner sn = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter two vlaues");
int a= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
int b= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
AnonymousInner ac = new AnonymousInner(){
void sum(){
int c= a+b;
System.out.println("Sum of two number is: "+c);
}
};
ac.sum();
}
}

One more advantage:
As you know that Java doesn't support multiple inheritance, so if you use "Thread" kinda class as anonymous class then the class still has one space left for any other class to extend.

Java passing subclass instance data to superclass constructors

Does anybody know if there's a way in Java to set the value of an instance variable in a subclass before calling the superclass constructor. I have a brief schematic below of what I'm trying to accomplish -- I need to set up the instance variables defined in the superclass differently depending on the subclass type, but I still want to be able to share common non-constructor code among different instances of the subclass.
Is there any clean way to do this, maybe some sort of coding pattern that I'm missing or something? Thanks in advance for any ideas.
public abstract class ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final Set<Variable> variables;
final Set<Constraint> constraints;
public Foo() {
this.variables = setupVariables();
this.constraints = setupConstraints();
}
public abstract Set<Variable> setupVariables();
public abstract Set<Constraint> setupConstraints();
public Map<Variable, Constraint> solve() { ... }
}
public class WordSquare extends ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final int size;
final static Set<Character> domain = ...;
public WordSquare() {
super(); // can I simulate calling super() after setting this.value = 4?
this.value = 4;
}
public Set<Variable> setupVariables() {
this.variables = new HashSet<Variable>();
for(int row = 0; row < size; ++row) {
for(int col = 0; col < size; ++col) {
variables.add(new Variable<Pair, Character>(new Pair(row, col), domain);
}
}
return this.variables;
}
public Set<Constraint> setupConstraints() {
// setup code specific to this problem
}
}
public class Cryptarithmetic extends ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final String problem;
public Cryptarithmetic(String problem) {
super();
this.problem = problem;
}
public Set<Variable> setupVariables() {
this.variables = new HashSet<Variable>();
for(char c : problem.toCharArray()) {
variables.add(new Variable<Character, Integer>(c, getDomain());
}
}
return this.variables;
}
public Set<Constraint> setupConstraints() {
// setup code specific to this problem
}
}

Firstly, please don't.
Secondly, really it's a really bad idea. Don't. Think about what you are trying to do in a broader context.
If you absolutely must do, you can stash it in a ThreadLocal. You can call a (non-instance) method by evaluating an expression the result of which is passed to a super() or this() (possibly the only reason why you need a second, private constructor that possibly takes a Void (capital 'V') argument). It's so evil, I am not going to even write the code down.
In your edited example code, just pass the sets into a protected constructor. If you have many arguments possibly some subclasses being special about some arguments, you might want to wrap all the arguments into a single argument object.
There is another really hacky approach, so long as you have -target 1.4 or later (which you should do!). Make the subclass an inner class (possibly anonymous). The references to the outer this and other captured variables are available before calling the super constructor.
public class Outer {
// What a hack!
private static abstract class Base {
Base() {
hello(); // Calling a virtual method in a constructor - poor form.
}
abstract void hello();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Do not do this.
final String hi = "Hi!";
new Base() {
void hello() {
// Really, don't do it.
System.err.println(hi);
}
};
}
}

Place the common code you want to run in a protected method instead of in the constructor. Call that method when you wish.

You should never call any "alien" method (ie. overridable method of this class, or any method from any other class) form within a constructor. As long as the object is not fully initialized, you may have side-effects like the one you see.
In your case, in the subclass constructor, super() is called even before the "value" is set to 4. This means, the superclass constructor is called, then calls the "setup" method, while the "value" is still at 0.
Only once the superclass constructor returns, the "value" is set to 4. And it's too late then.
What I would recommend, is to set the "o1" variable to protected, so that subclasses can set its value themselves.

In Java, if you want to call a base class's constructor, you have to do it on the first line of your sub-class's constructor. So the answer is no, you can't set this.value before calling the super class's constructor.
But your sub-class's setup() method is already called in the super's constructor. Why don't you set your value there?
UPDATE:
Sorry, I didn't pay attention that your 'setup()' method returns a value. What you could do is make an abstract init() method in your super class, and call it in your super constructor before you call the setup() method. This way sub-classes will be forced to implement init(), and you would know that that is the place to initialize any sub-class's members before they are used in your super-class.
That being said, this approach does not force safety on you. When you call the super constructor from your sub-constructor, the sub-class instance is just starting to get created. It still needs to run the rest of the code in the sub-constructor before the object is safely created.
And in this situation, the super-constructor goes and calls the init() method on your just-in-the-process-of-creation sub-class. This means that if you go with approach, you have to be extra careful about what you do in the init() class.

Like others have said, don't do this. If you want to share some code between these classes, try containment/encapsulation instead of inheritance.
public class Foo {
private final Object o1;
public Foo(Object o) {
o1 = o;
}
public void complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo() { ... }
}
public class Bar {
private final int value;
private final Foo foo;
public Bar() {
super();
this.value = 4;
this.foo = new Foo( new Object() ); // or whatever
}
// If you need to expose complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo to clients of this class, just add the method and delegate to foo like this
public void complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo() {
foo.complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo();
}
}

I need to set up the instance variables defined in the superclass differently depending on the subclass type, but I still want to be able to share common non-constructor code among different instances of the subclass.
In that case, create a protected constructor in the superclass, and pass all of the customized values to it when you construct the subclass.

We Keep Coding

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.