We Keep Coding

Local variable log defined in an enclosing scope must be final or effectively final

I'm new to lambda and Java8. I'm facing following error.
Local variable log defined in an enclosing scope must be final or
effectively final
public JavaRDD<String> modify(JavaRDD<String> filteredRdd) {
filteredRdd.map(log -> {
placeHolder.forEach(text -> {
//error comes here
log = log.replace(text, ",");
});
return log;
});
return null;
}

The message says exactly what the problem is: your variable log must be final (that is: carry the keyword final) or be effectively final (that is: you only assign a value to it once outside of the lambda). Otherwise, you can't use that variable within your lambda statement.
But of course, that conflicts with your usage of log. The point is: you can't write to something external from within the lambda ... so you have to step back and look for other ways for whatever you intend to do.
In that sense: just believe the compiler.
Beyond that, there is one core point to understand: you can not use a local variable that you can write to. Local variables are "copied" into the context of the lambda at runtime, and in order to achieve deterministic behavior, they can only be read, and should be constants.
If your use case is to write to some object, then it should be a field of your enclosing class for example!
So, long story short:
local variables used (read) inside a lambda must act like a constant
you can not write to local variables!
or the other way round: if you need something to write to, you have to use a field of your surrounding class for example (or provide a call back method)

The reason for this limitation is the same as the reason for the Java language feature that local variables accessed from within (anonymous) inner classes must be (effectively) final.
This answer by rgettman gets into the details of it. rgettman explains the limitations in clear detail and I link to that answer because the behavior of lambda expressions should be same as that of anonymous inner classes. Note that such limitation does not exist for class or instance variables, however. The main reason for this is slightly complicated and I couldn't explain it better than what Roedy Green does it here. Copying here only so it is at one place:
The rule is anonymous inner classes may only access final local
variables of the enclosing method. Why? Because the inner class’s
methods may be invoked later, long after the method that spawned it
has terminated, e.g. by an AWT (Advanced Windowing Toolkit) event. The
local variables are long gone. The anonymous class then must work with
flash frozen copies of just the ones it needs squirreled away covertly
by the compiler in the anonymous inner class object. You might ask,
why do the local variables have to be final? Could not the compiler
just as well take a copy of non-final local variables, much the way it
does for a non-final parameters? If it did so, you would have two
copies of the variable. Each could change independently, much like
caller and callee’s copy of a parameter, however you would use the
same syntax to access either copy. This would be confusing. So Sun
insisted the local be final. This makes irrelevant that there are
actually two copies of it.
The ability for an anonymous class to access the caller’s final local
variables is really just syntactic sugar for automatically passing in
some local variables as extra constructor parameters. The whole thing
smells to me of diluted eau de kludge.

Remember method inner classes can`t modify any value from their surrounding method. Your second lambda expression in forecach is trying to access its surrounding method variable (log).
To solve this you can avoid using lambda in for each and so a simple for each and re-palace all the values in log.
filteredRdd.map(log -> {
for (String text:placeHolder){
log = log.replace(text,",");
}
return log;
});

In some use cases there can be a work around. The following code complains about the startTime variable not being effectively final:
List<Report> reportsBeforeTime = reports.stream()
.filter(r->r.getTime().isAfter(startTime))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
So, just copy the value to a final variable before passing it to lambda:
final LocalTime finalStartTime = startTime;
List<Report> reportsBeforeTime = reports.stream()
.filter(r->r.getTime().isAfter(finalStartTime))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
However, If you need to change a local variable inside a lambda function, that won't work.

If you do not want to create your own object wrapper, you can use AtomicReference, for example:
AtomicReference<String> data = new AtomicReference<>();
Test.lamdaTest(()-> {
//data = ans.get(); <--- can't do this, so we do as below
data.set("to change local variable");
});
return data.get();

One solution is to encapsulate the code in an enclosing (inner class). You can define this:
public abstract class ValueContext<T> {
public T value;
public abstract void run();
}
And then use it like this (example of a String value):
final ValueContext<String> context = new ValueContext<String>(myString) {
#Override
public void run() {
// Your code here; lambda or other enclosing classes that want to work on myString,
// but use 'value' instead of 'myString'
value = doSomethingWithMyString(value);
}};
context.run();
myString = context.value;

Use Of Static variables in java?

I mean we know that Static members should only belongs to the Class,and not part of the any object created from the class . but we can also access static methods via objects right? lets say getInstaceCount() is the static member of Class CharStack.
for example I can create object here and access Static member of CharStack :
CharStack stack1 = new Charstack(10);// declaring object
int count1 = stack1.getinstanceCount();//accessing Static member with the object
so above I can also access the static member of Charstack with object stack1,so my doubt is what is the exact use of Static member if its even accessible by its object ?similarly why instance variable of a class is not accessible by Class ?

A static method doesn't make any sense with respect of a specific instance of a class.
The fact that invoking a static method on an instance is allowed shouldn't fool you: it just a design error of Java language which makes no sense.
A static method doesn't have a this reference so it makes no sense to be able to invoke it on a specific instance.
in addition a static method is not polymorphic so in any case you can't exploit this fact by calling it on an instance
Short story: static methods make sense in certain situations, but you should always call them through the class, eg CharStakc.getInstanceCount() to clarify their intended behavior, since being allowed to invoke them through instances is just a bad choice which shouldn't be allowed at all.

similarly why instance variable is not accessible by Class ?
Say you have this class:
class Foo{
public static Bar barStatic;
public Bar barInstance;
public static void main(String[] args){
Foo foo=new Foo();
Bar barInstance=Foo.barInstance;//case 1
Bar barStatic=foo.barStatic;// case 2
.....
}
}
Now in case 1 you want to access some object's instance variable. But which object? One, more or no objects of the class Foo might be in the heap. But based on what should the runtime decide which object to choose (if one exists of course).
But in case 2, even though you say foo.barStatic compiler is "smart enough" to know that foo is an instance of Foo and interprets your foo.barStatic as Foo.barStatic when you compile the code. I definitely don't like this design, it's confusing. So, you should know that everything is fine under the hood, it's just during code design it doesn't complain although as others have noted, good IDE's will warn you to follow the preferred Foo.barStatic way.

The static variable gets memory only once in class area at the time of class loading.
It makes your program memory efficient (i.e it saves memory).
The static variable can be used to refer the common property of all objects (that is not unique for each object) e.g. company name of employees,college name of students etc.

Why is it possible for objects to change the value of class variables?

By Oracle's definition,
Sometimes, you want to have variables that are common to all objects. This is accomplished with the static modifier. Fields that have the static modifier in their declaration are called static fields or class variables. They are associated with the class, rather than with any object. Every instance of the class shares a class variable, which is in one fixed location in memory.
By this definition, it is safe to deduce that a static variable belongs to the class and shouldn't be accessible for modification by any object of the class.Since all objects share it.
So this line from the same definition is a bit confusing:
Any object can change the value of a class variable...
So I tried this code and it prints 45 (although I get a warning saying "Static member accessed via instance reference"):
public class Main {
static int value = 8;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// write your code here
Main main = new Main();
main.value = 45;
System.out.println(value);
}
}
If this was a Student class, and I had a static variable called numberOfStudents, why should one object of that class be allowed to change the value of this class variable?

It's not really that "one object" can - it's just you're in code which has access to that variable, and unfortunately Java allows you to access static members (both variables and methods) as if they were instance members. This ends up with very misleading code, e.g.
Thread t = new Thread(...);
t.start();
t.sleep(1000);
The last line looks like it's asking the newly-started thread to sleep - but actually it'll make the current thread sleep.
This is basically a flaw in Java. The compiler will silently turn code like this into
Thread.sleep(1000);
or in your case
Main.value = 45;
(I believe that in an older version of Java, it would emit code that checked for nullity with the variable you were accessing the static member "through", but it doesn't even do that any more.)
Many IDEs will allow you to flag code like this with a warning or error. I would encourage you to turn on such a feature. If you see existing code like that, change it to use access the static member directly via the declaring class, so it's clear what's going on.

By this definition, it is safe to deduce that a static variable belongs to the class and shouldn't be accessible for modification by any object of the class.Since all objects share it.
No, static field is accessible for modifications, as long the access modifier allows it.
main.value = 45;
The compiler will read this line at compile-time as:
Main.value = 45;

Being able to create a class with static variables and methods so that those variables and methods are shared by all instances or objects created from the class can be very useful, see When to use static methods.
When sharing a static variable in a class between multiple instances or objects created from the class, the synchronized modifier may be required in order to ensure that if the static variable is being modified by objects in more than one thread, that data integrity is maintained, see What does synchronized mean? and also see How to synchronize a static variable among threads running different instances of a class in java.
The final key word, see How final keyword works is used to determine whether a variable is immutable or not. So if you want to have a class static variable that should be immutable or a constant then you can add the final modifier to the definition. However see Java final keyword for variables which explains that the underlying value for a reference may not be immutable in the sense that functional programming means. See also what is meant by immutable as well as Why final keyword is necessary for immutable class.
You can also use modifiers such as public to determine the visibility of variables and methods in a class, see What does public static void mean in Java.
By using modifiers such as final or private the programmer is able to finely tune the visibility and modifiability of variables in class and objects instantiated from the class.

Litle example how the compiler change the object field access to a class field access.
public class A {
static int foo = 25;
static public void main(String[] arg){
B b = new B();
A a = b;
System.out.println(b.foo);
System.out.println(a.foo);
}
}
class B extends A {
static int foo = 60;
}
The output is:
60
25
It also shows that can be confiusing as it have different behaviour as for object fields.

By this definition, it is safe to deduce that a static variable belongs to the class and shouldn't be accessible for modification by any object of the class.Since all objects share it.
No. By this definition, that static variable belongs to the class and is modifiable by any instance of the class. There is no implication that when some variable is shared that it should not be modifiable. Use final if you want that.
If this was a Student class, and I had a static variable called numberOfStudents, why should one object of that class be allowed to change the value of this class variable?
To increment the value in constructor and decrement it in finalizer, for example.

A static variable has a single instance for the whole class that defines it. When an instance is created, an instance of that static variable IS NOT CREATED. There is only one, and that one is freely modifiable by any function without the need for an instance. (unless it is declared final)

How to modify private static variable through setter method

I have the following variable in a class named Example:
private static int number;
If I wanted to assign the variable a number using an outside class, which would I do?
1) Make the setter method in Example static so I can access it like this:
Example.setNumber(3);
2) or Make the setter method non-static so I create an object of Example to set the number
Example e = new Example()
e.setNumber(3);
What are the differences between the two and which one is the better way?

It is recommendable to use a static method in this case.
Why? Well, if you make it a non-static method, that would lead to the following suprising effect:
Example e1 = new Example();
Example e2 = new Example();
e2.setNumber(3);
e1.setNumber(5);
System.out.println(e2.getNumber()); // surprise! prints 5,
So even though you called the method on e1, e2 is also affected. The corresponding static example is much less surprising:
Example e1 = new Example();
Example e2 = new Example();
Example.setNumber(5);
System.out.println(Example.getNumber()); // prints 5, no surprise...

First of all, you really shouldn't be setting static variables. It's prone to cause problems, and it's generally indicative of bad design. The only times static variables should be used are for thread-safe immutable objects and singletons.
That said, if you absolutely still want to set the value, make it a static method, ince you shouldn't need to instantiate the object in order to set a static value.

The first one would be the correct one. When you access a static method, you use the class name and not an object refrence

If it's a static variable, make the setter static. Having to create an instance just to modify something that belongs to the whole class is both verbose and wasteful.

Please don't use the second option. Creating an instance just for an assignment is a crime:P.
Use the first option or just make the number public, depending on your needs.

The setter of a static variable that do not depends on any instance variables/functions should be also static. So 1).
But beware of creating global variables!

There is no point to creating an instance of a class just to set a static variable on it. I would go with #1. (Although I try to avoid global variables, which is what the static variable is.)

Static member is the same for all instances of class. You can change is either using static or regular setter. But regular setter in this case may confuse user: the naming convention says that setter changes value of field that belongs to specific instance. Therefore you should use the first version: Example.setNumber(3).

Static variables are made static because they are not associated with any particular object.
Both approaches work, but the former is more sensible, because it does not require an arbitrary object to be created and used.

The consensus of other posters is for #1 static method.
I will argue that we can not answer the question with available information. If for example, the setNumber method is necessary to implement an interface then it should be #2 instance method. Tell us where the setNumber method will be used.

Local variables in java

I went through local variables and class variables concept.
But I had stuck at a doubt
" Why is it so that we cannot declare local variables as static " ?
For e.g
Suppose we have a play( ) function :
void play( )
{
static int i=5;
System.out.println(i);
}
It gives me error in eclipse : Illegal modifier for parameter i;
I had this doubt because of the following concepts I have read :
Variables inside method : scope is local i.e within that method.
When variable is declared as static , it is present for the entire class i.e not to particular object.
Please could anyone help me out to clarify the concept.
Thanks.

Because the scope of the local variables is limited to the surrounding block. That's why they cannot be referred to (neither statically, nor non-statically), from other classes or methods.
Wikipedia says about static local variables (in C++ for example):
Static local variables are declared inside a function, just like automatic local variables. They have the same scope as normal local variables, differing only in "storage duration": whatever values the function puts into static local variables during one call will still be present when the function is called again.
That doesn't exist in Java. And in my opinion - for the better.

Java doesn't have static variables like C. Instead, since every method has a class (or instance of a class) associated with it, the persistent scoped variables are best stored at that level (e.g., as private or static private fields). The only real difference is that other methods in the same class can refer to them; since all those methods are constrained to a single file anyway, it's not a big problem in practice.

Static members (variables, functions, etc.) serve to allow callers of the class, whether they're within the class or outside of the class, to execute functions and utilize variables without referring to a specific instance of the class. Because of this, the concept of a "static local" doesn't make sense, as there would be no way for a caller outside of the function to refer to the variable (since it's local to that function).
There are some languages (VB.NET, for example), that have a concept of "static" local variables, though the term "static" is inconsistently used in this scenario; VB.NET static local variables are more like hidden instance variables, where subsequent calls on the same instance will have the previous value intact. For example
Public Class Foo
Public Sub Bar()
Static i As Integer
i = i + 1
Console.WriteLine(i)
End Sub
End Class
...
Dim f As New Foo()
Dim f2 as New Foo()
f.Bar() // Prints "1"
f.Bar() // Prints "2"
f2.Bar() // Prints "1"
So, as you can see, the keyword "static" is not used in the conventional OO meaning here, as it's still specific to a particular instance of Foo.
Because this behavior can be confusing (or, at the very least, unintuitive), other languages like Java and C# are less flexible when it comes to variable declarations. Depending on how you want it to behave, you should declare your variable either as an instance variable or a static/class variable:
If you'd like the variable to exist beyond the scope of the function but be particular to a single instance of the class (like VB.NET does), then create an instance variable:
public class Foo
{
private int bar;
public void Bar()
{
bar++;
System.out.println(bar);
}
}
If you want it to be accessible to all instances of the class (or even without an instance), make it static:
public class Foo
{
private static int bar;
public static void Bar()
{
bar++;
System.out.println(bar);
}
}
(Note that I made Bar() static in the last example, but there is no reason that it has to be.)