I have a problem with my abstract class.
Here is my interface:
package dovilesUzduotis4;
import java.util.ArrayList;
public interface Interface1 {
void a(ArrayList<K> kM, String g);
}
and abstract class:
package dovilesUzduotis4;
import java.util.ArrayList;
public abstract class Service implements Interface1 {
public void iK(ArrayList<Ks> kM, String g){
K aK = new K(g);
kM.add(aK);
}
}
But when I try to use service.iK(kM,g); in main I get the error "service cannot be resolved". How can I correct that?
Please paste in the main method first.
My guess is you forgot to instantiate an object of the class:
Service service= new Service() { //create an object of the class
}; //brackets are there because the Service is abstract class and I am redefining it.
service.iK(kM, g); //invoke a method an that object
Now, I don't think that the Service class needs to be abstract. You render the class abstract if you expect a user to implement a method (or methods) of that class that is marked as abstract in a manner that suits his needs. Needless to say, I don't see any abstract method in your Service class.
So it comes to this:
if the class is NOT abstract, you instantiate it as:
Service service= new Service();
if the class is abstract, you must redefine it at place:
Service service= new Service() {
//here you could implement an abstract method or redefine an existing one
};
First of all, Java is case-sensitive meaning that service and Service are different things. The error you just got: service cannot be resolved says, that service class is expected, while you have Service class.
Remember, that class names should implement the CamelCase, while variable names should start with a small letter.
To call methods you must either:
Create an object and access its method
Or make the method static
In the first case, you have to implement a child class:
SubService extends Service {}
because service is abstract and is expected to be extended.
Then:
SubService service = new SubService();
service.method();
In the second case, you do not have to extend the class, static methods can be called.
public abstract class Service implements Interface1 {
public static void iK(ArrayList<Ks> kM, String g){ //static method
K aK = new K(g);
kM.add(aK);
}
}
Then:
Service.iK(arg0, arg1);
This topic is suitable only for deletion.
ArrayList operates on Ks type, and you guys are putting inside it an K type object...
You should extend this class, or make it not abstract (by implementing interface) if you want to instantiate it.
Your specific example seems to be related to some sort of webservice api. Without the backing code to the abstract class we can't really help you there.
I think we can start with some simple fundamentals related to interfaces and abstract classes, since that seems to be your question.
Abstract classes are classes that you cannot, by definition, create an instance of. What darijan did to "construct" and instance of the abstract class is he is creating an anonymous inner class for the Service abstract type.
Service service= new Service() { }; // notice the curly braces, this is an anonymous class definition
There are many different schools of thought and opinions related to best practices with abstract classes and interfaces. What we really are talking about here is the heart of OOP, in my opinion. Abstract classes are meant to provide APIs with or without concrete implementation, so that they may be overridden and specialized for a specific purpose.
This would be a decent example:
public class Car {
String make;
public car (String make) { this.make = make; }
}
public class Hondacar extends Car{
public Hondacar() { super("honda"); }
}
Now you have the definition of what states define a "Car" object, and then you specialize that into the definition of a "Hondacar".
Hopefully this makes sense.
Onto interfaces... Interfaces are declarations of a public API. They are a "contract" that implementing classes must abide by. A class that implements an interface must, by definition, implement all methods on that interface. YOU CAN THINK of an interface as an abstract class with only abstract methods, where classes that subclass that abstract class will need to override every method on that supertype(this draws parallels to the "#override" annotation on implemented interface methods) though many will probably discourage this way of thought. I am not sure what you are trying to do with your specific example since it does not have any names that I can even draw inference from so I can't really help you there.
So drawing on the whole car example, a similar design would be:
interface Car {
String getMake();
}
class HondaCar implements Car {
private static final make = "honda";
#override
public String getMake() { return HondaCar.make; }
}
You can see how the interface does not provide any sort of implementation at all, it merely defines the public API that an implementing class must offer.
Related
I am just confused about abstract class concept. Please clear my doubt. Definition of Abstract class says we can not create object of such class, then what we called like A a = new A() { }. Example is below:
public abstract class AbstractTest {
public abstract void onClick();
public void testClick() {
}
}
public class A {
AbstractTest test = new AbstractTest() {
#Override
public void onClick() {
}
};
}
Then test is a object or what?
test is an object of an anonymous concrete sub-class of AbstractTest (note that it implements all the abstract methods of AbstractTest), which is why this sub-class can be instantiated.
On the other hand,
AbstractTest test = new AbstractTest();
wouldn't pass compilation, since that would be an attempt to instantiate an abstract class.
You are mixing up object and reference.
AbstractTest test = new AbstractTest() {
#Override
public void onClick() {
}
};
test here is a reference to a anonymous class that extends AbstractTest, the above code is like saying:
class MyClass extends AbstractTest {
#Override
public void onClick() {
}
}
AbstractTest test = new MyClass(); // test is a reference to a MyClass object
Abstract Class in my opinion needs to be explained together with Interface.
Interface allows you to specify operations that are supported/allowed on objects with that interface. More specifically Objects are instances of a Class which implements that Interface. Defining an interface allows you to describe a group of different classes of objects so that other objects can interact with them in the same manner.
Abstract Class is one step between interface and a Class (loosely speaking). Abstract Class allows you to specify operations that are supported by classes that extend it, but it also allows you to implement (some of) those operations. This way you can implement common methods for a group of classes in that abstract class. Other methods in the abstract class that are not implemented (aka abstract methods) need to be implemented by the class that extends it. The fact that you didn't implement all methods on an Abstract class naturally means you can't instantiate it (create an object of such class). There are other useful implementations for Abstract classes (i.e. callbacks).
In your example what you see there is that you are not really trying to just create an object that Abstract class you are also providing implementation of abstract method onClick();
That is the only way you can "create an instance of the abstract class" - technically speaking you are creating an instance of an Anonymous class (that is extending your abstract class) for which you provide implementation of inherited abstract methods.
Maybe its answer is obvious for most of you but I am a bit confused when implementing an interface.
Should “just one implementation class” implement “the complete set of methods”?
Forex:
public class CCSImplementation implements CCS {
public void addComment (int submissionId,int customerId, String comment, Date date) { }
public void addGeneralComplaint (int submissionId, int customerId, String description, Date date) { }
and other methods…..}
Or
- More implementation classes such as
public class Comment implements CCS {
public void addComment() {}
}
and
public class GeneralComplaints implements CCS {
public void addGeneralComplaint(){}
}
implement the interface part by part taking into account of related methods? (---I got error when implement like these)
Since a reference says
One or more classes can implement that interface...
as I said I am a bit confused.
If the class is abstract, you don't have to implement all/any of the methods:
public abstract class Comment implements CCS {
public void addComment() {}
// addGeneralComplaint() is implied as abstract
}
Depending on your need, it would be perfectly valid to define such a class, where some of the methods are implemented, but subclasses are left to implement the rest of the interface's methods.
When a non-abstract class implements an interface it must provide implementations of all the exposed by the interface methods.
If we have an abstract class A, it can implement an interface without providing method implementations of the interface-exposed methods, since all of them are abstract by default. But when this class is subclassed by a non-abstract class B, the subclass must provide the implementations of the interface-exposed method signatures.
class Comment should extends Class GeneralComplaints
or
class GeneralComplaints should extends class Comment..
If it turns out that you are using an abstract class then you don't have to use everything. From my understanding you only want to implement something if you plan on using the provided methods. It was explained to me that an interface s provided so that the user doesn't forget to use methods in their class. Hope this helps.
I am asking a very basic question and it may be marked duplicate (I could not find the answer though):
Is there any practical example of an Abstract Class with all the
methods declared as Abstract?
In most cases and as mentioned in Java Tutorial also, class with all methods abstract shall be an interface.
But since abstract class and interface are two different concepts, I am looking for an example compelling to have "complete abstract class"
The only practical approach i think is that Abstract class can hold state. So you can have inside properties with access level protected, and you can make protected abstract methods that in interface you can't cause all are public.
A practical example could be for example this, the protected method in java has 'inheritance access' and 'package access'.
public interface Operation{
void operate();
}
public abstract class AbstractClase implements Operation{
protected Operation delegate;
public AbstractClase(Operation delegate){
this.delegate=delegate;
}
//delegate implementation responsability to children
protected abstract doSomething();
}
The downside of using abstract class is that you loss the possibility to extends of something else too.
As well as for holding state, it's worth remembering that all interface members are implicitly public. So restricting visibility of abstract methods may itself be a compelling enough reason to use an abstract class instead of an interface.
Adding to the two answers given above, Interfaces can only have constants(Variables which are public,static and final) while there is no such restrictions for abstract classes.
Abstract classes can have constructors which will be implicitly called when a child class is instantiated (if it is non-parameterised). But this is not possible with interfaces.
Here is an example for the usage of an abstract class
abstract class Animal{
public int noOfLegs;
public boolean isAlive;
Animal(){
isAlive = true;
}
public abstract void walk();
}
class Cow extends Animal{
Cow(){
noOfLegs = 4;
}
public void walk(){
if(isAlive){
//Code for walking
}
}
}
One other general purpose of an abstract class is to prevent an instance of the class., for example
abstract class Mammal{
int i=0;
}
public class Man extends Mammal{
public setMeValue(int i){
this.i=i;
}
public static void main(String args[]){
Mammal m= new Man();
man.setMeValue(10);
}
}
In the above code, I effectively make sure that there will never be an object of instance Mammal.
An interface can be applied to wildly different classes. Classes that have no relation to each other are Serializable or Cloneable. However, subclasses of an abstract class are all related. This may not mean anything when implementing the interface or extending the abstract class, but it means something semantically.
There is a style of programming where all the methods of a base class are either public final, protected abstract, protected and empty, or private. But even that isn't what the OP was interested in.
Adding more to the below answers:
Interface provide you with a contract to implement where abstract Class may provide you with a template as well. For a simple scenario you can use an Interface or an abstract Class without thinking much. But having an abstract class just for maintaining a state might give you lot of problems in a complex implementation. In such cases you have to carefully consider what you really want to achieve in your code and make the decision. If you consider the case of maintaining the state in your code, you can always use the State pattern in your implementation, so you will be able to use an interface in your code. You should always consider the extend-ability and maintainability of your code before deciding to use an abstract class over interface.
The simplest practical example I can think of is a class that has a protected variable:
public abstract class RoadVehicle {
protected int numberOfTires;
protected String vinNumber;
protected VehicleRegistration registration;
public abstract void drive();
public abstract double calculateToll();
public abstract void changeTires();
// so on and so forth...
}
You can't do this with an interface.
public abstract class animal{
public abstract void speak(){
System.out.println("animal voice");
}
}
public class dog extends animal{
public void speak(){
System.out.println("dog voice");
}
}
The biggest motive behind having Pure Abstract classes is to allow future extension. Assume you have an Abstract class (with all abstract members), then you inherit that abstract class in 20 derived classes. Sometime in future you wish to add a public method to 5 of your derived classes, what do you do ?
Since you already inherit the abstract class, an easier solution is to add the method (with implementation) to the abstract class. This way you don't have to touch any of the derived classes. Interfaces are very rigid in this context, once created there is very little chance to change an Interface, as it would require changing all the classes that implement that Interface.
I am trying to profile a ann algorithm written in Java that is implemented as a generic abstract class and I cant figure out how to instance it.
Eclipse gives me error "Cannot instantiate the type KdTree" which is not very helpful. Any ideas on how to instance this class so I can test it?
Class defination and constructor:
public abstract class KdTree<T> {
private KdTree(int dimensions, Integer sizeLimit) {
this.dimensions = dimensions;
}
}
My attempt to instance it:
public class test_robo {
public void run_test()
{
KdTree<Integer> tree = new KdTree<Integer>(1,1);
}
}
link to the full code for KdTree
http://robowiki.net/wiki/User:Rednaxela/kD-Tree
First of all, you cannot instantiate an abstract class.
I saw the code in the link you provided; there are few implementations of the base class KdTree<T> already in there.
WeightedSqrEuclid
WeightedManhattan
...
If that's not what you're looking for, extend the base class and implement all those abstract methods as you wish.
You cannot instantiate an abstract class directly. The reason it is declared abstract is that it is not meant to be used by itself - you have to provide an implementation of its abstract methods first.
You need to inherit your own class from the abstract base, implement its abstract methods, and then instantiate your class. An instance of your class is automatically an instance of its abstract base.
public class ProfilerTree extends KdTree<Integer> {
public ProfilerTree(int dimensions, Integer sizeLimit) {
super(dimensions, sizeLimit);
}
...
// Implement abstract methods of KdTree<Integer> here
}
...
KdTree<Integer> tree = new ProfilerTree(1,1);
you can't instantiate an abstract class. Abstract actually means it doesn't make sense on its own so it always has to be extended and its methods implemented.
Unlike interfaces, abstract classes can contain fields that are not static and final, and they can contain implemented methods. Such abstract classes are similar to interfaces, except that they provide a partial implementation, leaving it to subclasses to complete the implementation. If an abstract class contains only abstract method declarations, it should be declared as an interface instead.
Multiple interfaces can be implemented by classes anywhere in the class hierarchy, whether or not they are related to one another in any way. Think of Comparable or Cloneable, for example.
By comparison, abstract classes are most commonly subclassed to share pieces of implementation. A single abstract class is subclassed by similar classes that have a lot in common (the implemented parts of the abstract class), but also have some differences (the abstract methods).
see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/abstract.html
You can instantiate it by constructing an anonymous subclass, like so:
KdTree<Integer> tree = new KdTree<Integer>(1,1)
{
#Override
public void myAbstractMethodName()
{
//do something!
}
};
Otherwise, you can generate your own implementation:
private class KdTreeSub extends KdTree<Integer>
{
public KdTreeSub()
{
super(1, 1);
}
}
And later call it
public void myMethod()
{
...
KdTree<Integer> kdtree = new KdTreeSub();
...
}
The reason for this is that abstract classes are not complete classes. They are missing parts of them, usually a method. This method is marked with the "abstract" identifier:
public abstract int read();
The idea behind this is that you can construct a class that handles other parts:
public byte[] read(int len)
{
byte[] b = new byte[len];
for(int i = 0; i < b.length; i++) b[i] = read();
return b;
}
And simplify creating new classes.
The class, as it stands, was not meant to be instantiated. It's meant to store boilerplate code for concrete implementations. There are 4 of them in your link, starting with WeightedSqrEuclid.
You can either instantiate those, simply by e.g. new WeightedSqrEuclid<Integer>(1,1), or, if you want to profile the general code, write your own class extending KdTree.
However, in the latter case you should either create your subclass in the same file, or change a constructor of KdTree to at least protected. This is because, to create a subclass of this type, you need to call one of the constructors of KdTree in your implementation.
What is an "abstract class" in Java?
An abstract class is a class which cannot be instantiated. An abstract class is used by creating an inheriting subclass that can be instantiated. An abstract class does a few things for the inheriting subclass:
Define methods which can be used by the inheriting subclass.
Define abstract methods which the inheriting subclass must implement.
Provide a common interface which allows the subclass to be interchanged with all other subclasses.
Here's an example:
abstract public class AbstractClass
{
abstract public void abstractMethod();
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("implementedMethod()"); }
final public void finalMethod() { System.out.print("finalMethod()"); }
}
Notice that "abstractMethod()" doesn't have any method body. Because of this, you can't do the following:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
// ERROR!
}
There's no method that implements abstractMethod()! So there's no way for the JVM to know what it's supposed to do when it gets something like new ImplementingClass().abstractMethod().
Here's a correct ImplementingClass.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
}
Notice that you don't have to define implementedMethod() or finalMethod(). They were already defined by AbstractClass.
Here's another correct ImplementingClass.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
}
In this case, you have overridden implementedMethod().
However, because of the final keyword, the following is not possible.
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
public void finalMethod() { System.out.print("ERROR!"); }
}
You can't do this because the implementation of finalMethod() in AbstractClass is marked as the final implementation of finalMethod(): no other implementations will be allowed, ever.
Now you can also implement an abstract class twice:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("abstractMethod()"); }
public void implementedMethod() { System.out.print("Overridden!"); }
}
// In a separate file.
public class SecondImplementingClass extends AbstractClass
{
public void abstractMethod() { System.out.print("second abstractMethod()"); }
}
Now somewhere you could write another method.
public tryItOut()
{
ImplementingClass a = new ImplementingClass();
AbstractClass b = new ImplementingClass();
a.abstractMethod(); // prints "abstractMethod()"
a.implementedMethod(); // prints "Overridden!" <-- same
a.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
b.abstractMethod(); // prints "abstractMethod()"
b.implementedMethod(); // prints "Overridden!" <-- same
b.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
SecondImplementingClass c = new SecondImplementingClass();
AbstractClass d = new SecondImplementingClass();
c.abstractMethod(); // prints "second abstractMethod()"
c.implementedMethod(); // prints "implementedMethod()"
c.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
d.abstractMethod(); // prints "second abstractMethod()"
d.implementedMethod(); // prints "implementedMethod()"
d.finalMethod(); // prints "finalMethod()"
}
Notice that even though we declared b an AbstractClass type, it displays "Overriden!". This is because the object we instantiated was actually an ImplementingClass, whose implementedMethod() is of course overridden. (You may have seen this referred to as polymorphism.)
If we wish to access a member specific to a particular subclass, we must cast down to that subclass first:
// Say ImplementingClass also contains uniqueMethod()
// To access it, we use a cast to tell the runtime which type the object is
AbstractClass b = new ImplementingClass();
((ImplementingClass)b).uniqueMethod();
Lastly, you cannot do the following:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass, SomeOtherAbstractClass
{
... // implementation
}
Only one class can be extended at a time. If you need to extend multiple classes, they have to be interfaces. You can do this:
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass implements InterfaceA, InterfaceB
{
... // implementation
}
Here's an example interface:
interface InterfaceA
{
void interfaceMethod();
}
This is basically the same as:
abstract public class InterfaceA
{
abstract public void interfaceMethod();
}
The only difference is that the second way doesn't let the compiler know that it's actually an interface. This can be useful if you want people to only implement your interface and no others. However, as a general beginner rule of thumb, if your abstract class only has abstract methods, you should probably make it an interface.
The following is illegal:
interface InterfaceB
{
void interfaceMethod() { System.out.print("ERROR!"); }
}
You cannot implement methods in an interface. This means that if you implement two different interfaces, the different methods in those interfaces can't collide. Since all the methods in an interface are abstract, you have to implement the method, and since your method is the only implementation in the inheritance tree, the compiler knows that it has to use your method.
A Java class becomes abstract under the following conditions:
1. At least one of the methods is marked as abstract:
public abstract void myMethod()
In that case the compiler forces you to mark the whole class as abstract.
2. The class is marked as abstract:
abstract class MyClass
As already said: If you have an abstract method the compiler forces you to mark the whole class as abstract. But even if you don't have any abstract method you can still mark the class as abstract.
Common use:
A common use of abstract classes is to provide an outline of a class similar like an interface does. But unlike an interface it can already provide functionality, i.e. some parts of the class are implemented and some parts are just outlined with a method declaration. ("abstract")
An abstract class cannot be instantiated, but you can create a concrete class based on an abstract class, which then can be instantiated. To do so you have to inherit from the abstract class and override the abstract methods, i.e. implement them.
A class that is declared using the abstract keyword is known as abstract class.
Abstraction is a process of hiding the data implementation details, and showing only functionality to the user. Abstraction lets you focus on what the object does instead of how it does it.
Main things of abstract class
An abstract class may or may not contain abstract methods.There can be non abstract methods.
An abstract method is a method that is declared without an
implementation (without braces, and followed by a semicolon), like this:
ex : abstract void moveTo(double deltaX, double deltaY);
If a class has at least one abstract method then that class must be abstract
Abstract classes may not be instantiated (You are not allowed to create object of Abstract class)
To use an abstract class, you have to inherit it from another class. Provide implementations to all the abstract methods in it.
If you inherit an abstract class, you have to provide implementations to all the abstract methods in it.
Declare abstract class
Specifying abstract keyword before the class during declaration makes it abstract. Have a look at the code below:
abstract class AbstractDemo{ }
Declare abstract method
Specifying abstract keyword before the method during declaration makes it abstract. Have a look at the code below,
abstract void moveTo();//no body
Why we need to abstract classes
In an object-oriented drawing application, you can draw circles, rectangles, lines, Bezier curves, and many other graphic objects. These objects all have certain states (for ex -: position, orientation, line color, fill color) and behaviors (for ex -: moveTo, rotate, resize, draw) in common. Some of these states and behaviors are the same for all graphic objects (for ex : fill color, position, and moveTo). Others require different implementation(for ex: resize or draw). All graphic objects must be able to draw or resize themselves, they just differ in how they do it.
This is a perfect situation for an abstract superclass. You can take advantage of the similarities, and declare all the graphic objects to inherit from the same abstract parent object (for ex : GraphicObject) as shown in the following figure.
First, you declare an abstract class, GraphicObject, to provide member variables and methods that are wholly shared by all subclasses, such as the current position and the moveTo method. GraphicObject also declared abstract methods, such as draw or resize, that need to be a implemented by all subclasses but must be implemented in different ways. The GraphicObject class can look something like this:
abstract class GraphicObject {
void moveTo(int x, int y) {
// Inside this method we have to change the position of the graphic
// object according to x,y
// This is the same in every GraphicObject. Then we can implement here.
}
abstract void draw(); // But every GraphicObject drawing case is
// unique, not common. Then we have to create that
// case inside each class. Then create these
// methods as abstract
abstract void resize();
}
Usage of abstract method in sub classes
Each non abstract subclasses of GraphicObject, such as Circle and Rectangle, must provide implementations for the draw and resize methods.
class Circle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
void resize() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
}
class Rectangle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
void resize() {
//Add to some implementation here
}
}
Inside the main method you can call all methods like this:
public static void main(String args[]){
GraphicObject c = new Circle();
c.draw();
c.resize();
c.moveTo(4,5);
}
Ways to achieve abstraction in Java
There are two ways to achieve abstraction in java
Abstract class (0 to 100%)
Interface (100%)
Abstract class with constructors, data members, methods, etc
abstract class GraphicObject {
GraphicObject (){
System.out.println("GraphicObject is created");
}
void moveTo(int y, int x) {
System.out.println("Change position according to "+ x+ " and " + y);
}
abstract void draw();
}
class Circle extends GraphicObject {
void draw() {
System.out.println("Draw the Circle");
}
}
class TestAbstract {
public static void main(String args[]){
GraphicObject grObj = new Circle ();
grObj.draw();
grObj.moveTo(4,6);
}
}
Output:
GraphicObject is created
Draw the Circle
Change position according to 6 and 4
Remember two rules:
If the class has few abstract methods and few concrete methods,
declare it as an abstract class.
If the class has only abstract methods, declare it as an interface.
References:
TutorialsPoint - Java Abstraction
BeginnersBook - Java Abstract Class Method
Java Docs - Abstract Methods and Classes
JavaPoint - Abstract Class in Java
It's a class that cannot be instantiated, and forces implementing classes to, possibly, implement abstract methods that it outlines.
Simply speaking, you can think of an abstract class as like an Interface with a bit more capabilities.
You cannot instantiate an Interface, which also holds for an abstract class.
On your interface you can just define the method headers and ALL of the implementers are forced to implement all of them. On an abstract class you can also define your method headers but here - to the difference of the interface - you can also define the body (usually a default implementation) of the method. Moreover when other classes extend (note, not implement and therefore you can also have just one abstract class per child class) your abstract class, they are not forced to implement all of your methods of your abstract class, unless you specified an abstract method (in such case it works like for interfaces, you cannot define the method body).
public abstract class MyAbstractClass{
public abstract void DoSomething();
}
Otherwise for normal methods of an abstract class, the "inheriters" can either just use the default behavior or override it, as usual.
Example:
public abstract class MyAbstractClass{
public int CalculateCost(int amount){
//do some default calculations
//this can be overriden by subclasses if needed
}
//this MUST be implemented by subclasses
public abstract void DoSomething();
}
From oracle documentation
Abstract Methods and Classes:
An abstract class is a class that is declared abstract—it may or may not include abstract methods
Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed
An abstract method is a method that is declared without an implementation (without braces, and followed by a semicolon), like this:
abstract void moveTo(double deltaX, double deltaY);
If a class includes abstract methods, then the class itself must be declared abstract, as in:
public abstract class GraphicObject {
// declare fields
// declare nonabstract methods
abstract void draw();
}
When an abstract class is subclassed, the subclass usually provides implementations for all of the abstract methods in its parent class. However, if it does not, then the subclass must also be declared abstract.
Since abstract classes and interfaces are related, have a look at below SE questions:
What is the difference between an interface and abstract class?
How should I have explained the difference between an Interface and an Abstract class?
Get your answers here:
Abstract class vs Interface in Java
Can an abstract class have a final method?
BTW - those are question you asked recently. Think about a new question to build up reputation...
Edit:
Just realized, that the posters of this and the referenced questions have the same or at least similiar name but the user-id is always different. So either, there's a technical problem, that keyur has problems logging in again and finding the answers to his questions or this is a sort of game to entertain the SO community ;)
Little addition to all these posts.
Sometimes you may want to declare a
class and yet not know how to define
all of the methods that belong to that
class. For example, you may want to
declare a class called Writer and
include in it a member method called
write(). However, you don't know how to code write() because it is
different for each type of Writer
devices. Of course, you plan to handle
this by deriving subclass of Writer,
such as Printer, Disk, Network and
Console.
An abstract class can not be directly instantiated, but must be derived from to be usable. A class MUST be abstract if it contains abstract methods: either directly
abstract class Foo {
abstract void someMethod();
}
or indirectly
interface IFoo {
void someMethod();
}
abstract class Foo2 implements IFoo {
}
However, a class can be abstract without containing abstract methods. Its a way to prevent direct instantation, e.g.
abstract class Foo3 {
}
class Bar extends Foo3 {
}
Foo3 myVar = new Foo3(); // illegal! class is abstract
Foo3 myVar = new Bar(); // allowed!
The latter style of abstract classes may be used to create "interface-like" classes. Unlike interfaces an abstract class is allowed to contain non-abstract methods and instance variables. You can use this to provide some base functionality to extending classes.
Another frequent pattern is to implement the main functionality in the abstract class and define part of the algorithm in an abstract method to be implemented by an extending class. Stupid example:
abstract class Processor {
protected abstract int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered);
public int process(int[] values) {
int[] filtered = filterInput(values);
// do something with filtered input
}
}
class EvenValues extends Processor {
protected int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered) {
// remove odd numbers
}
}
class OddValues extends Processor {
protected int[] filterInput(int[] unfiltered) {
// remove even numbers
}
}
Solution - base class (abstract)
public abstract class Place {
String Name;
String Postcode;
String County;
String Area;
Place () {
}
public static Place make(String Incoming) {
if (Incoming.length() < 61) return (null);
String Name = (Incoming.substring(4,26)).trim();
String County = (Incoming.substring(27,48)).trim();
String Postcode = (Incoming.substring(48,61)).trim();
String Area = (Incoming.substring(61)).trim();
Place created;
if (Name.equalsIgnoreCase(Area)) {
created = new Area(Area,County,Postcode);
} else {
created = new District(Name,County,Postcode,Area);
}
return (created);
}
public String getName() {
return (Name);
}
public String getPostcode() {
return (Postcode);
}
public String getCounty() {
return (County);
}
public abstract String getArea();
}
What is Abstract class?
Ok! lets take an example you known little bit about chemistry we have an element carbon(symbol C).Carbon has some basic atomic structure which you can't change but using carbon you can make so many compounds like (CO2),Methane(CH4),Butane(C4H10).
So Here carbon is abstract class and you do not want to change its basic structure however you want their childrens(CO2,CH4 etc) to use it.But in their own way
An abstract class is a class that is declared abstract — it may or may not include abstract methods. Abstract classes cannot be instantiated, but they can be subclassed.
In other words, a class that is declared with abstract keyword, is known as abstract class in java. It can have abstract(method without body) and non-abstract methods (method with body).
Important Note:-
Abstract classes cannot be used to instantiate objects, they can be used to create object references, because Java's approach to run-time Polymorphism is implemented through the use of superclass references. Thus, it must be possible to create a reference to an abstract class so that it can be used to point to a subclass object. You will see this feature in the below example
abstract class Bike{
abstract void run();
}
class Honda4 extends Bike{
void run(){
System.out.println("running safely..");
}
public static void main(String args[]){
Bike obj = new Honda4();
obj.run();
}
}
An abstract class is one that isn't fully implemented but provides something of a blueprint for subclasses. It may be partially implemented in that it contains fully-defined concrete methods, but it can also hold abstract methods. These are methods with a signature but no method body. Any subclass must define a body for each abstract method, otherwise it too must be declared abstract.
Because abstract classes cannot be instantiated, they must be extended by at least one subclass in order to be utilized. Think of the abstract class as the generic class, and the subclasses are there to fill in the missing information.
Class which can have both concrete and non-concrete methods i.e. with and without body.
Methods without implementation must contain 'abstract' keyword.
Abstract class can't be instantiated.
It do nothing, just provide a common template that will be shared for it's subclass