I have (some pseudocode):
public class Thrd extends Thread{
protected void letUsFinalize(){
int a = 0; // Just for debugging.
}
}
public class FreeThread extends Thrd{
#Override
protected void letUsFinalize() {
FreeThread.this.interrupt();
}
}
Please, have a look at the picture. Our object now is of class FreeThread (visible in the Variables subsection). So, I come to the upper break point in the picture, press Step into and I occur at the lower break point. I mean that I occur in the method of the class Thrd (superclass).
What should I do so that the method of subclass would execute in this case?
If the object that you are using is an instance of FreeThread, then calling object.letUsFinalise() will call the method from FreeThread.
It looks like you are calling letUsFinalise() from the super class, so it's not possible to call the subclass' method unless you are using a static object to it (demonstrated below).
public class SuperClass {
public void method(){
Objects.object.method();
}
}
class SubClass extends SuperClass{
#Override
public void method(){
System.out.println("I'm the sub class!");
}
}
class Objects{
public static SubClass object = new SubClass();
}
I suggest that you create a static object of FreeThread and use that to call the method, as shown above.
Related
If I don't want that a method on my class can be called, I just make it private.
But if I want to allow that method to be overridden, I have to make it protected
Is it possible to have a method on an abstract class that can't be called but can be overridden? (I guess not, but is there any workaround?)
Use case:
abstract class Super {
protected void finalize() {
}
public final void doThings() {
// do stuff
finalize();
}
}
and whoever wanted to extend the class:
class Sub extends Super {
#Override
protected void finalize() {
closeSockets();
alertSomeone();
}
}
But I don't want other classes calling mySub.finalize();
Instead of overwriting a method, the sub-class may provide the super-class with a Runnable which contains the code to be executed. You could do something like this:
public class Super {
private final Runnable subClassCode;
public Super(Runnable finalizeCode) {
subClassCode = finalizeCode;
}
public final void doThings() {
// do stuff
subClassCode.run();
}
}
public class Sub extends Super {
public Sub() {
super(() -> {
// code to be executed in doThings()
});
}
}
You dont need to set the Runnable instance in the constructor. You may also give access to a protected setFinalizeCode(Runnable) method but that method could also be called by other classes within the same package as Super.
I have an abstract super class A with a method doSomething(). A sub-class of A must implement doSomething(), but there is also some common code that should be called every time a subclass calls doSomething(). I know this could be achieved thus:
public class A {
public void doSomething() {
// Things that every sub-class should do
}
}
public class B extends A {
public void doSomething() {
super.doSomething();
// Doing class-B-specific stuff here
...
}
}
There seem to be three issues with this, though:
The method signatures have to match, but I might want to return something in the sub-class methods only, but not in the super-class
If I make A.doSomething() abstract, I can't provide a (common) implementation in A. If I don't make it abstract, I can't force sub-class to implement it.
If I use a different method to provide the common functionality, I can't enforce that B.doSomething() calls that common method.
Any ideas how the methods should be implemented?
What about the following?
public abstract class A {
protected abstract void __doSomething();
public void doSomething() {
// Things that every sub-class should do
__doSomething();
}
}
public class B extends A {
protected void __doSomething() {
// Doing class-B-specific stuff here
...
}
}
The first bullet point however is not so clear. The signature can't match if you want to return something different.
add call back to doSomething()
public class A {
public void doSomething() {
// Things that every sub-class should do
doSomethingMore()
}
}
protected abstract void doSomethingMore()
so all subclusses will have to ipmelment doSomethingMore() with additional actions but external classes will call public doSomething()
For first point alone - you can consider the below answer and for enforcing subclass implementation it can be abstract but calling common code functionality can happen if the base class has some implementation.
Return type can be Object in Base Class and returning null. In SubClass the specific return type can be put as given below.
public class InheritanceTutorial {
static class Base{
public Object doSomething(){
System.out.println("parent dosomething");
return null;
}
}
static class SubClass extends Base{
public Integer doSomething(){
super.doSomething();
System.out.println("child dosomething");
return 0;
}
}
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
SubClass subClass = new SubClass();
subClass.doSomething();
}
}
I'm trying to create a game engine in Java that uses the syntax and structure of UnityScript, and i've got most of it figured out at the moment. The only thing i'm struggling with is being able to call functions when instantiating a class from the superclass.
Example:
Object superclass:
public class Object {
public Object(){
Start();
}
public void Start(){
}
}
Gameobject subclass:
public class GameObject extends Object {
public GameObject(){
}
public void Start(){
}
}
The thing i want to happen is that when i create a new gameobject or anything that extends from a gameobject calls the Start() function when instanced, preferably without using the super() statement.
Parent no-argument constructors will be called automatically if you exclude the super statement, so your code will work as-is.
Fix your method names to follow convention.
Have your super class implement a private method that does its general logic and then calls the start() method, possibly your sub class'. Put a call to this private method in the constructor of the super class.
Your superclass
public abstract class SomeObject {
public Object(){
objectStart();
}
private void objectStart(){
// do something general
start();
}
public abstract void start();
}
Gameobject subclass:
public class GameObject extends SomeObject {
public GameObject(){
// implicitly calls super() which will call objectStart() which will call start()
}
#Override
public void start(){
}
}
Now when any subclass of SomeObject gets instantiated, its start() method will get executed.
If you don't want the class to be abstract, just implement a no-op start() method
I wanted to implement a method in a abstract class that is called by the inherited classes and uses their values.
For instance:
abstract class MyClass{
String value = "myClass";
void foo(){System.out.println(this.value);}
}
public class childClass{
String value="childClass";
void foo(){super.foo();}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
new childClass.foo();
}
This will output "myClass" but what I really want is to output "childClass". This is so I can implement a "general" method in a class that when extended by other classes it will use the values from those classes.
I could pass the values as function arguments but I wanted to know if it would be possible to implement the "architecture" I've described.
A super method called by the inherited class which uses the values from the caller not itself, this without passing the values by arguments.
You could do something like this:
abstract class MyClass {
protected String myValue() {
return "MyClass";
}
final void foo() {
System.out.println(myValue());
}
}
public class ChildClass extends MyClass {
#Override
protected String myValue() {
return "ChildClass";
}
}
and so on
This is a place where composition is better than inheritance
public class Doer{
private Doee doee;
public Doer(Doee doee){
this.doee = doee;
}
public void foo(){
System.out.println(doee.value);
}
}
public abstract class Doee{
public String value="myClass"
}
public ChildDoee extends Doee{
public String= "childClass"
}
...
//Excerpt from factory
new Doer(new ChildDoee);
I believe you are asking whether this is possible:
public class MyClass {
void foo() {
if (this instanceof childClass) // do stuff for childClass
else if (this intanceof anotherChildClass) // do stuff for that one
}
}
So the answer is "yes, it's doable", but very much advised against as it a) tries to reimplement polymorphism instead of using it and b) violates the separation between abstract and concrete classes.
You simply want value in MyClass to be different for an instance of childClass.
To do this, change the value in the childClass constructor:
public class childClass {
public childClass() {
value = "childClass";
}
}
Edited:
If you can't override/replace the constructor(s), add an instance block (which gets executed after the constructor, even an undeclared "default" constructor):
public class childClass {
{
value = "childClass";
}
}
I have the following situation:
public abstract class A {
private Object superMember;
public A() {
superMember = initializeSuperMember();
// some additional checks and stuff based on the initialization of superMember (***)
}
protected abstract Object initializeSuperMember();
}
class B extends A {
private Object subMember;
public B(Object subMember) {
super();
subMember = subMember;
}
protected Object initializeSuperMember() {
// doesn't matter what method is called on subMember, just that there is an access on it
return subMember.get(); // => NPE
}
}
The problem is that I get a NPE on a new object B creation.
I know I can avoid this by calling an initializeSuperMember() after I assign the subMember content in the subclass constructor but it would mean I have to do this for each of the subclasses(marked * in the code).
And since I have to call super() as the first thing in the subclass constructor I can't initialize subMember before the call to super().
Anyone care to tell me if there's a better way to do this or if I am trying to do something alltogether wrong?
Two problems:
First, you should never call an overrideable member function from a constructor, for just the reason you discovered. See this thread for a nice discussion of the issue, including alternative approaches.
Second, in the constructor for B, you need:
this.subMember = subMember;
The constructor parameter name masks the field name, so you need this. to refer to the field.
Follow the chain of invocation:
You invoke the B() constructor.
It invokes the A() constructor.
The A() constructor invokes the overridden abstract methot
The method B#initializeSuperMember() references subMember, which has not yet been initialized. NPE.
It is never valid to do what you have done.
Also, it is not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You should ask a separate question explaining what your goal is.
Hum, this code does not look good and in all likelyhood this is a sign of a bad situation. But there are some tricks that can help you do what you want, using a factory method like this:
public static abstract class A {
public abstract Object createObject();
}
public static abstract class B extends A {
private Object member;
public B(Object member) {
super();
this.member = member;
}
}
public static B createB(final Object member) {
return new B(member) {
#Override
public Object createObject() {
return member.getClass();
}
};
}
The problem is when you call super(), the subMember is not initialized yet. You need to pass subMemeber as a parameter.
public abstract class A {
public A (Object subMember) {
// initialize here
}
}
class B extends A {
public B (Object subMember) {
super(subMember);
// do your other things
}
}
Since you don't want to have subMember in the abstract class, another approach is to override the getter.
public abstract class A {
public abstract Object getSuperMember();
protected void checkSuperMember() {
// check if the supberMember is fine
}
}
public class B extends A {
private Object subMember;
public B(Object subMember) {
super();
this.subMember = subMember;
checkSuperMemeber();
}
#Override
public Object getSuperMember() {
return subMember.get();
}
}
I hope this can remove your duplicate code as well.