We Keep Coding

Overloading method with parent type and child type argument and passing null while calling. Why method with childtype argument is getting called [duplicate]

I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char[] obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null) , then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer and char[] methods or Integer and Object methods?

Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object, char[] and Integer can all take null as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object is the super-type of char[], the array version is more specific than the Object-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char[] version will be chosen.
When both the char[] and Integer versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char[] x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.

Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char[]) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.

null is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null) or doSomething((Integer)null) instead.

Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.

I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.

class Sample{
public static void main (String[] args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char[] and Integer

there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char[] obj) and doSomething(Integer obj).
char[] and Integer both are the same superior for null that's why they are ambiguous.

Why we do not create object for static method in java?

Sometimes we call className.methodName() without creating object for it, I mean without using syntax as className objectName = new constructor() and then call as object.methodName()
When to use className.methodName()?
When to call method using object as object.methodName()?
Explanation of above two cases with example will be appreciated.

What you're referring to is a static method.
Assume that I have this :
public class A {
public static void foo(){
System.out.println("Hooray! I work!");
}
}
You can now do this anywhere else in any other class :
A.foo();
This is because the method is static, which means that it can be called on by the CLASS.
This means that it doesn't require an instance of that class in order for the method to be called.
However, even though it isn't required, you can still do this :
A a = new A();
a.foo();
But since the method foo() is static, instantiating an object A is not required in order to run the foo() method.

First. When you're create at least one static method of a class, you can use this method without creating an instance of class. This is useful, for example, for the creation of methods with independent logic. For example:
public class Checker {
public static Boolean month(int value) {
return (value >= 1 && value <= 12);
}
}
You need check correct value of month many times. But what to do each time to create the object. It is much effective to use a static method.
Second. When you create the object, the object is stored in the memory and you get a link to it. Then the object can be used for example to save at the list.
Method at this object is specific. You can save class data and do specific operation with member of this class. For example:
List<Animals> animalsList = new ArrayList<>();
Animal animal = new Animal("dog");
int legs = animal.getCountLegs(); // specific function for object
animalList.add(animal); //save if you need
// use list of object

For every class, we have a Object called as class object which is YourClass.class object. static methods are invoked based on meta-data on those objects. For instances of a class, methods are invoked on the actual instances. Both static and non-static methods are present on method area.

There is no different between 1 and 2 point, because in during compilation compiler makes ClassName.staticMethod() instead of instance.staticMethod().

Static methods in java belong to the class (not an instance of it). They use no instance variables and will usually take input from the parameters, perform actions on it, then return some result. Instances methods are associated with objects and, as the name implies, can use instance variables.

what is the extra benefit of creating constructor in java?

I have noticed a thing that a constructor and a simple method of a class do the same work. what is the exact reason to create a construct of a class? If i create MyClass(){} constructor and MyClassMethod(){} method it will do the same work as I write the body part of those method and constructor. So what is the need of construct? Does it have any special use ?

A constructor and a method are two different things. The fact that you can write the same or similar code inside them is irrelevant.
When a new object is created a constructor is called. If you don't specify one the compiler will create a default one for you. This is the place where initializaton of the object's fields takes place and memory is allocated for the object. This is a concept that all object-oriented languages have. A new object must be initialized somehow. Memory needs to be allocated. In Java you don't manage the memory yourself (at least not directly anyway) so this is the purpose of the constructor. Note that since a constructor is always executed, this behaviour is enforced as soon as you call e.g. Person p = new Person();.
Now since a constructor is always being called, you have an option here: do you let the default constructor execute or do you create one yourself? Perhaps there are fields that need to be initialized in a way other than their default values. Or perhaps you need to not allow creating an object without providing some values. If you define a constructor yourself, the compiler does not create a default one for you. So if I have public Person(String firstName, String lastName) {} then I have created a specific rule that is again enforced by the system: a new object of class Person cannot be created unless you give a first name and last name:
Person p = new Person(); // this would give a compile error
Person p = new Person("John", "Smith"); // this is the only way to create an object now
Using a method you cannot enforce this. The programmer using your class might call your method or not. The constructor is a part of the lifecycle of the object. Methods define the behaviour of the object

Some points :
1) Constructors are the only way to set final instance variables .
public class SomeType {
final int x ;
SomeType(int y){
x=y;
}
}
2) A class with private constructor cannot be sub classed.
3) If your class is a subclass and the base class doesn't have a default constructor , then you need a constructor in your class to call the super class constructor.

One of the benefits of using a constructor over a method is that you can be assured the constructor was called and the work within the constructor was performed.
The language specifies that to construct an object a constructor must be called. So if you use a custom method to establish the initial state of your object, you will need to call the default constructor first. Why make two method calls when you can perform the work in one call the constructor and be assured the object has been properly initialized?
public class Test(){
private Integer x;
public Test(){
}
public Test(Integer x){
this.x = x;
}
public void setX(Integer x){
this.x = x;
}
public void doSomethingWithX(){
this.x.toString();
}
}
Test test = new Test(8);
test.doSomethingWithX(); //I know x has been declared and assigned
Test test = new Test();
test.doSomethingWithX(); //X has not been assigned results in NPE

If you create a new Object of MyClass it will automatically call the constructor - you can initialize all members within it, and be sure that this object´s members are all initialized.
Generally:
A constructor is always called once when you create a new Object of this class, and you can´t call it manually.
And don´t do "real" work in a constructor, as it will slow down the creation of objects of this class - only initialize your class/members there.
You can also use different constructors, depending on your needs - but if you create a constructor, there is no more default constructor!
Example:
public MyClass {
int score;
public MyClass(int sc) { // already know the score
score = sc;
}
public MyClass() { // don´t know the score yet
score = 1;
}
public void addScore() {
score += 5; // i know for sure that score is not zero
}
}

Essentially a constructor is just a special method that implicitly returns an object of its containing type. You should generally use constructors for creating objects - this is what people expect to see.
However, there is a useful idiom called the factory method (more info at this link) which is essentially using a static method to construct an object, the key advantages being
You can give a factory method a more descriptive name (whereas of course a standard constructor has to be named after the containing class).
They don't have to return an object, giving more flexibility.
They can return a sub-types of the class.

You can set final fields without initializer in a constructor. This helps to build immutable instances:
class Number extends Expr {
private final int n;
public Number(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
public int getValue() {
return this.n;
}
}
So after a constructor like this, you can rely on the fact that the instance is initialized completely (and in this case, it's values are immutable/constant).

Constructor is not like simple methods. It is called every time when the object of that particular class is created. You don't need to call it explicitly.
There are somethings that we need to do immediately when the object is created, for instance when you create a GUI kind of thing you want to set many properties on the time of creation like size of window etc.
Another benefit of constructor is security of class. You cannot create a object unless you know the right perimeters of constructor.
More details:http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/constructors.html

A constructor is a special method of a class or structure in object-oriented programming that initializes an object of that type.
Some points :
1. A constructor eliminates placing the default values.
2. A constructor eliminates calling the normal method implicitly.

These are the benefits of constructors.
Automatic initialization of objects at the time of their declaration.
Multiple ways to initialize objects according to the number of
arguments passes while declaration.
The objects of child class can be initialised by the constructors of base class.

Instantiating a class, toString terms

I have two classes :
import android.cla;
public class CW {
public static void main(String [] args){
System.out.println(new cla());
}
}
public class Cl {
#Override
public String toString(){
return "LOL";
}
}
In the first class I'm calling the objects toString() method, which has been overriden and printing it to console. It clearly returns "LOL";
I have two questions :
Is it possible to return data while instantiating like this (new cla()) without overriding the objects toString() method; and
What is the proper term for instantiating classes like this (new cla()), that's without declaration like : Object l = new cla()
Thanks. Please correct me on the proper terms.

1 - No it isn't. A 'constructor' is a special method on the class that always returns an object instance of the class. The whole point of the constructor is to return the object. So no, it can't return anything else.
1a - The reason that System.out.println calls the toString method is because you are asking it to print out that object to the screen, and the toString method is the method chosen by the authors of println (and the Java language in general) to give a string representation of the object.
2 - That way of writing isn't really called anything. It's just an expression that you're passing as an 'actual parameter' to the println method. True, it's an expression that instantiates a new object, but it's no different to println("a string"). You could call it an anonymous object if you really wanted to.
2a - (old answer that doesn't actually answer your question but I'll keep it here) That's just called 'using a less derived reference† to a class'. Beware you can only call methods on the type of the reference, so if you added extra methods to your Cl class you couldn't call them from an Object reference. Look into Liskov substitution principle.
† 'less derived' or 'supertype' or 'superclass' or 'more general class' etc...

How does Object Oriented Programming work?

I am not sure about some things in OOP.
If I have Class1, which has some private field, for example private Field field1, and make
getField1 () {
return field1;
}
then I have some class with constructor
public Class2 (Field field) {
someMethod(field);
}
And then I call constructor of Class2 in Class3 like:
Class2 cl = new Class2(instanceOfClass1.getField1());
And now the question: Am I working with field1 of instanceOfClass1 in someMethod(field)?

This depends on whether field is a value or a reference.
Value types are copied when passed as parameters. Reference types are not; the function is simply handed a "reference" that points back to the original value, and any changes that it makes are reflected in the original value.
Whether a given type is value or reference depends on your particular programming language. Generally speaking, basic integer and boolean types are usually value types, and everything else is up in the air -- some languages make strings values, and others treat them as references, etc.
Edit: Since you mentioned you're using Java, here's a short program that demonstrates value and reference types:
class ClassOne {
public int myInt;
}
class ClassTwo {
public int myInt;
public ClassTwo(ClassOne c)
{
myInt = c.myInt;
c.myInt = 3;
}
}
public class main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ClassOne c = new ClassOne();
c.myInt = 1;
System.out.println("C1: " + c.myInt);
ClassTwo c2 = new ClassTwo(c);
System.out.println("C2: " + c2.myInt);
System.out.println("C1: " + c.myInt);
}
}
Running this program will give the output:
C1: 1
C2: 1
C1: 3
In this program, both ClassOne and ClassTwo contain an integer field -- a value type. ClassTwo takes a ClassOne parameter -- a reference type -- in its constructor, and sets its own integer field based on the value of the ClassOne object it is given, and then changes the ClassOne object's value.
Because classes are reference types, changing the ClassOne object in the ClassTwo constructor causes the original object to be changed. (In the main function here, that's c.) But because integers are value types, even though c2 changes the value of c.myInt in its constructor, because it sets its own value beforehand, c2.myInt isn't affected: it retains the original number, because it was copied rather than referenced.
Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit.

You're working with the value contained in it. If it is a mutable object then yes, it is possible to change the state of the instance of Class1 from outside, which violates data protection principles. This is why you should copy mutable types before returning them.

I had to reread your question two or three times to make sure I understood what you're asking.
To recap:
There is Class1 which contains an field attribute (of type Field?) which is sent back by it's getField1() method.
There is then Class2 which is apparently has a constructor that accepts an object parameter of Field type and contains a method that uses an instance of Field to trigger a local method in this class.
You then use a third class to instantiate Class2 and initialize it using an instance of Field using the getField1() method from an instance of Class1.
In the case of Java, providing you've done the necessary instantiation this would mean that the Field instance in Class1 is being used throughout the process. You can verify this using a System.out.println() (this will give you an # symbol with a series of weird numbers) or using the a.equals(b) method common to all objects.
Here is an interesting link about passing objects by value:
http://www.javaranch.com/campfire/StoryPassBy.jsp