We Keep Coding

Are there programs for the JVM that cannot be decompiled to valid Java? [duplicate]

Are there currently (Java 6) things you can do in Java bytecode that you can't do from within the Java language?
I know both are Turing complete, so read "can do" as "can do significantly faster/better, or just in a different way".
I'm thinking of extra bytecodes like invokedynamic, which can't be generated using Java, except that specific one is for a future version.

After working with Java byte code for quite a while and doing some additional research on this matter, here is a summary of my findings:
Execute code in a constructor before calling a super constructor or auxiliary constructor
In the Java programming language (JPL), a constructor's first statement must be an invocation of a super constructor or another constructor of the same class. This is not true for Java byte code (JBC). Within byte code, it is absolutely legitimate to execute any code before a constructor, as long as:
Another compatible constructor is called at some time after this code block.
This call is not within a conditional statement.
Before this constructor call, no field of the constructed instance is read and none of its methods is invoked. This implies the next item.
Set instance fields before calling a super constructor or auxiliary constructor
As mentioned before, it is perfectly legal to set a field value of an instance before calling another constructor. There even exists a legacy hack which makes it able to exploit this "feature" in Java versions before 6:
class Foo {
public String s;
public Foo() {
System.out.println(s);
}
}
class Bar extends Foo {
public Bar() {
this(s = "Hello World!");
}
private Bar(String helper) {
super();
}
}
This way, a field could be set before the super constructor is invoked which is however not longer possible. In JBC, this behavior can still be implemented.
Branch a super constructor call
In Java, it is not possible to define a constructor call like
class Foo {
Foo() { }
Foo(Void v) { }
}
class Bar() {
if(System.currentTimeMillis() % 2 == 0) {
super();
} else {
super(null);
}
}
Until Java 7u23, the HotSpot VM's verifier did however miss this check which is why it was possible. This was used by several code generation tools as a sort of a hack but it is not longer legal to implement a class like this.
The latter was merely a bug in this compiler version. In newer compiler versions, this is again possible.
Define a class without any constructor
The Java compiler will always implement at least one constructor for any class. In Java byte code, this is not required. This allows the creation of classes that cannot be constructed even when using reflection. However, using sun.misc.Unsafe still allows for the creation of such instances.
Define methods with identical signature but with different return type
In the JPL, a method is identified as unique by its name and its raw parameter types. In JBC, the raw return type is additionally considered.
Define fields that do not differ by name but only by type
A class file can contain several fields of the same name as long as they declare a different field type. The JVM always refers to a field as a tuple of name and type.
Throw undeclared checked exceptions without catching them
The Java runtime and the Java byte code are not aware of the concept of checked exceptions. It is only the Java compiler that verifies that checked exceptions are always either caught or declared if they are thrown.
Use dynamic method invocation outside of lambda expressions
The so-called dynamic method invocation can be used for anything, not only for Java's lambda expressions. Using this feature allows for example to switch out execution logic at runtime. Many dynamic programming languages that boil down to JBC improved their performance by using this instruction. In Java byte code, you could also emulate lambda expressions in Java 7 where the compiler did not yet allow for any use of dynamic method invocation while the JVM already understood the instruction.
Use identifiers that are not normally considered legal
Ever fancied using spaces and a line break in your method's name? Create your own JBC and good luck for code review. The only illegal characters for identifiers are ., ;, [ and /. Additionally, methods that are not named <init> or <clinit> cannot contain < and >.
Reassign final parameters or the this reference
final parameters do not exist in JBC and can consequently be reassigned. Any parameter, including the this reference is only stored in a simple array within the JVM what allows to reassign the this reference at index 0 within a single method frame.
Reassign final fields
As long as a final field is assigned within a constructor, it is legal to reassign this value or even not assign a value at all. Therefore, the following two constructors are legal:
class Foo {
final int bar;
Foo() { } // bar == 0
Foo(Void v) { // bar == 2
bar = 1;
bar = 2;
}
}
For static final fields, it is even allowed to reassign the fields outside of
the class initializer.
Treat constructors and the class initializer as if they were methods
This is more of a conceptional feature but constructors are not treated any differently within JBC than normal methods. It is only the JVM's verifier that assures that constructors call another legal constructor. Other than that, it is merely a Java naming convention that constructors must be called <init> and that the class initializer is called <clinit>. Besides this difference, the representation of methods and constructors is identical. As Holger pointed out in a comment, you can even define constructors with return types other than void or a class initializer with arguments, even though it is not possible to call these methods.
Create asymmetric records*.
When creating a record
record Foo(Object bar) { }
javac will generate a class file with a single field named bar, an accessor method named bar() and a constructor taking a single Object. Additionally, a record attribute for bar is added. By manually generating a record, it is possible to create, a different constructor shape, to skip the field and to implement the accessor differently. At the same time, it is still possible to make the reflection API believe that the class represents an actual record.
Call any super method (until Java 1.1)
However, this is only possible for Java versions 1 and 1.1. In JBC, methods are always dispatched on an explicit target type. This means that for
class Foo {
void baz() { System.out.println("Foo"); }
}
class Bar extends Foo {
#Override
void baz() { System.out.println("Bar"); }
}
class Qux extends Bar {
#Override
void baz() { System.out.println("Qux"); }
}
it was possible to implement Qux#baz to invoke Foo#baz while jumping over Bar#baz. While it is still possible to define an explicit invocation to call another super method implementation than that of the direct super class, this does no longer have any effect in Java versions after 1.1. In Java 1.1, this behavior was controlled by setting the ACC_SUPER flag which would enable the same behavior that only calls the direct super class's implementation.
Define a non-virtual call of a method that is declared in the same class
In Java, it is not possible to define a class
class Foo {
void foo() {
bar();
}
void bar() { }
}
class Bar extends Foo {
#Override void bar() {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
The above code will always result in a RuntimeException when foo is invoked on an instance of Bar. It is not possible to define the Foo::foo method to invoke its own bar method which is defined in Foo. As bar is a non-private instance method, the call is always virtual. With byte code, one can however define the invocation to use the INVOKESPECIAL opcode which directly links the bar method call in Foo::foo to Foo's version. This opcode is normally used to implement super method invocations but you can reuse the opcode to implement the described behavior.
Fine-grain type annotations
In Java, annotations are applied according to their #Target that the annotations declares. Using byte code manipulation, it is possible to define annotations independently of this control. Also, it is for example possible to annotate a parameter type without annotating the parameter even if the #Target annotation applies to both elements.
Define any attribute for a type or its members
Within the Java language, it is only possible to define annotations for fields, methods or classes. In JBC, you can basically embed any information into the Java classes. In order to make use of this information, you can however no longer rely on the Java class loading mechanism but you need to extract the meta information by yourself.
Overflow and implicitly assign byte, short, char and boolean values
The latter primitive types are not normally known in JBC but are only defined for array types or for field and method descriptors. Within byte code instructions, all of the named types take the space 32 bit which allows to represent them as int. Officially, only the int, float, long and double types exist within byte code which all need explicit conversion by the rule of the JVM's verifier.
Not release a monitor
A synchronized block is actually made up of two statements, one to acquire and one to release a monitor. In JBC, you can acquire one without releasing it.
Note: In recent implementations of HotSpot, this instead leads to an IllegalMonitorStateException at the end of a method or to an implicit release if the method is terminated by an exception itself.
Add more than one return statement to a type initializer
In Java, even a trivial type initializer such as
class Foo {
static {
return;
}
}
is illegal. In byte code, the type initializer is treated just as any other method, i.e. return statements can be defined anywhere.
Create irreducible loops
The Java compiler converts loops to goto statements in Java byte code. Such statements can be used to create irreducible loops, which the Java compiler never does.
Define a recursive catch block
In Java byte code, you can define a block:
try {
throw new Exception();
} catch (Exception e) {
<goto on exception>
throw Exception();
}
A similar statement is created implicitly when using a synchronized block in Java where any exception while releasing a monitor returns to the instruction for releasing this monitor. Normally, no exception should occur on such an instruction but if it would (e.g. the deprecated ThreadDeath), the monitor would still be released.
Call any default method
The Java compiler requires several conditions to be fulfilled in order to allow a default method's invocation:
The method must be the most specific one (must not be overridden by a sub interface that is implemented by any type, including super types).
The default method's interface type must be implemented directly by the class that is calling the default method. However, if interface B extends interface A but does not override a method in A, the method can still be invoked.
For Java byte code, only the second condition counts. The first one is however irrelevant.
Invoke a super method on an instance that is not this
The Java compiler only allows to invoke a super (or interface default) method on instances of this. In byte code, it is however also possible to invoke the super method on an instance of the same type similar to the following:
class Foo {
void m(Foo f) {
f.super.toString(); // calls Object::toString
}
public String toString() {
return "foo";
}
}
Access synthetic members
In Java byte code, it is possible to access synthetic members directly. For example, consider how in the following example the outer instance of another Bar instance is accessed:
class Foo {
class Bar {
void bar(Bar bar) {
Foo foo = bar.Foo.this;
}
}
}
This is generally true for any synthetic field, class or method.
Define out-of-sync generic type information
While the Java runtime does not process generic types (after the Java compiler applies type erasure), this information is still attcheched to a compiled class as meta information and made accessible via the reflection API.
The verifier does not check the consistency of these meta data String-encoded values. It is therefore possible to define information on generic types that does not match the erasure. As a concequence, the following assertings can be true:
Method method = ...
assertTrue(method.getParameterTypes() != method.getGenericParameterTypes());
Field field = ...
assertTrue(field.getFieldType() == String.class);
assertTrue(field.getGenericFieldType() == Integer.class);
Also, the signature can be defined as invalid such that a runtime exception is thrown. This exception is thrown when the information is accessed for the first time as it is evaluated lazily. (Similar to annotation values with an error.)
Append parameter meta information only for certain methods
The Java compiler allows for embedding parameter name and modifier information when compiling a class with the parameter flag enabled. In the Java class file format, this information is however stored per-method what makes it possible to only embed such method information for certain methods.
Mess things up and hard-crash your JVM
As an example, in Java byte code, you can define to invoke any method on any type. Usually, the verifier will complain if a type does not known of such a method. However, if you invoke an unknown method on an array, I found a bug in some JVM version where the verifier will miss this and your JVM will finish off once the instruction is invoked. This is hardly a feature though, but it is technically something that is not possible with javac compiled Java. Java has some sort of double validation. The first validation is applied by the Java compiler, the second one by the JVM when a class is loaded. By skipping the compiler, you might find a weak spot in the verifier's validation. This is rather a general statement than a feature, though.
Annotate a constructor's receiver type when there is no outer class
Since Java 8, non-static methods and constructors of inner classes can declare a receiver type and annotate these types. Constructors of top-level classes cannot annotate their receiver type as they most not declare one.
class Foo {
class Bar {
Bar(#TypeAnnotation Foo Foo.this) { }
}
Foo() { } // Must not declare a receiver type
}
Since Foo.class.getDeclaredConstructor().getAnnotatedReceiverType() does however return an AnnotatedType representing Foo, it is possible to include type annotations for Foo's constructor directly in the class file where these annotations are later read by the reflection API.
Use unused / legacy byte code instructions
Since others named it, I will include it as well. Java was formerly making use of subroutines by the JSR and RET statements. JBC even knew its own type of a return address for this purpose. However, the use of subroutines did overcomplicate static code analysis which is why these instructions are not longer used. Instead, the Java compiler will duplicate code it compiles. However, this basically creates identical logic which is why I do not really consider it to achieve something different. Similarly, you could for example add the NOOP byte code instruction which is not used by the Java compiler either but this would not really allow you to achieve something new either. As pointed out in the context, these mentioned "feature instructions" are now removed from the set of legal opcodes which does render them even less of a feature.

As far as I know there are no major features in the bytecodes supported by Java 6 that are not also accessible from Java source code. The main reason for this is obviously that the Java bytecode was designed with the Java language in mind.
There are some features that are not produced by modern Java compilers, however:
The ACC_SUPER flag:
This is a flag that can be set on a class and specifies how a specific corner case of the invokespecial bytecode is handled for this class. It is set by all modern Java compilers (where "modern" is >= Java 1.1, if I remember correctly) and only ancient Java compilers produced class files where this was un-set. This flag exists only for backwards-compatibility reasons. Note that starting with Java 7u51, ACC_SUPER is ignored completely due to security reasons.
The jsr/ret bytecodes.
These bytecodes were used to implement sub-routines (mostly for implementing finally blocks). They are no longer produced since Java 6. The reason for their deprecation is that they complicate static verification a lot for no great gain (i.e. code that uses can almost always be re-implemented with normal jumps with very little overhead).
Having two methods in a class that only differ in return type.
The Java language specification does not allow two methods in the same class when they differ only in their return type (i.e. same name, same argument list, ...). The JVM specification however, has no such restriction, so a class file can contain two such methods, there's just no way to produce such a class file using the normal Java compiler. There's a nice example/explanation in this answer.

Here are some features that can be done in Java bytecode but not in Java source code:
Throwing a checked exception from a method without declaring that the method throws it. The checked and unchecked exceptions are a thing which is checked only by the Java compiler, not the JVM. Because of this for example Scala can throw checked exceptions from methods without declaring them. Though with Java generics there is a workaround called sneaky throw.
Having two methods in a class that only differ in return type, as already mentioned in Joachim's answer: The Java language specification does not allow two methods in the same class when they differ only in their return type (i.e. same name, same argument list, ...). The JVM specification however, has no such restriction, so a class file can contain two such methods, there's just no way to produce such a class file using the normal Java compiler. There's a nice example/explanation in this answer.

GOTO can be used with labels to create your own control structures (other than for while etc)
You can override the this local variable inside a method
Combining both of these you can create create tail call optimised bytecode (I do this in JCompilo)
As a related point you can get parameter name for methods if compiled with debug (Paranamer does this by reading the bytecode

Maybe section 7A in this document is of interest, although it's about bytecode pitfalls rather than bytecode features.

In Java language the first statement in a constructor must be a call to the super class constructor. Bytecode does not have this limitation, instead the rule is that the super class constructor or another constructor in the same class must be called for the object before accessing the members. This should allow more freedom such as:
Create an instance of another object, store it in a local variable (or stack) and pass it as a parameter to super class constructor while still keeping the reference in that variable for other use.
Call different other constructors based on a condition. This should be possible: How to call a different constructor conditionally in Java?
I have not tested these, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Something you can do with byte code, rather than plain Java code, is generate code which can loaded and run without a compiler. Many systems have JRE rather than JDK and if you want to generate code dynamically it may be better, if not easier, to generate byte code instead of Java code has to be compiled before it can be used.

I wrote a bytecode optimizer when I was a I-Play, (it was designed to reduce the code size for J2ME applications). One feature I added was the ability to use inline bytecode (similar to inline assembly language in C++). I managed to reduce the size of a function that was part of a library method by using the DUP instruction, since I need the value twice. I also had zero byte instructions (if you are calling a method that takes a char and you want to pass an int, that you know does not need to be cast I added int2char(var) to replace char(var) and it would remove the i2c instruction to reduce the size of the code. I also made it do float a = 2.3; float b = 3.4; float c = a + b; and that would be converted to fixed point (faster, and also some J2ME did not support floating point).

In Java, if you attempt to override a public method with a protected method (or any other reduction in access), you get an error: "attempting to assign weaker access privileges". If you do it with JVM bytecode, the verifier is fine with it, and you can call these methods via the parent class as if they were public.

Calling a private super class constructor implicitly from the subclass results in random behavior

package pack1;
public class Outer{
private Outer(){}
}
package pack2;
import pack1.*;
public class ExtendedOuter extends Outer{
//compiler adds default no-args constructor, something like this
/*
public ExtendedOuter(){
super(){}
}
*/
}
now from a third class
import pack1.Outer;
import pack2.ExtendedOuter;
class InnerClasses{
public static void main(String[] args){
ExtendedOuter o=new ExtendedOuter();
}
}
but hey,
Outer's constructor is private , so you would expect this code to not compile, but it does compile fine.
only at runtime we know we goofed up when it throws IllegalAccessError
but this only happens sometimes !
sometimes you do get a error Outer() is private , sometimes you don't get error
how does one explain such random behavior ?
But private method invocation is warned at compile time. so why not when it comes to implcitly added constructors?
PS: the compiler does throw error Outer() is private in Outer class if you explicitly add a constructor ExtendedOuter(){} in ExtendedOuter class
EDIT----------------------
I am sorry but this makes no sense. Its indeed unpredictable and outcomes differ from one compilation to other
Surprise
OK if this doesn't work , try switching the modifier of Outer constructor from private to public
ok , now it works and compiles
now switch the modifier to private again, compiles again ! it shouldn't have, no? but run it and u will encounter an IllegalAccessError
now after sometime, it cud happen that it even doesn't compile with private showing the typical message Outer() is not public in Outer class
great . now switch the modifier of Outer() constructor to public again, compiles ! now switch it to private again, compiles (whereas previously it wasn't compiling)
Try it out yourself and let me know
but don't forget to compile javac with -cp

This question is really two questions. Unfortunately, due to that nature of the questions, these answers are somewhat speculative. Here are the questions I believe you want answered:
What are the compilation mechanics of private constructors being
referenced from auto-generated default constructors?
If you make the constructor of a class private, that class cannot be sub-classed. A private constructor is as effective a way to prevent sub-classing as the final keyword; all subclasses will be forced via super() to attempt to call an unreachable constructor. Because the ExtendedOuter class only references the private constructor of the Outer class implicitly (via generated constructor code) the compiler does not seem to be aware you are attempting to call an unreachable constructor.
It would seem your compiler fails to consider the side-effects of default constructor generation. However, on recompilation of your classes, the compiler may be taking the shortcut of using available class bytecode from previous compilations. That bytecode reuse might explain how subsequent recompilations correctly identify the unreachable constructor. What your compiler cannot determine via code analysis it can determine via bytecode analysis (hypothetically of course, I can't be sure without access to your exact compiler/machine/etc).
Why does my execution of the provided class structure generate
IllegalAccessError non-deterministically despite no changes to the
compiled code?
If you look at your Outer class, the constructor contains no branches or method calls that would prevent it's removal as an optimization. The generated default constructor of ExtendedOuter may also be subject to optimistic removal by the JIT compiler. To fully answer this question would require determining what the JIT compiler is likely to determine about the method and constructor calls.
The JIT compiler is a complicated topic, but it isn't unlikely that an empty constructor call could be inlined or even completely replaced by a no-op transparently by the JIT compiler. If the JIT compiler were making code replacements and optimizations, that could easily lead to inconsistent code paths across multiple executions of the program. The JVM and it's JIT compiler are not guaranteed to produce a deterministic output.

If you try to create the object of a class having private constructor, the compiler throws error because object creation is detected during compile time which is not possible. In your case constructor has to be invoked in order to validate the object creation. When an object of class ExtendedOuter is created compiler checks for its default constructor which is available. No method is invoked during compile time. While at runtime, constructor of class Outer is invoked which results in IllegalAccessError.
Random behaviour of compiler is still not clear to me. Are you doing any code change before compilation? Can you throw light on the exact steps you are carrying out in order to test your code?

This method has two signatures -- so why the error? [duplicate]

I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.

Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.

Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.

They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.

Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.

The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.

Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}

It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.

The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.

Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)

There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.

It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")

I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.

Should java allow classes names to be defined same as generic type parameters?

I created classes like below in the same package test. It was just to test whether java really allows it. And it does but then it comes in to problems.
package test;
public class E {
}
package test;
public class T {
}
package test;
import test.E;
import test.T;
public class K<E, T> {
E e;
T t;
public K(E e, T t) {
this.e = e;
this.t = t;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
K k = new K<E, T>(new E(), new T());
}
}
Above code give multiple compilation problems
Multiple markers at this line
- Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type E
- Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type T
- Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type T
- Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type E
- K is a raw type. References to generic type K<E,T> should be
parameterized
It clearly shows compiler is confused between E and class E same for T.
So workaround is define it real types using package.
K k = new K<test.E, test.T>(new test.E(), new test.T());
Now if there all these classes are in default package there is no way to solve this compilation issue.
So Question is should java allow declaration of such classes in default package?

It clearly shows compiler is confused between E and class E same for T.
I think you've got that wrong. I think that if you read the relevant parts of the JLS carefully (I'll look them up later) you will find that they clearly state what E and T should resolve to in the various contexts. I would be very surprised if the compiler is getting the resolution wrong; i.e. not implementing the JLS.
In reality, the confusion is in the mind of the person who wrote the code ...
The problem here is that the rules about what takes precedence over what are probably not what you (and typical programmers) expect. But they are like they are for a good reason.
Normally this doesn't matter, but if you ignore the normal Java naming conventions and use one-letter names for classes, then you might get burnt.
So Question is should java allow declaration of such classes in default package?
Alternatively, should "you" be ignoring the Java class naming conventions?
Frankly, there are a lot of ways that a programmer can hurt themselves if they ignore the style guidelines / recommendations. But if you try to protect the programmer too much, you actually hurt him/her by making it impossible to implement stuff where you need to push the envelope. The best policy is (IMO) to not treat programmers as children. If they really want to juggle with sharp knives ... let them.

This is very nice research.
But, you are still allowed to create a class with name String, Java never complained against using same class name. To differentiate whether you use your String class (or) Java provided String class, you need to append the package (full name).
As Matt Ball said, default packages are shouldn't be used.
Backward compatibility could be another reason why Generic Types not defined as "reserve words"
Whether allow same class name (or) not, I think that is what packages are for. As long as there is a way to differentiate which class we are referring to, I think it is perfectly fine to allow same name.

You can get really confused if you want to. I am not sure its up to the compiler to prevent you from writing confusing code but I do think the compiler should try to be clear in its error messages.
public class T<T> {
public T() {
}
public static <T> T T() {
T T = null;
return T; // which T is this?
}
}

Considering you can write
public class String<Object>{}
Disalowing class with same name as how YOU named type parameter or forbiding you to name type parameter as any existing class would be insane (Class with conflicting name can be from another jar created in future, so any name of type parameter can be same as name of some class, and vice versa)

Why isn't calling a static method by way of an instance an error for the Java compiler?

I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.

Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.

Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.

They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.

Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.

The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.

Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}

It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.

The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.

Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)

There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.

It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")

I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.