We Keep Coding

Can I insert instructions in constructors before calling this() / super() and before initialising any final fields?

Preface
I have been experimenting with ByteBuddy and ASM, but I am still a beginner in ASM and between beginner and advanced in ByteBuddy. This question is about ByteBuddy and about JVM bytecode limitations in general.
Situation
I had the idea of creating global mocks for testing by instrumenting constructors in such a way that instructions like these are inserted at the beginning of each constructor:
if (GlobalMockRegistry.isMock(getClass()))
return;
FYI, the GlobalMockRegistry basically wraps a Set<Class<?>> and if that set contains a certain class, then isMock(Class<?>> clazz) would return true. The advantage of that concept is that I can (de)activate global mocking for each class during runtime because if multiple tests run in the same JVM process, one test might need a certain global mock, the next one might not.
What the if(...) return; instructions above want to achieve is that if mocking is active, the constructor should not do anything:
no this() or super() calls, → update: impossible
no field initialisations, → update: possible
no other side effects. → update: might be possible, see my update below
The result would be an object with uninitialised fields that did not create any (possibly expensive) side effects such as resource allocation (database connection, file creation, you name it). Why would I want that? Could I not just create an instance with Objenesis and be happy? Not if I want a global mock, i.e. mock objects I cannot inject because they are created somewhere inside methods or field initialisers I do not have control over. Please do not worry about what method calls on such an object would do if its instance fields are not properly initialised. Just assume I have instrumented the methods to return stub results, too. I know how to do that already, the problem are only constructors in the context of this question.
Questions / problems
Now if I try to simulate the desired result in Java source code, I meet the following limitations:
I cannot insert any code before this() or super(). I could mitigate that by also instrumenting the super class hierarchy with the same if(...) return;, but would like to know if I could in theory use ASM to insert my code before this() or super() using a method visitor. Or would the byte code of the instrumented class somehow be verified during loading or retransformation and then rejected because the byte code is "illegal"? I would like to know before I start learning ASM because I want to avoid wasting time for an idea which is not feasible.
If the class contains final instance fields, I also cannot enter a return before all of those fields have been initialised in the constructor. That might happen at the very end of a complex constructor which performs lots of side effects before actually initialising the last field. So the question is similar to the previous one: Can I use ASM to insert my if(...) return; before any fields (including final ones) are initialised and produce a valid class which I could not produce using javac and will not be rejected when loaded or retransformed?
BTW, if it is relevant, we are talking about Java 8+, i.e. at the time of writing this that would be Java versions 8 to 14.
If anything about this question is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask follow-up questions, so I can improve it.
Update after discussing Antimony's answer
I think this approach could work and avoid side effects, calling the constructor chain but avoiding any side effects and resulting in a newly initialised instance with all fields empty (null, 0, false):
In order to avoid calling this.getClass(), I need to hard-code the mock target's class name directly into all constructors up the parent chain. I.e. if two "global mock" target classes have the same parent class(es), multiple of the following if blocks would be woven into each corresponding parent class, one for each hard-coded child class name.
In order to avoid any side effects from objects being created or methods being called, I need to call a super constructor myself, using null/zero/false values for each argument. That would not matter because the next parent class up the chain would have a similar code block so that the arguments given do not matter anyway.
// Avoid accessing 'this.getClass()'
if (GlobalMockRegistry.isMock(Sub.class)) {
// Identify and call any parent class constructor, ideally a default constructor.
// If none exists, call another one using default values like null, 0, false.
// In the class derived from Object, just call 'Object.<init>'.
super(null, 0, false);
return;
}
// Here follows the original byte code, i.e. the normal super/this call and
// everything else the original constructor does.
Note to myself: Antimony's answer explains "uninitialised this" very nicely. Another related answer can be found here.
Next update after evaluating my new idea
I managed to validate my new idea with a proof of concept. As my JVM byte code knowledge is too limited and I am not used to the way of thinking it requires (stack frames, local variable tables, "reverse" logic of first pushing/popping variables, then applying an operation on them, not being able to easily debug), I just implemented it in Javassist instead of ASM, which in comparison was a breeze after failing miserably with ASM after hours of trial & error.
I can take it from here and I want to thank user Antimony for his very instructive answer + comments. I do know that theoretically the same solution could be implemented using ASM, but it would be exceedingly difficult in comparison because its API is too low level for the task at hand. ByteBuddy's API is too high level, Javassist was just right for me in order to get quick results (and easily maintainable Java code) in this case.

Yes and no. Java bytecode is much less restrictive than Java (source) in this regard. You can put any bytecode you want before the constructor call, as long as you don't actually access the uninitialized object. (The only operations allowed on an uninitialized this value are calling a constructor, setting private fields declared in the same class, and comparing it against null).
Bytecode is also more flexible in where and how you make the constructor call. For example, you can call one of two different constructors in an if statement, or you can wrap the super constructor call in a "try block", both things that are impossible at the Java language level.
Apart from not accessing the uninitialized this value, the only restriction* is that the object has to be definitely initialized along any path that returns from the constructor call. This means the only way to avoid initializing the object is to throw an exception. While being much laxer than Java itself, the rules for Java bytecode were still very deliberately constructed so it is impossible to observe uninitialized objects. In general, Java bytecode is still required to be memory safe and type safe, just with a much looser type system than Java itself. Historically, Java applets were designed to run untrusted code in the JVM, so any method of bypassing these restrictions was a security vulnerability.
* The above is talking about traditional bytecode verification, as that is what I am most familiar with. I believe stackmap verification behaves similarly though, barring implementation bugs in some versions of Java.
P.S. Technically, Java can have code execute before the constructor call. If you pass arguments to the constructor, those expressions are evaluated first, and hence the ability to place bytecode before the constructor call is required in order to compile Java code. Likewise, the ability to set private fields declared in the same class is used to set synthetic variables that arise from the compilation of nested classes.
If the class contains final instance fields, I also cannot enter a return before all of those fields have been initialised in the constructor.
This, however, is eminently possible. The only restriction is that you call some constructor or superconstructor on the uninitialized this value. (Since all constructors recursively have this restriction, this will ultimately result in java.lang.Object's constructor being called). However, the JVM doesn't care what happens after that. In particular, it only cares that the fields have some well typed value, even if it is the default value (null for objects, 0 for ints, etc.) So there is no need to execute the field initializers to give them a meaningful value.
Is there any other way to get the type to be instantiated other than this.getClass() from a super class constructor?
Not as far as I am aware. There's no special opcode for magically getting the Class associated with a given value. Foo.class is just syntactic sugar which is handled by the Java compiler.

Is object escaping within the constructor in Java always an issue?

For thread-safety reasons it is argumented:
Do not allow the this reference to escape during construction.
But is this always an issue and should be avoided by using newInstance() methods? Inside my model class I have a TableModel which should be instantiated, within the model class, but which also requires a reference to the model class:
public class MainModel {
TableModel tableMode;
public MainModel() {
tableModel = new MyTableModel(this);
}
}
If the constructor does not use this right away is it then safe or should it be avoided in any means?

If nothing in the MyTableModel is going to do anything in other threads etc - or copy the variable to some other shared data, such as a static variable - then it's safe.
Of course, if MyTableModel starts calling methods on the MainModel reference within its constructor, then it'll be calling them on a not-completely-initialized-yet object, which can cause issues - but that's not really threading related.
I blogged a bit more on this a while ago.

No, I don't think it's always a problem. In my opinion a good class is designed such that the constructor limits the activity it does on its dependents, limiting its behaviour only to initialization. If that's the case it would be very surprising for this to leak to another thread simply because you leaked it to another constructor.
The only time you are not permitted at all to leak a reference to this is before the super contructor has been called. In other words, you can't pass an argument to the super constructor that has a dependency on this, be it due to you calling an instance method or constructing something using this.
I think a better question might be why does MyTableModel need to see an instance of MainModel? Often bi-directional visibility is a sign of some harmful coupling.

Best pratice is not about correcting bugs, but patterns which are least likely to introduce bugs, be confusing or difficult to maintain. I have seen some increadibly difficult code which works just fine.
e.g. I remember one class called c which was written entirely on one line to save space (no line breaks) and only used single character variables/fields and had one to two character methods. This wasn't deliberately obfuscated, the developer thought this was the most efficient. The class worked fine as long as you didn't need to understand it of change it.

Any problem with doing the main work of a class in its constructor?

I have always felt that in general the main work of a class should be done in its instance methods, while the constructor should only get the instance into a usable inital state.
But I find that in practice there are situations where it seems to make more sense to put essentially all the actual work into the constructor.
One example: I need to retrieve some DBMS-specific information from the database. The most natural way to me seemed to have a class DBMSSpecInfo, with a constructor:
public DBMSSpecInfo(java.sql.Connection conn) throws SQLException{
// ... retrieve info from DBMS
}
/** #returns max size of table in kiB */
public int getMaxTableSize() {//...}
/** #returns max size of index in kiB */
public int getMaxIndexSize() {//...}
/** #returns name of default schema */
public String getDefaultSchema() {//...}
You would construct the class once, the constructor would fetch all data, then you could use various getters to retrieve the info you need.
Of course I could put the method somewhere else, and only use DBMSSpecInfo for the return value (essentially using DBMSSpecInfo only as a value holder), but it feels ugly to create a class just for returning values from a single function.
So what do you think? Are there problems with performing the main work in the constructor? Is it "un-idiomatic" in Java? Or is it an acceptable (though possibly uncommon) practice?

The main practical problem is unit-testing - you won't be able to instantiate the object without doing actual work. (Or you'd have to mock all the classes that participate in this work).
Related talk: OO Design for testability. It gives examples of why doing work in constructors is bad for unit-testing.

I would prefer separating the creation code from the class itself in such cases. It could be put into a static factory method, or a separate factory class (which can also be a public static inner class). The choice depends on the complexity of the code and the design context (which we don't know in this case).
This would also allow you to do optimizations, like caching and reusing the class instance(s).

I'm big on pragmatism. If it works, do it! But in the name of purity and goodness, I'd like to make a design suggestion:
This class muddles up the data content with the mechanism for retrieving it. The object you end up using elsewhere is interesting only for the data it contains. So the "clean" thing to do would be to have a different class for digging out the information and then creating instances of this properties object.
That other class could have a longer lifetime, as you'd typically be calling a method to do the work, not the constructor. The constructor of DBMSSpecInfo might end up assigning a bunch of properties but not doing a lot of error-capable DB access work.

In your example I would make a static method GetDBMSSpecInfo(java.sql.Connection conn) that will return an instance of DBMSSpecInfo object or null if something goes wrong (in case you don't want to throw exceptions).
The DBMSSpecInfo object for me should not contain nothing more than get properties: MaxIndexSize, MaxTableSize, DefaultSchema, etc.
And I would make the constructor of this object private so that instances can only be created from the static method.

I don't think it is a good idea to do the main work in a constructor, since it doesn't have a return value. So it makes error processing more complicated IMO, since it forces you to use exceptions.

A disadvantage of doing the work in the constructor is that constructors can not be overridden (nor should they delegate to overridable methods).
Another is that a constructor is all-or-nothing. If the object contains data whose initializations exhibit indepedent failures, you deprive yourself of the capability to use what data could be procured successfully. Similarly, that you have to initialize the entire object, even if you just need part of it, might adversely affect performance.
On the other hand, doing it in the constructor allows initialization state (here: the connection to the database) to be shared, and released earlier.
As always, different approaches are preferable in different circumstances.

Doing all the work in the constructor can lead to "overload hell". You keep wanting to add more features and instead of just adding a new method, like you would in normal Object-Oriented development, you find yourself adding more and more overloaded constructors. Eventually, the constructors can grow so many overloads and parameters that it becomes unwieldy.

Just be careful that the object is not cloned/deserialised. Instances created this way do not use the constructor.

In my opinion the constructor should be lightweighted and should not throw exceptions.
I'd implement some kind of Load() method to retreive data from the database, or implement lazy loading.

No problem. JDK has a lot of classes that does network IO in constructors.

In Java, is there any disadvantage to static methods on a class?

Lets assume that a rule (or rule of thumb, anyway), has been imposed in my coding environment that any method on a class that doesn't use, modify, or otherwise need any instance variables to do its work, be made static. Is there any inherent compile time, runtime, or any other disadvantage to doing this?
(edited for further clarifications)
I know the question was somewhat open ended and vague so I apologize for that. My intent in asking was in the context of mostly "helper" methods. Utility classes (with private CTORs so they can't be instantiated) as holders for static methods we already do. My question here was more in line of these little methods that HELP OUT the main class API.
I might have 4 or 5 main API/instance methods on a class that do the real work, but in the course of doing so they share some common functionality that might only be working on the input parameters to the API method, and not internal state. THESE are the code sections I typically pull out into their own helper methods, and if they don't need to access the class' state, make them static.
My question was thus, is this inherently a bad idea, and if so, why? (Or why not?)

In my opinion, there are four reasons to avoid static methods in Java. This is not to say that static methods are never applicable, only to say that they should generally be avoided.
As others have pointed out, static methods cannot be mocked out in a unit test. If a class is depending on, say, DatabaseUtils.createConnection(), then that dependent class, and any classes that depend on it, will be almost impossible to test without actually having a database or some sort of "testing" flag in DatabaseUtils. In the latter case, it sounds like you actually have two implementations of a DatabaseConnectionProvider interface -- see the next point.
If you have a static method, its behavior applies to all classes, everywhere. The only way to alter its behavior conditionally is to pass in a flag as a parameter to the method or set a static flag somewhere. The problem with the first approach is that it changes the signature for every caller, and quickly becomes cumbersome as more and more flags are added. The problem with the second approach is that you end up with code like this all over the place:
boolean oldFlag = MyUtils.getFlag();
MyUtils.someMethod();
MyUtils.setFlag( oldFlag );
One example of a common library that has run into this problem is Apache Commons Lang: see StringUtilsBean and so forth.
Objects are loaded once per ClassLoader, which means that you could actually have multiple copies of your static methods and static variables around unwittingly, which can cause problems. This usually doesn't matter as much with instance methods, because the objects are ephemeral.
If you have static methods that reference static variables, those stay around for the life of the classloader and never get garbage collected. If these accumulate information (e.g. caches) and you are not careful, you can run into "memory leaks" in your application. If you use instance methods instead, the objects tend to be shorter-lived and so are garbage-collected after a while. Of course, you can still get into memory leaks with instance methods too! But it's less of a problem.
Hope that helps!

The main disadvantage is that you cannot swap, override or choose method implementations at runtime.

The performance advantage is likely negligible. Use static methods for anything that's not state dependent. This clarifies the code, as you can immediately see with a static method call that there's no instance state involved.

Disadvantage -> Static
Members are part of class and thus remain in memory till application terminates.and can't be ever garbage collected. Using excess of static members sometime predicts that you fail to design your product and trying to cop of with static /procedural programming. It denotes that object oriented design is compromised.This can result in memory over flow.

I really like this question as this has been a point I have been debating for last 4 years in my professional life. Static method make a lot of sense for classes which are not carrying any state. But lately I have been revised my though somewhat.
Utility classes having static methods is a good idea.
Service classes carrying business logic can be stateless in many cases. Initially I always added static methods in them, but then when I gained more familiarity with Spring framework (and some more general reading), I realized these methods become untestable as an independent unit as u cannot inject mock services easily into this class. E.g. A static method calling another static method in another class, there is no way JUnit test can short circuit tis path by injecting a dummy implementation at run time.
So I kind of settled to the thought that having utility static methods which do not need to call other classes or methods pretty much can be static. But service classes in general should be non static. This allows you to leverage OOPs features like overriding.
Also having a singleton instance class helps us to make a class pretty much like a static class still use OOPs concepts.

It's all a question of context. Some people have already given examples where static is absolutely preferable, such as when writing utility functions with no conceivable state. For example, if you are writing a collection of different sort algorithms to be used on arrays, making your method anything but static just confuses the situation. Any programmer reading your code would have to ask, why did you NOT make it static, and would have to look to see if you are doing something stateful to the object.
public class Sorting {
public static void quiksort(int [] array) {}
public static void heapsort(int[] array) { }
}
Having said that, there are many people who write code of some kind, and insist that they have some special one-off code, only to find later that it isn't so. For example, you want to calculate statistics on a variable. So you write:
public class Stats {
public static void printStats(float[] data) { }
}
The first element of bad design here is that the programmer intends to just print out the results, rather than generically use them. Embedding I/O in computation is terrible for reuse. However, the next problem is that this general purpose routine should be computing max, min, mean, variance, etc. and storing it somewhere. Where? In the state of an object. If it were really a one-off, you could make it static, but of course, you are going to find that you want to compute the mean of two different things, and then it's awfully nice if you can just instantiate the object multiple times.
public class Stats {
private double min,max,mean,var;
public void compute(float data[]) { ... }
public double getMin() { return min; }
public double
}
The knee jerk reaction against static is often the reaction of programmers to the stupidity of doing this sort of thing statically, since it's easier to just say never do that than actually explain which cases are ok, and which are stupid.
Note that in this case, I am actually using the object as a kind of special-purpose pass by reference, because Java is so obnoxious in that regard. In C++, this sort of thing could have been a function, with whatever state passed as references. But even in C++, the same rules apply, it's just that Java forces us to use objects more because of the lack of pass by reference.
As far as performance goes, the biggest performance increase of switching from a regular method is actually avoiding the dynamic polymorphic check which is the default in java, and which in C++ is specified manually with virtual.
When I tried last there was a 3:1 advantage of calling a final method over a regular method, but no discernible for calling static functions over final.
Note that if you call one method from another, the JIT is often smart enough to inline the code, in which case there is no call at all, which is why making any statement about exactly how much you save is extremely dangerous. All you can say is that when the compiler has to call a function, it can't hurt if it can call one like static or final which requires less computation.

The main problem you may face is, you won't be able to provide a new implementation if needed.
If you still have doubts ( whether your implementation may change in the future or not ) you can always use a private instance underneath with the actual implementation:
class StringUtil {
private static StringUtil impl = new DefaultStringUtil();
public static String nullOrValue( String s ) {
return impl.doNullOrValue();
}
... rest omitted
}
If for "some" reason, you need to change the implementation class you may offer:
class StringUtil {
private static StringUtil impl = new ExoticStringUtil();
public static String nullOrValue( String s ) {
return impl.doNullOrValue(s);
}
... rest omitted
}
But may be excessive in some circumstances.

No, actually the reason for that advice is that it provides a performance advantage. Static methods can be called with less overhead so any method that doesn't need a reference to this ought to be made static.

No there is no disadvantages, rather when you are not accessing any instance members in the method then there is no meaning of having it as an instance method. It is good programming skill to have it as a static method.
and adding to that you don't have to create any instances to access these methods and thus saving a memory and garbage collecting time.

In order to call the static methods you don't need to create class objects. The method is available immediately.
Assuming the class is already loaded. Otherwise there's a bit of a wait. :-)
I think of static as a good way to separate the functional code from procedural/state-setting code. The functional code typically needs no extension and changes only when there are bugs.
There's also the use of static as an access-control mechanism--such as with singletons.

One disadvantage is if your static methods are general and distributed in different classes as far as usage is concerned. You might consider putting all static methods that are general in a utility class.

There shouldn't be any disadvantages--there may even be a slight advantage in performance (although it wouldn't be measurable) since the dynamic lookup can be avoided.
It's nice to tag functions as functions instead of having them look like Methods--(and static "Methods" ARE functions, not methods--that's actually by definition).
In general a static method is a bad OO code smell--it probably means that your OO model isn't fully integrated. This happens all the time with libraries that can't know about the code that will be using it, but in integrated non-library code static methods should be examined to evaluate which of it's parameters it's most closely associated with--there is a good chance it should be a member of that class.
If a static method just takes native values, then you're probably missing a handful of classes; you should also keep passing native variables or library objects (like collections) to a minimum--instead containing them in classes with business logic.
I guess what I'm saying is that if this is really an issue, you might want to re-examine your modeling practices--statics should be so rare that this isn't even an issue.

As others have said, it provides a slight performance advantage and is good programming practice. The only exception is when the method needs to be an instance method for overriding purposes, but those are usually easily recognised. For example if a class provides default behaviour of an instance method, that happens not to need instance variables, that clearly can't be made static.

In general:
You should be writing your software to take advantage of interfaces and not implementations. Who's to say that "now" you won't use some instance variable, but in the future you will? An example of coding to interfaces...
ArrayList badList = new ArrayList(); //bad
List goodList = new ArrayList(); //good
You should be allowed to swap implementations, especially for mocking & testing. Spring dependency injection is pretty nice in this respect. Just inject the implementation from Spring and bingo you have pretty much a "static" (well, singleton) method...
Now, those types of APIs that are purely "utility" in purpose (i.e., Apache Commons Lang) are the exception here because I believe that most (if not all) of the implementations are static. In this situation, what are the odds that you will want to ever swap Apache Commons out for another API?
Specifically:
How would you elegantly handle the "staticness" of your implementation when you're targeting, say, a Websphere vs. Tomcat deployment? I'm sure there would be an instance (no pun intended) of when your implementation would differ between the two...and relying on a static method in one of those specific implementations might be dangerous...

Obj-c delegate model - in Java?

I'm writing a small chat program in Java. I got some classes whose objects have to keep track of one another (e.g. the connection listener needs to update the GUI when a new message comes in, just like the GUI needs to write to the connection's writer, when the user wants to send a message).
In Cocoa on Mac OS X I'd write & implement a delegate model. What about in Java? (So far, I'm just passing 'this' as an argument when I initialize a new object, in order to keep a reference to it from the new object.)

In Cocoa/Objective-C, delegates are objects that adhere to a specified protocol. A Java interface is analogous to an Objective-C protocol, except that Java does not permit optional methods: if your class implements an interface, you must implement all of the methods.
If you're cool with all of a delegate's methods being required, simply define an interface and use that.
If your delegate interface has a lot of methods and it would be convenient to make some of them optional, you could define an Adapter class that implements the delegate interface, providing a default implementation for each of the methods. To use it, your delegate class must either extend the adapter class or, if that is not possible, define a private inner class that extends the adapter class. (Look at Java's MouseListener interface and MouseAdapter class for an example of this.)
In summary, you can still use the delegate pattern in Java, although the static type checking will make optional methods a little more work.

Delegates are not directly provided by the Java language; using a listener pattern is the closest that standard Java comes to delegates.
However, I have implemented callback/delegate support in Java using reflection. Details and working source are available on my website.
How It Works
We have a principle class named Callback with a nested class named WithParms. The API which needs the callback will take a Callback object as a parameter and, if neccessary, create a Callback.WithParms as a method variable. Since a great many of the applications of this object will be recursive, this works very cleanly.
With performance still a high priority to me, I didn't want to be required to create a throwaway object array to hold the parameters for every invocation - after all in a large data structure there could be thousands of elements, and in a message processing scenario we could end up processing thousands of data structures a second.
In order to be threadsafe the parameter array needs to exist uniquely for each invocation of the API method, and for efficiency the same one should be used for every invocation of the callback; I needed a second object which would be cheap to create in order to bind the callback with a parameter array for invocation. But, in some scenarios, the invoker would already have a the parameter array for other reasons. For these two reasons, the parameter array did not belong in the Callback object. Also the choice of invocation (passing the parameters as an array or as individual objects) belongs in the hands of the API using the callback enabling it to use whichever invocation is best suited to it's inner workings.
The WithParms nested class, then, is optional and serves two purposes, it contains the parameter object array needed for the callback invocations, and it provides 10 overloaded invoke() methods (with from 1 to 10 parameters) which load the parameter array and then invoke the callback target.