here is my problem
class A{
private B b = new B(this); // line 2
A(){}
}
This is just an ex. code and works fine. But i have a doubt about this is used to current reference (instance of A). Class initializing happens before to get a class instance. So how can we put this in line 2. i asked does instantiation happen before initializing?
You bring up an interesting point. Here is a contrived instructional example that demonstrates a run time problem that can happen when using your example.
class A {
private boolean isInitialized = false;
private final B b = new B(this);
public A() {
initialize();
}
private void initialize() {
isInitialized = true;
}
public boolean isInitialize() {
return isInitialized;
}
public B getB() {
return b;
}
}
class B {
private boolean isInitialized = false;
final private A a;
public B(final A a) {
this.a = a;
initialize();
System.out.println("inB: a.isInitialize()=" + a.isInitialize());
}
private void initialize() {
isInitialized = true;
}
public boolean isInitialize() {
return isInitialized;
}
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
final A a = new A();
System.out.println("inMain: a.isInitialize()=" + a.isInitialize());
System.out.println("inMain:a.getB().isInitialize()=" + a.getB().isInitialize());
}
Output:
inB: a.isInitialize()=false
inMain: a.isInitialize()=true
inMain:a.getB().isInitialize()=true
Using the passed reference to class A within class B runs the real risk of using an object that is not fully initialized.
Be careful.
This is not class initialization (try to debug new ClassA() step by step), it is actually instance initialization.
There can be some problems if the constructor (from ClassB) calls some functions from ClassA, which access some fields in ClassA that are not initialized.
Edit: this is done before the constructor is called.
this is used correctly. The constructor doesn't need to be called at all.
No need for changes, everything is fine. this is a valid reference to A.
this will show its existence when you create an object of class A. Instance variable are assigned after object creation and static variable are initialize as soon as class loads and also before creations of any object.
you cannot use above initialization in static block
static {
private B b = new B(this); // compiler error. you cannot use 'this' in static context.
}
Related
Please help me I am facing bit problem in Java code.
I am not able to understand how to fix the error.
Please help.
public class A {
private int a = 100;
public void setA(int value) {
a = value;
}
public int getA() {
return a;
}
}
public class B extends A {
private int a = 222;
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("in main(): ");
a = 123;
System.out.println("a = "+super.a );
}
}
The error I get is:
int a in class Main must be static
First of all, you should tell us the error :).
It looks like you are trying to access a variable in a non-static context from a static context (main method is static).
You should do something like below:
public class B extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B();
b.setA(123)
System.out.println("a = " + b.getA());
}
}
It doesn't make sense to declare another 'a' variable in the child class. If you want to access 'a' directly, you can declare the field in class A as protected.
First of all, just to be clear prior to going to the code, your 2 classes, given they are both public, must be in their own separate files.
Now let's go to your code. The error lies first in this statements inside your main method:
a = 123;
You are accessing B's instance variable a from a static context -this is one.
Second:
System.out.println("a = "+super.a );
A's instance variable a is never inherited by B because it has a private access modifier.
If you want to access A's a, you could create an instance of A, and use that to call the getA() method which returns the value of A's a
Cheers,
I have two singleton classes, lets call them class A and class B.
The classes look like such.
class A
{
private static A instance;
private A(int timeout)
{
init();
}
public static A getInstance(int timeout)
{
if(instance == null)
{
instance = new A(timeout);
}
return instance;
}
private void init()
{
new Monitor().sendMonitorStatus();
}
}
and for class B
class B
{
private static B instance;
private B(A a)
{
}
public static B getInstance(A a)
{
if(instance == null)
{
instance = new B(a);
}
return instance;
}
}
Then there is a class named Monitor as well that looks as such.
class Monitor
{
public void sendMonitorStatus()
{
B.getinstance(A.getinstance(10));
}
}
The problem as you can see, is that I get a stackoverflow since it keeps a cycle of a call to B then calling A which calls B which calls A..., is there anyway to solve this problem without a redesign or is the only way to solve this cycle causing this error to redesign how the classes work?
To create an instance of A, you need to call Monitor::sendMonitorStatus. To call Monitor::sendMonitorStatus, you need an instance of A. You have a dependency cycle.
You need to redesign this. Exactly how – it depends on what you want to achieve.
I tried this:
class protectedfinal
{
static abstract class A
{
protected final Object a;
}
static class B extends A
{
{ a = new Integer(42); }
}
public static void main (String[] args)
{
B b = new B();
}
}
But I got this error:
protectedfinal.java:12: error: cannot assign a value to final variable a
{ a = new Integer(42); }
^
1 error
How to work around this problem?
Some people suggested here to use a constructor but this works only in some cases. It works for most objects but it is not possible to reference the object itself from within the constructor.
static abstract class X
{
protected final Object x;
X (Object x) { this.x = x; }
}
static class Y extends X
{
Y () { super (new Integer(42)); }
}
static class Z extends X
{
Z () { super (this); }
}
This is the error:
protectedfinal.java:28: error: cannot reference this before supertype constructor has been called
Z () { super (this); }
^
One could argue that it does not make much sense to store this kind of reference, because this exists already. That is right but this is a general problem which occurs with any use of this in the constructor. It is not possible to pass this to any other object to store it in the final variable.
static class Z extends X
{
Z () { super (new Any (this)); }
}
So how can I write an abstract class, which forces all child classes to have a final member which gets initialized in the child?
You have to initialize A.a in its constructor. Subclasses will use super() to pass initializer to A.a.
class protectedfinal {
static abstract class A {
protected final Object a;
protected A(Object a) {
this.a = a;
}
}
static class B extends A {
B() {
super(new Integer(42));
}
}
public static void main (String[] args) {
B b = new B();
}
}
You cannot use this until superclass constructors were called, because at this stage the object is not initialized, even Object constructor hasn't run at this point, therefore calling any instance methods would lead to unpredictable results.
In your case, you have to resolve circular reference with Z class in another way:
Z () { super (new Any (this)); }
Either use a non-final field or change class hierarchy. Your workaround with instance method super(new Any(a())); would not work for the same reason: you cannot call instance methods until superclass constructors were run.
In my personal oppinion, your problems hints towards a flaw in design.
But to answer your question. If absolutly necessary, you can change final fields in java using reflection.
And if everything fails, you can still utilize sun.misc.unsafe.
But I strongly discourage you from doing so, since it potentially kills your vm.
My work around so far is to use methods instead of final members:
class protectedfinal
{
static abstract class AA
{
protected abstract Object a();
}
static class BB extends AA
{
#Override
protected Object a() { return this; }
}
public static void main (String[] args)
{
AA a = new BB();
System.out.println (a.a());
}
}
But I would like to use final members, because I think accessing a final member is faster than calling a method. Is there any chance to implement it with final members?
I have a Singleton class to save the state of an application's module.
This class simply have a lot of class variables with setters and getters :
public class ModuleState{
private static ModuleState instance;
private A a;
private B b;
private C c;
..
..
..
..
private ModuleState (){}
public ModuleState getInstance(){
if(instance==null)
instance=new ModuleState();
return instance;
}
}
At a precise moment of the application lifecycle, i have the need to CLEAR the module's state. What i do now is to reset ALL the variables in ModuleState by a clearAll() method like this:
public void clearAll(){
a=null;
b=null;
c=null;
..
..
}
My question is the following : there is a cleaner method to do this reset? Possibly clearing the singleton instance itself, without resetting every class variable?
The problem with this approach is that i may have the need to add a new class variable to the ModuleState. In this case i must remember to add a line in the clearAll() method to reset the new variable.
What about ...
public static volatile ModuleState instance = null;
public static void reset() {
instance = new ModuleState();
}
p.s.: as per discussion below: in a multithreaded environment it's very important to synchronize the access on the instance because the JVM is allowed to cache its value. You can use volatile as shown above. Thanks to all!
Cheers!
no, this approach is perfectly acceptable. you are of course synchronizing access to these state objects in some way, right? otherwise you risk someone seeing a half-cleared config object.
another thing you could do to future-proof yourself against any extra state added in the future is store all of your state in a HashMap, for example, instead of individual fields. this way, clear()ing the hashmap ensures that all state is wiped and adding any extra state in the future becomes safer
You need to maintain the same object instance, in order to comply with the Singleton pattern, so your approach makes sense: altering the members.
However, if you wanted to clean it up a little bit, why not just have an internal list, like:
ArrayList<Object> members = new ArrayList<Object>();
// If it actually is Object, there's no need to paramaterize.
// If you want, you can actually make the members implement a common interface,
// and parameterize the ArrayList to that.
Another Option would be to have a HashMap, that binds the key word to the member.
HashMap<String,Object> members = new HashMap<String,Object>();
// Again, same parameterization rules apply.
For an ArrayList or a HashMap, the clearAll method might look like this:
public class ModuleState()
{
public void clearAll()
{
members.clear();
}
}
This method won't need to change.
May be this can help you:
public class SingletonBean {
private static SingletonBean instance = new SingletonBean();
private static Object privateMutex = new Object();
private SingletonBean() {
//to prevent instantiation
}
public class ObjectsContainer {
private Object A;
private Object B;
private Object C;
public Object getA() {
return A;
}
public void setA(Object a) {
A = a;
}
public Object getB() {
return B;
}
public void setB(Object b) {
B = b;
}
public Object getC() {
return C;
}
public void setC(Object c) {
C = c;
}
}
private ObjectsContainer objectsContainer;
private void resetObjectsContainer() {
objectsContainer = new ObjectsContainer();
}
public static SingletonBean getInstance() {
return SingletonBean.instance;
}
public static void clearAll() {
synchronized (privateMutex) {
SingletonBean.getInstance().resetObjectsContainer();
}
}
public static ObjectsContainer getObjectsContainer() {
synchronized (privateMutex) {
return instance.objectsContainer;
}
}
}
public class SomeClass {
public void someMethod() {
SingletonBean.getObjectsContainer().getA();
}
}
Make an inner class to hold the fields, then replace that instance when you want to reset. The write to the field would make the change to all three fields essentially atomic.
public class ModuleState {
private static volatile ModuleState instance;
private static class Values {
A a;
B b;
C c;
}
private volatile Values values = new Values()(
private ModuleState (){}
public ModuleState getInstance(){
if (instance==null) {
synchronized (ModuleState.class) {
if (instance==null) {
instance = new ModuleState();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public synchronized A getA() {
return values.a;
}
public synchronized void reset() {
values = new Values();
}
By the way, your null checking initialization code was not threadsafe. I fixed that too.
Note that to make this work, you must make the reference to values volatile and synchronize all access to it, otherwise (due to the java memory model) other threads than the one that calls reset() may see the old reference.
how to initialize a private static member of a class in java.
trying the following:
public class A {
private static B b = null;
public A() {
if (b == null)
b = new B();
}
void f1() {
b.func();
}
}
but on creating a second object of the class A and then calling f1(), i get a null pointer exception.
The preferred ways to initialize static members are either (as mentioned before)
private static final B a = new B(); // consider making it final too
or for more complex initialization code you could use a static initializer block:
private static final B a;
static {
a = new B();
}
Your code should work. Are you sure you are posting your exact code?
You could also initialize it more directly :
public class A {
private static B b = new B();
A() {
}
void f1() {
b.func();
}
}