We Keep Coding

accesing static class static member from another namespace generates: no such reference error

I am writting a specialistic control that involves an own widget-system (...because I must - I am working with raster graphics, so I decided to not use the standard buttons).
I encountered a problem with accessing a static member of a static sub-class that isn't in the name space that I call it from. By what I think - this reference should work without problems, as the static class, and static method both have the public qualifier.
The code is somehow like this:
//SpecializedView.java
public class SpecializedView extends View
{
...
button.controler_group[] controler_group;
button button1;
public void init()
{
button_group=button.controler_group.generate_group(8);//generates the error message
button1=new button(controler_group);
}
...
}
//button.java
public class button extends button_specialization
{
...
//EDIT[
controler_group[]controler_group;
//]
public button(controler_group[]controler_group)
{
this.controler_group=controler_group;
...
}
static public class controler_group
{
static public controler_group[] generate_group(int size){...}
...
}
...
}
I have another project with similar structure and it works well (involving calling the static sub-class static member), it only doesn't involve interaction with the class-object itself (it's a pure static function that works as a namespace-library function). I thought the case may be generation of the array, but the result was identical with any sort of returned value.

Could you be more precise with the members of the classes. The error you specified mean that you have no member of this name, or that it's by some means unaccesible. As the member you are trying to access (and by the suggestion made in your code).
There is a chance that the compiler understands that you are trying to access a static member of the parent class, that is probably an instance of the class with the same name as the class definition.

Java function (method) available everywhere (global)

I've recently (4 days ago) started programming in JAVA. I have some overall programming experience from C++ and PHP. My question is: can we implement a function in JAVA, that is available in all classes? I'm thinking of some global logging function, that I need to call in several places (log events, errors, etc.).
Imagine I have two classes, A and B. I need to call logging function in both of them, but I don't want to copy whole function body (awful thing I believe), and I want to call it strict (without creating another class, instantiating it, and then calling from the instance), like logEvent(someVariable). So I should use an abstract class C, which A and B will extend, BUT they are already an extension of other class (built-in). Since multiple inheritance isn't allowed (is it?), I need to do some trick. Singleton is not pleasing me too. In PHP or C++ I would just create separate file with function body and then include it.
Here is how I want to use it:
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
logEvent(error);
}
public class B extends SomeOtherClass {
String error = "Error from class B";
logEvent(error);
}

Put a static method in any class (it could be a utils class, or whatever), then call it like this: ClassName.functionName()
Static methods belong to the class, not instances of the class, so you don't need to instantiate the class to access the method
But everything in Java has to be in a class, so you can't access it without the class name.

You should use static method:
package xxx;
public class Util{
public static void logEvent(String error){
...
}
}
and import static:
import static xxx.Util.*;
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
logEvent(error);
}

You may use static method.
Define a class with a static method:
public class Util{
public static void logEvent(String error){
...
}
}
Then, you can use static metod like this way:
public class A extends SomeClass {
String error = "Error from class A";
Util.logEvent(error);
}
you may take a look here to learn more about static method, http://www.leepoint.net/notes-java/flow/methods/50static-methods.html

jMockit's access to a private class

I have a public class with a private class inside it:
public class Out
{
private class In
{
public String afterLogic;
public In(String parameter)
{
this.afterLogic = parameter+"!";
}
}
}
And wanted to test the In class with jMockit. Something along these lines:
#Test
public void OutInTest()
{
Out outer = new Out();
Object ob = Deencapsulation.newInnerInstance("In", outer); //LINE X
}
The problema is, in LINE X, when trying to cast ob to In, the In class is not recognized.
Any idea how to solve this?
Thanks!

The only constructor in class In takes a String argument. Therefore, you need to pass the argument value:
Object ob = Deencapsulation.newInnerInstance("In", outer, "test");

As suggested in the comment one way is to change the access modifier of the inner class from private to public.
Second way (in case you don't want to make your inner class public), you can test the public method of outer class which is actually calling the inner class methods.

Change the scope of the inner class to default then make sure that the test is in the same package.

There are two approaches, first as mentioned in other posts to change the scope to public. The second which I support is, to avoid testing private class altogether. Since the tests should be written against testable code or methods of the class and not against default behavior.

Calling method without object

I have built a small (and 3 methods only!) api for myself, and I want to be able to call it like how you would call a method in Powerbot (A Runescape botting tool (I use it, but for programming purposes, not for actual cheating purposes)), without creating an Object of the file you'd require. How would i be able to do this?

You will need to create static methods, so you will need to do something like so:
public class A
{
public static void foo()
{
...
}
}
And then, you can call them like so:
public class B
{
...
A.foo();
}
Note however that static methods need to be self contained.
EDIT: As recommended in one of the answers below, you can make it work like so:
package samples.examples
public class Test
{
public static void A()
{
...
}
}
And then do this:
import static sample.examples.Test.A;
public class Test2
{
...
A();
}

If you use the static keyword when importing your class, you can use its methods as if they belong to the class you're importing them to. See:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/static-import.html
And of course your "api methods" need to be static as well.

The best way i found out for me was to extend my activity (If i said it right)...
MAIN CLASS
public class myMainActivity extends myMiniApi{
...
}
I think this is a better way (my opinion) to do this, Just call your method like you normally would as if it were in the same class. example:
randomMethod();

Static method invocation

Can we call a static method without mentioning the class name in Java?

Yes you can. Check out static imports. You have to mention the class name in the import statement, but after that you don't have to.e.g. from the linked article:
import static java.lang.Math.abs;
import static java.lang.Math.max;
int xDist = abs(destination.getX() - x);
int yDist = abs(destination.getY() - y);
return max(xDist, yDist);
Introduced in Java 5.

Yes, you can call a static method without mentioning the class name. There's the import static (see JLS 7.5.4 for exact mechanism), but even without it, if the name can be resolved (see JLS 15.12.1 for exact mechanism) without fully qualifying the class, it will work.
The following code compiles and prints "Hello world!" as expected.
import static java.lang.System.out;
public class Test {
static String greeting() {
return "Hello world!";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
out.println(greeting());
}
}
out in the println statement is actually a static field access of the class java.lang.System, not a static method, but it's a static member access nonetheless. greeting() is a static method invocation, and the class name can be omitted since its reference can be resolved without fully qualifying the name.
Now let's ask if this is a good idea. Unless you're calling a static method from within its class, IT'S NOT a good idea generally to omit the class name!!!
Let's focus on static import first. A quote from the guide:
So when should you use static import? Very sparingly! Only use it when you'd otherwise be tempted to declare local copies of constants, or to abuse inheritance (the Constant Interface Antipattern). In other words, use it when you require frequent access to static members from one or two classes. If you overuse the static import feature, it can make your program unreadable and unmaintainable, polluting its namespace with all the static members you import. Readers of your code (including you, a few months after you wrote it) will not know which class a static member comes from. Importing all of the static members from a class can be particularly harmful to readability; if you need only one or two members, import them individually. Used appropriately, static import can make your program more readable, by removing the boilerplate of repetition of class names.
The case is made stronger by the following example:
class Base {
void task1() {
System.out.println("Base.task1");
}
static void task2() {
System.out.println("Base.task2");
}
}
class Child extends Base {
void task1() {
System.out.println("Child.task1");
}
static void task2() {
System.out.println("Child.task2");
}
}
//....
Base sweetChildOMine = new Child();
sweetChildOMine.task1(); // prints "Child.task1"
sweetChildOMine.task2(); // prints "Base.task2"
What a surprise! You'd think that since sweetChildOMine has a reference to an instance of Child, sweetChildOMine.task2() should print "Child.task2" because it's overridden by Child class, right?
WRONG! A static method can not be overridden! It can only be hidden by a subclass! In fact, if you tried to do the right thing and add the #Override annotation to task2, it would not compile!
From JLS 15.12.4.4 Locate method to invoke:
If the invocation mode is static, no target reference is needed and overriding is not allowed. Method m of class T is the one to be invoked.
In fact, this problem is covered in Java Puzzlers Puzzle 48: All I Get Is Static. The conclusion given at the end of the puzzle is this:
In summary, qualify static methods invocations with a class name, or don't qualify them at all if you're invoking them from within their own class, but never qualify them with an expression. Also, avoid hiding static methods. Together, these guidelines help eliminate the misleading appearance of overriding with dynamic dispatch for static methods.
It is best to follow all these recommendations together, so:
If you're calling a static method within its own class, don't qualify
Otherwise, qualify with the class name
If you're doing this a lot within one class, consider static import of that specific method
Try not to static import all members with *
Never qualify with an expression
Don't hide a static method; you can't #Override it, it'll only cause confusion
See also:
Why doesn’t Java allow overriding of static methods ?
When do you use Java’s #Override annotation and why?

Yes, adding to Brian Agnew you can call static methods through an instance of that class type as well.

Yes you can call a static method without the class name. For example, if you are calling it within another static method of the same class.
public class TestStatic{
static void hello()
{
System.out.println("Hello World");
}
static void hello2()
{
hello();
System.out.println("Welcome to java");
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
hello2();
}
}

Yes.
class CallStaticMethodTest {
public static void staticMethodOne() {
System.out.println("Static method one");
}
// Invoke from a non-static method
public void instanceMethodOne() {
staticMethodOne();// Calling static method without mentioning the class name
}
// Invoke from another static method:
public static void staticMethodTwo() {
staticMethodOne();
}
}