This question already has answers here:
Initialize class fields in constructor or at declaration?
(16 answers)
Closed 10 years ago.
What is the difference between the following two, and which is more preferable??
public class foo {
int i = 2;
}
public class foo {
int i;
foo() {
i = 2;
}
}
In your example, there is no difference in behavioural semantics. In Java, all instance field initializers (and instance blocks) are executed after superclass initialization, and before the body of the constructor; see JLS 12.5.
The difference lies in code readability and (in other examples) avoiding repetitious coding and fragility1. These need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
It is also worth noting that there are some cases where you have to initialize in the constructor; i.e. when the initialization depends on a constructor parameter.
1 - The repetitiousness and fragility issues are flip-sides of the same thing. If you have multiple constructors, the "initialize in constructor" approach tends to lead to repetition. And if you add extra fields, you might to add the initialization to all relevant constructors; i.e. fragility.
If you have two or more constructors and intialization value differs in each of them, then you should use constructor initialization as there is no way to do the same with member initialization...
however if you have just one constructor...you can use member initialization for better code clarity..
In particular this case there is no difference in these two variants. First variant is more preferable, because initializations of fields inside constructor, as usual, use external values from constructor arguments.
First of all I think the second example should look like this:
public class foo{
int i;
foo(){
i = 0;
}
}
Otherwise i is just a local variable in the C'tor scope.
Second, the first example shows initialization which is called before the class C'tor is invoked. this is good if you want this to happen no matter what C'tor is used.
It also enables you to declare i as readonly.
In your first example, i is an instance variable of class foo (better name would be Foo). It's initialised at class loading.
In your second example, i is also an instance varaible but in this case initialised in the foo() constructor.
There is no real difference here, and especially with primitives.
However, in a multi-threaded environment, if you do intend to initialise your ivars in your constructor, and those ivars are non-primitive, you need to avoid the risk of exposing a partially constructed object. The reason for this is that constructors aren't synchronised and can't have the synchronised keyword applied but then two threads can't be constructing the same object.
So, to avoid this, you should never expose this in your constructor. One way of doing so is to call non-final methods. Doing so, say calling an abstract method, allows some unknown code to do something with your unfinished object. Obviously, this can't be done if you initialise in your declaration.
p.s. I thought there was something on this in Effective Java but couldn't find anything.
Related
If I try to assign a value to a variable in a class, but outside a method I get an error.
class one{
Integer b;
b=Integer.valueOf(2);
}
but, if I initialize it during the creation, it works.
class one{
Integer b=Integer.valueOf(2);
}
Inside a method, it works in both cases.
you need to do
class one{
Integer b;
{
b=Integer.valueOf(2);
}
}
as statements have to appear in a block of code.
In this case, the block is an initailiser block which is added to every constructor (or the default constructor in this case) It is run after any call to super() and before the main block of code in any constructor.
BTW: You can have a static initialiser block with static { } which is called when the class is initialised.
e.g.
class one{
static final Integer b;
static {
b=Integer.valueOf(2);
}
}
Because the assignments are statements and statements are allowed only inside blocks of code(methods, constructors, static initializers, etc.)
Outside of these only declarations are allowed.
This :
class one{
Integer b=Integer.valueOf(2);
}
is a declaration with an initializer. That's why is accepted
A more general answer would be that the class body is about declarations, not statements. There is special provision for statements occuring in class body, but they have to be marked explicitly as either class initializers or instance initializers.
In Java, when defining a class, you can define variables with default values and add methods. Any executable code (such as assignments) MUST be contained in a method.
This is the way java works, you cannot add non-declaration code (sorry i don't know the correct term) inside the class, that code should be inside methods.
I think terminology-wise, couple of other answers are slightly off. Declarations are also statements. In fact, they are called "declaration statements", which are one of the three kinds of statements. An assignment statement is one form of "expression statement" and can be used only in constructs such as methods, constructors, and initializers. Check out the Statements section in this Oracle's tutorial link.
Methods have the responsibility to perform mutations on the member variables. If the member variable needs to be initialized, java provides a way to do it during construction, class definition (latter case). But the mutation cannot be performed during definition.(former case). It is usually done at the method level.
Objects are meant to hold the state, while methods are meant to operate on that state.
This question already has answers here:
Should I instantiate instance variables on declaration or in the constructor?
(15 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
When I use Java based on my C++ knowledge, I love to initialize variable using the following way.
public class ME {
private int i;
public ME() {
this.i = 100;
}
}
After some time, I change the habit to
public class ME {
private int i = 100;
public ME() {
}
}
I came across others source code, some are using 1st convention, others are using 2nd convention.
May I know which convention do you all recommend, and why?
I find the second style (declaration + initialization in one go) superior. Reasons:
It makes it clear at a glance how the variable is initialized. Typically, when reading a program and coming across a variable, you'll first go to its declaration (often automatic in IDEs). With style 2, you see the default value right away. With style 1, you need to look at the constructor as well.
If you have more than one constructor, you don't have to repeat the initializations (and you cannot forget them).
Of course, if the initialization value is different in different constructors (or even calculated in the constructor), you must do it in the constructor.
I have the practice (habit) of almost always initializing in the contructor for two reasons, one in my opinion it adds to readablitiy (cleaner), and two there is more logic control in the constructor than in one line. Even if initially the instance variable doesn't require logic, having it in the constructor gives more flexibility to add logic in the future if needed.
As to the concern mentioned above about multiple constructors, that's easily solved by having one no-arg constructor that initializes all the instance variables that are initilized the same for all constructors and then each constructor calls this() at the first line. That solves your reduncancy issues.
I tend to use the second one to avoid a complicated constructor (or a useless one), also I don't really consider this as an initialization (even if it is an initialization), but more like giving a default value.
For example in your second snippet, you can remove the constructor and have a clearer code.
If you initialize in the top or in constructor it doesn't make much difference .But in some case initializing in constructor makes sense.
class String
{
char[] arr/*=char [20]*/; //Here initializing char[] over here will not make sense.
String()
{
this.arr=new char[0];
}
String(char[] arr)
{
this.arr=arr;
}
}
So depending on the situation sometime you will have to initialize in the top and sometimes in a constructor.
FYI other option's for initialization without using a constructor :
class Foo
{
int i;
static int k;
//instance initializer block
{
//run's every time a new object is created
i=20;
}
//static initializer block
static{
//run's only one time when the class is loaded
k=18;
}
}
The only problem I see with the first method is if you are planning to add more constructors. Then you will be repeating code and maintainability would suffer.
I recommend initializing variables in constructors. That's why they exist: to ensure your objects are constructed (initialized) properly.
Either way will work, and it's a matter of style, but I prefer constructors for member initialization.
Both the options can be correct depending on your situation.
A very simple example would be: If you have multiple constructors all of which initialize the variable the same way(int x=2 for each one of them). It makes sense to initialize the variable at declaration to avoid redundancy.
It also makes sense to consider final variables in such a situation. If you know what value a final variable will have at declaration, it makes sense to initialize it outside the constructors. However, if you want the users of your class to initialize the final variable through a constructor, delay the initialization until the constructor.
One thing, regardless of how you initialize the field, use of the final qualifier, if possible, will ensure the visibility of the field's value in a multi-threaded environment.
I think both are correct programming wise,
But i think your first option is more correct in an object oriented way, because in the constructor is when the object is created, and it is when the variable should initialized.
I think it is the "by the book" convention, but it is open for discussion.
Wikipedia
It can depend on what your are initialising, for example you cannot just use field initialisation if a checked exception is involved. For example, the following:
public class Foo {
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream("/tmp"); // throws FileNotFoundException
}
Will cause a compile-time error unless you also include a constructor declaring that checked exception, or extend a superclass which does, e.g.:
public Foo() throws FileNotFoundException {}
I would say, it depends on the default. For example
public Bar
{
ArrayList<Foo> foos;
}
I would make a new ArrayList outside of the constructor, if I always assume foos can not be null. If Bar is a valid object, not caring if foos is null or not, I would put it in the constructor.
You might disagree and say that it's the constructors job to put the object in a valid state. However, if clearly all the constructors should do exactly the same thing(initialize foos), why duplicate that code?
Is there a reason to prefer using shared instance variable in class vs. local variable and have methods return the instance to it? Or is either one a bad practice?
import package.AClass;
public class foo {
private AClass aVar = new AClass();
// ... Constructor
public AClass returnAClassSetted() {
doStuff(aVar);
return avar;
}
private void doStuff(AClass a) {
aVar = a.setSomething("");
}
}
vs.
import package.AClass;
public class foo {
// ... Constructor
public AClass returnAClassSetted() {
AClass aVar = new AClass();
aVar = doStuff();
return aVar;
}
private AClass doStuff() {
AClass aVar1 = new AClass();
aVar1.setSomething("");
return aVar1;
}
}
First one makes more sense to me in so many ways but I often see code that does the second. Thanks!
Instance variables are shared by all methods in the class. When one method changes the data, another method can be affected by it. It means that you can't understand any one method on its own since it is affected by the code in the other methods in the class. The order in which methods are called can affect the outcome. The methods may not be reentrant. That means that if the method is called, again, before it finishes its execution (say it calls a method that then calls it, or fires an event which then a listener calls the method) then it may fail or behave incorrectly since the data is shared. If that wasn't enough potential problems, when you have multithreading, the data could be changed while you are using it causing inconsistent and hard to reproduce bugs (race conditions).
Using local variables keeps the scope minimized to the smallest amount of code that needs it. This makes it easier to understand, and to debug. It avoids race conditions. It is easier to ensure the method is reentrant. It is a good practice to minimize the scope of data.
Your class name should have been Foo.
The two versions you have are not the same, and it should depend on your use case.
The first version returns the same AClass object when different callers call returnAClassSetted() method using the same Foo object. If one of them changes the state of the returned AClass object, all of them will get see the change. Your Foo class is effectively a Singleton.
The second version returns a new AClass object every time a caller calls returnAClassSetted() method using either the same or different Foo object. Your Foo class is effectively a Builder.
Also, if you want the second version, remove the AClass aVar = new AClass(); and just use AClass aVar = doStuff();. Because you are throwing away the first AClass object created by new AClass();
It's not a yes/no question. It basically depends on the situation and your needs. Declaring the variable in the smallest scope as possible is considered the best practice. However there may be some cases (like in this one) where, depending on the task, it's better to declare it inside/outside the methods. If you declare them outside it will be one instance, and it will be two on the other hand.
Instance properties represent the state of a specific instance of that Class. It might make more sense to think about a concrete example. If the class is Engine, one of the properties that might represent the state of the Engine might be
private boolean running;
... so given an instance of Engine, you could call engine.isRunning() to check the state.
If a given property is not part of the state (or composition) of your Class, then it might be best suited to be a local variable within a method, as implementation detail.
In Instance variables values given are default values means null so if it's an object reference, 0 if it's and int.
Local variables usually don't get default values, and therefore need to be explicitly initialized and the compiler generates an error if you fail to do so.
Further,
Local variables are only visible in the method or block in which they are declared whereas the instance variable can be seen by all methods in the class.
I am a bit ashamed to ask that, being a Java programmer for years, but here goes:
Is there a difference between allocating objects during construction, and doing so directly when declaring the relevant field? That is, is there a difference between the following two:
public class MyClass{
MyObj obj=new MyObj();
}
AND
public class MyClass{
MyObj obj;
public MyClass() {
obj=new MyObj();
}
}
Of course, I assume this specific init's do not rely on outside parameters.
instance variable initialization done before constructor call
Its not good to do.
You can restrict user from call of const. if you want to perform certain operation before initialization.
Best Practice:
Don't initialize with the default values in declaration (null, false, 0, 0.0...).
Prefer initialization in declaration if you don't have a constructor parameter that changes the value of the field.
If the value of the field changes because of a constructor parameter put the >initialization in the constructors.
Be consistent in your practice. (the most important rule)
from here
No, there isn't. Except that if you add multiple constructors you'll have duplicate code.
An alternative is to use an initializer block
{
var = 1;
}
Reference: Initializing Fields
This question already has answers here:
Should I instantiate instance variables on declaration or in the constructor?
(15 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
When I use Java based on my C++ knowledge, I love to initialize variable using the following way.
public class ME {
private int i;
public ME() {
this.i = 100;
}
}
After some time, I change the habit to
public class ME {
private int i = 100;
public ME() {
}
}
I came across others source code, some are using 1st convention, others are using 2nd convention.
May I know which convention do you all recommend, and why?
I find the second style (declaration + initialization in one go) superior. Reasons:
It makes it clear at a glance how the variable is initialized. Typically, when reading a program and coming across a variable, you'll first go to its declaration (often automatic in IDEs). With style 2, you see the default value right away. With style 1, you need to look at the constructor as well.
If you have more than one constructor, you don't have to repeat the initializations (and you cannot forget them).
Of course, if the initialization value is different in different constructors (or even calculated in the constructor), you must do it in the constructor.
I have the practice (habit) of almost always initializing in the contructor for two reasons, one in my opinion it adds to readablitiy (cleaner), and two there is more logic control in the constructor than in one line. Even if initially the instance variable doesn't require logic, having it in the constructor gives more flexibility to add logic in the future if needed.
As to the concern mentioned above about multiple constructors, that's easily solved by having one no-arg constructor that initializes all the instance variables that are initilized the same for all constructors and then each constructor calls this() at the first line. That solves your reduncancy issues.
I tend to use the second one to avoid a complicated constructor (or a useless one), also I don't really consider this as an initialization (even if it is an initialization), but more like giving a default value.
For example in your second snippet, you can remove the constructor and have a clearer code.
If you initialize in the top or in constructor it doesn't make much difference .But in some case initializing in constructor makes sense.
class String
{
char[] arr/*=char [20]*/; //Here initializing char[] over here will not make sense.
String()
{
this.arr=new char[0];
}
String(char[] arr)
{
this.arr=arr;
}
}
So depending on the situation sometime you will have to initialize in the top and sometimes in a constructor.
FYI other option's for initialization without using a constructor :
class Foo
{
int i;
static int k;
//instance initializer block
{
//run's every time a new object is created
i=20;
}
//static initializer block
static{
//run's only one time when the class is loaded
k=18;
}
}
The only problem I see with the first method is if you are planning to add more constructors. Then you will be repeating code and maintainability would suffer.
I recommend initializing variables in constructors. That's why they exist: to ensure your objects are constructed (initialized) properly.
Either way will work, and it's a matter of style, but I prefer constructors for member initialization.
Both the options can be correct depending on your situation.
A very simple example would be: If you have multiple constructors all of which initialize the variable the same way(int x=2 for each one of them). It makes sense to initialize the variable at declaration to avoid redundancy.
It also makes sense to consider final variables in such a situation. If you know what value a final variable will have at declaration, it makes sense to initialize it outside the constructors. However, if you want the users of your class to initialize the final variable through a constructor, delay the initialization until the constructor.
One thing, regardless of how you initialize the field, use of the final qualifier, if possible, will ensure the visibility of the field's value in a multi-threaded environment.
I think both are correct programming wise,
But i think your first option is more correct in an object oriented way, because in the constructor is when the object is created, and it is when the variable should initialized.
I think it is the "by the book" convention, but it is open for discussion.
Wikipedia
It can depend on what your are initialising, for example you cannot just use field initialisation if a checked exception is involved. For example, the following:
public class Foo {
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream("/tmp"); // throws FileNotFoundException
}
Will cause a compile-time error unless you also include a constructor declaring that checked exception, or extend a superclass which does, e.g.:
public Foo() throws FileNotFoundException {}
I would say, it depends on the default. For example
public Bar
{
ArrayList<Foo> foos;
}
I would make a new ArrayList outside of the constructor, if I always assume foos can not be null. If Bar is a valid object, not caring if foos is null or not, I would put it in the constructor.
You might disagree and say that it's the constructors job to put the object in a valid state. However, if clearly all the constructors should do exactly the same thing(initialize foos), why duplicate that code?