We Keep Coding

Cast object to interface did not implement?

First I know this is quite dirty job, and if there is a way, it may be consider "bad practice". Unfortunately, I have to explore the possibility.
I would like to know if I can cast an object that in practice implements a Interface but in fact do not. I mean, the class implements all the methods but do not have the "implement interface" in the declaration. Additionally, I would prefer to do this and finally get the Object typed. Example below
interface IA{
void method();
}
class CB{
void method(){;}
}
public class foo{
public static void main(String[] args){
/*magic to cast the object without exception*/
IA ob= (IA) new CB();
ob.method();
}
}
I want to get this IA object at the end.

Consider a much safer alternative.
Wrap the object you want to cast, into a class that implements the interface and delegate the method calls to the wrapped object.
Example:
public class CBWrapper implements IA {
CB target;
public CBWrapper(CB target) {
this.target = target;
}
#Override
void method() {
target.method();
}
}

You cannot cast an Object to interface it doesn't implements.
You can access object's method using reflection and call a specific method by name or whatever.
However, I think you should ask yourself what you want to do and is there a simpler way to do it.

How the implements keyword is used to get the IS-A relationship?
The implements keyword is used by classes by inherit from interfaces.
Interfaces can never be extended by the classes.

You can’t create an object from an interface because in Java interfaces don't have a constructor.
A better way would be to play with softer alternatives.

Instance variable of interface type does not have access to implementation class methods where as instance variable of type implementation class do

I have an interface called Functions without any method defined in it. Then I have an implementation class that implements that interface and has also a method defined in the implementation class. If I create a variable of the interface type and assign it with a new instance of the implementation type (which has a method defined in it). Why can't I access that method from the variable? I think I'm missing something here. I was under the impression that if the variable of the interface type has been assigned an instance of the implementation type which has a method defined in it, than that variable can be used to run the method.
Please advise. Thank you in advance.

Conceptually, you are doing the wrong thing here.
If you want to call "that method" then you should use a variable of the implementation type, not the interface type.
Alternatively, if "that method" really does belong in the intended functionality the interface, then you should move it "up" to the interface.

As far as I can understand, your problem is the following:
// Interface with no methods
public interface Functions {
}
// Implementation class with a method defined in it
public class Implementation implements Functions {
public void foo() {
System.out.println("Foo");
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Create a variable from the interface type and
// assign a new instance of the implementation type
Functions f = new Implementation();
// You try to call the function
f.foo(); // This is a compilation error
}
}
That's the correct behavior, this is not possible. Because the compiler sees that variable f has the (static) type of Functions, it only sees the functions defined in that interface. The compiler is not aware of whether the variable actually contains a reference to an instance of the Implementation class.
To solve the issue you either should declare the method in the interface
public interface Functions {
public void foo();
}
or make your variable have the type of your implementation class
Implementation f = new Implementation();

You are restricted to the methods defined by the Reference type, not the Instance type, for example:
AutoClosable a = new PrintWriter(...);
a.println( "something" );
Here, AutoClosable is the reference type and PrintWriter is the instance type.
This code will give a compiler error because the only method defined in AutoClosable is close().

You cannot do that, consider this example:
interface Foo {
}
And class:
class FooBar implements Foo {
public void testMethod() { }
}
class FooBarMain {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Foo foo = new FooBar();
//foo.testMethod(); this won't compile.
}
}
Because at the compile time, compiler will not know that you are creating a new FooBar();and it has a method called testMethod() which will be determined dynamically. So it expects whatever you are accessing via interface variable should be available in your interface.
What you can do is if you want to access that method via interface variable, it's better to move that method to interface and let clients implement it.
Let me know if you have doubts on this.

How to do in java what in C++ is changing an overridden method visibility?

In C++ it's possible to change an overridden method's visibility. I find this feature very useful sometimes, for example:
consider you want a class to have some debugging methods, but you don't want them to be visible as public class interface. You could have something like:
class IDebuggable {
public:
virtual void debug(std::string s) = 0;
};
class MyProductionClass: public IDebuggable
public:
void myClassMethod() {}
private:
virtual void debug(std::string) {
// do some debug here
}
};
To do so, when using an object of class MyProductionClass, all I can access is MyProductionClass::myClassMethod() (the production interface).
However, if I want to use it's debugging features, I can do this:
MyProductionClass* obj = new MyProductionClass();
IDebuggable* iface = obj;
iface->debug("Hello World");
I've found in my experience this "feature" quite useful.
In java this is not possible as it's forbidden to change the visibility of an inherited method.
Is there another way I can achieve the above artifact?
Thanks a lot

You cannot reduce visibility of inherited method. This is right. However you can create as many interfaces as you want and make you class to implement these interfaces. Then if your client works with specific interface it "does not have access" to other even public methods.
Here is an example.
public interface Foo {
public void foo();
}
public interface Bar {
public void bar();
}
public class MyClass implements Foo, Bar {
public void foo() {}
public void bar() {}
}
Here is how we use this class:
Foo f = new MyClass();
You can call foo() here and cannot call bsar(). You can however cast Foo to Bar and then use bar() method.

Personally, I hate when people change method visibility this way. I think it's much better to preserver the visibility and expose interfaces, but not the classes themselves, for external users.
Like:
class MyInterface {...}
class MyDebugable {...}
class MyClass : MyInterface, MyDebugable {...}
Give MyInterface to the users and user MyClass internally.
By changing visibility you violate Liskov substitution principle. At the same time your users still can cast to IDebuggable and call your 'private' methods

In Java you can increase method visibility but you can't reduce it when subclassing. This is due to the fact that you may access object via parent class (interface) and all methods defined in parent class should be available to caller.
So the following is possible:
class A {
protected void foo() {}
}
class B extends A {
#Override
public void foo() {}
}

This is (for God's sake) not possible in Java. Furthermore, what you want could be much better achieved by using a logging framework with different configurations for development/production.

Implement a feature discovery like this:
class A {
public final T <T> lookup(Class<T> klazz) {
return map.get(klazz);
}
public A() {
map.put(IDebugable.class, new IDebuggable() { ... };
}
}
A a = ...;
a.lookup(IDebuggable.class).debug();

Overload and hide methods in Java

i have an abstract class BaseClass with a public insert() method:
public abstract class BaseClass {
public void insert(Object object) {
// Do something
}
}
which is extended by many other classes. For some of those classes, however, the insert() method must have additional parameters, so that they instead of overriding it I overload the method of the base class with the parameters required, for example:
public class SampleClass extends BaseClass {
public void insert(Object object, Long param){
// Do Something
}
}
Now, if i instantiate the SampleClass class, i have two insert() methods:
SampleClass sampleClass = new SampleClass();
sampleClass.insert(Object object);
sampleClass.insert(Object object, Long param);
what i'd like to do is to hide the insert() method defined in the base class, so that just the overload would be visible:
SampleClass sampleClass = new SampleClass();
sampleClass.insert(Object object, Long param);
Could this be done in OOP?

There is no way of hiding the method. You can do this:
#Override
public void insert(Object ob) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("not supported");
}
but that's it.
The base class creates a contract. All subclasses are bound by that contract. Think about it this way:
BaseObject b = new SomeObjectWithoutInsert();
b.insert(...);
How is that code meant to know that it doesn't have an insert(Object) method? It can't.
Your problem sounds like a design problem. Either the classes in question shouldn't be inheriting from the base class in question or that base class shouldn't have that method. Perhaps you can take insert() out of that class, move it to a subclass and have classes that need insert(Object) extend it and those that need insert(Object, Object) extend a different subclass of the base object.

I don't believe there's a clean way to completely hide an inherited method in Java.
In cases like this, if you absolutely can't support that method, I would probably mark that method as #Obsolete in the child class, and have it throw a NotImplementedException (or whatever the equivalent exception is in Java), to discourage people from using it.
In the end, if you inherit a method that does not make sense for your child class, it could be that you really shouldn't inherit from that base class at all. It could also be that the base class is poorly designed or encompasses too much behavior, but it might be worth considering your class hierarchy. Another route to look at might be composition, where your class has a private instance of what used to be the base class, and you can choose which methods to expose by wrapping them in your own methods. (Edit: if the base class is abstract, composition might not be an option...)

As Cletus points out, this is really a design problem, in that you are trying to create a child class that does not obey the contract of its parent class.
There are rare circumstances where working around this by e.g. throwing an exception might be desirable (or at least an acceptable compromise -- for example, the Java Collections Framework) but in general it's a sign of poor design.
You may wish to read up on the Liskov substitution principle: the idea that (as Wikipedia puts it) "if S is a subtype of T, then objects of type T in a program may be replaced with objects of type S without altering any of the desirable properties of that program". By overriding a method to throw an exception, or hiding it any other way, you're violating this principle.
If the contract of the base class' method was "inserts the current object, or throws an exception" (see e.g. the JavaDoc for Collection.add()) then you could argue you're not violating LSP, but if that is unexpected by most callers you may want to rethink your design on these grounds.

This sounds like a badly designed hierarchy -
If no default exists and the user shouldn't call the method at all you can mark the method as #Deprecated and throw an UnsupportedOperationException as other posters have noted. However - this is really only a runtime check. #Deprecated only throws a compiler warning and most IDEs mark it in some way, but there's no compile time prevention of this. It also really sucks because it's possible to get the child class as a parent class reference and call the method on it with no warning that it's "bad" at all. In the example below, there won't be any indication until runtime that anything's wrong.
Example:
// Abstract base builder class
public abstract class BaseClassBuilder {
public final doBuild() {
BaseClass base = getBase();
for (Object obj : getObjects() {
base.insert(obj);
}
}
protected abstract BaseClass getBase();
protected abstract Object[] getObjects();
}
// implementation using SampleClass
public class SampleClassBuilder extends BaseClassBuilder {
#Override
protected BaseClass getBase() {
return new SampleClass();
}
#Override
protected Object[] getObjects() {
Object[] obj = new Object[12];
// ...
return obj;
}
}
However, if a sensible default exists, you could mark the inherited method as final and provide the default value inside of it. This handles both the bad hierarchy, and it prevents the "unforseen circumstances" of the above example.
Example:
public abstract class BaseClass {
public void insert(Object object) {
// ...
}
}
public class SampleClass extends BaseClass {
public static final Long DEFAULT_PARAM = 0L;
public final void insert(Object object) {
this.insert(object, DEFAULT_PARAM);
}
public void insert(Object object, Long param) {
// ...
}
}

Why can't static methods be abstract in Java?

The question is in Java why can't I define an abstract static method? for example
abstract class foo {
abstract void bar( ); // <-- this is ok
abstract static void bar2(); //<-- this isn't why?
}

Because "abstract" means: "Implements no functionality", and "static" means: "There is functionality even if you don't have an object instance". And that's a logical contradiction.

Poor language design. It would be much more effective to call directly a static abstract method than creating an instance just for using that abstract method. Especially true when using an abstract class as a workaround for enum inability to extend, which is another poor design example. Hope they solve those limitations in a next release.

You can't override a static method, so making it abstract would be meaningless. Moreover, a static method in an abstract class would belong to that class, and not the overriding class, so couldn't be used anyway.

The abstract annotation to a method indicates that the method MUST be overriden in a subclass.
In Java, a static member (method or field) cannot be overridden by subclasses (this is not necessarily true in other object oriented languages, see SmallTalk.) A static member may be hidden, but that is fundamentally different than overridden.
Since static members cannot be overriden in a subclass, the abstract annotation cannot be applied to them.
As an aside - other languages do support static inheritance, just like instance inheritance. From a syntax perspective, those languages usually require the class name to be included in the statement. For example, in Java, assuming you are writing code in ClassA, these are equivalent statements (if methodA() is a static method, and there is no instance method with the same signature):
ClassA.methodA();
and
methodA();
In SmallTalk, the class name is not optional, so the syntax is (note that SmallTalk does not use the . to separate the "subject" and the "verb", but instead uses it as the statemend terminator):
ClassA methodA.
Because the class name is always required, the correct "version" of the method can always be determined by traversing the class hierarchy. For what it's worth, I do occasionally miss static inheritance, and was bitten by the lack of static inheritance in Java when I first started with it. Additionally, SmallTalk is duck-typed (and thus doesn't support program-by-contract.) Thus, it has no abstract modifier for class members.

I also asked the same question , here is why
Since Abstract class says, it will not give implementation and allow subclass to give it
so Subclass has to override the methods of Superclass ,
RULE NO 1 - A static method cannot be overridden
Because static members and methods are compile time elements , that is why Overloading(Compile time Polymorphism) of static methods are allowed rather then Overriding (Runtime Polymorphism)
So , they cant be Abstract .
There is no thing like abstract static <--- Not allowed in Java Universe

This is a terrible language design and really no reason as to why it can't be possible.
In fact, here is a pattern or way on how it can be mimicked in **Java ** to allow you at least be able to modify your own implementations:
public static abstract class Request {
// Static method
public static void doSomething() {
get().doSomethingImpl();
}
// Abstract method
abstract void doSomethingImpl();
/////////////////////////////////////////////
private static Request SINGLETON;
private static Request get() {
if ( SINGLETON == null ) {
// If set(request) is never called prior,
// it will use a default implementation.
return SINGLETON = new RequestImplementationDefault();
}
return SINGLETON;
}
public static Request set(Request instance){
return SINGLETON = instance;
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////
}
Two implementations:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
public static final class RequestImplementationDefault extends Request {
#Override void doSomethingImpl() {
System.out.println("I am doing something AAA");
}
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
public static final class RequestImplementaionTest extends Request {
#Override void doSomethingImpl() {
System.out.println("I am doing something BBB");
}
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Could be used as follows:
Request.set(new RequestImplementationDefault());
// Or
Request.set(new RequestImplementationTest());
// Later in the application you might use
Request.doSomething();
This would allow you to invoke your methods statically, yet be able to alter the implementation say for a Test environment.
Theoretically, you could do this on a ThreadLocal as well, and be able to set instance per Thread context instead rather than fully global as seen here, one would then be able to do Request.withRequest(anotherRequestImpl, () -> { ... }) or similar.
Real world usually do not require the ThreadLocal approach and usually it is enough to be able to alter implementation for Test environment globally.
Note, that the only purpose for this is to enable a way to retain the ability to invoke methods DIRECTLY, EASILY and CLEANLY which static methods provides while at the same time be able to switch implementation should a desire arise at the cost of slightly more complex implementation.
It is just a pattern to get around having normally non modifiable static code.

An abstract method is defined only so that it can be overridden in a subclass. However, static methods can not be overridden. Therefore, it is a compile-time error to have an abstract, static method.
Now the next question is why static methods can not be overridden??
It's because static methods belongs to a particular class and not to its instance. If you try to override a static method you will not get any compilation or runtime error but compiler would just hide the static method of superclass.

A static method, by definition, doesn't need to know this. Thus, it cannot be a virtual method (that is overloaded according to dynamic subclass information available through this); instead, a static method overload is solely based on info available at compile time (this means: once you refer a static method of superclass, you call namely the superclass method, but never a subclass method).
According to this, abstract static methods would be quite useless because you will never have its reference substituted by some defined body.

I see that there are a god-zillion answers already but I don't see any practical solutions. Of course this is a real problem and there is no good reason for excluding this syntax in Java. Since the original question lacks a context where this may be need, I provide both a context and a solution:
Suppose you have a static method in a bunch of classes that are identical. These methods call a static method that is class specific:
class C1 {
static void doWork() {
...
for (int k: list)
doMoreWork(k);
...
}
private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
// code specific to class C1
}
}
class C2 {
static void doWork() {
...
for (int k: list)
doMoreWork(k);
...
}
private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
// code specific to class C2
}
}
doWork() methods in C1 and C2 are identical. There may be a lot of these calsses: C3 C4 etc. If static abstract was allowed, you'd eliminate the duplicate code by doing something like:
abstract class C {
static void doWork() {
...
for (int k: list)
doMoreWork(k);
...
}
static abstract void doMoreWork(int k);
}
class C1 extends C {
private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
// code for class C1
}
}
class C2 extends C {
private static void doMoreWork(int k) {
// code for class C2
}
}
but this would not compile because static abstract combination is not allowed.
However, this can be circumvented with static class construct, which is allowed:
abstract class C {
void doWork() {
...
for (int k: list)
doMoreWork(k);
...
}
abstract void doMoreWork(int k);
}
class C1 {
private static final C c = new C(){
#Override void doMoreWork(int k) {
System.out.println("code for C1");
}
};
public static void doWork() {
c.doWork();
}
}
class C2 {
private static final C c = new C() {
#Override void doMoreWork(int k) {
System.out.println("code for C2");
}
};
public static void doWork() {
c.doWork();
}
}
With this solution the only code that is duplicated is
public static void doWork() {
c.doWork();
}

Assume there are two classes, Parent and Child. Parent is abstract. The declarations are as follows:
abstract class Parent {
abstract void run();
}
class Child extends Parent {
void run() {}
}
This means that any instance of Parent must specify how run() is executed.
However, assume now that Parent is not abstract.
class Parent {
static void run() {}
}
This means that Parent.run() will execute the static method.
The definition of an abstract method is "A method that is declared but not implemented", which means it doesn't return anything itself.
The definition of a static method is "A method that returns the same value for the same parameters regardless of the instance on which it is called".
An abstract method's return value will change as the instance changes. A static method will not. A static abstract method is pretty much a method where the return value is constant, but does not return anything. This is a logical contradiction.
Also, there is really not much of a reason for a static abstract method.

An abstract class cannot have a static method because abstraction is done to achieve DYNAMIC BINDING while static methods are statically binded to their functionality.A static method means
behavior not dependent on an instance variable, so no instance/object
is required.Just the class.Static methods belongs to class and not object.
They are stored in a memory area known as PERMGEN from where it is shared with every object.
Methods in abstract class are dynamically binded to their functionality.

Declaring a method as static means we can call that method by its class name and if that class is abstract as well, it makes no sense to call it as it does not contain any body, and hence we cannot declare a method both as static and abstract.

As abstract methods belong to the class and cannot be overridden by the implementing class.Even if there is a static method with same signature , it hides the method ,does not override it.
So it is immaterial to declare the abstract method as static as it will never get the body.Thus, compile time error.

A static method can be called without an instance of the class. In your example you can call foo.bar2(), but not foo.bar(), because for bar you need an instance.
Following code would work:
foo var = new ImplementsFoo();
var.bar();
If you call a static method, it will be executed always the same code. In the above example, even if you redefine bar2 in ImplementsFoo, a call to var.bar2() would execute foo.bar2().
If bar2 now has no implementation (that's what abstract means), you can call a method without implementation. That's very harmful.

I believe I have found the answer to this question, in the form of why an interface's methods (which work like abstract methods in a parent class) can't be static. Here is the full answer (not mine)
Basically static methods can be bound at compile time, since to call them you need to specify a class. This is different than instance methods, for which the class of the reference from which you're calling the method may be unknown at compile time (thus which code block is called can only be determined at runtime).
If you're calling a static method, you already know the class where it's implemented, or any direct subclasses of it. If you define
abstract class Foo {
abstract static void bar();
}
class Foo2 {
#Override
static void bar() {}
}
Then any Foo.bar(); call is obviously illegal, and you will always use Foo2.bar();.
With this in mind, the only purpose of a static abstract method would be to enforce subclasses to implement such a method. You might initially think this is VERY wrong, but if you have a generic type parameter <E extends MySuperClass> it would be nice to guarantee via interface that E can .doSomething(). Keep in mind that due to type erasure generics only exist at compile time.
So, would it be useful? Yes, and maybe that is why Java 8 is allowing static methods in interfaces (though only with a default implementation). Why not abstract static methods with a default implementation in classes? Simply because an abstract method with a default implementation is actually a concrete method.
Why not abstract/interface static methods with no default implementation? Apparently, merely because of the way Java identifies which code block it has to execute (first part of my answer).

Because abstract class is an OOPS concept and static members are not the part of OOPS....
Now the thing is we can declare static complete methods in interface and we can execute interface by declaring main method inside an interface
interface Demo
{
public static void main(String [] args) {
System.out.println("I am from interface");
}
}

Because abstract mehods always need implementation by subclass.But if you make any method to static then overriding is not possible for this method
Example
abstract class foo {
abstract static void bar2();
}
class Bar extends foo {
//in this if you override foo class static method then it will give error
}

Static Method
A static method can be invoked without the need for creating an instance of a class.A static method belongs to the class rather than the object of a class.
A static method can access static data member and also it can change the value of it.
Abstract Keyword is used to implement abstraction.
A static method can't be overriden or implemented in child class. So, there is no use of making static method as abstract.

The idea of having an abstract static method would be that you can't use that particular abstract class directly for that method, but only the first derivative would be allowed to implement that static method (or for generics: the actual class of the generic you use).
That way, you could create for example a sortableObject abstract class or even interface
with (auto-)abstract static methods, which defines the parameters of sort options:
public interface SortableObject {
public [abstract] static String [] getSortableTypes();
public String getSortableValueByType(String type);
}
Now you can define a sortable object that can be sorted by the main types which are the same for all these objects:
public class MyDataObject implements SortableObject {
final static String [] SORT_TYPES = {
"Name","Date of Birth"
}
static long newDataIndex = 0L ;
String fullName ;
String sortableDate ;
long dataIndex = -1L ;
public MyDataObject(String name, int year, int month, int day) {
if(name == null || name.length() == 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Null/empty name not allowed.");
if(!validateDate(year,month,day)) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Date parameters do not compose a legal date.");
this.fullName = name ;
this.sortableDate = MyUtils.createSortableDate(year,month,day);
this.dataIndex = MyDataObject.newDataIndex++ ;
}
public String toString() {
return ""+this.dataIndex+". "this.fullName+" ("+this.sortableDate+")";
}
// override SortableObject
public static String [] getSortableTypes() { return SORT_TYPES ; }
public String getSortableValueByType(String type) {
int index = MyUtils.getStringArrayIndex(SORT_TYPES, type);
switch(index) {
case 0: return this.name ;
case 1: return this.sortableDate ;
}
return toString(); // in the order they were created when compared
}
}
Now you can create a
public class SortableList<T extends SortableObject>
that can retrieve the types, build a pop-up menu to select a type to sort on and resort the list by getting the data from that type, as well as hainv an add function that, when a sort type has been selected, can auto-sort new items in.
Note that the instance of SortableList can directly access the static method of "T":
String [] MenuItems = T.getSortableTypes();
The problem with having to use an instance is that the SortableList may not have items yet, but already need to provide the preferred sorting.
Cheerio,
Olaf.

First, a key point about abstract classes -
An abstract class cannot be instantiated (see wiki). So, you can't create any instance of an abstract class.
Now, the way java deals with static methods is by sharing the method with all the instances of that class.
So, If you can't instantiate a class, that class can't have abstract static methods since an abstract method begs to be extended.
Boom.

As per Java doc:
A static method is a method that is associated with the class in which
it is defined rather than with any object. Every instance of the class
shares its static methods
In Java 8, along with default methods static methods are also allowed in an interface. This makes it easier for us to organize helper methods in our libraries. We can keep static methods specific to an interface in the same interface rather than in a separate class.
A nice example of this is:
list.sort(ordering);
instead of
Collections.sort(list, ordering);
Another example of using static methods is also given in doc itself:
public interface TimeClient {
// ...
static public ZoneId getZoneId (String zoneString) {
try {
return ZoneId.of(zoneString);
} catch (DateTimeException e) {
System.err.println("Invalid time zone: " + zoneString +
"; using default time zone instead.");
return ZoneId.systemDefault();
}
}
default public ZonedDateTime getZonedDateTime(String zoneString) {
return ZonedDateTime.of(getLocalDateTime(), getZoneId(zoneString));
}
}

Because 'abstract' means the method is meant to be overridden and one can't override 'static' methods.

Regular methods can be abstract when they are meant to be overridden by subclasses and provided with functionality.
Imagine the class Foo is extended by Bar1, Bar2, Bar3 etc. So, each will have their own version of the abstract class according to their needs.
Now, static methods by definition belong to the class, they have nothing to do with the objects of the class or the objects of its subclasses. They don't even need them to exist, they can be used without instantiating the classes. Hence, they need to be ready-to-go and cannot depend on the subclasses to add functionality to them.

Because abstract is a keyword which is applied over Abstract methods do not specify a body. And If we talk about static keyword it belongs to class area.

because if you are using any static member or static variable in class it will load at class loading time.

There is one occurrence where static and abstract can be used together and that is when both of these modifiers are placed in front of a nested class.

In a single line, this dangerous combination (abstract + static) violates the object-oriented principle which is Polymorphism.
In an inheritance situation, the JVM will decide at runtime by the implementation in respect of the type of instance (runtime polymorphism) and not in respect of the type of reference variable (compile-time polymorphism).
With #Overriding:
Static methods do not support #overriding (runtime polymorphism), but only method hiding (compile-time polymorphism).
With #Hiding:
But in a situation of abstract static methods, the parent (abstract) class does not have implementation for the method. Hence, the child type reference is the only one available and it is not polymorphism.
Child reference is the only one available:
For this reason (suppress OOPs features), Java language considers abstract + static an illegal (dangerous) combination for methods.

You can do this with interfaces in Java 8.
This is the official documentation about it:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/defaultmethods.html

Because if a class extends an abstract class then it has to override abstract methods and that is mandatory. And since static methods are class methods resolved at compile time whereas overridden methods are instance methods resolved at runtime and following dynamic polymorphism.