We Keep Coding

Java/SpotBugs, What is a "named static inner class", if it's being declared in an interface?

I inherited a codebase that uses MyBatis. SpotBugs is telling me that that SubjectRepositoryQueries could be refactored into a named _static_ inner class. I've never encountered this term, I was hoping someone could explain what exactly it's asking me to do better. It would seem that SubjectRepositoryQueries is in fact named (it's not anonymous), and it's already static. SubjectRepositoryQueries can't be declared private because it's inside an interface.
#Mapper
public interface SubjectRepositoryService {
#SelectProvider(type = SubjectRepositoryQueries.class, method = "search")
List<Subject> search(SubjectSearch subjectSearch);
static final class SubjectRepositoryQueries {
public String search(final SubjectSearch subjectSearch) {
... some string generation
}
}
}
Thanks!

When you declare an inner class
class Outer {
class Inner {
}
}
even when you haven't declared any fields in Inner, the java compiler will automatically insert a synthetic field that holds the outer class reference, typically called something like this$0. So if you run javap on the Inner class, you will see it.
The idea is, that in many cases, having that reference variable is a waste of space, and more importantly causes things like serialization to cause unexpected problems.
Imagine that the outer class had all kinds of fields in it, and was massive. Now imagine you wanted to only serialize the inner class, if you tried that you would be surprised to find that the entire inner and outer instance would be serialized making for a much slower and bigger experience.
By decorating the inner class with 'static' you are removing this synthetic field reference to the outer class, and stopping that from happening.
There are other things that having a normal inner class causes. For instance you can't create an instance of the inner class without creating the outer class, which causes really arcane syntax like
Outer.Inner i = new Outer().new Inner();

It's unclear what the specific warning means. If your only goal is to remove the warning then given that your inner class isn't implementing an interface, you can simply convert it to a static method.
#Mapper
public interface SubjectRepositoryService {
//...
static String search(final SubjectSearch subjectSearch) {
//... some string generation
}
}

What are the purposes of inner classes

I am reviewing the concept of inner classes in java. so far from what I've understood and applied java inner classes has a link or access to the methods and fields of its outer/ enclosing class.
My Question:
When should create or define an inner class?
are inner classes considered to be called as "Helper classes" ?
What are the indicators for you to make an inner class and what's their other purpose?

Inner classes are best for the purpose of logically grouping classes that are used in one-place. For example, if you want to create class which is used by ONLY enclosing class, then it doesn't make sense to create a separate file for that. Instead you can add it as "inner class"
As per java tutorial:
Compelling reasons for using nested classes include the following:
It is a way of logically grouping classes that are only used in one
place.
It increases encapsulation.
It can lead to more readable and maintainable code.

A classic use for an inner class is the implementation of an iterator inside a container (ArrayList, for example - look for class Itr). All the container wants to expose to the rest of the world is an Iterator. However, it has to create some concrete implementation of that iterator, possibly familiar with the internals of the container. Using an inner class hides the implementation, while keeping it close to the container's implementation. And being inner (i.e. non-static), it is bound to a specific instance of that container, which lets it access private container members.
There are a few types of inner classes - non-static nested class, local classes and anonymous classes. Each one has a somewhat different purpose, so when asking about an inner class, you should specify what kind are you talking about.
Assuming you're referring to non-static inner classes, I'd say the reason to use them is the same as using regular classes (namely abstraction and dividing code into logical units), but there's no reason to make this use of classes visible to the rest of the world. You can also make nested classes public, of course, in which case you'd make them nested instead of independent in order to express their tight relation with the outer class.

See the Java tutorial for the main reasons.
If by "helper class" you mean something for internal use only, then no, not necessarily. You might want to do something like
class Outer {
private static class Inner implements InterestingInterface {
// whatever
}
public InterestingInterface make_something_interesting() {
return new Inner();
}
}
Here, Inner is not a "helper class" in the sense that the outside world does get to see instances of it, but its implementation is entirely hidden -- the outside world only knows it gets some object that implements InterestingInterface.

As a general rule, objects should be designed for a single responsibility (Highly cohesive). In other words, any object designed well, should perform a single coherent task. This would be considered best practice for object orientated design.
Sometimes, however, a developer may design a class that requires a separate specialized class in order to work. This separate specialized class could be considered a helper class.
If the helper class is not used by any other class, then it would be considered a prime candidate as an inner class
As elicited by ncmathsadist above, an example of inner class use would be in the implementation of Event handlers.
For example, in designing a graphical user interface (GUI), a developer may have created a button that performs a particular task after the user presses it.
The button would need an event handler which listens for when that particular button is pressed.
In this case, creating the event handler for the button as an inner class would be best practice as the inner class would not be utilized anywhere else other than with the specific button within the GUI class.

One purpose of inner classes is to attach listeners. For example, suppose you have a JMenuItem. You can make it quit your app as shown in this code:
JMenuItem quitItem = new JMenuItem("Quit");
quitItem.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e)
{
//cleanup code before exiting
System.exit(0);
}
});
You may also want a class to have access to outer class state variables which is entirely subservient to that class. For example, consider writing a simple color calculator. It might have a text area into which you type a hex code. When you hit enter, you want a JPanel to display the color. Here is a crude outline of what you might do.
public class ColorCalc extends JPanel implements Runnable
{
Color displayedColor;
JTextArea colorEnterArea;
public ColorCalc()
{
displayedColor = Color.white
colorEnterArea = new JTextArea();
}
public void run()
{
//build GUI here
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ColorCalc cc = new ColorCalc();
javax.swing.SwingUtilities.invokeLater(cc);
}
//subservient inner class with access to outer class state variable.
class ColorPanel extends JPanel
{
public void paintComponent(Graphics g)
{
g.setColor(displayedColor);
g.fillRect(0,0,getWidth(), getHeight());
}
}
}

This is a style question. Anything that can be done with an inner class can also be done as a as series of external classes. Inner classes are especially useful for classes that are lightweight or tightly bound to the enclosing class. For example, a comparator is frequently both these things. It needs intimate knowledge of the implementation of the class, and may only be a few lines long. It may be an ideal candidate as an internal class.

If you find that there is enough code which could be better done by class as class provides us to specify stats and
behavior with fields and methods and you don't want this class needs to be used outside of enclosing class. you should use inner class.
Here the inner class is hidden from the outside world.
Inner class can access the private member of enclosing class which provides us encapsulation.
Let me give example..
Suppose you want to set the gear to cycle and you have a business rule like there are only up to 6 gears.
So you can create Inner Class Cycle which would have a method to set the gear.
That method has some validation which are checked before setting gear.like the cycle is running...gear number is less than 6...
best example is event handling code uses inner classes(sometimes anonymous inner classes) to create events and listeners without creating separate Event Object and Event Listener classes for your event..

The inner class used for grouping classes logic, for example, if you have class B and this class used only at class A, So it is better to put class B as an inner class at class A, as this will give readability and reusability for your code.
Happy code :)

Adding from my personal notes, for future visitors:
Sources: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/whentouse.html

Lets say you have a type and its a class, called OuterClass, in a package called "com.custom.classes".
Then here is how you begin to need an inner class or static class:
Case 1:
you need to package a group of classes
but also kind of need certain global variables exposed to all these classes at that package level
you understand you can do no such things with packages but realise that you could achieve this with inheritance, where the parent class members can act as global variables that become available for all of its child class instances.
but you don't like the idea that you need to inherit the parent class and also that you need to instantiate the child class to access the global variables. Thats like asking to buy a coffee shop in order to have a coffee.
and so you realise that you can create an OuterClass with the static members and house all the classes in this OuterClass as inner class or static class as needed and lo! The OuterClass static members become available as global variables for these nested classes and you could even access them without instantiating them.
This code should explain better
public class InnerClassTester{
public static void main(String []args){
// without the need to instantiate any class
// static class without instantiation
System.out.println(OuterClass.NestedStaticClass1.incrGlobalNum()); // outputs 1
// static class instantiated
OuterClass.NestedStaticClass2 koolObj = new OuterClass.NestedStaticClass2();
// works with instantiation as well
System.out.println(koolObj.incrGlobalNum()); // outputs 2
// inner classes always need to be instantiated
// and they can only be instantiated from within an instance of outer class
// think of them as instance member of outer class and this would make sense
OuterClass.NestedInnerClass1 koolObj2 = new OuterClass().new NestedInnerClass1();
// works with inner classes as well
System.out.println(koolObj2.incrGlobalNum()); // outputs 3
}
}
class OuterClass{
// global variable thats only accessible for select classes (or nested classes)
// we also learn a purpose for private static fields
private static int privateGlobalValue = 0;
// classes to be grouped
// static class
public static class NestedStaticClass1{
// no need to instantiate this class to access/update the global value
public static int incrGlobalNum(){
return ++privateGlobalValue;
}
}
public static class NestedStaticClass2{
// instantiate and still manipulate the global value
public int incrGlobalNum(){
return ++privateGlobalValue;
}
}
// inner class
public class NestedInnerClass1{
// instantiate and still manipulate the global value
public int incrGlobalNum(){
return ++privateGlobalValue;
}
}
}
Does this remind you of closures in Javascript ? :)
Most applications of nested classes see it being applied on basis of design decisions. What that means is, every case of a nested class can be replaced with other designs.
But having said that, it is also true that we can also replace the inheritance pattern with composition pattern (and it is gaining momentum lately) although an inheritance pattern is definitely better when the dependencies between the classes is so much so that composing the dependencies entirely would be ugly.
Case 2:
you need to implement 2 interfaces, IShark and IMosquito, with the same signature, a public bite method, on the OuterClass.
but you want to display 2 different messages since a shark's bite is a tad different from that of a mosquito's.
however you know that's not possible since only one bite method can be implemented
you know you can create 2 different classes in the same package that implement either interfaces and also implement separate bite methods and have them composed in OuterClass.
but you wanted to get it done within OuterClass because it was your design decision to encapsulate the bite behaviour within it, maybe because there was a dependency on a private variable within the class.
soon you realise you can implement both the interfaces via private static inner classes and make it appear to the outside world as though it was composed.
Take a look at this code:
// no additional classes in the package
public class InterfaceTester{
public static void main(String []args){
// same class returns 2 instances - both compliant to
// either interfaces and yet different output
IShark shark = OuterClass.getSharkInstance();
System.out.println(shark.bite()); // outputs "Die fast bosedk!"
IMosquito mosquito = OuterClass.getMosquitoInstance();
System.out.println(mosquito.bite()); // outputs "Die slow bosedk!"
}
}
interface IShark{
public String bite();
}
interface IMosquito{
public String bite();
}
class OuterClass implements IShark{
// dependency of inner class on private variable
private static String dieSlow = "Die slow bosedk!";
private static String dieFast = "Die fast bosedk!";
private static OuterClass outerInst;
private static InnerClass innerInst;
// private constructor to stop regular instantiation
private OuterClass(){}
// get a shark !
public static IShark getSharkInstance(){
return outerInst != null ? outerInst : new OuterClass();
}
// get a mosquito !
public static IMosquito getMosquitoInstance(){
return innerInst != null ? innerInst : new InnerClass();
}
// an implementation of bite
public String bite(){
return dieFast;
}
// inner class that implements the second interface
private static class InnerClass implements IMosquito{
// different implementation of bite
public String bite(){
return dieSlow;
}
}
}
These kind of design decision cases are numerous and all of the answers above list several such cases. So it would not be wrong to think that this feature was introduced more as a new pattern than as a feature or functionality.

Conceptually inner classes can be used to represent types in the universe that would not exist without that parent type. In other words, with a language that allows inner classes, the types are all 'type definers'. A type can then be considered something that explicitly or implicitly defines new types.
For example, imagine we have a universe where "Food" can be applied to anything. Even itself. Food is a fundamental concept in our universe. We introduce a subclass of Food called Meat. Without that concept, there is no such thing as "Meat Eater". So we can (note 'can') define a nested type "Meat.Eater" (which could implement an IEater interface) and define animals as being a containment structure of lists of different IEaters.
Once we remove Meat from the universe, Meat Eater disappears to.
This same philosophy applies neatly to more abstract and technically useful arrangements such as Mementos in the Memento Design Pattern , a configuration object defined as a nested class, and other type-specific behaviours or structures.

It also increases encapsulation because inner classes can be declared private.

I would just consider that this is just a feature of language. I would not recommend to use it if we adopt OOD and obey the SOLID principle.

Java final abstract class

I have a quite simple question:
I want to have a Java Class, which provides one public static method, which does something. This is just for encapsulating purposes (to have everything important within one separate class)...
This class should neither be instantiated, nor being extended. That made me write:
final abstract class MyClass {
static void myMethod() {
...
}
... // More private methods and fields...
}
(though I knew, it is forbidden).
I also know, that I can make this class solely final and override the standard constructor while making it private.
But this seems to me more like a "Workaround" and SHOULD more likely be done by final abstract class...
And I hate workarounds. So just for my own interest: Is there another, better way?

You can't get much simpler than using an enum with no instances.
public enum MyLib {;
public static void myHelperMethod() { }
}
This class is final, with explicitly no instances and a private constructor.
This is detected by the compiler rather than as a runtime error. (unlike throwing an exception)

Reference: Effective Java 2nd Edition Item 4 "Enforce noninstantiability with a private constructor"
public final class MyClass { //final not required but clearly states intention
//private default constructor ==> can't be instantiated
//side effect: class is final because it can't be subclassed:
//super() can't be called from subclasses
private MyClass() {
throw new AssertionError()
}
//...
public static void doSomething() {}
}

No, what you should do is create a private empty constructor that throws an exception in it's body. Java is an Object-Oriented language and a class that is never to be instantiated is itself a work-around! :)
final class MyLib{
private MyLib(){
throw new IllegalStateException( "Do not instantiate this class." );
}
// static methods go here
}

No, abstract classes are meant to be extended. Use private constructor, it is not a workaround - it is the way to do it!

Declare the constructor of the class to be private. That ensure noninstantiability and prevents subclassing.

The suggestions of assylias (all Java versions) and Peter Lawrey (>= Java5) are the standard way to go in this case.
However I'd like to bring to your attention that preventing a extension of a static utility class is a very final decision that may come to haunt you later, when you find that you have related functionality in a different project and you'd in fact want to extend it.
I suggest the following:
public abstract MyClass {
protected MyClass() {
}
abstract void noInstancesPlease();
void myMethod() {
...
}
... // More private methods and fields...
}
This goes against established practice since it allows extension of the class when needed, it still prevents accidental instantiation (you can't even create an anonymous subclass instance without getting a very clear compiler error).
It always pisses me that the JDK's utility classes (eg. java.util.Arrays) were in fact made final. If you want to have you own Arrays class with methods for lets say comparison, you can't, you have to make a separate class. This will distribute functionality that (IMO) belongs together and should be available through one class. That leaves you either with wildly distributed utility methods, or you'd have to duplicate every one of the methods to your own class.
I recommend to never make such utility classes final. The advantages do not outweight the disadvantages in my opinion.

You can't mark a class as both abstract and final. They have nearly opposite
meanings. An abstract class must be subclassed, whereas a final class must not be
subclassed. If you see this combination of abstract and final modifiers, used for a class or method declaration, the code will not compile.

This is very simple explanation in plain English.An abstract class cannot be instantiated and can only be extended.A final class cannot be extended.Now if you create an abstract class as a final class, how do you think you're gonna ever use that class, and what is,in reality, the rationale to put yourself in such a trap in the first place?

Check this Reference Site..
Not possible. An abstract class without being inherited is of no use and hence will result in compile time error.
Thanks..

Is static inner class thread safe inside another java class?

For collection of smaller helper utility classes, I have created a general class MyUtils:
// MyUtils.java
public final class MyUtils
{
public static class Helper1 {};
public static class Helper2 {};
//...
}
This helper classes from inside MyUtils will be used in the other files of the package:
// MyClass1.java
public class MyClass1
{
private MyUtils.Helper1 help1 = new MyUtils.Helper1();
public void method ()
{
private MyUtils.Helper2 help2 = new MyUtils.Helper2();
}
}
To let them accessible, I have made them static inside MyUtils (which doesn't have any data/function member of its own). My code is thread safe before creating MyUtils.
My worry is, by making these inner classes staticwill they remain thread safe, when their multiple instances will exist across the files ? Or is their any bad implication am I missing due to making them static ?
Edit: I am not touching any shared variable inside the helper classes. My only concern was that will the instance of the static classes be thread safe (since they are static).

If you're asking whether these is any bad implication of going from:
public class Helper1 {}
...to:
public class MyUtils {
public static class Helper1 {}
}
Then no, there is not. The static keyword in this case is just "promoting" the nested inner class to a top-level class, so that you can instantiate it without needing an enclosing instance of MyUtils. Here is a passable article on the subject:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/1999-08/01-qa-static2.html
In essence, doing public static class X on a nested inner-class is the same as doing public class X in a standard top-level class.

There is no meaning to a "class" itself being thread-safe or not thread safe. Therefore, whether or not it is static is irrelevant.
When someone refers to a class being thread-safe or not thread-safe, they really mean that the functionalities provided by that class are thread-safe or not. Accordingly, it's what the inner classes do themselves that actually makes the difference.
There's nothing inherent about methods that make them unsafe to be reentrant. Problems arise when you start accessing shared variables, etc. So, for example, a member of the class accessed by the methods needs to be synchronized appropriately. But if the methods don't store any state, etc., then there's nothing stopping you from using them across multiple threads.
Hope that helps.

You will need to guard the access to help1 since this is an instance level (shared) variable.
While help2 is safe if you dont allow it to skip the method.
There is nothing special about the static classes and instance created out of it.
Same rules of thread safety applies to instances of static classes also which applies to normal cases.

static methods and inner classes don't have any access to the variables of their dynamic counter part, and consequently can't use monitors/synchronize on an instance of their parent class. Of course this doesn't mean that declaring them and using them is inherently non-thread safe. It's just that if you need to synchronize any of those static methods on an instance of the parent class, then you need to be sure that you synchronize/lock before entering them or else you must explicitly pass a reference to a parent instance into them.

I have got the answer. Making MyUtils an interface is more cleaner design, as I can get away with the static identifienr from the helper classes

Why would a static nested interface be used in Java?

I have just found a static nested interface in our code-base.
class Foo {
public static interface Bar {
/* snip */
}
/* snip */
}
I have never seen this before. The original developer is out of reach. Therefore I have to ask SO:
What are the semantics behind a static interface? What would change, if I remove the static? Why would anyone do this?

The static keyword in the above example is redundant (a nested interface is automatically "static") and can be removed with no effect on semantics; I would recommend it be removed. The same goes for "public" on interface methods and "public final" on interface fields - the modifiers are redundant and just add clutter to the source code.
Either way, the developer is simply declaring an interface named Foo.Bar. There is no further association with the enclosing class, except that code which cannot access Foo will not be able to access Foo.Bar either. (From source code - bytecode or reflection can access Foo.Bar even if Foo is package-private!)
It is acceptable style to create a nested interface this way if you expect it to be used only from the outer class, so that you do not create a new top-level name. For example:
public class Foo {
public interface Bar {
void callback();
}
public static void registerCallback(Bar bar) {...}
}
// ...elsewhere...
Foo.registerCallback(new Foo.Bar() {
public void callback() {...}
});

The question has been answered, but one good reason to use a nested interface is if its function is directly related to the class it is in. A good example of this is a Listener. If you had a class Foo and you wanted other classes to be able to listen for events on it, you could declare an interface named FooListener, which is ok, but it would probably be more clear to declare a nested interface and have those other classes implement Foo.Listener (a nested class Foo.Event isn't bad along with this).

Member interfaces are implicitly static. The static modifier in your example can be removed without changing the semantics of the code. See also the the Java Language Specification 8.5.1. Static Member Type Declarations

An inner interface has to be static in order to be accessed. The interface isn't associated with instances of the class, but with the class itself, so it would be accessed with Foo.Bar, like so:
public class Baz implements Foo.Bar {
...
}
In most ways, this isn't different from a static inner class.

Jesse's answer is close, but I think that there is a better code to demonstrate why an inner interface may be useful. Look at the code below before you read on. Can you find why the inner interface is useful? The answer is that class DoSomethingAlready can be instantiated with any class that implements A and C; not just the concrete class Zoo. Of course, this can be achieved even if AC is not inner, but imagine concatenating longer names (not just A and C), and doing this for other combinations (say, A and B, C and B, etc.) and you easily see how things go out of control. Not to mention that people reviewing your source tree will be overwhelmed by interfaces that are meaningful only in one class.So to summarize, an inner interface enables the construction of custom types and improves their encapsulation.
class ConcreteA implements A {
:
}
class ConcreteB implements B {
:
}
class ConcreteC implements C {
:
}
class Zoo implements A, C {
:
}
class DoSomethingAlready {
interface AC extends A, C { }
private final AC ac;
DoSomethingAlready(AC ac) {
this.ac = ac;
}
}

To answer your question very directly, look at Map.Entry.
Map.Entry
also this may be useful
Static Nested Inerfaces blog Entry

Typically I see static inner classes. Static inner classes cannot reference the containing classes wherease non-static classes can. Unless you're running into some package collisions (there already is an interface called Bar in the same package as Foo) I think I'd make it it's own file. It could also be a design decision to enforce the logical connection between Foo and Bar. Perhaps the author intended Bar to only be used with Foo (though a static inner interface won't enforce this, just a logical connection)

If you will change class Foo into interface Foo the "public" keyword in the above example will be also redundant as well because
interface defined inside another interface will implicitly public
static.

In 1998, Philip Wadler suggested a difference between static interfaces and non-static interfaces.
So far as I can see, the only difference in making an
interface non-static is that it can now include non-static inner
classes; so the change would not render invalid any existing Java
programs.
For example, he proposed a solution to the Expression Problem, which is the mismatch between expression as "how much can your language express" on the one hand and expression as "the terms you are trying to represent in your language" on the other hand.
An example of the difference between static and non-static nested interfaces can be seen in his sample code:
// This code does NOT compile
class LangF<This extends LangF<This>> {
interface Visitor<R> {
public R forNum(int n);
}
interface Exp {
// since Exp is non-static, it can refer to the type bound to This
public <R> R visit(This.Visitor<R> v);
}
}
His suggestion never made it in Java 1.5.0. Hence, all other answers are correct: there is no difference to static and non-static nested interfaces.

In Java, the static interface/class allows the interface/class to be used like a top-level class, that is, it can be declared by other classes. So, you can do:
class Bob
{
void FuncA ()
{
Foo.Bar foobar;
}
}
Without the static, the above would fail to compile. The advantage to this is that you don't need a new source file just to declare the interface. It also visually associates the interface Bar to the class Foo since you have to write Foo.Bar and implies that the Foo class does something with instances of Foo.Bar.
A description of class types in Java.

Static means that any class part of the package(project) can acces it without using a pointer. This can be usefull or hindering depending on the situation.
The perfect example of the usefullnes of "static" methods is the Math class. All methods in Math are static. This means you don't have to go out of your way, make a new instance, declare variables and store them in even more variables, you can just enter your data and get a result.
Static isn't always that usefull. If you're doing case-comparison for instance, you might want to store data in several different ways. You can't create three static methods with identical signatures. You need 3 different instances, non-static, and then you can and compare, caus if it's static, the data won't change along with the input.
Static methods are good for one-time returns and quick calculations or easy obtained data.