We Keep Coding

Understanding scope of objects in Java. Is there a better way?

I think I am missing something. I want to call a method in an object from a statement in an object of a different class but if I do that the compiler tells me that it cannot find symbol.
public class Test1
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
Second secondObj1 = new Second();
Third thirdObj1= new Third();
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1();
}
}
class Second
{
int m1;
Second()
{
m1 = 0;
}
public void methodinSecond()
{
System.out.println(m1);
}
}
class Third
{
void accessMethodinSecondObj1()
{
secondObj1.methodinSecond();
}
}
So what I am trying to do is run method secondObj1.methodinSecond() from thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1(). Obviously, this example is a bit silly but it is related to a real problem - but I feel the full code would be too confusing.
I can solve the problem by passing the object reference for secondObj1 to thirdObj1 by changing the signature etc., but it seems very convoluted. Maybe there is a better way?
It seems to me that because I declared secondObj1 in the main method then the object itself is only visible within the main scope? Is there no way to allow objects of Second and Third to "talk" to each other directly, meaning call each other's methods?

secondObj1 is a local variable of the main method. A local variable is visible only in the block where it's declared. So it's visible only inside the main method. Not inside the method accessMethodinSecondObj1 of Third.
If you want this method to access the object referenced by `secondObj1, you need to pass that object as argument to the method:
In main:
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1(secondObj1);
In Third:
void accessMethodinSecondObj1(Second s) {
s.methodinSecond();
}
Just like, to print the value of m1, you pass m1 as argument to the method println() of System.out.

The compiler message is about scope, yes.
But there is a more fundmental flaw in your code. What is you have another Second object and you want to call a method in that one? Your Third class objects expect any Second class object to be named 'secondObj1'.
You already indicated an solution, change te signature so that the object of class Second you want to access can be passed:
void accessMethodinSecondObj(Second secondObj)
{
secondObj.methodinSecond();
}
And then:
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj(secondObj1);

You're along the right lines. You are correct that the scope of secondObj1 is limited to the main method where it is created. So how do we pass secondObj1 to thirdObj1, as they're not globally available?
This first thing to note is that these objects have a relationship. Our class Third has a dependency upon Second. Third can't perform its responsibility in accessMethodinSecondObj1() without an instance of Second. In which case, we have a few options.
Thie simplest of which is to inject the dependency where it is needed. In this case, into the accessMethodinSecondObj1() method as such:
public class Third
{
public void accessMethodinSecondObj1(Second secondObj1)
{
secondObj1.methodinSecond();
}
}
To call this from main, simply:
public class Test1
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
Second secondObj1 = new Second();
Third thirdObj1 = new Third();
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1(secondObj1);
}
}
You could inherit from Second as to access its members and methods and call from within thirdObject1.accessMethodinSecondObj1() using super.methodinSecond(). But as we're dealing in abstractions here, it's a difficult solution to suggest as it may not make semantic sense in your domain.
In which case, another option is composition. We inject an instance of Second into Third via the constructor and that instance of Third then owns that instance of Second. By doing so, we ensure Third has an instance of Second (upon which it depends) when this method is called. This also enables the performing of validation operations on the passed instance of Second before we use it in accessMethodinSecondObj1().
public class Third
{
private Second secondObj1;
public Third(Second secondObj1)
{
this.secondObj1 = secondObj1;
}
public void accessMethodinSecondObj1()
{
this.secondObj1.methodinSecond();
}
}
In which case, within main we would do the following:
public class Test1
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
Second secondObj1 = new Second();
Third thirdObj1 = new Third(secondObj1);
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1();
}
}

As we can see
public void methodinSecond()
{
System.out.println(m1);
}
is not static and therefore in
secondObj1.methodinSecond();
you cannot call a method without creating an object if it is non-static
In your main method
Second secondObj = new Second();
the scope of the variable would be only inside the block so if you want to use it in the method of class Third pass it as a parameter to the method
thirdObj1.accessMethodinSecondObj1(secondObj);
and also change the method to
void accessMethodinSecondObj1(Second secondObj)
{
secondObj.methodinSecond();
}

How is the Static method(main) able to grab hold of non static method(constructor) and execute it?

Seems like a very basic query but I was pondering how the static method main() below is able to execute a non static method(the constructor obviously) from it using the new keyword. Though I understand that new brings onto the table a few other things as well but how should I convince myself that this isn't an exception to the rule that static and non static methods can't using non static and static context respectively?
Below is the sample code:
public class ConstructorTest {
ConstructorTest(String str)
{
System.out.println("Constructor Printing "+str);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
ConstructorTest cnst=new ConstructorTest("here");
}
}
The above code actually prints --> Constructor Printing here
or in other words executing the body of a Non static method from a Static method?
Any plausible explanations are welcome.

The Java Tutorial states that
[...] Constructors are not members.
Therefore, there is no problem in calling them, since they are not bound to instances of your class. This would not make sense - hence, you cannot do the following:
Thing thing = new Thing();
Thing anotherThing = thing.Thing();
A constructor is not a method, so you cannot apply "method logic" to them.
In case you want to know more, the whole instantiation process is very well documented in the JLS. See 12.5. Creation of New Class Instances.

Actually constructor is compiled into the static method, this is how JVM internally creates instances of classes.

You are executing non-static code, but you are not doing it in a static context.
for instance:
public class C1{
private int x;
public String do(){ System.out.println("x = " + x);}
public static void main(String[] args){
do();
}
}
This can not work, since do is an instance method, which might run code that is specific to the instance. So, how would the VM know which instance to use, or what value x should have?
Now, to first use a constructor, which is possible from any context:
public class C1{
private int x;
public String do(){ System.out.println("x = " + x);}
public static void main(String[] args){
C1 t = new C1();
t.do();
}
}
Here, even though you are calling the method from within a static method, you are using it through an instance, so not in a static context.

ConstructorTest is not a method.
its an constructor,and you can use the constructor for initialize class property.
you can also initialize the static variable from the constructor like that :-
public class XYZ
{
static int i=0;
public XYZ() {
i=1;//not an compile time error
}
public static void doSome(){}
public static void main(String[] args) {
}
}

On a formal language level you should read the line
ConstructorTest cnst = new ConstructorTest("here")
as a class instance creation expression. As a matter of fact, this is not a call to a constructor or any other method.
The instance creation does many steps, like allocating memory for the new object, initializing the fields, calling constructors and initializer blocks. See JLS §12.5 for a detailed step-by-step description. Thus being said, the constructor invocation is only a part of the instance creation.
Additionally, you might see constructors as being static parts of the class. In fact, constructor declaration are not members (see JLS §8.8) and thus they are not overridable (as static methods also). Beware: This is only half true. When being inside the constructor you already have the instance created, and you are able to call other instance methods and/or access instance fields.

Variable Inheritance in Java

I have a Super class and a bunch of subclasses. I want to have one field that has the same name in every single subclass, but I do not want it to be defined in the super class, or at least I do not want to use that value. This is what I have right now
public abstract class Big {
public String tellMe = "BIG";
public Big() {}
public void theMethod() {
System.out.println ("Big was here: " + tellMe() + ", " + tellMe);
}
public String tellMe() {
return tellMe;
}
}
public class Little extends Big{
public String tellMe = "little";
public Little(){}
public String tellMe() {
return "told you";
}
public static void main(String [] args) {
Little l = new Little();
l.theMethod();
}
}
When I run Little, this is the output
Big was here: told you, BIG
I am not sure why 'told you' is printed out while tellMe refers to "BIG". How can both be true?
My problem is that I want the method tellMe() to be in Big, and to have the variable tellMe (that it will actually return) to be defined in all the subclasses. The only way I can get this to work is as I have written, by rewriting the tellMe() method in each subclass. But doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of inheritance??? Please help
EDIT: I do not use the constructor in my subclasses. All I want is a field that can be set in all subclasses and a method in the super that uses those values. I don't understand why this isn't possible because every subclass would have to implement it, so it would make sense... If this simply is not possible, let me know please

Fields are not virtual, unlike methods. For this reason, it is a bad idea to declare fields with the same name as a field in another class in the hierarchy. The field referred to in theMethod is always going to be from Big (i.e. when you declare a field with the same name, it just hides the old field when in the scope of the replacing class, but doesn't replace it).
One solution would be to override a method that gets the field from the current class:
In theMethod replace the tellMe field with getTellMe() and for all classes override getTellMe() to return the correct value (or the field that hides the superclass's field).

You can overwrite the value of Big.tellMe in the constructor of Little.
get rid of:
public String tellMe = "little";
and change the Little constructor to:
public Little(){
tellMe = "little";
}
at that point, you can get rid of Little.tellMe() also.

What you are doing is hiding the super class field, not overriding it, as the Java documentation states.
And it's also stated that it's not a good idea to do it.
So, the dynamic lookup won't work as for a method. If the variable is read from the son class, it will take "its" field value.
On the top class, the other one.
What you can override in Java is the behaviour, so what I would suggest is to
define a method
public String tellMe() {
return "Whatever";
}
that you can override in the subclasses to return whatever string you need.

Instead of defining tellMe inside of Big (since you said you do not want to define/use that value in Big) you can create a function in Big:
public abstract String tellMeString();
And define that in each subclass like so (for Little):
public String tellMeString()
{
return "Little";
}
Then theMethod can execute:
System.out.println ("Big was here: " + tellMe() + ", " + tellMeString());
In this case you wouldn't have to define a variable "tellMe" at all, you just override tellMeString in each subclass to return different Strings.

Fields are not inherited as you are expected. You can access the super class' field (unless it is private) from subclass. But you cannot "override" field. This is why tellMe used by method implemented in super class Big uses variable defined in the same class.
If you want inheritance use methods. For example you can implement method "tellMe()" that returns "BIG" in super class and "little" in subclass:
class Big {
protected String tellMe() {
return "BIG";
}
}
class Little {
#Override
protected String tellMe() {
return "Little";
}
}
Alternatively you can initialize variable tellMe in constructor:
class Big {
private String tellMe;
public Big() {
this("BIG");
}
protected Big(String tellMe) {
this.tellMe = tellMe;
}
protected String tellMe() {
return "BIG";
}
}
class Little {
public Little() {
super("Little");
}
}
Now new Little().tellMe() will return "Little": the variable in super class was initialized when constructing the object; the method defined in super class returned this variable.

Methods can be overridden, fields are visible at the scope where they're called.
static class Big {
String field = "BIG";
String bark() { return "(big bark)"; }
void doIt() {
System.out.format("field(%s) bark(%s)\n", field,bark());
}
void doIt2() {
System.out.format("2:field(%s) bark(%s)\n", field,bark());
}
}
static class Small extends Big {
String field = "small";
String bark() { return "(small bark)"; }
void doIt2() {
System.out.format("2:field(%s) bark(%s)\n", field,bark());
}
}
public static void main(String... args) {
Big b = new Big();
b.doIt();
b.doIt2();
Small s = new Small();
s.doIt();
s.doIt2();
}
Output is:
field(BIG) bark((big bark))
2:field(BIG) bark((big bark))
field(BIG) bark((small bark))
2:field(small) bark((small bark))
since doIt() is defined in the Big class, it will always see the Big version of field. doIt2() is defined in Big, but overridden in Small. The Big.doIt2() sees the Big version of field, the Small.doIt2() version sees the Small version of field.
As others have pointed out, it's a pretty bad idea to do this - a better approach is to set the new value in the subclass constructor, or to use a method which is overridden.

Static And Non Static Method Intercall In Java

I am clearing my concepts on Java. My knowledge about Java is on far begineer side, so kindly bear with me.
I am trying to understand static method and non static method intercalls. I know --
Static method can call another static method simply by its name within same class.
Static method can call another non staic method of same class only after creating instance of the class.
Non static method can call another static method of same class simply by way of classname.methodname - No sure if this correct ?
My Question is about non static method call to another non staic method of same class. In class declaration, when we declare all methods, can we call another non static method of same class from a non static class ?
Please explain with example. Thank you.

Your #3, is correct, you can call static methods from non-static methods by using classname.methodname.
And your question seems to be asking if you can call non-static methods in a class from other non-static methods, which is also possible (and also the most commonly seen).
For example:
public class Foo {
public Foo() {
firstMethod();
Foo.staticMethod(); //this is valid
staticMethod(); //this is also valid, you don't need to declare the class name because it's already in this class. If you were calling "staticMethod" from another class, you would have to prefix it with this class name, Foo
}
public void firstMethod() {
System.out.println("This is a non-static method being called from the constructor.");
secondMethod();
}
public void secondMethod() {
System.out.println("This is another non-static method being called from a non-static method");
}
public static void staticMethod() {
System.out.println("This is the static method, staticMethod");
}
}

A method is and should be in the first regard be semantically bound to either the class or the instance.
A List of something has a length or size, so you ask for the size of special List. You need an object of that class to call .size ().
A typical, well known example of a static method is Integer.parseInt ("123");. You don't have an Integer instance in that moment, but want to create one.
If, at all, we would bind that method to an instance, we would bind it to a String instance - that would make sense:
int a = "123".parseInt ();
That would have been a reasonable choice, but it would mean that similar methods for float, double, long, short, Boolean and maybe every class which has a symmetric "toString" method would have to be put into String. That would have meant a zillion of extensions to the String class.
Instead String is final, so a reasonable place to put such a method is the target class, like Integer, Float and so on.

not sure that I understand the question correctly, but non-static methods are the standard way to design classes in OO. Maybe this sample will help spark the discussion:
public class MySampleClass{
private void methodA(){
System.out.println('a called');
}
public void methodB(){
this.methodA();
staticMethod(this);
}
private static void staticMethod( MySampleClass inst ){
inst.methodA();
}
}

You can call non-static method from non-static method using explicitly reference to object on which you want to call that method someObject.method, or without specifying that object someMethod() (in this case it will be invoked on same object that you are invoking current non-static method).
Maybe this will show it better
class Demo {
private String name;
public Demo(String n) {
name = n;
}
public String getName() {// non static method
return name;
}
public void test(Demo d) {// non-static method
System.out.println("this object name is: "+getName());// invoking method on this object
System.out.println("some other object name is: "+d.getName());// invoking method on some other object
}
//test
public static void main(String[] args) {
Demo d=new Demo("A");
Demo d2=new Demo("B");
d.test(d2);
}
}
output:
this object name is: A
some other object name is: B

public class TestClass{
public static void testStatic(){
System.out.println("test1");
}
public void testNonStatic(){
System.out.println("test2");
}
public void test1(){
// both is valid
testStatic();
TestClass.testStatic();
// this is valid, cause it can call the method of the same instance of that class
testNonStatic();
this.testNonStatic();
// this is not valid, cause without a concrete instance of a class you cannot call
// non static methods
TestClass.testNonStatic();
}
public static void test2(){
// again these are both correct
testStatic();
TestClass.testStatic();
// this doesn't work, cause you cannot call non static methods out of static methods
testNonStatic();
this.testNonStatic();
// this instead does work cause you have a concrete instance of the object
TestClass myTestClass = new TestClass();
myTestClass.testNonStatic();
// this still doesn't work
TestClass.testNonStatic();
}
}

Java passing subclass instance data to superclass constructors

Does anybody know if there's a way in Java to set the value of an instance variable in a subclass before calling the superclass constructor. I have a brief schematic below of what I'm trying to accomplish -- I need to set up the instance variables defined in the superclass differently depending on the subclass type, but I still want to be able to share common non-constructor code among different instances of the subclass.
Is there any clean way to do this, maybe some sort of coding pattern that I'm missing or something? Thanks in advance for any ideas.
public abstract class ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final Set<Variable> variables;
final Set<Constraint> constraints;
public Foo() {
this.variables = setupVariables();
this.constraints = setupConstraints();
}
public abstract Set<Variable> setupVariables();
public abstract Set<Constraint> setupConstraints();
public Map<Variable, Constraint> solve() { ... }
}
public class WordSquare extends ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final int size;
final static Set<Character> domain = ...;
public WordSquare() {
super(); // can I simulate calling super() after setting this.value = 4?
this.value = 4;
}
public Set<Variable> setupVariables() {
this.variables = new HashSet<Variable>();
for(int row = 0; row < size; ++row) {
for(int col = 0; col < size; ++col) {
variables.add(new Variable<Pair, Character>(new Pair(row, col), domain);
}
}
return this.variables;
}
public Set<Constraint> setupConstraints() {
// setup code specific to this problem
}
}
public class Cryptarithmetic extends ConstraintSatisfactionProblem {
final String problem;
public Cryptarithmetic(String problem) {
super();
this.problem = problem;
}
public Set<Variable> setupVariables() {
this.variables = new HashSet<Variable>();
for(char c : problem.toCharArray()) {
variables.add(new Variable<Character, Integer>(c, getDomain());
}
}
return this.variables;
}
public Set<Constraint> setupConstraints() {
// setup code specific to this problem
}
}

Firstly, please don't.
Secondly, really it's a really bad idea. Don't. Think about what you are trying to do in a broader context.
If you absolutely must do, you can stash it in a ThreadLocal. You can call a (non-instance) method by evaluating an expression the result of which is passed to a super() or this() (possibly the only reason why you need a second, private constructor that possibly takes a Void (capital 'V') argument). It's so evil, I am not going to even write the code down.
In your edited example code, just pass the sets into a protected constructor. If you have many arguments possibly some subclasses being special about some arguments, you might want to wrap all the arguments into a single argument object.
There is another really hacky approach, so long as you have -target 1.4 or later (which you should do!). Make the subclass an inner class (possibly anonymous). The references to the outer this and other captured variables are available before calling the super constructor.
public class Outer {
// What a hack!
private static abstract class Base {
Base() {
hello(); // Calling a virtual method in a constructor - poor form.
}
abstract void hello();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Do not do this.
final String hi = "Hi!";
new Base() {
void hello() {
// Really, don't do it.
System.err.println(hi);
}
};
}
}

Place the common code you want to run in a protected method instead of in the constructor. Call that method when you wish.

You should never call any "alien" method (ie. overridable method of this class, or any method from any other class) form within a constructor. As long as the object is not fully initialized, you may have side-effects like the one you see.
In your case, in the subclass constructor, super() is called even before the "value" is set to 4. This means, the superclass constructor is called, then calls the "setup" method, while the "value" is still at 0.
Only once the superclass constructor returns, the "value" is set to 4. And it's too late then.
What I would recommend, is to set the "o1" variable to protected, so that subclasses can set its value themselves.

In Java, if you want to call a base class's constructor, you have to do it on the first line of your sub-class's constructor. So the answer is no, you can't set this.value before calling the super class's constructor.
But your sub-class's setup() method is already called in the super's constructor. Why don't you set your value there?
UPDATE:
Sorry, I didn't pay attention that your 'setup()' method returns a value. What you could do is make an abstract init() method in your super class, and call it in your super constructor before you call the setup() method. This way sub-classes will be forced to implement init(), and you would know that that is the place to initialize any sub-class's members before they are used in your super-class.
That being said, this approach does not force safety on you. When you call the super constructor from your sub-constructor, the sub-class instance is just starting to get created. It still needs to run the rest of the code in the sub-constructor before the object is safely created.
And in this situation, the super-constructor goes and calls the init() method on your just-in-the-process-of-creation sub-class. This means that if you go with approach, you have to be extra careful about what you do in the init() class.

Like others have said, don't do this. If you want to share some code between these classes, try containment/encapsulation instead of inheritance.
public class Foo {
private final Object o1;
public Foo(Object o) {
o1 = o;
}
public void complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo() { ... }
}
public class Bar {
private final int value;
private final Foo foo;
public Bar() {
super();
this.value = 4;
this.foo = new Foo( new Object() ); // or whatever
}
// If you need to expose complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo to clients of this class, just add the method and delegate to foo like this
public void complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo() {
foo.complexMethodCommonToAllSubclassesOfFoo();
}
}

I need to set up the instance variables defined in the superclass differently depending on the subclass type, but I still want to be able to share common non-constructor code among different instances of the subclass.
In that case, create a protected constructor in the superclass, and pass all of the customized values to it when you construct the subclass.