We Keep Coding

Should static methods be separated from Classes with instance methods?

As a general convention, should static method(s) be separated into another class from a class with instance methods?
Is there also an example of your reason?

There is no general convention that dictates that a static method must be separate from a non-static method. In fact, if the two methods are related enough to one another, it would be counter-intuitive to have the methods separated.
Recall what use case static methods (and fields) have: they're methods/fields that can be used without an instance of a particular class. This generally means that they hold valuable metadata or perform a useful operation that's related to their class instance, but would not require direct instantiation of that class.
Take, for example, Integer. It has the static [final] fields MAX_VALUE and MIN_VALUE. Since both of these fields contain fixed information that would not change between instantiations, it would not make sense to have to instantiate an Integer to get this information.
Integer also has the useful operation parseInt, which takes a String and turns it into an int. We shouldn't require an instance of Integer to convert from String to int, especially if we're not placing it into an instance of Integer.
The overarching convention has been to keep related methods together, regardless of if they're static or not. You can see clearer examples of this in certain Java library classes, like Integer.

It probably is a duplicate question, but no, static methods have very specific benefits that are often valuable in classes that are instantiated as objects.

There is no such convention. It's completely depends on your situation. Some class may really needs mixture of both static and non-static members.
But some times it's is seen the use of Constatns.java/ Utils.java class in some java project. You may found -
public static final double PI = 3.1416;
public static getArea(double r){}
This class contains some final static property and some final method. The purpose of these class to provide some constants or utility method all over the project.

Definitely answer would be dictated by the use case but there is no convention as such. At most you have some Utility class that may have bunch of static methods that are used by other classes as helper methods. For example to test whether a String is an email or to extract username from email etc.

Putting all static methods in a separate class would be useful while writing an API or a framework. Collections class is an example. java.lang.Math or java.lang.System is another.
Normally, define static methods in the following scenarios:
While writing utility classes .
If the method does not use any instance variable.
If any operation is in-dependent of instance creation.
If you are sure that the definition of the method will never be changed or overridden. As static methods can not be overridden.
see here - https://stackoverflow.com/a/5313383/760393

Is there a point to having a class with all non-static methods but no non-static fields? (or all static fields and methods along with a constructor)

I am looking at other peoples' code.
I see a class with no non-static fields but in which most of the methods are non-static, requiring you to make an object to access methods that effectively operate statically.
Is there a possible reason for this, that I am just not understanding?
EDIT
Someone asked for examples. Here is some more info.
For instance there is a file manager class. The only fields are static and are Comparators. There are some methods to do things like sort files in a list, count files, copy files, move files to an archive folder, delete files older than a certain time, or create files (basically take a base name as string, and return a File with given base name and date/time tacked on the end.)
9 non-static methods
5 static methods
I don't see a particular rhyme reason for the ones that are static vs non.
One particularly odd thing is that there are two methods for removing files. One that removes a file no matter what, and one that only removes it if it is empty. The former is a static method while the latter is not. They contain the same exact code except the later first checks if the file.length is 0.
Another odd one is a class that does encryption - all fields and methods are static but it has a constructor that does nothing. And an init() method that checks if a static variable contains an object of itself and if not instantiates an object of itself into that field that is then never actually used. (It seems this is done with a lot of classes - init methods that check for an object of itself in a static variable and if not instantiate itself)
private static File keyfile;
private static String KEYFILE = "enc.key";
private static Scrambler sc;
It has methods to encrypt and decrypt and some methods for dealing with key and file.
Does this make sense to anyone? Am I just not understanding the purpose for this stuff? Or does it seem weird?

Objects don't have to have state. It's a legitimate use case to create an instance of a class with only behaviour.
Why bother to create an instance ? So you can create one and pass it around e.g. imagine some form of calculator which adheres to a particular interface but each instance performs a calculation differently. Different implements of the interface would perform calculations differently.
I quite often create classes with non-static methods and no members. It allows me to encapsulate behaviour, and I can often add members later as the implementation may demand in the future (including non-functionality related stuff such as instrumentation) I don't normally make these methods static since that restricts my future flexibility.

You can certainly do it that way. You should look carefully at what the instance methods are doing. It's perfectly okay if they're all operating only on parameters passed in and static final static class constants.
If that's the case, it's possible to make all those methods static. That's just a choice. I don't know how the original developers would justify either one. Maybe you should ask them.

Let me rephrase this question a bit,
Even though methods are non-static why would one declare fields as static?
I have taken below quoting from Java Docs,
Sometimes, you want to have variables that are common to all objects. This is
accomplished with the static modifier. Fields that have the static modifier in their declaration are called static fields or class variables. They are associated with the class, rather than with any object. Every instance of the class shares a class variable, which is in one fixed location in memory. Any object can change the value of a class variable, but class variables can also be manipulated without creating an instance of the class.
For example, suppose you want to create a number of Bicycle objects and assign each a serial number, beginning with 1 for the first object. This ID number is unique to each object and is therefore an instance variable. At the same time, you need a field to keep track of how many Bicycle objects have been created so that you know what ID to assign to the next one. Such a field is not related to any individual object, but to the class as a whole.
For Bicycle example, kindly refer the Java Docs.

Making all methods non-static allows you to override them. This makes it a lot easier to use this class in testing, because instead of the actual implementation you can use a mock that behaves as you want it for the tests. Static methods are, in my book, a code smell and should be avoided unless there's a good reason (e.g. quite trivial utility methods).
Also, at some point in the future you might want to change the behaviour of the methods in some situation, e.g. in the form of a strategy.
In the case of your encryption class, you might want to hand your class an instance of the encryption class to handle encrypting/decrypting, but be able to configure the details in some other place. That would allow you to change the algorithm and much more easily test your own code without also having to test the encryption.

Difference between using a method in a class to return a value and referencing the exact value itself

Let's say I have a separate GUI class that has a public boolean called "guiWait" and also has a boolean method that returns guiWait.
What's the difference between:
while(gui.guiWait)...
and
while(gui.getGuiWait())...

The difference is visibility. When you make guiWait public to be used like the first example, outside callers can modify the value. If you use a method and make the variable private, callers cannot modify the guiWait variable (although they can modify the object it references if it's mutable). Furthermore, if you make a habit of using getters and setters, then later on if you need to add logic to the getting or setting process (such as you need to make the value derived from some other new field), you already have the methods and won't break any caller's code by making the variable private. So it's considered "best practice" to always use getters and setters in Java.

If guiWait is a public boolean, there is no point in having a "getter" method for it. If it were private or protected, then it'd be a different story. The private-getter method is more flexible because you can change the implementation of the "getting" of that variable, and add checks or whatever inside the method. Private getters/setters also make things clearer and establish which things should be seen by other classes and which are only meant to be used inside a single class they are apart of. If you find you do need a getter for a specific member variable (need some kind of verification or checking), which is very common, then it would be inconsistent to do it just for that variable.

The core concept of OOP is encapsulation. The getter and setter methods (eg. your getguiWait() method) are used so that nobody is able to access the internal fields of an object. This way no one else is able to set the internal fields to an inconsistent/abnormal value. By using the "getter" and "setter" methods (and hiding the inner fields by using private), you ensure that anyone willing to set or get a field will have to go through the checks that you have put up. Example Class Cat can have age as its field. In the setter method you would check that the user input value is not negative. If you allow the age field to be public, someone could potentially set it to negative which would make no sense.

Its the pure concept of Data Encapsulation in JAVA.
A language mechanism for restricting access to some of the object's components.
A language construct that facilitates the bundling of data with the methods (or other functions) operating on that data.
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_encapsulation.htm

Creating Immutable Objects in Java

I'd like to create a few immutable objects for my codebase. What's the best way to really deliver the message that a given class is intended to be immutable? Should I make all of my fields final, and initialize during object construction? (This seems really awkward...) Should I create some Immutable interface, and have objects implement it? (Since Java doesn't have some standard interface behind this, I thought they had some other way of dealing with it.) What's the standard way this is dealt with? (If it's simply done by adding a bunch of comments around the fields exclaiming that they shouldn't be modified once initialized, that's fine too.)

Should I make all of my fields final, and initialize during object construction?
Yes. And ensure that those types are themselves immutable, or that you create copies when you return values from getter methods. And make the class itself final. (Otherwise your class on its own may be immutable, but that doesn't mean that any instance of your class would be immutable - because it could be an instance of a mutable subclass.)
(This seems really awkward...)
It's hard to know what to suggest without knowing how you find it to be awkward - but the builder pattern can often be useful. I usually use a nested static class for that, often with a static factory method. So you end up with:
Foo foo = Foo.newBuilder()
.setName("asd")
.setPoints(10)
.setOtherThings("whatever")
.build();

Yes and no. Making all fields final is not a guarantee in and of itself. If you'd like to get really in-depth with this there are a number of chapters in Effective Java by Joshua Bloch dealing with immutability and the considerations involved. Item 15 in Effective Java covers the bulk of it and references the other items in question.
He offers these five steps:
Don’t provide any methods that modify the object’s state (known as muta-
tors).
Ensure that the class can’t be extended.
Make all fields final.
Make all fields private.
Ensure exclusive access to any mutable components.
One way to learn how to do all of this is to see how the language designers make classes immutable by reviewing the source for classes like String which are immutable (for example see http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b14/java/lang/String.java).

Write a unit test that will fail if your coworkers make the class mutable.
Using Mutability Detector, you can write a test like this:
import static org.mutabilitydetector.unittesting.MutabilityAssert.assertImmutable;
#Test public void isImmutable() {
assertImmutable(MyImmutableThing.class)
}
If a coworker comes along, and, for example, adds a setter method to your class, the test will fail. Your use case is one of the core purposes of Mutability Detector.
Disclaimer: I wrote it.

Unit testing for object immutability

I want to make sure that a given group of objects is immutable.
I was thinking about something along the lines of:
check if every field is private final
check if class is final
check for mutable members
So I guess my question is: is 3. possible ?
I can check recursively whether every member of a class has its fields private final, but this is not enough since a class can have e method named getHaha(param) which adds the given param to an array for instance.
So is there a good way to check if an object is immutable or is it even possible ?
Thanks,

You may want to check out this project:
Mutability Detector
This library attempts to analyse the bytecode of a particular class, to discover if it is immutable or not. It allows testing for this condition in a unit test, as demonstrated in a video available here. It is certainly not perfect (a String field will be considered mutable, and your array example is not handled well) but it's more sophisticated than what FindBugs offers (i.e. only checking that every field is final).
Disclaimer: I wrote it ;-)

If you generate your data model and all its code, you can ensure the possible Data Value objects you create will be immutable to meet your needs.
The problem you have is that there is different forms of immutability. Even String would fail your test Are String, Date, Method immutable? You can prove that a class is strictly immutable this way, but you are likely to be better off generating your data model.

Yes, you can write an immutability detector.
First of all, you are not going to be just writing a method which determines whether a class is immutable; instead, you will need to write an immutability detector class, because it is going to have to maintain some state. The state of the detector will be the detected immutability of all classes which it has examined so far. This is not only useful for performance, but it is actually necessary because a class may contain a circular reference, which would cause a simplistic immutability detector to fall into infinite recursion.
The immutability of a class has four possible values: Unknown, Mutable, Immutable, and Calculating. You will probably want to have a map which associates each class that you have encountered so far to an immutability value. Of course, Unknown does not actually need to be implemented, since it will be the implied state of any class which is not yet in the map.
So, when you begin examining a class, you associate it with a Calculating value in the map, and when you are done, you replace Calculating with either Immutable or Mutable.
For each class, you only need to check the field members, not the code. The idea of checking bytecode is rather misguided.
First of all, you should not check whether a class is final; The finality of a class does not affect its immutability. Instead, a method which expects an immutable parameter should first of all invoke the immutability detector to assert the immutability of the class of the actual object that was passed. This test can be omitted if the type of the parameter is a final class, so finality is good for performance, but strictly speaking not necessary. Also, as you will see further down, a field whose type is of a non-final class will cause the declaring class to be considered as mutable, but still, that's a problem of the declaring class, not the problem of the non-final immutable member class. It is perfectly fine to have a tall hierarchy of immutable classes, in which all the non-leaf nodes must of course be non-final.
You should not check whether a field is private; it is perfectly fine for a class to have a public field, and the visibility of the field does not affect the immutability of the declaring class in any way, shape, or form. You only need to check whether the field is final and its type is immutable.
When examining a class, what you want to do first of all is to recurse to determine the immutability of its super class. If the super is mutable, then the descendant is by definition mutable too.
Then, you only need to check the declared fields of the class, not all fields.
If a field is non-final, then your class is mutable.
If a field is final, but the type of the field is mutable, then your class is mutable. (Arrays are by definition mutable.)
If a field is final, and the type of the field is Calculating, then ignore it and proceed to the next field. If all fields are either immutable or Calculating, then your class is immutable.
If the type of the field is an interface, or an abstract class, or a non-final class, then it is to be considered as mutable, since you have absolutely no control over what the actual implementation may do. This might seem like an insurmountable problem, because it means that wrapping a modifiable collection inside an UnmodifiableCollection will still fail the immutability test, but it is actually fine, and it can be handled with the following workaround.
Some classes may contain non-final fields and still be effectively immutable. An example of this is the String class. Other classes which fall into this category are classes which contain non-final members purely for performance monitoring purposes (invocation counters, etc.), classes which implement popsicle immutability (look it up), and classes which contain members that are interfaces which are known to not cause any side effects. Also, if a class contains bona fide mutable fields but promises not to take them into account when computing hashCode() and equals(), then the class is of course unsafe when it comes to multi-threading, but it can still be considered as immutable for the purpose of using it as a key in a map. So, all these cases can be handled in one of two ways:
Manually adding classes (and interfaces) to your immutability detector. If you know that a certain class is effectively immutable despite the fact that the immutability test for it fails, you can manually add an entry to your detector which associates it with Immutable. This way, the detector will never attempt to check whether it is immutable, it will always just say 'yes, it is.'
Introducing an #ImmutabilityOverride annotation. Your immutability detector can check for the presence of this annotation on a field, and if present, it may treat the field as immutable despite the fact that the field may be non-final or its type may be mutable. The detector may also check for the presence of this annotation on the class, thus treating the class as immutable without even bothering to check its fields.
I hope this helps future generations.

I doubt you can do this with unit tests. The best way would be to be careful during writing the class or looking into the code. Precisely because of the problem that methods on the object can mutate its state which you might not see from the outside. Just because it's discouraged doesn't mean it doesn't happen :-)

Pretty sure it is impossible. Consider this function:
public void doSomething() {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() % 100000 == 0) {
this.innerMember.changeState();
}
}
First, you won't be able to detect it by running every class function, as this function changes the state of object precisely only once in 100 seconds.
Second, you won't be able to detect it by parsing code, as you do not know if changeState() function changes the state of innerMember or not.

This thread can help How do I identify immutable objects in Java. Take a look at the second popular answer, it might be possible to check for any immutability problems with FindBugs. If you run it on every commit then you can call it a unit test :)
EDIT
It seems that FindBugs only check for final, that's not much. You could implement your own rule according to you patterns and classes which you use in the code.