In a recent question, someone asked about static methods and one of the answers stated that you generally call them with something like:
MyClassName.myStaticMethod();
The comments on that also stated that you could also call it via an object with:
MyClassName myVar;
myVar.myStaticMethod();
but that it was considered bad form.
Now it seems to me that doing this can actually make my life easier so I don't have to worry about what's static or not (a).
Is there some problem with calling static functions via an object? Obviously you wouldn't want to create a brand new object just to call it:
Integer xyzzy;
int plugh = xyzzy.parseInt ("42", 10);
But, if you already have an object of the desired type, is there a problem in using it?
(a) Obviously, I can't call a non-static method with:
MyClassName.myNonStaticMethod();
but that's not the issue I'm asking about here.
In my opinion, the real use case that makes this so unreadable is something like this. What does the code below print?
//in a main method somewhere
Super instance = new Sub();
instance.method();
//...
public class Super {
public static void method() {
System.out.println("Super");
}
}
public class Sub extends Super {
public static void method() {
System.out.println("Sub");
}
}
The answer is that it prints "Super", because static methods are not virtual. Even though instance is-a Sub, the compiler can only go on the type of the variable which is Super. However, by calling the method via instance rather than Super, you are subtly implying that it will be virtual.
In fact, a developer reading the instance.method() would have to look at the declaration of the method (its signature) to know which method it actually being called. You mention
it seems to me that doing this can actually make my life easier so I don't have to worry about what's static or not
But in the case above context is actually very important!
I can fairly confidently say it was a mistake for the language designers to allow this in the first place. Stay away.
The bad form comment comes from the Coding Conventions for Java
See http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconventions-137265.html#587
The reason for it, if you think about it, is that the method, being static, does not belong to any particular object. Because it belongs to the class, why would you want to elevate a particular object to such a special status that it appears to own a method?
In your particular example, you can use an existing integer through which to call parseInt (that is, it is legal in Java) but that puts the reader's focus on that particular integer object. It can be confusing to readers, and therefore the guidance is to avoid this style.
Regarding this making life easier for you the programmer, turn it around and ask what makes life easier on the reader? There are two kinds of methods: instance and static. When you see a the expression C.m and you know C is a class, you know m must be a static method. When you see x.m (where x is an instance) you can't tell, but it looks like an instance method and so most everyone reserves this syntax for instance methods only.
It's a matter of communication. Calling a method on an instance implies you're acting on/with that particular instance, not on/with the instance's class.
It might get super confusing when you have an object that inherits from another object, overriding its static method. Especially if you're referring to the object as a type of its ancestor class. It wouldn't be obvious as to which method you're running.
Related
I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.
Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.
Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.
They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.
Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.
The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.
Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}
It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.
The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.
Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)
There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.
It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")
I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.
I am new to JAVA, and I like to try and understand everything.
When accessing a static method "hero.returnHp()" in JAVA, I have the following:
hero Mike = new hero();
Mike.returnHp();
The program runs fine, but I notice that Eclipse has a warning stating, "The static method from the type hero should be accessed in a static way." When I accept the auto-fix, it changes "Mike.returnHp();" to "hero.returnHp();".
So I have two questions:
1) What is the advantage of this?
2) If I created two objects of the same type, how would I specify which one to return when accessing in a static way?
Thanks!
I would first like to point out what the keyword static means.
Static variables only exist once per class – that is, if you create a class with a static variable then all instances of that class will share that one variable. Furthermore, if it’s a public static variable, then anyone can access the variable without having to first create an instance of that class – they just call Hero.staticVariableName;
Static method/functions are stateless. That is, they act only on information (1) provided by arguments passed to the method/function, or (2) in static variables (named above), or (3) that is hard-coded into the method/function (e.g. you create a static function to return “hello” – then “hello” is hard-coded into the function).
The reason why Eclipse wants you to access static methods in a static way is because it lets you and subsequent programmers see that the method you’re accessing is static (this helps to prevent mistakes). The function will run either way you do it, but the correct way to do it is to access static functions in a static way. Remember that if you call a static method, no matter what instance variable you call it from (Tim.returnHp, Jim.returnHp, Mike.returnHp, whatever) you will call the same function from the hero class and you will see the exact same behavior no matter who you call it from.
If you created two objects of the same type then you COULD NOT specify which one to return when accessing in a static way; static functions/methods will refer to the entire Hero class.
Can you explain what you’re trying to do so that we can offer more specific feedback? It’s quite possible that returnHp() shouldn’t be static.
Is that “return hit points”? If it is, then you do NOT want it static because the number of hit points that a hero has is part of the hero’s state, and static methods are stateless. (Think of state like the current condition – alive, dead, wounded, attacking, defending, some combination of the aforementioned, etc.) I would recommend going into the Hero class and changing returnHp to a non-static method.
Now… I know you didn’t ask, but I would like to advise you of something:
Class names (such as Hero) should be capitalized. Instance variable names (such as mike) should be lowercase. This is a widely accepted naming convention and it will increase the readability of your code.
Jeff
A static method is one which belongs to a class but not to an object. In your example above, you have created an object Mike of class hero. The method returnHp() is static, and belongs to the hero class, not the hero objects (such as Mike).
You will likely get an IDE or compiler warning when you reference a static method from an object, because it should never be tied to that object, only to its class.
Based on the method name, I would guess it shouldn't be static.
class hero {
private float hp;
public float returnHp() { // Should NOT be "public static float ..."
return hp;
}
}
The JavaDocs on class members has a brief discussion on statics as well. You may want to check that out.
A static method is completely independent of any instances of the class.
Consider that this works, and does not result in a NullPointerException:
hero Mike = null;
Mike.returnHp();
(by the way, class names should start with a capital, and variable names be lowercased).
Here is another neat example: Being a static method, Thread.sleep always sleeps the current thread, even if you try to call it on another thread instance.
The static method should be called by class name, not through an instance, because otherwise it is very confusing, mostly because there is no dynamic dispatch as static methods cannot be overridden in subclasses:
hero Tim = new superhero(); // superhero extends hero
Tim.returnHp(); // still calls the method in hero, not in superhero
You are getting a compiler warning now, but many people say that this was a design mistake and should be an error.
It is part of the JVM spec.
You don't need to. A static method is common between instances of a class, your confusion arises from thinking it is an instance method.
static means a static way. One reason to use static is you can access it using class directly. that is its benefit. that is why main is always static. The entrance function don't need to create an instance first.
Actually if you search static in google, and understand it deeply. U will know when and why use static.
Following this tutorial:
http://developer.android.com/training/notepad/notepad-ex2.html
In Step 2, this method gets called:
registerForContextMenu(getListView());
which is a public method of Activity. Now, I'm a bit of a Java newbie here - I thought if you wanted to call an instance method of a superclass you needed to preface it with this. E.g.
this.registerForContextMenu(getListView());
Is it just a style thing here? Is there any difference between
this.registerForContextMenu
and simply
registerForContextMenu
No, there is no difference.
You don't have to use this., but it is often done anyway to make the code clearer.
For one thing, it makes it easy to tell if a method is static or not if you use the convention of calling instance methods like this:
this.registerForContextMenu()
and static methods like this:
ClassName.staticRegisterForContextMenu()
you do not have to use this. If you ommit it it is assumed you called method in this scope. One particular example when this may help could be i.e.:
Boolean someVar;
public function setMe( Boolean someVar ) {
this.someVar = someVar;
}
In this case, w/o this you would get the error.
To call a method of superclass either you need object of superclss or keyword super .
eg.
superObject.superclassMethod();
super.superclassMethod();
this is a reference of the current object. this can be used to call method of a class in which it is used. this can never be used to call a superclass method.
As for
this.registerForContextMenu()
and
registerForContextMenu()
no such difference. you can use either of them.
Both ways are correct for calling a method on the current (this) instance of the class. Non private methods are inherited from super classes, so you can use the same syntax to call such methods.
Overriding a method can be prevented by using the keyword final, likewise how to prevent overloading?
You can't. Because it's almost pointless.
If you want to overload the method handle(..) but you are disallowed to, you'd create doHandle(..) instead.
Which overloaded method is used is determined at compile time (in contrast to overridden methods, which are determined at runtime). So the point of overloading is sharing a common name for common operations. Disallowing that is a matter of code-style, rather than anything else.
You can't do that in Java.
An overloaded method is basically just another method.
An attempt could look (something) like this
void yourMethod(String arg) { /* ... */ }
void yourMethod(String arg, Object... prevent) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
but it won't work since Java resolves overloading by looking at the "best match" or "most specific signature".
The method could still be overloaded with a
void yourMethod(String arg, String arg2) { /* ... */ }
which would be called when doing yourMethod("hello", "world").
Btw, why would you want to prevent overloading? Perhaps there is another way of doing what you want?
Err... what's the point in not allowing to Overload the method?
Protection from Overriding is allowed because it can be done by another programmer who is supposedly working on another part of code and his class is inherited from your class.
Overloading is done in the same class and is logically supposed to be done by a programmer who knows this code and is working on the same part of the code. So, if he knows this code (theoretically) and there is some inherent danger in overloading, then he should know this already because he knows the code.
That said, overloading cannot be stopped as others have already described.
Mark the class final and it can't be extended. That may defeat some other purpose though.
If you overload a method, you've created a method with the same name but different parameter types. In Java, a method is defined (partly) in terms of its parameters, and thus if two methods have the same name but different parameters, then they are apples and oranges, i.e., not the same. In short, you can't prevent someone from creating new methods in a class, which is essentially what you're asking for.
simple! don't call that overloaded method.
public class Test
{
public void m(int a)
{
*your definition*
}
public void m(float a)
{
*your definition*
}
}
public static void main(Strings [] args)
{
Test t=new Test();
t.m(5);
}
Overriding and Overloading are different techniques. Overloading is a way of declaring multiple methods with the same names but different parameter types or different no of parameters.
You can prevent a method from being overwritten by making it final, but you cannot prevent a method from being overloaded. Well technically you could make the class itself final, so that no methods at all can be added by creating a subclass but I don't think that's a good design.
I'm sure you all know the behaviour I mean - code such as:
Thread thread = new Thread();
int activeCount = thread.activeCount();
provokes a compiler warning. Why isn't it an error?
EDIT:
To be clear: question has nothing to do with Threads. I realise Thread examples are often given when discussing this because of the potential to really mess things up with them. But really the problem is that such usage is always nonsense and you can't (competently) write such a call and mean it. Any example of this type of method call would be barmy. Here's another:
String hello = "hello";
String number123AsString = hello.valueOf(123);
Which makes it look as if each String instance comes with a "String valueOf(int i)" method.
Basically I believe the Java designers made a mistake when they designed the language, and it's too late to fix it due to the compatibility issues involved. Yes, it can lead to very misleading code. Yes, you should avoid it. Yes, you should make sure your IDE is configured to treat it as an error, IMO. Should you ever design a language yourself, bear it in mind as an example of the kind of thing to avoid :)
Just to respond to DJClayworth's point, here's what's allowed in C#:
public class Foo
{
public static void Bar()
{
}
}
public class Abc
{
public void Test()
{
// Static methods in the same class and base classes
// (and outer classes) are available, with no
// qualification
Def();
// Static methods in other classes are available via
// the class name
Foo.Bar();
Abc abc = new Abc();
// This would *not* be legal. It being legal has no benefit,
// and just allows misleading code
// abc.Def();
}
public static void Def()
{
}
}
Why do I think it's misleading? Because if I look at code someVariable.SomeMethod() I expect it to use the value of someVariable. If SomeMethod() is a static method, that expectation is invalid; the code is tricking me. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Bizarrely enough, Java won't let you use a potentially uninitialized variable to call a static method, despite the fact that the only information it's going to use is the declared type of the variable. It's an inconsistent and unhelpful mess. Why allow it?
EDIT: This edit is a response to Clayton's answer, which claims it allows inheritance for static methods. It doesn't. Static methods just aren't polymorphic. Here's a short but complete program to demonstrate that:
class Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Base.foo()");
}
}
class Derived extends Base
{
static void foo()
{
System.out.println("Derived.foo()");
}
}
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Base b = new Derived();
b.foo(); // Prints "Base.foo()"
b = null;
b.foo(); // Still prints "Base.foo()"
}
}
As you can see, the execution-time value of b is completely ignored.
Why should it be an error? The instance has access to all the static methods. The static methods can't change the state of the instance (trying to is a compile error).
The problem with the well-known example that you give is very specific to threads, not static method calls. It looks as though you're getting the activeCount() for the thread referred to by thread, but you're really getting the count for the calling thread. This is a logical error that you as a programmer are making. Issuing a warning is the appropriate thing for the compiler to do in this case. It's up to you to heed the warning and fix your code.
EDIT: I realize that the syntax of the language is what's allowing you to write misleading code, but remember that the compiler and its warnings are part of the language too. The language allows you to do something that the compiler considers dubious, but it gives you the warning to make sure you're aware that it could cause problems.
They cannot make it an error anymore, because of all the code that is already out there.
I am with you on that it should be an error.
Maybe there should be an option/profile for the compiler to upgrade some warnings to errors.
Update: When they introduced the assert keyword in 1.4, which has similar potential compatibility issues with old code, they made it available only if you explicitly set the source mode to "1.4". I suppose one could make a it an error in a new source mode "java 7". But I doubt they would do it, considering that all the hassle it would cause. As others have pointed out, it is not strictly necessary to prevent you from writing confusing code. And language changes to Java should be limited to the strictly necessary at this point.
Short answer - the language allows it, so its not an error.
The really important thing, from the compiler's perspective, is that it be able to resolve symbols. In the case of a static method, it needs to know what class to look in for it -- since it's not associated with any particular object. Java's designers obviously decided that since they could determine the class of an object, they could also resolve the class of any static method for that object from any instance of the object. They choose to allow this -- swayed, perhaps, by #TofuBeer's observation -- to give the programmer some convenience. Other language designers have made different choices. I probably would have fallen into the latter camp, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I probably would allow the usage that #TofuBeer mentions, but having allowed it my position on not allowing access from an instance variable is less tenable.
Likely for the same logical that makes this not an error:
public class X
{
public static void foo()
{
}
public void bar()
{
foo(); // no need to do X.foo();
}
}
It isn't an error because it's part of the spec, but you're obviously asking about the rationale, which we can all guess at.
My guess is that the source of this is actually to allow a method in a class to invoke a static method in the same class without the hassle. Since calling x() is legal (even without the self class name), calling this.x() should be legal as well, and therefore calling via any object was made legal as well.
This also helps encourage users to turn private functions into static if they don't change the state.
Besides, compilers generally try to avoid declaring errors when there is no way that this could lead to a direct error. Since a static method does not change the state or care about the invoking object, it does not cause an actual error (just confusion) to allow this. A warning suffices.
The purpose of the instance variable reference is only to supply the type which encloses the static. If you look at the byte code invoking a static via instance.staticMethod or EnclosingClass.staticMethod produces the same invoke static method bytecode. No reference to the instance appears.
The answer as too why it's in there, well it just is. As long as you use the class. and not via an instance you will help avoid confusion in the future.
Probably you can change it in your IDE (in Eclipse Preferences -> Java -> Compiler -> Errors/Warnings)
There's not option for it. In java (like many other lang.) you can have access to all static members of a class through its class name or instance object of that class. That would be up to you and your case and software solution which one you should use that gives you more readability.
It's pretty old topic but still up-to-date and surprisingly bringing higher impact nowadays. As Jon mentioned, it might be just a mistake Java's designers made at the very beginning. But I wouldn't imagine before it can have impact on security.
Many coders know Apache Velocity, flexible and powerful template engine. It's so powerful that it allows to feed template with a set of named objects - stricly considered as objects from programming language (Java originally). Those objects can be accessed from within template like in programming language so for example Java's String instance can be used with all its public fields, properties and methods
$input.isEmpty()
where input is a String, runs directly through JVM and returns true or false to Velocity parser's output). So far so good.
But in Java all objects inherit from Object so our end-users can also put this to the template
$input.getClass()
to get an instance of String Class.
And with this reference they can also call a static method forName(String) on this
$input.getClass().forName("java.io.FileDescriptor")
use any class name and use it to whatever web server's account can do (deface, steal DB content, inspect config files, ...)
This exploit is somehow (in specific context) described here: https://github.com/veracode-research/solr-injection#7-cve-2019-17558-rce-via-velocity-template-by-_s00py
It wouldn't be possible if calling static methods from reference to the instance of class was prohibited.
I'm not saying that a particular programming framework is better than the other one or so but I just want to put a comparison. There's a port of Apache Velocity for .NET. In C# it's not possible to call static methods just from instance's reference what makes exploit like this useless:
$input.GetType().GetType("System.IO.FileStream, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089")
I just consider this:
instanceVar.staticMethod();
to be shorthand for this:
instanceVar.getClass().staticMethod();
If you always had to do this:
SomeClass.staticMethod();
then you wouldn't be able to leverage inheritance for static methods.
That is, by calling the static method via the instance you don't need to know what concrete class the instance is at compile time, only that it implements staticMethod() somewhere along the inheritance chain.
EDIT: This answer is wrong. See comments for details.