I'm wondering if there is any difference between creating a class in a new file and declaring one inside of another class, would it still be able to be referenced from outside of the class? I'm wondering because it would help my workplace be more organized.
Here is the full documentation for nested classes.
If you want to know when to use inner classes (from link):
Compelling reasons for using nested classes include the following:
It is a way of logically grouping classes that are only used in one
place: If a class is useful to only one other class, then it is
logical to embed it in that class and keep the two together. Nesting
such "helper classes" makes their package more streamlined.
It increases encapsulation: Consider two top-level classes, A and B,
where B needs access to members of A that would otherwise be declared
private. By hiding class B within class A, A's members can be declared
private and B can access them. In addition, B itself can be hidden
from the outside world.
It can lead to more readable and maintainable code: Nesting small
classes within top-level classes places the code closer to where it is
used.
Yes, you can access your inner classes from other classes. (read about controlling access to members of a class).
Here you can find an example on how to access inner class from "outside" of the class.
This question already has answers here:
When to use inner classes in Java for helper classes
(10 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
So I have a ClassA:
public ClassA {
String key;
List<ClassB> value;
}
And this ClassA is mapped to a database table (with 2 columns having key -> list of values) and the values here get stored as a row in there.
public ClassB {
Integer data1;
...
String dataN;
/* constructors and some getters/setters follow */
}
To clarify, ClassB just contains some data that is being stored in database.
When ClassA is being saved, List<ClassB> is being converted to JSON string and getting saved.
There are 2 ways to define ClassB.
Either have it as a regular class
Define it as a inner class(not sure if static or not) inside classA.
ClassB is currently not being used anywhere else in the project.
What do you think should be the right way and why?
I am bit confused regarding nested classes and I cannot distinguish if they are being misused or not.
Personally, if the class is small (for example just an helper) and is not to be used anywhere else, I would prefer doing an inner class. However, this is mostly a matter of opinion.
I think the best in these case is to make sure everyone in your dev team work the same way so it is easier for everyone to debug.
Note that there is a difference between inner class and nested class. A nested (static) class is an inner class declared static, while a simple inner class is normally not static.
Nested static class can be accessed anywhere using Class.NestedStaticClass.
See Nested class documentation for more details and example.
Here an interesting quote from the link I gave u before :
Serialization of inner classes, including local and anonymous classes,
is strongly discouraged. When the Java compiler compiles certain
constructs, such as inner classes, it creates synthetic constructs;
these are classes, methods, fields, and other constructs that do not
have a corresponding construct in the source code. Synthetic
constructs enable Java compilers to implement new Java language
features without changes to the JVM. However, synthetic constructs can
vary among different Java compiler implementations, which means that
.class files can vary among different implementations as well.
Consequently, you may have compatibility issues if you serialize an
inner class and then deserialize it with a different JRE
implementation. See the section Implicit and Synthetic Parameters in
the section Obtaining Names of Method Parameters for more information
about the synthetic constructs generated when an inner class is
compiled.
You might also consider using Anonymous inner class. An anonymous inner class is a class coded directly in the instanciation. For example
new ParentClassName(constructorArgs) {
members..
}
ClassB is currently not being used anywhere else in the project.
I think the key word here is "currently".
If you imagine a situation in which ClassB might be useful in other places in the project (say, if that project grows in a particular way, or if there are other tables that might map to the same structure in the future), then it should probably be a "normal" class.
If the class is logically tied to ClassA. For example, ClassA represents a train and ClassB train cars, which are always related to trains and never to other vehicles which are not trains, then you should define it as a nested class or inner class of ClassA.
Whether to make it nested or inner depends on the type of connection between an object of class ClassB and one of ClassA. It's not always a clear-cut issue, but remember that static nested classes can exist independently of their parent class. (e.g. you can manufacture a train car before you ever create a train object that it will be part of, and you can move train cars between trains), while inner classes always contain an invisible reference to their parent object, and such an object has to exist before you can create an object of the inner class.
All else being equal, I think I would gamble on a static nested class as an initial solution. If I realize that there are other places that need the same class, it's going to be relatively easy to refactor it.
I know this topic has been discussed and killed over and over again, but I still had one doubt which I was hoping someone could help me with or guide me to a pre-existing post on SO.
In traditional C, static variables are stored in data segments and local variables are stored in the stack. Which I would assume will make static variables more expensive to store and maintain when compared to local variables. Right?
When trying to understand in terms of Java or C#, would this be dis-advantage for static classes when compared to singleton class? Since the entire class is loaded into memory before class initialization, I don't see how it can be an advantage unless we have small inline-able functions.
I love Singleton classes, and would hate to see it become an anti-pattern, I am still looking for all the advantages that come with it...and then loose to the argument of thread-safety among others.
-Ivar
Different from C, the static keyword in Java class definition merely means, This is just a normal class like any other class, but it just happens to be declared inside another class to organize the code. In other words, there is no behavioral difference whatsoever between the following 2 way of declaration*:
a)
class SomeOtherClass {
static class Me {
// If you "upgrade" me to a top-level class....
}
}
b)
class Me {
// I won't behave any different....
}
Class definitions are loaded to memory when the class is used for the first time, and this is true for both "static" and "non-static" classes. There are no difference in how memory will be used, either. In older JVMs, objects were always stored in heap. Modern JVMs do allocate objects on stack when that is possible and beneficial, but this optimization is transparent to the coder (it is not possible to influence this behavior via code), and use of the static keyword does not have any effect on this behavior.
Now, back to your original question, as we have seen we really can't compare static classes and Singleton in Java as they are completely different concept in Java (I'm also not sure how static classes would compare with Singleton, but I will focus on Java in this answer). The static keyword in Java is overloaded and has many meanings, so it can be confusing.
Is Singleton automatically an "anti-pattern"? I don't think so. Abuse of Singleton is, but the Singleton pattern itself can have many good uses. It just happens to be abused a lot. If you have legitimate reason to use the Singleton pattern, there is nothing wrong in using it.
*Note: Why write static at all, you might ask. It turns out "non-static" nested classes have their own somewhat complicated memory management implication, and its use is generally discouraged unless you have a good reason (pls refer to other questions for more info).
class SomeOtherClass {
Stuff stuff;
class Me {
void method(){
// I can access the instance variables of the outer instance
// like this:
System.out.println(SomeOtherClass.this.stuff);
// Just avoid using a non-static nested class unless you
// understand what its use is!
}
}
}
Singleton class is essentially a regular top-level class with a private constructor, to guarantee its singleness. Singleton class itself provides a way to grab its instance. Singleton classes are not very easy to test, therefore we tend to stick with the idea of Just Create Once.
static class is essentially a nested class. A nested class is essentially a outer level class which is nested in another class just for packaging convenience. A top-level class can not be declared as static, in Java at least -- you should try it yourself.
would this be dis-advantage for static
classes when compared to singleton
class?
Your this question became somewhat invalid now, according to the above explanation. Furthermore, a static class (of course nested) can also be a singleton.
Further reading:
Inner class in interface vs in class
The differences between one and the other is the memory management, if your app will have to instantiate a lot of things, that will burn the memory like a charm becoming a memory problem, performance and other things...
this could help...
http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.SingletonVsJustCreateOne
http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/SingletonAndMonostate.pdf
I'm afraid it is an anti-pattern:
http://thetechcandy.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/singletons-is-anti-pattern/
In some of my projects and in some books was said to not use inner class (anonymous or not, static or not) - except in some restricted conditions, like EventListeners or Runnables - is a best practice. They even were 'forbiden' in my first industry project.
Is this really a best practice? Why?
(I have to say that I'm using them a lot...)
-- EDIT ---
I can't pick a right answer in all these responses: there's part of rightness on mostly all of them: I'll still use inner classes, but I'll try to use them less often !
In my view, 90% of inner classes in Java code are either entities that are associated with a single class and were thus "shoved in" as inner classes, or anonymous inner classes that exist because Java does not support Lambdas.
I personally don't like seeing complex inner classes. They add complexity to the source file, they make it bigger, they're ugly to deal with in terms of debugging and profiling, etc. I like separating my project into many packages, in which case I can make most entities top-level classes that are restricted to the package.
That leaves me with necessary inner classes - such as action listeners, fake "functional" programming, etc. These are often anonymous and while I'm not a fan (would have preferred a Lambda in many cases), I live with them but don't like them.
I haven't done any C# in years, but I'm wondering if the prevalence of inner classes or whatever the C# equivalent is dropped when they introduced Lambdas.
Cleanliness. It's easier to comprehend code if it's broken into logical pieces, not all mushed into the same file.
That said, I do not consider the judicious use of inner classes to be inappropriate. Sometimes these inner classes only exist for one purpose, so I would then have no problem with their being in the only file in which they are used. However, this does not happen that much in my experience.
Anonymous classes are good to use when doing event based programming especially in swing.
Yes, forbidding inner classes is a useful practice, in that finding out a place forbids them is a good way to warn me off working there, hence preserving my future sanity. :)
As gicappa points out, anonymous inner classes are the closest Java has to closures, and are extremely appropriate for use in situations where passing behaviour into a method is suitable, if nothing else.
As some others said, many times, when you use an anonymous inner class, it is also used on some other places too...
Thus you may easily duplicate inner class code to many places...
This seems not a problem when you are using very simple inner classes to filter/sort collections, using predicates, comparator or anything like that...
But you must know that when you use 3 times an anonymous innerclass that does exactly the same thing (for exemple removing the "" of a Collection), you are actually creating 3 new classes on the java PermGen.
So if everyone use inner classes everywhere, this may lead to an application having a bigger permgen. According to the application this may be a problem... If you are working on the industry, you may program embedded applications that have a limited memory, that should be optimized...
Note this is also why the double curly brace syntax (anonymous innerclass with non-static initialization block) is sometimes considered as an antipattern:
new ArrayList<String>() {{
add("java");
add("jsp");
add("servlets");
}}
You should ask to people who forbids you to use them...
IMHO it all depends on the context...
Anonymous inner classes has benefits in being able to see the fields and variables around the "new" statement. This can make for some very clean design and is a quite nice (but a bit wordy) approach to "how can we make a simple version of lambda statements".
Named inner classes has the benefit of having a name, hopefully telling, which can be documented in the usual way, but which is tied together to the surrounding class. A very nice example is the Builder pattern, where the inner class is responsible for providing state for the initialization process instead of having numerous constructors. Such builders cannot be reused between classes, so it makes perfect sense to have the Builder tied closely to the parent class.
I suggest being cautious when using it if it needs a method parameter. I just found a memory leak related to that. It involves HttpServlet using GrizzlyContinuation.
In short here is the buggy code:
public void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, final HttpServletResponse response){
createSubscription(..., new SubscriptionListener(){
public void subscriptionCreated(final CallController controller) {
response.setStatus(200);
...
controller.resume();
}
public void subscriptionFailed(){
...
}
public void subscriptionTimeout(){
...
}});
}
So since the listener is kept by the subscription the HttpServletResponse is also kept in case the listener needs it (not obvious). Then the HttpServletResponse instance will be release only if the subscription is deleted. If you use an inner class that gets the response in it constructor it can be set to null once the call was resume releasing memory.
Use them but be careful!
Martin
One item that is not mentioned here is that a (non-static) inner class carries a reference to it's enclosing class. More importantly, the inner class has access to private members of it's enclosing class. It could, potentially, break encapsulation.
Don't use an inner-class if you have an option.
Code without inner classes is more maintainable and readable. When you access private data members of the outer class from inner class, JDK compiler creates package-access member functions in the outer class for the inner class to access the private members. This leaves a security hole. In
general we should avoid using inner classes.
Use inner class only when an inner class is only relevant in the
context of the outer class and/or inner class can be made private so that only outer class can access it. Inner classes are used primarily to implement helper classes like Iterators, Comparators etc which are used in the
context of an outer class.
Certain frameworks, like Wicket, really require anonymous inner classes.
Saying never is silly. Never say never! An example of good use might be a situation where you have some legacy code that was written by someone where many classes operate directly on a Collection field, and for whatever reason, you cannot change those other classes, but need to conditionally mirror operations to another Collection. The easiest thing to do is to add this behavior via an anonymous inner class.
bagOfStuff = new HashSet(){
#Override
public boolean add(Object o) {
boolean returnValue = super.add(o);
if(returnValue && o instanceof Job)
{
Job job = ((Job)o);
if(job.fooBar())
otherBagOfStuff.add(job);
}
return returnValue;
}
}
That said, they can definitely be used like a poor man's closures.
Inner classes are appropriate when trying to emulate multiple inheritance. It is similar to what happens under the hood with C++: when you have multiple inheritance in C++, the object layout in memory is actually a concatenation of several object instances; the compiler then works out how the "this" pointer shall be adjusted when a method is invoked. In Java, there is no multiple inheritance, but an inner class can be used to provide a "view" of a given instance under another type.
Most of the time, it is possible to stick to single inheritance, but occasionally multiple inheritance would be the right tool to use, and this is the time to use an inner class.
This means that inner classes are somehow more complex than usual classes, in the same way that multiple inheritance is more complex than single inheritance: many programmers have some trouble wrapping their mind around that concept. Hence the "best practice": avoid inner classes because it confuses your coworkers. In my view, this is not a good argument, and at my workplace we are quite happy to use inner classes when we deem it appropriate.
(A minor drawback of inner classes is that they add one extra level of indentation in the source code. This is a bit irksome at times, when one wants to keep the code within 79 columns.)
Anonymous inner classes are often used when we need to implement interface with one method, like Runnable, ActionListener and some other.
One more great appliance of anonymous inner classes is when you don't want to make a subclass of some class but you need to override one (or two) of its methods.
Named inner classes can be used when you want achieve tight coherence between two classes. They aren't so useful as anonymous inner classes and I can't be sure that it's a good practice to use them ever.
Java also has nested (or inner static) classes. They can be used when you want to provide some special access and standard public or default access levels aren't enough.
Inner classes are often used to "pass a behavior" as a parameter of a method. This capability is supported in an elegant way by other languages with closures.
Using inner classes produces some not elegant code (IMHO) because of a language limitation but it's useful and widely used to handle events and blocks in general with inner classes.
So I would say that inner classes are very useful.
yes it is good to use them, when you are trying to keep a class cohesive, and the classes should never be instantiated from outside their context of the outer class, make the constructors private and you have really nice cohesive encapsulation. Anyone that says you should NEVER use them doesn't know what they are talking about. For event handlers and other things that anonymous inner classes excel at they are way better than the alternative of cluttering up your package namespace with lots of event handlers that only apply to a specific class.
I tend to avoid non-static inner classes for the reasons given by other posters. However I have a particularly favourite pattern where a non-static inner class works very effectively: Lazy loading stateful classes.
A typical lazy loading stateful class is constructed with an entity ID and then on demand can lazily load additional entity information. Typically to lazily load the additional information we will require dependencies. But dependencies + state == anti pattern!
Non-static inner classes provide a way to avoid this anti-pattern. Hopefully the following simple example illustrates this better than words can:
/*
* Stateless outer class holding dependencies
*/
public class DataAssembler {
private final LoadingService loadingService;
#Inject
DataAssembler(LoadingService loadingService) {
this.loadingService = loadingService;
}
public LazyData assemble(long id) {
return new LazyData(id);
}
/*
* Stateful non-static inner class that has access to the outer
* class' dependencies in order to lazily load data.
*/
public class LazyData {
private final long id;
private LazyData(long id) {
this.id = id;
}
public long id() {
return id;
}
public String expensiveData() {
return loadingService.buildExpensiveDate(id);
}
}
}
Worth noting that there are many other patterns beyond the above example where inner classes are useful; inner classes are like any other Java feature - there are appropriate times where they can be used and inappropriate times!
When use or avoid inner class in Java?
The inner class has the following characters.
Anyway the .class file is separated as OuterClassName$InnerClassName.class
The class name and the class file name of the inner class always contain the outer class name.
The above characters disclose this fact. The outer class name is the mandatory information for the inner class.
We can derive this result from the fact. The inner class is good to be defined when the outer class is mandatory information of the inner class.
The characters of the inner class make developers sometimes annoying to debug. Because it forces the developer to know the outer class name with the inner class.
Suggestion
It can be a design principle to avoid defining the inner class except when the outer class name is the mandatory information of the inner class for the above two reasons.
This morning my boss and I had a long and ultimately fruitless discussion about this, in the context of trying to diagnose performance problems with a web application. We didn't really come to any conclusions.
I think we're right in thinking that Serializable non-static inner classes have issues, but we're not sure precisely what the issues are or what exactly to avoid (we reasoned that we couldn't always simply avoid it). Can anyone suggest any guidelines for not getting in trouble with this issue?
An inner class holds a reference to its outer class, so attempting to serialize the inner will also serialize the outer -- as well as any other objects that the outer might hold. This could result in a huge object graph. Or it could fail, if the outer has state that can't be serialized (such as an InputStream object).
That said, there are times when you have to make inner classes Serializable, even if you never plan to serialize them. For example, if you're working with Swing.
If you do plan to serialize these objects, I'd question why they'd need to be inner classes irrespective of performance. Generally, you're only going to serialize data containers, and such containers rarely (if ever) need a reference to some "parent" class. Consider making these objects nested (static) classes rather than inner classes.
Just being aware that a serialized inner class has an implicit reference to its containing object will go a long way. That reference does have a number of implications:
The reference is automatically generated, so it can't be transient
The outer class must be serializable
The outer class will be automatically serialized with the inner class
The outer object can't be disassociated from its inner object
Probably the main guideline I can dredge up is "don't serialize inner classes except from their containing object." I can't think of any more gotchas.
A thought. If your outer class includes a (non-transient) collection of instances of the inner class, then each time you serialise one of the inner class instances, you will actually pull all of them into the serialization.
You can make the class Externalizable and write your own custom writeExternal and readExternal methods which only send the fields you want.
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/io/Externalizable.html