In Java, I'd like to have something as:
class Clazz<T> {
static void doIt(T object) {
// ...
}
}
But I get
Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type T
I don't understand generics beyond the basic uses and thus can't make much sense of that. It doesn't help that I wasn't able to find much info on the internet about the subject.
Could someone clarify if such use is possible, by a similar manner? Also, why was my original attempt unsuccessful?
You can't use a class's generic type parameters in static methods or static fields. The class's type parameters are only in scope for instance methods and instance fields. For static fields and static methods, they are shared among all instances of the class, even instances of different type parameters, so obviously they cannot depend on a particular type parameter.
It doesn't seem like your problem should require using the class's type parameter. If you describe what you are trying to do in more detail, maybe we can help you find a better way to do it.
Java doesn't know what T is until you instantiate a type.
Maybe you can execute static methods by calling Clazz<T>.doit(something) but it sounds like you can't.
The other way to handle things is to put the type parameter in the method itself:
static <U> void doIt(U object)
which doesn't get you the right restriction on U, but it's better than nothing....
I ran into this same problem. I found my answer by downloading the source code for Collections.sort in the java framework. The answer I used was to put the <T> generic in the method, not in the class definition.
So this worked:
public class QuickSortArray {
public static <T extends Comparable> void quickSort(T[] array, int bottom, int top){
//do it
}
}
Of course, after reading the answers above I realized that this would be an acceptable alternative without using a generic class:
public static void quickSort(Comparable[] array, int bottom, int top){
//do it
}
I think this syntax has not been mentionned yet (in the case you want a method without arguments) :
class Clazz {
static <T> T doIt() {
// shake that booty
}
}
And the call :
String str = Clazz.<String>doIt();
Hope this help someone.
It is possible to do what you want by using the syntax for generic methods when declaring your doIt() method (notice the addition of <T> between static and void in the method signature of doIt()):
class Clazz<T> {
static <T> void doIt(T object) {
// shake that booty
}
}
I got Eclipse editor to accept the above code without the Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type T error and then expanded it to the following working program (complete with somewhat age-appropriate cultural reference):
public class Clazz<T> {
static <T> void doIt(T object) {
System.out.println("shake that booty '" + object.getClass().toString()
+ "' !!!");
}
private static class KC {
}
private static class SunshineBand {
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
KC kc = new KC();
SunshineBand sunshineBand = new SunshineBand();
Clazz.doIt(kc);
Clazz.doIt(sunshineBand);
}
}
Which prints these lines to the console when I run it:
shake that booty 'class com.eclipseoptions.datamanager.Clazz$KC' !!!
shake that booty 'class com.eclipseoptions.datamanager.Clazz$SunshineBand' !!!
It is correctly mentioned in the error: you cannot make a static reference to non-static type T. The reason is the type parameter T can be replaced by any of the type argument e.g. Clazz<String> or Clazz<integer> etc. But static fields/methods are shared by all non-static objects of the class.
The following excerpt is taken from the doc:
A class's static field is a class-level variable shared by all
non-static objects of the class. Hence, static fields of type
parameters are not allowed. Consider the following class:
public class MobileDevice<T> {
private static T os;
// ...
}
If static fields of type parameters were allowed, then the following code would be confused:
MobileDevice<Smartphone> phone = new MobileDevice<>();
MobileDevice<Pager> pager = new MobileDevice<>();
MobileDevice<TabletPC> pc = new MobileDevice<>();
Because the static field os is shared by phone, pager, and pc, what is the actual type of os? It cannot be Smartphone, Pager, and
TabletPC at the same time. You cannot, therefore, create static fields
of type parameters.
As rightly pointed out by chris in his answer you need to use type parameter with the method and not with the class in this case. You can write it like:
static <E> void doIt(E object)
Something like the following would get you closer
class Clazz
{
public static <U extends Clazz> void doIt(U thing)
{
}
}
EDIT: Updated example with more detail
public abstract class Thingo
{
public static <U extends Thingo> void doIt(U p_thingo)
{
p_thingo.thing();
}
protected abstract void thing();
}
class SubThingoOne extends Thingo
{
#Override
protected void thing()
{
System.out.println("SubThingoOne");
}
}
class SubThingoTwo extends Thingo
{
#Override
protected void thing()
{
System.out.println("SuThingoTwo");
}
}
public class ThingoTest
{
#Test
public void test()
{
Thingo t1 = new SubThingoOne();
Thingo t2 = new SubThingoTwo();
Thingo.doIt(t1);
Thingo.doIt(t2);
// compile error --> Thingo.doIt(new Object());
}
}
Since static variables are shared by all instances of the class. For example if you are having following code
class Class<T> {
static void doIt(T object) {
// using T here
}
}
T is available only after an instance is created. But static methods can be used even before instances are available. So, Generic type parameters cannot be referenced inside static methods and variables
When you specify a generic type for your class, JVM know about it only having an instance of your class, not definition. Each definition has only parametrized type.
Generics work like templates in C++, so you should first instantiate your class, then use the function with the type being specified.
Also to put it in simple terms, it happens because of the "Erasure" property of the generics.Which means that although we define ArrayList<Integer> and ArrayList<String> , at the compile time it stays as two different concrete types but at the runtime the JVM erases generic types and creates only one ArrayList class instead of two classes. So when we define a static type method or anything for a generic, it is shared by all instances of that generic, in my example it is shared by both ArrayList<Integer> and ArrayList<String> .That's why you get the error.A Generic Type Parameter of a Class Is Not Allowed in a Static Context!
#BD at Rivenhill: Since this old question has gotten renewed attention last year, let us go on a bit, just for the sake of discussion.
The body of your doIt method does not do anything T-specific at all. Here it is:
public class Clazz<T> {
static <T> void doIt(T object) {
System.out.println("shake that booty '" + object.getClass().toString()
+ "' !!!");
}
// ...
}
So you can entirely drop all type variables and just code
public class Clazz {
static void doIt(Object object) {
System.out.println("shake that booty '" + object.getClass().toString()
+ "' !!!");
}
// ...
}
Ok. But let's get back closer to the original problem. The first type variable on the class declaration is redundant. Only the second one on the method is needed. Here we go again, but it is not the final answer, yet:
public class Clazz {
static <T extends Saying> void doIt(T object) {
System.out.println("shake that booty "+ object.say());
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Clazz.doIt(new KC());
Clazz.doIt(new SunshineBand());
}
}
// Output:
// KC
// Sunshine
interface Saying {
public String say();
}
class KC implements Saying {
public String say() {
return "KC";
}
}
class SunshineBand implements Saying {
public String say() {
return "Sunshine";
}
}
However, it's all too much fuss about nothing, since the following version works just the same way. All it needs is the interface type on the method parameter. No type variables in sight anywhere. Was that really the original problem?
public class Clazz {
static void doIt(Saying object) {
System.out.println("shake that booty "+ object.say());
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Clazz.doIt(new KC());
Clazz.doIt(new SunshineBand());
}
}
interface Saying {
public String say();
}
class KC implements Saying {
public String say() {
return "KC";
}
}
class SunshineBand implements Saying {
public String say() {
return "Sunshine";
}
}
T is not in the scope of the static methods and so you can't use T in the static method. You would need to define a different type parameter for the static method. I would write it like this:
class Clazz<T> {
static <U> void doIt(U object) {
// ...
}
}
For example:
public class Tuple<T> {
private T[] elements;
public static <E> Tuple<E> of(E ...args){
if (args.length == 0)
return new Tuple<E>();
return new Tuple<E>(args);
}
//other methods
}
Related
Sure, I have do some research like package scan, reflection of java, gson and so on.
What I want?
I want get some instance randomly but keep this part code in the subclass.
So, each subclass should have a method named like SuperClass nextInstance().
If I get subclass List, say classes, by reflection, I just need invoke nextInstance for each element in classes.
That's just be done.
But, I need add static method for every subclass, and the name must be nextInstance, real stupid!!!
Why I wanna doing this.
There is a huge test project that I need run.
And each subclass has their own parameters(it is randomly).
I wanna hide the parameters settings.
The co-worker does not need to care what the parameters are.
They just need to care their own code.
I think the only way to implement that, is extend a method from superClass.
What I have do.
Create a factory class for each of them(too troublesome).
Add subclass path in a List to loading them in runtime(Hard to maintain).
Try a abstract static method by reflection(impossible in java).
And so on(may be, I give it up)
Example
Abstract class SuperClass{
// I know it is impossible in java, but just explain what I mean.
public static abstract SuperClass nextInstance();
}
class SubClassA extend SuperClass{
private double params;
public SuperClass(double parmas){
this.params = params;
}
public static SuperClass nextInstance(){
return new SubClassA(r.nextDouble()+4);
}
}
class SubClassB extend SuperClass{
private int params;
public SuperClass(int parmas){
this.params = params;
}
public static SuperClass nextInstance(){
return new SubClassB(r.nextInt(20)+4);
}
}
class Main{
public static void main(String[] args){
List<Class> classes.....// get classes extend from SuperClass by reflection.
List<SuperClass> res = new ArrayList<>();
for(Class c:classes){
res.add(c.nextInstance())
}
// do something on each element in res.
}
}
Update
I think I need simpler re-explain what I want to do.
If there anyone has used slfj LoggerFactory.getLogger(Class c),it will be easier to understand.
For me, I need implement a method like Factory.getInstance(Class c), and the code in this method will invoke c.nextInstance();
Any suggest about it?
Ok so you can't declare your "public static abstract" method in the super class but you can tell your co-workers just to include a method which is "public static" returns a SuperClass and accepts no arguments and then find that method by reflection in your factory:
public static class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Class> classes.....// get classes extend from SuperClass by reflection.
List<SuperClass> res = new ArrayList<>();
for (Class<?> clazz : classes) {
for (Method method : clazz.getMethods()) {
if (isStatic(method) && returnsSuperClass(method) && hasNoParameters(method)) {
res.add((SuperClass) method.invoke(null));
}
}
}
}
public static boolean hasNoParameters(Method method) {
return method.getParameterTypes().length == 0;
}
public static boolean returnsSuperClass(Method method) {
return SuperClass.class.isAssignableFrom(method.getReturnType());
}
public static boolean isStatic(Method method) {
return (method.getModifiers() & Modifier.STATIC) == Modifier.STATIC;
}
}
I have four classes below.
Class Note:
public class Note {
Pitch primaryPitch = new Pitch();
static Pitch secondaryPitch = new Pitch();
Note() {
System.out.println("Tune()");
}
static void pitch() {
System.out.println("Note.pitch()");
}
void volume() {
System.out.println("Note.volume()");
}
}
Class Tune:
public class Tune extends Note{
Tune() {
System.out.println("Tune()");
}
static void pitch() {
System.out.println("Tune.pitch()");
}
void volume() {
System.out.println("Tune.volume()");
}
void rhythm()
{
Note note = (Note) this;
note.volume();
}
}
Class Song:
public class Song extends Tune{
void volume() {
System.out.println("Song.volume()");
}
}
Class Test:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Note note2 = new Song();
((Tune)note2).rhythm();
}
When I run main, I expect the output Note.volume(). The reason I expect that output is because in the Tune class, when I call note.volume();, note has been typecast to a Note object, so I expect to use the Note class volume() method call. Instead I get Song.volume() which means I am using the Song class volume() method call.
My question is, why do I get Song.volume() and not note.volume();?
Because note is an object of type Song(). The fact that you cast it to a parent type does not change the polymorphic behavior of the volume() method. This is evident if you run the code in your IDE, and in Tune.Rhythm(), look at the variable values:
this means current instance Song, even you cast to Note, it's still Song instance
by the way, In the runtime, Java doesn't have type, so cast in the runtime is meaningless. cast is just fro Compiler to infer type by context.
Since Song also extends from Note by extends from Tune,
and Override volume method, so this.volume() will invoke the Override Song.volume method.
And if need to call the parent class Note.volume, need to use super with volume method, like: super.volume().
JLS 8 states that each enum class has implicitly declared method:
public static E[] values();
So, it is public by specification.
At the same time Class.getEnumConstantsShared() method forcibly makes it accessible:
final Method values = getMethod("values");
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(
new java.security.PrivilegedAction<Void>() {
public Void run() {
values.setAccessible(true);
return null;
}
});
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
T[] temporaryConstants = (T[])values.invoke(null);
I'm wondering: what's the sense?
Short answer: otherwise it would not work with anything but public Enums
To access the method MyEnum.values(), the method needs to be public (it always is) and MyEnum needs to be public (or it must be in the same package).
The method is accessed from the Class::getEnumConstantsShared() in the package java.lang. So as long as the none public Enum is not in java.lang getEnumConstantsShared() will not have access to it. Access is determined by the direct caller not by somebody higher up the call stack. The direct caller of values.invoke(null) is the code in java.lang.Class so the accessibility rules apply to exactly that context
That can be easily verified (following code will not work) if you create a static method in some package a
public class ValueGetter {
public static Object[] getValues(Class<? extends Enum> enu) throws Exception {
Method method = enu.getMethod("values");
return (Object[]) method.invoke(null);
}
}
And try to access it like this snippet in a different package b
public class EnumTest {
enum MyEnum {
LITERAL;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(ValueGetter.getValues(MyEnum.class)));
}
}
I have following classes (note that methods are static):
class Base
{
public static void whosYourDaddy()
{
Class callerClass = // what should I write here to get caller class?
System.out.print(callerClass.getName());
}
}
Class A extends Base
{
public static void foo()
{
A.whosYourDaddy();
}
}
Class B extends Base
{
public static void bar()
{
B.whosYourDaddy();
}
}
And when I call:
A.foo();
B.bar();
I'd like to get output:
AB instead of BaseBase. Is it even possible with static methods (in Java 7)?
What you can do, but shouldn't :) is use the Throwable getStackTrace method. Aside from the smell, this is pretty slow, because getting the stack trace isn't that fast. But you will get an array of StackTraceElement, and each one will contain the class of teh class that is calling it (and you can also get the file and line, and if you separate the two with a : you can get a clickable link in eclipse, not that I'd ever do such a thing...).
Something like
String className = new Throwable().getStackTrace()[1].getClassName();
Hope that helps :)
private static class Reflection {
private static final SecurityManager INSTANCE = new SecurityManager();
static Class getCallClass() {
return INSTANCE.getCallClass(2);
}
private Reflection() {
}
private static class SecurityManager extends java.lang.SecurityManager {
public Class getCallClass(int i) {
Class[] classContext = getClassContext();
if (i >= 0 && i + 1 < classContext.length) {
return classContext[i + 1];
}
return null;
}
};
}
Is it even possible with static methods (in Java 7)?
No, Static methods aren't inherited. Only non-static methods are inherited.
In your case change Base (and subclasses) as follows:
class Base
{
public void whosYourDaddy()
{
Class<?> callerClass = getClass();
System.out.print(callerClass.getName());
}
}
I have FinanceRequests and CommisionTransactions in my domain.
If I have a list of FinanceRequests each FinanceRequest could contain multiple CommisionTransactions that need to be clawed back. Dont worry how exactly that is done.
The class below (very bottom) makes me feel all fuzzy and warm since its succint and reuses existing code nicely. One problem Type erasure.
public void clawBack(Collection<FinanceRequest> financeRequestList)
public void clawBack(Collection<CommissionTrns> commissionTrnsList)
They both have the same signature after erasure, ie:
Collection<FinanceRequest> --> Collection<Object>
Collection<CommissionTrns> --> Collection<Object>
So eclipse complainst that:
Method clawBack(Collection) has the same erasure clawBack(Collection) as another method in type CommissionFacade
Any suggestions to restructure this so that it still an elegant solution that makes good code reuse?
public class CommissionFacade
{
/********FINANCE REQUESTS****************/
public void clawBack(FinanceRequest financeRequest)
{
Collection<CommissionTrns> commTrnsList = financeRequest.getCommissionTrnsList();
this.clawBack(commTrnsList);
}
public void clawBack(Collection<FinanceRequest> financeRequestList)
{
for(FinanceRequest finReq : financeRequestList)
{
this.clawBack(finReq);
}
}
/********COMMISSION TRANSACTIOS****************/
public void clawBack(CommissionTrns commissionTrns)
{
//Do clawback for single CommissionTrns
}
public void clawBack(Collection<CommissionTrns> commissionTrnsList)
{
for(CommissionTrns commTrn : commissionTrnsList)
{
this.clawBack(commTrn);
}
}
}
Either rename the methods, or use polymorphism: use an interface, and then either put the clawback code in the objects themselves, or use double-dispatch (depending on your design paradigm and taste).
With code in objects that would be:
public interface Clawbackable{
void clawBack()
}
public class CommissionFacade
{
public <T extends Clawbackable> void clawBack(Collection<T> objects)
{
for(T object: objects)
{
object.clawBack();
}
}
}
public class CommissionTrns implements Clawbackable {
public void clawback(){
// do clawback for commissions
}
}
public class FinanceRequest implements Clawbackable {
public void clawBack(){
// do clwaback for FinanceRequest
}
}
I prefer this approach, since I'm of the belief your domain should contain your logic; but I'm not fully aware of your exact wishes, so I'll leave it up to you.
With a double dispatch, you would pass the "ClawbackHandler" to the clawback method, and on the handler call the appropriate method depending on the type.
I think your best option is to simply name the method differently.
public void clawBackFinReqs(Collection<FinanceRequest> financeRequestList) {
}
public void clawBackComTrans(Collection<CommissionTrns> commissionTrnsList) {
}
In fact, it's not too bad, since you don't get anything extra out of having the same name on them.
Keep in mind, that the JVM will not decide which method to call at runtime. As opposed to virtual methods / method overriding resolution of overloaded methods are done at compile time. The Java Tutorials on method overloading even points out that "Overloaded methods should be used sparingly...".
Here is a trick with overloading by the second varargs parameter for the CommissionFacade class from the question:
public class CommissionFacade {
public void clawBack(Collection<FinanceRequest> financeRequestList, FinanceRequestType ...ignore) {
// code
}
public void clawBack(Collection<CommissionTrns> commissionTrnsList, CommissionTrnsType ...ignore) {
// code
}
/*******TYPES TO TRICK TYPE ERASURE*******/
private static class FinanceRequestType {}
private static class CommissionTrnsType {}
}
The code snippet to fast-check this trick works:
import java.util.ArrayList;
class HelloType {
public static void main(String[] args) {
method(new ArrayList<Integer>());
method(new ArrayList<Double>());
}
static void method(ArrayList<Integer> ints, IntegerType ...ignore) {
System.out.println("Hello, Integer!");
}
static void method(ArrayList<Double> dbs, DoubleType ...ignore) {
System.out.println("Hello, Double!");
}
static class IntegerType {}
static class DoubleType {}
}