Is there any way other than using reflection to access the members of a anonymous inner class?
Anonymous inner classes have a type but no name.
You can access fields not defined by the named supertype. However once assigned to a named type variable, the interface is lost.
Obviously, you can access the fields from within the inner class itself. One way of adding code is through an instance initialiser:
final AtomicInteger y = new AtomicInteger();
new Runnable() {
int x;
{
x = 5;
doRun(this);
y.set(x);
}
public void run() {
... blah ...
}
};
The value returned by the anonymous inner class expression has the anonymous type, so you have one chance to use it outside of the class itself:
final int y = new Runnable() {
int x;
{
x = 5;
doRun(this);
}
public void run() {
... blah ...
}
}.x;
You can also pass it through a method declared similar to:
<T extends Runnable> T doRun(T runnable);
You can use local classes instead anonymous class. Look:
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
class MyInner {
private int value = 10;
}
MyInner inner = new MyInner();
System.out.println(inner.value);
}
}
You can have reference of MyInner type only in the method body though. So outside of the method you will not be able to use its fields/methods that are not declared in its super class (java.lang.Object in this case) or interface.
public class AccessAnonymous {
private Runnable runnable; // to have instance of the class
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
AccessAnonymous a = new AccessAnonymous();
a.a(); // init field
Class clazz = a.runnable.getClass();
Field field = clazz.getDeclaredField("i");
field.setAccessible(true);
int int1 = field.getInt(a.runnable);
System.out.println("int1=" + int1);
}
public void a() {
runnable = new Runnable() {
private int i = 1;
public void run() {
i = 90;
}
};
runnable.run();// change value
}
}
In the case of anonymous classes, there is also a tradeoff between the clutter caused by the class and the convenience of having it anonymous. Complicated classes rarely belong as anonymous but rather as named private inner.
In most anonymous classes, we only need to "feed" knowledge and can do it at construction.
In a few anonymous classes (e.g., return value vehicles) we also care about one return value.
As we know, data members should not directly be accessed but rather with a getter setter. This, if you find yourself in a situation that you have added lots of getters and setters, you are probably doing something wrong anyway and shouldn't be using an anonymous class.
If it implements an interface or extends an existing class, you can access the members defined in the interface or base class.
Mr Fooz is right, except that interfaces can only define constant members. the best way would be to add getter/setter methods to your interface and then use those to get your value. but then for each anonymous class you would have to define those methods (kind of a pain).
If you want readable, maintainable code, don't use anonymous classes. If you use anonymous classes and want readable, maintainable code, don't use anonymous classes when you need to access the element in that inner class. There are ways of doing so, but I beg of you to not use any of those hacks. Readability trumps all other virtues.
Related
What is the use of anonymous classes in Java? Can we say that usage of anonymous class is one of the advantages of Java?
By an "anonymous class", I take it you mean anonymous inner class.
An anonymous inner class can come useful when making an instance of an object with certain "extras" such as overriding methods, without having to actually subclass a class.
I tend to use it as a shortcut for attaching an event listener:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
#Override
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do something
}
});
Using this method makes coding a little bit quicker, as I don't need to make an extra class that implements ActionListener -- I can just instantiate an anonymous inner class without actually making a separate class.
I only use this technique for "quick and dirty" tasks where making an entire class feels unnecessary. Having multiple anonymous inner classes that do exactly the same thing should be refactored to an actual class, be it an inner class or a separate class.
Anonymous inner classes are effectively closures, so they can be used to emulate lambda expressions or "delegates". For example, take this interface:
public interface F<A, B> {
B f(A a);
}
You can use this anonymously to create a first-class function in Java. Let's say you have the following method that returns the first number larger than i in the given list, or i if no number is larger:
public static int larger(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n > i)
return n;
return i;
}
And then you have another method that returns the first number smaller than i in the given list, or i if no number is smaller:
public static int smaller(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n < i)
return n;
return i;
}
These methods are almost identical. Using the first-class function type F, we can rewrite these into one method as follows:
public static <T> T firstMatch(final List<T> ts, final F<T, Boolean> f, T z) {
for (T t : ts)
if (f.f(t))
return t;
return z;
}
You can use an anonymous class to use the firstMatch method:
F<Integer, Boolean> greaterThanTen = new F<Integer, Boolean> {
Boolean f(final Integer n) {
return n > 10;
}
};
int moreThanMyFingersCanCount = firstMatch(xs, greaterThanTen, x);
This is a really contrived example, but its easy to see that being able to pass functions around as if they were values is a pretty useful feature. See "Can Your Programming Language Do This" by Joel himself.
A nice library for programming Java in this style: Functional Java.
Anonymous inner class is used in following scenario:
1.) For Overriding(subclassing), when class definition is not usable except current case:
class A{
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("methodA");
}
}
class B{
A a = new A() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA");
}
};
}
2.) For implementing an interface, when implementation of interface is required only for current case:
interface InterfaceA{
public void methodA();
}
class B{
InterfaceA a = new InterfaceA() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA implementer");
}
};
}
3.) Argument Defined Anonymous inner class:
interface Foo {
void methodFoo();
}
class B{
void do(Foo f) { }
}
class A{
void methodA() {
B b = new B();
b.do(new Foo() {
public void methodFoo() {
System.out.println("methodFoo");
}
});
}
}
I use them sometimes as a syntax hack for Map instantiation:
Map map = new HashMap() {{
put("key", "value");
}};
vs
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put("key", "value");
It saves some redundancy when doing a lot of put statements. However, I have also run into problems doing this when the outer class needs to be serialized via remoting.
They're commonly used as a verbose form of callback.
I suppose you could say they're an advantage compared to not having them, and having to create a named class every time, but similar concepts are implemented much better in other languages (as closures or blocks)
Here's a swing example
myButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do stuff here...
}
});
Although it's still messily verbose, it's a lot better than forcing you to define a named class for every throw away listener like this (although depending on the situation and reuse, that may still be the better approach)
You use it in situations where you need to create a class for a specific purpose inside another function, e.g., as a listener, as a runnable (to spawn a thread), etc.
The idea is that you call them from inside the code of a function so you never refer to them elsewhere, so you don't need to name them. The compiler just enumerates them.
They are essentially syntactic sugar, and should generally be moved elsewhere as they grow bigger.
I'm not sure if it is one of the advantages of Java, though if you do use them (and we all frequently use them, unfortunately), then you could argue that they are one.
GuideLines for Anonymous Class.
Anonymous class is declared and initialized simultaneously.
Anonymous class must extend or implement to one and only one class or interface resp.
As anonymouse class has no name, it can be used only once.
eg:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent arg0) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
});
Yes, anonymous inner classes is definitely one of the advantages of Java.
With an anonymous inner class you have access to final and member variables of the surrounding class, and that comes in handy in listeners etc.
But a major advantage is that the inner class code, which is (at least should be) tightly coupled to the surrounding class/method/block, has a specific context (the surrounding class, method, and block).
new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception message: " + e.getMessage());
System.out.println("Exception cause: " + e.getCause());
}
}
}.start();
This is also one of the example for anonymous inner type using thread
An inner class is associated with an instance of the outer class and there are two special kinds: Local class and Anonymous class. An anonymous class enables us to declare and instantiate a class at same time, hence makes the code concise. We use them when we need a local class only once as they don't have a name.
Consider the example from doc where we have a Person class:
public class Person {
public enum Sex {
MALE, FEMALE
}
String name;
LocalDate birthday;
Sex gender;
String emailAddress;
public int getAge() {
// ...
}
public void printPerson() {
// ...
}
}
and we have a method to print members that match search criteria as:
public static void printPersons(
List<Person> roster, CheckPerson tester) {
for (Person p : roster) {
if (tester.test(p)) {
p.printPerson();
}
}
}
where CheckPerson is an interface like:
interface CheckPerson {
boolean test(Person p);
}
Now we can make use of anonymous class which implements this interface to specify search criteria as:
printPersons(
roster,
new CheckPerson() {
public boolean test(Person p) {
return p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25;
}
}
);
Here the interface is very simple and the syntax of anonymous class seems unwieldy and unclear.
Java 8 has introduced a term Functional Interface which is an interface with only one abstract method, hence we can say CheckPerson is a functional interface. We can make use of Lambda Expression which allows us to pass the function as method argument as:
printPersons(
roster,
(Person p) -> p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25
);
We can use a standard functional interface Predicate in place of the interface CheckPerson, which will further reduce the amount of code required.
i use anonymous objects for calling new Threads..
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// you code
}
}).start();
Anonymous inner class can be beneficial while giving different implementations for different objects. But should be used very sparingly as it creates problem for program readability.
One of the major usage of anonymous classes in class-finalization which called finalizer guardian. In Java world using the finalize methods should be avoided until you really need them. You have to remember, when you override the finalize method for sub-classes, you should always invoke super.finalize() as well, because the finalize method of super class won't invoke automatically and you can have trouble with memory leaks.
so considering the fact mentioned above, you can just use the anonymous classes like:
public class HeavyClass{
private final Object finalizerGuardian = new Object() {
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable{
//Finalize outer HeavyClass object
}
};
}
Using this technique you relieved yourself and your other developers to call super.finalize() on each sub-class of the HeavyClass which needs finalize method.
You can use anonymous class this way
TreeSet treeSetObj = new TreeSet(new Comparator()
{
public int compare(String i1,String i2)
{
return i2.compareTo(i1);
}
});
Seems nobody mentioned here but you can also use anonymous class to hold generic type argument (which normally lost due to type erasure):
public abstract class TypeHolder<T> {
private final Type type;
public TypeReference() {
// you may do do additional sanity checks here
final Type superClass = getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
this.type = ((ParameterizedType) superClass).getActualTypeArguments()[0];
}
public final Type getType() {
return this.type;
}
}
If you'll instantiate this class in anonymous way
TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>> holder =
new TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>>() {};
then such holder instance will contain non-erasured definition of passed type.
Usage
This is very handy for building validators/deserializators. Also you can instantiate generic type with reflection (so if you ever wanted to do new T() in parametrized type - you are welcome!).
Drawbacks/Limitations
You should pass generic parameter explicitly. Failing to do so will lead to type parameter loss
Each instantiation will cost you additional class to be generated by compiler which leads to classpath pollution/jar bloating
An Anonymous Inner Class is used to create an object that will never be referenced again. It has no name and is declared and created in the same statement.
This is used where you would normally use an object's variable. You replace the variable with the new keyword, a call to a constructor and the class definition inside { and }.
When writing a Threaded Program in Java, it would usually look like this
ThreadClass task = new ThreadClass();
Thread runner = new Thread(task);
runner.start();
The ThreadClass used here would be user defined. This class will implement the Runnable interface which is required for creating threads. In the ThreadClass the run() method (only method in Runnable) needs to be implemented as well.
It is clear that getting rid of ThreadClass would be more efficient and that's exactly why Anonymous Inner Classes exist.
Look at the following code
Thread runner = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//Thread does it's work here
}
});
runner.start();
This code replaces the reference made to task in the top most example. Rather than having a separate class, the Anonymous Inner Class inside the Thread() constructor returns an unnamed object that implements the Runnable interface and overrides the run() method. The method run() would include statements inside that do the work required by the thread.
Answering the question on whether Anonymous Inner Classes is one of the advantages of Java, I would have to say that I'm not quite sure as I am not familiar with many programming languages at the moment. But what I can say is it is definitely a quicker and easier method of coding.
References: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days Seventh Edition
The best way to optimize code. also, We can use for an overriding method of a class or interface.
import java.util.Scanner;
abstract class AnonymousInner {
abstract void sum();
}
class AnonymousInnerMain {
public static void main(String []k){
Scanner sn = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter two vlaues");
int a= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
int b= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
AnonymousInner ac = new AnonymousInner(){
void sum(){
int c= a+b;
System.out.println("Sum of two number is: "+c);
}
};
ac.sum();
}
}
One more advantage:
As you know that Java doesn't support multiple inheritance, so if you use "Thread" kinda class as anonymous class then the class still has one space left for any other class to extend.
There are to separate classes class One and class Two. Both of classes are in same package. I want to access one class data into other class how can i access variable data. My program is very lengthy ,I just want the logic of this.Thanking you in advance.
Class A.java
public class A
{
public static void main(String ar[])
{
int a=100;
}
}
Class B.java
public class B extends A
{
public static void main(String m[])
{
A obj=new A();
System.out.println("Variable of class A is :"+ obj.a);
}
}
I have done this thing to get access like i declared variable a as Static so that i can directly get access but it's not working. and when i am compiling B.java It giving me error
cannot find symbol at := System.out.println("Variable of class A is :"+ obj.a);
And
Illegal start of expression (when i am delaring variable a as public)
:-(error)public int a=100; [in class A].
Why are you using the static main method? Besides that the field a is local and not accessible outside the scope. Use this instead.
public class A
{
public int a;
public A()
{
a=100;
}
}
You don't have two true object-oriented classes above, but rather little more than two receptacles for static main methods. To combine code from two classes well, you will want to scrap that code and make OOP-compliant classes, complete with instance fields and methods. For more on this, check out the OOP section of the Java tutorials: link to OOP tutorial.
First, get rid of main() in A. You only want one main() in your application, and it's in B (since the one in A doesn't actually do anything):
public class A {
}
Now, you want A to have a class-level int value:
public class A {
private int a;
}
And you want it to have a default value of 100, yes? A constructor is a good place to do that:
public class A {
private int a;
public A() {
this.a = 100;
}
}
Now any time you do this:
A obj = new A();
you will have an object with a value. In order to access that value from outside that object, you need a "getter":
public class A {
private int a;
public A() {
this.a = 100;
}
public int get_a() {
return this.a;
}
}
Now in B (or anywhere, really), you can create an instance of A and access that value by using the "getter":
A obj=new A();
System.out.println("Variable of class A is :"+ obj.get_a());
Semantically, don't think of it as "accessing a variable from another class". Instead, think of what your objects are and what they represent. If it were a physical, real-world object which internally contained some kind of value.
When you create an instance of that object, the instance would internally have that value somewhere. From the outside of that object, it doesn't really matter how that value is internally maintained. There just needs to be some kind of interface to see the value. Which is what the "getter" method does.
One-liner answer: To access a variable outside a class, make it class-level. You have written a method-level variable that's accessible only inside that scope (method).
To elaborate:
There are to separate classes class One and class Two. Both of classes are in same package. I want to access one class data into other class how can i access variable data.
So basically you know that to by extending, you should be able to access parent class data into your subclass. For that, simply make the data in your parent class as class level.
class A {
int var = 10; //class level, but non-static, so to access you need A object
void method() {
int var = 20; //this is method local and can not be accessed outside
}
}
public class B extends A {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A aObj = new A();
System.out.println(aObj.var);
}
}
Illegal start of expression (when i am delaring variable a as public)
Its illegal. Because access modifiers like public, private etc. are applicable to class-level stuff like the first var or the main method in class B you see.
Said that:
You need to immediately go here: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/
rather than just trying to run some classes when you lack language basics.
What is the use of anonymous classes in Java? Can we say that usage of anonymous class is one of the advantages of Java?
By an "anonymous class", I take it you mean anonymous inner class.
An anonymous inner class can come useful when making an instance of an object with certain "extras" such as overriding methods, without having to actually subclass a class.
I tend to use it as a shortcut for attaching an event listener:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
#Override
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do something
}
});
Using this method makes coding a little bit quicker, as I don't need to make an extra class that implements ActionListener -- I can just instantiate an anonymous inner class without actually making a separate class.
I only use this technique for "quick and dirty" tasks where making an entire class feels unnecessary. Having multiple anonymous inner classes that do exactly the same thing should be refactored to an actual class, be it an inner class or a separate class.
Anonymous inner classes are effectively closures, so they can be used to emulate lambda expressions or "delegates". For example, take this interface:
public interface F<A, B> {
B f(A a);
}
You can use this anonymously to create a first-class function in Java. Let's say you have the following method that returns the first number larger than i in the given list, or i if no number is larger:
public static int larger(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n > i)
return n;
return i;
}
And then you have another method that returns the first number smaller than i in the given list, or i if no number is smaller:
public static int smaller(final List<Integer> ns, final int i) {
for (Integer n : ns)
if (n < i)
return n;
return i;
}
These methods are almost identical. Using the first-class function type F, we can rewrite these into one method as follows:
public static <T> T firstMatch(final List<T> ts, final F<T, Boolean> f, T z) {
for (T t : ts)
if (f.f(t))
return t;
return z;
}
You can use an anonymous class to use the firstMatch method:
F<Integer, Boolean> greaterThanTen = new F<Integer, Boolean> {
Boolean f(final Integer n) {
return n > 10;
}
};
int moreThanMyFingersCanCount = firstMatch(xs, greaterThanTen, x);
This is a really contrived example, but its easy to see that being able to pass functions around as if they were values is a pretty useful feature. See "Can Your Programming Language Do This" by Joel himself.
A nice library for programming Java in this style: Functional Java.
Anonymous inner class is used in following scenario:
1.) For Overriding(subclassing), when class definition is not usable except current case:
class A{
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("methodA");
}
}
class B{
A a = new A() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA");
}
};
}
2.) For implementing an interface, when implementation of interface is required only for current case:
interface InterfaceA{
public void methodA();
}
class B{
InterfaceA a = new InterfaceA() {
public void methodA() {
System.out.println("anonymous methodA implementer");
}
};
}
3.) Argument Defined Anonymous inner class:
interface Foo {
void methodFoo();
}
class B{
void do(Foo f) { }
}
class A{
void methodA() {
B b = new B();
b.do(new Foo() {
public void methodFoo() {
System.out.println("methodFoo");
}
});
}
}
I use them sometimes as a syntax hack for Map instantiation:
Map map = new HashMap() {{
put("key", "value");
}};
vs
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put("key", "value");
It saves some redundancy when doing a lot of put statements. However, I have also run into problems doing this when the outer class needs to be serialized via remoting.
They're commonly used as a verbose form of callback.
I suppose you could say they're an advantage compared to not having them, and having to create a named class every time, but similar concepts are implemented much better in other languages (as closures or blocks)
Here's a swing example
myButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
// do stuff here...
}
});
Although it's still messily verbose, it's a lot better than forcing you to define a named class for every throw away listener like this (although depending on the situation and reuse, that may still be the better approach)
You use it in situations where you need to create a class for a specific purpose inside another function, e.g., as a listener, as a runnable (to spawn a thread), etc.
The idea is that you call them from inside the code of a function so you never refer to them elsewhere, so you don't need to name them. The compiler just enumerates them.
They are essentially syntactic sugar, and should generally be moved elsewhere as they grow bigger.
I'm not sure if it is one of the advantages of Java, though if you do use them (and we all frequently use them, unfortunately), then you could argue that they are one.
GuideLines for Anonymous Class.
Anonymous class is declared and initialized simultaneously.
Anonymous class must extend or implement to one and only one class or interface resp.
As anonymouse class has no name, it can be used only once.
eg:
button.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent arg0) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
});
Yes, anonymous inner classes is definitely one of the advantages of Java.
With an anonymous inner class you have access to final and member variables of the surrounding class, and that comes in handy in listeners etc.
But a major advantage is that the inner class code, which is (at least should be) tightly coupled to the surrounding class/method/block, has a specific context (the surrounding class, method, and block).
new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception message: " + e.getMessage());
System.out.println("Exception cause: " + e.getCause());
}
}
}.start();
This is also one of the example for anonymous inner type using thread
An inner class is associated with an instance of the outer class and there are two special kinds: Local class and Anonymous class. An anonymous class enables us to declare and instantiate a class at same time, hence makes the code concise. We use them when we need a local class only once as they don't have a name.
Consider the example from doc where we have a Person class:
public class Person {
public enum Sex {
MALE, FEMALE
}
String name;
LocalDate birthday;
Sex gender;
String emailAddress;
public int getAge() {
// ...
}
public void printPerson() {
// ...
}
}
and we have a method to print members that match search criteria as:
public static void printPersons(
List<Person> roster, CheckPerson tester) {
for (Person p : roster) {
if (tester.test(p)) {
p.printPerson();
}
}
}
where CheckPerson is an interface like:
interface CheckPerson {
boolean test(Person p);
}
Now we can make use of anonymous class which implements this interface to specify search criteria as:
printPersons(
roster,
new CheckPerson() {
public boolean test(Person p) {
return p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25;
}
}
);
Here the interface is very simple and the syntax of anonymous class seems unwieldy and unclear.
Java 8 has introduced a term Functional Interface which is an interface with only one abstract method, hence we can say CheckPerson is a functional interface. We can make use of Lambda Expression which allows us to pass the function as method argument as:
printPersons(
roster,
(Person p) -> p.getGender() == Person.Sex.MALE
&& p.getAge() >= 18
&& p.getAge() <= 25
);
We can use a standard functional interface Predicate in place of the interface CheckPerson, which will further reduce the amount of code required.
i use anonymous objects for calling new Threads..
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// you code
}
}).start();
Anonymous inner class can be beneficial while giving different implementations for different objects. But should be used very sparingly as it creates problem for program readability.
One of the major usage of anonymous classes in class-finalization which called finalizer guardian. In Java world using the finalize methods should be avoided until you really need them. You have to remember, when you override the finalize method for sub-classes, you should always invoke super.finalize() as well, because the finalize method of super class won't invoke automatically and you can have trouble with memory leaks.
so considering the fact mentioned above, you can just use the anonymous classes like:
public class HeavyClass{
private final Object finalizerGuardian = new Object() {
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable{
//Finalize outer HeavyClass object
}
};
}
Using this technique you relieved yourself and your other developers to call super.finalize() on each sub-class of the HeavyClass which needs finalize method.
You can use anonymous class this way
TreeSet treeSetObj = new TreeSet(new Comparator()
{
public int compare(String i1,String i2)
{
return i2.compareTo(i1);
}
});
Seems nobody mentioned here but you can also use anonymous class to hold generic type argument (which normally lost due to type erasure):
public abstract class TypeHolder<T> {
private final Type type;
public TypeReference() {
// you may do do additional sanity checks here
final Type superClass = getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
this.type = ((ParameterizedType) superClass).getActualTypeArguments()[0];
}
public final Type getType() {
return this.type;
}
}
If you'll instantiate this class in anonymous way
TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>> holder =
new TypeHolder<List<String>, Map<Ineger, Long>>() {};
then such holder instance will contain non-erasured definition of passed type.
Usage
This is very handy for building validators/deserializators. Also you can instantiate generic type with reflection (so if you ever wanted to do new T() in parametrized type - you are welcome!).
Drawbacks/Limitations
You should pass generic parameter explicitly. Failing to do so will lead to type parameter loss
Each instantiation will cost you additional class to be generated by compiler which leads to classpath pollution/jar bloating
An Anonymous Inner Class is used to create an object that will never be referenced again. It has no name and is declared and created in the same statement.
This is used where you would normally use an object's variable. You replace the variable with the new keyword, a call to a constructor and the class definition inside { and }.
When writing a Threaded Program in Java, it would usually look like this
ThreadClass task = new ThreadClass();
Thread runner = new Thread(task);
runner.start();
The ThreadClass used here would be user defined. This class will implement the Runnable interface which is required for creating threads. In the ThreadClass the run() method (only method in Runnable) needs to be implemented as well.
It is clear that getting rid of ThreadClass would be more efficient and that's exactly why Anonymous Inner Classes exist.
Look at the following code
Thread runner = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//Thread does it's work here
}
});
runner.start();
This code replaces the reference made to task in the top most example. Rather than having a separate class, the Anonymous Inner Class inside the Thread() constructor returns an unnamed object that implements the Runnable interface and overrides the run() method. The method run() would include statements inside that do the work required by the thread.
Answering the question on whether Anonymous Inner Classes is one of the advantages of Java, I would have to say that I'm not quite sure as I am not familiar with many programming languages at the moment. But what I can say is it is definitely a quicker and easier method of coding.
References: Sams Teach Yourself Java in 21 Days Seventh Edition
The best way to optimize code. also, We can use for an overriding method of a class or interface.
import java.util.Scanner;
abstract class AnonymousInner {
abstract void sum();
}
class AnonymousInnerMain {
public static void main(String []k){
Scanner sn = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter two vlaues");
int a= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
int b= Integer.parseInt(sn.nextLine());
AnonymousInner ac = new AnonymousInner(){
void sum(){
int c= a+b;
System.out.println("Sum of two number is: "+c);
}
};
ac.sum();
}
}
One more advantage:
As you know that Java doesn't support multiple inheritance, so if you use "Thread" kinda class as anonymous class then the class still has one space left for any other class to extend.
Say if I have a dropdown in a form and I have another nested class inside of this class .
Now what's the best way to access this dropdown from the nested class?
Unlike Java, a nested class isn't a special "inner class" so you'd need to pass a reference. Raymond Chen has an example describing the differences here : C# nested classes are like C++ nested classes, not Java inner classes.
Here is an example where the constructor of the nested class is passed the instance of the outer class for later reference.
// C#
class OuterClass
{
string s;
// ...
class InnerClass
{
OuterClass o_;
public InnerClass(OuterClass o) { o_ = o; }
public string GetOuterString() { return o_.s; }
}
void SomeFunction() {
InnerClass i = new InnerClass(this);
i.GetOuterString();
}
}
Note that the InnerClass can access the "s" of the OuterClass, I didn't modify Raymond's code (as I linked to above), so remember that the "string s;" is private because no other access permission was specified.
Nested types aren't like inner classes in Java - there's no inherent instance of the containing type. (They're more like static nested classes in Java.) They're effectively separate classes, with two distinctions:
If the containing type is generic, the nested type is effectively parameterised by the containing type, e.g. Outer<int>.Nested isn't the same as Outer<string>.Nested.
Nested types have access to private members in the containing type.
Unlike Java, in C# there is no implicit reference to an instance of the enclosing class.
You need to pass such a reference to the nested class. A typical way to do this is through the nested class's constructor.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private Nested m_Nested;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
m_Nested = new Nested(this);
m_Nested.Test();
}
private class Nested
{
private Form1 m_Parent;
protected Form1 Parent
{
get
{
return m_Parent;
}
}
public Nested(Form1 parent)
{
m_Parent = parent;
}
public void Test()
{
this.Parent.textBox1.Text = "Testing access to parent Form's control";
}
}
}
Static Members
Since no one has mentioned it so far: Depending on your situation, if the member variable can also be static, you could simply access it in following way.
class OuterClass
{
private static int memberVar;
class NestedClass
{
void SomeFunction() { OuterClass.memberVar = 42; }
}
}
Sidenote: I marked memberVar purposefully (and redundantly) as private to illustrate the given ability of the nested class to access private members of it's outer class.
Caution / Please consider
In some situations this might be the easiest way/workaround to get access, but ...
Static also means, that the variable will be shared across all instance objects, with all the downsides/consequences there are (thread-safety, etc.)
Static also means, that this will obviously not work if you have more than one instance of the parent's class and the variable should hold an individual value for each instance
So in most cases you might wanna go with a different approach ...
Passing a Reference
As most people have suggested (and because it is also the most correct answer), here an example of passing a reference to the outer class' instance.
class OuterClass
{
private int memberVar;
private NestedClass n;
OuterClass() { n = new NestedClass(this); }
class NestedClass
{
private OuterClass parent;
NestedClass(OuterClass p) { parent = p; }
SomeFunction() { parent.memberVar = 42; }
}
}
One other method, which is useful under certain circumstances, is to derive the nested class off of the outer class. Like so:
class Outer()
{
protected int outerVar;
class Nested() : Outer
{
//can access outerVar here, without the need for a
// reference variable (or the associated dot notation).
}
}
I have used this technique especially in the context of Structured Unit Tests. (This may not apply to the OP's particular question, but it can be helpful with nested classes in general, as in the case of this "duplicate" question: " Can i access outer class objects in inner class ")
You could pass the enclosing class as a parameter to the nested class constructor, like this:
private NestedClass _nestedClass;
public ParentClass()
{
_nestedClass = new NestedClass(this);
}
Nested classes are generally not recommended and should be private and/or internal. They are, in my opinion, useful sometimes though.
Correct me if I am wrong, you are trying to process the outer control from inner class hence you ran into this. A better way of doing this would be to handle affairs in a event driven fashion. Use an Observer pattern, Register a listener on the outer control (your nested/inner class will be the listener). Makes life simpler. I am afraid that this is not the answer you were expecting!
send the master class as an constructor parameter to the nested (inner) class.
there is a good answer above but I like to write sth.
c# nested class is by default private
private to containing class if your want to use it must be public
Is it possible to create an anonymous class in Java like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
AnonymousClass a = new AnonymousClass() {
int whatever = 1;
};
System.out.println(a.whatever);
}
I thought that this would be working but it doesn't. Do I misunderstand something with anonymous classes or is there only a syntax error?
You can do it this way:
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(new Object() {
int whatever = 1;
}.whatever);
}
That is, you can only dereference the fields and method directly from the instantiation expression. [Edit: Per the comments, you can use it where the compiler infers the type for you - which happens to be the instantion expression, or as a return value from a generic method you pass it to.] You can't store it in a variable and use fields/methods there, so it's not as useful as anonymous classes in e.g. C#.
Edit: You can, as previously stated by others, declare a method-local class:
public static void main(String[] args) {
class Local {
int whatever = 1;
}
Local local = new Local();
System.out.println(local);
}
Slightly wordy, though, and like non-static inner classes and regular anonymous classes, it retains an implicit reference to the enclosing this (in non-static methods).
If it was possible, we would not call them anonymous anymore: your example defines a class with a name: Anonymous. You may define an inner class with a name like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
class NotAnonymous {
public int whatever = 1;
}
NotAnonymous na = new NotAnonymous();
System.out.println(na.whatever);
}
For this to work, AnonymousClass needs to be an Interface or a Class:
private interface AnonymousClass {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
AnonymousClass a = new AnonymousClass() {
int whatever = 1;
};
System.out.println(a.whatever); // this won't work
}
EDIT
Corrected, as correctly stated in the comment, whatever won't accessible / present.
You are referring original anonymous class instance, which has no field "whatever" - so you can not reference it this way.
You can create your class like this, sure. However, the a.whatever call will fail, because the object type is still AnonymousClass, and it does not define whatever as an attribute.
If you overwrite some method or attribute that is already defined in the AnonymousClass class or interface, the object will use your implementation from the anonymous class instead of the old one, but not if you introduce new methods or attributes.