I included a library I'd like to use, but in accessing to one of its classes I get the error message,
"Cannot access '<init>': it is private in [class name]
Is there something I can do to rectify this on my side, or am I just stuck to not use the package?
The error means the constructor is private. Given your comment, I'm assuming you're using a library. If this is the case, you'll have to find a different way to initialize it. Some libraries have factories or builders for classes, so look up any applicable documentation (if it is a library or framework). Others also use the singleton pattern, or other forms of initialization where you, the developer, don't use the constructor directly.
If, however, it is your code, remove private from the constructor(s). If it's internal and you're trying to access it outside the module, remove internal. Remember, the default accessibility is public. Alternatively, you can use the builder pattern, factory pattern, or anything similar yourself if you want to keep the constructor private or internal.
I came across this issue when trying to extend a sealed class in another file. Without seeing the library code it is hard to know if that is also what you are attempting to do.
The sealed classes have the following unique features:
A sealed class can have subclasses, but all of them must be declared in the same file as the sealed class itself.
A sealed class is abstract by itself, it cannot be instantiated directly and can have abstract members.
Sealed classes are not allowed to have non-private constructors (their constructors are private by default).
Classes that extend subclasses of a sealed class (indirect inheritors) can be placed anywhere, not necessarily in the same file.
For more info, have a read at https://www.ericdecanini.com/2019/10/14/kotlins-sealed-class-enums-on-steroids/
Hopefully, this will help others new to Kotlin who are also encountering this issue.
Class constructors are package-private by default. Just add the public keyword before declaring the constructor.
By default constructor is public so need to remove internal keyword.
I have the following code working in a SpringBoot application, and it does what's I'm expecting.
TypePool typePool = TypePool.Default.ofClassPath();
ByteBuddyAgent.install();
new ByteBuddy()
.rebase(typePool.describe("com.foo.Bar").resolve(), ClassFileLocator.ForClassLoader.ofClassPath())
.implement(typePool.describe("com.foo.SomeInterface").resolve())
.make()
.load(ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader());
Its makes is so that the class com.foo.Bar implements the interface com.foo.SomeInterface (which has a default implementation)
I would like to . use the above code by referring to the class as Bar.class, not using the string representation of the name. But if I do that I get the following exception.
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: class redefinition failed: attempted to change superclass or interfaces
I believe due to the fact that it cause the class to be loaded, prior to the redefinition. I'm just now learning to use ByteBuddy.
I want to avoid some reflection at runtime, by adding the interface and an implementation using ByteBuddy. I've some other code that checks for this interface.
This is impossible, not because of Byte Buddy but no tool is allowed to do this on a regular VM. (There is the so-called dynamic code evolution VM which is capable of that).
If you want to avoid the problem, use redefine rather then rebase. Whenever you instrument a method, you do now however replace the original.
If this is not acceptable, have a look at the Advice class which you can use by the .visit-API to wrap logic around your original code without replacing it.
I know that ABAP Objects are kinda old but as far as my knowledge goes you still have to use at least two "sections" to create a complete class.
ABAP:
CLASS CL_MYCLASS DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
...
PROTECTED SECTION.
...
PRIVATE SECTION.
...
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL_MYCLASS IMPLEMENTATION.
...
ENDCLASS.
Java:
public class MyClass {
<visibility> <definition> {
<implementation>
}
}
Wouldn't it make development easier/faster by having a combination of both like most modern languages have?
What are the reasons for this separation?
Easier/faster for the human (maybe), but costly for the compiler: It has to sift through the entire code to determine the structure of the class and its members, whereas in the current form, it only needs to compile the definition to determine whether a reference is valid. ABAP is not the only language that separates definition from implementation: Pascal did so for units, and Object Pascal for classes. One might argue that C++ allows for same construct without specifying an implementation section when you're not using inline member function declarations.
Maybe another reason:
Most (?) classes are not defined with manual written code, but via SE24. There you define the interface in one dynpro and write the code in another one.
Internally the interfaces are stored in one source, the code is stored in another source. So it is reasonable to separate the interface and the implementation.
I have little doubt about adapter class. I know what's the goal of adapter class. And when should be used. My doubt is about class construction. I've checked some tutorials and all of them say that I should pass "Adaptee" class as a dependency to my "Adapter".
e.g.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
This example is copied from wikipedia. As you can see AdapteeClass is passed to my object as dependency. The question is why? If I'm changing interface of an object It's obvious I'm going to use "new" interface and I won't need "old" one. Why I need to create instance of "old" class outside my adapter. Someone may say that I should use dependency injection so I can pass whatever I want, but this is adapter - I need to change interface of concrete class. Personally I think code bellow is better.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
{
mInstance= new AdapteeClass();
}
}
What is your opinion?
I would say that you should always avoid the new operator in a class when it comes to complex objects (except when the class is a Builder or Factory) to reduce coupling and make your code better testable. Off course objects like a List or Dictionary or value objects can be constructed inside a class method (which is probably the purpose of the class method!)
Lets say for example that your AdapteeClass is a Remote Proxy. If you want to use Unit Testing, your unit tests will have to use the real proxy class because there is no way to replace it in your unit tests.
If you use the first approach, you can easily inject a mock or fake into the constructor when running your unit test so you can test all code paths.
Google has a guide on writing testable code which describes this in more detail but some important points are:
Warning Signs for not testable code
new keyword in a constructor or at field declaration
Static method calls in a constructor or at field declaration
Anything more than field assignment in constructors
Object not fully initialized after the constructor finishes (watch out for initialize methods)
Control flow (conditional or looping logic) in a constructor
Code does complex object graph construction inside a constructor rather than using a factory or builder
Adding or using an initialization block
AdapteeClass can have one or more non-trivial constructors. In this case you'll need to duplicate all of them in your SampleAdapter constructor to have the same flexibility. Passing already constructed object is simpler.
I think creating the Adaptee inside the Adapter is limiting. What if some day you want to adapt a pre-existing instance?
To be honest though, I'd do both if at all possible.
Class SampleAdapter implements MyInterface
{
private AdapteeClass mInstance;
public SampleAdapter()
: base (new AdapteeClass())
{
}
public SampleAdapter(AdapteeClass instance)
{
mInstance=instance;
}
}
Let's assume you have an external hard drive with a regular USB port and you are trying to hook it up with a Mac which only has type-c ports. Yes, you can buy a new drive which has a type-c port but what about the data in it?
It's the same for the adapter pattern. There're times you initialize AdapteeClass with tons of flavors. When you do the conversion, you want to keep all the context.
I have a class that consists only of static member variables and static methods. Essentially, it is serving as a general-purpose utility class.
Is it bad practice for a class to contain only static member variables and static methods?
No, I don't think so at all. It is worse practice to have a class full of instance methods which don't actually depend on a particular instance. Making them static tells the user exactly how they are intended to be used. Additionally, you avoid unnecessary instantiations this way.
EDIT: As an afterthought, in general I think its nice to avoid using language features "just because", or because you think that that is the "Java way to do it". I recall my first job where I had a class full of static utility methods and one of the senior programmers told me that I wasn't fully harnessing the OO power of Java by making all of my methods "global". She was not on the team 6 months later.
As long as the class has no internal state and is essentially what is known as a leaf class (utility classes fall into this category), in other words it is independent of other classes. It is fine.
The Math class being a prime example.
Sounds reasonable.
Note: Classes that do this often have a private no-arg constructor just so that the compiler yields an error if a programmer tries to create an instance of the static class.
Static methods don't worry me much (except for testing).
In general, static members are a concern. For example, what if your app is clustered? What about start-up time -- what kind of initialization is taking place? For a consideration of these issues and more, check out this article by Gilad Bracha.
It's perfectly reasonable. In fact, in C# you can define a class with the static keyword specifically for this purpose.
Just don't get carried away with it. Notice that the java.lang.Math class is only about math functions. You might also have a StringUtilities class which contains common string-handling functions which aren't in the standard API, for example. But if your class is named Utilities, for example, that's a hint that you might want to split it up.
Note also that Java specifically introduced the static import: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_import)
Static import is a feature introduced
in the Java programming language that
members (fields and methods) defined
in a class as public static to be used
in Java code without specifying the
class in which the field is defined.
This feature was introduced into the
language in version 5.0.
The feature provides a typesafe
mechanism to include constants into
code without having to reference the
class that originally defined the
field. It also helps to deprecate the
practice of creating a constant
interface: an interface that only
defines constants then writing a class
implementing that interface, which is
considered an inappropriate use of
interfaces[1].
The mechanism can be used to reference
individual members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.PI;
import static java.lang.Math.pow;
or all the static members of a class:
import static java.lang.Math.*;
While I agree with the sentiment that it sounds like a reasonable solution (as others have already stated), one thing you may want to consider is, from a design standpoint, why do you have a class just for "utility" purposes. Are those functionals truly general across the entire system, or are they really related to some specific class of objects within your architecture.
As long as you have thought about that, I see no problem with your solution.
The Collections class in Java SDK has static members only.
So, there you go, as long as you have proper justification -- its not a bad design
Utility methods are often placed in classes with only static methods (like StringUtils.) Global constants are also placed in their own class so that they can be imported by the rest of the code (public final static attributes.)
Both uses are quite common and have private default constructors to prevent them from being instantiated. Declaring the class final prevents the mistake of trying to override static methods.
If by static member variables you did not mean global constants, you might want to place the methods accessing those variables in a class of their own. In that case, could you eleborate on what those variables do in your code?
This is typically how utility classes are designed and there is nothing wrong about it. Famous examples include o.a.c.l.StringUtils, o.a.c.d.DbUtils, o.s.w.b.ServletRequestUtils, etc.
According to a rigid interpretation of Object Oriented Design, a utility class is something to be avoided.
The problem is that if you follow a rigid interpretation then you would need to force your class into some sort object in order to accomplish many things.
Even the Java designers make utility classes (java.lang.Math comes to mind)
Your options are:
double distance = Math.sqrt(x*x + y*y); //using static utility class
vs:
RootCalculator mySquareRooter = new SquareRootCalculator();
mySquareRooter.setValueToRoot(x*x + y*y);
double distance;
try{
distance = mySquareRooter.getRoot();
}
catch InvalidParameterException ......yadda yadda yadda.
Even if we were to avoid the verbose method, we could still end up with:
Mathemetician myMathD00d = new Mathemetician()
double distance = myMathD00d.sqrt(...);
in this instance, .sqrt() is still static, so what would the point be in creating the object in the first place?
The answer is, create utility classes when your other option would be to create some sort of artificial "Worker" class that has no or little use for instance variables.
This link http://java.dzone.com/articles/why-static-bad-and-how-avoid seems to go against most of the answers here. Even if it contains no member variables (i.e. no state), a static class can still be a bad idea because it cannot be mocked or extended (subclassed), so it is defeating some of the principles of OO
I wouldn't be concerned over a utility class containing static methods.
However, static members are essentially global data and should be avoided. They may be acceptable if they are used for caching results of the static methods and such, but if they are used as "real" data that may lead to all kinds of problems, such as hidden dependencies and difficulties to set up tests.
From TSLint’s docs:
Users who come from a Java-style OO language may wrap their utility functions in an extra class, instead of putting them at the top level.
The best way is to use a constant, like this:
export const Util = {
print (data: string): void {
console.log(data)
}
}
Examples of incorrect code for this rule:
class EmptyClass {}
class ConstructorOnly {
constructor() {
foo();
}
}
// Use an object instead:
class StaticOnly {
static version = 42;
static hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
}
}
Examples of correct code for this rule:
class EmptyClass extends SuperClass {}
class ParameterProperties {
constructor(public name: string) {}
}
const StaticOnly = {
version: 42,
hello() {
console.log('Hello, world!');
},
};