Is there any way to create an instance of Derived but not call the constructor of Base?
open class Base(p: Int)
class Derived(p: Int) : Base(p)
You actually can do it
import sun.misc.Unsafe
open class Base(p: Int){
init {
println("Base")
}
}
class Derived(p: Int) : Base(p){
init {
println("Derived")
}
}
fun main() {
val unsafe = Unsafe::class.java.getDeclaredField("theUnsafe").apply {
isAccessible = true
}.get(null) as Unsafe
val x = unsafe.allocateInstance(Derived::class.java)
println("X = $x")
}
But don't, this solution is a low-level mechanism that was designed to be used only by the core Java library and not by standard users. You will break the logic of OOP if you use it.
this is not possible. The constructor of the derived class has to call (any) constructor of the base class in order to initialise the content(fields) of the base class.
This is also the same case in Java. Just that the default constructor is called by default (if no parameters are provided in the constructor), but if you have to choose between constructors with parameters, you always have to call them explicitly, because you have to choose which values to pass into the constructor.
You must always call a constructor of a super-class to ensure that the foundation of the class is initialized. But you can work around your issue by providing a no-arg constructor in the base class. Something like this:
open class Base(p: Int?){
val p: Int? = p
constructor(): this(null)
}
class Derived(p: Int) : Base()
The way you handle which constructor of the base class is default and which parameters are nullable, etc. will depend highly on the specific case.
Related
I want to use Kotlin delegation in a particular context.
The delegate should not be passed in the constructor.
I want to keep a reference to the delegate for later use in the code. From within the method that I override, say printMessage(), I still need to call the delegate the same way you'd call super.printMessage() in polymorphic inheritance.
I can do the first by simply instantiating an anonymous delegate in the by clause (class Derived() : Base by BaseImpl(42) using Kotlin's documentation example). However,
this prevents me from accessing the anonymous delegate, as there is no way that I know to reference it.
I want to do something similar to the following. The following however doesn't compile with error 'this' is not defined in this context.
class Derived() : Base by this.b {
val b: Base = BaseImpl(42)
override fun printMessage() {
b.printMessage()
print("abc")
}
}
I do need a separate delegate for each instance of my Derived class. So moving b as a global variable is not an option for me.
The closest I got to what I need is with an optional parameter to the constructor. This is not a good option neither, as I don't want to allow the construction of my Derived class with arbitrary delegates.
You can do this using a private primary constructor and a public secondary constructor:
class Derived private constructor(val b: Base) : Base by b {
constructor(): this(BaseImpl(42))
override fun printMessage() {
b.printMessage()
print("abc")
}
}
If you don't need a reference to the delegate, you can also say simply,
class Derived : Base by BaseImpl(42)
I have an abstract class that implements DefaultLifecycleObserver. I'd like to call lifecycle.addObserver(this) from the init block, but it says "Leaking 'this' in constructor of non-final class MyAbstractClass".
My code:
abstract class MyAbstractClass(protected val activity: AppCompatActivity) : DefaultLifecycleObserver {
init {
activity.lifecycle.addObserver(this)
}
.
.
.
}
I can move this line of code to the init block of each final class that extends this abstract class, but I don't like the idea, especially because I want to guarantee that each new class that will extend MyAbstractClass in the future will call it as well.
Is there a better place to call this without creating a leak?
I suppose you could post your call so it only happens after the object is fully instantiated:
abstract class MyAbstractClass(protected val activity: AppCompatActivity) : DefaultLifecycleObserver {
init {
Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).post {
activity.lifecycle.addObserver(this)
}
}
}
Or it might be less surprising to create an extension function you can tack onto your constructor calls. Then you can explicitly start the observation immediately. You'd have to make activity public, though. By defining it in an extension like this, your subclasses can call this and return themselves so you can chain it to constructor calls.
fun <T: MyAbstractClass> T.alsoBegin(): T {
activity.lifecycle.addObserver(this)
return this
}
val foo = SomeImplementation(myActivity).alsoBegin()
The Code A is from the project android/architecture-components-samples.
The author place the code of instance a class DefaultServiceLocator in the interface ServiceLocator.
In my mind , normally a interface should not include any implement code.
Is it a good idea to place the code of instance a class in a interface in Kotlin?
Code A
interface ServiceLocator {
companion object {
private val LOCK = Any()
private var instance: ServiceLocator? = null
fun instance(context: Context): ServiceLocator {
synchronized(LOCK) {
if (instance == null) {
instance = DefaultServiceLocator(
app = context.applicationContext as Application,
useInMemoryDb = false)
}
return instance!!
}
}
/**
* Allows tests to replace the default implementations.
*/
#VisibleForTesting
fun swap(locator: ServiceLocator) {
instance = locator
}
}
...
}
open class DefaultServiceLocator(val app: Application, val useInMemoryDb: Boolean) : ServiceLocator {
...
}
In my mind , normally a interface should not include any implement code.
Welcome back from hibernation ;) Yes, you could achieve the same with interface + abstract class but you can have default implementation also as part of the interface for some time now in many languages. Which way you go is up to you, but if you have only one abstract class implementing your interface then it is often handy to be able to merge this into one file for sake of ease of future maintenance.
As per kotlin interfaces documentation:
Interfaces in Kotlin can contain declarations of abstract methods, as well as method implementations. What makes them different from abstract classes is that interfaces cannot store state. They can have properties but these need to be abstract or to provide accessor implementations.
So... there's no problem in using method implementations on the interfaces. That feature might offer you extra power (if you like and need to use it).
I'm a newbie in Kotlin. I want to ask what private constructor in Kotlin for? class DontCreateMe private constructor () { /*...*/ }. I mean what class is supposed to be if we can't create its instance?
Well, the answers in the comments are correct, but since nobody wrote a full answer. I'm going to have a go at it.
Having a private constructor does not necessarily mean that an object cannot be used by external code. It just means that the external code cannot directly use its constructors, so it has to get the instances through an exposed API in the class scope. Since this API is in the class scope, it has access to the private constructor.
The simplest example would be:
class ShyPerson private constructor() {
companion object {
fun goToParty() : ShyPerson {
return ShyPerson()
}
}
}
fun main(args: String) {
// outside code is not directly using the constructor
val person = ShyPerson.goToParty()
// Just so you can see that you have an instance allocated in memory
println(person)
}
The most common use case for this that I've seen is to implement the Singleton pattern, as stated by Mojtaba Haddadi, where the external code can only get access to one instance of the class.
A simple implementation would be:
class Unity private constructor() {
companion object {
private var INSTANCE : Unity? = null
// Note that the reason why I've returned nullable type here is
// because kotlin cannot smart-cast to a non-null type when dealing
// with mutable values (var), because it could have been set to null
// by another thread.
fun instance() : Unity? {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = Unity()
}
return INSTANCE
}
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val instance = Unity.instance()
println(instance)
}
This is often used so that classes that are resource consuming are only instantiated once or so that certain pieces of data are shared by the entire codebase.
Be aware that kotlin uses the object keyword to implement this pattern, with the advantage of being thread-safe. Also some developers consider Singletons to be an anti-pattern
Another use case for private constructors would be to implement Builder patterns, where classes that have complex initialization can be abstracted into a simpler API, so the user doesn't have to deal with clunky constructors. This other answer addresses its uses in kotlin.
One of the simplest uses in real life kotlin code that I've seen is on the Result implementation from the stdlib, where it's being used to change the internal representation of the object.
While i am reading document of Kotlin, i saw that we should avoid using open properties declared at base class:
It means that, by the time of the base class constructor execution, the properties declared or overridden in the derived class are not yet initialized. If any of those properties are used in the base class initialization logic (either directly or indirectly, through another overridden open member implementation), it may lead to incorrect behavior or a runtime failure. When designing a base class, you should therefore avoid using open members in the constructors, property initializers, and init blocks.
The document said that properties in derived class are not yet initialized when base class's constructor is called. But, how can we access derived class's properties which are not initialized, from base class constructor(I assumed that the incorrect behavior or a runtime failure were caused by this situation)? Is it possible?
I don't know kotlin, but I'm assuming that open is the same as virtual in other languages. It is unsafe to call virtual members in a base class constructor because the base constructor is called before the derived constructor. If the overridden property requires that the derived class be fully initialized it can cause errors because the derived constructor has not yet been called when you are inside the base constructor. At least that is the way it works in .NET languages like C#.
Open functions in Kotlin are functions which can be overridden by a subclass. Generally, it's a good practice to limit a class's inheritance because you should provide a class with it's necessary codes to make it overridable. If your intention is not to let a class to override your base class, then you should make it final. So Kotlin make this easy by making each class and method final by default. You can find a more detailed answer in the Objects and Class chapter of the book Kotlin in Action.
The so-called fragile base class problem occurs when modifications of a base class
can cause incorrect behavior of subclasses because the changed code of the base class no
longer matches the assumptions in its subclasses. If the class doesn’t provide exact rules
for how it should be subclassed (which methods are supposed to be overridden and how),
the clients are at risk of overriding the methods in a way the author of the base class
didn’t expect. Because it’s impossible to analyze all the subclasses, the base class is
"fragile" in the sense that any change in it may lead to unexpected changes of behavior in
subclasses.
To protect against this problem, Effective Java by Joshua Bloch (Addison-Wesley,
2008), one of the best-known books on good Java programming style, recommends that
you "design and document for inheritance or else prohibit it." This means all classes and
methods that aren’t specifically intended to be overridden in subclasses need to be
explicitly marked as final .
Kotlin follows the same philosophy. Whereas Java’s classes and methods are open by
default, Kotlin’s are final by default.
I assume you are asking about this example in Kotlin documentation:
open class Base(val name: String) {
init { println("Initializing a base class") }
open val size: Int =
name.length.also { println("Initializing size in the base class: $it") }
}
class Derived(
name: String,
val lastName: String,
) : Base(name.replaceFirstChar { it.uppercase() }.also { println("Argument for the base class: $it") }) {
init { println("Initializing a derived class") }
override val size: Int =
(super.size + lastName.length).also { println("Initializing size in the derived class: $it")
}
}
Kotlin designers followed good practices learned, from other language mistakes, so they made class, properties, and functions closed by default for overriding or inheriting. why?
let's add the open modifier to the base class property and override it:
open class Base(open val name: String) {
init { println("Initializing a base class") }
open val size: Int =
name.length.also { println("Initializing size in the base class: $it") }
}
class Derived(
override val name: String,
val lastName: String,
) : Base(name.replaceFirstChar { it.uppercase() }.also { println("Argument for the base class: $it") }) {
init { println("Initializing a derived class") }
override val size: Int =
(super.size + lastName.length).also { println("Initializing size in the derived class: $it") }
}
fun main() {
println("Constructing the derived class(\"hello\", \"world\")")
Derived("hello", "world")
}
if you run this code the output will be like below:
Constructing the derived class("hello", "world")
Argument for the base class: Hello
Initializing a base class
**Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at Base.<init> (File.kt:6)
at Derived.<init> (File.kt:12)
at FileKt.main (File.kt:23)**
The error is happening because this line of code
open val size: Int =
name.length.also { println("Initializing size in the base class: $it") }
Why? when we were trying to initialize the Derived class, first the superclass is initialized first, so the initialization is done by evaluating the super constructor argument, then the properties and init blocks in their declaration order in the class.
when it comes to val size: Int = name.length.also{...} the initialization calls the name property which is overridden by the Derived class, the one that does NOT yet initialize.
so by avoiding marking the base properties by open, you protect the base class client from abusing the class.