i have a class with a constructor that returns objects. I'm adding these objects to a list but having trouble because every time i add a new element it replaces the previous ones with the current element that i am adding.  Here is the list and output:      Objects a = new Objects("test1");     Objects b = new Objects("test2");      List&lt;Objects&gt; c = new ArrayList();      c.add(a);     c.add(b);     System.out.println(c.get(0).getTest());     System.out.println(c.get(1).getTest());   Here is the output:  test2 test2   Here is the class creating/returning the objects:  public class Objects {     public static String test;      public Objects (String test)     {         this.test = test;     }        public String getTest()       {           return test;       } }
4525
To be specific, I was trying this code:  package hello;  public class Hello {      Clock clock = new Clock();      public static void main(String args[]) {         clock.sayTime();     } }   But it gave the error      Cannot access non-static field in static method main   So I changed the declaration of clock to this:  static Clock clock = new Clock();   And it worked. What does it mean to put that keyword before the declaration? What exactly will it do and/or restrict in terms of what can be done to that object?
3046
Assuming I have an ArrayList  ArrayList&lt;MyClass&gt; myList;   And I want to call toArray, is there a performance reason to use  MyClass[] arr = myList.toArray(new MyClass[myList.size()]);   over  MyClass[] arr = myList.toArray(new MyClass[0]);   ?  I prefer the second style, since it's less verbose, and I assumed that the compiler will make sure the empty array doesn't really get created, but I've been wondering if that's true.  Of course, in 99% of the cases it doesn't make a difference one way or the other, but I'd like to keep a consistent style between my normal code and my optimized inner loops...
81621
If I write the following class:  public class Example {        int j;       int k;        public Example(int j, int k) {            j = j;            k = k;       }        public static void main(String[] args) {            Example exm = new Example(1,2);            System.out.println(exm.j);            System.out.println(exm.k);       }  }   The program compiles, but when I run the program, the main method will print out two 0s. I know that in order to say that I want to initialize the instance variables in the constructor I have to write:  this.j = j; this.k = k;   But if I don't write it, then which variable is evaluated (or considered) in the constructor (on the left and on the write hand side of the expressions)? Is is the argument or the instance variable? Does it make a difference?  Are there other cases where the use of this is obligatory?
79063
I have an ArrayList of objects in Java.  The objects have four fields, two of which I'd use to consider the object equal to another.  I'm looking for the most efficient way, given those two fields, to see if the array contains that object.  The wrench is that these classes are generated based on XSD objects, so I can't modify the classes themselves to overwrite the .equals.    Is there any better way than just looping through and manually comparing the two fields for each object and then breaking when found?  That just seems so messy, looking for a better way.  Edit: the ArrayList comes from a SOAP response that is unmarshalled into objects.
19919
I ran into an interesting behavior recently.  It seems that if I override .equals() to take a parameter other than Object, it doesn't get called.  Can anyone explain to me why this is happening?  It seems to violate my understanding of polymorphism in OOP, but maybe I'm missing something.  Here's much simpler code that shows what I'm seeing:  public class MyClass {   private int x;   public MyClass(int n) { x = n; }   public boolean equals(Object o) { return false; }   public boolean equals(MyClass mc) { return x == mc.x; }   public static void main(String[] args) {     List&lt;MyClass&gt; list = new ArrayList&lt;MyClass&gt;();     list.add(new MyClass(3));     System.out.println("Contains 3? " + list.contains(new MyClass(3)));   } }   When this is run, it prints "Contains 3? false".  It looks like the equals(Object) function is called, even though there is another that would work.  By contrast, if I write equals like this the code works as expected:  public boolean equals(Object o) {   if(!(o instanceof MyClass))     return false;   MyClass mc = (MyClass)o;   return x == mc.x; }   Why isn't it figuring out which version of the function to call based on the type of the parameter?
98955
Suppose I have this code: var myArray = new Object(); myArray[&quot;firstname&quot;] = &quot;Bob&quot;; myArray[&quot;lastname&quot;] = &quot;Smith&quot;; myArray[&quot;age&quot;] = 25;  Now if I wanted to remove &quot;lastname&quot;?....is there some equivalent of myArray[&quot;lastname&quot;].remove()? (I need the element gone because the number of elements is important and I want to keep things clean.)
65868
There's a good discussion of Generics and what they really do behind the scenes over at , so we all know that Vector&lt;int[]&gt; is a vector of integer arrays, and HashTable&lt;String, Person&gt; is a table of whose keys are strings and values Persons.  However, what stumps me is the usage of Class&lt;&gt;.  The java class Class is supposed to also take a template name, (or so I'm being told by the yellow underline in eclipse).  I don't understand what I should put in there.  The whole point of the Class object is when you don't fully have the information about an object, for reflection and such.  Why does it make me specify which class the Class object will hold?  I clearly don't know, or I wouldn't be using the Class object, I would use the specific one.
872
In Java, arrays don't override toString(), so if you try to print one directly, you get the className + '@' + the hex of the  of the array, as defined by Object.toString():  int[] intArray = new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; System.out.println(intArray);     // prints something like '[I@3343c8b3'   But usually, we'd actually want something more like [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. What's the simplest way of doing that? Here are some example inputs and outputs:  // Array of primitives: int[] intArray = new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; //output: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]  // Array of object references: String[] strArray = new String[] {"John", "Mary", "Bob"}; //output: [John, Mary, Bob]
43660
I have a list of structs and I want to change one element. For example :  MyList.Add(new MyStruct("john"); MyList.Add(new MyStruct("peter");   Now I want to change one element:  MyList[1].Name = "bob"   However, whenever I try and do this I get the following error:     Cannot modify the return value of   System.Collections.Generic.List.this[int]‘ because it is not   a variable   If I use a list of classes, the problem doesn't occur.  I guess the answer has to do with structs being a value type.  So, if I have a list of structs should I treat them as read-only? If I need to change elements in a list then I should use classes and not structs?
120453
I would like to print the "object reference" of an object in Java for debugging purposes. I.e. to make sure that the object is the same (or different) depending on the situation.  The problem is that the class in question inherits from another class, which has overriden both toString() and hashCode() which would usually give me the id.  Example situation: Running a multi-threaded application, where I (during development) want to check if all the threads use the same instance of a resource object or not.
4455
I have an array that is initialized like:  Element[] array = {new Element(1), new Element(2), new Element(3)};   I would like to convert this array into an object of the  class.  ArrayList&lt;Element&gt; arraylist = ???;
4670
I have an element that already has a class: &lt;div class=&quot;someclass&quot;&gt;     &lt;img ... id=&quot;image1&quot; name=&quot;image1&quot; /&gt; &lt;/div&gt;  Now, I want to create a JavaScript function that will add a class to the div (not replace, but add). How can I do that?
72487
I have an HTML element with a large collection of unordered lists contained within it. I need to clone this element to place elsewhere on the page with different styles added (this is simple enough using jQuery).    $("#MainConfig").clone(false).appendTo($("#smallConfig"));   The problem, however, is that all the lists and their associated list items have IDs and clone duplicates them. Is there an easy way to replace all these duplicate IDs using jQuery before appending?
23661
Context Around this Code: I am making a schedulable class run each Sunday to track a couple of metrics important to the team.   Question: I am looking to consolidate DML operations and a big part of this is understanding pass by reference vs pass by value.  I want to pass the salesOps user object to the method SDREfficiencyLastWeek. I made the return type void, because I figured that I will be passing this by reference and I can make all the updates in the method without having to anything.   Why I am confused:    I read the above article and am thrown off by the following statement:  "Non-primitive data type arguments, such as sObjects, are also passed into methods by value. "   If the object is indeed passed by reference, then the query for the salesOps user in my code should be sufficient enough to edit all fields on that object without actually having to state each field in the query.  global class SDREfficientMetricsSchedulable implements Schedulable  {     global void execute(SchedulableContext sc)      {         User salesOps = [SELECT ID FROM USER WHERE id = '0056A000002Z3p9QAC'];         List&lt;String&gt; queries = new List&lt;String&gt;();          String contactsWorked_lastWeek  = 'select count(id) results from contact where LastActivityDate = last_week';         queries.add(contactsWorked_lastWeek);          String demosSet_lastWeek            = 'select count(id) results from form__c where CreatedDate = last_week';         queries.add(demosSet_lastWeek);          String demosCompleted_lastWeek  = 'select count(id) results from opportunity where (stagename = \'Unqualified Demo Completed\'  OR stagename = \'Qualified Demo Completed\' )  and RecordTypeId = \'0126A000000yudDQAQ\' and CloseDate = last_week';         queries.add(demosCompleted_lastWeek);          String qualifiedDemos_lastWeek  = 'select count(id) results  from opportunity where RecordTypeId = \'0126A0000004Ao6QAE\' and isclosed = false and  SDR_Owner__c != null and CreatedDate = last_week';         queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);          String closedWon_lastWeek       = 'select count(id) results  from opportunity where RecordTypeId = \'0126A0000004Ao6QAE\' and iswon = true and  SDR_Owner__c != null and CloseDate = last_week';         queries.add(qualifiedDemos_lastWeek);            SDREfficiencyLastWeek(queries, salesOps);          update salesOps;     }       public void SDREfficiencyLastWeek(List&lt;String&gt; queries, User salesOps )     {        }  }
69888
I have a custom object, with a Text Name (ID) field. When I upsert two records with identical Name/ID, but otherwise different values, in two separate upsert statement, one record results, as expected.  When I create a list, add these records to the list, and then upsert the list, I get a DUPLICATE_VALUE error. What gives? By definition, upsert should not do this, should it? Even worse: it doesn't matter whether a record with the identical Name already exists or not, the upsert will fail in both scenarios.  By the way: by default upsert a does not use the Name/ID field as identifying/unique field, as you might expect. You need to do upsert a Name  Complete code:  List&lt;Flight__c&gt; flights = new List&lt;Flight__c&gt;(); Flight__c f1 = new Flight__c(); f1.Name = 'ABC123'; f1.Flight_Number__c = 'ABC'; flights.add(f1);  Flight__c f2 = new Flight__c(); f2.Name = 'ABC123'; f2.Flight_Number__c = '123'; flights.add(f2);  upsert flights Name;      Error message: Line: 12, Column: 1 System.DmlException: Upsert failed.   First exception on row 0; first error: DUPLICATE_VALUE, Duplicate   external id specified: ABC123: [Name]   Name being the standard identifying field of a custom object. You cannot edit the properties of this field, e.g. making it unique or not unique.
38591
class someclass {};  class base {     int a;     int *pint;     someclass objsomeclass;     someclass* psomeclass; public:     base()     {         objsomeclass = someclass();         psomeclass = new someclass();         pint = new int();          throw "constructor failed";         a = 43;     } }  int main() {     base temp(); }   In the above code, the constructor throws. Which objects will be leaked, and how can the memory leaks be avoided?  int main() {     base *temp = new base(); }   How about in the above code? How can the memory leaks be avoided after the constructor throws?
9842
In the book I'm reading at the moment () it says that if you don't declare a default constructor for a class, the compiler supplies one for you, which "zeroes out each data member". I've experimented with this, and I'm not seeing any zeroing -out behaviour. I also can't find anything that mentions this on Google. Is this just an error or a quirk of a specific compiler?