I write a normal class   public class TestAccess { } class T{     private int i=0;         int j=0;     protected int k=0;     public int m=0; } class TT {     public void m(){         T t= new T();         t.j=9;     } }   Then I access it in the same directory with another class     public class TestProtected extends T   {      public void method(){      System.out.println(k);     }     public static void main(String[] args)      {         System.out.println("HW!");     } }   But when I use package in the second class, there is something wrong to access class T;     package m;     public class TestProtected extends T       {          public void method(){          System.out.println(k);         }         public static void main(String[] args)          {             System.out.println("Hello World!");         }     }   Can you guys tell me how I can access class T in package m?  The issue here is not related with public, I have tried, to be more general, what if you only have class T instead of its java code? The situation is you can access the T class without package, but you cannot access it with package.
1305
I'm working now together with others in a grails project. I have to write some Java-classes. But I need access to an searchable object created with groovy. It seems, that this object has to be placed in the default-package.   My question is: Is there a way to access this object in the default-package from a Java-class in a named package?
11352
Duplicate:     Maybe this is a very silly question but I don't understand why I can't declare two methods that have the same signature when they have different return types.  public class MyClass {     private double d = 0;      public double MyMethod()     {         return d;     }      public string MyMethod()     {         return d.ToString();     } }   I get a compile error that states that the class already defines a member with the same parameter types.  (Obviously the way I'm using this in my code isn't as simple as my example code...but I think it gets the idea across.)  Am I missing something concerning OO design that makes what I'm trying to do an OOP anti-pattern? Surely the compiler should be able to determine which method I'm trying to use as long as I specifically tell it which one I want.  Given MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); I would expect the following code to work:  double d = myClass.MyMethod(); string s = myClass.MyMethod();   I would expect the following code to have problems:  var v = myClass.MyMethod();   But even in the case of var it should result in a compile error.  Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong here? I'm more than happy to be corrected. :-)
14438
Why is it so hard to do this in Java? If you want to have any kind of module system you need to be able to load JAR files dynamically. I'm told there's a way of doing it by writing your own ClassLoader, but that's a lot of work for something that should (in my mind at least) be as easy as calling a method with a JAR file as its argument.  Any suggestions for simple code that does this?
52524
So I was making a class the other day and used Eclipse's method to create the equals method when I realized that it generated the following working code:  class Test {   private int privateInt;   [...]   public boolean equals(Object obj) {     [...]     Test t = (Test) obj;     if ( t.privateInt == privateInt ) {     [...]   } }   t.privateInt..???? It's suppose to be private! So I guess there is one more field visibility other than private, protected, package protected and public.  So what is happening here? How is this called? Where would somebody use this? Doesn't this break encapsulation? What if the class didn't have a mutator and I changed this? Does this happen to C++ as well? Is this an OO idiom? If not, then why did Java do it?  Generally, where can I find information about this?  Thank you.
57401
I have been working on a Java project for a class for a while now. It is an implementation of a linked list (here called AddressList, containing simple nodes called ListNode). The catch is that everything would have to be done with recursive algorithms. I was able to do everything fine sans one method: public AddressList reverse()      ListNode:    public class ListNode{   public String data;   public ListNode next; }   Right now my reverse function just calls a helper function that takes an argument to allow recursion.  public AddressList reverse(){   return new AddressList(this.reverse(this.head)); }   With my helper function having the signature of private ListNode reverse(ListNode current).  At the moment, I have it working iteratively using a stack, but this is not what the specification requires. I had found an algorithm in C that recursively reversed and converted it to Java code by hand, and it worked, but I had no understanding of it.  Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out in the meantime.  private AddressList reverse(ListNode current, AddressList reversedList){   if(current == null)        return reversedList;   reversedList.addToFront(current.getData());   return this.reverse(current.getNext(), reversedList); }   While I'm here, does anyone see any problems with this route?
123749
I have a basic class with no sharing keyword as I want it to inherit the permissions from callee. What would the context be?  I assume it should run as system (aka without sharing) context, but what I am seeing is opposite. I am getting security exceptions that I shouldn't and fixes by upgrading the class to without sharing.  Is this expected behaviour?
29851
I have an error that seems common on the web,  Though i cant find a definite answer that applies to my case:  I have the following Apex code:  public with sharing class templicenseemail {      private ApexPages.standardController standardController;       public Trainee__c trainee { get; set; }     public templicenseemail(ApexPages.StandardController controller) {         this.standardController = standardController;     }      public PageReference doSomething()     {         trainee  = [SELECT Email__c,First_Name__c,Institution__c,Last_Name__c FROM Trainee__c                  WHERE Id = :ApexPages.currentPage().getParameters().get('id')];                  String whatIs = trainee.Volume_Serial_Number__c;                 integer strlen = whatIs.length();                  ApexPages.addMessage(new ApexPages.message(ApexPages.severity.INFO, trainee.Email__c  ));         return null;      }     }   And the following test case:  @isTest(seealldata=false)      private class Send_noti_emailsTestClass5 {          static testMethod void validateSend_noti_emails5() {              templicenseemail  MyTestcase = new templicenseemail();              // code here in the Middle              MyTestcase.doSomething();          }     }   I'm getting the following error:  Error: Compile Error: Constructor not defined: [templicenseemail].&lt;Constructor&gt;(SOBJECT:Lead) at line:      templicenseemail  MyTestcase = new templicenseemail();   Does anyone know why?
3074
I know how to define a package or a class, but how do I make it available (to myself) at all times?  Say I have the package file commonstuff.sty (or myprettyclass.cls), that I want to be able to include in any .tex file I create on my computer. Where do I put it? Do I need to run some installer on it, or is it enough to keep it in a certain folder?  Note: I know I can just place it in the same folder as the .tex file, but that's not what I'm after here. I'm looking for a way to "install" the package centrally on my computer.
7798
According to the , 3rd edition:        I wish to understand why this decision has been made. What's wrong with generic exceptions?  (As far as I know, generics are simply compile-time syntactic sugar, and they will be translated to Object anyway in the .class files, so effectively declaring a generic class is as if everything in it was an Object. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
5983
The title is kind of obscure. What I want to know is if this is possible:  string typeName = &lt;read type name from somwhere&gt;; Type myType = Type.GetType(typeName);  MyGenericClass&lt;myType&gt; myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass&lt;myType&gt;();   Obviously, MyGenericClass is described as:  public class MyGenericClass&lt;T&gt;   Right now, the compiler complains that 'The type or namespace 'myType' could not be found." There has got to be a way to do this.
4666
Whats wrong with the following c# code? Compiler reports this error:  Inconsistent accessibility: parameter type 'ClassLibrary1.Interface1' is less accessible than method 'ClassLibrary1.Class1.Class1(ClassLibrary1.Interface1)'  with the following code:  interface Interface1&lt;T&gt; {     bool IsDataValid();     /* Other interfaces */ }  public class Class1&lt;T&gt; {     public Interface1&lt;T&gt; interface1;      public Class1(Interface1&lt;T&gt; interface1)     {         this.interface1 = interface1;     }  }   I've since designed my code differently using inheritence to but if anyone could tell me what the above is wrong I'd greatly appreciate it.
97115
Is it appropriate to access a class' private members by casting it to a void pointer and then to a struct?    I don't think I have permissions to modify the class that contains the data members that I need to access.  I don't want to take a risk accessing the data members in an indirect way if it is not ethical.  EDIT: Had to edit this further... I am pretty sure the class wouldn't be modified, so it's ok to that extent... my only concern is, if the person who coded that class gets to know of this, it might not go down well with him :(.
85933
I was writing a toString() for a class in Java the other day by manually writing out each element of the class to a String and it occurred to me that using reflection it might be possible to create a generic toString() method that could work on ALL classes. I.E. it would figure out the field names and values and send them out to a String.  Getting the field names is fairly simple, here is what a co-worker came up with:  public static List initFieldArray(String className) throws ClassNotFoundException {      Class c = Class.forName(className);     Field field[] = c.getFields();     List&lt;String&gt; classFields = new ArrayList(field.length);      for (int i = 0; i &lt; field.length; i++) {         String cf = field[i].toString();         classFields.add(cf.substring(cf.lastIndexOf(".") + 1));     }      return classFields; }   Using a factory I could reduce the performance overhead by storing the fields once, the first time the toString() is called. However finding the values could be a lot more expensive.  Due to the performance of reflection this may be more hypothetical then practical. But I am interested in the idea of reflection and how I can use it to improve my everyday programming.
61737
I would like to use Class.newInstance() but the class I am instantiating does not have a nullary constructor. Therefore I need to be able to pass in constructor arguments. Is there a way to do this?
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?
31685
I was looking at the Java code for LinkedList and noticed that it made use of a static nested class, Entry.  public class LinkedList&lt;E&gt; ... { ...   private static class Entry&lt;E&gt; { ... }  }   What is the reason for using a static nested class, rather than an normal inner class?  The only reason I could think of, was that Entry doesn't have access to instance variables, so from an OOP point of view it has better encapsulation.   But I thought there might be other reasons, maybe performance. What might it be?  Note. I hope I have got my terms correct, I would have called it a static inner class, but I think this is wrong:
3278
So, I understand that the following doesn't work, but why doesn't it work?  interface Adapter&lt;E&gt; {}  class Adaptulator&lt;I&gt; {     &lt;E, A extends I &amp; Adapter&lt;E&gt;&gt; void add(Class&lt;E&gt; extl, Class&lt;A&gt; intl) {         addAdapterFactory(new AdapterFactory&lt;E, A&gt;(extl, intl));     } }   The add() method gives me a compile error, "Cannot specify any additional bound Adapter&lt;E&gt; when first bound is a type parameter" (in Eclipse), or "Type parameter cannot be followed by other bounds" (in IDEA), take your pick.  Clearly you're just Not Allowed to use the type parameter I there, before the &amp;, and that's that. (And before you ask, it doesn't work if you switch 'em, because there's no guarantee that I isn't a concrete class.) But why not? I've looked through Angelika Langer's FAQ and can't find an answer.  Generally when some generics limitation seems arbitrary, it's because you've created a situation where the type system can't actually enforce correctness. But I don't see what case would break what I'm trying to do here. I'd say maybe it has something to do with method dispatch after type erasure, but there's only one add() method, so it's not like there's any ambiguity...  Can someone demonstrate the problem for me?