«

On 19 Pa¼, 15:06, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2:19 pm, Marcin Rze 1/4 nicki <marcin.rzezni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Pa 1/4, 13:08, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:58:43 -0700, Marcin Rze 1/4 nicki wrote:
> > > > On 19 Pa 1/4, 04:06, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I have searched this group for "abstract static methods" and found a
> > > >> couple of threads, but I think none of them was discussing the kind of
> > > >> semantics I am going to describe. As you might have guessed, I believe
> > > >> it would be useful . I further believe it is fully complatible with
> > > >> the current language, but there might be caveats I have overlooked.. I'm
> > > >> wonder if you would find it as useful as I do and if you see any
> > > >> problems with it. I know it is a long post and some parts may be
> > > >> difficult to understand. Therefore I will be thankful if you can read
> > > >> it all and think about it.
>
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Interesting but I doubt it is going to be useful. First of all, because
> > > > statics should remain non-inheritable, static abstract actually forces
> > > > each subclass to implement its own definition - extreme nuisance in my
> > > > opinion.
>
> > > Yes (unless the subclass is abstract). I think in some cases it is
> > > reasonable (as with the enforced no-arg constructor in Serializable, or
> > > some other serialization static methods. For example, if I want to
> > > deserialize an immutable object, I need to do it by a static method or a
> > > special constructor, because the non-static readObject(...) method in
> > > Java's serialization API is a mutator method. In my opinion it is
> > > reasonable to enforce own implementation of a (de)serialization method).
>
> > Hi, possibly it is reasonable, but what is wrong with how it is done
> > today (readObject/writeObject) which you are not required to implement
> > if default behavior suffices?
>
> I'm saying it is wrong, but just don't like that the implementation
> requires a lot of reflection. (I don't mind that implementation of
> statndard Java API requires reflection, because someone has already
> implemented it for me. But if I want to create my own serialization
> framework (e.g. for xml serialization), I need to do a lot of
> reflection which could be automated.) Probably one thing I find wrong
> with readObject - as I already mentioned, it prevents the object to be
> immutable. Though this could also be solved by declaring it static and
> use reflection.
>
>

Yes, but someone did it for you either - JAXB, xStreams etc. This is
not a type of work you do day-in day-out, so benefits are rarely to be
seen

>
> > > > Example with generics can easily be substituted by some kind of
> > > > "trait" parameter
>
> > > Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "trait" parameter? Do you mean that
> > > I would call the zero() method on some instance?
> > > Like myDummyVector.zero()?
>
> > I borrowed the terminology from C++. More or less, you add type
> > parameter (let's say <Zero extends ZeroVector>) which has a method
> > like getZeroVector() (strictly speaking ZeroVector has this method).
> > Actual type parameter provides concrete implementation.
>
> I don't see how this would help. Would I call Zero.getZeroVector()?
> Probably you meant something else because this leads to the same
> problem with calling static method getZeroVector() on a type
> parameter. Could you provide an example?
>

OK
public class MyVector<T, Zero extends ZeroVector> extends Vector2D<T>
{
....
public MyVector(Zero zero) { this.zero = zero; }
....
}

MyVector<Integer, Zero2D> vec = new MyVector(Vector2D.zero());


> > > > or suitable simple design pattern (for example
> > > > Factory), or even with classic sub-typing (zero vector needs not know
> > > > its dimension, it can simply 'answer' with neutral element of the ring
> > > > on which it is constructed for each and every component query),
>
> > > Allowing operations between a concrete vector and this general zero
> > > vector would require to also allow operations between 2D and 3D vetors -
> > > the original type safety would disappear.
>
> > I don't get it, could you provide an example?
>
> If I understood well, you meant something like this:
>
> Class Vector {
> public static Vector getZeroVector(){
> return someSpecialZeroVectorInstance;
> }
> public abstract Vector add(Vector v);
>
> }
>
> Class Vector2D {
> public Vector add(Vector v){...}
> ...
>
> }
>
> class MyClass<V extends Vector> {
> ...
> V v; // V is some concrete class, such as Vector2D
> ...
> Vector zero = Vector.getZeroVector();
> v.add(zero); // adding a general Vector zero to concrete v
> // if this is allowed, then also the following is
> v.add(new Vector3D(1,2,3)); // summing 2D and 3D vector
> ...
>
>
>
> }

Right but implementation of addition surely checks for this case,
doesn't it?
public void add(Vector<? extends T> v) { if (v.getDimension() !=
this.getDimension() ) throw new IllegalArgumentException(); }
So it suffices to have a factory method for appropriate zero vectors
Vector zero = Vector.getZeroVector(2);


> > > > no big
> > > > win here either (eliminating type erasure is extremely welcome but for
> > > > other reasons). One big advantage of inheritance is, in my opinion, that
> > > > it enables you to compose more specialized classes from generic ones, it
> > > > is easy to imagine algebraic ordering relation between types based on
> > > > inheritance. Your version of statics breaks this assumption without
> > > > promise of any reward in exchange.
>
> > > I don't see how it breaks this relation between classes. Also now it is
> > > possible to hide supertype's static methods by own implementation. I
> > > would only add that in some cases this hiding would be required.
>
> > I was not very clear, it was late when I was writing I guess what
> > I was trying to say was that you can impose ordering based on
> > specialization (as opposed to parent-child relationship). Each class
> > in an inheritance chain either extends or redefines partially its
> > ancestor (I am using 'or' as logical or). Therefore each class is
> > either more specialized (if redefinition occurs and it accepts
> > stronger contract, as in Rectangle->Square) or equally specialized (if
> > extension occurs and all redefinitions do not change contract - I
> > treat extension as an interface extension so that class can be used
> > _additionally_ in different context). Your proposal forces implementor
> > to provide implementation for non-inheritable method, so it really
> > can't take any benefit from redefinitions up the chain. Therefore all
> > concrete classes are at most equally specialized as their context of
> > usage is determined by a static method. So it does not play well with
> > most "inheritance patterns". That's how I see it.
>
> Now I don't get it. Can you provide an example where you have a class
> and its specialized subclass and adding an abstract static method to
> their interface removes/prohibits this specialization?

Yes, consider
public abstract class IOStream //for reading disk streams {
public abstract static boolean isReadable(File f) //returns true
for files which a concrete class can hopefully process.
....
}

public class LocalIOStream extends IOstream {
public static boolean isreadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile(); }
....
}


public class AudioVideoStream extends LocalIOStream {
???
}

in AVStream you have, if I understood you correctly, two choices -
either to redo all work of super-classes which is not really an
option, let's say,
public static boolean isReadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile() &&
(f instanceof AudioFile && ((AudioFile)f).getAudioCodecID().equals
(...);}
or omit it so then you impose different context. Namely, pretend to be
able to read remote files while you are not.
And one more question:
//client code
Stream s = new AudioVideStream(..);
read10Bytes(s);

public byte[] read10Bytes(Stream s) {
if (!Stream.isReadable(file)) //how would you dispatch it? There is no
way I suppose
}

Tomas Mikula <> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:29:24 +0000, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Tomas Mikula <> wrote:
>>> presence of no-arg constructor in a serializable class would be checked
>>> at compile-time rather than at run-time.
>> I think this is easily misunderstood. The newly possible compiletime
>> check would be for compiling the *concrete class* whose name you later
>> intend to specify dynamically at runtime. This does have some merit.
>>
>> Still no compiletime check would of course be possible at the place
>> where you'd *use* that class dynamically, so nothing at all can be
>> helped about the reflection-part of this story.
>
> The idea here was to automate the reflection.
Sorry, that is a non-starter.

If you know the class at compiletime, you can just use it with
the "new"-operator and have all kinds of compile time checks.

If you don't know the class at compiletime, then neither does the
compiler, so there's nothing the compiler could possibly do for you
beyond what it already does, namely write bytecode to have the JVM
check it all at runtime.

Even at runtime, there's no saving: both, interface and existence
of relevant methods and constructors, each have to be checked
separately by the JVM.

I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
not forget about it.


About the static methods: if you need that kind of enforcement for
dynamically used classes, then just use instances and non-static
methods as helpers:

public interface Foo { // known to the user at compiletime.
public void pseudoStatic();
}
public class FooBar { // known to the user only at runtime
public void pseudoStatic() { realStatic(); }
public static void realStatic() { /* do something ... */ }
}
// snippet of user's code:
Foo x = (Foo)use_reflection_to_get_instance(implName); // implName=="FooBar"
x.pseudoStatic();

Up to minor syntactical differences this FooBar object does what your
".asImplementationOf()" result was intended to do, if I understood it
correctly. I don't think, that calling static methods on dynamically
named classes is worth such deep changes as you seem to have in mind
for this task.

On 19 Paź, 16:13, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
wrote:

>
> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
> not forget about it.

Yep, this is not bad.

Marcin Rzeźnicki wrote:
> On 19 Paź, 16:13, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
> wrote:
>
>> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
>> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
>> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
>> not forget about it.
>
> Yep, this is not bad.

I prefer the annotations-based method such as described here:
http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue167.html

It works very cleanly - my annotations processors are in a separate JAR
that I include on the javac classpath. Strictly speaking there's no need
to specify the processor path if doing this; it will default to the user
classpath if no processor path is specified. The only change I need to
make to my "real" source is the actual annotations, like
@NoArgsConstructor in the example, and quite frankly on the
implementation classes is where I personally want to enforce a condition
like this.

Because of the @Inherited annotation on the @NoArgsConstructor
annotation it becomes particularly handy. I have found use of this
approach when a large number of JPA @Entity classes inherit from a
@MappedSuperclass - it's not uncommon to want to supply some entities
with useful ctors (and if doing so carelessly the no-args ctor goes
away); using this kind of annotation on the @MappedSuperclass catches
all these problems at compile time.

AHS

On 19 Paź, 17:32, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Marcin Rzeźnicki wrote:
> > On 19 Paź, 16:13, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
> >> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
> >> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
> >> not forget about it.
>
> > Yep, this is not bad.
>
> I prefer the annotations-based method such as described here:http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue167.html

Nice, it wins

Eric Sosman <> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
>> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
>> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
>> not forget about it.

> Here's my objection: Suppose there's an Entertainer interface
> (or abstract class) and ...
> ...
> Okay, it might make sense for the class of Comedians to have a
> default stale Joke (a faithful model of reality, perhaps), ...

> ...
> The author of Entertainer, who knew nothing about the wants and needs
> of those who would come later, ...

Thanks for the entertaining example, but I think it's beside the point.
This type of argument "it's bad for this exemplary usecase, so it must
be bad for all usecases" is obviously flawed. (or was a joke, itself)

On second thought: If the Entertainers were designed to be dynamically
loaded by name, then Comedians just wouldn't have any chance of a individual
default joke. They could offer their Joke- constructor, but unless they
also offered a no-args one, they just wouldn't ever be successfully engaged.

This whole topic is inspired by dynamic loading of classes. Otherwise, there
wouldn't really be any use for dictating constructors at all. Dynamic loading
of classes seems to me of increasing importance with all those AppServers,
J2EE, ... Demanding the default-constructor (or even with a specific set
of arguments) for those classes imposes no new restriction, just formalizes
the restrictions that were already imposed by documentation and use.

PS: In recent threads I spoke up against restrictions, and now I promote them?
It's different types of restrictions, of course: an extra method or c'tor
is easily added as a dummy, but an idly added "final" is much harder to come
by, if deemed improper, later.

Marcin Rzeźnicki <> wrote:
> On 19 Paź, 17:32, Arved Sandstrom <dces...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Marcin Rzeźnicki wrote:
>> > On 19 Paź, 16:13, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
>> >> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
>> >> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
>> >> not forget about it.
>> > Yep, this is not bad.
>> I prefer the annotations-based method such as described here:
>> http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue167.html
> Nice, it wins

Indeed nice, but what would be the extra effort to create e.g. a
@StringArgConstructor annotation and its processing? And then also
a @StringStringArgConstructor and a @StringMyFooIntArgConstructor, ...

As long as this annotation, its processor, and a mechanism to create
annotations for any particular constructor-signature aren't yet in the
standard, I wouldn't deem them a full substitute...

But then again, they do not depend on my deeming it anything...

On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, Marcin Rze¼nicki <marcin.rzezni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 19 Pa 1/4, 15:06, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm saying it is wrong, but just don't like that the implementation
> > requires a lot of reflection. (I don't mind that implementation of
> > statndard Java API requires reflection, because someone has already
> > implemented it for me. But if I want to create my own serialization
> > framework (e.g. for xml serialization), I need to do a lot of
> > reflection which could be automated.) Probably one thing I find wrong
> > with readObject - as I already mentioned, it prevents the object to be
> > immutable. Though this could also be solved by declaring it static and
> > use reflection.
>
> Yes, but someone did it for you either - JAXB, xStreams etc. This is
> not a type of work you do day-in day-out, so benefits are rarely to be
> seen

Occasionally new frameworks appear. Not an everyday work, but for me
it justifies the introduction of a new feature, if there is no hidden
danger we haven't noticed so far. I accept that for you it's not a
sufficient reason.

> > > > > Example with generics can easily be substituted by some kind of
> > > > > "trait" parameter
>
> > > > Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "trait" parameter? Do you mean that
> > > > I would call the zero() method on some instance?
> > > > Like myDummyVector.zero()?
>
> > > I borrowed the terminology from C++. More or less, you add type
> > > parameter (let's say <Zero extends ZeroVector>) which has a method
> > > like getZeroVector() (strictly speaking ZeroVector has this method).
> > > Actual type parameter provides concrete implementation.
>
> > I don't see how this would help. Would I call Zero.getZeroVector()?
> > Probably you meant something else because this leads to the same
> > problem with calling static method getZeroVector() on a type
> > parameter. Could you provide an example?
>
> OK
> public class MyVector<T, Zero extends ZeroVector> extends Vector2D<T>
> {
> ...
> public MyVector(Zero zero) { this.zero = zero; }
> ...
>
> }
>
> MyVector<Integer, Zero2D> vec = new MyVector(Vector2D.zero());

OK, but when we already resort to obtaining a zero vector from another
instance, we don't need a reference to zero stored in each instance of
vector. We can just have a nonstatic zero() method:

abstract class Vector<T, V extends Vector<V>> {
public abstract V zero();
}

class Vector2D extends Vector<Integer, Vector2D> {
public static final Vector2D ZERO = new Vector2D(0, 0);
public Vector2D zero(){ return ZERO; }
}

I wanted to obtain zero without a reference to an instance. Using an
instance is unnatural and sometimes an instance is just not at hand.

> > > > > or suitable simple design pattern (for example
> > > > > Factory), or even with classic sub-typing (zero vector needs not know
> > > > > its dimension, it can simply 'answer' with neutral element of the ring
> > > > > on which it is constructed for each and every component query),
>
> > > > Allowing operations between a concrete vector and this general zero
> > > > vector would require to also allow operations between 2D and 3D vetors -
> > > > the original type safety would disappear.
>
> > > I don't get it, could you provide an example?
>
> > If I understood well, you meant something like this:
>
> > Class Vector {
> > public static Vector getZeroVector(){
> > return someSpecialZeroVectorInstance;
> > }
> > public abstract Vector add(Vector v);
>
> > }
>
> > Class Vector2D {
> > public Vector add(Vector v){...}
> > ...
>
> > }
>
> > class MyClass<V extends Vector> {
> > ...
> > V v; // V is some concrete class, such as Vector2D
> > ...
> > Vector zero = Vector.getZeroVector();
> > v.add(zero); // adding a general Vector zero to concrete v
> > // if this is allowed, then also the following is
> > v.add(new Vector3D(1,2,3)); // summing 2D and 3D vector
> > ...
>
> > }
>
> Right but implementation of addition surely checks for this case,
> doesn't it?

Not necessarily:

abstract class Vector<V extends Vector<V>> {
public V add(V v);
}

class Vector2D extends Vector<Vector2D> {
private final int x, y;
public Vector2D(int x, int y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; }
public Vector2D add(Vector2D v){
return new Vector2D(this.x + v.x, this.y + v.y);
}
}

No checking that the argument of addition has the correct type,
because this is enforced by the compiler.

> public void add(Vector<? extends T> v) { if (v.getDimension() !=
> this.getDimension() ) throw new IllegalArgumentException(); }
> So it suffices to have a factory method for appropriate zero vectors
> Vector zero = Vector.getZeroVector(2);
>
>
>
> > > > > no big
> > > > > win here either (eliminating type erasure is extremely welcome but for
> > > > > other reasons). One big advantage of inheritance is, in my opinion, that
> > > > > it enables you to compose more specialized classes from generic ones, it
> > > > > is easy to imagine algebraic ordering relation between types based on
> > > > > inheritance. Your version of statics breaks this assumption without
> > > > > promise of any reward in exchange.
>
> > > > I don't see how it breaks this relation between classes. Also now it is
> > > > possible to hide supertype's static methods by own implementation. I
> > > > would only add that in some cases this hiding would be required.
>
> > > I was not very clear, it was late when I was writing I guess what
> > > I was trying to say was that you can impose ordering based on
> > > specialization (as opposed to parent-child relationship). Each class
> > > in an inheritance chain either extends or redefines partially its
> > > ancestor (I am using 'or' as logical or). Therefore each class is
> > > either more specialized (if redefinition occurs and it accepts
> > > stronger contract, as in Rectangle->Square) or equally specialized (if
> > > extension occurs and all redefinitions do not change contract - I
> > > treat extension as an interface extension so that class can be used
> > > _additionally_ in different context). Your proposal forces implementor
> > > to provide implementation for non-inheritable method, so it really
> > > can't take any benefit from redefinitions up the chain. Therefore all
> > > concrete classes are at most equally specialized as their context of
> > > usage is determined by a static method. So it does not play well with
> > > most "inheritance patterns". That's how I see it.
>
> > Now I don't get it. Can you provide an example where you have a class
> > and its specialized subclass and adding an abstract static method to
> > their interface removes/prohibits this specialization?
>
> Yes, consider
> public abstract class IOStream //for reading disk streams {
> public abstract static boolean isReadable(File f) //returns true
> for files which a concrete class can hopefully process.
> ...
>
> }
>
> public class LocalIOStream extends IOstream {
> public static boolean isreadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile(); }
> ...
>
> }
>
> public class AudioVideoStream extends LocalIOStream {
> ???
>
> }
>
> in AVStream you have, if I understood you correctly, two choices -
> either to redo all work of super-classes which is not really an
> option, let's say,
> public static boolean isReadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile() &&
> (f instanceof AudioFile && ((AudioFile)f).getAudioCodecID().equals
> (...);}

You don't have to redo the work, you can call the superclass's static
method as usual:

public static boolean isReadable(File f){
return LocalIOStream.isReadable(f) &&
f instanceof AudioFile &&
((AudioFile)f).getAudioCodecID().equals(...);
}

Furthermore, if we expect that specialized IOStreams will only be able
to process instances specialized instances of File, the IOStreams
could be parametrized by the type of the File.

abstract class IOStream<F extends File> {
public abstract static boolean isReadable(F f);
}

class LocalIOStream<F extends File> extends IOStream<F> {
public static boolean isReadable(F f){
return f.isLocalFile();
}
}

class AudioVideoStream extends LocalIOStream<AudioFile> {
public static boolean isReadable(AudioFile f){
return LocalIOStream.isReadable(f)
&& f.getAudioCodecID().equals(...);
}
}

> or omit it so then you impose different context. Namely, pretend to be
> able to read remote files while you are not.
> And one more question:
> //client code
> Stream s = new AudioVideStream(..);
> read10Bytes(s);
>
> public byte[] read10Bytes(Stream s) {
> if (!Stream.isReadable(file)) //how would you dispatch it? There is no
> way I suppose
>
> }

This would be a compile-time error, since isReadable() is abstract in
Stream.

On Oct 19, 4:13*pm, Andreas Leitgeb <a...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
wrote:
> Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:29:24 +0000, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> >> Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> presence of no-arg constructor in a serializable class would be checked
> >>> at compile-time rather than at run-time.
> >> I think this is easily misunderstood. *The newly possible compiletime
> >> check would be for compiling the *concrete class* whose name you later
> >> intend to specify dynamically at runtime. This does have some merit.
>
> >> Still no compiletime check would of course be possible at the place
> >> where you'd *use* that class dynamically, so nothing at all can be
> >> helped about the reflection-part of this story.
>
> > The idea here was to automate the reflection.
>
> Sorry, that is a non-starter.
>
> If you know the class at compiletime, you can just use it with
> the "new"-operator and have all kinds of compile time checks.
>
> If you don't know the class at compiletime, then neither does the
> compiler, so there's nothing the compiler could possibly do for you
> beyond what it already does, namely write bytecode to have the JVM
> check it all at runtime.

In my original post I noted that the use of Class's newly introduced
method
<T> Implementation<T> asImplementationOf(Class<T> clazz);
would have the restriction that the type T is known at compile time.
In this case, the compiler can generate the bytecode to check if the
'this' class implements T.

> Even at runtime, there's no saving: both, interface and existence
> of relevant methods and constructors, each have to be checked
> separately by the JVM.

Although my major intention was to reduce writing reflective code,
there could also be a run-time saving: as soon as the JVM loads a
class A, it will know if it 'statically implements' interface J. (By
the same mechanism as it knows if A implements interface I.)
'Statically implements' would just be a new kind of relationship
between classes, in addition to 'extends' and 'implements'.

>
> I still see some merit in being able to enforce that any concrete
> class implementing some thusly declared interface had to offer some
> particular c'tor, as a means to help developers of such classes to
> not forget about it.
>
> About the static methods: if you need that kind of enforcement for
> dynamically used classes, then just use instances and non-static
> methods as helpers:
>
> public interface Foo { *// known to the user at compiletime.
> * *public void pseudoStatic();}
>
> public class FooBar { * // known to the user only at runtime
> * *public void pseudoStatic() { realStatic(); }
> * *public static void realStatic() { /* do something ... */ }}
>
> // snippet of user's code:
> Foo x = (Foo)use_reflection_to_get_instance(implName); // implName=="FooBar"
> x.pseudoStatic();
>
> Up to minor syntactical differences this FooBar object does what your
> ".asImplementationOf()" result was intended to do, if I understood it
> correctly.

Yes, but:
- it requires to get an unnecessary instance (not so bad yet);
- getting this instance requires reflection
- using reflection for getting an instance requires conventions
which cannot be checked at runtime (such as the presence of
some particular (e.g. no-arg) constructor)

If I'm interested in just one static method, it turns out I could just
use reflection to get this Method instead of a dummy instance.
Furthermore, if I forget to override pseudoStatic() or realStatic() in
a subclass, I will get the realStatic() from superclass, which is not
what I want. The compiler will not enforce me in any way to override
them.

>*I don't think, that calling static methods on dynamically
> named classes is worth such deep changes as you seem to have in mind
> for this task.

The good thing about it is that the changes are not real changes, just
extensions. So far I think they are all backward compatible with
current specification. No old code would be broken if these extensions
are introduced.

On 19 Pa¼, 19:53, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 3:51 pm, Marcin Rze 1/4 nicki <marcin.rzezni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Pa 1/4, 15:06, Tomas Mikula <tomas.mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm saying it is wrong, but just don't like that the implementation
> > > requires a lot of reflection. (I don't mind that implementation of
> > > statndard Java API requires reflection, because someone has already
> > > implemented it for me. But if I want to create my own serialization
> > > framework (e.g. for xml serialization), I need to do a lot of
> > > reflection which could be automated.) Probably one thing I find wrong
> > > with readObject - as I already mentioned, it prevents the object to be
> > > immutable. Though this could also be solved by declaring it static and
> > > use reflection.
>
> > Yes, but someone did it for you either - JAXB, xStreams etc. This is
> > not a type of work you do day-in day-out, so benefits are rarely to be
> > seen
>
> Occasionally new frameworks appear. Not an everyday work, but for me
> it justifies the introduction of a new feature, if there is no hidden
> danger we haven't noticed so far. I accept that for you it's not a
> sufficient reason.
>

It is, but I am trying to bring up some dangers of your method
throughout this thread.

>
>
> > > > > > Example with generics can easily be substituted by some kind of
> > > > > > "trait" parameter
>
> > > > > Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "trait" parameter? Do you mean that
> > > > > I would call the zero() method on some instance?
> > > > > Like myDummyVector.zero()?
>
> > > > I borrowed the terminology from C++. More or less, you add type
> > > > parameter (let's say <Zero extends ZeroVector>) which has a method
> > > > like getZeroVector() (strictly speaking ZeroVector has this method)..
> > > > Actual type parameter provides concrete implementation.
>
> > > I don't see how this would help. Would I call Zero.getZeroVector()?
> > > Probably you meant something else because this leads to the same
> > > problem with calling static method getZeroVector() on a type
> > > parameter. Could you provide an example?
>
> > OK
> > public class MyVector<T, Zero extends ZeroVector> extends Vector2D<T>
> > {
> > ...
> > public MyVector(Zero zero) { this.zero = zero; }
> > ...
>
> > }
>
> > MyVector<Integer, Zero2D> vec = new MyVector(Vector2D.zero());
>
> OK, but when we already resort to obtaining a zero vector from another
> instance, we don't need a reference to zero stored in each instance of
> vector. We can just have a nonstatic zero() method:
>
> abstract class Vector<T, V extends Vector<V>> {
> public abstract V zero();
>
> }
>
> class Vector2D extends Vector<Integer, Vector2D> {
> public static final Vector2D ZERO = new Vector2D(0, 0);
> public Vector2D zero(){ return ZERO; }
>
> }
>
> I wanted to obtain zero without a reference to an instance. Using an
> instance is unnatural and sometimes an instance is just not at hand.
>
>

Right, but that was just an example of what is 'trait'. I am not
saying this is necessarily the best design decision in this case.

>
> > Right but implementation of addition surely checks for this case,
> > doesn't it?
>
> Not necessarily:
>
> abstract class Vector<V extends Vector<V>> {
> public V add(V v);
>
> }
>
> class Vector2D extends Vector<Vector2D> {
> private final int x, y;
> public Vector2D(int x, int y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; }
> public Vector2D add(Vector2D v){
> return new Vector2D(this.x + v.x, this.y + v.y);
> }
>
> }
>
> No checking that the argument of addition has the correct type,
> because this is enforced by the compiler.
>
>

Formal arguments have to be invariant with respect to overriding in
Java, you simply created method overload which will be used when
compiler is sure that runtime type of argument will be Vector2D. You
will still have to provide 'generic' add method.
Your example does not help either (or I cannot see how it would)
because you will not be able to dispatch on v's actual type unless you
change how invokestatic works.


>
> > Yes, consider
> > public abstract class IOStream //for reading disk streams {
> > public abstract static boolean isReadable(File f) //returns true
> > for files which a concrete class can hopefully process.
> > ...
>
> > }
>
> > public class LocalIOStream extends IOstream {
> > public static boolean isreadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile(); }
> > ...
>
> > }
>
> > public class AudioVideoStream extends LocalIOStream {
> > ???
>
> > }
>
> > in AVStream you have, if I understood you correctly, two choices -
> > either to redo all work of super-classes which is not really an
> > option, let's say,
> > public static boolean isReadable(File f) { return f.isLocalFile() &&
> > (f instanceof AudioFile && ((AudioFile)f).getAudioCodecID().equals
> > (...);}
>
> You don't have to redo the work, you can call the superclass's static
> method as usual:
>
> public static boolean isReadable(File f){
> return LocalIOStream.isReadable(f) &&
> f instanceof AudioFile &&
> ((AudioFile)f).getAudioCodecID().equals(...);
>
> }

Yeah, right, but consider what happens when someone implements
multiple interfaces, or when inheritance tree changes, or when someone
inherits multiple interfaces with conflicting statics and so on. This
example is basically hand-crafted implementation of virtual
dispatch

>
> Furthermore, if we expect that specialized IOStreams will only be able
> to process instances specialized instances of File, the IOStreams
> could be parametrized by the type of the File.
>
> abstract class IOStream<F extends File> {
> public abstract static boolean isReadable(F f);
>
> }
>
> class LocalIOStream<F extends File> extends IOStream<F> {
> public static boolean isReadable(F f){
> return f.isLocalFile();
> }
>
> }
>
> class AudioVideoStream extends LocalIOStream<AudioFile> {
> public static boolean isReadable(AudioFile f){
> return LocalIOStream.isReadable(f)
> && f.getAudioCodecID().equals(...);
> }
>
> }

Well, ok, but it does not change anything. Still you have to re-
implement invokevirtual by hand all the time

> > or omit it so then you impose different context. Namely, pretend to be
> > able to read remote files while you are not.
> > And one more question:
> > //client code
> > Stream s = new AudioVideStream(..);
> > read10Bytes(s);
>
> > public byte[] read10Bytes(Stream s) {
> > if (!Stream.isReadable(file)) //how would you dispatch it? There is no
> > way I suppose
>
> > }
>
> This would be a compile-time error, since isReadable() is abstract in
> Stream.

This is really bad Then actually your statics will be usable only
when you know exact type you want to work with.