Call an abstract method

Hello developers,
I am trying to implement the following (simple) classes:
class abstract_class definition abstract
     public
     create public .
     protected section
          methods parse_string abtract
               importing
                    value(i_str) type string.
          methods to_table.
endclass.
class abstract_class implementation.
     method to_table.
          me->parse_string( str ).
     endmethod.
endclass.
class other_class definition
     public
          inheriting from abstract_class
          final
          create public .
     protected section.
          methods parse_string redefinition.
endclass.
class other_class implementation.
     method parse_string.
*        some codes
     endmethod.
endclass.
I have instantiated the class other_class. But when I call the method to_table, I am getting the error "CALL METHOD NOT IMPLEMENTED" on the method parse_string. Where is my mistake ?
Thank you for your replies.
Best regards,
Nicolas

Hello everyone,
First of all, thank you for all your reply.
During the night, I have thought to my problem and I found the solution. In fact, I made a (very) great mistake. Here is my code:
CLASS abstract_class IMPLEMENTATION.
     method constructor.
          me->to_table( ).
     endmethod.
     method to_table.
          me->parse_string( a_string ).
     endmethod.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS other_class IMPLEMENTATION.
     method constructor.
          call method super->constructor.
     endmethod.
     method parse_string.
*          some code
     endmethod.
ENDCLASS.
The problem is: I call the method parse_string of my child class (with the instruction me->parse_string) before my child class is instantiated... (Now, I can jump out the window.) Vadim Vologzhanin 's reply helped me by asking where I instantiated my child class.
Thank you !
Best regards,
Nicolas

Similar Messages

Can i call non -abstract method in abstract class into a derived class?

Hi all,
Is it possible in java to call a non-abstract method in a abstact class from a class derived from it or this is not possible in java.
The following example will explain this Ques. in detail.
abstract class A
void amethod()
System.out.println(" I am in Base Class");
public class B extends A
void amethod()
System.out.println(" I am in Derived Class");
public static void main (String args[])
// How i code this part to call a method amathod() which will print "I am in Base Class
}

Ok, if you want to call a non-static method from a
static method, then you have to provide an object. In
this case it does not matter whether the method is in
an abstract base class or whatever. You simply cannot
(in any object oriented language, including C++ and
JAVA) call a nonstatic method without providing an
object, on which you will call the method.
To my solution with reflection: It also only works,
if you have an object. And: if you use
getDeclaredMethod, then invoke should not call B's
method, but A's. if you would use getMethod, then the
Method object returned would reflect to B's method.
The process of resolving overloaded methods is
performed during the getMethod call, not during the
invoke (at least AFAIK, please tell me, if I'm wrong).You are wrong....
class A {
    public void dummy() {
         System.out.println("Dymmy in A");
class B extends A {
     public void dummy() {
          System.out.println("Dymmy in B");
     public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
          A tmp = new B();
          Class clazz = A.class;
          Method method = clazz.getDeclaredMethod("dummy", null);
          method.invoke(tmp, null);
}Prints:
Dymmy in B
/Kaj

Calling abstract method inside constructor

what will happen if you call abstract method inside a constructor ?

AMARSHI wrote:
Then wat is the purpose of that object then.
When u create an object then the control will move to the default constructor,If there is one. Not all classes have default constructors. Some c'tor will be called though.
inside the constructor u r having an abstract method.
But theere are 2 cases now:
1 the top-level class is an abstract class
2 the abstract class is an inner class.
1. for case 1 , u cannot create an object ,so no need of having the constructor.Yes, you can create an object. You can instantiate a concrete subclass. The abstract parent's constructor is still called, and that c'tor may call an abstract method, which will be implemented in the concrete subclass, or some class between it and the parent.
2.for case 2 u cannot have an object like:
outerClass obj = new innerAbstractClass()I have no idea what you're talking about here.

About abstract method read() in class InputStream (third message)

The subclass FilterInputStream is not abstract and extend InputStream: have you ever seen the implementation of that method in the source code available in SDK? It only calls that abstract method!!! I think it is not a very simple problem and anyway the answer is not in my diffrent books. Thanks for your non trivial answer.

Please post this as a "reply" in your original thread
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5192979&tstart=0
Don't start a new thread, simply reply to one of the other posts in the original thread (there is a button "reply" on the right hand side).

Abstract method

Say DfObject is an abstract class with one abstract method, generateHTML. Now there is another object called DfContainer which stores, in a HashTable, objects that are subclasses of DfObject, like DfText, DfList,...
I have a method in DfContainer to put objects of type DfText, DfList, ... into a HashTable.
Now, Say I have a method, getObject(), in DfContainer to return an object from the HashTable. I set my return type for the method to DfObject. So in getObject(), I cast the object returned from the Hash to DfObject.
Is the type returned from the hash of type Object, or is it of the actual types stored in the HashTable, like DfText, DfList,...?
If my method returns an object of type DfObject, and if I were to call the abstract method generateHTML(), which is defined differently in each subclass, will it call the appropriate method? Or will I need to cast it to DfText or DfList before being able to call the abstract method?
Thanks,
Moshe

Say DfObject is an abstract class with one abstract
method, generateHTML. Now there is another object
called DfContainer which stores, in a HashTable,
objects that are subclasses of DfObject, like DfText,
DfList,...
I have a method in DfContainer to put objects of type
DfText, DfList, ... into a HashTable.
Now, Say I have a method, getObject(), in DfContainer
to return an object from the HashTable. I set my
return type for the method to DfObject. So in
getObject(), I cast the object returned from the Hash
to DfObject.
Is the type returned from the hash of type Object, or
is it of the actual types stored in the HashTable,
like DfText, DfList,...?Lets say you add a DfText object to the Hashtable. When it comes out again you get an Object, but under this disguise it is still a DfText object so you are allowed to cast it into a DfObject or a DfText.
>
If my method returns an object of type DfObject, and
if I were to call the abstract method generateHTML(),
which is defined differently in each subclass, will it
call the appropriate method? Or will I need to cast it
to DfText or DfList before being able to call the
abstract method?No you can just cast it to DfObject and invoke any methods in that class even if they are abstract. Its called dynamic method invocation or something.

Abstract method called in an abstract class

Hello,
I am writing some code that I'd like to be as generic as possible.
I created an abstract class called Chromozome. This abstract class has a protected abstract method called initialize().
I also created an abstract class called Algorithm which contains a protected ArrayList<Chromozome>.
I would like to create a non abstract method (called initializePopulation()) which would create instances of Chromozome, call their method initialize() and full the ArrayList with them.
In a practical matter, only subclass of Algorithm will be used, using an ArrayList of a subclass of Chromozome implementing their own version of initialize.
I have been thinking of that and concluded it was impossible to do. But I'd like to ask more talented peaple before forgetting it !
Thanks,
Vincent

Ok, let's it is not impossible, juste that I had no idea of how doing it :-)
The difficulty is that Algorithm will never have to deal with Chromozome itself, but always with subclass of Chromozome. This is usually not an issue, but in that case, Algorithm is required to create instances of the desired subclass of Chromozome, but without knowing in advance wich subclass will be used (I hope what I say makes any sense).
Actually I may have found a way in the meantime, but maybe not the best one.
I created in Algorithm an abstract method :
protected abstract Chromozome createChromozome()The method initializePopulation will call createChromozome instead of calling directly the constructor and the initialize() method of Chromozome.
Then subclass of Algorithm will implement the method createChromozome using the desired subclass of Chromozome.

Parent constructor calls abstract method

Hi everybody!
I'm wondering if there is something wrong with java or if the idea is just too ill?
Anyway, I think it would be great if this hierachy would work...
Two classes A and B.
Class A defines an astract method.
In A's constructor this abstract method is called.
Class B extends A and provides an implementation for the abstract method in A.
Class B also defines a member variable that is set in B's implementation of the abstract method.
In class' B constructor the parent constructor A() is called.
example:
public abstract class A {
public A() {
    createComponents();
public abstract void createComponents();
public class B extends A {
private String string = null;
public B() {
    super();
    System.out.println("B::B() " + string);
public void createComponents() {
    System.out.println("B::createComponents() begin");
    string = new String("test");
    System.out.println("B::createComponents() " + string);
public void describe() {
    System.out.println("B::describe() " + string);
public static void main(String[] args) {
    B b = new B();
    b.describe();
}running the code above produces the following output:
B::createComponents() begin
B::createComponents() test
B::B() null
B::describe() null
why is the string member variable null in B's constructor??
thanks in advance
Peter Bachl
Polytechnic University of Upper Austria, Hagenberg
[email protected]

The answer is that the call of the super-constructor
is allways done before the initialization
of the member variable. That's all and that's the
normal behavior.
order :
- initialization of static variables
- call to the super-constructor
- initialization of the instance variables
- execution of the constructor
Since this is the advanced forum it is relevant to point out that that is not exactly true.
There is a step in java that 'initializes' member variables before any constructors are called, super or other wise.
From the JLS 12.5...
Otherwise, all the instance variables in the new object, including those declared in superclasses, are initialized to their default values (4.5.5)
Using the following code as an example
class MyClass
     int i1;
     int i2 = 1;
.When creating an instance of the above there will be three 'initializations'
// Part of object creation...
i1 = 0; // The default value
i2 = 0; // The default value
// Part of construction...after super ctors called.
i2 = 1; // The variable initializer (see step 4 of JLS 12.5)
Unfortunately the descriptions are rather similar and so confusion can result as to when the assignment actually occurs.

Calling abstract method from method, where is functional code

HI All
I'm trying to find the actual code that is responsible for the play() method to play sound of Applet or of AudioClip. I looked in the source files and found that the two are circle-refering to each other. Audio clip is an interface so it doesnt specify any code for how the method play() should work. That should be left to the classes that implement it. But the play(URL) method of Applet refers to the the AudioClips method:public void play(URL url) {
AudioClip clip = getAudioClip(url);
if (clip != null) {
clip.play();
So where is the real code for the method?
This seems to be very normal because almost all methods in Applet where refering to interfaces like AppletContext an AppletStub.
How does this work? Can anybody explain?

This is a design-pattern called "factory-method". The factory-method (here getAudioClip(URL)) has a return value of an interface but really returns an object of a class implementing this interface. The user can call this factory-method and then call the methods of the returned object without knowing wich class this methods implements. If you want to change the implementing class later, you only have to build a new class and to change the factory-method - but the code of the "user" will not change.

Product is not abstract and does not override abstract method

Received the following errors.
Product.java:3: Product is not abstract and does not override abstract method ge
tDisplayText() in Displayable
public class Product implements Displayable
^
Product.java:16: getDisplayText() in Product cannot implement getDisplayText() i
n Displayable; attempting to use incompatible return type
found : void
required: java.lang.String
public void getDisplayText()
^
2 errors
Code reads as follows
import java.text.NumberFormat;
public class Product implements Displayable
     private String code;
     private String description;
     private double price;
     public Product()
          this.code = "";
          this.description = "";
          this.price = 0;
public void getDisplayText()
String message =
"Code: " + code + "\n" +
"Description: " + description + "\n" +
"Price: " + this.getFormattedPrice() + "\n";
     public Product(String code, String description, double price)
          this.code = code;
          this.description = description;
          this.price = price;
     public void setCode(String code)
          this.code = code;
     public String getCode(){
          return code;
     public void setDescription(String description)
          this.description = description;
     public String getDescription()
          return description;
     public void setPrice(double price)
          this.price = price;
     public double getPrice()
          return price;
     public String getFormattedPrice()
          NumberFormat currency = NumberFormat.getCurrencyInstance();
          return currency.format(price);
Please help!

Received the following errors.
Product.java:3: Product is not abstract and does not
override abstract method ge
tDisplayText() in Displayable
public class Product implements Displayable
^
Product.java:16: getDisplayText() in Product cannot
implement getDisplayText() i
n Displayable; attempting to use incompatible return
type
found : void
required: java.lang.String
public void getDisplayText()
^
2 errors
Code reads as follows
Please use the code tags when posting code. There is a code button right above the text box where you enter your post. Click on it and put the code between the code tags.
These error messages are quite clear in telling what is wrong. You have an Interface called Displayable that specifies a method something like thispublic String getDisplayText() {But in your Product source code, you created thismethodpublic void getDisplayText() {The compiler is complaining because the methods are not the same.
You also need to return a String in the method probalby like thisreturn message;

How to call a static method in a class if I have just the object?

Hello. I have an abstract class A where I have a static method blah(). I have 2 classes that extend class A called B and C. In both classes I override method blah(). I have an array with objects of type B and C.
For every instance object of the array, I'm trying to call the static method in the corresponding class. For objects of type B I want to call blah() method in B class and for objects of type C I want to call blah() method in C class. I know it's possible to call a static method with the name of the object, too, but for some reason (?) it calls blah() method in class A if I try this.
So my question is: how do I code this? I guess I need to cast to the class name and then call the method with the class name, but I couldn't do it. I tried to use getClass() method to get the class name and it works, but I didn't know what to do from here...
So any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

As somebody already said, to get the behavior you
want, make the methods non-static.You all asked me why I need that method to be
static... I'm not surprised to hear this question
because I asked all my friends before posting here,
and all of them asked me this... It's because some
complicated reasons, I doubt it.
the application I'm writing is
quite big...Irrelevant.
Umm... So what you're saying is there is no way to do
this with that method being static? The behavior you describe cannot be obtained with only static methods in Java. You'd have to explicitly determine the class and then explicitly call the correct class' method.

"Abstract" method in a non-abstract class

Hi all.
I have a class "SuperClass" from which other class are extended...
I'd like to "force" some methods (method1(), method2, ...) to be implemented in the inherited classes.
I know I can accomplish this just implementing the superclass method body in order to throw an exception when it's directly called:
void method1(){
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}...but I was wondering if there's another (better) way...
It's like I would like to declare some abstract methods in a non-abstract class...
Any ideas?

The superclass just models the information held by
the subclasses.
The information is taken from the database, by
accessing the proper table (one for each subclass).??
What do you mean by "models the information"?
You should use inheritance (of implementation) only when the class satisfies the following criteria:
1) "Is a special kind of," not "is a role played by a";
2) Never needs to transmute to be an object in some other class;
3) Extends rather than overrides or nullifies superclass;
4) Does not subclass what is merely a utility class (useful functionality you'd like to reuse); and
5) Within PD: expresses special kinds of roles, transactions, or things.
Why are you trying to force these mystery methodsfrom the superclass?
It's not mandatory for me to do it... I 'd see it
just like a further way to check that the subclasses
implements these methods, as they have to do.That's not a good idea. If the superclass has no relation to the database, it shouldn't contain methods (abstract or otherwise) related to database transactions.
The subclasses are the classes that handle db
transaction.
They are designed as a binding to a db table.And how is the superclass designed to handle db transactions? My guess (based on your description) is that it isn't. That should tell you right away that the subclasses should not extend your superclass.

Abstract method which when implemented will have different parameters

Hello to all,
I have an assignment but not looking for someone to do it for me. I am only searching for a suggestion on how to do the following.
Imagine having an application that needs to provide an estimate of the rent for different buildings.
Basically I start with by having a class name Building. This class has an abstract method called estimateRent.
I then create two classes that extend the class Building which are named Apartment and House. Both need to have the method estimateRent.
However the problem is that the rent for the Apartment is calculated on the nights passed in the flat and the people in it, while the rent for the House is just calculated on a month bases.
This means the estimateRent method requires to have different parameters depending if it is implemented inside the Apartment class or the House class.
Now I only know of two options.
The first option is to not declare the estimateRent method as an abstract method inside the Building class and just implemented inside the Apartment and House with different parameters. I do not like this option since in the future if a new Building comes in then I would like to impose the fact that that object needs to have a calculate method.
The second option is to make the estimateRent method as abstract inside the Building class however takes a parameter of either a String array or else a Map. Then the estimateRent within the Apartment class would search for the elements tagged as nights and people, and the House class would only search for the elements tagged as months!
However do not know if there are any other, better ways on how to do this. I am using Java 1.4 however if you only have answers for Java 5.0 then please post them again since I always like to learn something new :)
Thank You for any comments.
tx

The implementation changes, yes.Yes that I could understand in the Strategy Pattern (in the document I read it was being compared with the Template Pattern).
Then you need to refactor your design.I tought about that, however if you read my first post you will notice that I have different criteria on which the costs need to be estimated. While the costs for a flat are estimated on the people staying in and nights slept there, the costs for the house are based only on the months stayed there regardless of the people living in. Now for me I feel that it is bad programming practice to create one method that can have all the parameters required for any scenario. I mean the following is NOT something I am going to do:
estimateCosts(int nights, int people, int months ... etc);
That's not a very elegant way of going about it.
What is the "Context" going to have?Yep I agree, but so far my limited brain has only come up with that! I am open to any other sugestion! always if i understand it first!
Basically the Context would better be named as Criteria and it would be an interface as follows:
interface Criteria{}
Then I would create two classes that implement the Criteria object as follows:
class AppartmentCriteria implements Criteria{
public Result estimateCosts(int nights, int people);
class HouseCriteria implements Criteria{
public Result estimateCosts(int months);
Now when I recieve the inputs, depending on the scenario the Criteria is typecasted and the correct parameters passed and we recieve the Result.
I feel the above sucks since I am not seeing it as an object oriented way of doing this out! Is there any other sugestions! The refactoring thing I am intrested in! however really I can not see how such a call to that method could be refectored!
Thank You,
tx.
PS: Sun has blocked my other account as well, and this time they did not even send me an email to confirm that I was registered successfuully :( Is there someone I can contact on this? I guess next time I will reply with tx53m :)

Abstract Method Overriding Problem

I have an abstract class called "Employee" with an abstract method called "ReturnBasicInfo()" defined.
I have two subclasses, SalariedEmployee and HourlyEmployee, and each has their own version of ReturnBasicInfo(). The compiler is not letting me do this, however, and I have no idea why.
I keep getting this error:
SalariedEmployee.java:6: SalariedEmployee is not abstract and does not override
abstract method returnBasicInfo() in Employee.The abstract method signature is this:
public abstract String returnBasicInfo(Employee e);Any idea why this might be happening? I have another abstract method called toVector() that's overriden in the subclasses and that one works fine, so I'm stumped on this. The only difference between the two is that this method takes arguments and the other doesn't. Is that why it can't be overriden?
Thanks in advance for any help!

"...In the instructor's example code, he actually
overrode toString with this method. I thought I might
be using the real toString(), though, so that's why I
changed the name to returnBasicInfo(). I didn't end up
using toString(), though. Maybe I ought to go back to
calling it toString()..."
Yes, this SHOULD be overridden in toString(). Do go
back to it.
The "real" toString()? Do you mean the default
version in java.lang.Object, the one that just prints
out the object reference when it's called?
Hmm, I guess. I got confused because I'm swapping between String and double values a lot. Taking in an entered number as a String and converting it to a double.
I think I originally confused toString() with String.valueOf().
I wouldn't have getYearlySalary() for SalariedEmployee
and getHourlySalary() for HourlyEmployee. That
defeats the purpose of polymorphism and dynamic
typing. Yes, but I do have one polymorphic method --pay(). Each Employee is paid a different way. The one method we were supposed to be able to call on all Employees is just pay(). There is one version of pay() for HourlyEmployees that uses gethourly_rate() and gethours_worked() to get hourly rate and hours worked. The other version of pay() in SalariedEmployees takes in their yearly salary and number of pay periods worked.
Better to have a getSalary() method in your
Employee interface and let each subclass implement it
the way they want to. SalariedEmployee will return
their yearly salary, HourlyEmployee will return
hourlySalary*hoursWorkedOK, that's one idea.
But darnit, I would still like to know how to get my original design to work. So I should change returnBasicInfo() to toString(), you think?

Enforce setting private variable in subclass with abstract method

Hi,
Is this something that is common usage/practice?:
public abstract class Base {
    private int importantPrivateVariable = setImportantPrivateVariable();
    protected abstract int setImportantPrivateVariable();
}I would like to enforce the extender of the class to set a private variable, but as there is no abstract variable in java, I can only use a method for it.
Thanks,
lemonboston
Edit: the variable could be protected as well, I suppose this is not important here, but correct me if I am wrong

lemonboston wrote:
Hi,
Is this something that is common usage/practice?:I don't think that's so common, but that's code easily understandable. However there are several problems with this approach:
public abstract class Base {
private int importantPrivateVariable = setImportantPrivateVariable();
protected abstract int setImportantPrivateVariable();
}I would like to enforce the extender of the class to set a private variableThat's no what your code implements: your base class forces the subclasses to return an int value, and the Base class uses that value to assign it to the variable.
Therefore the method should be called get<Something> (e.g. <TT>getInitialValueOfImportantVariable()</TT>+ to have a naming consistent with its signature (it returns a value, whereas a regular setter method should declare a void return type: <TT>protected abstract void setImportantPrivateVariable(int someValue);</TT>).
Edit: the variable could be protected as well, I suppose this is not important here,Well, yes, this is "important" - at least, there a noticeable difference: the variable being private, the base class is free to handle it as it sees fit (e.g., assign the value at construction time and never modify it afterwards). If the variable was protected, the subclass could modify in ways and at times not known by the base class.
but correct me if I am wrongThere's a trap in this construct: the method is called in the variable initializer, that is, behind the scenes, approximately during the execution of the Base class constructor, so before the subclass constructor. So, you are calling a method on an object that is not fully initialized (e.g. some of its attributes may still be <TT>null</TT> at this stage). There is a rule that discourages such situations, that goes something like "don't call non-private and non-final methods from a constructor".
To avoid this trap, two options:
- require an int argument in the Base class's constructor , as was suggested above
- don't get and set the value of the important variable in the initializer or constructor code, but from a special method in the base class instead:
public abstract class Base {
    private int importantPrivateVariable; // default value is zero
// or alternatively:
//    private int importantPrivateVariable = ...; // Some default value
    protected abstract int getImportantPrivateVariable();
    public void initializeImportantPrivateVariable() {
        importantPrivateVariable = getImportantPrivateVariable();
}That construct is a degenerate form of a common design pattern known under the name of Template Method (where a base class method calls generally several subclass methods in a specified order and with a specified chaining, leaving it to the subclass to implement the details of the methods).
The drawback is that the client code (the one that uses the Base instance) has to know when to call that initialization method, whereas the constructor-based initialization lets the client code free to not care at all.
Much luck,
J.

Static abstract methods - how can I avoid them?

Hi everybody,
just found out that java doesn't allow static abstract methods nor static methods in interfaces. Although I understand the reasons, I can't think of how to change my design to gain the required behavior without the need of static abstract methods.
Here's what I want to do and how my thoughts lead to static abstract methods:
ClassA provides access to native code (c-dll, using jna). The path to the dll can be set programmatically. Here's a draft of the class:
public ClassA {
   private static String path;
   public static void setRealtivePath(String path) {
      //check if path exists and is not null -> get absolute path
      setPath(path);
   public static void setPath(String absolutePath) {
      this.path = path;
//code to provide access to native lib
}There is some more classes which provide access to different dlls (therefore the code for accessing the dlls differs from ClassA). Although this works, the setRelativePath method has to be implemented in each class. I thought it would be nice to put this method into a abstract super class that looks like this:
public abstract class superClass {
   public static void setRelativePath(String path) {
      //check if path exists and is not null -> get absolute path
      setPath(path);
   //force inherting class to implement a static method
   public static abstract void setPath(String absolutePath);
}thus simplifying ClassA and it's look-a-likes:
public ClassA {
   private static String path;
   @Override
   public static void setPath(String absolutePath) {
      this.path = path;
//code to provide access to native lib
}Since static abstract methods (and overriding static methods) is not allowed, this doesn't work.
I hope someone can catch my idea ;). Any suggestions how to do this in a nice clean way?
Thanks in advance,
Martin
Edited by: morty2 on Jul 22, 2009 2:57 AM

First of all, thanks a lot for your answer.
YoungWinston wrote:
Actually, you can "override" static methods (in that you can write the same method for both a subclass and a superclass, providing the superclass method isn't final); it's just that it doesn't work polymorphically. The "overriding" method masks the overridden one and the determination of what gets called is entirely down to the declared type.Yes, I know that. There's one problem: Your suggestion means that I simply have to drop the abstract modifier in the super classes setPath method. However, since the super class calls the setPath method (and not the inherting classes!) it will always be the super classes' method being called.
YoungWinston wrote:
Why are you so concerned with making everything static? Seems to me that the simplest solution would be to make all the contents instance-based.I want ClassA and it's look-a-likes to be set up properly at application start up, be accessible quite anytime and easily, they don't do anything themselves except for setting the path and calling into the native library which does the math. (Compareable to how you call e.g. Math.cos()). Therefore I don't think that an instance-based solution would be a better approach.
YoungWinston wrote:
Furthermore, you could make the class immutable; which might be a good thing - I'm not sure I'd want someone being able to change the pathname after I've >set up a class like this.Thanks for that!
PS: As mentioned in my first post, I do have a working solution. However, I'm really corious about finding a nicer and cleaner way to do it!
Martin

Call an abstract method

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for