Cann't extend a inner class where as can Implement a nested Interface

i cann't extend a inner class in some other outer class . Where as i can implement the nested Interface in some other class. Why????
for example:-
class ABC
class Inner
/* class body */
interface TempInterface
/* interfacebody */
class OuterClass
class InnerTwo extends ABC.inner //(line 1)Will give error
class InnerTwo implements ABC.TempInterface //(line 2)Will run fine
the line 1 is going to give compilation error i.e not in the scope but the line 2 will run fine .
Both of the things are in the same class but giving 2 other results.
I am not getting sufficient reasons for it.
Can any one help me????
Reagrds
Arunabh

As far as the language is concerned, the classonly
exists in the context of an instance of theenclosing
class.This still exhibits a class/object confusion to me.
It should be 'instance only exists ...' or 'instance
can only exist'. The class only exists in the
scope of the enclosing class, but this is another
issue.I'm not following what you're saying. The second sentence sounds like you're disagreeing with me. The last sentence sounds like you're agreeing with me.
A non-static nested class is an instance member, just like an instance method or instance variable. As such, as far as the language is concerned, that class only exists in the context of an instance of the enlcosing class.It's not just instances of the nested class--its the class definition itself that only exists within the context of an instance of the enclosing class. That's why you have to do anEclosingIntstance.NestedClass and can't do EnclosingClass.NestedClass.

Similar Messages

What is inner class ,and how can I use it?thanks

what is inner class ,and how can I use it?thanks

Theres a whole chapter here http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/Books/certification/certbook.html (thanks to SSvetlana for pointing this one out).
Col

Do you know any other CRM where users can do this in interface?

Do you know? In CRM where you can link one record with the other based on the same value of the
field (e.g. you can use Sugar for email, but email is not linked to contacts). This is possible by doing some hacking in the database. Do you know any other CRM where users can do this in interface?

Hi Amanda,
    It could be that DSO_X is a write optimized DSO. Since a Write optimised DSO does not require any activation, it is capable of loading data much faster. Once the data is in BW, you have an exact copy of the R/3 data, so you dont need the PSA and they can be deleted on a regular basis. You have a definite performance improvement in this case.
   As you said a backup is also possible if you have a DSO. Helps in the case of LIS loads, since you already have a copy of the data in BW, you would not need to perform setup activties if you need to do so minor changes.
   It could also be that different transformations are happening at each level of DSO. You would need to check for start and update routines for exactly what changes are being made. for eg. If I need to change some records, i do it in DSO_X, if i need to change these records based on the changes made in DSO_X, i change them while loading to DSO. Further changes can be done while loading to the cube.
Hope this helps,
Regards.

Extending an inner class (6 lines of code)

// Mammal.java
public class Mammal {
public class Hand {
// Human.java
public class Human extends Mammal {
public class Hand extends Mammal.Hand { // (1)
}This gives me compilation error at (1).
If I change Human.java as below, the code works.
// Human.java
public class Human extends Mammal {
public class HumanHand extends Mammal.Hand {
}If I want my original class name "Human.Hand", what should I do?

the compiler certainly doesn't accept 2 public class with the same name.

Where are the implementations for some interfaces in the search_sdk.jar?

Hi,
Is the source code for the implementation of some interfaces (DocumentMetadata etc) available to public?
Thanks.
Jun
Message was edited by:
Alwaysthink

Source code is not available. The javadoc is distributed with the installation media. On my machine I can find the javadoc for DocumentMetadata here:
file:///F:/SES_1018_WIN32_DVD2/doc/search.1018/b32260/toc.htm

Extending a member inner class

I have a class
public class A{
class InnerClassB{
Now the question is how to extend the inner class would it be
class ExtendingInnerClassB extends A.B{
or else?
I am not sure anybody knows?

Regarding inheritance from inner classes you must define your constructor:
public ExtendedInnerClass(EnclosingClass EC) { EC.super(); }
why?????
well
1. Where is the handle? The handle is an internal thing which is designed to accept the enclosing class. It is something which is not in the programmer's control. when there is an inner class, it is natural that the inner class cannot exist without its outer class. And that is the reason why the instantiation of an inner class is done using new OuterClass().new Innerclass(). U can see that the innerClass object is created based on the outer class object (assuming that the inner Class is not static). I hope that this is clear. Now .. the whole point is how does the compiler know that the Outerclass is the enclosing class? When the above line is compiled, the tricky handle in the inner class is assigned to the Outer class. So any reference henceforth is made based on this handle.
2. In the Inherited Inner class, there is no way to assoicate the handle in the above manner. Hence we are forcing by calling the super().
3 Otherwise why not simply create with: new InheritedInnerClass(EnclosingClass)? This is not possible. What if the inherited inner class needs a constructor in the above manner. That is assume that there is a class A. Then if the Inner Class needs the constructor to be InnerClass(A a, EnclosingClass b) for some other purpose, then what judgement can the compiler take? So that answers the question <b>Can't the compiler compile the inherited inner class assuming a handle to the enclosing class and then force an instance to be created using the EnclosingClass.new syntax?</b> Becuase in this case it cant go by any assumption.
4. Maybe the compiler designers can make some change such that the inherited inner class should have all its constructors beginning with the enclosing object and there should be atleast one constructor. But somehow I feel that it is too much of asking.

Accessing Enclosing Class Members From Inner Class Subclass

I have the following scenario that I cannot get to work. Notice the comments in B.doWork() for the problem code. In B.doWork(), how do I access m_strA?
* A.java
* Created on July 5, 2002, 2:20 PM
package Projects.InnerTrouble.Files;
public class A {
     public abstract class InnerA {
          public abstract void doWork ();
     public String m_strA;
     /** Creates new A */
     public A ()
               new InnerA() {
                         public void doWork ()
                                   System.out.println("A$InnerA$1's doWork() called!");
                                   m_strA = "Annonymous subclass of InnerA's doWork did this";
                    }.doWork();
     * @param args the command line arguments
     public static void main (String args[])
               A oTemp = new A();
               System.out.println(oTemp.m_strA);
               B.getB(oTemp).doWork();
               System.out.println(oTemp.m_strA);
class B extends A.InnerA {
     public B (A a)
               a.super();
     public void doWork ()
               System.out.println("B's doWork() called!");
               // How do I access m_strA within B's doWork() method? The following is what I would expect to be the answer, but it does not compile
               // A.this.m_strA = "B's doWork did this";
     private static A.InnerA sm_oInnerA;
     public static A.InnerA getB (A a)
               if (sm_oInnerA == null)
                    sm_oInnerA = new B(a);
               return (sm_oInnerA);

The whole point is that B is not an inner class of A
so it does not have access to A's member variables.
Eventhough B extends an inner class of A, that does
not make B an inner class of A. That is in the JLS,
but not so elegantly as I have put it, hehe.
If B were an innerclass of InnerA, then it would
qualify to access A's member variables.OK, I think that you are finally getting through to my thick skull on this one. Let me restate and get your check-off on my understanding of the situation.
The only classes with access to A's this reference are A and inner classes of A that are found within the definition of A. So, despite the fact that A and B are in the same package (and B should have access to A's non-private members because B and A are in the same package), and despite the fact that we would normally state that B "is a" InnerA (which is an inner class of A and would have access to a reference to the A.this reference), B is not allowed access to A.this (because B "is not really a" InnerA in the same way that the anonymous implementation of InnerA "is a" InnerA). However, nothing would prevent me from giving B access to a reference of the enclosing A as long as it was done via a method of InnerA, and as long as the implementation of that method is contained in A's implementation.
Does this "access" rule realy make sense? Are you aware of the justification for this rule? Or is the justification stated in the JLS? I would think that the compiler ought to be able to figure this kind of thing out and allow it. It seems to me the fact that I defined B in the way that I did, and the fact that B "is a" InnerA, implies that I desired a fairly tight relationship to A. In fact, I desired the exact relationship that exists for the anonymous implementation of InnerA.
The following is a modified version of my original example that runs as I originally wanted it to, but works around the access rules discussed on this forum thread:
* A.java
* Created on July 5, 2002, 2:20 PM
package Projects.InnerTrouble.Files;
public class A {
     public abstract class InnerA {
          public abstract void doWork ();
          /** added to allow implementors of InnerA that are not enclosed in A's class definition to have access to the enclosing class */
          public A myEnclosingInstance ()
                    return (A.this);
     public String m_strA;
     /** Creates new A */
     public A ()
               new InnerA() {
                         public void doWork ()
                                   System.out.println("A$InnerA$1's doWork() called!");
                                   m_strA = "Annonymous subclass of InnerA's doWork did this";
                    }.doWork();
     * @param args the command line arguments
     public static void main (String args[])
               A oTemp = new A();
               System.out.println(oTemp.m_strA);
               B.getB(oTemp).doWork();
               System.out.println(oTemp.m_strA);
class B extends A.InnerA {
     public B (A a)
               a.super();
     public void doWork ()
               System.out.println("B's doWork() called!");
               // The following is what I would expect to be the answer, but it does not compile
               // A.this.m_strA = "B's doWork did this";
               // added myEnclosingInstance() to get functionality desired above
               myEnclosingInstance().m_strA = "B's doWork did this";
     private static A.InnerA sm_oInnerA;
     public static A.InnerA getB (A a)
               if (sm_oInnerA == null)
                    sm_oInnerA = new B(a);
               return (sm_oInnerA);
}

Help,about why we use inner class?

Hi,
when i read "java Tutorial"
i found there is one chapter about inner class .
i copy it down as follow.
the context is about there is a class Stack, and this class want to implement some function of interface Iterator,but as the book said
we should not let class Stack implement the Iterator directly, we should add a inner class inside the Stack .
i know it's very import ,but i still can not understand the reason why add a inner class here.
hope somebody can explain it a little more for me or give an example.
thank in advance!
Iterator defines the interface for stepping once through the elements within an ordered set in order. You use it like this:
while (hasNext()) {
next();
The Stack class itself should not implement the Iterator interface, because of certain limitations imposed by the API of the Iterator interface: two separate objects could not enumerate the items in the Stack concurrently, because there's no way of knowing who's calling the next method; the enumeration could not be restarted, because the Iterator interface doesn't have methods to support that; and the enumeration could be invoked only once, because the Iterator interface doesn't have methods for going back to the beginning. Instead, a helper class should do the work for Stack.
The helper class must have access to the Stack's elements and also must be able to access them directly because the Stack's public interface supports only LIFO access. This is where inner classes come in.
Here's a Stack implementation that defines a helper class, called StackIterator, for enumerating the stack's elements:
public class Stack {
private Object[] items;
//code for Stack's methods and constructors
not shown
public Iterator iterator() {
return new StackIterator();
class StackIterator implements Iterator {
int currentItem = items.size() - 1;
public boolean hasNext() {
public Object next() {
public void remove() {
or you can visit here
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/innerclasses.html

the context is about there is a class Stack, and this
class want to implement some function of interface
Iterator,but as the book said
we should not let class Stack implement the Iterator
directly, we should add a inner class inside the
Stack .Simply because the implementation of the Iterator is nobody's business. By declaring it to be a private inner clss, nobody will ever know about it and only see the Iterator interface.

Inner Classes doubts

Hi All,
I am trying to learn Inner classes in Java. I am referring to the book Core Java by Horstmann and Cornell.
I know that there are various types of inner classes namely:
- Nested Inner classes
- Local Inner classes
- Annonymous Inner classes
- static inner classes
First I am on with Nested Inner classes :
Following is the code which I am executing :
package com.example.innerclass;
import java.awt.Toolkit;
import java.awt.event.ActionEvent;
import java.awt.event.ActionListener;
import java.util.Date;
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;
import javax.swing.Timer;
public class InnerClassTest {
      * @param args
     public static void main(String[] args) {
          // TODO Auto-generated method stub
          TalkingClock clock = new TalkingClock(1000,true);
          clock.start();
//          JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Quit Program");
//          System.exit(0);
class TalkingClock
     private int interval;
     private boolean beep;
     public TalkingClock(int interval, boolean beep){
          this.interval = interval;
          this.beep = beep;
     public void start(){
          ActionListener listener = new TimePrinter();
          Timer t = new Timer(interval,listener);
          t.start();
     private class TimePrinter implements ActionListener{
          public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event){
               Date now = new Date();
               System.out.println("At the tone time is : "+now);
               if(beep)
                    Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().beep();
}Following are my doubts :
1. Why do we need to give the line
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Quit Program");
System.exit(0);without this line the program doesn't show any output.
2. I didn't understand this syntax.
You can write inner object constructor more explicitly using the syntax. :
outerObject.new InnerClass(construction parameters)
For e.g.
ActionListener listener = this.new TimePrinter();
Here the outer class reference of the newly constructed TimePrinter object is set to this reference of the method that creates the inner class object. the this. qualifier is redundant. However, it is also possible to set the outer class reference to another object by explicilty naming it. For e.g if TimePrinter were a public inner class, you could construct a TimePrinter for any talking clock.
TalkingClock jabberer = new TalkingClock(1000,true);
TalkingClock.TimePrinter listener = jabberer.new TimePrinter();
Please do help me understand this concept.
Thanks
Siddharth

I have understood that this explanation :
i) assuming that TimePrinter is an inner class of TalkingClock, that you'd need an instance of the later in order to create an instance of the former.Yes.
Being a non-static inner class, it can not be instantiated out of context ... which context is the outer class.No. See my reply 11. The "context" is an instance of the outer class - it bears repeating.
ii) jabberer is the outer instance that you are providing.Yes (more accurately it's a reference to an instance of the outer class, but that would be nit-picking).
The left side is identifying the class, the right side is identifying the instanceNo.
I'm not sure what you're calling left side and right side.
If you're talking about both sides of the equals sign, then no, it's completely wrong.
If you're talking about both sides of the "point" sign, then it's wrong too, just a bit less wrong.
Let's revise this step by step (good thought process).
1. in first line we are getting an outer class reference with this code
TalkingClock jabberer = new TalkingClock(1000,true);
this line is very natural and easily understood. Yes. The correct wording would be merely "we are getting a reference to an instance of the outer class". Sorry to insist densely.
2. Now when we come to the second line, i.e. where we try to instantiate an inner class with this line of code
TalkingClock.TimePrinter listener = jabberer.new TimePrinter();
- I do understand the concept that we need an instance of outer class in order to create an instance of inner class as inner class is visible only to outer class.No. We need an instance of the outer class as the inner class is non-static, and by definition needs an instance of the outer class. That has nothing to do with visibility (public vs private vs...). Again, some words have special meanings in the Java world.
- I also do understand that it cant be instantiated out of context. I see you like this expression, but it is too vague and misleads you. Please forget about it for a moment (no offense to otherwise helpful and knowledgeable abillconsl).
- I also do understand that left side is identifying the class and right side is identifying the instance. ANDAgain I'm afraid of which "sides" you're talking about.
- that in this line TalkingClock.TimePrinter listener = new TalkingClock().new TimePrinter();
the outer class is anonymous (new TalkingClock()) as we don't require its name here Poor choice of words again. Anonymous classes do exist in Java, but are a totally different concept, that is not related to this line.
- Also in this line TalkingClock.TimePrinter listener = jabberer.new TimePrinter();
I understood the left side part i.e. TalkingClock.TimePrinter listener =
We are attaching the outer class reference with the inner class that's absolutely understandable. Not at all!
This just declares a variable listener, whose type is TalkingClock.TimePrinter (or more accurately com.example.innerclass.TalkingClock.TimePrinter).
Then follows an assignment:
WHAT I don't understand is the right hand side, i.e., the statement jabberer.new TimePrinter();
1. I am unable to digest the fact that we can do something like anobject.new
new is an operator that is used to instantiate an instance of an object. I am unable to digest that we can do x.new?See my previous reply. This is short-hand syntax Sun chose to pass a reference to an instance of the outer class (here, jabberer) to the constructor of the inner class. They could have chosen something else. Again, bear with it.
I only know that we can do is new SomeClass(); AND NOT instance.new SomeClass();
Now you know better:
The second form is valid - only if SomeClass is a non-static inner class defined in a class of which instance is an instance.
2. Is there something to this conceptually OR this is only a syntax and that I should learn it.
I want to understand and grasp if there is some concept behind it rather than just learn and mug up. See my previous reply. Each instance of a non-static inner class stores a reference to an instance of the outer class. There must be a way (a syntax) to specify which instance (of the outer class) should be stored in the instance (of the inner class).
This particular syntax is just a syntax, the "concept" is that the instance of the inner class stores a (unmodifiable) reference to the instance of the outer class that was specified when the instance of the inner class was created.
I don't know if that deserves to be called a concept, but that's an interesting thing to keep in mind (there are some not-so-obvious implications in terms of, e.g. garbage collection).
Best regards.
J.

How to call inner class method in one java file from another java file?

hello guyz, i m tryin to access an inner class method defined in one class from another class... i m posting the code too wit error. plz help me out.
// test1.java
public class test1
     public test1()
          test t = new test();
     public class test
          test()
          public int geti()
               int i=10;
               return i;
// test2.java
class test2
     public static void main(String[] args)
          test1 t1 = new test1();
          System.out.println(t1.t.i);
i m getting error as
test2.java:7: cannot resolve symbol
symbol : variable t
location: class test1
          System.out.println(t1.t.geti());
^

There are various ways to define and use nested classes. Here is a common pattern. The inner class is private but implements an interface visible to the client. The enclosing class provides a factory method to create instances of the inner class.
interface I {
    void method();
class Outer {
    private String name;
    public Outer(String name) {
        this.name = name;
    public I createInner() {
        return new Inner();
    private class Inner implements I {
        public void method() {
            System.out.format("Enclosing object's name is %s%n", name);
public class Demo {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Outer outer = new Outer("Otto");
        I junior = outer.createInner();
        junior.method();
}

PaintComponent: inner class / method?

Hi,
I am doing a lot of painting in my paintComponent method and would like to ask whether it's possible to use e.g. inner classes or methods within paintComponent? I think I am confronted with the problem that my paintComponent method gets too unstructured :-/
Thanks for your help!

I am doing a lot of painting in my paintComponent
method and would like to ask whether it's possible to
use e.g. inner classes or methods within
paintComponent? I think I am confronted with the
problem that my paintComponent method gets too
unstructured :-/paintComponent is a method... so, you can call other methods from it. I'm not sure what you mean by "use inner classes". You can define an inner class and instantiate an object of that class from within paintComponent just like you can from any other method. Your question seems a bit weird, or I'm not understanding it.
Is your paintComponent too slow or just too long? By all means, use methods to logically separate different things you are doing, but this only add organization, not speed.

Private inner class and static private inner

Hi,
I understand the concept and usage of inner classes in general.
When should we go for a private inner class and when for a static private inner class? I tried searching but it wasn't of much help.
Basically I need to design a caching solution in which I need to timestamp the data object. After timestamping, data will be stored in a HashMap or some other collection. I'm planning to use a wrapper class (which is inner and private) which holds the data object and timestamp. I can make the program work by using either normal inner class or static inner class, however would like to know which is better in such case. Also If I can get some general guidelines as to when to use a staic inner class and when to use a normal inner class, it would help me.
Thanks in advance.

user1995721 wrote:
When should we go for a private inner class and when for a static private inner class?
I can make the program work by using either normal inner class or static inner class, however would like to know which is better
If I can get some general guidelines as to when to use a static inner class and when to use a normal inner class, it would help me.Making the inner class static is helpful in that it limits visibility.
If the inner class needs to access non-static fields or methods from the containing class instance
the inner class has to be non-static.

Problems javadoc inner classes...

Hi all,
I have a problems documenting an inner class. I've implemented it this way:
* In file TestClass.java I have an inner class "class MainClass" (this is the "upper" class of the file)
* MainClass instantiates a TestClass (which in the file is declared as an inner class within MainClass: "public class TestClass").
When I try to document it I get the following error message:
"No public or protected classes found to document."
What do I have to do? I'm using "Standard Doclet version 1.4.1" and why I have to use the inner class is a matter of saving a copy of the entire object, and I think this is the only solution to it, so what do I do?? Do I declare the "outer" class in a different way?
Very pleased for all help!!
Best regards,
Anjelica

* In file TestClass.java I have an inner class "class
MainClass" (this is the "upper" class of the file)
* MainClass instantiates a TestClass (which in the
file is declared as an inner class within MainClass:
"public class TestClass").So TestClass is an inner class of MainClass?? Then your file should be called MainClass.java.
Try if that helps.

Why do we go for inner classes in java?

why cant we inherit the classes instead of having inner classes.
what is the exact difference between the inner class and subclass.
can anyone please explain me with some examples

An inner class doesn't have any relationship with the outer class per se,
except for one thing: an instantiation of the inner class can refer to the
members of the instantiation of the outer class. One instantiation of the
outer class can have many instantiations of the inner class 'circling
around' it. Try to implement the following example using inheritance:public class Star {
     private String name;
     public Star(String name) { this.name= name; }
     public Planet addPlanet(String name) { return new Planet(name); }
     public class Planet {
          private String name;
          private Planet(String name) { this.name= name; }
          public Moon addMoon(String name) { return new Moon(name); }
          public class Moon {
               private String name;
               private Moon(String name) { this.name= name; }
               public String toString() { return name+" (circling around "+Planet.this+")"; }
          public String toString() { return name+" (circling around "+Star.this+")"; }
     public String toString() { return name; }
     public static void main(String[] args) {
          System.out.println(new Star("sun").addPlanet("earth").addMoon("moon"));
}kind regards,
Jos

How can I extend the Vector class?

Hi All,
I'm trying to extend the Vector class so I can get add a .remove(item:T) method to the class. I've tried this:
public class VectorCollection extends Vector.<T>
That gives me the compile error "1017: The definition of base class Vector was not found"
So then I tried:
public class VectorCollection extends Vector
Which gives me the compile error "1016: Base class is final."
There must be some way to extend the Vector class, though, as on the Vector's official docs page it says:
Note: To override this method in a subclass of Vector, use ...args for the parameters, as this example shows:
public override function splice(...args) {
// your statements here
So there must be a way to extend the Vector class. What am I doing wrong?

No. AS3 doesn't currently have full support for generic types; Vector.<T> was added in an ad-hoc ("ad-hack"?) way. We are considering adding full support in a future version of ActionScript.
Gordon Smith
Adobe Flex SDK Team

Cann't extend a inner class where as can Implement a nested Interface

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for