Defining a FINAL Variable?

1. What is the advantage of defining a variable as final.?
For example:
In the System class,which is a final class,the static
field variable 'out' is final.
public final class System{
public static final PrintStream out;
2.Do we ever need to define a final variable ?
3.Can a class which is not final have a final variable?

This should not happenI've been tripped up by precisely this happeningon
occasion.I haven't, at least not as far as public finalstatic
variables are concerned.andyba,
I'm about to bet my right hand on the fact that you
are wrong. Just look at the compiled classfiles (in a
disassembler, or decompiler). The original class that
held the constant isn't referenced.
You can read more on this in this article:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2003-03/02-qa
0328-constant.html
"According to the Java Language Specification, any
static final field initialized with an expression that
can be evaluated at compile time must be compiled to
byte code that "inlines" the field value. That is, no
dynamic link will be present inside class Main telling
it to obtain the value for A from InterfaceA at
runtime. "
/KajOk, I admit that the JLS enforces inlining of references to final static fields that are initialised by an expression that is evaluable at compile time means I was wrong on that count.
One reason why I am rarely, if ever, caught out by this is because I don't make regressive API changes, in this instance that means static final initialized field values do not change once they are fixed.
Note I did say that API changes of any nature do not "require" a recompilation, I said that it is recommended and therefore a sensible thing to do.
It is practically a golden rule in Software Development that once an API becomes public no
regressive/subtractive changes to that API should be made. This is one reason why the Java APIs are
becoming cluttered with deprecated annotations all over the place and why, to date, you rarely see
regressive/subtractive API changes in Java.
This rule has to be treated as "golden" simply because you will not always have the chance to recompile your code when deploying your application.
This can be especially problematic when deploying Remote or Web/EJB Applications to container platforms that are not known at development time.

Similar Messages

HELP: Cannot refer to non-final variable inside inner class

Below is a function that WAS working beautifully. I had to restructure many things in my code base to suit a major change and I have to make this function static. Since I made this function static, I get some errors which are displayed in comments next to the line of code.
Can anyone offer any advice how to fix this?
static private void patchSource( final Target target, final TargetResolver resolver, final TexSheetCommand args ) throws Exception
     boolean bDone = false;
     Element e;
     SAXReader sax          = new SAXReader();
     FileInputStream fis     = new FileInputStream( args.getInputFile() );
     Document document     = sax.read( fis );
     Element root = document.getRootElement();
     if( root.getName().equals( "Sheet" ) )
          XMLParser.iterateElements( root,     new XMLElementCallback()
                                                  public void onElement( Element element )
                                                       XMLParser.iterateAttributes( element,     new XMLAttributeCallback()
                                                                                               public void onAttribute( Element element, Attribute attribute )
                                                                                                    if( attribute.getName().equals( "guid" ) )
                                                                                                         e = element; // PROBLEM: Cannot refer to a non-final variable e inside an inner class defined in a different method
                                                                                                         // WARNING: Type safety: The expression of type Iterator needs unchecked conversion to conform to Iterator<Attribute>
                                                                                                         for( Iterator<Attribute> it = element.attributeIterator(); it.hasNext(); )
                                                                                                              Attribute a = (Attribute)it.next();
                                                                                                              if( a.getName().equals( "randOffset" ) )
                                                                                                                   Integer i = new Integer( resolver.getTotalPermutations() );
                                                                                                                   a.setValue( i.toString() );
                                                                                                                   bDone = true; // PROBLEM: Cannot refer to a non-final variable bDone inside an inner class defined in a different method
          if( ( !bDone ) && ( e != null ) )
               Integer i = new Integer( resolver.getTotalPermutations() );
               e.addAttribute( "randOffset", i.toString() );
     FileOutputStream fileOut     = new FileOutputStream( args.getInputFile() );
     OutputFormat format               = OutputFormat.createPrettyPrint();
        XMLWriter xmlWriter               = new XMLWriter( fileOut, format );
        xmlWriter.write( document );
        fileOut.close();
}PS.) on a side note there is a warning on one of the lines too. Can anyone offer help on that one too?!
Thanks in advance.

It is already set to that - it does look correct in Eclipse, honest.
It's just the block that's gone crazy with the formatting. I've spent around 10 minutes trying to tweak it just so it displays correctly but it wasn't making sense.
I'd rather not turn this conversation into a judgement of my code-style - I already understand that it doesn't conform to the 'Java way' and I've had Java programmers bash me about it for a long time.

Why method local inner class can use final variable rather than....

Hi all
Just a quick question.
Why method-local inner class can access final variable defined in method only?
I know the reason why it can not access instance variable in method.
Just can not figure out why??
any reply would be appreciated.
Steven

Local classes can most definitely reference instance variables. The reason they cannot reference non final local variables is because the local class instance can remain in memory after the method returns. When the method returns the local variables go out of scope, so a copy of them is needed. If the variables weren't final then the copy of the variable in the method could change, while the copy in the local class didn't, so they'd be out of synch.

Non-final variable inside an inner class - my nemisis

I have an issue with accessing variables from an inner method. This structure seems to allow access to the text objects but not to the button object. This comes from a bit of example code that just illustrates a simple form window with text fields and buttons that read them.
At the start of the class I have text objects defined like this:
public class SimpleGUI extends Composite {
Text nameField;
Text junkField;
// Constructors come next, etc...
Later within this class there is a method to create some GUI stuff, and then to create a button and when pressed access and print the text to the console
protected void createGui(){
junkField = new Text(entryGroup,SWT.SINGLE); //Ross
junkField.setText("Howdy");
Button OKbutton = new Button(buttons,SWT.NONE);
OKbutton.setText("Ok");
OKbutton.addSelectionListener(
new MySelectionAdapter() {
public void widgetSelected(SelectionEvent e) {
System.out.println("Name: " + nameField.getText());
System.out.println("Junk: " + junkField.getText());
And that all works fine. So within the inner class, the object junkField can be accessed nicely.
However if I try to do the same with the button (I want to change the label on the button after it's pressed) I get errors for trying to access a non-final object in an inner class.
I tried to handle the button similar to the text, adding this after the text defs:
Button myButton;
and under the println's in the inner class I wanted:
if OKbutton.getText.equals("OK") { OKbutton.setText("NotOK")}
That's when I get an issue with "cannot refer to a non-final variable inside an inside class defined in a different method"
Now, if I move the button declaration into the createGui method, and declare it with "final Button myButton" it works.
Why does the button need different treatment than the text?
Is this a suitable method to make my button change it's label when pressed, or is this sloppy?

Button is a local variable. The anonymous inner class object you create can continue to exist after the method ends, but the local variables will not. Therefore, as the error message says, you must make that local button variable final if you want to refer to it inside the anon inner class. If it's final, a copy of its value can be given to the inner class--there's no need to treat it as "variable."

Final variables

Hello All
I have a question and this contradicts what I have learned so I will like to have a good explanation for this.
public class Foo {
private final int x = 5;
private byte b = x;
will this compile? The answer is YES it will compile. Now if you take out the final keyword from int x will it compile? The answer is NO it will not.
Why is this???????
Thanks in Advance for your help!!!!

sorry, but my compiler (jdk1.3) compiles the code :
public class test
private int x = 5;
private int b = x;
There is one thing you are missing is that it is instead of int b it should be byte b, now let see if you can make the above code compile under the jdk1.3 compiler. Now change the private int x to private final int x and compile your code...
I think the compiler inserts an implicit (invisible)
constructor that is called before any other explicitly
defined constructor. And this implicit constructor
makes the assignments, and thus you can use any
non-static and non-final expression for
initialization. Even this :
class a
int x;
class b
int y = x;
And this really makes sense !!!
When class a instanciates class b (if there was an
explicit constructor), the implicit constructor first
assigns x to y and after that the explicit constructor
is called.
also think of that :
public class test
int x;
int y = x;
this also compiles, because all variables are always
(implicitly) initialized with 0 (and corresponds like
false and null).
enough ?I think you are right the compiler might insert an implicit(invisible) constructor, but the above explanation still doesn't explain why it treats final variable differently then non-final variables??? Thanks for replying!!!!

Synchronize on objects held in non-final variables?

[This thread|http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?messageID=10775877#10775877] and post got me thinking:
linuxisbest.eric wrote:
I have noticed in my textbook that it creates a String in two ways:
String a = new String("Hello");and
String a = "Hello";Which one should I use? Is there any practical difference?
YoungWinston wrote:Pick door number two linux ... unless you plan on synchronizing on it, that is.
WinstonIs it best practice to only synchronize on objects held in final variables?
Edited by: Encephalopathic on Jul 26, 2009 5:46 AM

gnat wrote:
Is it best practice to only synchronize on objects held in final variables?
Above [best practices|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_practices] apply to cases when lock is not intended to change.
I think that there could be cases when lock is actually intended to change and therefore shouldn't be final. Here's an example of caching code I've seen recently:
private final ConcurrentMap<Integer, Object> pendings
= new ConcurrentHashMap<Integer, Object>();
public Object loadEntity(int entityId) {
Object lock = new Object(); // shouldn't be final, see below
Object prev = pendings.putIfAbsent(entityId, lock);
if(prev != null) {
// without using prev lock, there would be a chance
// for concurrent threads to perform redundant invocation
// of retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly for same entityId
lock = prev;
Object res;
synchronized (lock) {
res = getEntityFromCacheQuickly(entityId);
if (res == null) {
// cache miss - retrieve entity slowly:
res = retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly(entityId);
pendings.remove(entityId);
gnat,
Huh? Please could you try to talk me through that code... At first glance, I don't follow it... I think it's still got "unprotected race conditions", but after reading it through several times (in the course of trying to frame a post saying basically "I don't think that will work, and here's why" I now think I understand how it does work (almost all the time), but I'd just really really like some validation of my mis/understanding.
So... Here's how I think that works... please could you verify or repudiate my understanding.
package forums;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentMap;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
class GnatsThreadsafeCache
private static final Random random = new Random();
// pending locks := entityId --> lock
private final ConcurrentMap<Integer, Object> pendingLocks = new ConcurrentHashMap<Integer, Object>();
// cache := entityId --> entity
//          1        --> "1"
private final Map<Integer, Object> cache = new HashMap<Integer, Object>();
public Object loadEntity(int entityId) {
    Object lock = new Object(); // shouldn't be final, see below
    // putIfAbsent: If the specified key is not already associated with a value,
    // associate it with the given value. Returns the previous value associated
    // with the specified key, or null if there was no mapping for the key.
    Object previousLock = pendingLocks.putIfAbsent(entityId, lock);
    if(previousLock != null) {
      // without using previousLock lock, there would be a chance
      // for concurrent threads to perform redundant invocation
      // of retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly for same entityId
      lock = previousLock;
    Object entity;
    synchronized (lock) {
      entity = getEntityFromCacheQuickly(entityId);
      if (entity == null) {
        // cache miss - retrieve entity slowly:
        entity = retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly(entityId);
        addEntityToCache(entityId, entity);
    pendingLocks.remove(entityId);
    return entity;
private Object getEntityFromCacheQuickly(int entityId) {
    DEBUG("> getEntityFromCacheQuickly("+entityId+")");
    Object entity = cache.get(entityId);
    DEBUG("< getEntityFromCacheQuickly returns "+entity);
    return entity;
private Object retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly(int entityId) {
    DEBUG("> retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly("+entityId+")");
    try{Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(1000));}catch(InterruptedException e){System.err.println(e);}
    Object entity = Integer.toString(entityId);
    DEBUG("< retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly returns "+entity);
    return entity;
private void addEntityToCache(int entityId, Object entity) {
    DEBUG("| addEntityToCache("+entityId+", "+entity+")");
    cache.put(entityId, entity);
public static void main(String[] args)
    final GnatsThreadsafeCache cache = new GnatsThreadsafeCache();
    for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
      new Thread(
        new Runnable() {
          @Override
          public void run() {
            int i = random.nextInt(4);
            Object entity = cache.loadEntity(i);
            DEBUG("~ "+i+"-->"+entity);
      , "Thread"+i).start();
private static void DEBUG(String message) {
    System.err.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+": "+message);
}How it works:
1. create a new lock object.
2. check if entityId exists in the previousLock list... that's a ConcurrentMap so the putIfAbsent operation is atomic (i.e. syncronised on the previousLock object).
    ~ This operation is "garanteed fast"; ergo it involves no heavy "business object" creation/retrieval.
3. Now, if the entityId already exists in the previousLock list we syncronize on it, allowing one-thread-at-a-time to traverse "the crytical block" where we check if the-entity associated with the-given-entityId is allready cached, and retrieve it, otherwise create a new one (which will take an arbitrary "long time").
So what? Well I think it means that we've reduced contention to the individual entity level, as apposed to the "collection level"; as you would get if you just used a "standard" ConcurrentMap as the cache... which means that we've (probably) increased the throughput because each thread is blocked only upon those other threads which definately would stuff-them-up (waiting for the heavy "business object" creation routine to complete); as apposed to those that just might stuff them up (but won't because they're actually retrieving different entities).
In short: It's a way of blocking on distinct keys?
Is that correct?
Thanx in advance for your thoughts.
Cheers. Keith.
Edited by: corlettk on 1/08/2009 11:05 ~~ Removed extranious cache.get from retrieveEntityFromSomewhereSlowly.

"final" variable problem

hi plz consider the code below
(sorry if it is not in the format required i clicked on the code button on top but could not get anything)
class A {
public final String a = "A";
public String b = "B";
class B {
public static void main(String args[]) {
A obj = new A();
System.out.println(obj.a);
System.out.println(obj.b);
}Compile the classes and the output is
A
B
Now I Exchange the values of class A, so variable a gets "B" and b gets "A" and compile class A ONLY.
Now the ouput is
A
A
Can anyone please explain this
Thanks

Referencing final variables that contain primitive
types or String that are initialized with a constant
is handled as if the exact same constant was placed
into the referencing file. Why that decision was
made, I don't know.
Efficiency:
public final primitives are usually used as constants, often in place of enumeration values (pre Tiger). in-lining them means that the class in which they're defined doesn't even have to be loaded at run-time.
Furthermore there are cases where knowing the value at compile time is essential, e.g. in case labels, and where it helps a lot (e.g. in boolean expressions).
And the moral is; try to use them only as constants. If you have less constant constants (e.g. URLs, filepaths etc.) stick them in a properties file or something.

Local final variables

Hi!
I suppose this topic pops up from time to time in forums (I've found some threads after google-ing some), but I couldn't find any authentic answers to this.
According to the standard coding guidelines, how on Earth should you write local final variables?
The java coding guidelines don't explicitly mention this case, only class-level final (static final) variables and some "ANSI" constants. (I don't have any idea what "ANSI constant" is supposed to mean, anyway).
Thanks!

public int getSomeValue(final String parameter) {
final int length = parameter.getLength();
// do something
}Would you call "length" a constant here? Obviously
not, so why do we declare it final? Because it
doesn't change during the execution of this method
and to avoid accidentally assigning a different value
to it.I'm not sure I wouldn't. For several years I've been pretty satisfied with C++'s notion of "const" (in fact, I really miss real "const" functionality in Java, but that's another story).
You could write the equivalent in C++:
int getSomeValue(const std::string parameter) {
const int length = parameter.length();
// or .size()? I don't remember, but doesn't matter... :)
}You could even write things like this:
for(int i=0;i<5;++i) {
const int j = 2*i;
std::cout << j << endl;
}So, C++ says: if a variable is "const", its value won't change after it's created. The way I see it, the const variable is "recreated" every time you step into the block where it's defined from the outside. (I don't know whether it looks like the same from the implementation point of view, but that doesn't matter.)
And whatever C++ says, it's so, because it is a correct language. :)
Anyway, what you're saying makes sense, and if there's a more explicit way of saying "this is a constant" -as you suggested-, I'm going to use it.
But about the naming convention, I see there's a pretty good unison here, so thanks! :)

Problem with final variables and inner classes

variables accessed by inner classes need to be final. Else it gives compilation error. Such clases work finw from prompt. But when I try to run such classes through webstart it gives me error/exception for those final variables being accessed from inner class.
Is there any solution to this?
Exception is:
java.lang.ClassFormatError: com/icorbroker/fx/client/screens/batchorder/BatchOrderFrame$2 (Illegal Variable name " val$l_table")
     at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass0(Native Method)
     at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:502)
     at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:123)
     at com.sun.jnlp.JNLPClassLoader.defineClass(Unknown Source)
     at com.sun.jnlp.JNLPClassLoader.access$1(Unknown Source)
     at com.sun.jnlp.JNLPClassLoader$1.run(Unknown Source)
     at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
     at com.sun.jnlp.JNLPClassLoader.findClass(Unknown Source)
     at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:299)
     at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:255)
     at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:315)
     at com.icorbroker.fx.client.screens.batchorder.BatchOrderFrame.<init>(BatchOrderFrame.java:217)
     at com.icorbroker.fx.client.screens.batchorder.BatchOrderViewController.createView(BatchOrderViewController.java:150)
     at com.icorbroker.fx.client.screens.RealTimeViewController.initialize(RealTimeViewController.java:23)
     at com.icorbroker.fx.client.screens.batchorder.BatchOrderViewController.<init>(BatchOrderViewController.java:62)
     at com.icorbroker.fx.client.screens.displayelements.DisplayPanel$3.mousePressed(DisplayPanel.java:267)
     at java.awt.Component.processMouseEvent(Component.java:5131)
     at java.awt.Component.processEvent(Component.java:4931)
     at java.awt.Container.processEvent(Container.java:1566)
     at java.awt.Component.dispatchEventImpl(Component.java:3639)
     at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:1623)
     at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:3480)
     at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.retargetMouseEvent(Container.java:3450)
     at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.processMouseEvent(Container.java:3162)
     at java.awt.LightweightDispatcher.dispatchEvent(Container.java:3095)
     at java.awt.Container.dispatchEventImpl(Container.java:1609)
     at java.awt.Window.dispatchEventImpl(Window.java:1590)
     at java.awt.Component.dispatchEvent(Component.java:3480)
     at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:450)
     at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java:197)
     at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java:150)
     at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:144)
     at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:136)
     at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:99)

I've also been having the same problem. The only work-around seems to be to slightly change the code, recompile & hope it works. See http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp?forum=38&thread=372291

Problem with final variables and inner classes (JDK1.1.8)

When using JDK1.1.8, I came up with following:
public class Outer
    protected final int i;
    protected Inner inner = null;
    public Outer(int value)
        i = value;
        inner = new Inner();
        inner.foo();
    protected class Inner
        public void foo()
            System.out.println(i);
}causing this:
Outer.java:6: Blank final variable 'i' may not have been initialized. It must be assigned a value in an initializer, or in every constructor.
public Outer(int value)
^
1 error
With JDK 1.3 this works just fine, as it does with 1.1.8 if
1) I don't use inner class, or
2) I assign the value in initializer, or
3) I leave the keyword final away.
and none of these is actually an option for me, neither using a newer JDK, if only there is another way to solve this.
Reasons why I am trying to do this:
1) I can't use a newer JDK
2) I want to be able to assign the variables value in constructor
3) I want to prevent anyone (including myself ;)) from changing the value in other parts of the class (yes, the code above is just to give you the idea, not the whole code)
4) I must be able to use inner classes
So, does anyone have a suggestion how to solve this problem of mine? Or can someone say that this is a JDK 1.1.8 feature, and that I just have to live with it? In that case, sticking to solution 3 is probably the best alternative here, at least for me (and hope that no-one will change the variables value). Or is it crappy planning..?

You cannot use a final field if you do not
initialize it at the time of declaration. So yes,
your design is invalid.Sorry if I am being a bit too stubborn or something. :) I am just honestly a bit puzzled, since... If I cannot use a final field in an aforementioned situation, why does following work? (JDK 1.3.1 on Linux)
public class Outer {
        protected final String str;
        public Outer(String paramStr) {
                str = paramStr;
                Inner in = new Inner();
                in.foo();
        public void foo() {
                System.out.println("Outer.foo(): " + str);
        public static void main( String args[] ) {
                String param = new String("This is test.");
                Outer outer = new Outer(param);
                outer.foo();
        protected class Inner {
                public void foo() {
                        System.out.println("Inner.foo(): " + str);
} producing the following:
[1:39] % javac Outer.java
[1:39] % java Outer
Inner.foo(): This is test.
Outer.foo(): This is test.
Is this then an "undocumented feature", working even though it shouldn't work?
However, I assume you could
get by with eliminating the final field and simply
passing the value directly to the Inner class's
constructor. if not, you'll have to rethink larger
aspects of your design.I guess this is the way it must be done.
Jussi

Wildcard in SELECT statement defined as a variable

Hi,
The following query works in a PL/SQL procedure (it's defined in a variable because the WHERE clause will eventually be built at run time):
l_select_statement VARCHAR2(4000) :=
'SELECT XMLELEMENT (
FROM WEB_VPREPARATIONS W WHERE CODE LIKE :code';
I execute it via a cursor, like this:
OPEN l_prod_cv FOR l_select_statement USING in_code;
I would like to add the '%' wildcard on either side of ':code', but nothing that I've tried works (e.g., LIKE ''%:code%'' using two single quotes on either side). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,
Chris.

That was it! Thank you so much.
I apologize to odie 63, but the "Correct" button disappeared once I had marked metzquar's...
I prefer not to pass the wildcard via the variable, and keep it inside the query, just in case the query ever changes.
Thanks to all who helped; response time was in the milliseconds!
Chris.

Why only final variables can be accessed in an inner class ?

Variables declared in a method need to declared as final if they are to be accessed in an inner class which resides in that method. My question is...
1. Why should i declare them as final ? What's the reason?
2. If i declare them as final, could they be modified in inner class ? since final variables should not modify their value.

(Got an error posting this, so I hope we don't end up with two...)
But what if i want to change the final local variable within that method instead of within anonymous class.You can't. You can't change the value of a final variable.
Should i use same thing like having another local variable as part of method and initializing it with the final local variable?You could do. But as in the first example I posted you are changing the value of the nonfinal variable not the final one. Because final variables can't be changed.
If so, don't you think it is redundant to have so many local variables for so many final local variables just to change them within that method?If you are worried that a variable might be redundant, don't create it. If you must create it to meet some need then it's not redundant.
Or is there any alternate way?Any alternate way to do what?

How can i define a boolean variable with the condition if i got a specific text on a selected column?

How can i define a boolean variable with the condition if i got a specific text on a selected column?
Example:
my select results:
[id = 102] [Company = 'Microsoft']
If i got microsoft in 'Company' i want to my another table with the columnName "Microsoft" get "true".
Can you help me?

That is called 2-table UPDATE.
Example:
http://www.sqlusa.com/bestpractices2005/updatewithcorrelatedsubquery/
Kalman Toth Database & OLAP Architect
Free T-SQL Scripts
New Book / Kindle: Exam 70-461 Bootcamp: Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012

Portal: how to define new text variables for information broadcasting

Hello everybody,
I hope the post here is placed on the right position. If not, please try to advise me, where to ask to get answer on following question:
-> In BI Portal -> tab Business Intelligence -> Bex Broadcaster -> it is possible to create PDF and post it somewhere into Portal or any other network drive. That's fact. I'm searching for possible enhancement of the F4 help next to the field "data name". There are available only following few variables <OBJECT_ID> <SETTING_ID> <OWNER_ID> <PROCESSED_BY_ID> <LANGUAGE_ID> <DATE_ID> <TIME_ID> <WEEK_ID> <MONTH_ID> <QUARTER_ID> <YEAR_ID>
We are facing this issue: generated analysis file is valid for the period from month 01 to month actual-1. So therefore I would like to implement my own variable.
Do you know guys, where to define this own variable with own logic?
Could you please give me some hints how to create a new one and fill the logic?
Thank you very much in advance
Stan

Not resolved. Life goes still on.

Cannot logon user defined in header variable!

Dear Guru's
I'm seeing this this error when I type the URL. "Cannot logon user defined in header variable!"
I have stopped and sterted the portal.
I could not find the authschemes.xml (if this is related)
Thanks,
EP6 SP2
Naren

Hi ,
Please explain what exactly you want to do ..If you want to use Header Variables for User Authentication go through this links
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/68/5ddc40132a8531e10000000a1550b0/frameset.htm
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/68/5ddc40132a8531e10000000a1550b0/frameset.htm
Thanks n Regards
Santosh
Reward if helpful !!!

Defining a FINAL Variable?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for