Forcing static method implementaion!!

hi guys,
I want to force the implementation of a static method in my subclasses! How can i do it?

thnks!!
I wanted write some classes , each take a
different type of document (html, word, etc.,) and
give back the text file. thts all the work they shud
do , and i want them to have a same signature!! and
make sure any future addition of types ( with new
java classes) , i shud have the same signature!!That still doesn't explain why you want to have static methods. The methods shouldn't be static, and you should create an interface.
Kaj

Similar Messages

Force Derived Class to Implement Static Method C#

So the situation is like, I have few classes, all of which have a standard CRUD methods but static. I want to create a base class which will be inherited so that it can force to implement this CRUD methods. But the problem is, the CRUD methods are static. So
I'm unable to create virtual methods with static (for obvious reasons). Is there anyway I can implement this without compromising on static.
Also, the signature of these CRUD methods are similar.
E.g. ClassA will have CRUD methods with these type of Signatures
public static List<ClassA> Get()
public static ClassA Get(int ID)
public static bool Insert(ClassA objA)
public static bool Update(int ID)
public static bool Delete(int ID)
ClassB will have CRUD signatures like
public static List<ClassB> Get()
public static ClassB Get(int ID)
public static bool Insert(ClassB objB)
public static bool Update(int ID)
public static bool Delete(int ID)
So I want to create a base class with exact similar signature, so that inherited derived methods will implement their own version.
For E.g. BaseClass will have CRUD methods like
public virtual static List<BaseClass> Get()
public virtual static BaseClassGet(int ID)
public virtual static bool Insert(BaseClass objBase)
public virtual static bool Update(int ID)
public virtual static bool Delete(int ID)
But the problem is I can't use virtual and static due to it's ovbious logic which will fail and have no meaning.
So is there any way out?
Also, I have few common variables (constants) which I want to declare in that base class so that I don't need to declare them on each derived class. That's why i can't go with interface also.
Anything that can be done with Abstract class?

Hi,
With static methods, this is absolutely useless.
Instead, you could use the "Singleton" pattern which restrict a class to have only one instance at a time.
To implement a class which has the singleton pattern principle, you make a sealed class with a private constructor, and the main instance which is to be accessed is a readonly static member.
For example :
sealed class Singleton
//Some methods
void Method1() { }
int Method2() { return 5; }
//The private constructor
private Singleton() { }
//And, most importantly, the only instance to be accessed
private static readonly _instance = new Singleton();
//The corresponding property for public access
public static Instance { get { return _instance; } }
And then you can access it this way :
Singleton.Instance.Method1();
Now, to have a "mold" for this, you could make an interface with the methods you want, and then implement it in a singleton class :
interface ICRUD<BaseClass>
List<BaseClass> GetList();
BaseClass Get(int ID);
bool Insert(BaseClass objB);
bool Update(int ID);
bool Delete(int ID);
And then an example of singleton class :
sealed class CRUDClassA : ICRUD<ClassA>
public List<ClassA> GetList()
//Make your own impl.
throw new NotImplementedException();
public ClassA Get(int ID)
//Make your own impl.
throw new NotImplementedException();
public bool Insert(ClassA objA)
//Make your own impl.
throw new NotImplementedException();
public bool Update(int ID)
//Make your own impl.
throw new NotImplementedException();
public bool Delete(int ID)
//Make your own impl.
throw new NotImplementedException();
private CRUDClassA() { }
private static readonly _instance = new CRUDClassA();
public static Instance { get { return _instance; } }
That should solve your problem, I think...
Philippe

Forcing implementation of an inherited static method/field?

Suppose I have some classes - BlueAction, RedAction etc - extending an abstract base class called BaseAction. I put an abstract method called getColour() in BaseAction, and implement it in all the classes that extend it, so BlueAction returns blue, and so on. Fine.
I now want to use a class loader to get their colour, but crucially, I don't want to instantiate them, so instance methods are out.
If you could declare abstract static methods, I'd do that, and be assured that every implementation of BaseAction contained the necessary info. Obviously you can't do this.
I think I could just put a static method or field in each one, and access that via something like Class.getField("COLOUR")but then there's nothing to force me to put that code into each implementation.
Is there anything clever I can do?
Cheers,
Rob
Edited by: arewenotmen on Jun 20, 2008 3:51 AM

baftos wrote:
I guess it should be possible. Me, I did play with runtime annotations, but I am scared like hell
of compile time annotation. My reasons, but maybe I am wrong:All good reasons.
- Modify the build process to use APT instead of javacYou could use in -nocompile mode and add a task to the build script.
- Writing annotation processors, big overheadI had a play, was not too hard to get started with, but then it started to get wierd and data I expected was not being returned.
- Using com.sun classes in the processors instead of java/javax classes (subject to change?)Java 6 has the javax.annotations package (also works with javac rather than a different tool), but this seams less powerful than apt.
A fair few things now mean the "don't touch the com.sun package" rule is being eroded. The httpd is in it as well.

Should I use a static method or an instance method?

Just a simple function to look at a HashMap and tell how many non-null entries.
This will be common code that will run on a multi-threaded weblogic app server and potentially serve many apps running at once.
Does this have to be an instance method? Or is it perfectly fine to use a static method?
public static int countNonNullEntries(HashMap hm){
if(hm==null)return 0;
int count=0;
for(int i=0; i<hm.size(); i++) {
if(hm.get(i)!=null)
{ count++;}
return count;
OR
public int countNonNullEntries(HashMap hm){
if(hm==null)return 0;
int count=0;
for(int i=0; i<hm.size(); i++) {
if(hm.get(i)!=null)
{ count++;}
return count;
}

TPD Opitz-Consulting com wrote:
The question is the other way around: Is there a good reason to make the method static?
Ususally the answer is: no.The question is: does this method need state? Yes -> method of a class with that state. No -> static.
The good thing of having this method statig is that it meight decrese memory foot pring but unless you're facing memory related problem you should not think about that.I doubt there is any difference between the memory foot print of a static or not method.
I'm not shure if this method beeing static maks problems in multithreaded environments like the one you're aiming at. But I do know that an immutable object is always thread save.Does the method use shared state (data)? No -> no multi threaded problems.
Can the parameters be modified by different threads? Yes, if multiple threads modified the parameter map, but nothing you can do about it here (no way to force the calling thread to lock on whatever you lock on).
So my answer to your question is: yes, it should be non static.The method should be static since it uses no state.
It is thread-safe when only the calling thread can modify the passed map (using a synchronized or ConcurrentHashMap is not enough, since you don't call a single atomic method on the map).
// Better use Map instead of HashMap
// We don't care about the generic type, but that does not mean we should use a raw type
public static int countNonNullEntries(Map<?, ?> map) {
// whether to accept null map or not, no need for explicit exception
// since next statement throw NPE anyway
Collection<?> values = map.values();
// note your method is called countNonNull, not countNull!
// (original code it would need to by if(null != mapValue) notNullsCounter++;
return values.size() - java.util.Collections.frequency(values, null);
}

Static methods in startup class

I have declared few static methods in startup class. What will happen
          once startup class is executed in cluster environment, will the access
          to those static methods be clustered and replicated across the
          clusters. How exactly the startup class behaves in clustered
          environment.
          I will appreciate an urgent response.
          Thanks,
          SidShar .


SidShar,
          > I have declared few static methods in startup class. What will
          > happen once startup class is executed in cluster environment,
          > will the access to those static methods be clustered and
          > replicated across the clusters.
          No.
          > How exactly the startup class behaves in clustered environment.
          It is run on each server that it is configured to run on. The method calls
          to the startup class will all be local unless you do some special work to
          force it to be otherwise.
          If you want to have something done once and only once in the cluster, or
          coordinate stuff like that, then either use a shared resource (such as the
          database) to coordinate it all, or use Coherence, which lets you share and
          coordinate access to data among all the servers in the app tier.
          Peace,
          Cameron Purdy
          Tangosol, Inc.
          http://www.tangosol.com/coherence.jsp
          Tangosol Coherence: Clustered Replicated Cache for Weblogic
          "sidshar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]..
          >

Static methods. Why?

I understand what static means, and that each class has only ONE copy of its static variables and methods.
I an see the benefits of using static variables, but i cant seem to get my head round the benefits of using static methods.
What is the advantage of this, and is there a common situation where they are appropriate? (not main)
Cheers

I don't think static exists to prevent namespace conflicts. I think that the reason for static to exist is just as I described it: When you've got some task that is appropriate to be performed by a specific class, but that doesn't make sense to be associated with a particular instance of that class.
For example, String.valueOf. It's appropriate for the String class to have a method that returns the String representation of anything you feed to it (so it's in the String class) but it doesn't make sense for that method to be associated with a particular instance of String (so it's static). After all, you don't yet have a String to operate on--you're producing the String.
Which raises another interesting point: I wonder what the design decision was that led to
String.valueOf(int)
String.valueOf(long)
String.valueOf(Object)
etc.
instead of
new String(int)
new String(long)
newString(Object)
etc.
I've used both patterns in my own work, but I don't really have any good criteria for picking one over the other.
One thing that comes to mind for the general case is that with the static method, you can return a subclass, which you can't do with a constructor. Conversely, with a constructor, the caller knows exactly which class he'll get, whereas with a static method he doesn't. Of course, these points don't apply to String, as it's final.
I'm new to java, but as far as I can tell, "static"
means "global". The reason for having them in classes
is mainly to prevent name conflicts. For instance,
you could have an Array object, and a List object, and
both could have sort() methods, but they may be very
different types of methods. By forcing sort() to be a
member of a class, instead of a global identifier, you
have Array.sort() and List.sort(), which is much
safer.
It seems that the java designers went to great lengths
to make sure there are no namespace conflicts in the
language. Maybe they even went a bit too far in this
sometimes.

Why is it necessary to create an instance via the static method?

Hi,
For some classes (such as java.util.regex.Pattern), we should call the class method (static method) in order to create an instance (object).
For example, in order to conduct the pattern matching, we should use the java.util.regex.Pattern class as follows:
Pattern p = Pattern.compile ("X[0-9]+X") ;
// An instance of the Pattern class is created.
Matcher m = p.matcher ("abcX1XYX23Xz") ;
while ( m.find() ){
System.out.println ( m.start() ) ;
}where the compile static method in the Pattern class creates an instance and returns the pointer (reference) of it. We should NOT call
the constructor of the Pattern class as follows:
Pattern p = new Pattern ("X[0-9]+X") ; // ERRORThe question is the following:
(1) In what scenes, do we develop the classes that force users to call the static method for creating an instance of it?
(2) Why do the java.util.regex.Pattern class have such a specification?
Thanks in advance.

(1) In what scenes, do we develop the classes that force users to call the static method for creating an instance of it?1. As the other author mentioned, caching is one reason.
2. With such caching, you don't need to take trouble in passing the reference of a cached object(s) to many places in your code. From anywhere in your code base, you can simply invoke the method, the object will come. In essence, the static method provides a global point of access to one or more pre-created (or cached) objects. Hence, the static method simplifies access to the object.
3. Sometimes, the actual class instantiated is not the same as the one with the static method. This allows abstraction of underlying variations. For example, when you say Pattern.compile ("X[0-9]+X") , the returned object type can be different in Windows and Linux (Most probably Pattern class doesn't work like that, but I am showing you a use case. May be Runtime.getRuntime() does actually work like that.). You find this abstraction of variations in many places. Take for example, FacesContext.getExternalContext() method (this is from JSF API). ExternalContext documentation says this:
"This class allows the Faces API to be unaware of the nature of its containing application environment. In particular, this class allows JavaServer Faces based appications to run in either a Servlet or a Portlet environment."
Edited by: Kamal Wickramanayake on Oct 24, 2012 8:04 AM

Static method - memory usage

will an application containing many static methods use more memory than an application w/ less static methods? are there any performance or memory issues w/ using static methods?

I totally disagree that one should let oop principles NOT performance dominate design. While you may have a point in 99.99% of applications, I am in the 0.01% where performance has forced me to implement some hard choices.
If static is faster and you call that method millions of time you may have some real issues to face. Let's say you lose a microsecond on each call by going non-static. That means for 1x10^6 calls you've lost a second. Which may not seem like a lot, but in multi-threaded user apps such as servers, this is very significant.
I'd argue that there shouldn't even be a method. In fact just expose the instance variables and access the data directly, or don't even have the class and just in-line. Or even better, jni. How about just write it in Assembler. Where to draw the line???
Before rants occur, this is only important to do in critical sections of code. Not recommended where you can use well structured oop principles which are preferred.

Concurrent invocations of static method

Hello.
I have a static utility class that provides static utility methods. Some methods can take a while to complete. Question - is static method executed by one thread at a time? or there maybe multiple threads executing static methods simultaneously? (Note: methods are NOT synchronized)
Thank you

However, I remember reading that threads operate on
local copies of shared data which is written to the
main memory at some point of time. Does it refer to
primitive types only?No, it refers to all local variables, including any method parameters. But you don't ever pass an object - you pass a reference to an object. Thus the reference is local, but any changes made to the object's state will be visible outside of the method.
Also, it is allowable for threads to maintain local copies of variables - they don't have to; and if they do, they are allowed to write to and read from main memory at any time they like - synchronization forces a minimum number of points at which they must read and write to and from main memory, but they are free to do so at any other time as well.

Compilation error while calling static method from another class

Hi,
I am new to Java Programming. I have written two class files Dummy1 and Dummy2.java in the same package Test.
In Dummy1.java I have declared a static final variable and a static method as you can see it below.
package Test;
import java.io.*;
public class Dummy1
public static final int var1= 10;
public static int varDisp(int var2)
return(var1+var2);
This is program is compiling fine.
I have called the static method varDisp from the class Dummy2 and it is as follows
package Test;
import java.io.*;
public class Dummy2
public int var3=15;
public int test=0;
test+=Dummy1.varDisp(var3);
and when i compile Dummy2.java, there is a compilation error <identifier > expected.
Please help me in this program.

public class Dummy2
public int var3=15;
public int test=0;
test+=Dummy1.varDisp(var3);
}test+=Dummy1.varDisplay(var3);
must be in a method, it cannot just be out somewhere in the class!

Using a non-static vector in a generic class with static methods

I have a little problem with a class (the code is shown underneath). The problem is the Assign method. This method should return a clone (an exact copy) of the set given as an argument. When making a new instance of a GenericSet (with the Initialize method) within the Assign method, the variables of the original set and the clone have both a reference to the same vector, while there exists two instances of GenericSet. My question is how to refer the clone GenericSet's argument to a new vector instead of the existing vector of the original GenericSet. I hope you can help me. Thanks
package genericset;
import java.util.*;
public class GenericSet<E>{
private Vector v;
public GenericSet(Vector vec) {
v = vec;
private <T extends Comparable> Item<T> get(int index) {
return (Item<T>) v.get(index);
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> initialize() {
return new GenericSet<T>(new Vector());
public Vector getVector() {
return v;
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> insert (GenericSet<T> z, Item<T> i){
GenericSet<T> g = assign(z);
Vector v = g.getVector();
if (!member(g,i))
v.addElement(i);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> delete(GenericSet<T> z, Item<T> i){
GenericSet<T> g = assign(z);
Vector v = g.getVector();
if (member(g,i))
v.remove(i);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> boolean member(GenericSet<T> z, Item<T> i) {
Vector v = z.getVector();
return v.contains(i);
public static <T extends Comparable> boolean equal(GenericSet<T> z1, GenericSet<T> z2) {
Vector v1 = z1.getVector();
Vector v2 = z2.getVector();
if((v1 == null) && (v2 != null))
return false;
return v1.equals(v2);
public static <T extends Comparable> boolean empty(GenericSet<T> z) {
return (cardinality(z) == 0);
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> union(GenericSet<T> z1, GenericSet<T> z2) {
GenericSet<T> g = assign(z1);
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z2); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z2.get(i);
insert(g, elem);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> intersection(GenericSet<T> z1, GenericSet<T> z2) {
GenericSet<T> g = initialize();
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z2); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z2.get(i);
if(member(z1, elem))
insert(g, elem);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> difference(GenericSet<T> z1, GenericSet<T> z2) {
GenericSet<T> g = initialize();
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z1); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z1.get(i);
if(!member(z2, elem))
insert(g, elem);
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z2); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z2.get(i);
if(!member(z1, elem))
insert(g, elem);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> GenericSet<T> assign(GenericSet<T> z) {
GenericSet<T> g = initialize();
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z.get(i);
insert(g, elem);
return g;
public static <T extends Comparable> boolean subset(GenericSet<T> z1, GenericSet<T> z2) {
for(int i=0; i<cardinality(z1); i++) {
Item<T> elem = z1.get(i);
if(!member(z2, elem))
return false;
return true;
public static <T extends Comparable> int cardinality(GenericSet<T> z){
Vector v = z.getVector();
return v.size();
}

The issue is not "reference a non-static interface", but simply that you cannot reference a non-static field in a static method - what value of the field ed would the static method use? Seems to me your findEditorData should look something like this:   public static EditorBean findEditorData( String username, EditorBean editorData )
      return editorData.ed.findEditor( username );
   }

Using HttpServletRequest object to share variables between static methods.

Does anyone know of the overhead/performance implications of using the HttpServletRequest object to share variables between a static method and the calling code?
First, let me explain why I am doing it.
I have some pagination code that I would like to share across multiple servlets. So I pulled the pagination code out, and created a static method that these servlets could all use for their pagination.
public class Pagination {
     public static void setPagination (HttpServletRequest request, Config conf, int totalRows) {
          int page = 0;
          if (request.getParameter("page") != null) {
               page = new Integer(request.getParameter("page")).intValue();
          int articlesPerPage = conf.getArticlesPerPage();
          int pageBoundary = conf.getPageBoundary();
            int numOfPages = totalRows / articlesPerPage;
            // Checks if the page variable is empty (not set)
            if (page == 0 || (page > numOfPages && (totalRows % articlesPerPage) == 0 && page < numOfPages + 1)) {
             page = 1; // If it is empty, we're on page 1
          // Ex: (2 * 25) - 25 = 25 <- data starts at 25
         int startRow = page * articlesPerPage - (articlesPerPage);
         int endRow = startRow + (articlesPerPage);
         // Set array of page numbers.
         int minDisplayPage = page - pageBoundary;
         if (minDisplayPage < 1) {
              minDisplayPage = 1;
         int maxDisplayPage = page + pageBoundary;
         if (maxDisplayPage > numOfPages) {
              maxDisplayPage = numOfPages;
         int arraySize = (maxDisplayPage - minDisplayPage) + 1;
         // Check if there is a remainder page (partially filled page).
         if ((totalRows % articlesPerPage) != 0) arraySize++;
         // Set array to correct size.
         int[] pages = new int[arraySize];
         // Fill the array.
         for (int i = 1; i <= pages.length; i++) {
              pages[i - 1] = i;
         // Set pageNext and pagePrev variables.
         if (page != 1) {
              int pagePrev = page - 1;
              request.setAttribute("pagePrev", pagePrev);
         if ((totalRows - (articlesPerPage * page)) > 0) {
             int pageNext = page + 1;
             request.setAttribute("pageNext", pageNext);
         // These will be used by calling code for SQL query.
         request.setAttribute("startRow", startRow);
         request.setAttribute("endRow", endRow);
         // These will be used in JSP page.
         request.setAttribute("totalRows", totalRows);
         request.setAttribute("numOfPages", numOfPages);
         request.setAttribute("page", page);
         request.setAttribute("pages", pages);
}I need two parameters from this method (startrow and endrow) so I can perform my SQL queries. Since this is a multithreaded app, I do not want to use class variables that I will later retrieve through methods.
So my solution was to just set the two parameters in the request and grab them later with the calling code like this:
// Set pagination
Pagination.setPagination(request, conf, tl.getTotalRows());
// Grab variables set into request by static method
int startRow = new Integer(request.getAttribute("startRow").toString());
int endRow = new Integer(request.getAttribute("endRow").toString());
// Use startRow and endRow for SQL query below...Does anyone see any problem with this from a resource/performance standpoint? Any idea on what the overhead is in using the HttpServletRequest object like this to pass variables around?
Thanks for any thoughts.

You could either
- create instance vars in both controllers and set them accordingly to point to the same object (from the App Delegate) OR
- create an instance variable on the App Delegate and access it from within the view controllers
Hope this helps!

Can you set a global EntityResolver (via system property, or static method)

I'm trying to set a customized EntityResolver (telling the xml parser where to look for XML schema files).
Usually, you'd use the standard syntax - somehting like:
SaxParser parser=new SaxParser();
parser.parser.setEntityResolver(myResolver);
However, I was wondering whether you can set a "global" EntityResolver, to be used as default for all parsers ?
Maybe this can be done through some system property, or a static method somewhere in the parsing XML ?
(BTW, I need it because I'm using some third-party API, that encapsulates a SaxParser, but won't let me access it, so I can't configure it directly).
thanks.

I don't think you can.
What is possible is to set content on the folder resource itself; that would be returned instead of the page you mentioned.

How to call a static method from an event handler

Hi,
I'm trying to call a static method of class I designed. But I don't know how to do it. This method will be called from an event handler of a web dynpro for Abap application.
Can somebody help me?
Thx in advance.
Hamza.

To clearly specify the problem.
I have a big part code that I use many times in my applications. So I decided to put it in a static method to reuse the code. but my method calls functions module of HR module. but just after the declaration ( at the first line of the call function) it thows an exception. So I can't call my method.

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.

Forcing static method implementaion!!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for