Object of an abstract class

Can we create object of an abstract class ?

As Richard Brünning mentioned in his reply, we can't instantiate the object with reference to the Abstract Class. i.e.
DATA: O_OBJ TYPE REF TO ZCL_ABS_CLASS.
CREATE O_OBJ. " << This will give syntax error
But you can surely use the abstract class to reference the object. At run time, based on your required you can instantiate the object with actual reference type to the subclass of the abstract class. Like:
DATA: O_OBJ TYPE REF TO ZCL_ABS_CLASS.
* ZCL_ABS_CLASS_SUB is sub class of the ZCL_ABS_CLASS
CREATE O_OBJ TYPE ZCL_ABS_CLASS_SUB.
Regards,
Naimesh Patel

Similar Messages

Why does this abstract class and method work without implement it?

hi,
I have seen many times that in some examples that there are objects made from abstract classes directly. However, in all books, manual and tutorials that I've read explain that we MUST implement those methods in a subclass.
An example of what I'm saying is the example code here . In a few words that example makes Channels (java.nio.channel) and does operations with them. My problem is in the class to make this channels, because they used the ServerSockeChannel class and socket() method directly despite they are abstracts.
   // Create a new channel: if port == 0, FileChannel on /dev/tty, else
   // a SocketChannel from the first accept on the given port number
private static ByteChannel newChannel (int netPort)
      throws Exception
      if (netPort == 0) {
         FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream ("/dev/tty");
         return (fis.getChannel());
      } else {
//CONFLICT LINES
         ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); //<--I have never thought do that!! Anyway, how it is static method may work.
         ssc.socket().bind (new InetSocketAddress (netPort)); //<--but here, this method (socket) is abstract. WHY RETURN A SOCKET???????? this mehod should be empty by default.
         System.out.print ("Waiting for connection on port "
            + netPort + "...");
         System.out.flush();
         ByteChannel channel = ssc.accept();
         ssc.close();
         System.out.println ("Got it");
         return (channel);
   } I test this code and works fine. So why can it be??
Also, I read that the abstract classes can't have static methods. Is it true???
Please Help!!
PS: i have seen this kind of code many times. So i feel that I don't understand how its really the abstract methods are made.
PS2: I understand that obviously you don't do something like this: *"obj = new AbstractClass(); "*. I dont understand how it could be: ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); and the compiler didn't warn.

molavec wrote:
ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); //<--I have never thought do that!! Anyway, how it is static method may work.
The static method creates an instance of a class which extends ServerSocketChannel, but is actually another non-abstract class.I thought that, but reading the documentation I saw that about open() method:
Opens a server-socket channel.
The new channel is created by invoking the openServerSocketChannel method of the system-wide default SelectorProvider object.
The new channel's socket is initially unbound; it must be bound to a specific address via one of its socket's bind methods before connections can be accepted.
...and the problem is the same openServerSocketChannel is abstract, so i don't understand how it could return a ServerSocketChannel.There is a concrete implementation class that has implemented that method.
I guess that really the open() method use a SelectorProvider's subclase but it doesn't appear in the doc.It doesn't need to. First, you don't care about those implementation details, and second, you know that if the class is abstract, it must use some concrete subclass.
Ok, I speak Spanish by default (<-- this sounds like "I am a machine", ^_^' ). So, I didn't know how to say that the method would be {}. Is there a way to say that?? I recommendable for me to know, for the future questions o answers.Not sure what you're saying here. But the other respondent was trying to explain to you the difference between an abstract method and an empty method.
// abstract method
public abstract void foo();
// empty method
public void bar() {
Which class does extend ServerSocketChannel? I can not see it.It may be a package-private class or a private nested class. There's no need to document that specific implementation, since you never need to use it directly.

Inheritance, abstract classes

Hi peeps!
There's Train class with collection of RailCar
RailCar is made up of SleepingCar and SaloonCar
and OccupiableSpace is made up of Berth and Seat
*RailCar makes use of OccupiableSpace(Abstract Class)
Is following hierarchy correct?
OBJECT
^
|
Train
^
|
RailCar (Abstract class)
^________ ___________^
|________ __________ |
1) SleepingCar 2) SaloonCar (these two classes extends RailCar)
and for remaining classes
OBJECT
^
|
OccupiableClass (Abstract Class)
^ __________ ____ ^
| ______________ |
1)Seat 2) Berth (these two classes extends OccupiableSpace)

I don't think you need to that abstract here to create a Train class
is a - the class is extended
has a - the class has members to reflect the data you wish to store for the class operations (methods) that will act upon that data
RailCar.class // does not have to be abstract unless you want to defer (or later enforce) some implementations in the subclass
SleepingCar IS A Carriage
Carriage HAS A berth
I think the route 'implements Sleepers' and 'implements Sitters' with an interface for each may give you a more solid design if you want some abstraction in your model.

Object oriented design problem concerning abstract classes and interfaces

I have an abstract class (class A) that takes care of database connections. It cannot be made into an interface as other classes extend it and all these other classes require the functionality in the methods it has (i.e. I cannot make all the methods abstract and then make this class an interface).
I have a class that contains data (Customer class) that I will create from the data I extract from the database. This class will also be created by the User and submitted to the database portion of the program. The Customer class has functionality in its methods which is required by the rest of the program (i.e. I cannot make all the methods abstract and then make this class an interface).
I have a factory class (CustomerFactory) that extends the Customer class. This has been created to restrict access to the creation and manipulation of Customers.
I have a class (DatabaseQuery) that extends class A. But now that I have retrieved all of the information that comprises a Customer from the database, I cannot construct a Customer without making reference to UserFactory. But UserFactory is a class that I don't want the database portion of the program to know about.
What I would like to do is have my DatabaseQuery class extend both Customer class and A class. But they are both classes and Java won't allow that.
I can't make either of the two classes that I want to make parents of DatabaseQuery into interfaces... so what can I do other than just keep a reference to UserFactory in my DatabaseQuery class?
Thanks,
Tim

>
What I would like to do is have my DatabaseQuery class
extend both Customer class and A class. But they are
both classes and Java won't allow that.
I can't make either of the two classes that I want to
make parents of DatabaseQuery into interfaces... so
what can I do other than just keep a reference to
UserFactory in my DatabaseQuery class?Just a guess...
The description sounds a little vague but it sounds like the correct solution would be to refactor everything. The first clue is when I see "database connection" as an "abstract class". The only hierarchy that a database connection might exist in is in a connection pool and even that is probably shaky. It should never be part of data records, which is what your description sounds like.
That probably isn't what you want to hear.
The other solution, which is why refactoring is better (and which also makes it apparent why the original design is wrong) is to create an entire other hierarchy that mirrors your current data hierarchy and wraps it. So you now have "Customer", you will now have "Customer" and "DBCustomer". And all the code that currently uses "Customer" will have to start using DBCustomer. Actually it is easier than that since you can simply make the new class be "Customer" and rename the old class to "DBCustomer". Naturally that means the new class will have to have all of the functionality of the old class. Fortunately you can use the old class to do that. (But I would guess that isn't going to be easy.)

Calling a super.ssuper.method but your super is a abstract class.

Dear guys,
Is that possible to invoke your super's super's method but your super is a abstract class?
like:
class GO { public void draw() { } }
abstract class GORunner extends GO {}
class GOCounter extends GORunner {
public void draw() {
super.super.draw();
I want to do this because I would like to take advantages of the abstract as an layer to achieve some polymorphism programming Therefore, in the later stage of the programming some code may only refer to GORunner but actually it is holding a GOCounter object.
Thank!!

BTW you don't need to write this
public void draw() {
super.draw();
}It works but its basically the same as not having it at all.

Calling a method from an abstract class in a seperate class

I am trying to call the getID() method from the Chat class in the getIDs() method in the Outputter class. I would usually instantiate with a normal class but I know you cant instantiate the method when using abstract classes. I've been going over and over my theory and have just become more confused??
Package Chatroom
public abstract class Chat
   private String id;
   public String getID()
      return id;
   protected void setId(String s)
      id = s;
   public abstract void sendMessageToUser(String msg);
Package Chatroom
public class Outputter
public String[] getIDs()
     // This is where I get confused. I know you can't instantiate the object like:
        Chat users=new Chat();
        users.getID();
I have the two classes in the package and you need to that to be able to use a class' methods in another class.
Please help me :(

I have just looked over my program and realised my class names are not the most discriptive, so I have renamed them to give you a clearer picture.
package Chatroom
public abstract class Chatter
private String id;
public String getID()
return id;
protected void setId(String s)
id = s;
I am trying to slowly build a chatroom on my own. The Chatter class is a class that will be used to represent a single logged in user and the user is given an ID when he logs in through the setId and getID() methods.
package Chatroom;
import java.util.Vector;
public class Broadcaster
private Vector<Chatter> chatters = new Vector<Chatter>();
public String[] getIDs()
// code here
The Broadcaster class will keep a list of all logged-in users keeps a list of all the chats representing logged-in users, which it stores in a Vector.I am trying to use the getIDs() method to return an array of Strings comprising the IDs of all logged-in users, which is why im trying to use the getID() method from the Chat class.
I apologise if I come across as clueless, it's just I have been going through books for about 4 hours now and I have just totally lossed all my bearings

EJB question: How to use abstract class in writing a session bean?

I had written an abstract class which implements the session bean as follow:
public abstract class LoggingSessionBean implements SessionBean {
protected SessionContext ctx;
protected abstract Object editRecord(Object obj) throws Exception;
public LoggingSessionBean()
super();
private final String getBeforeUpdateImage(Object obj) throws Exception {
// implement the details of extracting the backup image ...
public void setSessionContext(SessionContext ctx)
this.ctx = ctx;
private final void writeThisImageToDatabase(String aStr) {
// connect to database to write the record ...
public final Object update(final Object obj) {
try {
final String aStr = getBeforeUpdateImage(obj);
writeThisImageToDatabase(aStr);
editRecord(obj);
} catch (Exception e) {
ctx.setRollbackOnly();
This abstract class is to write the backup image to the database so that other session beans extending it only need to implement the details in editRecord(Object Obj) and they do not need to take care of the operation of making the backup image.
However, some several questions for me are:
1. If I write a class ScheduleSessionBean extending the above abstract class and the according 2 interfaces ScheduleSession and ScheduleSessionHome for this session bean (void update(Object obj); defined in ScheduleSession), do I still need to write the interfaces for LoggingSession and LoggingSessionHome?
2. If I wrote the interface LoggingSession extending EJBObject where it defined the abstract methods "void update(Object obj);" and "void setSessionContext(SessionContext ctx);", that this meant I needed to write the ScheduleSession to implement the Logging Session?
3. I used OC4J 9.0.4. How can I define the ejb-jar.xml in this case?

Hi Maggie,
1. do I still need to write
the interfaces for LoggingSession and
LoggingSessionHome?"LoggingSessionBean" can't be a session bean, because it's an abstract class. Therefore there's no point in thinking about the 'home' and 'remote' interfaces.
2. this
meant I needed to write the ScheduleSession to
implement the Logging Session?Again, not really a question worth considering, since "LoggingSessionBean" can't be an EJB.
3. I used OC4J 9.0.4. How can I define the
ejb-jar.xml in this case?Same as you define it for any version of OC4J and for any EJB container, for that matter, since the "ejb-jar.xml" file is defined by the EJB specification.
Let me suggest that you create a "Logging" class as a regular java class, and give your "ScheduleSessionBean" a member that is an instance of the "Logging" class.
Alternatively, the "ScheduleSessionBean" can extend the "Logging" class and implement the "SessionBean" interface.
Good Luck,
Avi.

".. is an abstract class. It can't be instantiated"

Does anyone have an idea of how I can get rid of the above error message? Here is a bit of my code:
import java.io.*;
import java.util.Vector;
class Project3 {
private BiTree company = new BiTree();
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Project3 run = new Project3();
run.Command();
public void Command() throws IOException {}
public interface comparable {
//not sure if need this in this class, or at all
public int compare(Object object1,Object object2);
public void add() {
Employee newOne = new Employee();
System.out.println("Enter name");
BufferedReader stdin = new BufferedReader (new InputStreamReader (System.in));;
String name = stdin.readLine();
System.out.println("Enter title");
BufferedReader stdin = new BufferedReader (new InputStreamReader (System.in));;
String title = stdin.readLine();
System.out.println("Enter payrate");
BufferedReader stdin = new BufferedReader (new InputStreamReader (System.in));;
payrate = Double.parseDouble.stdin.readLine();
newOne.setTitle(title);
newOne.setName(name);
newOne.setPayrate(payrate);
company.insert(newOne);
}

It is not possible to create instances of an abstract class.
I hope this example helps,
abstract class Vehicle
public static void main(String arg[])
Vehicle a;
a = new Automobile(); // ok, since Automobile is a kind of Vehicle
// The class Automobile, a special case of Vehicle
class Automobile extends Vehicle

Abstract Class can't be instantiated

Hi I'm getting the following error messages while compiling. Does any one have any idea how to get RID of it?
ERROR MESSAGES:
EditableHeaderTableExample2.java:48: inner class EditableHeaderTableExample2. MyComboRenderer is an abstract class. It can't be instantiated.
MyComboRenderer renderer = new MyComboRenderer(items);
^
EditableHeaderTableExample2.java:79: Method redefined with different return type: javax.swing.table.TableCellRenderer getTableCellRendererComponent(javax.swing.JTable, java.lang.Object, boolean, boolean, int, int) was java.awt.Component getTableCellRendererComponent(javax.swing.JTable, java.lang.Object, boolean, boolean, int, int)
public TableCellRenderer getTableCellRendererComponent(
^
2 errors
Here is the code:
EditableHeaderTableExample2.java
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import javax.swing.event.*;
import javax.swing.JComponent;
import javax.swing.JComboBox;
import java.util.*;
import javax.swing.*;
import javax.swing.table.*;
import javax.swing.border.*;
import javax.swing.JTable;
import javax.swing.plaf.metal.*;
import javax.swing.JFrame;
import javax.swing.table.TableColumn;
import javax.swing.table.TableColumnModel;
import javax.swing.DefaultCellEditor;
import javax.swing.table.TableCellRenderer;
import javax.swing.table.DefaultTableCellRenderer;
public class EditableHeaderTableExample2 extends JFrame {
public static void main(String[] args) {
EditableHeaderTableExample2 frame = new EditableHeaderTableExample2();
frame.setSize(400,300);
     frame.setLocation(100,100);
     frame.setVisible(true);
public EditableHeaderTableExample2(){
JTable table = new JTable(10,10);
TableColumnModel columnModel = table.getColumnModel();
table.setTableHeader(new EditableHeader(columnModel));
String[] items = {"Dog","Cat"};
JComboBox combo = new JComboBox();
for (int i=0;i<items.length;i++) {
combo.addItem(items);
MyComboRenderer renderer = new MyComboRenderer(items);
EditableHeaderTableColumn col;
// column 1
col = (EditableHeaderTableColumn)table.getColumnModel().getColumn(1);
col.setHeaderValue(combo.getItemAt(0));
col.setHeaderRenderer(renderer);
col.setHeaderEditor(new DefaultCellEditor(combo));
// column 3
col = (EditableHeaderTableColumn)table.getColumnModel().getColumn(3);
col.setHeaderValue(combo.getItemAt(0));
//col.setHeaderRenderer(renderer);
col.setHeaderEditor(new DefaultCellEditor(combo));
JScrollPane pane = new JScrollPane(table);
getContentPane().add(pane);
class MyComboRenderer extends JComboBox implements TableCellRenderer
MyComboRenderer(String[] items) {
for (int i=0;i<items.length;i++) {
addItem(items[i]);
public TableCellRenderer getTableCellRendererComponent(
JTable table, Object value,
boolean isSelected, boolean hasFocus,
int row, int column) {
setSelectedItem(value);
return this;

This is not a suggestion, it's a requirement. When you say
class MyComboRenderer extends JComboBox implements TableCellRendererthe "implements TableCellRenderer" part is a promise that your class will include a method whose signature is
    Component getTableCellRendererComponent(JTable table, Object value,
                             boolean isSelected, boolean hasFocus,
                             int row, int column);

Difference between abstract class and the normal class

Hi...........
can anyone tell me use of abstract class instead of normal class
The main doubt for me is...
1.why we are defining the abstract method in a abstract class and then implementing that in to the normal class.instead of that we can straight way create and implement the method in normal class right...../

Class vs. interface
Some say you should define all classes in terms of interfaces, but I think recommendation seems a bit extreme. I use interfaces when I see that something in my design will change frequently.
For example, the Strategy pattern lets you swap new algorithms and processes into your program without altering the objects that use them. A media player might know how to play CDs, MP3s, and wav files. Of course, you don't want to hardcode those playback algorithms into the player; that will make it difficult to add a new format like AVI. Furthermore, your code will be littered with useless case statements. And to add insult to injury, you will need to update those case statements each time you add a new algorithm. All in all, this is not a very object-oriented way to program.
With the Strategy pattern, you can simply encapsulate the algorithm behind an object. If you do that, you can provide new media plug-ins at any time. Let's call the plug-in class MediaStrategy. That object would have one method: playStream(Stream s). So to add a new algorithm, we simply extend our algorithm class. Now, when the program encounters the new media type, it simply delegates the playing of the stream to our media strategy. Of course, you'll need some plumbing to properly instantiate the algorithm strategies you will need.
This is an excellent place to use an interface. We've used the Strategy pattern, which clearly indicates a place in the design that will change. Thus, you should define the strategy as an interface. You should generally favor interfaces over inheritance when you want an object to have a certain type; in this case, MediaStrategy. Relying on inheritance for type identity is dangerous; it locks you into a particular inheritance hierarchy. Java doesn't allow multiple inheritance, so you can't extend something that gives you a useful implementation or more type identity.
Interface vs. abstract class
Choosing interfaces and abstract classes is not an either/or proposition. If you need to change your design, make it an interface. However, you may have abstract classes that provide some default behavior. Abstract classes are excellent candidates inside of application frameworks.
Abstract classes let you define some behaviors; they force your subclasses to provide others. For example, if you have an application framework, an abstract class may provide default services such as event and message handling. Those services allow your application to plug in to your application framework. However, there is some application-specific functionality that only your application can perform. Such functionality might include startup and shutdown tasks, which are often application-dependent. So instead of trying to define that behavior itself, the abstract base class can declare abstract shutdown and startup methods. The base class knows that it needs those methods, but an abstract class lets your class admit that it doesn't know how to perform those actions; it only knows that it must initiate the actions. When it is time to start up, the abstract class can call the startup method. When the base class calls this method, Java calls the method defined by the child class.

Casting & abstract class & final method

what is casting abstract class & final method in ABAP Objects give some scenario where actually use these.

Hi Sri,
I'm not sure we can be any more clear.
An Abstract class can not be instantiated. It can only be used as the superclass for it's subclasses. In other words it <b>can only be inherited</b>.
A Final class cannot be the superclass for a subclass. In other words <b>it cannot be inherited.</b>
I recommend the book <a href="http://www.sappress.com/product.cfm?account=&product=H1934">ABAP Objects: ABAP Programming in SAP NetWeaver</a>
Cheers
Graham

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

"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.

Non-abstract methods in a Abstract class

Abstract Class can contain Non-abstract methods.
and Abstract Classes are not instantiable as well
So,
What is the purpose of Non-abstract methods in a Abstract class.
since we can't create objects and use it
so these non-abstract methods are only available to subclasses.
(if the subclass is not marked as abstract)
is that the advantage that has.(availability in subclass)
??

For example, the AbstractCollection class (in
java.util) provides an implementation for many of the
methods defined in the Collection interface.
Subclasses only have to implement a few more methods
to fulfill the Collection contract. Subclasses may
also choose to override the AbstractCollection
functionality if - for example - they know how to
provide an optimized implementation based on
characteristics of the actual subclass.Another example is the abstract class MouseAdapter that implements MouseListener, MouseWheelListener, MouseMotionListener, and that you can use instead of these interfaces when you want to react to one or two types of events only.
Quoting the javadocs: "If you implement the MouseListener, MouseMotionListener interface, you have to define all of the methods in it. This abstract class defines null methods for them all, so you can only have to define methods for events you care about."

Implementing Comparable in an abstract class

Hi all,
I am making my first sortie with abstract classes. I have had a good look around, but would still appreciate some advice with the following problem.
In my application I have several classes that have many things in common. I have concluded therefore, that if I create and then inherit from an abstract super class, I can reduce and improve my code. I created this abstract class:
public abstract class YAbstractObject implements Comparable {
    public YAbstractObject(int projectId, YObject object, String objectName) {
        this.projectId = projectId; // Always the same parameters
        this.object = object;
        this.objectName = objectName;
    // This is abstract as it must always be present for sub classes but differant processing will take place
    public abstract void resolveObject();
    // These three methods will always be the same for all sub classes
    public String getName() {
        return objectName;
    public YObject getObject() {
        return object;
    public boolean isValid() {
        return isValid;
// Overridden and always the same for all sub classes
    public String toString() {
        return objectName;
    // implemented abstract method
    public int compareTo(Object thatObject) {
        // Issue here! I would like something as follows:
        // return this.getName().compareToIgnoreCase(thatObject.getName());
// Variable decleration
    private int projectId;
    private YObject object;
    private String objectName;
    private boolean isValid;As I have commented in the compareTo() method, I would like it to be able to use the getName() method for comparison objects and compare them. But it does not like this, as it does not know that "thatObject" is of the same class as this object - I hope that made sense.
in essence, I want to inherit this method for different classes and have it work with each.
Is there a way to do this? Generics?
Any observations, greatly appreciated,
Steve

You can use also generics (if applicable: java -version >= 1.5).
public abstract class Test implements Comparable<Test> {
     String name;
     public Test(String name) {
          this.name = name;
     public String getName() {
          return name;
     public int compareTo(Test obj) {
          return this.getName().compareTo(obj.getName());
public class Other extends Test {
     public Other(String name) {
          super(name);
public class Tester extends Test {
     public Tester(String name) {
          super(name);
     public static void main(String[] args) {
          Test t = new Tester("t");
          Test a = new Tester("a");
          Test o = new Other("t");
          System.out.println(t.compareTo(a));
          System.out.println(t.compareTo(new Object())); //compile error
          System.out.println(t.compareTo(o));
}Without the compile error line it will give the following result:
19
0

Object of an abstract class

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for