Why Overridden Doesn't Apply To Instance Variables
Mar 15, 2014
why overridden doesn't apply to variables. However, instance variables are stored inside the object.I ran below program and expected to print "two" but it gets printed "one".
class SupCont {
String s = "one";
}
class Cont extends SupCont {
public static void main(String a[]) {
String s = "two";
SupCont c = new Cont();
System.out.println(c.s);
}
}
So far in my assignment I have successfully opened a text file. However I am required to do more:
1) As each line of text (containing names and ages) is read a new Runner object is created with its instance variables set thus: ! (Runner class already created )!
- name : set directly set from the value in the file - agaGroup : can be worked out from the given ages: < 18 should be 'junior' > 55 should be 'senior' the rest should be 'standard'
2) the instance of Runner should be added to the list referenced by the instance variable runners.
I have used if statements to create the junior list, however I do not see the full list of names and ages in the variable runners as I am requested to.
I am sure there is a for loop involved somewhere but I do not know how to:
a) use the for loop in my method add a new Runner object with the variable mentioned.
I include the code I have done so far as a file - p.s I use Bluej.
public class MarathonAdmin { // instance variables private String runners; private String age;
Do inherited methods use their instance variables or do they use the ones in the method that inherits them?
For example, Class B extends Class A. Class A and B both have the instance variable "potato". A client program tries to use method "cut" using an object of Class B, but class B has no cut method. So, class B uses the "cut" method inherited from class A. What I want to know is will that cut class A's potato or class B's?
so, i was reading my java book and learning about objects and methods and it starts talking about Encapsulation and mentions that it's good practice to set instance variables as private and instead of accessing the instance variables directly, we should create a set method and get method to get and set the stuff we want to pass to the class containing the object...
for example, in this class, we're passing the integer 70 for object dog one and integer 8 for object dog two for the dog class... and these these 2 integers are sent to the setsize method so we're not accessing instance variable size directly.
i dont quite get it though....if we the programmer are the one deciding what size the integer is for the dog, and the setsize method takes the one.setSize(70) or (8) and puts them in setsize(int s) as s... but only to copy that integer stored in s back to private int size.... why do we even need to bother with making these two extra methods such as setSize, getSize?
in the book it says that... well what if the code gets into the wrong hand and someone writes something like one.setSize(0) then you would get a dog with size 0 which is essentially illogical. but then again, i'm the programmer, and i am the person who writes the code and passing the right integer.The reason for public and private... that part i understand... i can see why if a variable's data can get changed amidst the code during calculations and you dont want it to directly change the original variable and have it mess up the code, but this code from the book just a bad example of demonstrating the reason? since we manually pass the information ourselves and passing it to method setSize... and all setSize does is stores it in another integer, only to copy it right away to size (which is the original private variable we were tryign to protect?
Any simple code to demonstrate how the code might end up changing an instance variable and why we would want to protect it by using private?
class GoodDog { private int size; public int getSize() { return size; } public void setSize(int s) { size = s;
I am having some problem accessing variables from an array instance of a class. Heres what i have done;
In the main class:
Example obj[]= new Example[4];
In the main class constructor:
obj[0] = new Example(0); obj[1] = new Example(1); obj[2] = new Example(2); obj[3] = new Example(3);
In the main update() method:
if(condition) //update
In the Example class constructor:
private boolean change = false;
In the Example class update() method:
if(x >20) change= true;
Now, i want to access the variable change from the main class, how do i do it? The 'condition' in the if statement is the condition of wether the change variable ia true or false. How do i access it?
I have to create an application that deals with maps.
I first have to create the instance variables for the class.
So very simply if my hashmap is going to consist of football clubs and players. Football clubs being a string value for the key and players being a set of strings for the values. How would I go about creating the instance variable in a class for this?
I can't seem to find anything that specifically deals with instance variables and constructors for maps.
I am suppose to create a rectangle and I have created two classes; Rectangle.java and RectangleTester.Java.
So far my code for the class Rentangle.java is:
package edu.sbcc.hw2; public class Rectangle { private int width = 25; private int height = 25; public rectangle(int xcoord, int ycoord, int thewidth, int theheight) { this.width = width; this.height = height; } public int getWidth() { return width;
So for my assignment I need two instance variables for height and width for which I have, but it says in the assignment I need methods (settings and getters /mutators and accessors that allow manipulation of my instance variables which is a little confusing. Do I put these methods on Rectangle.java or RectangleTester.java.
The same goes for the calculateArea, where am I suppose to put this?
I thought static methods could never use instance variables, because they wouldn't know which instance to look at.
From Head First Java, p. 284: "A static method is not associated with a particular instance - only the class - so it cannot access any instance variable values of its class. It wouldn't know which instance's values to use."
Now I was answering some mock exam questions from Cameron McKenzie's SCJA book, and I don't understand one of the options. On page 205, the last question has an option that says: "Instance variables ... are not visible in static methods, unless passed in as arguments." This option is supposed to be correct. Now... how does that work?
Create a class called Employee that includes three pieces of information as instance variables:
-Employee ID (string type) -first name (string type) (default value 'John') -last name (string type) (default value 'Smith') and -monthly salary (type double). -No argument constructor that initializes the three instance variables. The employee id should be generated using the following process:
The employee id should be a combination of first initial, last initial and a number starting from 10001 for the first employee and increasing by one for each employee. e.g. if John Smith is the first employee then its id will be JS10001 and if George Brown is the second employee then its id will be GB10002
-Provide get and set methods for each instance variable. The set method for monthly salary should ensure that its value remains positive - if an attempt is made to assign a negative value, leave the original value.
As web server has multiple threads to serve client requests in Thread Pool & to ensure Thread Safety we should not use any variables or Objects at Instance/Class level.But in case of Session Variable which one is the Best Practice as the Session object is used by all the requests to have the same Session ID.
My Code :
public class MyServlet extends HttpServlet { private static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(ClientRegistrationServlet.class); private HttpSession session; /* This is used at Instance Level*/ protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {
I am able to get Cpu speed using my GetProcessorSpeed method and It returns this output 1796. How can apply this pattern "#.##". I am trying something like this.
Format formatter=new DecimalFormat("#.##"); formatter.format(MainClass.GetProcessorSpeed()); label2.setText(formatter.toString());
how to calculate the child's height in float value fixing value where if you choose male the accurate value, but if you choose female the value will be accurate too.
int heightMother, heightFather; int heightMaleChild, heightFemaleChild; String gender;
And at the end there is a sinature that looks like this: ‚ R0‚ N0‚ 6 $P Gæ&"ùO]ó]0 *†H†÷ 0h1%0# U DigiSign Qualified Public CA1 0 U DigiSign Public CA1 0 U DigiSign S.A1 0 U RO0 140722065817Z
If you store a Timestamp in a database (in my case, I'm looking at DB2), doesn't something on the back end convert it to UTC? And then when you read it back out, it gets converted to the local time zone? How does this happen?
Lets say you are using a computer in one time zone, but the database is running on a server in another time zone. What conversions take place upon storage and then retrieval?
And here is where it gets a little more Java specific. Using a PreparedStatement or a ResultSet, you can change the time zone when setting and retrieving a Timestamp.
And you can read it out from a ResultSet in a similar fashion.
However, isn't using such methods technically wrong? If the database is trying to store your instant in time accurately, doesn't specifying a Calendar other than the one in your local time zone cause the database to actually store an incorrect instant in time?
So I need to read Timestamps from a database, and I've been told they are stored as GMT. This has caused me great confusion. I think what I need to do is just read it out from the result set using a Calendar set for GMT timezone.
import java.lang.*; class InvalidValueException extends IllegalArgumentException {} class InvalidKeyException extends IllegalArgumentException {} class BaseClass { void foo() throws IllegalArgumentException { throw new IllegalArgumentException();
[Code] .....
Which one of the following options correctly describes the behavior of this program? And the answer is (definitely) --> The program will print : InvalidKeyException exception, but when i saw the explanation, it tells
It is not necessary to provide an Exception thrown by a method when the method is overriding a method defined with an exception (using the throws clause).
I don't know, but i think it will compiled because the Exception that is thrown by the foo method in DeriDeri class is inherited from unchecked exception.. so it is not necessary to declare throws statement on its method.. and if the exception was checked exception the answer must be different right?
Java Code: class A { int x=5; } class B extends A { int x=6; } public class CovariantTest { public A getObject() {
[Code] ....
And this is the output I get:
sub 5
I am unable to figure out how this is outputting 5 instead of 6. The getObject method of SubCovariantTest is obviously the one being called, and it returns a new B(). So why am I getting class A's x value? I thought since I was getting a B object returned that I would get B's x value.
I have an xml with 'n' number of data which i am parsing,for test i hardcoded without looping has below,now the below line is just parsing and showing the data for index '1' ,i need to loop this and i am not sure how can i do this.How do i find the length of obj and loop,i cannot find any method in SoapObject.I used like below but the data is getting overridden after parsing
for(int i=0;i<obj.getPropertyCount();i++) { KSoap2ResultParser.parseBusinessObject(obj.getProp erty(i).toString(), getReminder); } call in another class public static void parseBusinessObject(String input, Object output) throws NumberFormatException, IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException, InstantiationException{
If a method is overridden but you use a polymorphic (supertype) reference to refer to the subtype object with the overriding method, the compiler assumes you're calling the supertype version of the method.
is this true? maybe i'm misunderstanding it, but i thought the JVM looks at the object at run time and checks the object type. the context of the quote is about checked exceptions, but it seems like the statement should stand regardless of context. but this doesn't back up my experience. for example:
public class Test{ public void print(){ System.out.println("Super"); } public static void main(String[] args){ Test t = new SubTest();
[Code] ....
Will invoke the subclass method. like i said, maybe i'm missing something.