I'm trying to give myself a mapped idea of the word static (using my current noun definition of static, not having a good understanding of the adjective definition), but it would seem that non-static variables and methods actually are "stuck" (or better said referencing/referring) to objects/instances. So what is the terminology static actually describing about the declared methods/variables?
The words "static" and "dynamic" are frequently used as opposites in programming terminology.
Something that is dynamic is something that changes; in the context of a class, it is something that takes on different values or behaviors with each instance (object).
Something that is static does not change; it is in stasis. So a static variable of a class does not take on different values with each instance.
Static electricity doesn't move; it is stuck in one place, on your socks. Dynamic electricity, in motion in a wire, can do much more powerful things.
I think this question here provides a very detailed answer: What is "static"?
The concept of static has to do with whether something is part of a class or an object (instance).
In the case of the main method which is declared as static, it says that the main method is an class method -- a method that is part of a class, not part of an object. This means that another class could call a class method of another class, by referring to the ClassName.method. For example, invoking the run method of MyClass would be accomplished by:
MyClass.main(new String[]{"parameter1", "parameter2"});
On the other hand, a method or field without the static modifier means that it is part of an object (or also called "instance") and not a part of a class. It is referred to by the name of the specific object to which the method or field belongs to, rather than the class name:
MyClass c1 = new MyClass();
c1.getInfo() // "getInfo" is an instance method of the object "c1"
As each instance could have different values, the values of a method or field with the same name in different objects don't necessarily have to be the same:
MyClass c1 = getAnotherInstance();
MyClass c2 = getAnotherInstance();
c1.value // The field "value" for "c1" contains 10.
c2.value // The field "value" for "c2" contains 12.
// Because "c1" and "c2" are different instances, and
// "value" is an instance field, they can contain different
// values.
Combining the two concepts of instance and class variables. Let's say we declare a new class which contains both instance and class variables and methods:
class AnotherClass {
private int instanceVariable;
private static int classVariable = 42;
public int getInstanceVariable() {
return instanceVariable;
}
public static int getClassVariable() {
return classVariable;
}
public AnotherClass(int i) {
instanceVariable = i;
}
}
The above class has an instance variable instanceVariable, and a class variable classVariable which is declared with a static modifier. Similarly, there is a instance and class method to retrieve the values.
The constructor for the instance takes a value to assign to the instance variable as the argument. The class variable is initialized to be 42 and never changed.
Let's actually use the above class and see what happens:
AnotherClass ac1 = new AnotherClass(10);
ac1.getInstanceVariable(); // Returns "10"
AnotherClass.getClassVariable(); // Returns "42"
Notice the different ways the class and instance methods are called. The way they refer to the class by the name AnotherClass, or the instance by the name ac1. Let's go further and see the behavioral differences of the methods:
AnotherClass ac1 = new AnotherClass(10);
AnotherClass ac2 = new AnotherClass(20);
ac1.getInstanceVariable(); // Returns "10"
AnotherClass.getClassVariable(); // Returns "42"
ac2.getInstanceVariable(); // Returns "20"
AnotherClass.getClassVariable(); // Returns "42"
As can be seen, an instance variable is one that is held by an object (or "instance"), therefore unique to that particular instance, which in this example is the objects referred to by ac1 and ac2.
A class variable on the other hand is only unique to that entire class. To get this point across even better, let's add a new method to the AnotherClass:
public int getClassVariableFromInstance() {
return classVariable;
}
Then, run the following:
AnotherClass ac1 = new AnotherClass(10);
AnotherClass ac2 = new AnotherClass(20);
ac1.getInstanceVariable(); // Returns "10"
ac1.getClassVariableFromInstance(); // Returns "42"
ac2.getInstanceVariable(); // Returns "20"
ac2.getClassVariableFromInstance(); // Returns "42"
Although getClassVariableFromInstance is an instance method, as can be seen by being invoked by referring to the instances ac1 and ac2, they both return the same value, 42. This is because in both instance methods, they refer to the class method classVariable which is unique to the class, not to the instance -- there is only a single copy of classVariable for the class AnotherClass.
I hope that some what clarifies what the static modifier is used for.
The Java Tutorials from Sun has a section called Understanding Instance and Class Members, which also goes into the two types of variables and methods.
Related
In a nutshell, I need help with the right use of unique_ptr and not with the library ArmNN. So, the next paragraph is just for contextualization.
I am adapting my current application to use the library ArmNN. More specifically, I am doing that through the use of the interface ICaffeParser.
At line 22 of this interface, we have this using definition to define a unique_ptr to the interface, that I believe is the "cause" of my problems.
using ICaffeParserPtr = std::unique_ptr<ICaffeParser, void(*)(ICaffeParser* parser)>;
I am quite sure my problem is the incorrect use of unique_ptr in my context, once I could make some successful tests with a more simple application.
My current code contains a class, let's call it MyClass:
namespace MYNAMESPACE {
class MyClass {
public:
MyClass() {
}
// a lot of functions
// a lot of attributes
private:
// a lot of functions
// a lot of attributes
}
}
In order to make use of the ArmNN library, I have created a new private attribute for MyClass:
armnnCaffeParser::ICaffeParserPtr myParser;
and instantiated myParser at MyClass() constructor:
MyClass::MyClass() {
myParser = armnnCaffeParser::ICaffeParser::Create();
}
Remembering ICaffeParserPtr is a unique_ptr (I think), now I have the following compiling error:
/my_path/src/detector.cpp: In constructor ‘MYNAMESPACE::MyClass::MyClass()’:
/my_path/src/detector.cpp:13:20: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::unique_ptr<armnnCaffeParser::ICaffeParser, void (*)(armnnCaffeParser::ICaffeParser*)>::unique_ptr()’
MyClass::MyClass() {
^
In file included from /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/c++/7/bits/locale_conv.h:41:0,
from /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/c++/7/locale:43,
from /usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/c++/7/iomanip:43,
from /usr/include/opencv2/flann/lsh_table.h:40,
from /usr/include/opencv2/flann/lsh_index.h:49,
from /usr/include/opencv2/flann/all_indices.h:42,
from /usr/include/opencv2/flann/flann_base.hpp:43,
from /usr/include/opencv2/flann.hpp:48,
from /usr/include/opencv2/opencv.hpp:62,
from /my_path/src/detector.hpp:11,
from /my_path/src/detector.cpp:1:
/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:255:2: note: candidate: template<class _Up, class> std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::unique_ptr(std::auto_ptr<_Up>&&)
unique_ptr(auto_ptr<_Up>&& __u) noexcept;
/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:255:2: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
/my_path/src/detector.cpp:13:20: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 0 provided
MyClass::MyClass() {
^
The error happens because myParser is actually being default-initialized and then assigned on the constructor body of MyClass::MyClass().
Since a function pointer is passed as a custom deleter to std::unique_ptr to form the ICaffeParserPtr type, the default constructor for this particular instance of std::unique_ptr is disabled as per [unique.ptr.single.ctor].
In other words, ICaffeParserPtr, for safety reasons, cannot be default-initialized — which specific function to otherwise assign as its deleter on initialization?
To address this, you should always initialize class members at the member initializer list. In this case, initialize myParser as such:
MyClass::MyClass():
myParser(armnnCaffeParser::ICaffeParser::Create()) {}
This avoids calling the unavailable default constructor for std::unique_ptr, and is generally a better practice than assigning to class members in the constructor body.
What is the correct way of declaring an instance of an object which is part of an array that is an attribute of another object? I have a class called ingrediente which is quite simple. It looks like this:
public class ingrediente{
public int cantidad;
public String nombre;
public int fechaDeCaducidad;}
I have another class called receta which has an array of ingrediente objects:
public class receta{
ingrediente [] ingredientes;
String preparacion;
String nombreReceta;}
I want to give values to the attributes of an ingrediente object which is part of the array ingredientes in an instance of the receta class. I'm not even sure if I have to declare the ingrediente object before giving values to it, but the code doesn't work (although it doesn't show syntax errors) wether I do it or not. The code looks like this:
recetas [CONTADORRECETAS].ingredientes [CONTADORINGREDIENTES2] = new ingrediente ();
recetas [CONTADORRECETAS].ingredientes [CONTADORINGREDIENTES2].nombre = TEMP2;
Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong? The code is inside a try and it throws java.lang.NullPointerException on those lines (on the first one if I include it and on second one if I don't). The value of the attribute doesn't get asigned. Variable TEMP2 is previously declarated and is of the correct type.
I am trying my best to explain the situation. I hope, what I wrote, is understandable.
We already have class defined like
public ref class TestClass
{
public:
TestClass();
virtual ~TestClass();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
TestClass is managed C++ and Car is unmanaged C++.
So far so good, but now I need to make static object of TestClass also. So I modify the code like below
public ref class TestClass
{
private:
static TestClass^ s_test = nullptr ;
public:
TestClass();
virtual ~TestClass();
static TestClass^ Instance();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
When I want to use static instant of the class, I just get it from calling
TestClass staticobj = TestClass::Instance();
Elsewhere, just call
TestClass normalobj = gcnew TestClass();
Instance function is creating s_test static object and returns it.
TestClass ^ TestClass::Instance()
{
if(s_test == nullptr)
{
s_test = gcnew TestClass();
s_test->m_car = new Car();
}
return s_test;
}
Is it a good approach?
Is there any other better approach to accomplish same thing?
Edit :
FYI Above code works.
I combined Krizz and Reed Copsey’s solutions. That solve independent Singleton and memory leak.
Here is my sample code,
Special Singleton class derived from test class,
public ref class SpecialSingletonTestClass: public TestClass
{
private:
static SpecialSingletonTestClass ^ s_ SpecialSingletonTestClass = nullptr;
public:
SpecialSingletonTestClass ();
static SpecialSingletonTestClass ^ Instance();
};
Changed the testclass so it has now one more finalizer function.
public ref class TestClass
{
public:
TestClass ();
virtual ~ TestClass ();
! TestClass ();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
I tested above pattern , it worked.
Thanks you guys,
L.E.
Is it a good approach?
I would probably not consider this a good approach, as you're making a single class both a singleton and a normal class that you can instance directly.
Typically, if you need a singleton, this would preclude the need or desire to be able to instantiate the class.
If you truly need to have a way to have a "global" instance of this class, I would encapsulate that in a separate class which implements the singleton. This would, at least, make it clear that you are dealing with something that's a single instance in that case. I would not mix both use cases into a single class.
Well, actually there is an issue with memory leaks in your code.
You declare only virtual ~TestClass(); which, for managed classes, are internally turned by C++/CLI compiler into implementation of IDisposable.Dispose().
Therefore, if you put delete car into it, it will be called only if you delete test_class or, e.g. wrap into using (TestClass tst) {} block when using from C#.
It will not be called when object is GCed!
To be sure it is called you need to add finalizer to your class !MyClass(); which is turned by compiler into virtual void Finalize() and thus non-deterministically called when GC is freeing an object.
And it is the only way to free m_car of singleton object.
Therefore, I suggest:
TestClass()
{
m_car = new Car();
}
~TestClass()
{
if (m_car)
delete m_car;
m_car = NULL;
}
!TestClass()
{
if (m_car)
delete m_car;
m_car = NULL;
}
I'm unsure as to what situation you could possibly be in that would require both singleton-style semantics and normal creation semantics for the same class.
As far as what you've coded though, it looks completely fine. My only comments would be that your Instance() function shouldn't need to perform construction on Car, the Instance() function should just call the default constructor of TestClass which should do all that.
EDIT
In reference to:
#crush . The class is already define i just need to get static object of it. Singleton means only one object of the class, but in this case, class have multiple normal object. But i want to use only one object of this class for one specific goal only for limited period of time. – L.E. 2 mins ago
A singleton is (usually) a sign of bad design - alot of people call it an anti-pattern actually. Chances are if you just need this one single specific instance of this class for a limited period of time there are some issues:
Singleton design is made for static-style existence - the variable will live for the scope of your program after lazily initialized.
Allowing global access will move your code towards spaghetti logic. You'd be better off dynamically allocating the one you need and passing the pointer to it to where you need it to be. A shared_ptr would be good for this.
You should find a way around the singleton-style implementation in this case even if it's more work for you - it'll almost certainly be better design.
I'm trying to turn an string into an instance name.
stage.focus = ["box_"+[i+1]];
this gives me back = box_2;
but I need it to be an object not a string.
In as2 I could use eval. How do I do it in as3?
The correct syntax is:
this["box_"+(i+1)]
For example if you would like to call the function "start" in your main class, you'd do it this way:
this["start"]();
Same thing goes for variables. Since all classes are a subclass of Object you can retrieve their variables like you would with an ordinary object. A class like this:
package{
import flash.display.Sprite;
public class Main extends Sprite{
public var button:Sprite;
public function Main(){
trace(this["button"]);
}
}
}
Would output:
[object Sprite]
If you want to access a member of the current class, the answers already given will work. But if the instance you are looking isn't part of the class, you are out of luck.
For example:
private function foo():void {
var box_2:Sprite;
trace(this["box_"+(i+1)]);
}
Won't work, because box_2 isn't a part of the class. In that case, it is highly recommended to use an array.
If you want to access a DisplayObject (for example, a Sprite or a MovieClip) you also can use getChildByName. But in that case, box_2 will be the name of the object, instead of the name of the variable. You set the name like
var box:Sprite;
box.name = "box_2";
But again, I recommend an array.
I would like to create a new array with a given type from a class object in GWT.
What I mean is I would like to emulate the functionality of
java.lang.reflect.Array.newInstance(Class<?> componentClass, int size)
The reason I need this to occur is that I have a library which occasionally needs to do the following:
Class<?> cls = array.getClass();
Class<?> cmp = cls.getComponentType();
This works if I pass it an array class normally, but I can't dynamically create a new array from some arbitrary component type.
I am well aware of GWT's lack of reflection; I understand this. However, this seems feasible even given GWT's limited reflection. The reason I believe this is that in the implementation, there exists an inaccessible static method for creating a class object for an array.
Similarly, I understand the array methods to just be type-safe wrappers around JavaScript arrays, and so should be easily hackable, even if JSNI is required.
In reality, the more important thing would be getting the class object, I can work around not being able to make new arrays.
If you are cool with creating a seed array of the correct type, you can use jsni along with some knowledge of super-super-source to create arrays WITHOUT copying through ArrayList (I avoid java.util overhead like the plague):
public static native <T> T[] newArray(T[] seed, int length)
/*-{
return #com.google.gwt.lang.Array::createFrom([Ljava/lang/Object;I)(seed, length);
}-*/;
Where seed is a zero-length array of the correct type you want, and length is the length you want (although, in production mode, arrays don't really have upper bounds, it makes the [].length field work correctly).
The com.google.gwt.lang package is a set of core utilities used in the compiler for base emulation, and can be found in gwt-dev!com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/intrinsic/com/google/gwt/lang.
You can only use these classes through jsni calls, and only in production gwt code (use if GWT.isProdMode()). In general, if you only access the com.google.gwt.lang classes in super-source code, you are guaranteed to never leak references to classes that only exist in compiled javascript.
if (GWT.isProdMode()){
return newArray(seed, length);
}else{
return Array.newInstance(seed.getComponentType(), length);
}
Note, you'll probably need to super-source the java.lang.reflect.Array class to avoid gwt compiler error, which suggests you'll want to put your native helper method there. However, I can't help you more than this, as it would overstep the bounds of my work contract.
The way that I did a similar thing was to pass an empty, 0 length array to the constructor of the object that will want to create the array from.
public class Foo extends Bar<Baz> {
public Foo()
{
super(new Baz[0]);
}
...
}
Baz:
public abstract class Baz<T>
{
private T[] emptyArray;
public Baz(T[] emptyArray)
{
this.emptyArray = emptyArray;
}
...
}
In this case the Bar class can't directly create new T[10], but we can do this:
ArrayList<T> al = new ArrayList<T>();
// add the items you want etc
T[] theArray = al.toArray(emptyArray);
And you get your array in a typesafe way (otherwise in your call super(new Baz[0]); will cause a compiler error).
I had to do something similar, I found it was possible using the Guava library's ObjectArrays class. Instead of the class object it requires a reference to an existing array.
T[] newArray = ObjectArrays.newArray(oldArray, oldArray.length);
For implementing an array concatenation method, I also stepped into the issue of missing Array.newInstance-method.
It's still not implemented, but if you have an existing array you can use
Arrays.copyOf(T[] original, int newLength)
instead.