Java is always pass-by-value. Unfortunately, when we deal with objects we are really dealing with object-handles called references which are passed-by-value as well. This terminology and semantics easily confuse many beginners.
It goes like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
Dog oldDog = aDog;
// we pass the object to foo
foo(aDog);
// aDog variable is still pointing to the "Max" dog when foo(...) returns
aDog.getName().equals("Max"); // true
aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // false
aDog == oldDog; // true
}
public static void foo(Dog d) {
d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
// change d inside of foo() to point to a new Dog instance "Fifi"
d = new Dog("Fifi");
d.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
}
In the example above aDog.getName()
will still return "Max"
. The value aDog
within main
is not changed in the function foo
with the Dog
"Fifi"
as the object reference is passed by value. If it were passed by reference, then the aDog.getName()
in main
would return "Fifi"
after the call to foo
.
Likewise:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
Dog oldDog = aDog;
foo(aDog);
// when foo(...) returns, the name of the dog has been changed to "Fifi"
aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
// but it is still the same dog:
aDog == oldDog; // true
}
public static void foo(Dog d) {
d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
// this changes the name of d to be "Fifi"
d.setName("Fifi");
}
In the above example, Fifi
is the dog's name after call to foo(aDog)
because the object's name was set inside of foo(...)
. Any operations that foo
performs on d
are such that, for all practical purposes, they are performed on aDog
, but it is not possible to change the value of the variable aDog
itself.
For more information on pass by reference and pass by value, consult the following SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/430958/6005228. This explains more thoroughly the semantics and history behind the two and also explains why Java and many other modern languages appear to do both in certain cases.
From the Java Tutorial:
Nested classes are divided into two categories: static and non-static. Nested classes that are declared static are simply called static nested classes. Non-static nested classes are called inner classes.
Static nested classes are accessed using the enclosing class name:
OuterClass.StaticNestedClass
For example, to create an object for the static nested class, use this syntax:
OuterClass.StaticNestedClass nestedObject = new OuterClass.StaticNestedClass();
Objects that are instances of an inner class exist within an instance of the outer class. Consider the following classes:
class OuterClass {
...
class InnerClass {
...
}
}
An instance of InnerClass can exist only within an instance of OuterClass and has direct access to the methods and fields of its enclosing instance.
To instantiate an inner class, you must first instantiate the outer class. Then, create the inner object within the outer object with this syntax:
OuterClass outerObject = new OuterClass()
OuterClass.InnerClass innerObject = outerObject.new InnerClass();
see: Java Tutorial - Nested Classes
For completeness note that there is also such a thing as an inner class without an enclosing instance:
class A {
int t() { return 1; }
static A a = new A() { int t() { return 2; } };
}
Here, new A() { ... }
is an inner class defined in a static context and does not have an enclosing instance.
Best Answer
@Basic
signifies that an attribute is to be persisted and a standard mapping is to be used. It has parameters which allow you to specify whether the attribute is to be lazily loaded and whether it's nullable.@Column
allows you to specify the name of the column in the database to which the attribute is to be persisted.If you specify one without the other then you get default behaviour which is sensible, so commonly folks use only one with the exception of special cases.
So if we wanted a lazy loading of an attribute and to specify a column name we can say
If we neeed the default, non-lazy behaviour then just the
@Column
would have been sufficient.