Java – Why is super.super.method(); not allowed in Java

javasuperclass

I read this question and thought that would easily be solved (not that it isn't solvable without) if one could write:

@Override
public String toString() {
    return super.super.toString();
}

I'm not sure if it is useful in many cases, but I wonder why it isn't and if something like this exists in other languages.

What do you guys think?

EDIT:
To clarify: yes I know, that's impossible in Java and I don't really miss it. This is nothing I expected to work and was surprised getting a compiler error. I just had the idea and like to discuss it.

Best Answer

It violates encapsulation. You shouldn't be able to bypass the parent class's behaviour. It makes sense to sometimes be able to bypass your own class's behaviour (particularly from within the same method) but not your parent's. For example, suppose we have a base "collection of items", a subclass representing "a collection of red items" and a subclass of that representing "a collection of big red items". It makes sense to have:

public class Items
{
    public void add(Item item) { ... }
}

public class RedItems extends Items
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        if (!item.isRed())
        {
            throw new NotRedItemException();
        }
        super.add(item);
    }
}

public class BigRedItems extends RedItems
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        if (!item.isBig())
        {
            throw new NotBigItemException();
        }
        super.add(item);
    }
}

That's fine - RedItems can always be confident that the items it contains are all red. Now suppose we were able to call super.super.add():

public class NaughtyItems extends RedItems
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        // I don't care if it's red or not. Take that, RedItems!
        super.super.add(item);
    }
}

Now we could add whatever we like, and the invariant in RedItems is broken.

Does that make sense?

Related Solutions

Java – What are the differences between a HashMap and a Hashtable in Java

There are several differences between HashMap and Hashtable in Java:

Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap is not. This makes HashMap better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.
Hashtable does not allow null keys or values. HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.
One of HashMap's subclasses is LinkedHashMap, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out the HashMap for a LinkedHashMap. This wouldn't be as easy if you were using Hashtable.

Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap.

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

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.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – What are the differences between a HashMap and a Hashtable in Java

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

Related Topic