I was wondering why in java constructors are not inherited? You know when you have a class like this:
public class Super {
public Super(ServiceA serviceA, ServiceB serviceB, ServiceC serviceC){
this.serviceA = serviceA;
//etc
}
}
Later when you inherit from Super , java will complain that there is no default constructor defined. The solution is obviously something like:
public class Son extends Super{
public Son(ServiceA serviceA, ServiceB serviceB, ServiceC serviceC){
super(serviceA,serviceB,serviceC);
}
}
This code is repetitive, not DRY and useless (IMHO)... so that brings the question again:
Why java doesn't support constructors? is there any benefit in not doing it?
Thanks.
Source: Tips4all, CCNA FINAL EXAM
Suppose constructors were inherited... then because every class eventually derives from Object, every class would end up with a parameterless constructor. That's a bad idea. What exactly would you expect:
ReplyDeleteFileInputStream stream = new FileInputStream();
to do?
Now potentially there should be a way of easily creating the "pass-through" constructors which are fairly common, but I don't think it should be the default. The parameters needed to construct a subclass are often different from those required by the superclass.
when you inherit from Super this is what in reality happens:
ReplyDeletepublic class Son extends Super{
// If you dont declare a constructor of any type, adefault one will appear.
public Son(){
// If you dont call any other constructor in the first line a call to super() will be placed instead.
super();
}
}
So, that is the reason cause you have to call to your unique constructor, cause "Super" doesnt have a default one.
Now, trying to guess why Java doesn't support constructor inheritance, probably cause a constructor only have sense talking about concrete instances, and you shouldn't be able to create an instance of something that you don't know how is defined (by polymorphism).
Because constructors are an implementation detail - they're not something that a user of an interface/superclass can actually invoke at all. By the time they get an instance, it's already been constructed; and vice-versa, at the time you construct an object there's by definition no variable it's currently assigned to.
ReplyDeleteThink about what it would mean to force all subclasses to have an inherited constructor. I argue it's clearer to pass the variables in directly than for the class to "magically" have a constructor with a certain number of arguments just because it's parent does.
Because constructing your subclass object may be done in a different way from how your superclass is constructed. You may not want clients of the subclass to be able to call certain constructors available in the superclass.
ReplyDeleteA silly example:
class Super {
protected final Number value;
public Super(Number value){
this.value = value;
}
}
class Sub {
public Sub(){ super(Integer.valueOf(0)); }
void doSomeStuff(){
// We know this.value is an Integer, so it's safe to cast.
doSomethingWithAnInteger((Integer)this.value);
}
}
// Client code:
Sub s = new Sub(Long.valueOf(666L)): // Devilish invocation of Super constructor!
s.doSomeStuff(); // throws ClassCastException
Or even simpler:
class Super {
private final String msg;
Super(String msg){
if (msg == null) throw new NullPointerException();
this.msg = msg;
}
}
class Sub {
private final String detail;
Super(String msg, String detail){
super(msg);
if (detail == null) throw new NullPointerException();
this.detail = detail;
}
void print(){
// detail is never null, so this method won't fail
System.out.println(detail.concat(": ").concat(msg));
}
}
// Client code:
Sub s = new Sub("message"); // Calling Super constructor - detail is never initialized!
s.print(); // throws NullPointerException
From this example, you see that you'd need some way of declaring that "I want to inherit these constructors" or "I want to inherit all constructors except for these", and then you'd also have to specify a default constructor inheritance preference just in case someone adds a new constructor in the superclass... or you could just require that you repeat the constructors from the superclass if you want to "inherit" them, which arguably is the more obvious way of doing it.
David's answer is correct. I'd like to add that you might be getting a sign from God that your design is messed up, and that "Son" ought not to be a subclass of "Super", but that, instead, Super has some implementation detail best expressed by having the functionality that Son provides, as a strategy of sorts.
ReplyDeleteEDIT: Jon Skeet's answer is awesomest.
Constructors are not polymorphic.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with already constructed classes, you could be dealing with the declared type of the object, or any of its subclasses. That's what inheritance is useful for.
Constructor are always called on the specific type,eg new String(). Hypothetical subclasses have no role in this.
I don't know any language where subclasses inherit constructors (but then, I am not much of a programming polyglott).
ReplyDeleteHere's a discussion about the same question concerning C#. The general consensus seems to be that it would complicate the language, introduce the potential for nasty side effects to changes in a base class, and generally shouldn't be necessary in a good design.
A derived class is not the the same class as its base class and you may or may not care whether any members of the base class are initialized at the time of the construction of the derived class. That is a determination made by the programmer not by the compiler.
ReplyDeleteBecause a (super)class must have complete control over how it is constructed. If the programmer decides that it doesn't make sense to provide a default (no args) constructor as part of the class's contract, then the compiler should not provide one.
ReplyDelete