Forcing me to have a parameterless constructor no matter what I do takes this control away from me. How is this different from expecting a parameterless constructor? Well, obviously, a constructor always does at least one thing - it creates an object (or dies trying).īut I like to be in control of how I want my objects to be instantiated. If you define a method setCoordinates(int x, int y), you don't expect compiler to automatically accept a parameterless version of it - setCoordinates(). Return new Person() // this will blow in our faceĪll this fuss could be - and is - avoided thanks to the fact that Java (and not only Java) works the way it works. The compiler automatically initializes class fields to their default values before setting them with any initialization values, so there is no need to. Throw new RuntimeException("Illegal constructor called") īut I still can't forbid another developer to create a method (inside the Person class, so marking the constructor as private didn't help): public static Person createPerson() don't use this constructor! i don't want it to ever be called! This.firstName = null // or "", or whateverĪnd since I don't want it - as it's useless, I might feel inclined to put skull and crossbones on it: Person() You are forcing me to provide another implementation: private Person() If I have a class (that I want to be immutable): class PersonĪnd I add a constructor: Person(String firstName, String lastName)Īnd Java was still to provide a default, parameterless constructor, then this code can't compile, because firstName and lastName fields are declared as final, yet they are not set after you call Person p = new Person(). Java still generating a parameterless constructor after you define another version of it is like the same waiter taking the coat off you after you gave a clear indication that you have your own plans of what to do with the coat. Java generating a parameterless constructor when you don't have any other is like a polite waiter taking your coat for you. And, this is logically correct since, if you want to block creation of objects without any data in it, this is one good way.įor example, consider that an employee object must have an employee id associated to it.įor achieving this, define a single argument constructor and don't define no-argument constructor. ![]() So it will give an error if you call no-argument constructor after defining a parameterised constructor, since it finds no no-argument constructor explicitly defined in class. It's just like authenticating any other method of a class. ![]() When you do not explicitly write a no-argument constructor for a class, the compiler won't complain as long as objects are built without parameter constructors.(since compiler allows default constructor to create objects, which itself gives call to no-argument constructor).īut if you do define a no-argument constructor, when compiling, compiler will check for the call to constructor and its definition in class. Slapping an explicit on needed constructors would likely be another way to retain them, but I don't know if it has to come from androidx.annotation (or android.annotation) or if R8 understands others, like the one from errorprone.First of all, default constructor is not generated, its provided by compiler if no-argument constructor is not written explicitly. Any of these could lead to an unexpected smooth operation of those things. ![]() I'm not sure if I'll find more time to investigate before next month.Īndroid has default Proguard/R8 configuration files that are commonly used and that I rely on, and there is additional Proguard configuration coming from other libraries I use, and some of my own. I did encounter some intermittent issues in my cursory exploration runs today, but they may or may not be related. The proguard-rules.txt file that I mentioned is incorporated in the grpc-android artifact, providing Proguard configuration for grpc-android library consumers.Ī good amount of grpc (OkHttp Android client) communication seems to work for me without further R8/Proguard configuration than what's referenced in this issue, I don't currently use LoadBalancer stuff AFAIK. Learn Java by Examples A simple example to demonstrate, how to provide default constructor initialization of a bean using Spring xml configuration file in.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |