Re: Why can nsmc, local classes or anonymous classes have static members ?

From:

Lew <noone@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:56:23 -0500

Message-ID:

<hhqen9$ij4$1@news.albasani.net>

Mike Schilling wrote:

Perhaps I wasn't clear, becasue what I'm thinking counts instances
quite well, e.g.

    class Outer
    {
        class Inner
        {
            static int count;

            Inner()
            {
                count++;
            }
        }
    }

"count" willl give the number of Inner.Outer instances ever created,

This is quite attainable without changing the rules, natch. While some seem
to prefer the syntax of the 'static' member being within the inner class,
there's no real disadvantage to the currently-legal idiom. We just have to
adapt our esthetic to The Way It Is in Java, and chalk it up as yet another
thing we'd have done better were it up to us, accepting that we can at least
achieve the functional equivalent if not through the means we imagine we'd
prefer. Oh, well.

regardless of the value of the enclosing Inner instance. Though in
fact what I've usually wanted a static method for is when Inner needs
a cache, e.g.

    class Outer
    {
        class Inner
        {
            static Map<String, Schema>schemas = new HashMap<String,
Schema>();
            private Schema schema;

            Inner(String namespace)
            {
                synchronized(schemas)
                {
                    schema = schemas.get(namespace);
                    if (schema == null)
                    {
                         schema = loadSchema(namespace);
                         schemas.put(namespace, schema);
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }

Again, I want to use the same cache regardless of the value of the
enclosing instance.

Again, you can do that with currently-legal syntax, just not the exact way you
suggest. Oh, well.

--
Lew