global variable

[Academy]

in Java, how do we declare a global variable? All classes can use this variable.



Thanks.

[|2eM!x]

Isnt that bad programming? I thought classes were to be independant of each other..?

[ComputerJy]

Java is pure Object Oriented Language, there is nothing bad you can find in Java

To do this Mark the variable "public static" so you can access it from any other class
just type the "name of the Containing class".variableName to access it

[eranga262154]

Java is pure Object Oriented Language, there is nothing bad you can find in Java

To do this Mark the variable "public static" so you can access it from any other class
just type the "name of the Containing class".variableName to access it

Ya it's true. How can you explain following two lines,

static a = 10;
public static a = 10;

please help me on this. I'm confucing

[ComputerJy]

public vars can be accessed from any where
If your var isn't "private, protected or public" it's like "Friend (internal)" in .net you can only access it from the same package.
So if you don't have a package declared you can access it from anywhere (public)

[eranga262154]

OK

Thanks

[System_Error]

Isnt that bad programming? I thought classes were to be independant of each other..?

It depends on what you're talking about. What you're thinking of is using getters and setters for a variable in another class, which is good OO practice. But if you have a class for each state in the United States and each state needs to have access to the president, then you need someway of sharing. Since their's only one president and it will be shared among those 50 classes, then you can make it static. Static variables and classes are only initialized once through the running.

Hope that made sense

[vagabon]

Java is pure Object Oriented Language

That would be incorrect due to the fact that there are primative types, look it up.

[ComputerJy]

That would be incorrect due to the fact that there are primative types, look it up.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5114209AABH0HP

[System_Error]

That would be incorrect due to the fact that there are primative types, look it up.

What????

*You're wrong*

[ComputerJy]

What????

*You're wrong*

I know, that's why I looked it up

EDIT: Actually, he has a good point http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jsp...71077&tstart=0

[vagabon]

primatives are not objects in the sense of oop. w00t! I knew something for once! :P
But it doesn't matter, Java is oop enough, it doesn't really effect anything, nothing to get upset over (some people do!).

[System_Error]

I would have thought just the opposite I know some people that would prefer there be no primatives, but me likes.

[System_Error]

By the way, I guess my assumption that you were wrong is wrong

[vagabon]

By the way, I guess my assumption that you were wrong is wrong

lol
I think the primiatives make it simpler and turning them into objects is just wasted time. If someone really wants to they can use the Integer, Character, Double, etc instead, they are objects.

[CornedBee]

Since Java5 and autoboxing, it's fine. Before that, primitives were a pain.

[System_Error]

A pain because some things such as Collections need a reference or another reason? I like the addition of generics, but I never found primatives to be annoying...... Except for cases in early versions that needed 'weird' casts to it's object class.

[CornedBee]

Because of the collections, yes. And some cases where you needed a nullable value.

[eranga262154]

Since Java5 and autoboxing, it's fine. Before that, primitives were a pain.

Ya it's true. When i'm using Java5 feel free to used primitives.

But i'm confusing with this,

"Because of the collections, yes. And some cases where you needed a nullable value."

Can you explain it little more.

[eranga262154]

primatives are not objects in the sense of oop.

What you mean of this.

[vagabon]

What you mean of this.

quiet simple, they are not objects

[System_Error]

What you mean of this.

int x = 3;

x is a primative;

Integer x2 = new Integer(2);

x2 is an object.

"Because of the collections, yes. And some cases where you needed a nullable value."

Can you explain it little more.

Collections need a reference... In other words, you need an object.

[vagabon]

That issue is moot because of the autoboxing to Integer or what ever object it needs to be.