20

It seems to me that non-public top-level classes and static nested classes essentially perform the same tasks when creating a helper class.


A.java

public class A 
{
    public static main (String[] args)
    {
        AHelper helper = new AHelper();     
    }
}
class AHelper {}

A.java

public class A
{
    public static main (String[] args)
    {
        A.AHelper helper = new A.AHelper();     
    }

   static class AHelper {}
}

Aside from how they are referenced, there seems to me very little difference between the two ways of creating a helper class. It probably comes down mostly to preference; does anyone see anything I'm missing? I suppose some people would argue that it's better to have one class per source file, but from my perspective it seems cleaner and more organized to have a non-public top-level class in the same source file.

Improve this question

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
17

In neither example do you have one class per source file. But generally, you use a static nested class to signify that it is only intended to be used within its enclosing class (forcing it to be referenced as A.AHelper). That is not so clear if you move that class to the top level.

From the Sun tutorial:

Logical grouping of classes—If a class is useful to only one other class, then it is logical to embed it in that class and keep the two together. Nesting such "helper classes" makes their package more streamlined.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

6

One thing that comes to mind is the scope of the helper class. A nested class has access to private members of the parent class. If the helper is in its own file, you don't enjoy such access, although it is easy to handle with the default package visible scope.

Another consideration is code reuse - you might want your helper to help several classes in your package.

Improve this answer

11 Comments

No, this is not true of a static nested class, which is what he is asking about.
@danben : what exactly is not true?
@Carlos Heuberger: it isn't true that a static nested class has access to private members of its enclosing class.
Danben. I think I got it right. Just tried it in Eclipse with a minimal sample and it works. public class Outer { private static int foo = 5; static class Inner { private static void print() { System.out.println(foo); } } }
Another quote: "Member class declarations (§8.5) describe nested classes that are members of the surrounding class. Member classes may be static, in which case they have no access to the instance variables of the surrounding class; or they may be inner classes (§8.1.3)." It seems to be implied ...
|
5

One difference is that a static nested class can be declared public. You cannot do this for any other class in the same file as the primary class as a public main level class must be the same name as the file name.

So you could declare many public classes in one file, but only one of them being the main level. The other static nested classes ought to be related though to the main class or it really does not make sense to do that.

Improve this answer

Comments

2

Nesting a class (statically in Java) sends a clear message of intent: the nested class AHelper is only relevant and usable to support A class. It has no meaning on its own, and this is immediately obvious.

Improve this answer

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.