Cannot refer to a non-final variable inside an inn

Question

Edited: I need to change the values of several variables as they run several times thorugh a timer. I need to keep updating the values with every iteration through the timer. I cannot set the values to final as that will prevent me from updating the values however I am getting the error I describe in the initial question below:

I had previously written what is below:

I am getting the error "cannot refer to a non-final variable inside an inner class defined in a different method".

This is happening for the double called price and the Price called priceObject. Do you know why I get this problem. I do not understand why I need to have a final declaration. Also if you can see what it is I am trying to do, what do I have to do to get around this problem.

public static void main(String args[]) {

    int period = 2000;
    int delay = 2000;

    double lastPrice = 0;
    Price priceObject = new Price();
    double price = 0;

    Timer timer = new Timer();

    timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(new TimerTask() {
        public void run() {
            price = priceObject.getNextPrice(lastPrice);
            System.out.println();
            lastPrice = price;
        }
    }, delay, period);
}

Answer 1

Java doesn't support true closures, even though using an anonymous class like you are using here (new TimerTask() { ... }) looks like a kind of closure.

edit - See the comments below - the following is not a correct explanation, as KeeperOfTheSoul points out.

This is why it doesn't work:

The variables lastPrice and price are local variables in the main() method. The object that you create with the anonymous class might last until after the main() method returns.

When the main() method returns, local variables (such as lastPrice and price) will be cleaned up from the stack, so they won't exist anymore after main() returns.

But the anonymous class object references these variables. Things would go horribly wrong if the anonymous class object tries to access the variables after they have been cleaned up.

By making lastPrice and price final, they are not really variables anymore, but constants. The compiler can then just replace the use of lastPrice and price in the anonymous class with the values of the constants (at compile time, of course), and you won't have the problem with accessing non-existent variables anymore.

Other programming languages that do support closures do it by treating those variables specially - by making sure they don't get destroyed when the method ends, so that the closure can still access the variables.

@Ankur: You could do this:

public static void main(String args[]) {
    int period = 2000;
    int delay = 2000;

    Timer timer = new Timer();

    timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(new TimerTask() {
        // Variables as member variables instead of local variables in main()
        private double lastPrice = 0;
        private Price priceObject = new Price();
        private double price = 0;

        public void run() {
            price = priceObject.getNextPrice(lastPrice);
            System.out.println();
            lastPrice = price;
        }
    }, delay, period);      
}

Answer 2

Good explanations for why you can't do what you're trying to do already provided. As a solution, maybe consider:

public class foo
{
    static class priceInfo
    {
        public double lastPrice = 0;
        public double price = 0;
        public Price priceObject = new Price ();
    }

    public static void main ( String args[] )
    {

        int period = 2000;
        int delay = 2000;

        final priceInfo pi = new priceInfo ();
        Timer timer = new Timer ();

        timer.scheduleAtFixedRate ( new TimerTask ()
        {
            public void run ()
            {
                pi.price = pi.priceObject.getNextPrice ( pi.lastPrice );
                System.out.println ();
                pi.lastPrice = pi.price;

            }
        }, delay, period );
    }
}

Seems like probably you could do a better design than that, but the idea is that you could group the updated variables inside a class reference that doesn't change.

Answer 3

To solve the problem above, different languages make different decisions.

for Java, the solution is as what we see in this article.

for C#, the solution is allow side-effects and capture by reference is the only option.

for C++11, the solution is to allow the programmer make the decision. They can choose to capture by value or by reference. If capturing by value, no side-effects would occur because the variable referenced is actually different. If capture by reference, side-effects may occur but the programmer should realize it.

Answer 4

The main concern is whether a variable inside the anonymous class instance can be resolved at run-time. It is not a must to make a variable final as long as it is guaranteed that the variable is inside the run-time scope. For example, please see the two variables _statusMessage and _statusTextView inside updateStatus() method.

public class WorkerService extends Service {

Worker _worker;
ExecutorService _executorService;
ScheduledExecutorService _scheduledStopService;

TextView _statusTextView;


@Override
public void onCreate() {
    _worker = new Worker(this);
    _worker.monitorGpsInBackground();

    // To get a thread pool service containing merely one thread
    _executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();

    // schedule something to run in the future
    _scheduledStopService = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
}

@Override
public int onStartCommand(Intent intent, int flags, int startId) {

    ServiceRunnable runnable = new ServiceRunnable(this, startId);
    _executorService.execute(runnable);

    // the return value tells what the OS should
    // do if this service is killed for resource reasons
    // 1. START_STICKY: the OS restarts the service when resources become
    // available by passing a null intent to onStartCommand
    // 2. START_REDELIVER_INTENT: the OS restarts the service when resources
    // become available by passing the last intent that was passed to the
    // service before it was killed to onStartCommand
    // 3. START_NOT_STICKY: just wait for next call to startService, no
    // auto-restart
    return Service.START_NOT_STICKY;
}

@Override
public void onDestroy() {
    _worker.stopGpsMonitoring();
}

@Override
public IBinder onBind(Intent intent) {
    return null;
}

class ServiceRunnable implements Runnable {

    WorkerService _theService;
    int _startId;
    String _statusMessage;

    public ServiceRunnable(WorkerService theService, int startId) {
        _theService = theService;
        _startId = startId;
    }

    @Override
    public void run() {

        _statusTextView = MyActivity.getActivityStatusView();

        // get most recently available location as a latitude /
        // longtitude
        Location location = _worker.getLocation();
        updateStatus("Starting");

        // convert lat/lng to a human-readable address
        String address = _worker.reverseGeocode(location);
        updateStatus("Reverse geocoding");

        // Write the location and address out to a file
        _worker.save(location, address, "ResponsiveUx.out");
        updateStatus("Done");

        DelayedStopRequest stopRequest = new DelayedStopRequest(_theService, _startId);

        // schedule a stopRequest after 10 seconds
        _theService._scheduledStopService.schedule(stopRequest, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
    }

    void updateStatus(String message) {
        _statusMessage = message;

        if (_statusTextView != null) {
            _statusTextView.post(new Runnable() {

                @Override
                public void run() {
                    _statusTextView.setText(_statusMessage);

                }

            });
        }
    }

}

Answer 5

I just wrote something to handle something along the authors intention. I found the best thing to do was to let the constructor take all the objects and then in your implemented method use that constructor objects.

However, if you are writing a generic interface class, then you have to pass an Object, or better a list of Objects. This could be done by Object[] or even better, Object ... because it is easier to call.

See my example piece just below.

List<String> lst = new ArrayList<String>();
lst.add("1");
lst.add("2");        

SomeAbstractClass p = new SomeAbstractClass (lst, "another parameter", 20, true) {            

    public void perform( ) {                           
        ArrayList<String> lst = (ArrayList<String>)getArgs()[0];                        
    }

};

public abstract class SomeAbstractClass{    
    private Object[] args;

    public SomeAbstractClass(Object ... args) {
        this.args = args;           
    }      

    public abstract void perform();        

    public Object[] getArgs() {
        return args;
    }

}

Please see this post about Java closures that supports this out of the box: http://mseifed.blogspot.se/2012/09/closure-implementation-for-java-5-6-and.html

Version 1 supports passing of non-final closures with autocasting:
https://github.com/MSeifeddo/Closure-implementation-for-Java-5-6-and-7/blob/master/org/mo/closure/v1/Closure.java

    SortedSet<String> sortedNames = new TreeSet<String>();
    // NOTE! Instead of enforcing final, we pass it through the constructor
    eachLine(randomFile0, new V1<String>(sortedNames) {
        public void call(String line) {
            SortedSet<String> sortedNames = castFirst();  // Read contructor arg zero, and auto cast it
            sortedNames.add(extractName(line));
        }
    });

Answer 6

If you want to change a value in a method call within an anonymous class, that "value" is actually a Future. So, if you use Guava, you can write

...
final SettableFuture<Integer> myvalue = SettableFuture<Integer>.create();
...
someclass.run(new Runnable(){

    public void run(){
        ...
        myvalue.set(value);
        ...
    }
 }

 return myvalue.get();