f



Instance java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on OO Tumia

Hi,

You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
oriented directory Tumia:
http://www.tumia.org/en/directory/en/java.lang.object.getclass%28%29_p1.html
- Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
toolbar:
- click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
links or
- use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
- use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
- use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

Kind regards, Paka Small
0
paka-en (25)
1/25/2012 2:58:21 PM
comp.lang.java.programmer 52714 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

20 Replies
958 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 32

On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> oriented directory Tumia:
[redacted]
> - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> toolbar:
> - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
> links or
> - use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
> - use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
> - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
>
> Kind regards, Paka Small

What kind of spamming is this?  Those aren't instances, they are called 
methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.
0
1/25/2012 7:23:34 PM
> What kind of spamming is this?
The kind sifted by my news server's filters.
I wonder why they missed HOT ACTRESS...
0
jeff8956 (572)
1/25/2012 8:07:41 PM
Hi Daniel,

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
.. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its called
Java reflection. I find it strange that in a programming group you put
out with such vigour your statement that is totally incorrect. My
statement (a method is also a class which has method instances) is
proven by the Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of
professional software development experience. What are the references
for your statement?

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

Kind regards,

Paka

On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net>
wrote:
> On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > oriented directory Tumia:
> [redacted]
> > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > toolbar:
> > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
> > links or
> > - use the Tumia Instance combobox to select another Instance or
> > - use the Tumia Class combobox to select another Class or
> > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
>
> > Kind regards, Paka Small
>
> What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they are called
> methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

0
paka-en (25)
2/4/2012 4:43:40 PM
Hi Daniel,

Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
.. I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its called
Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA programming group
you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a
method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
software development experience. What are the references for your
statement?

The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
Tumia framework a particular Java method like
java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
you GRASP it?

Kind regards,

Paka

On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net>
wrote:
> On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > oriented directoryTumia:
> [redacted]
> > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > toolbar:
> > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass()
> > links or
> > - use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
> > - use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
> > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
>
> > Kind regards, Paka Small
>
> What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they are called
> methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous.

0
paka-en (25)
2/4/2012 4:48:38 PM
Paka Small wrote:
> Hi Daniel,

Please do not top-post. Post inline.

> Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html

That is not correct.  A method is not a class.  The class 'Method' is a cla=
ss,=20
but it is not a method.

> . I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] calle=
d

I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.

> Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming group

I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, an=
d=20
cannot even spell "Java" correctly.

> you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
> they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a

No, he was totally correct.

> method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
> Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional

No, it is not.  A method is not a class.  The 'Method' class is a class, bu=
t it=20
is not a method.

> software development experience. What are the references for your
> statement?

http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadly,=
=20
left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.

In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification linke=
d=20
above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, method=
s=20
and classes are not the same.

> The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
> itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
> Tumia framework a particular Java method like
> java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
> Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
> you GRASP it?

What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"?  I don't see anything good about the idea yo=
u=20
propose.

> On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net>
> wrote:
> > On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> > > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > > oriented directoryTumia:
> > [redacted]
> > > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > > toolbar:
> > > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClass(=
)
> > > links or
> > > - use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
> > > - use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
> > > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.

> > What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they are call=
ed
> > methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangerous=
..

+1, Daniel

--=20
Lew
0
lewbloch (1508)
2/5/2012 7:08:36 AM
On 5 feb, 08:08, Lew <lewbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paka Small wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
>
> Please do not top-post. Post inline.
>
> > Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
> >http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
>
> That is not correct. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The class 'Method' is=
 a class,
> but it is not a method.

Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
called methods." (lets call this statement A). From
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are
contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can
testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
instances) the statement of Daniel is false.

Kind regards, Paka

>
> > . I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] cal=
led
>
> I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.
>
> > Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming gro=
up
>
> I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong, =
and
> cannot even spell "Java" correctly.
>
> > you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
> > they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a
>
> No, he was totally correct.
>
> > method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
> > Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
>
> No, it is not. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The 'Method' class is a cla=
ss, but it
> is not a method.
>
> > software development experience. What are the references for your
> > statement?
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

>
> Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sadl=
y,
> left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.
>
> In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification lin=
ked
> above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, meth=
ods
> and classes are not the same.
>
> > The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
> > itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
> > Tumia framework a particular Java method like
> > java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
> > Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
> > you GRASP it?
>
> What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"? =A0I don't see anything good about the ide=
a you
> propose.
>
>
>
> > On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> > > > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > > > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > > > oriented directoryTumia:
> > > [redacted]
> > > > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > > > toolbar:
> > > > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getClas=
s()
> > > > links or
> > > > - use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
> > > > - use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
> > > > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
> > > What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they are ca=
lled
> > > methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dangero=
us.
>
> +1, Daniel
>
> --
> Lew

0
paka-en (25)
2/5/2012 11:13:30 AM
Would you please stop top-posting? Please? This is a second request.

Respond in line.

Paka Small wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> > Paka Small wrote:
> > > Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
> > >http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
> >
> > That is not correct. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The class 'Method' =
is a class,
> > but it is not a method.
>=20
> Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
> called methods." (lets call this statement A). From

Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your blatant misrepresenta=
tion
that methods are classes, and a fair one.

> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
> one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
> of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are

No, one does not. Nowhere does it state that. 'Method' is a class used to _=
describe_ methods; it is not itself a method. A method is _described_ by th=
e type 'Method'; it is not itself a type.

> contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can

There's nothing contradictory because your statement B is flat-out wrong.

"Java is true about itself" is a meaningless phrase - Java is defined by th=
e=20
Java Language Specification, which apparently you do not choose to read.

> testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
> instances) the statement of Daniel is false.

Wrong. You used 'Method' instances, not "method instances", which _describe=
d_=20
but were not themselves methods. Daniel's statement was correct; yours are =
not.

I refer you again to the language specification, which you have apparently=
=20
disregarded.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html

> > > . I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic] c=
alled
> >
> > I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.
> >
> > > Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming g=
roup
> >
> > I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wrong=
, and
> > cannot even spell "Java" correctly.
> >
> > > you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instances,
> > > they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement (a
> >
> > No, he was totally correct.
> >
> > > method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
> > > Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
> >
> > No, it is not. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The 'Method' class is a c=
lass, but it
> > is not a method.
> >
> > > software development experience. What are the references for your
> > > statement?
> >
> > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html
>=20
> Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
> method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
> try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
> know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
> prove your point and pinpoint the statement.
>=20
> >
> > Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, sa=
dly,
> > left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.
> >
> > In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification l=
inked
> > above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, me=
thods
> > and classes are not the same.
> >
> > > The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Java
> > > itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
> > > Tumia framework a particular Java method like
> > > java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
> > > Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". Do
> > > you GRASP it?
> >
> > What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"? =A0I don't see anything good about the i=
dea you
> > propose.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> > > > > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > > > > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > > > > oriented directoryTumia:
> > > > [redacted]
> > > > > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > > > > toolbar:
> > > > > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.getCl=
ass()
> > > > > links or
> > > > > - use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
> > > > > - use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
> > > > > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
> > > > What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they are =
called
> > > > methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dange=
rous.
> >
> > +1, Daniel

0
lewbloch (1508)
2/5/2012 7:45:29 PM
Paka Small wrote:
> Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
> method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
> try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
> know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
> prove your point and pinpoint the statement.

You must be kidding if you cannot follow a table of contents in a document with 
which, as a self-professed Java "expert" you had better darned well already be 
familiar, to the definitions of classes and methods, whose locations are 
clearly indicated and linked from that table of contents.

The burden of proof is on you not us to show where it states anywhere that a 
method is an instance of the class 'Method' (good luck - it doesn't). I've 
shown you where the answer lies, in a document that you'd better use if you 
want to make any point about the nature of Java.

Ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance such as yours is not. Read the 
material. If you think your statements can hold any merit without reference to 
the reference, you're the one who's delusional.

-- 
Lew

0
lewbloch (1508)
2/5/2012 7:51:11 PM
On 5 feb, 20:45, Lew <lewbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you please stop top-posting? Please? This is a second request.
>
> Respond in line.
>
> Paka Small wrote:
> > Lew wrote:
> > > Paka Small wrote:
> > > > Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
> > > >http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.ht=
ml
>
> > > That is not correct. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The class 'Method=
' is a class,
> > > but it is not a method.
>
> > Please lets retake Daniels statement "Those aren't instances, they are
> > called methods." (lets call this statement A). From
>
> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your blatant misrepresen=
tation
> that methods are classes, and a fair one.
>
> >http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
> > one gets that a method (for example getClass()) in Java is an instance
> > of the class Method. Lets call the latter B. A and B clearly are
>
> No, one does not. Nowhere does it state that. 'Method' is a class used to=
 _describe_ methods; it is not itself a method. A method is _described_ by =
the type 'Method'; it is not itself a type.
>
> > contradictions. Therefore since Java is true about itself (and I can
>
> There's nothing contradictory because your statement B is flat-out wrong.
>
> "Java is true about itself" is a meaningless phrase - Java is defined by =
the
> Java Language Specification, which apparently you do not choose to read.
>
> > testify Java reflection exists since I wrote code using method
> > instances) the statement of Daniel is false.
>
> Wrong. You used 'Method' instances, not "method instances", which _descri=
bed_
> but were not themselves methods. Daniel's statement was correct; yours ar=
e not.
>
> I refer you again to the language specification, which you have apparentl=
y
> disregarded.http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.h=
tml
>
> > > > . I suggest you get updated with OO programming and Java. Its [sic]=
 called
>
> > > I suggest you be less snarky, especially when you are wrong.
>
> > > > Java reflection. I find it strange that in a JAVA [sic] programming=
 group
>
> > > I find it strange that you cop such a strong attitude when you're wro=
ng, and
> > > cannot even spell "Java" correctly.
>
> > > > you put out with such vigour your statement ("Those aren't instance=
s,
> > > > they are called methods.") that is totally incorrect. My statement =
(a
>
> > > No, he was totally correct.
>
> > > > method is also a class which has method instances) is proven by the
> > > > Oracle Java link above and backed up with 20 years of professional
>
> > > No, it is not. =A0A method is not a class. =A0The 'Method' class is a=
 class, but it
> > > is not a method.
>
> > > > software development experience. What are the references for your
> > > > statement?
>
> > >http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/j3TOC.html
>
> > Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that a Java
> > method is not an instance of the class Method. If you believe I will
> > try find to find a statement in a large document while as far as I
> > know that statement is simply not there you must be kidding. Please
> > prove your point and pinpoint the statement.
>
> > > Your "20 years of professional software development experience" has, =
sadly,
> > > left you with much arrogance and zero knowledge.
>
> > > In Java, as you will see from reading the Java Language Specification=
 linked
> > > above, which is the normative reference for the language definition, =
methods
> > > and classes are not the same.
>
> > > > The above being said it is totally a good idea and in line with Jav=
a
> > > > itself (or any other OO programming language) to classify in the OO
> > > > Tumia framework a particular Java method like
> > > > java.lang.Object.getClass() as an instance of the Tumia class "Java
> > > > Method". Another Tumia Class could be for example "Dotnet Method". =
Do
> > > > you GRASP it?
>
> > > What is a "Tumia Class [sic]"? =A0I don't see anything good about the=
 idea you
> > > propose.
>
> > > > On 25 jan, 20:23, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.ne=
t>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 1/25/12 6:58 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> > > > > > You are kindly invited to check out the Instance
> > > > > > java.lang.Object.getClass() of Class Java Method on the object
> > > > > > oriented directoryTumia:
> > > > > [redacted]
> > > > > > - Click some java.lang.Object.getClass() links or in the upper
> > > > > > toolbar:
> > > > > > - click the "-->"-button for the following java.lang.Object.get=
Class()
> > > > > > links or
> > > > > > - use theTumiaInstance combobox to select another Instance or
> > > > > > - use theTumiaClass combobox to select another Class or
> > > > > > - use the Relat. Instan. combobox to select a Related Instance.
> > > > > What kind of spamming is this? =A0Those aren't instances, they ar=
e called
> > > > > methods. This website seems to be fairly useless and somewhat dan=
gerous.
>
> > > +1, Daniel
>
>

Dear Lew,

You write "> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your
blatant misrepresentation
> that methods are classes, and a fair one.". Nowhere and never I have stat=
ed that methods are classes. Please have the decency not to put words in my=
 mouth!

Kind regards, Paka
0
paka-en (25)
2/5/2012 10:44:00 PM
Paka Small wrote:
> You write "> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your
> blatant misrepresentation
>> that methods are classes, and a fair one.". Nowhere and never I have stated 
>> that methods are classes. Please have the decency not to put words in my mouth!

You put these words in your own mouth: "My statement (a method is also a class 
which has method instances) is proven by the Oracle Java link above and backed 
up with 20 years of professional software development experience."

I did not lack decency. I was merely stating a fact. That was your statement, 
and it is not true.

You also said: "Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written that 
a Java method is not an instance of the class Method." Not true.

You also excoriated Daniel's post, saying, "you put out with such vigour your 
statement ('Those aren't instances, they are called methods.') that is totally 
incorrect."  Not true.

You put these statements forward. I copied and pasted them into this post. I 
did not make them up. You said them.

How strange that you now deny saying them. Still, they're a matter of public 
record so there's no denying responsibility.

-- 
Lew
0
lewbloch (1508)
2/6/2012 9:50:05 AM
On 6 feb, 10:50, Lew <lewbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paka Small wrote:
> > You write "> Statement A, as you call it, was an objection to your
> > blatant misrepresentation
> >> that methods are classes, and a fair one.". Nowhere and never I have s=
tated
> >> that methods are classes. Please have the decency not to put words in =
my mouth!
>
> You put these words in your own mouth: "My statement (a method is also a =
class
> which has method instances) is proven by the Oracle Java link above and b=
acked
> up with 20 years of professional software development experience."
>
> I did not lack decency. I was merely stating a fact. That was your statem=
ent,
> and it is not true.
>
> You also said: "Please can you pinpoint where in this document is written=
 that
> a Java method is not an instance of the class Method." Not true.
>
> You also excoriated Daniel's post, saying, "you put out with such vigour =
your
> statement ('Those aren't instances, they are called methods.') that is to=
tally
> incorrect." =A0Not true.
>
> You put these statements forward. I copied and pasted them into this post=
.. I
> did not make them up. You said them.
>
> How strange that you now deny saying them. Still, they're a matter of pub=
lic
> record so there's no denying responsibility.
>
> --
> Lew

Hi,

Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

  public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
    java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod =3D null;
    try {
      setMethod =3D
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
      } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {
=20
Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
      } catch (SecurityException ex) {
=20
Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
      }
    try {
      setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});
    } catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
=20
Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {
=20
Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    } catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
=20
Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
null, ex);
    }
  }

Kind regards, Paka
0
paka-en (25)
2/6/2012 8:00:46 PM
Paka Small wrote:
> Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
> the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:

No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods and 
objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.

>   public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
>     java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;

'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.

>     try {
>       setMethod =
> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
> Class[]{this.type});
>       } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {
>  
> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> null, ex);
>       } catch (SecurityException ex) {
>  
> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> null, ex);
>       }
>     try {
>       setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});

'invoke()' is a method.

>     } catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
>  
> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> null, ex);
>     } catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {
>  
> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> null, ex);
>     } catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
>  
> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> null, ex);
>     }
>   }

How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance? 

All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe 
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let 
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It 
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.

-- 
Lew
0
lewbloch (1508)
2/7/2012 1:13:51 AM
On 7 feb, 02:13, Lew <lewbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paka Small wrote:
> > Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
> > the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:
>
> No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods an=
d
> objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.
>
> > =A0 public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
> > =A0 =A0 java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod =3D null;
>
> 'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.
>
> > =A0 =A0 try {
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 setMethod =3D
> > baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
> > Class[]{this.type});
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {
>
> > Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> > null, ex);
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 } catch (SecurityException ex) {
>
> > Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> > null, ex);
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 }
> > =A0 =A0 try {
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});
>
> 'invoke()' is a method.
>
> > =A0 =A0 } catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
>
> > Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> > null, ex);
> > =A0 =A0 } catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {
>
> > Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> > null, ex);
> > =A0 =A0 } catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
>
> > Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
> > null, ex);
> > =A0 =A0 }
> > =A0 }
>
> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
>
> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can descr=
ibe
> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows,=
 let
> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class.=
 It
> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>
> --
> Lew

Hi,

Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method and that a method of a class is actually
assigned to setMethod in this statement:
setMethod =3D
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});

Kind regards, Paka
0
paka-en (25)
2/7/2012 6:20:14 AM
On 07/02/2012 07:20, Paka Small wrote:
> On 7 feb, 02:13, Lew<lewbl...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Paka Small wrote:
>>> Example code proving beyond any doubt that a method is an instance of
>>> the class java.lang.reflect.Method in Java:
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Again, the Java Language Specification defines methods and
>> objects, and they are not the same thing. I have pointed you to it.
>>
>>>    public final void setValue(BaseObject baseObject, Object value) {
>>>      java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;
>>
>> 'setMethod' is a variable, not a method.
>>
>>>      try {
>>>        setMethod =
>>> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
>>> Class[]{this.type});
>>>        } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {
>>
>>> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
>>> null, ex);
>>>        } catch (SecurityException ex) {
>>
>>> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
>>> null, ex);
>>>        }
>>>      try {
>>>        setMethod.invoke(baseObject, new Object[]{value});
>>
>> 'invoke()' is a method.
>>
>>>      } catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
>>
>>> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
>>> null, ex);
>>>      } catch (IllegalArgumentException ex) {
>>
>>> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
>>> null, ex);
>>>      } catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
>>
>>> Logger.getLogger(BaseObjectAttribute.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE,
>>> null, ex);
>>>      }
>>>    }
>>
>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
>>
>> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
>> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
>> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
>> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>
> Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
> java.lang.reflect.Method

Indeed, it certainly does.

> and that a method of a class is actually
> assigned to setMethod in this statement:
> setMethod =
> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
> Class[]{this.type});

No, it does not show anything of the sort.

setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned 
to anything anyway.)

Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class 
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are 
never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever 
the class.

--
Mayeul
0
2/7/2012 1:03:09 PM
On 2/4/2012 11:43 AM, Paka Small wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Clearly a method is also a class which has method instances:
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Method.html
> [...]

     You have confused "method" and "java.lang.reflect.Method".  (In
a similar vein, you have confused "class" and "java.lang.Class".)
A method is not a class, nor a Method, nor a Class.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
0
esosman2 (3096)
2/7/2012 1:22:13 PM
Mayeul wrote:
> Paka Small wrote:
> > Lew wrote:
>>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
>>>
>>> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
>>> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
>>> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
>>> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>>
>> Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
>> java.lang.reflect.Method
> 
> Indeed, it certainly does.
> 
> > and that a method of a class is actually
> > assigned to setMethod in this statement:

Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?

You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the 
truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the 
documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."

>> setMethod =
>> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
>> Class[]{this.type});
> 
> No, it does not show anything of the sort.
> 
> setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned 
> to anything anyway.)

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.

> Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class 
> java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are 
> never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever 
> the class.

As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down 
and read the documentation?

Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a 
class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point 
does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.

Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional 
software development experience" is only worth something if you let your 
experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.

-- 
Lew
0
lewbloch (1508)
2/7/2012 6:54:00 PM
On 7 feb, 19:54, Lew <lewbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mayeul wrote:
> > Paka Small wrote:
> > > Lew wrote:
> >>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
>
> >>> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
> >>> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
> >>> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
> >>> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>
> >> Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
> >> java.lang.reflect.Method
>
> > Indeed, it certainly does.
>
> > > and that a method of a class is actually
> > > assigned to setMethod in this statement:
>
> Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?
>
> You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the
> truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the
> documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."
>
> >> setMethod =
> >> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
> >> Class[]{this.type});
>
> > No, it does not show anything of the sort.
>
> > setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned
> > to anything anyway.)
>
> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.
>
> > Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
> > java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are
> > never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever
> > the class.
>
> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down
> and read the documentation?
>
> Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a
> class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point
> does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.
>
> Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional
> software development experience" is only worth something if you let your
> experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.
>
> --
> Lew


Hi,

"java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;" and "setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});" from the example code proof a method is an
instance of the class java.lang.reflect.Method .

Kind regards, Paka
0
paka-en (25)
2/7/2012 8:38:42 PM
Lew wrote:
> Mayeul wrote:
>> Paka Small wrote:
>>> Lew wrote:
>>>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
>>>>
>>>> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
>>>> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
>>>> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
>>>> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>>> Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
>>> java.lang.reflect.Method
>> Indeed, it certainly does.
>>
>>> and that a method of a class is actually
>>> assigned to setMethod in this statement:
> 
> Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?
> 
> You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the 
> truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the 
> documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."
> 
>>> setMethod =
>>> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
>>> Class[]{this.type});
>> No, it does not show anything of the sort.
>>
>> setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned 
>> to anything anyway.)
> 
> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.
> 
>> Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class 
>> java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are 
>> never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever 
>> the class.
> 
> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down 
> and read the documentation?
> 
> Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a 
> class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point 
> does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.
> 
> Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional 
> software development experience" is only worth something if you let your 
> experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.
> 

Does Paka really believe that decades of software development experience
are a good predictor of correctness on this type of issue?

If so, the matter is easily settled. I don't know the total combined
experience of the people who have publicly disagreed, but I know it is a
lot longer that 20 years, I have over 30 years of professional software
development experience myself, and I know a lot of the other posters are
very experienced programmers.

Patricia
0
pats (3556)
2/7/2012 8:53:18 PM
On 2/7/12 12:53 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Mayeul wrote:
>>> Paka Small wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class
>>>>> instance?
>>>>>
>>>>> All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can
>>>>> describe
>>>>> and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that
>>>>> shows, let
>>>>> alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a
>>>>> class. It
>>>>> couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
>>>> Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
>>>> java.lang.reflect.Method
>>> Indeed, it certainly does.
>>>
>>>> and that a method of a class is actually
>>>> assigned to setMethod in this statement:
>>
>> Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?
>>
>> You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for
>> the truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to
>> read the documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer
>> anyway."
>>
>>>> setMethod =
>>>> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
>>>> Class[]{this.type});
>>> No, it does not show anything of the sort.
>>>
>>> setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be
>>> assigned to anything anyway.)
>>
>> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.
>>
>>> Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
>>> java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class,
>>> are never methods. And methods are never instances of any class,
>>> whatever the class.
>>
>> As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just
>> break down and read the documentation?
>>
>> Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an
>> instance of a class. It does not show that a method is an instance of
>> a class. At no point does your code show any treatment of any method
>> as a class instance.
>>
>> Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of
>> professional software development experience" is only worth something
>> if you let your experience teach you something. Time to start
>> learning, Paka.
>>
>
> Does Paka really believe that decades of software development experience
> are a good predictor of correctness on this type of issue?
>
> If so, the matter is easily settled. I don't know the total combined
> experience of the people who have publicly disagreed, but I know it is a
> lot longer that 20 years, I have over 30 years of professional software
> development experience myself, and I know a lot of the other posters are
> very experienced programmers.
I've been programming for at least 22 years personally. I've even 
created my own programming languages. Something I doubt Paka has done 
given his apparent lack of understanding of fundamentals of language 
design.
0
2/7/2012 9:32:48 PM
Paka Small wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?

> "java.lang.reflect.Method setMethod = null;" and "setMethod =
> baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
> Class[]{this.type});" from the example code proof a method is an
> instance of the class java.lang.reflect.Method .

No, sir, as many have told you, that it does not.

That shows that the variable 'setMethod' is a reference to a class instance. It 
does not show that any method is an instance. You don't turn the variable 
'setMethod' into a method just by putting 'Method' in its name.

'setMethod' is not a method.

Please read and study the referenced documentation for the definition of a 
method.

The definition of a method:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/classes.html#8.4

The definition of an object:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/typesValues.html#4.3
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/typesValues.html#4.3.1

They are quite different.

-- 
Lew
0
lewbloch (1508)
2/8/2012 12:42:14 AM
Reply: