problem in concept of static

> Static members are the belonging of class and not of

> object,

Correct.

> but static members are still accessed through

> the object refferences..

Wrong.

> how and why it is possible?

It's possible simply because every reference has a type and thus a class associated. You are not supposed to call static members using a reference. It's bad coding style.

CeciNEstPasUnProgrammeura at 2007-7-14 20:50:27 >

> according to what i have studied

> >object only contains instance members

>and methods and not the static members.

Correct.

> n why objectis able to call those static members?

Object calls nothing. It's a courtesy of the compiler to link that method call to the class.

CeciNEstPasUnProgrammeura at 2007-7-14 20:50:27 >

> > according to what i have studied

> > >object only contains instance members

> >and methods and not the static members.

> > n why objectis able to call those static members?

> >

>

> Interesting question. It's a language "feature". I

> guess they did this, so you don't break compatibilty,

> if you make methods of some class static.

They didn't do this because the object doesn't do anything:

class Test {

private static int x = 12;

public static void main(String[] sgra) {

Test t = null;

System.out.println(t.x);

}

}

It does not throw a NullPointerException, so the reference isn't even touched.

> But you are right: there is no reason why you can

> automatically access static fields and attributes

> from within a class.

Instance you mean?

> This was enabled explicitely,

> but for what reason: I don't know.

Convenience, I'd say. So you can write

if (arg == STATIC_CONSTANT)

even in a non-static context without having to prefix it with the class.

CeciNEstPasUnProgrammeura at 2007-7-14 20:50:27 >