stackoom
  简体   繁体   中英

Should private helper methods be static if they can be static

 原文  2009-02-11 21:24:32  2   20    java/ static/ methods/ static-methods

Question

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

20 answers

solution1
 176 ACCPTED  2009-02-11 21:33:45

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution2
 111  2009-02-11 21:32:53

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution3
 18  2009-02-11 21:30:56

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution4
 18  2009-02-11 21:55:55

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution5
 11  2009-02-11 23:55:07

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution6
 10  2009-02-11 21:35:00

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution7
 8  2011-09-05 13:00:24

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution8
 6  2009-02-12 00:28:18

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution9
 5  2014-04-25 14:02:26

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution10
 4  2009-02-11 21:43:30

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution11
 3  2012-11-07 07:10:47

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution12
 3  2009-02-11 21:34:33

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution13
 3  2009-02-11 21:48:08

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution14
 3  2009-02-12 04:20:31

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution15
 2  2009-02-11 21:39:30

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution16
 1  2012-10-25 07:07:55

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution17
 1  2009-11-25 05:57:31

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution18
 1  2009-11-25 06:29:42

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution19
 1  2009-02-23 14:35:38

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution20
 1  2011-08-05 06:47:18

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution21
 0  2009-02-11 21:51:38

Let's say I have a class designed to be instantiated. I have several private "helper" methods inside the class that do not require access to any of the class members, and operate solely on their arguments, returning a result.

public class Example {
   private Something member;

   public double compute() {
       double total = 0;
       total += computeOne(member);
       total += computeMore(member);
       return total;         
   }

   private double computeOne(Something arg) { ... }
   private double computeMore(Something arg) {... } 
}

Is there any particular reason to specify computeOne and computeMore as static methods - or any particular reason not to?

It is certainly easiest to leave them as non-static, even though they could certainly be static without causing any problems.

solution22
 -2  2019-11-12 09:34:24

Came across a nice blog over this. Worth reading. https://www.yegor256.com/2017/02/07/private-method-is-new-class.html

暂无
暂无

The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.

Related Question Private helper methods vs. public static utility methods in Java Why is it that static methods can access private data? What should the declaration of a helper class, with only static methods, be? private constructor for static methods Static Methods in Private class Should logger be private static or not Factory for helper classes with static methods? Mock private/ static methods with jmockit Prefer private static methods to instance methods Guice - Inject dependency into a class with static helper methods
Related Tags
 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM