Frankly it’s been a while since I wrote either one. I just assumed Java because of the naming convention, and I didn’t see anything I took as obviously un-Java in the class definition
If you want to be able to eg. (de)serialize non-public fields of a type for any reason, you’ll need some way to get around the access restriction. Mocking is another use case – although it’s a philosophical discussion whether you should be mocking non-public fields.
And this isn’t just a Java thing, the comment you’re responding to has an example in C#, and you can do something similar in a lot of languages that support runtime reflection. Barring runtime reflection support you can do pointer math if the language supports it. Access restrictions on fields are there to stop casual misuse of private fields, but sometimes you actually may want to be able to step over those restrictions if you really know what you’re doing.
What even is the point of creating standards if you design backdoors to them
If you’re building in a backdoor anyways, why would the backdoor require 5 lines of weird reflection to get the type, type info, fieldinfo with the correct binding flags, and then invoking the method?
I think it’s kinda neat compared to C#, just being able to say “Ignore private/protected/internal keywords”
Reflection is sometimes a necessary evil. At least it makes it harder to abuse the class and if you do, then you are responsible if something goes wrong.
Is it Java? It looked like
Microsoft JavaC# to me…public static void Main(string[] args) { var meme = new Meme(); var joke = GetTheJoke(meme); } public static Joke GetTheJoke(Meme theMeme) { var memeType = typeof(Meme); var jokeField = memeType.GetField("Joke", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance); return (Joke)jokeField.GetValue(theMeme); }There isn’t an unnecessary level of capitalization; seems to be regular Java with Allman braces.
Frankly it’s been a while since I wrote either one. I just assumed Java because of the naming convention, and I didn’t see anything I took as obviously un-Java in the class definition
deleted by creator
If you want to be able to eg. (de)serialize non-public fields of a type for any reason, you’ll need some way to get around the access restriction. Mocking is another use case – although it’s a philosophical discussion whether you should be mocking non-public fields.
And this isn’t just a Java thing, the comment you’re responding to has an example in C#, and you can do something similar in a lot of languages that support runtime reflection. Barring runtime reflection support you can do pointer math if the language supports it. Access restrictions on fields are there to stop casual misuse of private fields, but sometimes you actually may want to be able to step over those restrictions if you really know what you’re doing.
Yea, what @[email protected] posted is actually Java
If you’re building in a backdoor anyways, why would the backdoor require 5 lines of weird reflection to get the type, type info, fieldinfo with the correct binding flags, and then invoking the method?
I think it’s kinda neat compared to C#, just being able to say “Ignore private/protected/internal keywords”
Reflection is sometimes a necessary evil. At least it makes it harder to abuse the class and if you do, then you are responsible if something goes wrong.
Because C# is a Java clone
If you have to cast your joke it isn’t funny?
Could just change it to public static Object GetTheJoke, no?