The name reflection is used to describe code which is able to inspect other code in the same system (or itself).
For example, say you have an object of an unknown type in Java, and you would like to call a 'doSomething' method on it if one exists. Java's static typing system isn't really designed to support this unless the object conforms to a known interface, but using reflection, your code can look at the object and find out if it has a method called 'doSomething' and then call it if you want to.
So, to give you a code example of this in Java (imagine the object in question is foo) :
Method method = foo.getClass().getMethod("doSomething", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
One very common use case in Java is the usage with annotations. JUnit 4, for example, will use reflection to look through your classes for methods tagged with the @Test annotation, and will then call them when running the unit test.
There are some good reflection examples to get you started at http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/index.html
And finally, yes, the concepts are pretty much similar in other statically typed languages which support reflection (like C#). In dynamically typed languages, the use case described above is less necessary (since the compiler will allow any method to be called on any object, failing at runtime if it does not exist), but the second case of looking for methods which are marked or work in a certain way is still common.
Update from a comment:
The ability to inspect the code in the system and see object types is
not reflection, but rather Type Introspection. Reflection is then the
ability to make modifications at runtime by making use of
introspection. The distinction is necessary here as some languages
support introspection, but do not support reflection. One such example
is C++
Maybe a bit of example code will help: Notice the difference in the call signatures of foo
, class_foo
and static_foo
:
class A(object):
def foo(self, x):
print(f"executing foo({self}, {x})")
@classmethod
def class_foo(cls, x):
print(f"executing class_foo({cls}, {x})")
@staticmethod
def static_foo(x):
print(f"executing static_foo({x})")
a = A()
Below is the usual way an object instance calls a method. The object instance, a
, is implicitly passed as the first argument.
a.foo(1)
# executing foo(<__main__.A object at 0xb7dbef0c>, 1)
With classmethods, the class of the object instance is implicitly passed as the first argument instead of self
.
a.class_foo(1)
# executing class_foo(<class '__main__.A'>, 1)
You can also call class_foo
using the class. In fact, if you define something to be
a classmethod, it is probably because you intend to call it from the class rather than from a class instance. A.foo(1)
would have raised a TypeError, but A.class_foo(1)
works just fine:
A.class_foo(1)
# executing class_foo(<class '__main__.A'>, 1)
One use people have found for class methods is to create inheritable alternative constructors.
With staticmethods, neither self
(the object instance) nor cls
(the class) is implicitly passed as the first argument. They behave like plain functions except that you can call them from an instance or the class:
a.static_foo(1)
# executing static_foo(1)
A.static_foo('hi')
# executing static_foo(hi)
Staticmethods are used to group functions which have some logical connection with a class to the class.
foo
is just a function, but when you call a.foo
you don't just get the function,
you get a "partially applied" version of the function with the object instance a
bound as the first argument to the function. foo
expects 2 arguments, while a.foo
only expects 1 argument.
a
is bound to foo
. That is what is meant by the term "bound" below:
print(a.foo)
# <bound method A.foo of <__main__.A object at 0xb7d52f0c>>
With a.class_foo
, a
is not bound to class_foo
, rather the class A
is bound to class_foo
.
print(a.class_foo)
# <bound method type.class_foo of <class '__main__.A'>>
Here, with a staticmethod, even though it is a method, a.static_foo
just returns
a good 'ole function with no arguments bound. static_foo
expects 1 argument, and
a.static_foo
expects 1 argument too.
print(a.static_foo)
# <function static_foo at 0xb7d479cc>
And of course the same thing happens when you call static_foo
with the class A
instead.
print(A.static_foo)
# <function static_foo at 0xb7d479cc>
Best Answer
There are actually many good reasons to consider using accessors rather than directly exposing fields of a class - beyond just the argument of encapsulation and making future changes easier.
Here are the some of the reasons I am aware of: