private

How can hibernate can access a private field/method of a java class , for example to set the @Id ? Thanks Like Crippledsmurf says, it uses reflection. See Reflection: Breaking all the Rules and Hibernate: Preserving an Object's Contract . Try import java.lang.reflect.Field; class Test { private final int value; Test(int value) { this.value = value; } public String toString() { return "" + value; } } public class Main { public static void main(String... args) throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException { Test test = new Test(12345); System.out.println("test= "+test); Field value = Test

A tweak on this question that I've run into. Consider: class A {}; class B : private A { static void foo(); }; void B::foo(){ B* bPtr1 = new B; A* aPtr1 = dynamic_cast<A*>(bPtr1); // gives pointer B* bPtr2 = dynamic_cast<B*>(aPtr1); // gives NULL } Since aPtr1 is, in fact, of type B* , and since we've got full access to B and its inheritance from A , I'd expected both casts to work. But they don't; why? Is there another way to achieve this cast? Note that: If foo() were not a member of B, both casts would fail. If B inherits from A publicly, both casts would work. 5.2.7 (ISO/IEC 14882, 12/29

I'm trying understand python scope rules. To do this I try access "very private" variable from class in same module bar = "bar" _bar = "underscore" __bar = "double underscore" def foo(): print bar print _bar print globals()["__bar"] print __bar class Foo: def __init__(self): print bar print _bar print globals()["__bar"] print __bar #NameError: global name '_Foo__bar' is not defined foo() Foo() It fails with NameError . I can't find anything about that in specification. So, why it fails and where this behavior described? Within a class definition, all names starting with double underscores are

I'm learning Java, and the book I'm reading has the following example on cloning. In clone() , my first instance is able to set buffer on the new object even though buffer is private . It seems like it should require the field to be protected for this to work. Why is this allowed? Does clone() have special privileges that allows it to access the private fields? public class IntegerStack implements Cloneable { private int[] buffer; private int top; // ... code omitted ... @Override public IntegerStack clone() { try{ IntegerStack nObj = (IntegerStack) super.clone(); nObj.buffer = buffer.clone();

I "learned" C++ at school, but there are several things I don't know, like where or what a compiler can optimize, seems I already know that inline and const can boost a little... If performance is an important thing (gaming programming for example), does putting class attributes not public ( private or protected ) allow the compiler to make more optimized code ? Because all my previous teacher were saying was it's more "secure" or "prevent not wanted or authorized class access/behavior", but in the end, I'm wonder if putting attributes not public can limit the scope and thus fasten things. I