Threads

[Tanuck]

Hi, I want to ask whether it is necessary to call the Thread class constructor when extending it in your own class? For example...

public class TestThread extends Thread {
    
    public TestThread() {
        super();
        ....

I have seen some example which do call super() and others which dont.

Thanks

[Zack]

As far as I know, you need to call super() when extending Thread. However, another way to approach Threads (which is what I always use) is to implement it as Runnable instead.

This link details reasons why you may prefer to use Runnable, and also explains the process of extending and creating a Thread (using either method): Java Threads Tutorial | Java Beginner

[Onra]

You don't need to call the parent class constructor.

[Norm]

No, I don't think there is any reason to call super.

Try it both ways and see if there is any difference.

[JosAH]

No, I don't think there is any reason to call super.

Try it both ways and see if there is any difference.

The first statement of the body of a ctor is either a call to any super class ctor or a call to another ctor in the same class (this). If there is no explicit call to a superclass ctor (and no call to another ctor in the same class) the compiler generates a no-args superclass ctor call: super(). If calls to other ctors in the same class cause a cycle the compiler detects it and emits an error message. If a class doesn't contain any ctors the compiler will generate an empty public no-args ctor.

kind regards,

Jos

[jlmp]

Exactly, i obviously agree with JosAH, all i want to add is that if you write super("ThreadName"), it will generate a thread whose name is ThreadName, but if you let it super(), it will genarate a thread whose name is Thread-k, where k is an integer greater than or equal to 0.