Why interface and abstract class could have default access modfier and not protected

Asked Dec 05 '17 at 20:28

Active Dec 05 '17 at 20:42

Viewed 84 times

I'm preparing for java OCA exam, and while running some test, I remarked that an interface/abstract class could be declared with package private access modifier, but not protected even if default access modifier is "strict" than protected.
. here is an example
Example 1

//package 1;
public abstract class T1{..}
// package 2;
public class T2 extends T1{..}

Example 2

//package 1;
abstract class T1{..}
// package 2;
// compiler error 
public class T2 extends T1{..}

Example 3

//package 1;
protected abstract class T1{..} //doesn't work

can anyone explain ?

edited Dec 05 '17 at 20:42

asked Dec 05 '17 at 20:28

aName

2,751
3
32
61

An abstract class can certainly have `protected` members. – Oliver Charlesworth Dec 05 '17 at 20:30
And a nested interface or abstract class can itself have `protected` access. But a top-level class or interface cannot be `protected` because that wouldn't make any sense. What do you think `protected` would mean in such a case? – John Bollinger Dec 05 '17 at 20:31
1

The examples you added, particularly the second, do not correspond to the text or title of your question. – John Bollinger Dec 05 '17 at 20:39
you are right, I updated the question, thank you – aName Dec 05 '17 at 20:42

Why interface and abstract class could have default access modfier and not protected

0 Answers0