一般来说，允许“重写”静态方法是没有意义的，因为没有好的方法来确定在运行时调用哪个方法。以Employee为例，如果我们调用regularemploee . getbonusmultiplier()——应该执行哪个方法?

以Java为例，人们可以想象这样一种语言定义:只要静态方法是通过对象实例调用的，就可以“覆盖”它们。然而，这样做只是重新实现常规的类方法，在没有真正带来任何好处的情况下为语言增加冗余。

下面的代码表明这是可能的:

class OverridenStaticMeth {   

static void printValue() {   
System.out.println("Overriden Meth");   
}   

}   

public class OverrideStaticMeth extends OverridenStaticMeth {   

static void printValue() {   
System.out.println("Overriding Meth");   
}   

public static void main(String[] args) {   
OverridenStaticMeth osm = new OverrideStaticMeth();   
osm.printValue();   

System.out.println("now, from main");
printValue();

}   

} 

Well... the answer is NO if you think from the perspective of how an overriden method should behave in Java. But, you don't get any compiler error if you try to override a static method. That means, if you try to override, Java doesn't stop you doing that; but you certainly don't get the same effect as you get for non-static methods. Overriding in Java simply means that the particular method would be called based on the run time type of the object and not on the compile time type of it (which is the case with overriden static methods). Okay... any guesses for the reason why do they behave strangely? Because they are class methods and hence access to them is always resolved during compile time only using the compile time type information. Accessing them using object references is just an extra liberty given by the designers of Java and we should certainly not think of stopping that practice only when they restrict it :-)

示例:让我们试着看看如果我们尝试重写一个静态方法会发生什么:-

class SuperClass {
// ......
public static void staticMethod() {
    System.out.println("SuperClass: inside staticMethod");
}
// ......
}

public class SubClass extends SuperClass {
// ......
// overriding the static method
public static void staticMethod() {
    System.out.println("SubClass: inside staticMethod");
}

// ......
public static void main(String[] args) {
    // ......
    SuperClass superClassWithSuperCons = new SuperClass();
    SuperClass superClassWithSubCons = new SubClass();
    SubClass subClassWithSubCons = new SubClass();

    superClassWithSuperCons.staticMethod();
    superClassWithSubCons.staticMethod();
    subClassWithSubCons.staticMethod();
    // ...
}
}

输出: SuperClass:在staticMethod内部 SuperClass:在staticMethod内部 子类:staticMethod内部

注意输出的第二行。如果staticMethod被重写，这一行应该与第三行相同，因为我们在运行时类型的对象上调用'staticMethod()'作为'子类'而不是'超类'。这证实了静态方法总是只使用它们的编译时类型信息进行解析。

重写依赖于类的实例。多态性的意义在于，您可以子类化一个类，而实现这些子类的对象对于父类中定义的相同方法将具有不同的行为(并且在子类中被重写)。静态方法不与类的任何实例相关联，因此这个概念不适用。

There were two considerations driving Java's design that impacted this. One was a concern with performance: there had been a lot of criticism of Smalltalk about it being too slow (garbage collection and polymorphic calls being part of that) and Java's creators were determined to avoid that. Another was the decision that the target audience for Java was C++ developers. Making static methods work the way they do had the benefit of familiarity for C++ programmers and was also very fast, because there's no need to wait until runtime to figure out which method to call.

这个问题的答案很简单，标记为静态的方法或变量只属于类，因此静态方法不能在子类中继承，因为它们只属于超类。

简单的解决方案:使用单例实例。它将允许重写和继承。

在我的系统中，我有SingletonsRegistry类，它为传递的class返回实例。如果没有找到instance，则创建它。

Haxe语言类:

package rflib.common.utils;
import haxe.ds.ObjectMap;



class SingletonsRegistry
{
  public static var instances:Map<Class<Dynamic>, Dynamic>;

  static function __init__()
  {
    StaticsInitializer.addCallback(SingletonsRegistry, function()
    {
      instances = null;
    });

  } 

  public static function getInstance(cls:Class<Dynamic>, ?args:Array<Dynamic>)
  {
    if (instances == null) {
      instances = untyped new ObjectMap<Dynamic, Dynamic>();      
    }

    if (!instances.exists(cls)) 
    {
      if (args == null) args = [];
      instances.set(cls, Type.createInstance(cls, args));
    }

    return instances.get(cls);
  }


  public static function validate(inst:Dynamic, cls:Class<Dynamic>)
  {
    if (instances == null) return;

    var inst2 = instances[cls];
    if (inst2 != null && inst != inst2) throw "Can\'t create multiple instances of " + Type.getClassName(cls) + " - it's singleton!";
  }

}