Why cant a java class have protected access modifier....???

[waseem nadaf]

I have a certain idea that when any entity is declared as protected, it is not visible outside the package unless the class is extended. So if the class itself is declared as protected then the class cant be extended outside the package as the class is not at all visible outside the package. This is as good as declaring the class with default modifier. Therefore it doesnt make sense to declare a class protected and hence the limitation.

Is what i think correct or is it a wrong presumption by me...
If it is wrong can someone please give me the right answer...

[Rahul Bhattacharjee]

Originally posted by waseem nadaf:
So if the class itself is declared as protected then the class cant be extended outside the package as the class is not at all visible outside the package.

Class cannot be protected , it can only be public or default.

And if the JLS had something like to have a class protected then it would have been very much possible for the classes outside the same package to extend the protected class.

[waseem nadaf]

Thanks Rahul,
I understood your point....

But you said "Class cannot be protected , it can only be public or default."

My question is why cant a class be potected...??

[Ulf Dittmer]

The short answer would be "because the JLS defines it that way".

In which situation would it make sense to define a class as protected? Think about how that modifier determines the visibility of fields and methods, and especially how it is different from default (i.e., package) visibility. How would it apply to a class?

[Campbell Ritchie]

. . . but classes can also be declared as private.

[Rahul Bhattacharjee]

Only with inner class.

[Peter Chase]

And an inner class can be defined "protected", because it actually makes sense in that context. A protected inner class can be accessed by subclasses of the outer class (and also by the package).