This question is similar to Lambdas: local variables need final, instance variables don't,but the only difference is this question is valid even without lambda expressions i.e. valid even on Java7.
Here is the code snippet below.
public class MyClass {
Integer globalInteger = new Integer(1);
public void someMethod() {
Integer localInt = new Integer(2);
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
globalInteger = new Integer(11);//no error
localInt = new Integer(22);//error here
}
};
}
}
I am allowed to reassign globalInteger a new value but not to localInteger. Why is this difference?
To understand why non-local variables are allowed to change, we first need to understand why local variables aren't. And that's because local variables are stored on the stack (which instance (or static) variables aren't).
The problem with stack variables is that they're going to disappear once their containing method returns. However the instance of your anonymous class might live longer than that. So if accessing local variables were implemented naively, using the local variable from inside the inner class after the method returned would access a variable on a stack frame that no longer exists. That would either lead to a crash, an exception or undefined behavior depending on the exact implementation. Since that's clearly bad, access to local variables is implemented via copying instead. That is, all the local variables that are used by the class (including the special variable this) are copied into the anonymous object. So when a method of the inner class accesses a local variable x, it's not actually accessing that local variable. It's accessing a copy of it stored inside the object.
But what would happen if a local variable changed after the object was created or if a method of the object changed the variable? Well, the former would cause the local variable to change, but not the copy in the object, and the latter would change the copy, but not the original. So either way the two versions of the variable would no longer be the same, which would be very counter-intuitive to any programmer who doesn't know about the copying going on. So to avoid this problem, you're only allowed to access local variables if their value is never changed.
Instance variables don't need to be copied because they won't disappear until their containing object is garbage collected (and static variables never disappear) - since the anonymous object will contain a reference to the outer this, this won't happen until the anonymous object is garbage collected as well. So since they aren't copied, modifying them doesn't cause any issues and there's no reason to disallow it.