Can an abstract class have a constructor?

Yes, an abstract class can have a constructor. Consider this:

abstract class Product { 
    int multiplyBy;
    public Product( int multiplyBy ) {
        this.multiplyBy = multiplyBy;
    }

    public int mutiply(int val) {
       return multiplyBy * val;
    }
}

class TimesTwo extends Product {
    public TimesTwo() {
        super(2);
    }
}

class TimesWhat extends Product {
    public TimesWhat(int what) {
        super(what);
    }
}

The superclass Product is abstract and has a constructor. The concrete class TimesTwo has a constructor that just hardcodes the value 2. The concrete class TimesWhat has a constructor that allows the caller to specify the value.

Abstract constructors will frequently be used to enforce class constraints or invariants such as the minimum fields required to setup the class.

NOTE: As there is no default (or no-arg) constructor in the parent abstract class, the constructor used in subclass must explicitly call the parent constructor.

You would define a constructor in an abstract class if you are in one of these situations:

• you want to perform some initialization (to fields of the abstract class) before the instantiation of a subclass actually takes place
• you have defined final fields in the abstract class but you did not initialize them in the declaration itself; in this case, you MUST have a constructor to initialize these fields

Note that:

• you may define more than one constructor (with different arguments)
• you can (should?) define all your constructors protected (making them public is pointless anyway)
• your subclass constructor(s) can call one constructor of the abstract class; it may even have to call it (if there is no no-arg constructor in the abstract class)

In any case, don't forget that if you don't define a constructor, then the compiler will automatically generate one for you (this one is public, has no argument, and does nothing).

Yes it can have a constructor and it is defined and behaves just like any other class's constructor. Except that abstract classes can't be directly instantiated, only extended, so the use is therefore always from a subclass's constructor.

Yes! Abstract classes can have constructors!

Yes, when we define a class to be an Abstract Class it cannot be instantiated but that does not mean an Abstract class cannot have a constructor. Each abstract class must have a concrete subclass which will implement the abstract methods of that abstract class.

When we create an object of any subclass all the constructors in the corresponding inheritance tree are invoked in the top to bottom approach. The same case applies to abstract classes. Though we cannot create an object of an abstract class, when we create an object of a class which is concrete and subclass of the abstract class, the constructor of the abstract class is automatically invoked. Hence we can have a constructor in abstract classes.

Note: A non-abstract class cannot have abstract methods but an abstract class can have a non-abstract method. Reason is similar to that of constructors, difference being instead of getting invoked automatically we can call super(). Also, there is nothing like an abstract constructor as it makes no sense at all.

Not only can it, it always does. If you do not specify one then it has a default no arg constructor, just like any other class. In fact, ALL classes, including nested and anonymous classes, will get a default constructor if one is not specified (in the case of anonymous classes it is impossible to specify one, so you will always get the default constructor).

A good example of an abstract class having a constructor is the Calendar class. You get a Calendar object by calling Calendar.getInstance(), but it also has constructors which are protected. The reason its constructors are protected is so that only its subclasses can call them (or classes in the same package, but since it's abstract, that doesn't apply). GregorianCalendar is an example of a class that extends Calendar.