Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsWhite Papers
Discussion GroupsFirst AidDatabasesJavaBeansGUIJava 3DVirtual MachineCORBASecurityToolsGeneral
Java DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsSample Book ChaptersUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Databases.NETMore Topics ...

Java Forum / General / July 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Collections.class methods anachronisms?

Thread view: 
jupiter - 28 May 2007 18:20 GMT
The Collections class is supposed to, among other things,  return
type safe collections from existing collections with static methods
such as .checkedList().

My question is: What is so special about these static methods since
we can do the same thing by declaring the original list generically
with a type like <String>?   I mean, once you create the list with
<String>  the compiler will no longer allow you to add, say,
Integer to the list.  So what purpose does .checkedList() provide
in that context?

Maybe it's all about backward compatibility?
Joshua Cranmer - 29 May 2007 22:40 GMT
> The Collections class is supposed to, among other things,  return
> type safe collections from existing collections with static methods
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Maybe it's all about backward compatibility?

For the most part (where "most part" includes all of the collections
interface), all of the type constraints of generics are only checked at
compile time. The type-safe methods, e.g., checkedList, are guarantees
at /runtime/, something which generics can't do. Observe:

ArrayList<String> foo = new ArrayList();
List bar = foo;
bar.add(5);
String s = foo.get(0).substring(4);

This passes the compiler (although the compiler does give a warning), so
the code will be compiled to bytecode where it promptly emits a
ClassCastException. Passing the list through to checkedList still gives
an error, but it is emitted at the point of modification as opposed to
the point of access (which, in some cases, might not even give an error!).

In short, it is mostly a backwards-compatible feature, but it is
desirable in circumstances, so it is in no way an anachronism.
jupiter - 30 May 2007 01:37 GMT
>> The Collections class is supposed to, among other things,
>> return type safe collections from existing collections with
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> In short, it is mostly a backwards-compatible feature, but it is
> desirable in circumstances, so it is in no way an anachronism.

Great example, Joshua.  Thanks.

I guess I was stuck thinking "compiler means everything now" but
when using references to do implicit casting, anything can happen
at runtime as you've clearly shown.
ITMozart - 02 Jul 2007 00:47 GMT
>> This passes the compiler (although the compiler does give a
>> warning), so the code will be compiled to bytecode where it
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> when using references to do implicit casting, anything can happen
> at runtime as you've clearly shown.
This is true, but don't underestimate compiler warnings.

im


Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.