The following code confuses me, could anyone explain why the two tests behave differently? Why does the String comparison in the first test return false while the comparison in the second test returns true?
public class Student {
/**
* Why the string "java" doesn't added to the 'String Pool' by intern() method ?
*/
#Test
public void test1() {
String str1 = new String("ja") + new String("va");
str1.intern();
String str2 = "java";
// Result:false
System.out.println("Result:" + (str1 == str2));
}
/**
* Any other strings will be added to 'String Pool' as expected after intern() is invoked.
*/
#Test
public void test2() {
String str1 = new String("ja1") + new String("va");
str1.intern();
String str2 = "ja1va";
// Result:true
System.out.println("Result:" + (str1 == str2));
}
You're basically checking whether a string was already in the string pool. The string "java" isn't added to the pool by calling intern in your first piece of code because it's already in the string pool. In each method, your code:
Creates a new string
Calls intern on the newly created string (but ignores the result; almost always a bad idea, and you can detect the existence of a previous value in the string pool easily by using the return value)
Compares the new string with a string literal, which will always use the result that's now in the string pool
Now the call to intern will add the target string to the pool if it doesn't already exist, so your comparison will return true if and only if the new string value was not previously in the string pool. This is equivalent to testing whether intern returns a different reference to the target of the call.
For any given string reference, there are three possibilities:
That exact reference is present in the string pool already. (That can't be the case in your code, because you're creating a new string.)
A reference to an equal string is present in the string pool. In that case, intern() will return the existing reference.
No equal string is present in the string pool. In that case, the target of the call will be added to the string pool, and the same reference returned.
What you're seeing is the result of other code putting things in the string pool - quite possibly as part of loading classes. Here's an example to demonstrate that:
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
checkInterned("ja", "va");
checkInterned("ja", "va.lang");
checkInterned("ja", "va.other");
checkInterned("Int", "eger");
checkInterned("abc", "def");
checkInterned("Te", "st");
checkInterned("Te", "st2");
checkInterned("check", "Interned");
checkInterned("check", "Interned2");
}
public static void checkInterned(String start, String end) {
String x = start + end;
String y = x.intern();
System.out.println(x + " was interned already? " + (x != y));
}
}
Output:
java was interned already? true
java.lang was interned already? true
java.other was interned already? false
Integer was interned already? true
abcdef was interned already? false
Test was interned already? true
Test2 was interned already? false
checkInterned was interned already? true
checkInterned2 was interned already? false
So the interned values are:
java
java.lang
Integer
Test
checkInterned
They're all names that would naturally come up when loading classes (including the one being run).
I suspect that "java" is only a special case here in that there may well be lots of code within the JRE that checks whether a string starts with "java" as a reserved name.
This doesn't indicate anything about "java" being a keyword though - it's just "a string that's already in the string pool". You don't need to treat it any differently.
The first thing to realize is that str1.intern() doesn't change the str1 reference. It returns the interned reference. So if you wanted str1 to now be that reference, you'd have to do:
str1 = str1.intern();
So, why the difference? In a nutshell, because the JVM already has a string "java" in its thread pool, because of various internals.
In the first example, str1 starts off as a newly instantiated String (as I think you understand). You then call str1.intern(), which returns the interned reference of a pre-existing String "java", but you don't do anything with that reference. When you then compare str1 == "java", you're comparing the reference to the newly instantiated object with the reference to the interned object, and get false.
In the second example, "ja1va" does not exist in the string pool to start off. When you call str1.intern(), that method puts "ja1va" into the pool, with its current reference (that is, str1) as the canonical reference. When you subsequently refer to the "ja1va" literal string, the JVM looks to see whether it's already in the pool, sees that it is, and uses it. Thus, you get true.
In other words, in the first case, you're creating a new String object and then not actually grabbing its interned equivalent. In the second case, you're creating a new String object, defining that as the interned reference, and then reloading it via a string literal.
Related
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str1 = new StringBuilder("计算机").append("软件").toString();
System.out.println(str1.intern() == str1);
String str2 = new StringBuffer("ja").append("va").toString();
System.out.println(str2.intern() == str2);
}
Results:
true
false
First one prints true, and the second prints false. Why are the results different?
The difference in behavior is unrelated to the differences between StringBuilder and StringBuffer.
The javadoc of String#intern() states that it returns
When the intern method is invoked, if the pool already contains a
string equal to this String object as determined by the equals(Object)
method, then the string from the pool is returned. Otherwise, this
String object is added to the pool and a reference to this String
object is returned.
The String created from
String str2 = new StringBuffer("ja").append("va").toString();
is a brand new String that does not belong to the pool.
For
str2.intern() == str2
to return false, the intern() call must have returned a different reference value, ie. the String "java" was already in the pool.
In the first comparison, the String "计算机软件" was not in the string pool prior to the call to intern(). intern() therefore returned the same reference as the one stored in str2. The reference equality str2 == str2 therefore returns true.
Because your assignments don't re-read from the intern pool and Java String(s) are immutable. Consider
String str1 = new StringBuilder("计算机").append("软件").toString();
String str1a = new String(str1); // <-- refers to a different String
str1 = str1.intern();
str1a = str1a.intern();
System.out.println(str1a == str1);
String str2 = new StringBuffer("ja").append("va").toString();
String str2a = new String(str2); // <-- refers to a different String
str2 = str2.intern();
str2a = str2a.intern();
System.out.println(str2a == str2);
The output is (as you might expect)
true
true
Lots of answer before mentioned about the pool and explained really clearly with the Oracle link docs.
I just would like to point out the way we can check when debugging code.
String str1 = new StringBuilder("计算机").append("软件").toString();
System.out.println(str1.intern() == str1);//the str1.intern() returns the same memory address the str1
String str2 = new StringBuffer("ja").append("va").toString();
System.out.println(str2.intern() == str2);//the str2.intern() does not return the same memory address the str2
You can use any IDE and debug to check the actual address that the str1 and str1.intern()/str2 and str2.intern().
let me add something more interesting:
the OpenJDk 8 is true,true;
Oracle JDK 6 is true,true;
so I think the right answer is :
diffrent vendor's jvm or jvm versions may have diffrent implemention(the language specification don't force the how to)
In Oracle JDK 8（I guess u using）:
String “java” already in pool(loaded by java.lang.Version#laucher_name) and String pool only stores the refrence,not the object.
But in OpenJDK the laucher_name is "openJDK"；In Oracle JDK 6 and below ,the string pool will copy the string object to itslef.
I know there are two ways of creating String in Java:
String a = "aaa";
String b = new String("bbb");
With the first way Java will definitely create a String object in the string pool and make a refer to it. (Assume "aaa" wan't in the pool before.)
With the second method, an object will be created in the heap, but will jvm also create an object in the string pool?
In this post Questions about Java's String pool, #Jesper said:
If you do this:
String s = new String("abc");
then there will be one String object in the pool, the one that represents the literal "abc", > and there will be a separate String object, not in the pool, that contains a copy of the > content of the pooled object.
If that's true, then every time with the new String("bbb");, a object "bbb" is created in the pool, which means by either way above, java will always create a string object in the pool. Then what is intern() used for ? In the docs http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#intern(), it says:
When the intern method is invoked, if the pool already contains a string equal to this String object as determined by the equals(Object) method, then the string from the pool is returned. Otherwise, this String object is added to the pool and a reference to this String object is returned.
That means there are cases that a string is not in the pool, is that possible ? Which one is true ?
As you know that String is an immutable object in Java programming language, which means once constructed can not be altered. Due to this, JVM has the ability to maintain a literal pool which is helpful to reduce the memory usage and to increase the performance. Each time when a String literal is used JVM checks the literal pool. If the literal is already available, the same reference would be returned. If the literal is not available, a new String object will be created and added in the literal pool.
This theory is applied when you try to create a String like a primitive or a literal/constant.
String str = "bbb";
But when you create a new String object
String str = new String("bbb");
the above mentioned rules are overridden and a new instance is created always.
But the intern API in the String class can be used to pick the String reference from the literal pool even though you create a String using new operator. Please check the below given example. Although the str3 is created using new operator since we used the intern method JVM picked up the reference from the literal pool.
public class StringInternExample {
public static void main(final String args[]) {
final String str = "bbb";
final String str1 = "bbb";
final String str2 = new String("bbb");
final String str3 = new String("bbb").intern();
System.out.println("str == str1 : "+(str == str1));
System.out.println("str == str2 : "+(str == str2));
System.out.println("str == str3 : "+(str == str3));
}
}
Output of above code:
str == str1 : true
str == str2 : false
str == str3 : true
You can have a look: Confusion on string immutability
Source of answer: http://ourownjava.com/java/java-string-immutability-and-intern-method/
Shishir
There are essentially two ways that our String objects can enter in to the pool:
Using a literal in source code like "bbb".
Using intern.
intern is for when you have a String that's not otherwise from the pool. For example:
String bb = "bbb".substring(1); // substring creates a new object
System.out.println(bb == "bb"); // false
System.out.println(bb.intern() == "bb"); // true
Or slightly different:
System.out.println(new String("bbb").intern() == "bbb"); // true
new String("bbb") does create two objects...
String fromLiteral = "bbb"; // in pool
String fromNewString = new String(fromLiteral); // not in pool
...but it's more like a special case. It creates two objects because "bbb" refers to an object:
A string literal is a reference to an instance of class String [...].
Moreover, a string literal always refers to the same instance of class String.
And new String(...) creates a copy of it.
However, there are many ways String objects are created without using a literal, such as:
All the String methods that perform some kind of mutation. (substring, split, replace, etc.)
Reading a String from some kind of input such as a Scanner or Reader.
Concatenation when at least one operand is not a compile-time constant.
intern lets you add them to the pool or retrieve an existing object if there was one. Under most circumstances interning Strings is unnecessary but it can be used as an optimization because:
It lets you compare with ==.
It can save memory because duplicates can be garbage collected.
Yes, new String("abc") will create a new object in memory, and thus it is advised to avoid it. Please have a look at item 5 of Josh Bloch's Effective Java, "Avoid creating unnecessary objects" where it is better explained:
As an extreme example of what not to do, consider this statement:
String s = new String("stringette"); // DON'T DO THIS!
The statement
creates a new String instance each time it is executed, and none of
those object creations is necessary. The argument to the String
constructor ("stringette") is itself a String instance, functionally
identical to all of the objects created by the constructor. If this
usage occurs in a loop or in a frequently invoked method, millions of
String instances can be created needlessly. The improved version is
simply the following:
String s = "stringette";
This version uses a
single String instance, rather than creating a new one each time it is
executed. Furthermore, it is guaranteed that the object will be reused
by any other code running in the same virtual machine that happens to
contain the same string literal [JLS, 3.10.5].
http://uet.vnu.edu.vn/~chauttm/e-books/java/Effective.Java.2nd.Edition.May.2008.3000th.Release.pdf
With the second method, an object will be created in the heap, but will jvm also create an object in the string pool?
Yes, but it is the string literal "bbb" which ensures the interned string1. The string constructor creates a new string object which is a copy with the same length and content - the newly created string is not automatically interned.
If that's true, then every time with the new String("bbb");, a object "bbb" is created in the pool, which means by either way above, java will always create a string object in the pool. Then what is intern() used for ?
Only string literals are automatically interned. Other string objects must be manually interned, if such is the desired behavior.
That means there are cases that a string is not in the pool, is that possible ?
With the exception of manual calls to String.intern, only string literals result in interned strings.
While I would recommend using a specialized collection for such cases, interning may be useful where it can be used to avoid creating extra duplicate objects. Some use-cases where interning can be beneficial - as in, the same string value can appear many times - is in JSON keys and XML element/attribute names.
1 This is trivial to reason, consider:
String _b = "bbb"; // string from string literal (this is interned)
String b = new String(_b); // create a NEW string via "copy constructor"
b == _b // -> false (new did NOT return an interned string)
b.equals(_b) // -> true (but it did return an equivalent string)
b.intern() == _b // -> true (which interns to .. the same string object)
i was working on the basic java program and i found verry funny thing which i am sharing with you. foo() gives output (s==s1) = false and bar gives (s==s1) = true.
I want to know why this happens.
public class StringTest
{
public static void main(String[] args){
foo();
bar();
}
public static void foo(){
String s = "str4";
String s1 = "str" + s.length();
System.out.println("(s==s1) = " + (s1==s));
}
public static void bar(){
String s = "str4";
String s1 = "str" + "4";
System.out.println("(s==s1) = " + (s1==s));
}
}
In the latter case, the compiler optimizes the string concatenation. As this can be done at compile time, both reference the same constant string object.
In the former case, the length() call can't be optimized during compile time. At runtime, a new string object is created, which is not identical to the string constant (but equal to it)
The string catenation in bar() can be done at compile time, because it's an expression composed of nothing but compile-time constants. Although the length of the String s is obviously known at compile time, the compiler doesn't know that length() returns that known value, so it won't be used as a constant.
When you write a line of code like this:
String s1 = "str" + "4";
then the compiler is smart enough to optimize this to:
String s1 = "str4";
Literal strings in Java are managed in a string pool. When you have two literal strings that have the same content (such as s and s1 in your second example), then just one String object will be created which will be shared by the two variables.
The == operator in Java checks if two variables refer to the same object. Since there is only one String object in the second example, s == s1 will be true.
String s1 = "str" + s.length();
String s1 = "str" + "4";
In first case s.length() will return a value of type int, In second case The type is String
Even though the number is 4 in both the cases but types are not the same :)
It probably has to do with the fact that foo() is probably creating an new String instance in s.length()(.toString()), where as bar() is just concatenating a constant. I don't know the nitty gritty of it, but my gut tells me it in that direction
If I needed to guess I would say that the java compiler performs some optimization onto bar(). At compiletime it is clear that "str" + "4" can be replaced by "str4" which (since Strings are immutable objects) is indeed the very same object as "str4"-String used for the s-initialization.
Within foo() the optimization is not that streight forward. In general the value s1-variable cannot be predicted very easily (indeed this example is quite streight forward). So the java compiler will produce two different variables for s and s1.
The "==" operator does not compare the value of the Strings! It checks whether these are the same Objects. To compare the values of the Strings use the "equals" method like this:
String s = "str4";
String s1 = "str" + s.length();
System.out.println("(s==s1) = " + (s1.equals(s2));
You should try playing with intern method of String class. Java keeps something like dictionary where all different strings are stored. When you create a string object which can be evaluated at compile time, Java searches it in its dictionary. If it founds the string, it stores only a reference to this string (which is actually returned by intern method).
You should notice that:
"str4" == ("str" + "str4".length()) returns false, but
"str4" == ("str" + "str4".length()).intern() returns true, because the only "wrapper" is a different object.
This question already has answers here:
What is the Java string pool and how is "s" different from new String("s")? [duplicate]
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am confused about StringPool in Java. I came across this while reading the String chapter in Java. Please help me understand, in layman terms, what StringPool actually does.
This prints true (even though we don't use equals method: correct way to compare strings)
String s = "a" + "bc";
String t = "ab" + "c";
System.out.println(s == t);
When compiler optimizes your string literals, it sees that both s and t have same value and thus you need only one string object. It's safe because String is immutable in Java.
As result, both s and t point to the same object and some little memory saved.
Name 'string pool' comes from the idea that all already defined string are stored in some 'pool' and before creating new String object compiler checks if such string is already defined.
I don't think it actually does much, it looks like it's just a cache for string literals. If you have multiple Strings who's values are the same, they'll all point to the same string literal in the string pool.
String s1 = "Arul"; //case 1
String s2 = "Arul"; //case 2
In case 1, literal s1 is created newly and kept in the pool. But in case 2, literal s2 refer the s1, it will not create new one instead.
if(s1 == s2) System.out.println("equal"); //Prints equal.
String n1 = new String("Arul");
String n2 = new String("Arul");
if(n1 == n2) System.out.println("equal"); //No output.
http://p2p.wrox.com/java-espanol/29312-string-pooling.html
Let's start with a quote from the virtual machine spec:
Loading of a class or interface that contains a String literal may create a new String object (§2.4.8) to represent that literal. This may not occur if the a String object has already been created to represent a previous occurrence of that literal, or if the String.intern method has been invoked on a String object representing the same string as the literal.
This may not occur - This is a hint, that there's something special about String objects. Usually, invoking a constructor will always create a new instance of the class. This is not the case with Strings, especially when String objects are 'created' with literals. Those Strings are stored in a global store (pool) - or at least the references are kept in a pool, and whenever a new instance of an already known Strings is needed, the vm returns a reference to the object from the pool. In pseudo code, it may go like that:
1: a := "one"
--> if(pool[hash("one")] == null) // true
pool[hash("one") --> "one"]
return pool[hash("one")]
2: b := "one"
--> if(pool[hash("one")] == null) // false, "one" already in pool
pool[hash("one") --> "one"]
return pool[hash("one")]
So in this case, variables a and b hold references to the same object. IN this case, we have (a == b) && (a.equals(b)) == true.
This is not the case if we use the constructor:
1: a := "one"
2: b := new String("one")
Again, "one" is created on the pool but then we create a new instance from the same literal, and in this case, it leads to (a == b) && (a.equals(b)) == false
So why do we have a String pool? Strings and especially String literals are widely used in typical Java code. And they are immutable. And being immutable allowed to cache String to save memory and increase performance (less effort for creation, less garbage to be collected).
As programmers we don't have to care much about the String pool, as long as we keep in mind:
(a == b) && (a.equals(b)) may be true or false (always use equals to compare Strings)
Don't use reflection to change the backing char[] of a String (as you don't know who is actualling using that String)
When the JVM loads classes, or otherwise sees a literal string, or some code interns a string, it adds the string to a mostly-hidden lookup table that has one copy of each such string. If another copy is added, the runtime arranges it so that all the literals refer to the same string object. This is called "interning". If you say something like
String s = "test";
return (s == "test");
it'll return true, because the first and second "test" are actually the same object. Comparing interned strings this way can be much, much faster than String.equals, as there's a single reference comparison rather than a bunch of char comparisons.
You can add a string to the pool by calling String.intern(), which will give you back the pooled version of the string (which could be the same string you're interning, but you'd be crazy to rely on that -- you often can't be sure exactly what code has been loaded and run up til now and interned the same string). The pooled version (the string returned from intern) will be equal to any identical literal. For example:
String s1 = "test";
String s2 = new String("test"); // "new String" guarantees a different object
System.out.println(s1 == s2); // should print "false"
s2 = s2.intern();
System.out.println(s1 == s2); // should print "true"
This question already has answers here:
How do I compare strings in Java?
(23 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
This code separates a string into tokens and stores them in an array of strings, and then compares a variable with the first home ... why isn't it working?
public static void main(String...aArguments) throws IOException {
String usuario = "Jorman";
String password = "14988611";
String strDatos = "Jorman 14988611";
StringTokenizer tokens = new StringTokenizer(strDatos, " ");
int nDatos = tokens.countTokens();
String[] datos = new String[nDatos];
int i = 0;
while (tokens.hasMoreTokens()) {
String str = tokens.nextToken();
datos[i] = str;
i++;
}
//System.out.println (usuario);
if ((datos[0] == usuario)) {
System.out.println("WORKING");
}
}
Use the string.equals(Object other) function to compare strings, not the == operator.
The function checks the actual contents of the string, the == operator checks whether the references to the objects are equal. Note that string constants are usually "interned" such that two constants with the same value can actually be compared with ==, but it's better not to rely on that.
if (usuario.equals(datos[0])) {
...
}
NB: the compare is done on 'usuario' because that's guaranteed non-null in your code, although you should still check that you've actually got some tokens in the datos array otherwise you'll get an array-out-of-bounds exception.
Meet Jorman
Jorman is a successful businessman and has 2 houses.
But others don't know that.
Is it the same Jorman?
When you ask neighbours from either Madison or Burke streets, this is the only thing they can say:
Using the residence alone, it's tough to confirm that it's the same Jorman. Since they're 2 different addresses, it's just natural to assume that those are 2 different persons.
That's how the operator == behaves. So it will say that datos[0]==usuario is false, because it only compares the addresses.
An Investigator to the Rescue
What if we sent an investigator? We know that it's the same Jorman, but we need to prove it. Our detective will look closely at all physical aspects. With thorough inquiry, the agent will be able to conclude whether it's the same person or not. Let's see it happen in Java terms.
Here's the source code of String's equals() method:
It compares the Strings character by character, in order to come to a conclusion that they are indeed equal.
That's how the String equals method behaves. So datos[0].equals(usuario) will return true, because it performs a logical comparison.
It's good to notice that in some cases use of "==" operator can lead to the expected result, because the way how java handles strings - string literals are interned (see String.intern()) during compilation - so when you write for example "hello world" in two classes and compare those strings with "==" you could get result: true, which is expected according to specification; when you compare same strings (if they have same value) when the first one is string literal (ie. defined through "i am string literal") and second is constructed during runtime ie. with "new" keyword like new String("i am string literal"), the == (equality) operator returns false, because both of them are different instances of the String class.
Only right way is using .equals() -> datos[0].equals(usuario). == says only if two objects are the same instance of object (ie. have same memory address)
Update: 01.04.2013 I updated this post due comments below which are somehow right. Originally I declared that interning (String.intern) is side effect of JVM optimization. Although it certainly save memory resources (which was what i meant by "optimization") it is mainly feature of language
The == operator checks if the two references point to the same object or not.
.equals() checks for the actual string content (value).
Note that the .equals() method belongs to class Object (super class of all classes). You need to override it as per you class requirement, but for String it is already implemented and it checks whether two strings have the same value or not.
Case1)
String s1 = "Stack Overflow";
String s2 = "Stack Overflow";
s1 == s1; // true
s1.equals(s2); // true
Reason: String literals created without null are stored in the string pool in the permgen area of the heap. So both s1 and s2 point to the same object in the pool.
Case2)
String s1 = new String("Stack Overflow");
String s2 = new String("Stack Overflow");
s1 == s2; // false
s1.equals(s2); // true
Reason: If you create a String object using the `new` keyword a separate space is allocated to it on the heap.
equals() function is a method of Object class which should be overridden by programmer. String class overrides it to check if two strings are equal i.e. in content and not reference.
== operator checks if the references of both the objects are the same.
Consider the programs
String abc = "Awesome" ;
String xyz = abc;
if(abc == xyz)
System.out.println("Refers to same string");
Here the abc and xyz, both refer to same String "Awesome". Hence the expression (abc == xyz) is true.
String abc = "Hello World";
String xyz = "Hello World";
if(abc == xyz)
System.out.println("Refers to same string");
else
System.out.println("Refers to different strings");
if(abc.equals(xyz))
System.out.prinln("Contents of both strings are same");
else
System.out.prinln("Contents of strings are different");
Here abc and xyz are two different strings with the same content "Hello World". Hence here the expression (abc == xyz) is false where as (abc.equals(xyz)) is true.
Hope you understood the difference between == and <Object>.equals()
Thanks.
== tests for reference equality.
.equals() tests for value equality.
Consequently, if you actually want to test whether two strings have the same value you should use .equals() (except in a few situations where you can guarantee that two strings with the same value will be represented by the same object eg: String interning).
== is for testing whether two strings are the same Object.
// These two have the same value
new String("test").equals("test") ==> true
// ... but they are not the same object
new String("test") == "test" ==> false
// ... neither are these
new String("test") == new String("test") ==> false
// ... but these are because literals are interned by
// the compiler and thus refer to the same object
"test" == "test" ==> true
// concatenation of string literals happens at compile time resulting in same objects
"test" == "te" + "st" ==> true
// but .substring() is invoked at runtime, generating distinct objects
"test" == "!test".substring(1) ==> false
It is important to note that == is much cheaper than equals() (a single pointer comparision instead of a loop), thus, in situations where it is applicable (i.e. you can guarantee that you are only dealing with interned strings) it can present an important performance improvement. However, these situations are rare.
Instead of
datos[0] == usuario
use
datos[0].equals(usuario)
== compares the reference of the variable where .equals() compares the values which is what you want.
Let's analyze the following Java, to understand the identity and equality of Strings:
public static void testEquality(){
String str1 = "Hello world.";
String str2 = "Hello world.";
if (str1 == str2)
System.out.print("str1 == str2\n");
else
System.out.print("str1 != str2\n");
if(str1.equals(str2))
System.out.print("str1 equals to str2\n");
else
System.out.print("str1 doesn't equal to str2\n");
String str3 = new String("Hello world.");
String str4 = new String("Hello world.");
if (str3 == str4)
System.out.print("str3 == str4\n");
else
System.out.print("str3 != str4\n");
if(str3.equals(str4))
System.out.print("str3 equals to str4\n");
else
System.out.print("str3 doesn't equal to str4\n");
}
When the first line of code String str1 = "Hello world." executes, a string \Hello world."
is created, and the variable str1 refers to it. Another string "Hello world." will not be created again when the next line of code executes because of optimization. The variable str2 also refers to the existing ""Hello world.".
The operator == checks identity of two objects (whether two variables refer to same object). Since str1 and str2 refer to same string in memory, they are identical to each other. The method equals checks equality of two objects (whether two objects have same content). Of course, the content of str1 and str2 are same.
When code String str3 = new String("Hello world.") executes, a new instance of string with content "Hello world." is created, and it is referred to by the variable str3. And then another instance of string with content "Hello world." is created again, and referred to by
str4. Since str3 and str4 refer to two different instances, they are not identical, but their
content are same.
Therefore, the output contains four lines:
Str1 == str2
Str1 equals str2
Str3! = str4
Str3 equals str4
You should use string equals to compare two strings for equality, not operator == which just compares the references.
It will also work if you call intern() on the string before inserting it into the array.
Interned strings are reference-equal (==) if and only if they are value-equal (equals().)
public static void main (String... aArguments) throws IOException {
String usuario = "Jorman";
String password = "14988611";
String strDatos="Jorman 14988611";
StringTokenizer tokens=new StringTokenizer(strDatos, " ");
int nDatos=tokens.countTokens();
String[] datos=new String[nDatos];
int i=0;
while(tokens.hasMoreTokens()) {
String str=tokens.nextToken();
datos[i]= str.intern();
i++;
}
//System.out.println (usuario);
if(datos[0]==usuario) {
System.out.println ("WORKING");
}
Generally .equals is used for Object comparison, where you want to verify if two Objects have an identical value.
== for reference comparison (are the two Objects the same Object on the heap) & to check if the Object is null. It is also used to compare the values of primitive types.
== operator compares the reference of an object in Java. You can use string's equals method .
String s = "Test";
if(s.equals("Test"))
{
System.out.println("Equal");
}
If you are going to compare any assigned value of the string i.e. primitive string, both "==" and .equals will work, but for the new string object you should use only .equals, and here "==" will not work.
Example:
String a = "name";
String b = "name";
if(a == b) and (a.equals(b)) will return true.
But
String a = new String("a");
In this case if(a == b) will return false
So it's better to use the .equals operator...
The == operator is a simple comparison of values.
For object references the (values) are the (references). So x == y returns true if x and y reference the same object.
I know this is an old question but here's how I look at it (I find very useful):
Technical explanations
In Java, all variables are either primitive types or references.
(If you need to know what a reference is: "Object variables" are just pointers to objects. So with Object something = ..., something is really an address in memory (a number).)
== compares the exact values. So it compares if the primitive values are the same, or if the references (addresses) are the same. That's why == often doesn't work on Strings; Strings are objects, and doing == on two string variables just compares if the address is same in memory, as others have pointed out. .equals() calls the comparison method of objects, which will compare the actual objects pointed by the references. In the case of Strings, it compares each character to see if they're equal.
The interesting part:
So why does == sometimes return true for Strings? Note that Strings are immutable. In your code, if you do
String foo = "hi";
String bar = "hi";
Since strings are immutable (when you call .trim() or something, it produces a new string, not modifying the original object pointed to in memory), you don't really need two different String("hi") objects. If the compiler is smart, the bytecode will read to only generate one String("hi") object. So if you do
if (foo == bar) ...
right after, they're pointing to the same object, and will return true. But you rarely intend this. Instead, you're asking for user input, which is creating new strings at different parts of memory, etc. etc.
Note: If you do something like baz = new String(bar) the compiler may still figure out they're the same thing. But the main point is when the compiler sees literal strings, it can easily optimize same strings.
I don't know how it works in runtime, but I assume the JVM doesn't keep a list of "live strings" and check if a same string exists. (eg if you read a line of input twice, and the user enters the same input twice, it won't check if the second input string is the same as the first, and point them to the same memory). It'd save a bit of heap memory, but it's so negligible the overhead isn't worth it. Again, the point is it's easy for the compiler to optimize literal strings.
There you have it... a gritty explanation for == vs. .equals() and why it seems random.
#Melkhiah66 You can use equals method instead of '==' method to check the equality.
If you use intern() then it checks whether the object is in pool if present then returns
equal else unequal. equals method internally uses hashcode and gets you the required result.
public class Demo
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
String str1 = "Jorman 14988611";
String str2 = new StringBuffer("Jorman").append(" 14988611").toString();
String str3 = str2.intern();
System.out.println("str1 == str2 " + (str1 == str2)); //gives false
System.out.println("str1 == str3 " + (str1 == str3)); //gives true
System.out.println("str1 equals str2 " + (str1.equals(str2))); //gives true
System.out.println("str1 equals str3 " + (str1.equals(str3))); //gives true
}
}
The .equals() will check if the two strings have the same value and return the boolean value where as the == operator checks to see if the two strings are the same object.
Someone said on a post higher up that == is used for int and for checking nulls.
It may also be used to check for Boolean operations and char types.
Be very careful though and double check that you are using a char and not a String.
for example
String strType = "a";
char charType = 'a';
for strings you would then check
This would be correct
if(strType.equals("a")
do something
but
if(charType.equals('a')
do something else
would be incorrect, you would need to do the following
if(charType == 'a')
do something else
a==b
Compares references, not values. The use of == with object references is generally limited to the following:
Comparing to see if a reference is null.
Comparing two enum values. This works because there is only one object for each enum constant.
You want to know if two references are to the same object
"a".equals("b")
Compares values for equality. Because this method is defined in the Object class, from which all other classes are derived, it's automatically defined for every class. However, it doesn't perform an intelligent comparison for most classes unless the class overrides it. It has been defined in a meaningful way for most Java core classes. If it's not defined for a (user) class, it behaves the same as ==.
Use Split rather than tokenizer,it will surely provide u exact output
for E.g:
string name="Harry";
string salary="25000";
string namsal="Harry 25000";
string[] s=namsal.split(" ");
for(int i=0;i<s.length;i++)
{
System.out.println(s[i]);
}
if(s[0].equals("Harry"))
{
System.out.println("Task Complete");
}
After this I am sure you will get better results.....