Related
I've been reading through a lot of the rookie Java questions on finalize() and find it kind of bewildering that no one has really made it plain that finalize() is an unreliable way to clean up resources. I saw someone comment that they use it to clean up Connections, which is really scary since the only way to come as close to a guarantee that a Connection is closed is to implement try (catch) finally.
I was not schooled in CS, but I have been programming in Java professionally for close to a decade now and I have never seen anyone implement finalize() in a production system ever. This still doesn't mean that it doesn't have its uses, or that people I've worked with have been doing it right.
So my question is, what use cases are there for implementing finalize() that cannot be handled more reliably via another process or syntax within the language?
Please provide specific scenarios or your experience, simply repeating a Java text book, or finalize's intended use is not enough, as is not the intent of this question.
You could use it as a backstop for an object holding an external resource (socket, file, etc). Implement a close() method and document that it needs to be called.
Implement finalize() to do the close() processing if you detect it hasn't been done. Maybe with something dumped to stderr to point out that you're cleaning up after a buggy caller.
It provides extra safety in an exceptional/buggy situation. Not every caller is going to do the correct try {} finally {} stuff every time. Unfortunate, but true in most environments.
I agree that it's rarely needed. And as commenters point out, it comes with GC overhead. Only use if you need that "belt and suspenders" safety in a long-running app.
I see that as of Java 9, Object.finalize() is deprecated! They point us to java.lang.ref.Cleaner and java.lang.ref.PhantomReference as alternatives.
finalize() is a hint to the JVM that it might be nice to execute your code at an unspecified time. This is good when you want code to mysteriously fail to run.
Doing anything significant in finalizers (basically anything except logging) is also good in three situations:
you want to gamble that other finalized objects will still be in a state that the rest of your program considers valid.
you want to add lots of checking code to all the methods of all your classes that have a finalizer, to make sure they behave correctly after finalization.
you want to accidentally resurrect finalized objects, and spend a lot of time trying to figure out why they don't work, and/or why they don't get finalized when they are eventually released.
If you think you need finalize(), sometimes what you really want is a phantom reference (which in the example given could hold a hard reference to a connection used by its referand, and close it after the phantom reference has been queued). This also has the property that it may mysteriously never run, but at least it can't call methods on or resurrect finalized objects. So it's just right for situations where you don't absolutely need to close that connection cleanly, but you'd quite like to, and the clients of your class can't or won't call close themselves (which is actually fair enough - what's the point of having a garbage collector at all if you design interfaces that require a specific action be taken prior to collection? That just puts us back in the days of malloc/free.)
Other times you need the resource you think you're managing to be more robust. For example, why do you need to close that connection? It must ultimately be based on some kind of I/O provided by the system (socket, file, whatever), so why can't you rely on the system to close it for you when the lowest level of resource is gced? If the server at the other end absolutely requires you to close the connection cleanly rather than just dropping the socket, then what's going to happen when someone trips over the power cable of the machine your code is running on, or the intervening network goes out?
Disclaimer: I've worked on a JVM implementation in the past. I hate finalizers.
A simple rule: never use finalizers.
The fact alone that an object has a finalizer (regardless what code it executes) is enough to cause considerable overhead for garbage collection.
From an article by Brian Goetz:
Objects with finalizers (those that
have a non-trivial finalize() method)
have significant overhead compared to
objects without finalizers, and should
be used sparingly. Finalizeable
objects are both slower to allocate
and slower to collect. At allocation
time, the JVM must register any
finalizeable objects with the garbage
collector, and (at least in the
HotSpot JVM implementation)
finalizeable objects must follow a
slower allocation path than most other
objects. Similarly, finalizeable
objects are slower to collect, too. It
takes at least two garbage collection
cycles (in the best case) before a
finalizeable object can be reclaimed,
and the garbage collector has to do
extra work to invoke the finalizer.
The result is more time spent
allocating and collecting objects and
more pressure on the garbage
collector, because the memory used by
unreachable finalizeable objects is
retained longer. Combine that with the
fact that finalizers are not
guaranteed to run in any predictable
timeframe, or even at all, and you can
see that there are relatively few
situations for which finalization is
the right tool to use.
The only time I've used finalize in production code was to implement a check that a given object's resources had been cleaned up, and if not, then log a very vocal message. It didn't actually try and do it itself, it just shouted a lot if it wasn't done properly. Turned out to be quite useful.
I've been doing Java professionally since 1998, and I've never implemented finalize(). Not once.
The accepted answer is good, I just wanted to add that there is now a way to have the functionality of finalize without actually using it at all.
Look at the "Reference" classes. Weak reference, Phantom Reference & Soft Reference.
You can use them to keep a reference to all your objects, but this reference ALONE will not stop GC. The neat thing about this is you can have it call a method when it will be deleted, and this method can be guaranteed to be called.
As for finalize:
I used finalize once to understand what objects were being freed. You can play some neat games with statics, reference counting and such--but it was only for analysis, but watch out for code like this (not just in finalize, but that's where you are most likely to see it):
public void finalize() {
ref1 = null;
ref2 = null;
othercrap = null;
}
It is a sign that somebody didn't know what they were doing. "Cleaning up" like this is virtually never needed. When the class is GC'd, this is done automatically.
If you find code like that in a finalize it's guaranteed that the person who wrote it was confused.
If it's elsewhere, it could be that the code is a valid patch to a bad model (a class stays around for a long time and for some reason things it referenced had to be manually freed before the object is GC'd). Generally it's because someone forgot to remove a listener or something and can't figure out why their object isn't being GC'd so they just delete things it refers to and shrug their shoulders and walk away.
It should never be used to clean things up "Quicker".
I'm not sure what you can make of this, but...
itsadok#laptop ~/jdk1.6.0_02/src/
$ find . -name "*.java" | xargs grep "void finalize()" | wc -l
41
So I guess the Sun found some cases where (they think) it should be used.
class MyObject {
Test main;
public MyObject(Test t) {
main = t;
}
protected void finalize() {
main.ref = this; // let instance become reachable again
System.out.println("This is finalize"); //test finalize run only once
}
}
class Test {
MyObject ref;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.ref = new MyObject(test);
test.ref = null; //MyObject become unreachable，finalize will be invoked
System.gc();
if (test.ref != null) System.out.println("MyObject still alive!");
}
}
====================================
result:
This is finalize
MyObject still alive!
=====================================
So you may make an unreachable instance reachable in finalize method.
finalize() can be useful to catch resource leaks. If the resource should be closed but is not write the fact that it wasn't closed to a log file and close it. That way you remove the resource leak and give yourself a way to know that it has happened so you can fix it.
I have been programming in Java since 1.0 alpha 3 (1995) and I have yet to override finalize for anything...
You shouldn't depend on finalize() to clean up your resources for you. finalize() won't run until the class is garbage collected, if then. It's much better to explicitly free resources when you're done using them.
To highlight a point in the above answers: finalizers will be executed on the lone GC thread. I have heard of a major Sun demo where the developers added a small sleep to some finalizers and intentionally brought an otherwise fancy 3D demo to its knees.
Best to avoid, with possible exception of test-env diagnostics.
Eckel's Thinking in Java has a good section on this.
Be careful about what you do in a finalize(). Especially if you are using it for things like calling close() to ensure that resources are cleaned up. We ran into several situations where we had JNI libraries linked in to the running java code, and in any circumstances where we used finalize() to invoke JNI methods, we would get very bad java heap corruption. The corruption was not caused by the underlying JNI code itself, all of the memory traces were fine in the native libraries. It was just the fact that we were calling JNI methods from the finalize() at all.
This was with a JDK 1.5 which is still in widespread use.
We wouldn't find out that something went wrong until much later, but in the end the culprit was always the finalize() method making use of JNI calls.
Hmmm, I once used it to clean up objects that weren't being returned to an existing pool.
They were passed around a lot, so it was impossible to tell when they could safely be returned to the pool. The problem was that it introduced a huge penalty during garbage collection that was far greater than any savings from pooling the objects. It was in production for about a month before I ripped out the whole pool, made everything dynamic and was done with it.
When writing code that will be used by other developers that requires some sort of "cleanup" method to be called to free up resources. Sometimes those other developers forget to call your cleanup (or close, or destroy, or whatever) method. To avoid possible resource leaks you can check in the finalize method to ensure that the method was called and if it wasn't you can call it yourself.
Many database drivers do this in their Statement and Connection implementations to provide a little safety against developers who forget to call close on them.
Edit: Okay, it really doesn't work. I implemented it and thought if it fails sometimes that's ok for me but it did not even call the finalize method a single time.
I am not a professional programmer but in my program I have a case that I think to be an example of a good case of using finalize(), that is a cache that writes its content to disk before it is destroyed. Because it is not necessary that it is executed every time on destruction, it does only speed up my program, I hope that it i didn't do it wrong.
#Override
public void finalize()
{
try {saveCache();} catch (Exception e) {e.printStackTrace();}
}
public void saveCache() throws FileNotFoundException, IOException
{
ObjectOutputStream out = new ObjectOutputStream(new FileOutputStream("temp/cache.tmp"));
out.writeObject(cache);
}
It can be handy to remove things that have been added to a global/static place (out of need), and need to be removed when the object is removed. For instance:
private void addGlobalClickListener() {
weakAwtEventListener = new WeakAWTEventListener(this);
Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().addAWTEventListener(weakAwtEventListener, AWTEvent.MOUSE_EVENT_MASK);
}
#Override
protected void finalize() throws Throwable {
super.finalize();
if(weakAwtEventListener != null) {
Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit().removeAWTEventListener(weakAwtEventListener);
}
}
The accepted answer lists that closing a resource during finalize can be done.
However this answer shows that at least in java8 with the JIT compiler, you run into unexpected issues where sometimes the finalizer is called even before you finish reading from a stream maintained by your object.
So even in that situation calling finalize would not be recommended.
iirc - you can use finalize method as a means of implementing a pooling mechanism for expensive resources - so they don't get GC's too.
As a side note:
An object that overrides finalize() is treated specially by the garbage collector. Usually, an object is immediately destroyed during the collection cycle after the object is no longer in scope. However, finalizable objects are instead moved to a queue, where separate finalization threads will drain the queue and run the finalize() method on each object. Once the finalize() method terminates, the object will at last be ready for garbage collection in the next cycle.
Source: finalize() deprecated on java-9
The resources (File, Socket, Stream etc.) need to be closed once we are done with them. They generally have close() method which we generally call in finally section of try-catch statements. Sometimes finalize() can also be used by few developers but IMO that is not a suitable way as there is no guarantee that finalize will be called always.
In Java 7 we have got try-with-resources statement which can be used like:
try (BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(path))) {
// Processing and other logic here.
} catch (Exception e) {
// log exception
} finally {
// Just in case we need to do some stuff here.
}
In the above example try-with-resource will automatically close the resource BufferedReader by invoking close() method. If we want we can also implement Closeable in our own classes and use it in similar way. IMO it seems more neat and simple to understand.
Personally, I almost never used finalize() except in one rare circumstance: I made a custom generic-type collection, and I wrote a custom finalize() method that does the following:
public void finalize() throws Throwable {
super.finalize();
if (destructiveFinalize) {
T item;
for (int i = 0, l = length(); i < l; i++) {
item = get(i);
if (item == null) {
continue;
}
if (item instanceof Window) {
((Window) get(i)).dispose();
}
if (item instanceof CompleteObject) {
((CompleteObject) get(i)).finalize();
}
set(i, null);
}
}
}
(CompleteObject is an interface I made that lets you specify that you've implemented rarely-implemented Object methods like #finalize(), #hashCode(), and #clone())
So, using a sister #setDestructivelyFinalizes(boolean) method, the program using my collection can (help) guarantee that destroying a reference to this collection also destroys references to its contents and disposes any windows that might keep the JVM alive unintentionally. I considered also stopping any threads, but that opened a whole new can of worms.
Situation:
Need a cache of an expensive-to-create and non-thread-safe external resource
The resource requires explicit clean up
The termination of each thread cannot be hooked, but that of the application can
The code also runs in a Servlet container, so caches that cause a strong reference from the system class loader (e.g. ThreadLocal) cannot be directly used (see edit below).
Thus to use a ThreadLocal, it can only hold WeakReferences to the resource and a separated collection of strong references has to be kept. The code quickly gets very complicated and creates a memory leak (as the strong reference is never removed after thread death).
ConcurrentHashMap seems to be a good suit, but it also suffers from the memory leak.
What other alternatives are there? A synchronised WeakHashMap??
(Hopefully the solution can also be automatically initialised using a given Supplier just like ThreadLocal.withInitial())
Edit:
Just to prove the class loader leak is a thing. Create a minimal WAR project with:
public class Test {
public static ThreadLocal<Test> test = ThreadLocal.withInitial(Test::new);
}
index.jsp:
<%= Test.test.get() %>
Visit the page and shutdown the Tomcat and you get:
Aug 21, 2015 5:56:11 PM org.apache.catalina.loader.WebappClassLoaderBase checkThreadLocalMapForLeaks
SEVERE: The web application [test] created a ThreadLocal with key of type [java.lang.ThreadLocal.SuppliedThreadLocal] (value [java.lang.ThreadLocal$SuppliedThreadLocal#54e69987]) and a value of type [test.Test] (value [test.Test#2a98020a]) but failed to remove it when the web application was stopped. Threads are going to be renewed over time to try and avoid a probable memory leak.
That seems to be the typical “weak key, strong value referencing the key” problem. If you make the value weak, it can be collected even if the key is reachable, if you make it strong, the key is strongly reachable as well. This can’t be solved without a direct support by the JVM.
Thankfully there is a class which offers that (though it’s not emphasized in its documentation):
java.lang.ClassValue:
Lazily associate a computed value with (potentially) every type. For example, if a dynamic language needs to construct a message dispatch table for each class encountered at a message send call site, it can use a ClassValue to cache information needed to perform the message send quickly, for each class encountered.
While this documentation doesn’t say that the values may refer to the Class key, it’s intended use case of holding dispatch tables for a class implies that it is typical to have values with back-references.
Let’s demonstrate it with a small test class:
public class ClassValueTest extends ClassValue<Method> {
#Override
protected Method computeValue(Class<?> type) {
System.out.println("computeValue");
return Arrays.stream(type.getDeclaredMethods())
.filter(m->Modifier.isPublic(m.getModifiers()))
.findFirst().orElse(null);
}
public static void main(String... arg) throws Throwable {
// create a collectible class:
MethodHandles.Lookup l=MethodHandles.lookup();
MethodType noArg = MethodType.methodType(void.class);
MethodHandle println = l.findVirtual(
PrintStream.class, "println", MethodType.methodType(void.class, String.class));
Runnable r=(Runnable)LambdaMetafactory.metafactory(l, "run",
println.type().changeReturnType(Runnable.class), noArg, println, noArg)
.getTarget().invokeExact(System.out, "hello world");
r.run();
WeakReference<Class<?>> ref=new WeakReference<>(r.getClass());
ClassValueTest test=new ClassValueTest();
// compute and get
System.out.println(test.get(r.getClass()));
// verify that the value is cached, should not compute
System.out.println(test.get(r.getClass()));
// allow freeing
r=null;
System.gc();
if(ref.get()==null) System.out.println("collected");
// ensure that it is not our cache instance that has been collected
System.out.println(test.get(String.class));
}
}
On my machine it printed:
hello world
computeValue
public void ClassValueTest$$Lambda$1/789451787.run()
public void ClassValueTest$$Lambda$1/789451787.run()
collected
computeValue
public boolean java.lang.String.equals(java.lang.Object)
To explain, this test creates an anonymous class, just like lambda expressions produce, which can be garbage collected. Then it uses the ClassValueTest instance to cache a Method object of that Class. Since Method instances have a reference to their declaring class, we have the situation of a value referring to its key here.
Still, after the class is not used anymore, it gets collected, which implies that the associated value has been collected too. So its immune to backreferences of the value to the key.
The last test using another class just ensures that we are not a victim of eager garbage collection as described here as we are still using the cache instance itself.
This class associates a single value with a class, not a value per thread, but it should be possible to combine ClassValue with ThreadLocal to get the desired result.
I'd propose to get rid of ThreadLocal and WeakReference stuff altogether, because, as you say, resources are not bound to specific threads, they just cannot be accessed from several threads simultaneously.
Instead, have a global cache, Map <Key, Collection <Resource>>. Cache contains only resources that are free for use at the moment.
Threads would first request an available resource from the cache. If present (this, of course, should be synchronized, as the cache is global), arbitrary resource is removed from the collection for that key and given to the thread. Otherwise, a new one for that key is built and also given to the thread.
When a thread finishes using a resource, it should return it to the cache, i.e. add to the collection mapped to resource key. From there it can be used by the same thread again, or even by a different thread.
Advantages:
Cache is global, trivial to shut down all allocated resources when application quits.
Hardly any potential for memory leaks, code should be pretty concise.
Threads can share resources (provided they need the same resource at different time), potentially decreasing demand.
Disadvantages:
Requires synchronization (but likely cheap and not difficult to code).
Maybe some others, depending on what exactly you do.
I am not sure about the problem you are talking about. Please take a look at: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem
Some Questions:
How is the resource referenced?
What is the interface to the resource?
What data should be cached at all?
What is a "non-thread safe resource"
How often is the resource retrieved?
How long is the access to one resource, what level of concurrency is there?
Is one thread using the resource many times and this is the reason for the intended caching?
Are many threads using the same resource (instance)?
Can there be many instances of the same resource type, since the actual instance is not thread safe?
How many resources you have?
Is it many resource instances of the same type or different types?
Maybe you can try to remove the words ThreadLocal, WeakReference, ConcurrentHashMap from your question?
Some (wild) guess:
From what I can read between the lines, it seems to me that it is a straight forward use case for a Java cache. E.g. you can use Google Guava cache and add a removal listener for the explicit cleanup.
Since the resource is not thread safe you need to implement a locking mechanism. This can be done by putting a lock object into the cached object.
If you need more concurrency, create more resources of the same type and augment the cache key with the hash of the thread modulo the level of concurrency you like to have.
While researching the weak concurrent map idea, I found that it's implemented in Guava's Cache.
I used the current thread as the weak key and an CacheLoader is supplied to automatically create the resource for each new thread.
A removal listener is also added, so that each thread's resource will be automatically cleaned up after the Thread object is GC'ed or when I call the invalidateAll() method during shut-down.
Most of the configuration above can also be done in a one liner (with lambdas).
I read an small article at some point about adding some callbacks to WeakReference objects that would be triggered upon garbage collection. Now, no mater how much I search, I cannot find it.
I need a way to execute some code whenever a weak referenced object is destroyed. I know that it can be done, I just don't remember how or whether I need a WeakReference or something else like a WeakHasMap?
Use ReferenceQueues to archieve that. You might want to look into PhantomReferences, too, depending on what you're actually trying to do (but WeakReferences work with the queues, too). Just create a reference queue and pass it as a second argument to the reference-constructor. When the GC remove the object, the reference is enqueued and you can get it using remove() (blocking) or poll() (non-blocking) on your queue.
There is an alternative: implementing finalize. It'S much less flexible though and runs in another thread, too (so you still have concurrency - with the addition of not even knowing which thread will execute it). The ReferenceQueue is superiour in all aspects.
This question already has answers here:
Why would you ever implement finalize()?
(21 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Where we need to override finalize() method in java when we don't have idea when finalize() method for any given object might be run?What type of resources we can close in finalize()?What is the best chances when GC will called finalize() method?
it's best to close resources in a close method that you call manually. finalize only gets called when the object is being garbage collected, which might not be until long after you are done using the object.
The only reason I have ever overridden finalize was to debug memory usage in my app where some objects weren't getting collected.
Firstly,The purpose of finalization is to give an unreachable object the opportunity to perform any cleanup, before the object gets garbage collected.
For example, Closing an opened database connection.
The finailze() method should be overridden for an object to include the clean up code or to dispose of the system resources that should to be done before the object is garbage collected.
About What is the best chances when GC will called finalize() method?, There are two ways in which we can request the JVM to execute the Garbage Collection:
Runtime.getRuntime().gc();
System.gc();
What type of resources we can close in finalize(), the answer is in two situation:
Set all availabel object references to null after the purpose of
creating the object is done.
Make the reference variable to refer to another object: Decouple the reference variable from the object and set it refer to another object, so the object which it was referring to before reassigning is eligible for Grabage Collection.
You should override finalize when your class has resources that won't be cleaned up by the GC, such as file handles or database connections. These resources should be cleaned up in the application code since, as you said, we don't have any idea when finalize will be run, however it's a good idea to also clean up these resources in the finalizer in case the programmer screwed up and left the resources open (if the resources are still open when finalize runs then log this as a warning or as an error since this means that the application code isn't cleaning up resources correctly).
.NET lets you suppress the finalizer if the programmer correctly cleaned up the object's resources by e.g. calling dispose, but unfortunately I don't think that Java allows for an analogous pattern.
From my notes:
Methods named finalize() are called before the object is garbage-collected. There is no need to free any objects, but some other resources (e.g. open file descriptors) may need to be freed.
protected void finalize() {
if( fd != null ) {
try {
closeIt() ;
} catch (IOException e) {
// print an error something, or otherwise try to recover
}
}
}
Theoretically, a finalizer might do something to prevent an object from being garbage-collected (e.g. store "this" in some reference). This is never a useful thing to do.
Unlike constructors, finalizers are not automatically chained. It's a very good idea to chain them manually, preferably at the end of the finalizer:
protected void finalize() {
// free resources consumed by this class
// chain upward:
super.finalize() ;
}
For the most part, you almost never need to write a finalizer().
Edit: an earlier version of this answer declared finalize() as throwing IOException. In retrospect, that's probably a very bad idea; I don't know what I was thinking.
Is there a destructor for Java? I don't seem to be able to find any documentation on this. If there isn't, how can I achieve the same effect?
To make my question more specific, I am writing an application that deals with data and the specification say that there should be a 'reset' button that brings the application back to its original just launched state. However, all data have to be 'live' unless the application is closed or reset button is pressed.
Being usually a C/C++ programmer, I thought this would be trivial to implement. (And hence I planned to implement it last.) I structured my program such that all the 'reset-able' objects would be in the same class so that I can just destroy all 'live' objects when a reset button is pressed.
I was thinking if all I did was just to dereference the data and wait for the garbage collector to collect them, wouldn't there be a memory leak if my user repeatedly entered data and pressed the reset button? I was also thinking since Java is quite mature as a language, there should be a way to prevent this from happening or gracefully tackle this.
Because Java is a garbage collected language you cannot predict when (or even if) an object will be destroyed. Hence there is no direct equivalent of a destructor.
There is an inherited method called finalize, but this is called entirely at the discretion of the garbage collector. So for classes that need to explicitly tidy up, the convention is to define a close method and use finalize only for sanity checking (i.e. if close has not been called do it now and log an error).
There was a question that spawned in-depth discussion of finalize recently, so that should provide more depth if required...
Have a look at the try-with-resources statement. For example:
try (BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(path))) {
System.out.println(br.readLine());
} catch (Exception e) {
...
} finally {
...
}
Here the resource that is no longer needed is freed in the BufferedReader.close() method. You can create your own class that implements AutoCloseable and use it in a similar fashion.
This statement is more limited than finalize in terms of code structuring, but at the same time it makes the code simpler to understand and maintain. Also, there is no guarantee that a finalize method is called at all during the livetime of the application.
Nope, no destructors here. The reason is that all Java objects are heap allocated and garbage collected. Without explicit deallocation (i.e. C++'s delete operator) there is no sensible way to implement real destructors.
Java does support finalizers, but they are meant to be used only as a safeguard for objects holding a handle to native resources like sockets, file handles, window handles, etc. When the garbage collector collects an object without a finalizer it simply marks the memory region as free and that's it. When the object has a finalizer, it's first copied into a temporary location (remember, we're garbage collecting here), then it's enqueued into a waiting-to-be-finalized queue and then a Finalizer thread polls the queue with very low priority and runs the finalizer.
When the application exits, the JVM stops without waiting for the pending objects to be finalized, so there practically no guarantees that your finalizers will ever run.
Use of finalize() methods should be avoided. They are not a reliable mechanism for resource clean up and it is possible to cause problems in the garbage collector by abusing them.
If you require a deallocation call in your object, say to release resources, use an explicit method call. This convention can be seen in existing APIs (e.g. Closeable, Graphics.dispose(), Widget.dispose()) and is usually called via try/finally.
Resource r = new Resource();
try {
//work
} finally {
r.dispose();
}
Attempts to use a disposed object should throw a runtime exception (see IllegalStateException).
EDIT:
I was thinking, if all I did was just
to dereference the data and wait for
the garbage collector to collect them,
wouldn't there be a memory leak if my
user repeatedly entered data and
pressed the reset button?
Generally, all you need to do is dereference the objects - at least, this is the way it is supposed to work. If you are worried about garbage collection, check out Java SE 6 HotSpot[tm] Virtual Machine Garbage Collection Tuning (or the equivalent document for your JVM version).
With Java 1.7 released, you now have the additional option of using the try-with-resources block. For example,
public class Closeable implements AutoCloseable {
#Override
public void close() {
System.out.println("closing...");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
try (Closeable c = new Closeable()) {
System.out.println("trying...");
throw new Exception("throwing...");
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("catching...");
}
finally {
System.out.println("finalizing...");
}
}
}
If you execute this class, c.close() will be executed when the try block is left, and before the catch and finally blocks are executed. Unlike in the case of the finalize() method, close() is guaranteed to be executed. However, there is no need of executing it explicitly in the finally clause.
I fully agree to other answers, saying not to rely on the execution of finalize.
In addition to try-catch-finally blocks, you may use Runtime#addShutdownHook (introduced in Java 1.3) to perform final cleanups in your program.
That isn't the same as destructors are, but one may implement a shutdown hook having listener objects registered on which cleanup methods (close persistent database connections, remove file locks, and so on) can be invoked - things that would normally be done in destructors.
Again - this is not a replacement for destructors but in some cases, you can approach the wanted functionality with this.
The advantage of this is having deconstruction behavior loosely coupled from the rest of your program.
No, java.lang.Object#finalize is the closest you can get.
However, when (and if) it is called, is not guaranteed.
See: java.lang.Runtime#runFinalizersOnExit(boolean)
I agree with most of the answers.
You should not depend fully on either finalize or ShutdownHook
finalize
The JVM does not guarantee when this finalize() method will be invoked.
finalize() gets called only once by GC thread. If an object revives itself from finalizing method, then finalize will not be called again.
In your application, you may have some live objects, on which garbage collection is never invoked.
Any Exception that is thrown by the finalizing method is ignored by the GC thread
System.runFinalization(true) and Runtime.getRuntime().runFinalization(true) methods increase the probability of invoking finalize() method but now these two methods have been deprecated. These methods are very dangerous due to lack of thread safety and possible deadlock creation.
shutdownHooks
public void addShutdownHook(Thread hook)
Registers a new virtual-machine shutdown hook.
The Java virtual machine shuts down in response to two kinds of events:
The program exits normally, when the last non-daemon thread exits or when the exit (equivalently, System.exit) method is invoked, or
The virtual machine is terminated in response to a user interrupt, such as typing ^C, or a system-wide event, such as user logoff or system shutdown.
A shutdown hook is simply an initialized but non-started thread. When the virtual machine begins its shutdown sequence it will start all registered shutdown hooks in some unspecified order and let them run concurrently. When all the hooks have finished it will then run all uninvoked finalizers if finalization-on-exit has been enabled.
Finally, the virtual machine will halt. Note that daemon threads will continue to run during the shutdown sequence, as will non-daemon threads if the shutdown was initiated by invoking the exit method.
Shutdown hooks should also finish their work quickly. When a program invokes exit the expectation is that the virtual machine will promptly shut down and exit.
But even Oracle documentation quoted that
In rare circumstances the virtual machine may abort, that is, stop running without shutting down cleanly
This occurs when the virtual machine is terminated externally, for example with the SIGKILL signal on Unix or the TerminateProcess call on Microsoft Windows. The virtual machine may also abort if a native method goes awry by, for example, corrupting internal data structures or attempting to access nonexistent memory. If the virtual machine aborts then no guarantee can be made about whether or not any shutdown hooks will be run.
Conclusion : use try{} catch{} finally{} blocks appropriately and release critical resources in finally(} block. During release of resources in finally{} block, catch Exception and Throwable.
First, note that since Java is garbage-collected, it is rare to need to do anything about object destruction. Firstly because you don't usually have any managed resources to free, and secondly because you can't predict when or if it will happen, so it's inappropriate for things that you need to occur "as soon as nobody is using my object any more".
You can be notified after an object has been destroyed using java.lang.ref.PhantomReference (actually, saying it has been destroyed may be slightly inaccurate, but if a phantom reference to it is queued then it's no longer recoverable, which usually amounts to the same thing). A common use is:
Separate out the resource(s) in your class that need to be destructed into another helper object (note that if all you're doing is closing a connection, which is a common case, you don't need to write a new class: the connection to be closed would be the "helper object" in that case).
When you create your main object, create also a PhantomReference to it. Either have this refer to the new helper object, or set up a map from PhantomReference objects to their corresponding helper objects.
After the main object is collected, the PhantomReference is queued (or rather it may be queued - like finalizers there is no guarantee it ever will be, for example if the VM exits then it won't wait). Make sure you're processing its queue (either in a special thread or from time to time). Because of the hard reference to the helper object, the helper object has not yet been collected. So do whatever cleanup you like on the helper object, then discard the PhantomReference and the helper will eventually be collected too.
There is also finalize(), which looks like a destructor but doesn't behave like one. It's usually not a good option.
The finalize() function is the destructor.
However, it should not be normally used because it is invoked after the GC and you can't tell when that will happen (if ever).
Moreover, it takes more than one GC to deallocate objects that have finalize().
You should try to clean up in the logical places in your code using the try{...} finally{...} statements!
If it's just memory you are worried about, don't. Just trust the GC it does a decent job. I actually saw something about it being so efficient that it could be better for performance to create heaps of tiny objects than to utilize large arrays in some instances.
Perhaps you can use a try ... finally block to finalize the object in the control flow at which you are using the object. Of course it doesn't happen automatically, but neither does destruction in C++. You often see closing of resources in the finally block.
There is a #Cleanup annotation in Lombok that mostly resembles C++ destructors:
#Cleanup
ResourceClass resource = new ResourceClass();
When processing it (at compilation time), Lombok inserts appropriate try-finally block so that resource.close() is invoked, when execution leaves the scope of the variable. You can also specify explicitly another method for releasing the resource, e.g. resource.dispose():
#Cleanup("dispose")
ResourceClass resource = new ResourceClass();
The closest equivalent to a destructor in Java is the finalize() method. The big difference to a traditional destructor is that you can't be sure when it'll be called, since that's the responsibility of the garbage collector. I'd strongly recommend carefully reading up on this before using it, since your typical RAIA patterns for file handles and so on won't work reliably with finalize().
Just thinking about the original question... which, I think we can conclude from all the other learned answers, and also from Bloch's essential Effective Java, item 7, "Avoid finalizers", seeks the solution to a legitimate question in a manner which is inappropriate to the Java language...:
... wouldn't a pretty obvious solution to do what the OP actually wants be to keep all your objects which need to be reset in a sort of "playpen", to which all other non-resettable objects have references only through some sort of accessor object...
And then when you need to "reset" you disconnect the existing playpen and make a new one: all the web of objects in the playpen is cast adrift, never to return, and one day to be collected by the GC.
If any of these objects are Closeable (or not, but have a close method) you could put them in a Bag in the playpen as they are created (and possibly opened), and the last act of the accessor before cutting off the playpen would be to go through all the Closeables closing them... ?
The code would probably look something like this:
accessor.getPlaypen().closeCloseables();
accessor.setPlaypen( new Playpen() );
closeCloseables would probably be a blocking method, probably involving a latch (e.g. CountdownLatch), to deal with (and wait as appropriate for) any Runnables/Callables in any threads specific to the Playpen to be ended as appropriate, in particular in the JavaFX thread.
Many great answers here, but there is some additional information about why you should avoid using finalize().
If the JVM exits due to System.exit() or Runtime.getRuntime().exit(), finalizers will not be run by default. From Javadoc for Runtime.exit():
The virtual machine's shutdown sequence consists of two phases. In the first phase all registered shutdown hooks, if any, are started in some unspecified order and allowed to run concurrently until they finish. In the second phase all uninvoked finalizers are run if finalization-on-exit has been enabled. Once this is done the virtual machine halts.
You can call System.runFinalization() but it only makes "a best effort to complete all outstanding finalizations" – not a guarantee.
There is a System.runFinalizersOnExit() method, but don't use it – it's unsafe, deprecated long ago.
If you got the chance of using a Contexts and Dependency Injection (CDI) framework such as Weld you can use the Java annotation #Predestroy for doing cleanup jobs etc.
#javax.enterprise.context.ApplicationScoped
public class Foo {
#javax.annotation.PreDestroy
public void cleanup() {
// do your cleanup
}
}
Though there have been considerable advancements in Java's GC technology, you still need to be mindful of your references. Numerous cases of seemingly trivial reference patterns that are actually rats nests under the hood come to mind.
From your post it doesn't sound like you're trying to implement a reset method for the purpose of object reuse (true?). Are your objects holding any other type of resources that need to be cleaned up (i.e., streams that must be closed, any pooled or borrowed objects that must be returned)? If the only thing you're worried about is memory dealloc then I would reconsider my object structure and attempt to verify that my objects are self contained structures that will be cleaned up at GC time.
If you're writing a Java Applet, you can override the Applet "destroy()" method. It is...
* Called by the browser or applet viewer to inform
* this applet that it is being reclaimed and that it should destroy
* any resources that it has allocated. The stop() method
* will always be called before destroy().
Obviously not what you want, but might be what other people are looking for.
No Java doesn't have any destructors .The main reason behind it in Java is the Garbage Collectors that passively works in the background always and all the objects are made in the heap memory , that is the place where GC works .In c++ there we have to explicitly call the delete function since there is no Garbage collector like thing.
In Java, the garbage collector automatically deletes the unused objects to free up the memory. So it’s sensible Java has no destructors available.
Try calling the onDestroy() method when it comes to android programming. This is the last method that executed just before the Activity/Service class is killed.
Missing form all the answers I just scanned is the safer replacement for finalizers. All of the other answers are correct about using try-with-resources and avoiding finalizers as they are unreliable and are now deprecated...
However they haven't mentioned Cleaners. Cleaners were added in Java 9 to explicitly handle the job of cleanup in a better way than finalizers.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/ref/Cleaner.html
I used to mainly deal with C++ and that is what lead me to the search of a destructor as well. I am using JAVA a lot now. What I did, and it may not be the best case for everyone, but I implemented my own destructor by reseting all the values to either 0 or there default through a function.
Example:
public myDestructor() {
variableA = 0; //INT
variableB = 0.0; //DOUBLE & FLOAT
variableC = "NO NAME ENTERED"; //TEXT & STRING
variableD = false; //BOOL
}
Ideally this won't work for all situations, but where there are global variables it will work as long as you don't have a ton of them.
I know I am not the best Java programmer, but it seems to be working for me.