Related
What is the specific reason that clone() is defined as protected in java.lang.Object?
The fact that clone is protected is extremely dubious - as is the fact that the clone method is not declared in the Cloneable interface.
It makes the method pretty useless for taking copies of data because you cannot say:
if(a instanceof Cloneable) {
copy = ((Cloneable) a).clone();
}
I think that the design of Cloneable is now largely regarded as a mistake (citation below). I would normally want to be able to make implementations of an interface Cloneable but not necessarily make the interface Cloneable (similar to the use of Serializable). This cannot be done without reflection:
ISomething i = ...
if (i instanceof Cloneable) {
//DAMN! I Need to know about ISomethingImpl! Unless...
copy = (ISomething) i.getClass().getMethod("clone").invoke(i);
}
Citation From Josh Bloch's Effective Java:
"The Cloneable interface was intended as a mixin interface for objects to advertise that they permit cloning. Unfortunately it fails to serve this purpose ... This is a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated ... In order for implementing the interface to have any effect on a class, it and all of its superclasses must obey a fairly complex, unenforceable and largely undocumented protocol"
The Clonable interface is just a marker saying the class can support clone. The method is protected because you shouldn't call it on object, you can (and should) override it as public.
From Sun:
In class Object, the clone() method is declared protected. If all you do is implement Cloneable, only subclasses and members of the same package will be able to invoke clone() on the object. To enable any class in any package to access the clone() method, you'll have to override it and declare it public, as is done below. (When you override a method, you can make it less private, but not more private. Here, the protected clone() method in Object is being overridden as a public method.)
clone is protected because it is something that ought to be overridden so that it is specific to the current class. While it would be possible to create a public clone method that would clone any object at all this would not be as good as a method written specifically for the class that needs it.
The Clone method can't be directly used on any object, which is why it is intended to be overriden by the subclass.
Of course it could be public and just throw an appropriate exception when cloning is not possible, but i think that would be misleading.
The way clone is implemented right now makes you think about why you want to use clone, and how you want your object to be cloned.
IMHO it's as simple as this:
#clone must not be called on non-cloneable objects, therefore it is not made public
#clone has to be called by subclasses ob Object that implement Cloneable to get the shallow copy of the right class
What's the right scope for methods that shall be callable by subclasses, but not by other classes?
It's protected.
Classes implementing Cloneable of course will make this method public so it can be called from other classes.
It is protected because the default implementation does a shallow memberwise copy of all fields (including private), circumventing constructor. This is not something an object might be designed to handle in the first place (for example, it might keep track of created object instances in a shared list, or something similar).
For the same reason, the default implementation of clone() will throw if the object it's called on doesn't implement Cloneable. It's a potentially unsafe operation with far-reaching consequences, and therefore author of the class must explicitly opt-in.
From the javadoc of cloneable.
* By convention, classes that implement this interface (cloneable) should override
* <tt>Object.clone</tt> (which is protected) with a public method.
* See {#link java.lang.Object#clone()} for details on overriding this
* method.
* Note that this interface does <i>not</i> contain the <tt>clone</tt> method.
* Therefore, it is not possible to clone an object merely by virtue of the
* fact that it implements this interface. Even if the clone method is invoked
* reflectively, there is no guarantee that it will succeed.
So you could call clone on every object but this would give you most of the time not the results you want or an exception. But is only encouraged if you implement cloneable.
Clone() method has a check internally 'instance of Cloneable or not'.This is how Java team might thought will restrict the improper use of clone() method.clone() method is protected i.e. accessed by subclasses only. Since object is the parent class of all sub classes, so Clone() method can be used by all classes infact if we don't have above check of 'instance of Cloneable'. This is the reason Java team might have thought to restrict the improper use of clone() by having the check in the clone() method 'is it instance of Cloneable'.
Hence whatever classes implement cloneable can use clone() method of Object class.
Also since it made protected, it is available to only those sub classes that implements cloneable interface. If we want to make it public, this method has to be overridden by the sub class with their own implementation of it.
Yes, same problem that I met.
But I solve it by implementing this code
public class Side implements Cloneable {
public Side clone() {
Side side = null;
try {
side = (Side) super.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
return side;
}
}
Just as the before someone said.
Well, also the sun developers are only human, and they did indeed make huge mistake to implement the clone method as protected, the same mistake as they implemented a non-functioning clone method in ArrayList! So, in general, there exist a much deeper misunderstanding of even experienced Java programmers about the clone method.
However, I've recently found a fast and easy solution to copy any object with all its content, no matter how it is built and what it contains, see my answer here: Bug in using Object.clone()
Again, Java JDK framework shows brilliant thinking:
Cloneable interface does not contain a "public T clone();" method because it acts more like an attribute (eg. Serializable) which allows an instance it to be cloned.
There is nothing wrong with this design because:
Object.clone() will not do what you want with your custom-defined class.
If you have Myclass implements Cloneable => you overwrite clone() with
"public MyClass clone()"
If you have MyInterface extends Cloneable and some MyClasses implementing MyInterface:
simply define "public MyInterface clone();" in the interface and every method using MyInterface objects will be able to clone them, no matter their MyClass-class.
What is the specific reason that clone() is defined as protected in java.lang.Object?
The fact that clone is protected is extremely dubious - as is the fact that the clone method is not declared in the Cloneable interface.
It makes the method pretty useless for taking copies of data because you cannot say:
if(a instanceof Cloneable) {
copy = ((Cloneable) a).clone();
}
I think that the design of Cloneable is now largely regarded as a mistake (citation below). I would normally want to be able to make implementations of an interface Cloneable but not necessarily make the interface Cloneable (similar to the use of Serializable). This cannot be done without reflection:
ISomething i = ...
if (i instanceof Cloneable) {
//DAMN! I Need to know about ISomethingImpl! Unless...
copy = (ISomething) i.getClass().getMethod("clone").invoke(i);
}
Citation From Josh Bloch's Effective Java:
"The Cloneable interface was intended as a mixin interface for objects to advertise that they permit cloning. Unfortunately it fails to serve this purpose ... This is a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated ... In order for implementing the interface to have any effect on a class, it and all of its superclasses must obey a fairly complex, unenforceable and largely undocumented protocol"
The Clonable interface is just a marker saying the class can support clone. The method is protected because you shouldn't call it on object, you can (and should) override it as public.
From Sun:
In class Object, the clone() method is declared protected. If all you do is implement Cloneable, only subclasses and members of the same package will be able to invoke clone() on the object. To enable any class in any package to access the clone() method, you'll have to override it and declare it public, as is done below. (When you override a method, you can make it less private, but not more private. Here, the protected clone() method in Object is being overridden as a public method.)
clone is protected because it is something that ought to be overridden so that it is specific to the current class. While it would be possible to create a public clone method that would clone any object at all this would not be as good as a method written specifically for the class that needs it.
The Clone method can't be directly used on any object, which is why it is intended to be overriden by the subclass.
Of course it could be public and just throw an appropriate exception when cloning is not possible, but i think that would be misleading.
The way clone is implemented right now makes you think about why you want to use clone, and how you want your object to be cloned.
IMHO it's as simple as this:
#clone must not be called on non-cloneable objects, therefore it is not made public
#clone has to be called by subclasses ob Object that implement Cloneable to get the shallow copy of the right class
What's the right scope for methods that shall be callable by subclasses, but not by other classes?
It's protected.
Classes implementing Cloneable of course will make this method public so it can be called from other classes.
It is protected because the default implementation does a shallow memberwise copy of all fields (including private), circumventing constructor. This is not something an object might be designed to handle in the first place (for example, it might keep track of created object instances in a shared list, or something similar).
For the same reason, the default implementation of clone() will throw if the object it's called on doesn't implement Cloneable. It's a potentially unsafe operation with far-reaching consequences, and therefore author of the class must explicitly opt-in.
From the javadoc of cloneable.
* By convention, classes that implement this interface (cloneable) should override
* <tt>Object.clone</tt> (which is protected) with a public method.
* See {#link java.lang.Object#clone()} for details on overriding this
* method.
* Note that this interface does <i>not</i> contain the <tt>clone</tt> method.
* Therefore, it is not possible to clone an object merely by virtue of the
* fact that it implements this interface. Even if the clone method is invoked
* reflectively, there is no guarantee that it will succeed.
So you could call clone on every object but this would give you most of the time not the results you want or an exception. But is only encouraged if you implement cloneable.
Clone() method has a check internally 'instance of Cloneable or not'.This is how Java team might thought will restrict the improper use of clone() method.clone() method is protected i.e. accessed by subclasses only. Since object is the parent class of all sub classes, so Clone() method can be used by all classes infact if we don't have above check of 'instance of Cloneable'. This is the reason Java team might have thought to restrict the improper use of clone() by having the check in the clone() method 'is it instance of Cloneable'.
Hence whatever classes implement cloneable can use clone() method of Object class.
Also since it made protected, it is available to only those sub classes that implements cloneable interface. If we want to make it public, this method has to be overridden by the sub class with their own implementation of it.
Yes, same problem that I met.
But I solve it by implementing this code
public class Side implements Cloneable {
public Side clone() {
Side side = null;
try {
side = (Side) super.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
return side;
}
}
Just as the before someone said.
Well, also the sun developers are only human, and they did indeed make huge mistake to implement the clone method as protected, the same mistake as they implemented a non-functioning clone method in ArrayList! So, in general, there exist a much deeper misunderstanding of even experienced Java programmers about the clone method.
However, I've recently found a fast and easy solution to copy any object with all its content, no matter how it is built and what it contains, see my answer here: Bug in using Object.clone()
Again, Java JDK framework shows brilliant thinking:
Cloneable interface does not contain a "public T clone();" method because it acts more like an attribute (eg. Serializable) which allows an instance it to be cloned.
There is nothing wrong with this design because:
Object.clone() will not do what you want with your custom-defined class.
If you have Myclass implements Cloneable => you overwrite clone() with
"public MyClass clone()"
If you have MyInterface extends Cloneable and some MyClasses implementing MyInterface:
simply define "public MyInterface clone();" in the interface and every method using MyInterface objects will be able to clone them, no matter their MyClass-class.
I know this question has been asked so many times.
First of all Object.clone() method in java is native method i.e. it is implemented in JVM and user doesn't need to know about it's implementation.
My question is whether this method is abstract too. If not why it has to be overridden in the class that we want to clone.
And one more question .
It is overridden as follows
public Object clone() {
MyClass obj;
try {
obj = (MyClass)super.clone();
} catch(CloneNotSupportedException e) {
Statements
}
return obj;
}
In the 4th line of this code we called , super.clone() method , which clone() method are we calling in this line and if Object.clone() method why did we override it , we can simply cast it wherever we want to clone the Object like
MyClass obj2 = (MyClass)obj1.clone();
and is their any way to know the coding of Object.clone() method?
A method cannot be native and abstract at the same time because native is a statement about a specific implementation of a method;
clone must be overridden at least because Object#clone is protected to prevent access to clients in the case the object does not support cloning;
in many cases clone needs to do more than Object#clone, which just makes a binary copy of the original, which amounts to a shallow clone, with all the referenced objects staying the same;
there's no point in catching CloneNotSupportedException in the subclass: you should already know whether the superclass does or doesn't support cloning (it is not something which can change at runtime).
Object.clone() is not abstract. Overriding it when implementing Clonable is just a convention. (Clonable is a marker interface - like Serializable etc.)
Overriding methods (should) always call Object.clone() directly or indirectly.
I think, casting it is not necessary because Object.clone() preserves the exact class. If you catch the CloneNotSupportedException you could even return MyClass.
As Object.clone() is implemented natively you would have to look at the sources of some JVM implementation like OpenJDK.
My question is whether it's abstract too
No it isn't, and the Javadoc already tells you that, as does the fact that Object itself isn't abstract, and it 'doesn't have to be overridden in the class we want to clone' unless you want to change the access permission, which has nothing to do with 'abstract': and you couldn't call 'super.clone()' in such an override unless it wasn't abstract.
In short, your question doesn't make much sense.
I am not fully understanding the idea of returning super.clone() in the clone() method of a class. First of all, wouldn't that relate to it returning an object that is a superclass which contains LESS data than requested, because a superclass "is not a" subclass, but a subclass "is a" superclass. And if there were a long chain of subclasses, each calling super.clone(), why wouldn't that lead to it eventually calling Object.clone() at the root of the chain, which isn't any of the subclasses?
Sorry if that was confusing; I confuse myself sometimes
The implementation of clone() in Object checks if the actual class implements Cloneable, and creates an instance of that actual class.
So if you want to make your class cloneable, you have to implement Cloneable and downcast the result of super.clone() to your class. Another burden is that the call to super.clone() can throw a CloneNotSupportedException that you have to catch, even though you know it won't happen (since your class implements Cloneable).
The Cloneable interface and the clone method on the Object class are an obvious case of object-oriented design gone wrong.
Consider this: you have a chain of inheriting classes. each may (or may not) have its own variables. what clone does, as opposed to the equals operator (==) that duplicates the reference, is a cloned copy of the object with a new reference.
For the example above, you would like to clone the last object in the chain.
As the last object is constructed of its superclasses, where each may have a different cloning method implementation, it makes a lot of sense to call the superclass implementation of clone to receive first a cloned parent object before cloning own object.
Another terms that are usually associated with cloning is shallow and deep cloning.
shallow cloning refer to the creation of an exact replica of an object, while deep cloning creates a replica of an object and any child object that the original object refers to.
More on cloning at this link
Read the javadoc of Object.clone() more carefully : it returns a copy of the object. The copy is another instance of the same class as that of the object on which clone is invoked. I.e. foo.clone().getClass() == foo.getClass().
What is the specific reason that clone() is defined as protected in java.lang.Object?
The fact that clone is protected is extremely dubious - as is the fact that the clone method is not declared in the Cloneable interface.
It makes the method pretty useless for taking copies of data because you cannot say:
if(a instanceof Cloneable) {
copy = ((Cloneable) a).clone();
}
I think that the design of Cloneable is now largely regarded as a mistake (citation below). I would normally want to be able to make implementations of an interface Cloneable but not necessarily make the interface Cloneable (similar to the use of Serializable). This cannot be done without reflection:
ISomething i = ...
if (i instanceof Cloneable) {
//DAMN! I Need to know about ISomethingImpl! Unless...
copy = (ISomething) i.getClass().getMethod("clone").invoke(i);
}
Citation From Josh Bloch's Effective Java:
"The Cloneable interface was intended as a mixin interface for objects to advertise that they permit cloning. Unfortunately it fails to serve this purpose ... This is a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated ... In order for implementing the interface to have any effect on a class, it and all of its superclasses must obey a fairly complex, unenforceable and largely undocumented protocol"
The Clonable interface is just a marker saying the class can support clone. The method is protected because you shouldn't call it on object, you can (and should) override it as public.
From Sun:
In class Object, the clone() method is declared protected. If all you do is implement Cloneable, only subclasses and members of the same package will be able to invoke clone() on the object. To enable any class in any package to access the clone() method, you'll have to override it and declare it public, as is done below. (When you override a method, you can make it less private, but not more private. Here, the protected clone() method in Object is being overridden as a public method.)
clone is protected because it is something that ought to be overridden so that it is specific to the current class. While it would be possible to create a public clone method that would clone any object at all this would not be as good as a method written specifically for the class that needs it.
The Clone method can't be directly used on any object, which is why it is intended to be overriden by the subclass.
Of course it could be public and just throw an appropriate exception when cloning is not possible, but i think that would be misleading.
The way clone is implemented right now makes you think about why you want to use clone, and how you want your object to be cloned.
IMHO it's as simple as this:
#clone must not be called on non-cloneable objects, therefore it is not made public
#clone has to be called by subclasses ob Object that implement Cloneable to get the shallow copy of the right class
What's the right scope for methods that shall be callable by subclasses, but not by other classes?
It's protected.
Classes implementing Cloneable of course will make this method public so it can be called from other classes.
It is protected because the default implementation does a shallow memberwise copy of all fields (including private), circumventing constructor. This is not something an object might be designed to handle in the first place (for example, it might keep track of created object instances in a shared list, or something similar).
For the same reason, the default implementation of clone() will throw if the object it's called on doesn't implement Cloneable. It's a potentially unsafe operation with far-reaching consequences, and therefore author of the class must explicitly opt-in.
From the javadoc of cloneable.
* By convention, classes that implement this interface (cloneable) should override
* <tt>Object.clone</tt> (which is protected) with a public method.
* See {#link java.lang.Object#clone()} for details on overriding this
* method.
* Note that this interface does <i>not</i> contain the <tt>clone</tt> method.
* Therefore, it is not possible to clone an object merely by virtue of the
* fact that it implements this interface. Even if the clone method is invoked
* reflectively, there is no guarantee that it will succeed.
So you could call clone on every object but this would give you most of the time not the results you want or an exception. But is only encouraged if you implement cloneable.
Clone() method has a check internally 'instance of Cloneable or not'.This is how Java team might thought will restrict the improper use of clone() method.clone() method is protected i.e. accessed by subclasses only. Since object is the parent class of all sub classes, so Clone() method can be used by all classes infact if we don't have above check of 'instance of Cloneable'. This is the reason Java team might have thought to restrict the improper use of clone() by having the check in the clone() method 'is it instance of Cloneable'.
Hence whatever classes implement cloneable can use clone() method of Object class.
Also since it made protected, it is available to only those sub classes that implements cloneable interface. If we want to make it public, this method has to be overridden by the sub class with their own implementation of it.
Yes, same problem that I met.
But I solve it by implementing this code
public class Side implements Cloneable {
public Side clone() {
Side side = null;
try {
side = (Side) super.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
return side;
}
}
Just as the before someone said.
Well, also the sun developers are only human, and they did indeed make huge mistake to implement the clone method as protected, the same mistake as they implemented a non-functioning clone method in ArrayList! So, in general, there exist a much deeper misunderstanding of even experienced Java programmers about the clone method.
However, I've recently found a fast and easy solution to copy any object with all its content, no matter how it is built and what it contains, see my answer here: Bug in using Object.clone()
Again, Java JDK framework shows brilliant thinking:
Cloneable interface does not contain a "public T clone();" method because it acts more like an attribute (eg. Serializable) which allows an instance it to be cloned.
There is nothing wrong with this design because:
Object.clone() will not do what you want with your custom-defined class.
If you have Myclass implements Cloneable => you overwrite clone() with
"public MyClass clone()"
If you have MyInterface extends Cloneable and some MyClasses implementing MyInterface:
simply define "public MyInterface clone();" in the interface and every method using MyInterface objects will be able to clone them, no matter their MyClass-class.