Develop Reference

Java WeakReference is still holding valid reference when referent is no longer valid

I'm confused with this program:
class Point {
private final int x;
private final int y;
}
public class App
{
WeakReference<Point> newPoint() {
Point referent = new Point();
return new WeakReference<Point>(referent); // after return, stack parameter referent is invalid.
}
public static void main( String[] args ) {
App a = new App();
WeakReference<Point> wp = a.newPoint(); // wp is hold valid or invalid reference?
System.out.println(wp.get()); // not null
}
}
I knew that if weak reference is pointing to an object that's no longer alive, its get() should return null. But in my code, seems its still alive.
Where did I get wrong?

I knew that if weak reference is pointing to an object that's no longer alive, its get() should return null. But in my code, seems its still alive.
Your understanding is imprecise, especially where it relies on the idea of aliveness. Reference objects in general and WeakReference objects in particular are not directly concerned with any of the senses of aliveness that I recognize. Rather, they are concerned with reachability.
The API docs for java.lang.Reference#get() (which is not overridden by WeakReference) say this:
Returns this reference object's referent. If this reference object has been cleared, either by the program or by the garbage collector, then this method returns null.
Note well that the condition for get() returning null is rather specific: the reference object has been cleared. This is achieved for a given instance by invoking that instance's clear() method. As the doc indicates, this may be done by the garbage collector or by the application.
Among the key differences between Reference subclasses is the conditions under which the garbage collector will perform such clearing. For WeakReferences, the API docs say:
Suppose that the garbage collector determines at a certain point in time that an object is weakly reachable. At that time it will atomically clear all weak references to that object [...].
Thus, until the garbage collector determines that a given object is (only) weakly reachable, it will not clear weak references to that object. The garbage collector probably does not run at all during the brief run of your small program, and if it did run, it would be surprising for it to be timed correctly to observe the Point in question to be weakly reachable before the reference's get() method is invoked.
You could try forcing a GC run by invoking System.gc() at the appropriate place. I anticipate that doing so will result in the weak reference being cleared. That would be for demonstrative purposes only, however. Generally speaking, you should rely on Java to perform GC when appropriate, not force it.

How to delete a java object from Heap?

You have one big object in java. it has got 4 or five references. you don't know all those references. At time on deletion you know only one reference and you want to delete that object completely. How to achieve that? and also if you want to know other references then to what is the best way to do that.

It is not in our hand.. You can just nullify it from your end..
Object a = new Object();
a = null; // after that, if there is no live thread which is accessing members,it will be deleted by garbage collector

You could try Finalize() or System.runFinalization() but frankly, if there are references still pointing to the object, then I think the GC will ignore your request.

It is not possible in Java.
If you have strong reference referring your object, you cannot force JVM to GC that object. It simply cannot guarantee the program will work.
If codes of all other references are in your control, consider changing them to use WeakReference or SoftReference

There are some things that are not in our hands and its better to leave it to the JRE to handle it. All we can do that we make sure that the we make them null explicitly after using them.
{
// Some block
HugeObject obj = HugeObject.getInstance();
// Use it
obj = null;
}
// end of block

Java memory handling is just built to prevent that. An object is guaranteed to live as long as a reference to this object exists. As far as I know there is no (official) way to get to know the other references to an object (and there should be no need for that).

In Java GC(Garbage collector) handles heap cleanup. If an Object has no live references to it then it will automatically be cleaned up. So you need to make sure there are no live references to the Object.
Making it null is one of the way. But it will not guarantee it's cleanup if there is some other Object pointing to the same reference. That is why writing good code involves closing all the resources after use which includes making it to null.
If you are running low on heap you can try increasing heap size or calling System.gc() but again calling gc manually does not guarantee gc will actually be performed. it depends on lot of parameters which are JVM dependent.

What kind of references are these to the object? Are these references created by you and at runtime you don't keep track of of those references. If this is the case, you can wrap your references to the object in soft/ weak reference and then explicitly run the GC request. Otherwise, on runtime, if any live thread has access to the object. GC shall not delete that object.

It is hard to answer no knowing your use case, but if there is one location that you want to be able to remove it from then you can store every other reference to it as a WeakReference. Java normally uses strong refrences when referencing objects and the GC will only clear something when it has no more strong references. However, if you use WeakRefrences and your strong refrence ever goes out of scope there is no guarantee that your data will remain even if it is still needed.
I could be mistaken about this though, as I haven't used this class in a year or two.
On WeakReferences:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/ref/WeakReference.html

You can declare your objects as WeakReference and add them in ReferenceQueue. In this way , whenever your object will not be further referenced , it will be liable for GC.
/**
Initialize the reference queue , even if you don't do it , no problem . Default reference queue will be taken.
**/
ReferenceQueue<? super Object> testReferenceQueue = new ReferenceQueue<Object>();
Map<String,String> demoHashMap = new HashMap<String,String>();
demoHashMap.put("SomeValue","testValue");
// Declare the object as weak object and put it in reference queue
WeakReference<?> weakObject = new WeakReference<Object>(demoHashMap,testReferenceQueue );
demoHashMap.clear();
demoHashMap = null; // This object is not referenced from anywhere
if(weakObject!=null){
System.out.println("Object is not GCd yet");
}else{
System.out.println("It is already garbage collected");
}

Java: reliably calling GC?

In some library found on google code I came across this util method:
public static void gc(){
Object obj = new Object();
WeakReference ref = new WeakReference<Object>(obj);
obj = null;
while(ref.get()!=null)
System.gc();
}
Its doc says it provides a reliable way to call GC, because calling System#gc() is just a hint without any guarantees. I showed it my senior, and he said I should think about why this method is invalid.
I read some articles on weak references but I'm still confused.
Can somebody show me the point?

I have direct experience with the supposed "safe GC" idiom you have posted.
It doesn't work.
The reason is quite simple: just the fact that a weak ref is cleared is not a signal that the object has been collected; it only means that it has become unreachable through any strong or soft reference. In my experience this signal arrives before the object is reclaimed.
A better attempt would be to use a Phantom reference, which at least ensures that the object has entered the finalizable state, but once again, it can still be occupying the heap, and in practice it still is occupying it. Another explanation could be that this particular object, obviously residing in Eden space, did get reclaimed, but the GC run which did it was not exhaustive and there is more memory to reclaim in other generations.
On the other hand, I have very reliably used this trivial idiom:
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { System.gc(); Thread.sleep(500); }
Try it and see if it works for you. The sleep part is optional: it is needed only if System.gc() uses concurrent sweeping.
If you object to the apparent fickleness of this approach, just remember that any approach to explicit GC-ing is fickle. This one is at least honest about it—and just happens to work on actual systems. It is, naturally, non-portable and can cease to work at any time for a large array of reasons. Even so, it is the best you'll ever get.

The point is, that System.gc() does not need to clean up all weak references. And consider some Java virtual machines too. If System.gc for once (the first time) does decide to not clean that reference, it is very likely to the next call. Hence you have a possibly infinite loop. Probably depending on other threads changing the state for the garbage collection to terminate the loop.
So: once is enough.

There is no way to guarantee a GC call because just as the documentation says System.gc is just a hint that can be ignored by the system.
So assume that the JVM ignores System.gc - in that case the whole thing just loops until some other part of the systems causes a GC. If you run single-threaded or nobody else allocates much memory you basically create an inifite loop here.

The point is that your thread will stop and wait until the weak reference is cleared, thus "simulating" garbage collection. There's no guarantee when (or indeed even IF) this will actually happen.
You could be stuck waiting on this while for a long, long time.

Programmatic we need to ensure that, when a obj is removed then its corresponding entry should be removed. Only then, that object becomes a candidate for garbage collection. Otherwise, even though it is not used at run-time, this stale object will not be garbage collected.
The object to which this reference refers, or null if this reference object has been cleared.
As your object reference of WeakReference class. so it will not give null. but after removing gc., it provide null.
Object obj = new Object();
WeakReference ref = new WeakReference<Object>(obj);
obj = null;
if(ref.get()!=null)
{
System.gc();
System.out.println("remove ref");
}
if(ref.get()!=null){
System.out.println("not execute");
}
Output:
remove ref
Don't assign null value to obj.
Object obj = new Object();
WeakReference ref = new WeakReference<Object>(obj);
if(ref.get()!=null)
{
System.gc();
System.out.println("remove ref");
}
if(ref.get()!=null){
System.out.println("execute");
}
Output:
remove ref
execute

Code that tries to force GC is usually a sign for an underlying bigger problem (i.e. design issue or missing knowledge on the developers part).
I have seen a few use cases where calling System.gc() in production code actually makes sense, for example, before printing the current memory usage - it doesn't matter if the values are off but we'd like to improve chances the values are as small as possible. Of course, we knew that GC was enabled - we used this to automatically detect memory leaks on a QA system.
In general, calling System.gc() yells "my code is buggy and I don't know how to fix it!".

Understanding Java's Reference classes: SoftReference, WeakReference, and PhantomReference

Can someone explain the difference between the three Reference classes (or post a link to a nice explanation)? SoftReference > WeakReference > PhantomReference, but when would I use each one? Why is there a WeakHashMap but no SoftHashMap or PhantomHashMap?
And if I use the following code...
WeakReference<String> ref = new WeakReference<String>("Hello!");
if (ref != null) { // ref can get collected at any time...
System.gc(); // Let's assume ref gets collected here.
System.out.println(ref.get()); // Now what?!
}
...what happens? Do I have to check if ref is null before every statement (this is wrong, but what should I do)? Sorry for the rapid-fire questions, but I'm having trouble understanding these Reference classes... Thanks!

The Java library documentation for the java.lang.ref package characterizes the decreasing strength of the three explicit reference types.
You use a SoftReference when you want the referenced object to stay alive until the host process is running low on memory. The object will not be eligible for collection until the collector needs to free memory. Loosely stated, binding a SoftReference means, "Pin the object until you can't anymore."
By contrast, use a WeakReference when you don't want to influence the referenced object's lifetime; you merely want to make a separate assertion about the referenced object, so long as it remains alive. The object's eligibility for collection is not influenced by the presence of bound WeakReferences. Something like an external mapping from object instance to related property, where the property need only be recorded so long as the related object is alive, is a good use for WeakReferences and WeakHashMap.
The last one—PhantomReference—is harder to characterize. Like WeakReference, such a bound PhantomReference exerts no influence on the referenced object's lifetime. But unlike the other reference types, one can't even dereference a PhantomReference. In a sense, it doesn't point to the thing it points to, as far as callers can tell. It merely allows one to associate some related data with the referenced object—data that can later be inspected and acted upon when the PhantomReference gets queued in its related ReferenceQueue. Normally one derives a type from PhantomReference and includes some additional data in that derived type. Unfortunately, there's some downcasting involved to make use of such a derived type.
In your example code, it's not the ref reference (or, if you prefer, "variable") that can be null. Rather, it's the value obtained by calling Reference#get() that may be null. If it is found to be null, you're too late; the referenced object is already on its way to being collected:
final String val = ref.get();
if (null != val)
{
// "val" is now pinned strongly.
}
else
{
// "val" is already ready to be collected.
}

A link: https://community.oracle.com/blogs/enicholas/2006/05/04/understanding-weak-references
PhantomHashMap wouldn't work very well as get always returns null for phantom references.
Caches are difficult, so SoftHashMap might not work as well as you might think. However, I believe Google's collection library contains a general reference map implementation.
You should always check that get returns non-null. (Note, that not checking that the Reference reference itself is not-null.) In the case of interned strings it always will, but (as ever) don't try to be "clever" about it.

It should also be mentioned, as stated on the comment by Truong Xuan Tinh, here: http://blog.yohanliyanage.com/2010/10/ktjs-3-soft-weak-phantom-references/
That JRockit JVM implements weak/soft/phantom references differently than Sun JVM.

String str = new String("hello, world");
WeakReference<String> ref = new WeakReference<String>(str);
str = null;
if (ref != null) {
System.gc();
System.out.println(ref.get());
}
In this case, it will output null. The call to System.gc() is important here.

Explicit nulling

In what situations in java is explicit nulling useful. Does it in any way assist the garbage collector by making objects unreachable or something? Is it considered to be a good practice?

In Java it can help if you've got a very long-running method, and the only reference to the an object is via a local variable. Setting that local variable to null when you don't need it any more (but when the method is going to continue to run for a long time) can help the GC. (In C# this is very rarely useful as the GC takes "last possible use" into account. That optimization may make it to Java some time - I don't know.)
Likewise if you've got a member field referring to an object and you no longer need it, you could potentially aid GC by setting the field to null.
In my experience, however, it's rarely actually useful to do either of these things, and it makes the code messier. Very few methods really run for a long time, and setting a variable to null really has nothing to do with what you want the method to achieve. It's not good practice to do it when you don't need to, and if you do need to you should see whether refactoring could improve your design in the first place. (It's possible that your method or type is doing too much.)
Note that setting the variable to null is entirely passive - it doesn't inform the garbage collector that the object can be collected, it just avoids the garbage collector seeing that reference as a reason to keep the object alive next time it (the GC) runs.

In general it isn't needed (of course that can depend on the VM implementation). However if you have something like this:
private static final Map<String, String> foo;
and then have items in the map that you no longer need they will not be eligible for garbage collection so you would need to explicitly remove them. There are many cases like this (event listeners is another area that this can happen with).
But doing something like this:
void foo()
{
Object o;
// use o
o = null; // don't bother doing this, it isn't going to help
}
Edit (forgot to mention this):
If you work at it, you should find that 90-95% of the variables you declare can be made final. A final variable cannot change what it points at (or what its value is for primitives). In most cases where a variable is final it would be a mistake (bug) for it to receive a different value while the method is executing.
If you want to be able to set the variable to null after use it cannot be final, which means that you have a greater chance to create bugs in the code.

One special case I found it useful is when you have a very large object, and want to replace it with another large object. For example, look at the following code:
BigObject bigObject = new BigObject();
// ...
bigObject = new BigObject(); // line 3
If an instance of BigObject is so large that you can have only one such instance in the heap, line 3 will fail with OutOfMemoryError, because the 1st instance cannot be freed until the assignment instruction in line 3 completes, which is obviously after the 2nd instance is ready.
Now, if you set bigObject to null right before line 3:
bigObject = null;
bigObject = new BigObject(); // line 3
the 1st instance can be freed when JVM runs out of heap during the construction of the 2nd instance.

From "Effective Java" : use it to eliminate obsolete object references. Otherwise it can lead to memory leaks which can be very hard to debug.
public Object pop(){
if(size == 0)
throw new EmptyStatckException();
Object result = elements[--size];
elements[size] = null; //Eliminate Object reference
return result;
}

If you are nulling an object that is about to go out of scope anyway when your method block closes, then there is no benefit whatsoever in terms of garbage collection. It is not unusual to encounter people who don't understand this who work really hard to set a lot of things to null needlessly.

Explicit nulling can help with GC in some rare situations where all of the following are true:
The variable is the only (non-weak) reference to the object
You can guarantee that the object will no longer be needed
The variable will stay in scope for an extended period of time (e.g. it is a field in a long-lived object instance)
The compiler is unable to prove that the object is no longer used, but you are able to guarantee this though your superior logical analysis of the code :-)
In practice this is quite rare in good code: if the object is no longer needed, you should normally be declaring it in a narrower scope anyway. For example, if you only need the object during a single invocation of a method, it should be a local variable, not a field in the enclosing object.
One situation where explicit nulling is genuinely useful: if null is used to indicate a specific state then setting to a null value is sometimes going to be necessary and useful. Null is a useful value in itself for a couple of reasons:
Null checks are extremely fast, so conditional code that checks for null is typically more efficient than many alternatives (e.g. calling object.equals())
You get an immediate NullPointerException if you try to dereference it. This is useful because it is good Fail Fast coding style that will help you to catch logic errors.

See also WeakReference in J2SE.