<D extends com.j256.ormlite.dao.Dao<T,?>,T> D getDao(Class<T> clazz)
I am not able to understand above statement
getDao(Class clazz) returns D
D having following constraints
D extends com.j256.ormlite.dao.Dao<T,?>
and extra ,T i am not able to understand.
Could you please explain it ?
This method has two type parameters, D and T, with D having an additional extends constraint, depending on T. Don't get confused by this <T,?>,T syntax; the ,T does not belong to the constraint, but is the second parameter, telling Java that T is not the name of a concrete class.
If you add a space or swap the parameters, it will be clearer. Here's a similar, but somewhat simpler example. These method signatures are all equivalent:
<D extends List<T>,T> D createListOf(Class<T> clazz) // your version
<D extends List<T>, T> D createListOf(Class<T> clazz) // extra space
<T, D extends List<T>> D createListOf(Class<T> clazz) // different order
Keep in mind that, even though it may seem apparent that T is another type parameter, this is not clear to Java. There could be an actual class named T, so we have to be explicit that T is a type parameter.
class T { ... } // this T is not what I want!
Conversely, type parameters are not restricted to single characters. You could also have a type parameter called Foo, or even String, if you want to utterly confuse your co-workers. Maybe that makes clear why the declaration of all type parameters using <...> is necessary.
// just a deterrent example; don't do this! String as parameter, not class
<String, Foo extends List<String>> Foo createListOf(Class<String> clazz)
This method will:
Return an object of type D
Where D is or extends com.j256.ormlite.dao.Dao, parametrized with an object of type T or extending/implementing T and an unknown type parameter
If given as argument a class of type T
It uses a lot of generic abstraction, which is not surprising given it delivers a DAO (Data Access Object).
Related
I'm trying to use java.util.Function object as an input to a library class.
Function<? extends MyEntity, List> mapper;
public MyLibraryClass(Function<? extends MyEntity,List> mapper) {
...
}
public void aMethod(ClassExtendsMyEntity e) {
mapper.apply(e);
}
The line mapper.apply(e) doesn't compile.
If I change to use ? super instead of ? extends, then the fail will be in the client using this library in the following code:
Function<ClassExtendsMyEntity, List> mapper = e -> e.getListObjects();
new MyLibraryClass(mapper);
Can anyone help explain why getting this issue and if there is a way to get this working?
Function<? extends MyEntity,List> mapper;
This does not say "any subclass of MyEntity can be passed to mapper". It says "there exists some subclass of MyEntity that can be passed to mapper". It might be ClassExtendsMyEntity, it might be MyEntity itself, or it might be some crazy class that you've never even heard of.
Function<T, S> provides one function: S apply(T arg). Since your argument type is ? extends MyEntity, the only valid argument you can pass to mapper.apply is a value which is of every subtype of MyEntity at once, and there is no value that satisfies that condition.
Put more technically, the first argument of Function<T, S> is, in principle, contravariant, so using the covariant ? extends T annotation makes little sense on it.
Depending on what you want, there are two solutions. If your function works for any MyEntity, then you should simply write Function<MyEntity, List> and forgo the generics/wildcards altogether. On the other hand, if you want MyLibraryClass to support only one subtype, but a subtype that you know about, then you need to make that a generic argument to MyLibraryClass.
public class MyLibraryClass<T extends MyEntity> {
Function<? super T, List> mapper;
public MyLibraryClass(Function<? super T, List> mapper) {
...
}
public void aMethod(T e) {
mapper.apply(e);
}
}
Again, the first type argument of Function is, in principle, contravariant, so we should use ? super T to bound it by our type argument T. That means that if I have a MyLibraryClass<ClassExtendsMyEntity>, the function inside that might be a Function<ClassExtendsMyEntity, List>, or a Function<MyEntity, List>, or a Function<Object, List>, since all of those support ClassExtendsMyEntity arguments. For more on the reasoning behind that, see What is PECS.
The declaration Function<? extends MyEntity,List> mapper means:
mapper expects an argument of some type X which is a subtype of MyEntity. The problem is, it doesn't tell what type it is.
And therefore the compiler can't verify if your call passing an instance of type ClassExtendsMyEntity is valid. After all X might be SomeOtherClassExtendingMyEntity.
In order to fix this just make the function type Function<MyEntity,List>
question about Wildcard
Example：Student extends Person
Person person = new Person();
Student student = new Student();
List<? super Student> list = new ArrayList<>();
list.add(student); // success
list.add(person); // compile error
List<? extends Person> list2 = new ArrayList<>();
list2.add(person); // compile error
list2.add(student);// compile error
I have read the answer below a question "capture#1-of ? extends Object is not applicable"
You are using generic wildcard. You cannot perform add operation as class type is not determinate. You cannot add/put anything(except null) -- Aniket Thakur
Official doc：The wildcard is never used as a type argument for a generic method invocation, a generic class instance creation, or a supertype
But why could list.add(student) compile successfully ?
Design of java.util.function.Function
public interface Function<T, R>{
//...
default <V> Function<V, R> compose(Function<? super V, ? extends T> before) {
Objects.requireNonNull(before);
return (V v) -> apply(before.apply(v));
}
}
Why before is designed to Function<? super V, ? extends T> rather than Function<V,T> when the type of return is Function<V,R> and type of the input is V ? (It still can pass compile and use flexibly)
To understand these questions, you have to understand how generics work with subtyping (which is explicitly denoted in Java using the extends keyword). Andreas mentioned the PECS rules, which are their representations in Java.
First of all, I want to point out that the codes above can be corrected by a simple cast
ArrayList<? super Student> list = new ArrayList<>();
list.add(new Student());
ArrayList<Person> a = (ArrayList<Person>) list; // a covariance
a.add(new Person());
And compiles & runs well (rather than raising any exceptions)
The reason is simple, when we have a consumer (which takes some objects and consume them, such as the add method), we expect it to take objects of type no more than(superclasses) the type T we specified, because the process of consuming needs possibly any member(variables, methods etc.) of the type it wants, and we want to ensure that type T satisfy all the members the consumer requires.
On the contrary, a producer, which produces objects for us (like the get method), has to supply objects of type no less than the specified type T so that we can access any member that T has on the object produced.
These two are closely related to subtyping forms called covariance and contravariance
As for the second question, you can refer to the implementation of Consumer<T> as well (which is somewhat simpler):
default Consumer<T> andThen(Consumer<? super T> after) {
Objects.requireNonNull(after);
return (T t) -> { accept(t); after.accept(t); };
}
the reason why we need this ? super T is that: when we are combining two Consumers using the method andThen, suppose that the former Consumer takes an object of type T, we expect the later to take a object of type no more than T so it would not try to access any member that T doesn't have.
Therefore, rather than simply writing Consumer<T> after but Consumer<? super T> after, we allow the former consumer (of type T) to be combined with a consumer that takes an object not exactly of type T, but maybe smaller then T, by the convenience of covariance. That makes the following codes sound:
Consumer<Student> stu = (student) -> {};
Consumer<Person> per = (person) -> {};
stu.andThen(per);
The compose method of type Function also applies, by the same consideration.
IMO This is probably the most complex concept in vanilla Java. So let's break this down a bit. I'll start with your second question.
Function<T, R> takes an instance t of type T and returns an instance r of type R. With inheritance that means that you could supply an instance foo of type Foo if Foo extends T and similarly return bar of type Bar if Bar extends R.
As a library maintainer who wants to write a flexible generic method, it's hard, and actually impossible, to know in advance all the classes which might be used with this method which extend T and R. So how are we going to write a method that handles them? Further, the fact that these instances have types which extend the base class is none of our concern.
This is where the wildcard comes in. During the method call we say that you can use any class which meets the envelope of the required class. For the method in question, we have two different wildcards using upper and lower bounded generic type parameters:
public interface Function<T, R>{
default <V> Function<V, R> compose(Function<? super V, ? extends T> before)
Lets now say that we want to take advantage of this method... for the example lets define some basic classes:
class Animal{}
class Dog extends Animal{}
class Fruit{}
class Apple extends Fruit{}
class Fish{}
class Tuna extends Fish{}
Imagine our function and transformation is defined as below:
Function<Animal, Apple> base = ...;
Function<Fish, Animal> transformation = ...;
We can combine these functions using compose to create a new function:
Function<Fish, Apple> composed = base.compose(transformation);
This is all fine and dandy, but now imagine that in the desired output function we actually only want to use Tuna as the input. If we did not use the lower-bounded ? super V as the input type parameter for the Function we pass to compose then we would get a compiler error:
default <V> Function<V, R> compose(Function<V, ? extends T> before)
...
Function<Tuna, Apple> composed = base.compose(transformation);
> Incompatible types:
> Found: Function<Fish, Apple>, required: Function<Tuna, Apple>
This happens because the return type for the call to compose specifies V as Tuna while transformation on the other hand specifies its "V" as Fish. So now when we try to pass transformation to compose the compiler requires transformation to accept a Tuna as its V and of course Tuna does not identically match Fish.
On the other hand, the original version of the code (? super V) allows us to treat V as a lower bound (i.e. it allows "contravariance" vs. "invariance" over V). Instead of encountering a mismatch between Tuna and Fish the compiler is able to successfully apply the lower bound check ? super V which evaluates to Fish super Tuna, which is true since Tuna extends Fish.
For the other case, imagine our call is defined as:
Function<Animal, Apple> base = ...;
Function<Fish, Dog> transformation = ...;
Function<Fish, Apple> composed = base.compose(transformation);
If we did not have the wildcard ? extends T then we would get another error:
default <V> Function<V, R> compose(Function<? super V, T> before)
Function<Fish, Apple> composed = base.compose(transformation);
// error converting transformation from
// Function<Fish, Dog> to Function<Fish, Animal>
The wildcard ? extends T allows this to work as T is resolved to Animal and the wildcard resolves to Dog, which can satisfy the constraint Dog extends Animal.
For your first question; these bounds really only work in the context of a method call. During the course of the method, the wildcard will be resolved to an actual type, just as ? super V was resolved to Fish and ? extends T was resolved to Dog. Without the information from the generic signature, we would have no way for the compiler to know what class can be used on the type's methods, and therefore none are allowed.
I have following two classes:
class ProblematicConverter implements Converter<List<?>> {};
class NonProblematicConverter implements Converter<List> {};
And method of class Utils:
<T> void addConverter(Class<? extends T> cls, Converter<T> converter);
Now, first function invocation is ok but second produces error:
addConverter(List.class, new ProblematicConverter());
addConverter(List.class, new NonProblematicConverter());
Error says:
"The method addConverter(Class, Converter) in the type Utils is not applicable for the arguments (Class, ProblematicConverter)"
I do not understand why it's like that.
Based on your comment, I think the right thing to do here might be to use an unchecked cast on List.class, but first, the reason the code in the question doesn't compile is roughly:
T of addConverter is inferred to be List<?>.
The bounded wildcard in cls requires that its type argument be T or a subtype of T, but the raw type List is a supertype of List<?> (specified here).
Therefore, Class<List> is incompatible with the inferred type of cls which is Class<? extends List<?>>.
So, for example, either of the following two declarations would compile with the invocations in the question:
<T> void m(Class<T> cls, Converter<? extends T> converter) {}
<T> void m(Class<? super T> cls, Converter<T> converter) {}
That of course doesn't help you out, but it illustrates the relationship between List and List<?>.
You might see also these two answers of mine which discuss similar situations.
So anyway, based on your comment saying that you're trying to eliminate raw types and can't change the declaration of addConverter, what could be appropriate is to use an unchecked cast from Class<List> to Class<List<?>>:
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
static final Class<List<?>> WILD_LIST =
(Class<List<?>>) (Class<? super List<?>>) List.class;
This will let you call e.g.:
addConverter(WILD_LIST, new ProblematicConverter());
However, I'd like to point out that unchecked casting is not a general solution. It's a solution to this specific problem of converting e.g. a Class<GenericType> to a Class<GenericType<?>>. It's safe to do because GenericType<?> is a more restrictive type than the raw type GenericType and because Class has a very limited range of things it can do with its type argument.
If you could change the declaration of addConverter, I think I would recommend using something like Guava TypeToken instead of Class, because then you don't have this sort of problem.
I want to define a method that defines its types like this:
List<R> toList(JsArray<T> array)
such that T is bounded such that it is both:
T extends SomeClass, and
T extends R
I've tried things like this, to no avail:
<R, T extends R & SomeClass> List<R> toList(JsArray<T> array)
(For the curious, this is to be able to use GWT Overlay Types with Interfaces)
How about this?
<T extends SomeClass> List<? super T> toList(JsArray<T> array)
EDIT:
I think I see your use case. From comments, you want to specify the return type so you don't have an unchecked cast.
But you don't actually pass anything in to tell the method what to create. Since I could always call toList() with R = T, the only thing you could do that always works (for all R super T) is to return a List<T>, which makes the R parameter unnecessary... but that's not what you want.
You have to pass something in to tell the method what kind of object to instantiate. Usually we could to that like:
<R, T extends SomeClass> List<R> toList(JsArray<T> array, Class<R> cls)
and call it like
toList(arrayIHave, WhatIWant.class)
Now this will work, but you will complain that it has error conditions, because the "T extends R" constraint isn't captured. But really, even if you add the constraint in, you'll still have error conditions.
I can use an arbitrary interface for R by making a T that extends SomeClass and implements R. There is no way you can meaningfully instantiate an arbitrary interface, so for many R,T pairs that satisfy your constraints, you will have to return null or throw an exception or something.
No doubt there is some rule that dictates which R you will return, but there is no way to even think about specifying generic constraints that capture that rule, so there will be an unchecked conversion somewhere. If you use a signature like this, at least you can put it inside the method instead of having warnings or annotations everywhere you use it.
I fear this does not work.
The correct syntax would be
<R, T extends R & SomeClass> List<R> toList(JsArray<T> array)
But this will give you the following error message
Cannot specify any additional bound SomeClass when first bound is a type parameter
I do not see how you could make it work to enforce both constraints.
Given the following example (using JUnit with Hamcrest matchers):
Map<String, Class<? extends Serializable>> expected = null;
Map<String, Class<java.util.Date>> result = null;
assertThat(result, is(expected));
This does not compile with the JUnit assertThat method signature of:
public static <T> void assertThat(T actual, Matcher<T> matcher)
The compiler error message is:
Error:Error:line (102)cannot find symbol method
assertThat(java.util.Map<java.lang.String,java.lang.Class<java.util.Date>>,
org.hamcrest.Matcher<java.util.Map<java.lang.String,java.lang.Class
<? extends java.io.Serializable>>>)
However, if I change the assertThat method signature to:
public static <T> void assertThat(T result, Matcher<? extends T> matcher)
Then the compilation works.
So three questions:
Why exactly doesn't the current version compile? Although I vaguely understand the covariance issues here, I certainly couldn't explain it if I had to.
Is there any downside in changing the assertThat method to Matcher<? extends T>? Are there other cases that would break if you did that?
Is there any point to the genericizing of the assertThat method in JUnit? The Matcher class doesn't seem to require it, since JUnit calls the matches method, which is not typed with any generic, and just looks like an attempt to force a type safety which doesn't do anything, as the Matcher will just not in fact match, and the test will fail regardless. No unsafe operations involved (or so it seems).
For reference, here is the JUnit implementation of assertThat:
public static <T> void assertThat(T actual, Matcher<T> matcher) {
assertThat("", actual, matcher);
}
public static <T> void assertThat(String reason, T actual, Matcher<T> matcher) {
if (!matcher.matches(actual)) {
Description description = new StringDescription();
description.appendText(reason);
description.appendText("\nExpected: ");
matcher.describeTo(description);
description
.appendText("\n got: ")
.appendValue(actual)
.appendText("\n");
throw new java.lang.AssertionError(description.toString());
}
}
First - I have to direct you to http://www.angelikalanger.com/GenericsFAQ/JavaGenericsFAQ.html -- she does an amazing job.
The basic idea is that you use
<T extends SomeClass>
when the actual parameter can be SomeClass or any subtype of it.
In your example,
Map<String, Class<? extends Serializable>> expected = null;
Map<String, Class<java.util.Date>> result = null;
assertThat(result, is(expected));
You're saying that expected can contain Class objects that represent any class that implements Serializable. Your result map says it can only hold Date class objects.
When you pass in result, you're setting T to exactly Map of String to Date class objects, which doesn't match Map of String to anything that's Serializable.
One thing to check -- are you sure you want Class<Date> and not Date? A map of String to Class<Date> doesn't sound terribly useful in general (all it can hold is Date.class as values rather than instances of Date)
As for genericizing assertThat, the idea is that the method can ensure that a Matcher that fits the result type is passed in.
Thanks to everyone who answered the question, it really helped clarify things for me. In the end Scott Stanchfield's answer got the closest to how I ended up understanding it, but since I didn't understand him when he first wrote it, I am trying to restate the problem so that hopefully someone else will benefit.
I'm going to restate the question in terms of List, since it has only one generic parameter and that will make it easier to understand.
The purpose of the parametrized class (such as List<Date> or Map<K, V> as in the example) is to force a downcast and to have the compiler guarantee that this is safe (no runtime exceptions).
Consider the case of List. The essence of my question is why a method that takes a type T and a List won't accept a List of something further down the chain of inheritance than T. Consider this contrived example:
List<java.util.Date> dateList = new ArrayList<java.util.Date>();
Serializable s = new String();
addGeneric(s, dateList);
....
private <T> void addGeneric(T element, List<T> list) {
list.add(element);
}
This will not compile, because the list parameter is a list of dates, not a list of strings. Generics would not be very useful if this did compile.
The same thing applies to a Map<String, Class<? extends Serializable>> It is not the same thing as a Map<String, Class<java.util.Date>>. They are not covariant, so if I wanted to take a value from the map containing date classes and put it into the map containing serializable elements, that is fine, but a method signature that says:
private <T> void genericAdd(T value, List<T> list)
Wants to be able to do both:
T x = list.get(0);
and
list.add(value);
In this case, even though the junit method doesn't actually care about these things, the method signature requires the covariance, which it is not getting, therefore it does not compile.
On the second question,
Matcher<? extends T>
Would have the downside of really accepting anything when T is an Object, which is not the APIs intent. The intent is to statically ensure that the matcher matches the actual object, and there is no way to exclude Object from that calculation.
The answer to the third question is that nothing would be lost, in terms of unchecked functionality (there would be no unsafe typecasting within the JUnit API if this method was not genericized), but they are trying to accomplish something else - statically ensure that the two parameters are likely to match.
EDIT (after further contemplation and experience):
One of the big issues with the assertThat method signature is attempts to equate a variable T with a generic parameter of T. That doesn't work, because they are not covariant. So for example you may have a T which is a List<String> but then pass a match that the compiler works out to Matcher<ArrayList<T>>. Now if it wasn't a type parameter, things would be fine, because List and ArrayList are covariant, but since Generics, as far as the compiler is concerned require ArrayList, it can't tolerate a List for reasons that I hope are clear from the above.
It boils down to:
Class<? extends Serializable> c1 = null;
Class<java.util.Date> d1 = null;
c1 = d1; // compiles
d1 = c1; // wont compile - would require cast to Date
You can see the Class reference c1 could contain a Long instance (since the underlying object at a given time could have been List<Long>), but obviously cannot be cast to a Date since there is no guarantee that the "unknown" class was Date. It is not typsesafe, so the compiler disallows it.
However, if we introduce some other object, say List (in your example this object is Matcher), then the following becomes true:
List<Class<? extends Serializable>> l1 = null;
List<Class<java.util.Date>> l2 = null;
l1 = l2; // wont compile
l2 = l1; // wont compile
...However, if the type of the List becomes ? extends T instead of T....
List<? extends Class<? extends Serializable>> l1 = null;
List<? extends Class<java.util.Date>> l2 = null;
l1 = l2; // compiles
l2 = l1; // won't compile
I think by changing Matcher<T> to Matcher<? extends T>, you are basically introducing the scenario similar to assigning l1 = l2;
It's still very confusing having nested wildcards, but hopefully that makes sense as to why it helps to understand generics by looking at how you can assign generic references to each other. It's also further confusing since the compiler is inferring the type of T when you make the function call (you are not explicitly telling it was T is).
The reason your original code doesn't compile is that <? extends Serializable> does not mean, "any class that extends Serializable," but "some unknown but specific class that extends Serializable."
For example, given the code as written, it is perfectly valid to assign new TreeMap<String, Long.class>() to expected. If the compiler allowed the code to compile, the assertThat() would presumably break because it would expect Date objects instead of the Long objects it finds in the map.
One way for me to understand wildcards is to think that the wildcard isn't specifying the type of the possible objects that given generic reference can "have", but the type of other generic references that it is is compatible with (this may sound confusing...) As such, the first answer is very misleading in it's wording.
In other words, List<? extends Serializable> means you can assign that reference to other Lists where the type is some unknown type which is or a subclass of Serializable. DO NOT think of it in terms of A SINGLE LIST being able to hold subclasses of Serializable (because that is incorrect semantics and leads to a misunderstanding of Generics).
I know this is an old question but I want to share an example that I think explains bounded wildcards pretty well. java.util.Collections offers this method:
public static <T> void sort(List<T> list, Comparator<? super T> c) {
list.sort(c);
}
If we have a List of T, the List can, of course, contain instances of types that extend T. If the List contains Animals, the List can contain both Dogs and Cats (both Animals). Dogs have a property "woofVolume" and Cats have a property "meowVolume." While we might like to sort based upon these properties particular to subclasses of T, how can we expect this method to do that? A limitation of Comparator is that it can compare only two things of only one type (T). So, requiring simply a Comparator<T> would make this method usable. But, the creator of this method recognized that if something is a T, then it is also an instance of the superclasses of T. Therefore, he allows us to use a Comparator of T or any superclass of T, i.e. ? super T.
what if you use
Map<String, ? extends Class<? extends Serializable>> expected = null;