Develop Reference

Java generic method return list of any type extendends XXX

I want to make a method that based on intpu String (not class) could return different lists of object extending XXX
So far I'm here, and I completly don't understand why this isn't working:
public <T extends XXX> List<T> getXXXList(String yyy) {
switch (yyy) {
case "test" :
return getListOfTypeFFF();
}
}
EDIT
here is what InteliJ is saying about this:
and you can trust me - Poi extends XXX
EDIT 2
public abstract class TranslationalEntity implemenst Serializable {
private String tranlsation;
}
public class Poi extends TranslationalEntity {
private String latLong;
}
public class Material extends TranslationalEntity {
private String author;
}
public class News extends TranslationalEntity {
private String time;
}
And for those type of entity I want to make one mthod that'll return right list:
public <T extends TranslationalEntity> List<T> getXXXList(String yyy) {
switch (yyy) {
case "poi" :
return getListOfPoi();
case "news" :
return getListOfNews();
}
return null;
}
EDIT 3
public List<Poi> getListOfPoi() {
return entityManager.createNamedQuery("allPoi").getResultList();
}

I think what's going on here is that you're trying to make compiler perform a decision that's not possible to do at compile time (statically):
String input = args[1];
List<Poi> result = getXXXList(input);
- should compiler allow this or not? You seem to think that this should be legal if the input is "test", but compiler doesn't know the input.
Other way to look at it is - what should be the (static, compile-time) return type of the call getXXXList(input)?
It cannot be List<Poi>, because you don't know what input contains
It cannot be List<XXX>, because you cannot cast List<Poi> possibly used inside the method to List<XXX>
It could be List<? extends XXX>, but the signature would have to be
public List<? extends XXX> getXXXList(String yyy)
The public <T> T foo() signatures work well if the compiler can infer the return type's type parameter at compile time based on some input parameter's type, e.g.
public <T> T getBean(Class<T> clazz)
but the compiler can only use the static information and cannot base its decisions on runtime values.

Please help me understand "Class Foo<E extends Foo<E>>" [duplicate]

I thought I understood Java generics pretty well, but then I came across the following in java.lang.Enum:
class Enum<E extends Enum<E>>
Could someone explain how to interpret this type parameter? Bonus points for providing other examples of where a similar type parameter could be used.

It means that the type argument for enum has to derive from an enum which itself has the same type argument. How can this happen? By making the type argument the new type itself. So if I've got an enum called StatusCode, it would be equivalent to:
public class StatusCode extends Enum<StatusCode>
Now if you check the constraints, we've got Enum<StatusCode> - so E=StatusCode. Let's check: does E extend Enum<StatusCode>? Yes! We're okay.
You may well be asking yourself what the point of this is :) Well, it means that the API for Enum can refer to itself - for instance, being able to say that Enum<E> implements Comparable<E>. The base class is able to do the comparisons (in the case of enums) but it can make sure that it only compares the right kind of enums with each other. (EDIT: Well, nearly - see the edit at the bottom.)
I've used something similar in my C# port of ProtocolBuffers. There are "messages" (immutable) and "builders" (mutable, used to build a message) - and they come as pairs of types. The interfaces involved are:
public interface IBuilder<TMessage, TBuilder>
where TMessage : IMessage<TMessage, TBuilder>
where TBuilder : IBuilder<TMessage, TBuilder>
public interface IMessage<TMessage, TBuilder>
where TMessage : IMessage<TMessage, TBuilder>
where TBuilder : IBuilder<TMessage, TBuilder>
This means that from a message you can get an appropriate builder (e.g. to take a copy of a message and change some bits) and from a builder you can get an appropriate message when you've finished building it. It's a good job users of the API don't need to actually care about this though - it's horrendously complicated, and took several iterations to get to where it is.
EDIT: Note that this doesn't stop you from creating odd types which use a type argument which itself is okay, but which isn't the same type. The purpose is to give benefits in the right case rather than protect you from the wrong case.
So if Enum weren't handled "specially" in Java anyway, you could (as noted in comments) create the following types:
public class First extends Enum<First> {}
public class Second extends Enum<First> {}
Second would implement Comparable<First> rather than Comparable<Second>... but First itself would be fine.

The following is a modified version of the explanation from the book Java Generics and Collections:
We have an Enum declared
enum Season { WINTER, SPRING, SUMMER, FALL }
which will be expanded to a class
final class Season extends ...
where ... is to be the somehow-parameterised base class for Enums. Let's work
out what that has to be. Well, one of the requirements for Season is that it should implement Comparable<Season>. So we're going to need
Season extends ... implements Comparable<Season>
What could you use for ... that would allow this to work? Given that it has to be a parameterisation of Enum, the only choice is Enum<Season>, so that you can have:
Season extends Enum<Season>
Enum<Season> implements Comparable<Season>
So Enum is parameterised on types like Season. Abstract from Season and
you get that the parameter of Enum is any type that satisfies
E extends Enum<E>
Maurice Naftalin (co-author, Java Generics and Collections)

This can be illustrated by a simple example and a technique which can be used to implement chained method calls for sub-classes. In an example below setName returns a Node so chaining won't work for the City:
class Node {
String name;
Node setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
}
class City extends Node {
int square;
City setSquare(int square) {
this.square = square;
return this;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
City city = new City()
.setName("LA")
.setSquare(100); // won't compile, setName() returns Node
}
So we could reference a sub-class in a generic declaration, so that the City now returns the correct type:
abstract class Node<SELF extends Node<SELF>>{
String name;
SELF setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
return self();
}
protected abstract SELF self();
}
class City extends Node<City> {
int square;
City setSquare(int square) {
this.square = square;
return self();
}
#Override
protected City self() {
return this;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
City city = new City()
.setName("LA")
.setSquare(100); // ok!
}
}

You are not the only one wondering what that means; see Chaotic Java blog.
“If a class extends this class, it should pass a parameter E. The parameter E’s bounds are for a class which extends this class with the same parameter E”.

This post has totally clarified to me these problem of 'recursive generic types'.
I just wanted to add another case where this particular structure is necessary.
Suppose you have generic nodes in a generic graph:
public abstract class Node<T extends Node<T>>
{
public void addNeighbor(T);
public void addNeighbors(Collection<? extends T> nodes);
public Collection<T> getNeighbor();
}
Then you can have graphs of specialized types:
public class City extends Node<City>
{
public void addNeighbor(City){...}
public void addNeighbors(Collection<? extends City> nodes){...}
public Collection<City> getNeighbor(){...}
}

If you look at the Enum source code, it has the following:
public abstract class Enum<E extends Enum<E>>
implements Comparable<E>, Serializable {
public final int compareTo(E o) {
Enum<?> other = (Enum<?>)o;
Enum<E> self = this;
if (self.getClass() != other.getClass() && // optimization
self.getDeclaringClass() != other.getDeclaringClass())
throw new ClassCastException();
return self.ordinal - other.ordinal;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public final Class<E> getDeclaringClass() {
Class<?> clazz = getClass();
Class<?> zuper = clazz.getSuperclass();
return (zuper == Enum.class) ? (Class<E>)clazz : (Class<E>)zuper;
}
public static <T extends Enum<T>> T valueOf(Class<T> enumType,
String name) {
T result = enumType.enumConstantDirectory().get(name);
if (result != null)
return result;
if (name == null)
throw new NullPointerException("Name is null");
throw new IllegalArgumentException(
"No enum constant " + enumType.getCanonicalName() + "." + name);
}
}
First thing first, what does E extends Enum<E> mean? It means the type parameter is something that extends from Enum, and isn't parametrized with a raw type (it's parametrized by itself).
This is relevant if you have an enum
public enum MyEnum {
THING1,
THING2;
}
which, if I know correctly, is translated to
public final class MyEnum extends Enum<MyEnum> {
public static final MyEnum THING1 = new MyEnum();
public static final MyEnum THING2 = new MyEnum();
}
So this means that MyEnum receives the following methods:
public final int compareTo(MyEnum o) {
Enum<?> other = (Enum<?>)o;
Enum<MyEnum> self = this;
if (self.getClass() != other.getClass() && // optimization
self.getDeclaringClass() != other.getDeclaringClass())
throw new ClassCastException();
return self.ordinal - other.ordinal;
}
And even more importantly,
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public final Class<MyEnum> getDeclaringClass() {
Class<?> clazz = getClass();
Class<?> zuper = clazz.getSuperclass();
return (zuper == Enum.class) ? (Class<MyEnum>)clazz : (Class<MyEnum>)zuper;
}
This makes getDeclaringClass() cast to the proper Class<T> object.
A way clearer example is the one that I answered on this question where you cannot avoid this construct if you want to specify a generic bound.

According to wikipedia, this pattern is called Curiously recurring template pattern.
Basically, by using the CRTP pattern, we can easily refer to subclass type without type casting, which means by using the pattern, we can imitate virtual function.

How do I create an interface with methods that take an instance of some enum type?

I have in mind an interface which declares a method for converting a raw score from a survey to a percentile value for a particular category, where the categories are described by more than one otherwise unrelated enum types. So I started with this:
public interface NormTable<E extends Enum<E>> {
Integer percentileForRawScore(E e, int score);
}
I've then got an implementing class for, say, the Foo survey and its Subscale enum:
public class FooSubscaleNormTable implements NormTable<Subscale> {
public Integer percentileForRawScore(Subscale e, int score) {
// Implementation
}
}
And finally, a factory class for creating the appropriate concrete class:
public class NormTableFactory {
public static <E extends Enum<E>> NormTable<E> normTableForSurveyAndType(
String surveyCode, Class<E> clazz) {
if ("Foo".equals(surveyCode) && Subscale.class.equals(clazz)) {
return (NormTable<E>) new FooSubscaleNormTable();
} else {
// ...
}
}
}
I suspect the cast there is wrong, as Eclipse flags it as unchecked, though lets me carry on. The Java 1.6 compiler on the build server, however, is not happy at all and flags them as inconvertible types.
Have I got the signatures in the factory class wrong, or is my whole architecture looking suspect? I note above that the enum types are "otherwise unrelated", though they all represent categories within surveys, and could conceivably implement an interface to unify their types. Would that help?

You shouldn't use a concrete Enum class in your declaring type.
Make FooSubscaleNormTable generic as well
public class FooSubscaleNormTable<E extends Enum<E>> implements NormTable<E> {
public Integer percentileForRawScore(E e, int score) {
if(e instanceof Subscale) {
switch((Subscale) e) {
case X:
// do something
break;
}
}
// return 0;
}
}
and change your factory to
public class NormTableFactory {
public static <E extends Enum<E>> NormTable<E> normTableForSurveyAndType(
String surveyCode, Class<E> clazz) {
if ("Foo".equals(surveyCode) && Subscale.class.equals(clazz)) {
return (NormTable<E>) new FooSubscaleNormTable<E>();
} else {
// whatever else
}
}
}
Then when you invoke it, that is when you pass in your desired enum type.
NormTable<Subscale> scale = NormTableFactory.normTableForSurveyAndType("surveyCode", Subscale.class);

Avoiding Java Type Erasure

Is there a way one could avoid type erasure and get access to a type parameter?
public class Foo<T extends Enum<?> & Bar> {
public Foo() {
// access the template class here?
// i.e. :
baz(T.class); // obviously doesn't work
}
private void baz(Class<T> qux) {
// do stuff like
T[] constants = qux.getEnumConstants();
...
}
}
I need to know about T, and do things with it. Is it possible, and if so, how can it be done without passing in the class in the constructor or anywhere besides the parameter?
EDIT: The main purpose of this question is to find out if there is any practical way around type erasure.

AFACT, there is no practical way around type erasure because you can't ask for something which the runtime doesn't have access to. Assuming of course you agree that sub-classing generic classes for each enum which implements Bar interface is a practical work around.
enum Test implements Bar {
ONE, TWO
}
class Foo<T> extends FooAbstract<Test> {
public Foo() {
ParameterizedType genericSuperclass =
(ParameterizedType) getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
baz((Class<T>) genericSuperclass.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
private void baz(Class<T> qux) {
T[] constants = qux.getEnumConstants();
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(constants)); // print [ONE, TWO]
}
}
interface Bar {
}
class FooAbstract<T extends Enum<?> & Bar> {
}

If you're willing/able to hand a class token to the constructor:
public Foo(Class<T> clazz) {
baz(clazz);
}
private void baz(Class<T> qux) {
// ...
}
That way, you can produce objects of type T with Class.newInstance(), attempt to cast arbitrary objects to T using Class.cast(), etc.
What do you intend to do in baz()?

As pholser points out in his answer, the only way to achieve this is by passing in the Class object representing the type T. It's because of Type Erasure that something like T.class isn't possible because T is erased before runtime.
You seem resistant against passing in the Class object, but it's the only way to use the method getEnumConstants(). Here is a self contained example:
public class Foo<T extends Enum<?> & Bar> {
final Class<T> clazz;
public Foo(Class<T> clazz) {
this.clazz = clazz;
}
public void baz() {
T[] constants = clazz.getEnumConstants();
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(constants));
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Foo<MyEnum>(MyEnum.class).baz(); //prints "[A, B, C, D]"
}
}
public interface Bar { }
public enum MyEnum implements Bar { A, B, C, D; }

Use a super type token as proposed by Neil Gafter and used by libraries like guice for this purpose.
See http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/12/super-type-tokens.html for the original description and I've check out the guice source for CA radio life working implementation.
there is another q which has an answer with worked example inline here How can I pass a Class as parameter and return a generic collection in Java?

In some cases you can use a workaround suggested by Richard Gomes.
When creating instances of anonymous classes, the type parameter class info is available.
class A<T>
{
A()
{
java.lang.reflect.ParameterizedType parameterizedType = (java.lang.reflect.ParameterizedType) (this.getClass().getGenericSuperclass());
System.out.println(parameterizedType.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
}
}
public class Example {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A<String> anonymous = new A<String>() {}; // prints java.lang.String
}
}
Note that multiple instances created this way will be of different anonymous classes, and if that's a problem you might want a class A_String_Factory with a createNew() function based on clone to replace the calls to new.

How would one go about dealing with generic enums in Java?

So, I have an abstract class like:
public abstract class AbstractParent <E extends Enum<E>> {...}
Somewhere in a non-abstract method inside AbstractParent, I would like to iterate over the values of E. Is this possible?
For a better example:
public abstract class AbstractParent <E extends Enum<E>> {
...
protected void doSomething() {
//iterate over the values of E and perform an action using them
}
}
public class Child extends AbstractParent<Child.Index> {
public static enum Index {
...
}
public Child() {
super();
this.doSomething(); //this should iterate over Index's values
}
}
EDIT:
So, thanks to mdma, this works awesomely:
public abstract class AbstractParent <E extends Enum<E>> {
...
protected void doSomething() {
//iterate over the values of E and perform an action using them
ParameterizedType pt = (ParameterizedType) this.getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
Type t = pt.getActualTypeArguments()[0];
E[] enumValues = ((Class<E>)t).getEnumConstants();
// enumValues is now an iterable array of the values inside Index
}
}
public class Child extends AbstractParent<Child.Index> {
public static enum Index {
...
}
public Child() {
super();
this.doSomething(); //this should iterate over Index's values
}
}
Thanks LOADS to mdma, you deserve more points than I can give.

EDIT2: Generics on superclasses and interfaces are not erased. You can get the generic type at runtime and use that to fetch the enum values. See Class.getGenericSuperclass. This will save you having to pass the value or a class in the constructor.
Original:
You cannot do this with generics. However, if you pass in the corresponding class also, e.g. a constructor like
AbstractParent(Class<E> enumClass)
{
this.enumClass = enumClass;
}
Then you can use that to fetch the corresponding enum values via
public E[] getValues()
{
return this.enumClass.getEnumConstants();
}
EDIT: Although the clients are not professional programmers, the compiler will ensure the correct class is passed. You can also make the usage clear by providing examples, and unit tests.
You could also have the constructor take and actual value of the Enum, and derive the class from that. This might be simpler to use, since the parameter is then an E rather than the more "scary" Class<E>.
E.g.
AbstractParent(E enumValue)
{
this.enumClass = enumValue.getClass();
}

Since generics are erased at runtime, the only way this is possible is by having a constructor that requires a Class<E> parameter on which you can then call getEnumConstants().