how to init an instance in a java generic method

Question

I have this code:

    public <V> V getPropertiesByObject(V sample) throws TimeoutException {
//settings fields using reflaction
        return sample;
    }

which I call like this:

MyClass a = getPropertiesByObject(new MyClass());

only because I don't know how to construct an instance otherwise.

I would prefer:

public <V> V getPropertiesByObject(Class<V> sample) throws TimeoutException {
//how to create a new V instance?
    return result;
}

Is there a way to refactor my original code?

I don't really see a problem with getPropertiesByObject(new MyClass());. — Radiodef
– Radiodef, Commented May 11, 2015 at 12:38

Bohemian · Accepted Answer · 2015-05-11 12:45:47Z

2

You can use reflection - here's a basic implementation that shows one way:

public <V> V getPropertiesByObject(Class<V> clazz, Object... params) throws TimeoutException {
    Class<?>[] paramClasses = new Class<?>[params.length];
    for (int i =0; i < params.length; i++)
        paramClasses[i] = params[i].getClass(); 
    V result = clazz.getConstructor(paramClasses).newInstance((Object[])params);
    return result;
}

The parameter params, which may be empty, are the parameters to pass to the constructor corresponding to those parameters. This code won't handle null values. Here's how you might call it:

String str = getPropertiesByObject(String.class); // blank String
Integer i = getPropertiesByObject(Integer.class, "1"); // 1

answered May 11, 2015 at 12:45

Bohemian♦

427k103 gold badges603 silver badges750 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

vap78 Over a year ago

You are losing the benefit from generics with that implementation. For example "String string = getPropertiesByObject(String.class, new Object())" will not report an error at compile time but will crash at runtime. The whole point of generics is to guarantee correctness of calls at compile time and prevent runtime errors.

Bohemian Over a year ago

@vap78 of course - reflection bypasses not only generics, but all static type checks. You can protect yourself from runtime errors by writing unit tests that exercise your reflective code - although not strictly compile time checking, build time checking is close enough (since your run all unit tests when you compile your code). The main downside is you don't get any help from IDEs and this kind of code is harder for read.

vap78 Over a year ago

what I mean that with the suggested changes the usage of generics makes little sense. The method signature could be "Object getPropertiesByObject(Class clazz, Object... params)" and there will be very little difference - the caller will anyway have to watch to pass parameters that match the constructor of the given class.

Bohemian Over a year ago

@vap78 yes, but if the method is typed, as least the calling code can infer the type so it's quite useful. You're right that typing the method doesn't make its implementation any safer ("the gloves are off" when you use reflection)

NiziL · Accepted Answer · 2015-05-11 12:49:47Z

1

If V has a parameterless constructor, you can use Class<V>::newInstance().

public <V> V getPropertiesByObject(Class<V> sample) throws TimeoutException {
    V result = sample.newInstance();
    // stuff on V
    return result;
}

Of course, you will use it like this: MyClass a = getPropertiesByObject(MyClass.class)

If you have to specify some parameters, you can do something like:

public <V> V getPropertiesByObject(Class<V> sample, Object... params) throws TimeoutException {
    V result = sample.newInstance();
    result.param0 = params[0];
    result.param1 = params[1];
    // etc  
    return result;
}

But in both case, MyClass must have a parameterless constructor. If you can't edit MyClass, you should use the Bohemian's answer using Constructor.

edited May 11, 2015 at 12:49

answered May 11, 2015 at 12:34

NiziL

5,1401 gold badge26 silver badges34 bronze badges

2 Comments

Elad Benda2 Over a year ago

and if no parameterless ctor?

NiziL Over a year ago

@user1065869 Well, you can add one and specify parameters like in my edited answer, or use Class::getConstrutor(Class<?>... parameterTypes) as specified in the Bohemian's answer :)

Community · Accepted Answer · 2017-05-23 12:21:54Z

0

So you want to create a method that can create an instance of ANY possible class and set ANY possible fields to the instance?

This is quite hard. Frameworks like GSON have the same issue and they either require that you have a no-argument constructor in the beans used, or provide a way to create instances for a certain class (see Is default no-args constructor mandatory for Gson?).

Else for your specific case - if you know the set of classes that you are going to instantiate then you can implement a factory class that creates instances based on a class object with some kind of if-else-if-else... structure.

edited May 23, 2017 at 12:21

CommunityBot

11 silver badge

answered May 11, 2015 at 12:53

vap78

1,0612 gold badges13 silver badges28 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

how to init an instance in a java generic method

3 Answers 3

4 Comments

2 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

3 Answers 3

4 Comments

2 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related