When do Java generics require extends T instead of T and is there any downside of switching

Question

Given the following example  using JUnit with Hamcrest matchers    Map lt String  Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  expected   null  Map lt String  Class lt java util Date gt  gt  result   null  assertThat result  is expected        This does not compile with the JUnit assertThat method signature of   public static  lt T gt  void assertThat T actual  Matcher lt T gt  matcher    The compiler error message is   Error Error line  102 cannot find symbol method assertThat java util Map lt java lang String java lang Class lt java util Date gt  gt   org hamcrest Matcher lt java util Map lt java lang String java lang Class      lt   extends java io Serializable gt  gt  gt     However  if I change the assertThat method signature to   public static  lt T gt  void assertThat T result  Matcher lt   extends T gt  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 lt   extends T gt   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  lt T gt  void assertThat T actual  Matcher lt T gt  matcher        assertThat     actual  matcher      public static  lt T gt  void assertThat String reason  T actual  Matcher lt T gt  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

User · Answer

what if you use  Map lt String    extends Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  expected   null

User · Answer

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   lt T extends SomeClass gt    when the actual parameter can be SomeClass or any subtype of it   In your example   Map lt String  Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  expected   null  Map lt String  Class lt java util Date gt  gt  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 lt Date gt  and not Date  A map of String to Class lt Date gt  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

User · Answer

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 lt Date gt  or Map lt K  V gt  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 lt java util Date gt  dateList   new ArrayList lt java util Date gt     Serializable s   new String    addGeneric s  dateList         private  lt T gt  void addGeneric T element  List lt T gt  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 lt String  Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  It is not the same thing as a Map lt String  Class lt java util Date gt  gt   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  lt T gt  void genericAdd T value  List lt T gt  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 lt   extends T gt    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 lt String gt  but then pass a match that the compiler works out to Matcher lt ArrayList lt T gt  gt   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

User · Answer

It boils down to   Class lt   extends Serializable gt  c1   null  Class lt java util Date gt  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 lt Long gt    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 lt Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  l1   null  List lt Class lt java util Date gt  gt  l2   null  l1   l2     wont compile l2   l1     wont compile      However  if the type of the List becomes   extends T instead of T      List lt   extends Class lt   extends Serializable gt  gt  l1   null  List lt   extends Class lt java util Date gt  gt  l2   null  l1   l2     compiles l2   l1     won t compile   I think by changing Matcher lt T gt  to Matcher lt   extends T gt   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

User · Answer

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  lt T gt  void sort List lt T gt  list  Comparator lt   super T gt  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 lt T gt  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

User · Answer

The reason your original code doesn t compile is that  lt   extends Serializable gt  does not mean   quot any class that extends Serializable  quot  but  quot some unknown but specific class that extends Serializable  quot  For example  given the code as written  it is perfectly valid to assign new TreeMap lt String  Long class gt    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

User · Answer

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 lt   extends Serializable gt  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

[java] When do Java generics require <? extends T> instead of <T> and is there any downside of switching?

Examples related to java

Examples related to generics

Examples related to junit