[java] UnmodifiableMap (Java Collections) vs ImmutableMap (Google)

Context

I need to return a reference to a map that I'm using for a data cache, and I'd like to make sure nobody can modify their reference.

Question

I've seen lots of references to UnmodifiableMap and ImmutableMap online, but I don't see anything comparing/contrasting them. I figure there is a good reason that Google/Guava created their own version - can someone tell me what it is?

ImmutableMap does not accept null values whereas Collections.unmodifiableMap() does. In addition it will never change after construction, while UnmodifiableMap may. From the JavaDoc:

An immutable, hash-based Map with reliable user-specified iteration order. Does not permit null keys or values.

Unlike Collections.unmodifiableMap(java.util.Map), which is a view of a separate map which can still change, an instance of ImmutableMap contains its own data and will never change. ImmutableMap is convenient for public static final maps ("constant maps") and also lets you easily make a "defensive copy" of a map provided to your class by a caller.

Have a look at ImmutableMap JavaDoc: doc

There is information about that there:

Unlike Collections.unmodifiableMap(java.util.Map), which is a view of a separate map which can still change, an instance of ImmutableMap contains its own data and will never change. ImmutableMap is convenient for public static final maps ("constant maps") and also lets you easily make a "defensive copy" of a map provided to your class by a caller.

Guava Documentation

The JDK provides Collections.unmodifiableXXX methods, but in our opinion, these can be unwieldy and verbose; unpleasant to use everywhere you want to make defensive copies unsafe: the returned collections are only truly immutable if nobody holds a reference to the original collection inefficient: the data structures still have all the overhead of mutable collections, including concurrent modification checks, extra space in hash tables, etc.