I just studied about generic programming, the List<E>
interface, and ArrayList
, so I can understand the statement below.
ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
But I don't understand the next statement which I saw while surfing the web.
List<String> list2 = Collections.<String>emptyList();
Collections
? Why isn't it Collections<E>
or Collections<String>
?<String>
placed before the method name emptyList
?(Isn't emptyList<String>()
correct for Generic?)
The emptyList() method of Java Collections class is used to get a List that has no elements. These empty list are immutable in nature.
emptyList is immutable so there is a difference between the two versions so you have to consider users of the returned value. Returning new ArrayList<Foo> always creates a new instance of the object so it has a very slight extra cost associated with it which may give you a reason to use Collections.
The emptyList() method of Java Collections returns the list with no elements. This method is immutable. That is, we can not do any modifications after creating this method.
List list = new ArrayList(); Create a List and specify the type of elements it can holds.
That line creates an empty list of strings by calling a static method with a generic type parameter.
Inside the Collections
class, there is a static method emptyList
declared like:
public static final <T> List<T> emptyList() { return (List<T>) EMPTY_LIST; }
This has a generic type parameter T
. We call call this method by using:
List<String> list = Collections.emptyList();
and T
is infered to be a String
because of the type of list
.
We can also specify the type of T
by putting it in angle brackets when calling emptyList
. This may be needed if we want a more specific type than is inferred:
List<? extends Object> list = Collections.<String>emptyList();
emptyList<String>()
is not correct because that placement is only valid when creating instances of generic classes, not calling methods. When using new
there are two possible type parameters, the ones before the class name are for the constructor only, and the ones after the class name are for the whole instance, so with the class:
class MyClass<A> { public <B> MyClass(A a, B b) { System.out.println(a + ", " + b); } }
We can call its constructor where A
is String
and B
is Integer
like:
MyClass<String> a = new <Integer>MyClass<String>("a", 3);
or by using type inference:
MyClass<String> a = new MyClass<>("a", 3);
See also:
What is
Collections
? Why isn't itCollections<E>
orCollections<String>
?
Collections
is a JDK class.
This class consists exclusively of static methods that operate on or return collections. It contains polymorphic algorithms that operate on collections, "wrappers", which return a new collection backed by a specified collection, and a few other odds and ends.
It's not generic and cannot be instantiated.
Why is
<String>
placed before the method nameemptyList
?
Collections#emptyList
is a generic method. Here, we are explicitly specifying a type argument, String
.
(Isn't
emptyList<String>()
correct for Generic?)
No, in Java, generic type arguments for methods come before the method name.
What does the statement mean?
We are invoking the static emptyList
method and assigning its return value to a variable of type List<String>
.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With