Is it good practice to replace Class with Class<? extends Object> to avoid warnings?

Question

In a bunch o' places in my code, I have something like this:

public Class mySpecialMethod() {
  return MySpecialClass.class;
}

which causes the warning

Class is a raw type. References to generic type Class should be parameterized.

But, if I replace

Class

with

Class<? extends Object>

the warning goes away.

Is this simple practice ok, or could it cause trouble later?

Answer 1

It's the correct thing to do only if there really is no common base class or interface that the Class object needs to represent.

Also Class<?> is effectively the same as Class<? extends Object>.

Answer 2

Yes, it's totally right.

It's a requirement that you specify the type. And if you can't, you have to specify the wildcard.

Further reading: Java Language Specification: Parameterized Types