Why doesn't the first of the following examples work?
run(R::new);
method R.run
is not called.run(new R());
method R.run
is called.Both examples are compiled-able.
public class ConstructorRefVsNew {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(R::new);
System.out.println("-----------------------");
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(new R());
}
void run(Runnable r) {
r.run();
}
static class R implements Runnable {
R() {
System.out.println("R constructor runs");
}
@Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("R.run runs");
}
}
}
The output is:
R constructor runs
-----------------------
R constructor runs
R.run runs
In the first example, the R
constructor is called, it returns lambda (which is not object):
But then how is it possible, that the example is compiled successfully?
lang. Runnable is an interface that is to be implemented by a class whose instances are intended to be executed by a thread. There are two ways to start a new Thread – Subclass Thread and implement Runnable. There is no need of subclassing a Thread when a task can be done by overriding only run() method of Runnable.
No. new Runnable does not create second Thread .
start method of thread class is implemented as when it is called a new Thread is created and code inside run() method is executed in that new Thread. While if run method is executed directly than no new Thread is created and code inside run() will execute on current Thread and no multi-threading will take place.
Your run
method takes a Runnable
instance, and that explains why run(new R())
works with the R
implementation.
R::new
is not equivalent to new R()
. It can fit the signature of a Supplier<Runnable>
(or similar functional interfaces), but R::new
cannot be used as a Runnable
implemented with your R
class.
A version of your run
method that can takeR::new
could look like this (but this would be unnecessarily complex):
void run(Supplier<Runnable> r) {
r.get().run();
}
Why does it compile?
Because the compiler can make a Runnable
out of the constructor call, and that would be equivalent to this lambda expression version:
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(() -> {
new R(); //discarded result, but this is the run() body
});
The same applies to these statements:
Runnable runnable = () -> new R();
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(runnable);
Runnable runnable2 = R::new;
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(runnable2);
But, as you can notice, the Runnable
created with R::new
does just call new R()
in its run
method body.
A valid use of a method reference to execute R#run
could use an instance, like this (but you'd surely rather use the r
instance directly, in this case):
R r = new R();
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(r::run);
The first example:
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run(R::new);
is more or less equivalent to:
new ConstructorRefVsNew().run( () -> {new R();} );
The effect is you just create an instance of R but do not call its run
method.
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