Why ambiguous error when using varargs overloading with primitive type and wrapper class? [duplicate]

Question

I do not understand why here in case 1, it is not giving compilation error, contrary in case 2 (varargs), it gives compilation error. Can anyone please elaborate what differences the compiler makes in these two cases? I went through many posts about it, but not able to understand it yet.

Case #1

public class Test {

    public void display(int a) {
        System.out.println("1");
    }

    public void display(Integer a) {
        System.out.println("2");
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Test().display(0);
    }
}

The Output is: 1

Case #2

public class Test {

    public void display(int... a) {
        System.out.println("1");
    }

    public void display(Integer... a) {
        System.out.println("2");
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Test().display(0);
    }
}

Compilation Error:

The method display(int[]) is ambiguous for the type Test

Answer 1

In your first example the display(int) method is invoked in strict invocation context while display(Integer) is invoked in loose invocation context (since auto-boxing is required). Thus the compiler chooses the display(int) method according to JLS. Invocation contexts are explained here JLS 5.3. Invocation Contexts

In the second example both methods are invoked in loose invocation context thus the compiler needs to find the most specific method JLS 15.12.2.5 Choosing the Most Specific Method. Since int is not a subtype of Integer there is no most specific method and the compiler throws a compilation error.

You can find my explanation for a similar compilation error here Method overload ambiguity with Java 8 ternary conditional and unboxed primitives

The parts that apply to this case:

Identifying applicable methods is divided into 3 phases.

The first phase (§15.12.2.2) performs overload resolution without permitting boxing or unboxing conversion, or the use of variable arity method invocation. If no applicable method is found during this phase then processing continues to the second phase.

The second phase (§15.12.2.3) performs overload resolution while allowing boxing and unboxing, but still precludes the use of variable arity method invocation. If no applicable method is found during this phase then processing continues to the third phase.

The third phase (§15.12.2.4) allows overloading to be combined with variable arity methods, boxing, and unboxing.

For the first example only the display(int) method is matched on the first phase thus it is chosen. For the second example both methods are matched on the 3rd phase thus the Choosing the Most Specific Method algorithm comes into play JLS 15.12.2.5 Choosing the Most Specific Method:

m2 is not generic, and m1 and m2 are applicable by variable arity invocation, and where the first k variable arity parameter types of m1 are S1, ..., Sk and the first k variable arity parameter types of m2 are T1, ..., Tk, the type Si is more specific than Ti for argument ei for all i (1 ≤ i ≤ k). Additionally, if m2 has k+1 parameters, then the k+1'th variable arity parameter type of m1 is a subtype of the k+1'th variable arity parameter type of m2.

As mentioned earlier there is no most specific method since int <: Integer does not satisfy.