Java String "".value

Java String "".value - java

I have been going through String class in Java in depth.
String in Java is backed by character array.
To create strings that have initial values, we call the constructor as:
/* String creation */
String s = new String("example");
The constructor code in the String class is:
public String(String original) {
this.value = original.value;
}
Can some one please explain me the logic of "original.value". From the source code, I understand it returns character array. But how java generates it?

The "foo" syntax has already constructed a String instance, it's syntactic sugar so that you don't have to write:
String foo = new String(new char[]{'f', 'o', 'o'});
So by the time you call new String("foo") you've already constructed a string once, and are now creating a copy of the first string - not "creat[ing] strings that have initial values".
Effective Java: Item 5 discusses this in more detail, and discourages ever using the new String(String) constructor.

Related

Java String transform to char array

I want to ask how does the "".value transform char array,Thanks
public final class String
implements java.io.Serializable, Comparable<String>, CharSequence {
/** The value is used for character storage. */
private final char value[];
/**
* Initializes a newly created {#code String} object so that it represents
* an empty character sequence. Note that use of this constructor is
* unnecessary since Strings are immutable.
*/
public String() {
this.value = "".value;
}

You should tell, which JRE implementation you are looking at, when you cite its source code.
However, the code is quite simple:
"" refers to a String constant which is initialized by the JVM
since you are inside the String() constructor which may get called by application code, but not JVM internal initialization, it may safely refer to the "" constant
like any other String object, it has the value field, so inside the String constructor, it is no problem to access that private field and copy the reference; it is equivalent to
String tmp = "";
this.value = tmp.value;
Since both, the "" constant and the instance created with the String() constructor represent empty strings, there is no problem in sharing the char[] array instance between them. However, there are reasons against it:
it is optimizing an uncommon case, as there is usually no reason to ever use the String() constructor at all
it is fragile as it relies on a particular JVM behavior, i.e. that the constant "" is not constructed via the String() constructor; if that assumption is wrong, this implementation will create a circular dependency

"".value
creates empty char[] array, equivalent of this.value = new char[0];

Pass-by-value (StringBuilder vs String) [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is Java "pass-by-reference" or "pass-by-value"?
(93 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I do not understand why System.out.println(name) outputs Sam without being affected by the method's concat function, while System.out.println(names) outputs Sam4 as a result of the method's append method. Why is StringBuilder affected and not String? Normally, calling methods on a reference to an object affects the caller, so I do not understand why the String result remains unchanged. Thanks in advance
public static String speak(String name) {
name = name.concat("4");
return name;
}
public static StringBuilder test(StringBuilder names) {
names = names.append("4");
return names;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String name = "Sam";
speak(name);
System.out.println(name); //Sam
StringBuilder names = new StringBuilder("Sam");
test(names);
System.out.println(names); //Sam4
}

Because when you call speak(name);, inside speak when you do
name = name.concat("4");
it creates a new object because Strings are immutable. When you change the original string it creates a new object,I agree that you are returning it but you are not catching it.
So essentially what you are doing is :
name(new) = name(original) + '4'; // but you should notice that both the names are different objects.
try
String name = "Sam";
name = speak(name);
Of course now I think there is no need to explain why it's working with StringBuilder unless if you don't know that StringBuilder is mutable.

Looking at the Javadoc for String, one will read that
[...] String objects are immutable [...].
This means concat(String) does not change the String itself, but constructs a new String.
StringBuilders, on the other hand, are mutable. By calling append(CharSequence), the object itself is mutated.

Because String is immutable and hence String#concat does not modify the original String instance, it only returns a new String while the original is left unmodified, while StringBuilder is mutable and the change is reflected in the StringBuilder instance passed as parameter.

Okay, what is speak method doing?
First of all,
name.concat("4");
creates new object, which is equal to name, concatenated with "4".
So, the line
name = name.concat(4);
redefines local (for speak method) variable name.
Then you return the reference to this new value with
return name;
So, the original variable, passed within method is not modified, but the method returns modified value.
In the test method you actually modify variable without modifying the reference (the StringBuilder class is mutable, so variable if this type can be modified).
Then we can see another question arising: why StringBuilder.append returns value, where it can seem redundant. The answer to this question lies in the description of "builder" pattern, for which it is the usual way of implementing modification methods. See wikipedia on Builder pattern.

String is immutable in java. As soon as you invoke concat method on name. A new string is created and while you are playing with the old reference in System.out.println(name).If you want to use the modified string you should explicitly return the reference.
While StringBuilder is mutable and it returns the same reference always.

When you invoke speak(name) it computes the new value, but discards it.
If you replace it with
name = speak(name);
the result will be the one you expect.
With the StringBuilder, the object you pass is mutable: so
names.append(names);
changes the state of the current object (it also returns a reference to the same object, which is just a convenience to allow you to write code like names.append(...).append(...) etc.). So in the case of the StringBuilder, the object you are referencing when you call the method has actually changed, hence you see the changes.

In your method speak, the concat method returns a new String, the original object it was called on is unchanged (strings are immutable). As documented:
If the length of the argument string is 0, then this String object is returned. Otherwise, a String object is returned that represents a character sequence that is the concatenation of the character sequence represented by this String object and the character sequence represented by the argument string.
Calling name.concat("4") is the equivalent of name + "4".
In your test method the append method modifies the content of the StringBuilder. As documented:
The principal operations on a StringBuilder are the append and insert methods, which are overloaded so as to accept data of any type. Each effectively converts a given datum to a string and then appends or inserts the characters of that string to the string builder. The append method always adds these characters at the end of the builder; the insert method adds the characters at a specified point.
In your main method both name and names are still the same object as before the method call, but the content of name is unchanged as strings are immutable, while the content of names has been changed.
If instead you had used the return values of both methods, then you would have the result you were expecting.

First of all, String is an immutable class in Java. An immutable class is simply a class whose instances cannot be modified. All information in an instance is initialized when the instance is created and the information can not be modified.
Second, in java parameters are sent by values and not by reference.
In your method 'test' you don't need names = names.append("4"), instead names.append("4") will be enough .
If you check java docs for String object, you will see that most of the methods there, including concat, will generate a new String.
So to have on output Sam4 also for the String, you will need in main method to have this name = speak(name).

String
String is immutable ( once created can not be changed )object . The
object created as a String is stored in the Constant String Pool .
Every immutable object in Java is thread safe ,that implies String is
also thread safe . String can not be used by two threads
simultaneously. String once assigned can not be changed.
String demo = " hello " ; // The above object is stored in constant
string pool and its value can not be modified.
demo="Bye" ; //new "Bye" string is created in constant pool and
referenced by the demo variable // "hello" string still
exists in string constant pool and its value is not overrided but we
lost reference to the "hello"string
StringBuilder
StringBuilder is same as the StringBuffer , that is it stores the
object in heap and it can also be modified . The main difference
between the StringBuffer and StringBuilder is that StringBuilder is
also not thread safe. StringBuilder is fast as it is not thread safe
.
For more details check this
Conclusion:
You don't need to re-assign the value again to StringBuilder as it is already a reference
test method should be
public static void test(StringBuilder names) {
names.append("4");
}
but speak should be
String name = "Sam";
name = speak(name);

Why does String not require a constructor in Java? [duplicate]

I'm a C++ guy learning Java. I'm reading Effective Java and something confused me. It says never to write code like this:
String s = new String("silly");
Because it creates unnecessary String objects. But instead it should be written like this:
String s = "No longer silly";
Ok fine so far...However, given this class:
public final class CaseInsensitiveString {
private String s;
public CaseInsensitiveString(String s) {
if (s == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
this.s = s;
}
:
:
}
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
String s = "polish";
Why is the first statement ok? Shouldn't it be
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
How do I make CaseInsensitiveString behave like String so the above statement is OK (with and without extending String)? What is it about String that makes it OK to just be able to pass it a literal like that? From my understanding there is no "copy constructor" concept in Java?

String is a special built-in class of the language. It is for the String class only in which you should avoid saying
String s = new String("Polish");
Because the literal "Polish" is already of type String, and you're creating an extra unnecessary object. For any other class, saying
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
is the correct (and only, in this case) thing to do.

I believe the main benefit of using the literal form (ie, "foo" rather than new String("foo")) is that all String literals are 'interned' by the VM. In other words it is added to a pool such that any other code that creates the same string will use the pooled String rather than creating a new instance.
To illustrate, the following code will print true for the first line, but false for the second:
System.out.println("foo" == "foo");
System.out.println(new String("bar") == new String("bar"));

Strings are treated a bit specially in java, they're immutable so it's safe for them to be handled by reference counting.
If you write
String s = "Polish";
String t = "Polish";
then s and t actually refer to the same object, and s==t will return true, for "==" for objects read "is the same object" (or can, anyway, I"m not sure if this is part of the actual language spec or simply a detail of the compiler implementation-so maybe it's not safe to rely on this) .
If you write
String s = new String("Polish");
String t = new String("Polish");
then s!=t (because you've explicitly created a new string) although s.equals(t) will return true (because string adds this behavior to equals).
The thing you want to write,
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
can't work because you're thinking that the quotations are some sort of short-circuit constructor for your object, when in fact this only works for plain old java.lang.Strings.

String s1="foo";
literal will go in pool and s1 will refer.
String s2="foo";
this time it will check "foo" literal is already available in StringPool or not as now it exist so s2 will refer the same literal.
String s3=new String("foo");
"foo" literal will be created in StringPool first then through string arg constructor String Object will be created i.e "foo" in the heap due to object creation through new operator then s3 will refer it.
String s4=new String("foo");
same as s3
so System.out.println(s1==s2);// **true** due to literal comparison.
and System.out.println(s3==s4);// **false** due to object
comparison(s3 and s4 is created at different places in heap)

Strings are special in Java - they're immutable, and string constants are automatically turned into String objects.
There's no way for your SomeStringClass cis = "value" example to apply to any other class.
Nor can you extend String, because it's declared as final, meaning no sub-classing is allowed.

Java strings are interesting. It looks like the responses have covered some of the interesting points. Here are my two cents.
strings are immutable (you can never change them)
String x = "x";
x = "Y";
The first line will create a variable x which will contain the string value "x". The JVM will look in its pool of string values and see if "x" exists, if it does, it will point the variable x to it, if it does not exist, it will create it and then do the assignment
The second line will remove the reference to "x" and see if "Y" exists in the pool of string values. If it does exist, it will assign it, if it does not, it will create it first then assignment. As the string values are used or not, the memory space in the pool of string values will be reclaimed.
string comparisons are contingent on what you are comparing
String a1 = new String("A");
String a2 = new String("A");
a1 does not equal a2
a1 and a2 are object references
When string is explicitly declared, new instances are created and their references will not be the same.
I think you're on the wrong path with trying to use the caseinsensitive class. Leave the strings alone. What you really care about is how you display or compare the values. Use another class to format the string or to make comparisons.
i.e.
TextUtility.compare(string 1, string 2)
TextUtility.compareIgnoreCase(string 1, string 2)
TextUtility.camelHump(string 1)
Since you are making up the class, you can make the compares do what you want - compare the text values.

The best way to answer your question would be to make you familiar with the "String constant pool". In java string objects are immutable (i.e their values cannot be changed once they are initialized), so when editing a string object you end up creating a new edited string object wherease the old object just floats around in a special memory ares called the "string constant pool". creating a new string object by
String s = "Hello";
will only create a string object in the pool and the reference s will refer to it, but by using
String s = new String("Hello");
you create two string objects: one in the pool and the other in the heap. the reference will refer to the object in the heap.

You can't. Things in double-quotes in Java are specially recognised by the compiler as Strings, and unfortunately you can't override this (or extend java.lang.String - it's declared final).

- How do i make CaseInsensitiveString behave like String so the above statement is ok (with and w/out extending String)? What is it about String that makes it ok to just be able to pass it a literal like that? From my understanding there is no "copy constructor" concept in Java right?
Enough has been said from the first point. "Polish" is an string literal and cannot be assigned to the CaseInsentiviveString class.
Now about the second point
Although you can't create new literals, you can follow the first item of that book for a "similar" approach so the following statements are true:
// Lets test the insensitiveness
CaseInsensitiveString cis5 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("sOmEtHiNg");
CaseInsensitiveString cis6 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SoMeThInG");
assert cis5 == cis6;
assert cis5.equals(cis6);
Here's the code.
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>type CaseInsensitiveString.java
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.HashMap;
public final class CaseInsensitiveString {
private static final Map<String,CaseInsensitiveString> innerPool
= new HashMap<String,CaseInsensitiveString>();
private final String s;
// Effective Java Item 1: Consider providing static factory methods instead of constructors
public static CaseInsensitiveString valueOf( String s ) {
if ( s == null ) {
return null;
}
String value = s.toLowerCase();
if ( !CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.containsKey( value ) ) {
CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.put( value , new CaseInsensitiveString( value ) );
}
return CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.get( value );
}
// Class constructor: This creates a new instance each time it is invoked.
public CaseInsensitiveString(String s){
if (s == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
this.s = s.toLowerCase();
}
public boolean equals( Object other ) {
if ( other instanceof CaseInsensitiveString ) {
CaseInsensitiveString otherInstance = ( CaseInsensitiveString ) other;
return this.s.equals( otherInstance.s );
}
return false;
}
public int hashCode(){
return this.s.hashCode();
}
// Test the class using the "assert" keyword
public static void main( String [] args ) {
// Creating two different objects as in new String("Polish") == new String("Polish") is false
CaseInsensitiveString cis1 = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
CaseInsensitiveString cis2 = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
// references cis1 and cis2 points to differents objects.
// so the following is true
assert cis1 != cis2; // Yes they're different
assert cis1.equals(cis2); // Yes they're equals thanks to the equals method
// Now let's try the valueOf idiom
CaseInsensitiveString cis3 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("Polish");
CaseInsensitiveString cis4 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("Polish");
// References cis3 and cis4 points to same object.
// so the following is true
assert cis3 == cis4; // Yes they point to the same object
assert cis3.equals(cis4); // and still equals.
// Lets test the insensitiveness
CaseInsensitiveString cis5 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("sOmEtHiNg");
CaseInsensitiveString cis6 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SoMeThInG");
assert cis5 == cis6;
assert cis5.equals(cis6);
// Futhermore
CaseInsensitiveString cis7 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SomethinG");
CaseInsensitiveString cis8 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("someThing");
assert cis8 == cis5 && cis7 == cis6;
assert cis7.equals(cis5) && cis6.equals(cis8);
}
}
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>javac CaseInsensitiveString.java
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>java -ea CaseInsensitiveString
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>
That is, create an internal pool of CaseInsensitiveString objects, and return the corrensponding instance from there.
This way the "==" operator returns true for two objects references representing the same value.
This is useful when similar objects are used very frequently and creating cost is expensive.
The string class documentation states that the class uses an internal pool
The class is not complete, some interesting issues arises when we try to walk the contents of the object at implementing the CharSequence interface, but this code is good enough to show how that item in the Book could be applied.
It is important to notice that by using the internalPool object, the references are not released and thus not garbage collectible, and that may become an issue if a lot of objects are created.
It works for the String class because it is used intensively and the pool is constituted of "interned" object only.
It works well for the Boolean class too, because there are only two possible values.
And finally that's also the reason why valueOf(int) in class Integer is limited to -128 to 127 int values.

In your first example, you are creating a String, "silly" and then passing it as a parameter to another String's copy constructor, which makes a second String which is identical to the first. Since Java Strings are immutable (something that frequently stings people who are used to C strings), this is a needless waste of resources. You should instead use the second example because it skips several needless steps.
However, the String literal is not a CaseInsensitiveString so there you cannot do what you want in your last example. Furthermore, there is no way to overload a casting operator like you can in C++ so there is literally no way to do what you want. You must instead pass it in as a parameter to your class's constructor. Of course, I'd probably just use String.toLowerCase() and be done with it.
Also, your CaseInsensitiveString should implement the CharSequence interface as well as probably the Serializable and Comparable interfaces. Of course, if you implement Comparable, you should override equals() and hashCode() as well.

CaseInsensitiveString is not a String although it contains a String. A String literal e.g "example" can be only assigned to a String.

CaseInsensitiveString and String are different objects. You can't do:
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
because "Polish" is a String, not a CaseInsensitiveString. If String extended CaseInsensitiveString String then you'd be OK, but obviously it doesn't.
And don't worry about the construction here, you won't be making unecessary objects. If you look at the code of the constructor, all it's doing is storing a reference to the string you passed in. Nothing extra is being created.
In the String s = new String("foobar") case it's doing something different. You are first creating the literal string "foobar", then creating a copy of it by constructing a new string out of it. There's no need to create that copy.

Just because you have the word String in your class, does not mean you get all the special features of the built-in String class.

when they say to write
String s = "Silly";
instead of
String s = new String("Silly");
they mean it when creating a String object because both of the above statements create a String object but the new String() version creates two String objects: one in heap and the other in string constant pool. Hence using more memory.
But when you write
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
you are not creating a String instead you are creating an object of class CaseInsensitiveString. Hence you need to use the new operator.

If I understood it correctly, your question means why we cannot create an object by directly assigning it a value, lets not restrict it to a Wrapper of String class in java.
To answer that I would just say, purely Object Oriented Programming languages have some constructs and it says, that all the literals when written alone can be directly transformed into an object of the given type.
That precisely means, if the interpreter sees 3 it will be converted into an Integer object because integer is the type defined for such literals.
If the interpreter sees any thing in single quotes like 'a' it will directly create an object of type character, you do not need to specify it as the language defines the default object of type character for it.
Similarly if the interpreter sees something in "" it will be considered as an object of its default type i.e. string. This is some native code working in the background.
Thanks to MIT video lecture course 6.00 where I got the hint for this answer.

In Java the syntax "text" creates an instance of class java.lang.String. The assignment:
String foo = "text";
is a simple assignment, with no copy constructor necessary.
MyString bar = "text";
Is illegal whatever you do because the MyString class isn't either java.lang.String or a superclass of java.lang.String.

First, you can't make a class that extends from String, because String is a final class. And java manage Strings differently from other classes so only with String you can do
String s = "Polish";
But whit your class you have to invoke the constructor. So, that code is fine.

I would just add that Java has Copy constructors...
Well, that's an ordinary constructor with an object of same type as argument.

String is one of the special classes in which you can create them without the new Sring part
it's the same as
int x = y;
or
char c;

String str1 = "foo";
String str2 = "foo";
Both str1 and str2 belongs to tha same String object, "foo", b'coz Java manages Strings in StringPool, so if a new variable refers to the same String, it doesn't create another one rather assign the same alerady present in StringPool.
String str1 = new String("foo");
String str2 = new String("foo");
Here both str1 and str2 belongs to different Objects, b'coz new String() forcefully create a new String Object.

It is a basic law that Strings in java are immutable and case sensitive.

Java creates a String object for each string literal you use in your code. Any time "" is used, it is the same as calling new String().
Strings are complex data that just "act" like primitive data. String literals are actually objects even though we pretend they're primitive literals, like 6, 6.0, 'c', etc. So the String "literal" "text" returns a new String object with value char[] value = {'t','e','x','t}. Therefore, calling
new String("text");
is actually akin to calling
new String(new String(new char[]{'t','e','x','t'}));
Hopefully from here, you can see why your textbook considers this redundant.
For reference, here is the implementation of String: http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/lang/String.java.html
It's a fun read and might inspire some insight. It's also great for beginners to read and try to understand, as the code demonstrates very professional and convention-compliant code.
Another good reference is the Java tutorial on Strings:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/data/strings.html

In most versions of the JDK the two versions will be the same:
String s = new String("silly");
String s = "No longer silly";
Because strings are immutable the compiler maintains a list of string constants and if you try to make a new one will first check to see if the string is already defined. If it is then a reference to the existing immutable string is returned.
To clarify - when you say "String s = " you are defining a new variable which takes up space on the stack - then whether you say "No longer silly" or new String("silly") exactly the same thing happens - a new constant string is compiled into your application and the reference points to that.
I dont see the distinction here. However for your own class, which is not immutable, this behaviour is irrelevant and you must call your constructor.
UPDATE: I was wrong!
I tested this and realise that my understanding is wrong - new String("Silly") does indeed create a new string rather than reuse the existing one. I am unclear why this would be (what is the benefit?) but code speaks louder than words!

toString in the java code

The following is my java code snippet:
static String sortChars(String s) {
char[] chars = s.toCharArray();
Arrays.sort(chars);
return chars.toString();
}
I invoke above function by using:
String result = sortChars(s);
But the result does not meet my expectation:for example,the s="are", the result="aer". However, when I use:
return new String(chars)
It works.
Could somebody tell me the reason of it. Thanks

Since char[] class does not override the default Object's toString() implementation, it does not return a string composed by the characters in the char array, but the char[] class name + hash code. For example: arr[C#19821f.

toString() returns a string representation of the Object. You can look at it as a description of the object.
new String(chars) will give you a String with the content of the char array.
Use toString() if you want to represent an Object to the user or in a log, use new String() if you want to get a String object that is the same as the content of your array

Note that, among the constructors for a Java String is one that accepts a character array. That converts the character array into a string as you would expect, and it is the correct choice for what you are doing.

Java Strings: "String s = new String("silly");"

I'm a C++ guy learning Java. I'm reading Effective Java and something confused me. It says never to write code like this:
String s = new String("silly");
Because it creates unnecessary String objects. But instead it should be written like this:
String s = "No longer silly";
Ok fine so far...However, given this class:
public final class CaseInsensitiveString {
private String s;
public CaseInsensitiveString(String s) {
if (s == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
this.s = s;
}
:
:
}
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
String s = "polish";
Why is the first statement ok? Shouldn't it be
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
How do I make CaseInsensitiveString behave like String so the above statement is OK (with and without extending String)? What is it about String that makes it OK to just be able to pass it a literal like that? From my understanding there is no "copy constructor" concept in Java?

String is a special built-in class of the language. It is for the String class only in which you should avoid saying
String s = new String("Polish");
Because the literal "Polish" is already of type String, and you're creating an extra unnecessary object. For any other class, saying
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
is the correct (and only, in this case) thing to do.

I believe the main benefit of using the literal form (ie, "foo" rather than new String("foo")) is that all String literals are 'interned' by the VM. In other words it is added to a pool such that any other code that creates the same string will use the pooled String rather than creating a new instance.
To illustrate, the following code will print true for the first line, but false for the second:
System.out.println("foo" == "foo");
System.out.println(new String("bar") == new String("bar"));

Strings are treated a bit specially in java, they're immutable so it's safe for them to be handled by reference counting.
If you write
String s = "Polish";
String t = "Polish";
then s and t actually refer to the same object, and s==t will return true, for "==" for objects read "is the same object" (or can, anyway, I"m not sure if this is part of the actual language spec or simply a detail of the compiler implementation-so maybe it's not safe to rely on this) .
If you write
String s = new String("Polish");
String t = new String("Polish");
then s!=t (because you've explicitly created a new string) although s.equals(t) will return true (because string adds this behavior to equals).
The thing you want to write,
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
can't work because you're thinking that the quotations are some sort of short-circuit constructor for your object, when in fact this only works for plain old java.lang.Strings.

String s1="foo";
literal will go in pool and s1 will refer.
String s2="foo";
this time it will check "foo" literal is already available in StringPool or not as now it exist so s2 will refer the same literal.
String s3=new String("foo");
"foo" literal will be created in StringPool first then through string arg constructor String Object will be created i.e "foo" in the heap due to object creation through new operator then s3 will refer it.
String s4=new String("foo");
same as s3
so System.out.println(s1==s2);// **true** due to literal comparison.
and System.out.println(s3==s4);// **false** due to object
comparison(s3 and s4 is created at different places in heap)

Strings are special in Java - they're immutable, and string constants are automatically turned into String objects.
There's no way for your SomeStringClass cis = "value" example to apply to any other class.
Nor can you extend String, because it's declared as final, meaning no sub-classing is allowed.

The best way to answer your question would be to make you familiar with the "String constant pool". In java string objects are immutable (i.e their values cannot be changed once they are initialized), so when editing a string object you end up creating a new edited string object wherease the old object just floats around in a special memory ares called the "string constant pool". creating a new string object by
String s = "Hello";
will only create a string object in the pool and the reference s will refer to it, but by using
String s = new String("Hello");
you create two string objects: one in the pool and the other in the heap. the reference will refer to the object in the heap.

You can't. Things in double-quotes in Java are specially recognised by the compiler as Strings, and unfortunately you can't override this (or extend java.lang.String - it's declared final).

- How do i make CaseInsensitiveString behave like String so the above statement is ok (with and w/out extending String)? What is it about String that makes it ok to just be able to pass it a literal like that? From my understanding there is no "copy constructor" concept in Java right?
Enough has been said from the first point. "Polish" is an string literal and cannot be assigned to the CaseInsentiviveString class.
Now about the second point
Although you can't create new literals, you can follow the first item of that book for a "similar" approach so the following statements are true:
// Lets test the insensitiveness
CaseInsensitiveString cis5 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("sOmEtHiNg");
CaseInsensitiveString cis6 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SoMeThInG");
assert cis5 == cis6;
assert cis5.equals(cis6);
Here's the code.
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>type CaseInsensitiveString.java
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.HashMap;
public final class CaseInsensitiveString {
private static final Map<String,CaseInsensitiveString> innerPool
= new HashMap<String,CaseInsensitiveString>();
private final String s;
// Effective Java Item 1: Consider providing static factory methods instead of constructors
public static CaseInsensitiveString valueOf( String s ) {
if ( s == null ) {
return null;
}
String value = s.toLowerCase();
if ( !CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.containsKey( value ) ) {
CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.put( value , new CaseInsensitiveString( value ) );
}
return CaseInsensitiveString.innerPool.get( value );
}
// Class constructor: This creates a new instance each time it is invoked.
public CaseInsensitiveString(String s){
if (s == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
this.s = s.toLowerCase();
}
public boolean equals( Object other ) {
if ( other instanceof CaseInsensitiveString ) {
CaseInsensitiveString otherInstance = ( CaseInsensitiveString ) other;
return this.s.equals( otherInstance.s );
}
return false;
}
public int hashCode(){
return this.s.hashCode();
}
// Test the class using the "assert" keyword
public static void main( String [] args ) {
// Creating two different objects as in new String("Polish") == new String("Polish") is false
CaseInsensitiveString cis1 = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
CaseInsensitiveString cis2 = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
// references cis1 and cis2 points to differents objects.
// so the following is true
assert cis1 != cis2; // Yes they're different
assert cis1.equals(cis2); // Yes they're equals thanks to the equals method
// Now let's try the valueOf idiom
CaseInsensitiveString cis3 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("Polish");
CaseInsensitiveString cis4 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("Polish");
// References cis3 and cis4 points to same object.
// so the following is true
assert cis3 == cis4; // Yes they point to the same object
assert cis3.equals(cis4); // and still equals.
// Lets test the insensitiveness
CaseInsensitiveString cis5 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("sOmEtHiNg");
CaseInsensitiveString cis6 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SoMeThInG");
assert cis5 == cis6;
assert cis5.equals(cis6);
// Futhermore
CaseInsensitiveString cis7 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("SomethinG");
CaseInsensitiveString cis8 = CaseInsensitiveString.valueOf("someThing");
assert cis8 == cis5 && cis7 == cis6;
assert cis7.equals(cis5) && cis6.equals(cis8);
}
}
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>javac CaseInsensitiveString.java
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>java -ea CaseInsensitiveString
C:\oreyes\samples\java\insensitive>
That is, create an internal pool of CaseInsensitiveString objects, and return the corrensponding instance from there.
This way the "==" operator returns true for two objects references representing the same value.
This is useful when similar objects are used very frequently and creating cost is expensive.
The string class documentation states that the class uses an internal pool
The class is not complete, some interesting issues arises when we try to walk the contents of the object at implementing the CharSequence interface, but this code is good enough to show how that item in the Book could be applied.
It is important to notice that by using the internalPool object, the references are not released and thus not garbage collectible, and that may become an issue if a lot of objects are created.
It works for the String class because it is used intensively and the pool is constituted of "interned" object only.
It works well for the Boolean class too, because there are only two possible values.
And finally that's also the reason why valueOf(int) in class Integer is limited to -128 to 127 int values.

In your first example, you are creating a String, "silly" and then passing it as a parameter to another String's copy constructor, which makes a second String which is identical to the first. Since Java Strings are immutable (something that frequently stings people who are used to C strings), this is a needless waste of resources. You should instead use the second example because it skips several needless steps.
However, the String literal is not a CaseInsensitiveString so there you cannot do what you want in your last example. Furthermore, there is no way to overload a casting operator like you can in C++ so there is literally no way to do what you want. You must instead pass it in as a parameter to your class's constructor. Of course, I'd probably just use String.toLowerCase() and be done with it.
Also, your CaseInsensitiveString should implement the CharSequence interface as well as probably the Serializable and Comparable interfaces. Of course, if you implement Comparable, you should override equals() and hashCode() as well.

CaseInsensitiveString is not a String although it contains a String. A String literal e.g "example" can be only assigned to a String.

CaseInsensitiveString and String are different objects. You can't do:
CaseInsensitiveString cis = "Polish";
because "Polish" is a String, not a CaseInsensitiveString. If String extended CaseInsensitiveString String then you'd be OK, but obviously it doesn't.
And don't worry about the construction here, you won't be making unecessary objects. If you look at the code of the constructor, all it's doing is storing a reference to the string you passed in. Nothing extra is being created.
In the String s = new String("foobar") case it's doing something different. You are first creating the literal string "foobar", then creating a copy of it by constructing a new string out of it. There's no need to create that copy.

Just because you have the word String in your class, does not mean you get all the special features of the built-in String class.

when they say to write
String s = "Silly";
instead of
String s = new String("Silly");
they mean it when creating a String object because both of the above statements create a String object but the new String() version creates two String objects: one in heap and the other in string constant pool. Hence using more memory.
But when you write
CaseInsensitiveString cis = new CaseInsensitiveString("Polish");
you are not creating a String instead you are creating an object of class CaseInsensitiveString. Hence you need to use the new operator.

If I understood it correctly, your question means why we cannot create an object by directly assigning it a value, lets not restrict it to a Wrapper of String class in java.
To answer that I would just say, purely Object Oriented Programming languages have some constructs and it says, that all the literals when written alone can be directly transformed into an object of the given type.
That precisely means, if the interpreter sees 3 it will be converted into an Integer object because integer is the type defined for such literals.
If the interpreter sees any thing in single quotes like 'a' it will directly create an object of type character, you do not need to specify it as the language defines the default object of type character for it.
Similarly if the interpreter sees something in "" it will be considered as an object of its default type i.e. string. This is some native code working in the background.
Thanks to MIT video lecture course 6.00 where I got the hint for this answer.

In Java the syntax "text" creates an instance of class java.lang.String. The assignment:
String foo = "text";
is a simple assignment, with no copy constructor necessary.
MyString bar = "text";
Is illegal whatever you do because the MyString class isn't either java.lang.String or a superclass of java.lang.String.

First, you can't make a class that extends from String, because String is a final class. And java manage Strings differently from other classes so only with String you can do
String s = "Polish";
But whit your class you have to invoke the constructor. So, that code is fine.

I would just add that Java has Copy constructors...
Well, that's an ordinary constructor with an object of same type as argument.

String is one of the special classes in which you can create them without the new Sring part
it's the same as
int x = y;
or
char c;

String str1 = "foo";
String str2 = "foo";
Both str1 and str2 belongs to tha same String object, "foo", b'coz Java manages Strings in StringPool, so if a new variable refers to the same String, it doesn't create another one rather assign the same alerady present in StringPool.
String str1 = new String("foo");
String str2 = new String("foo");
Here both str1 and str2 belongs to different Objects, b'coz new String() forcefully create a new String Object.

It is a basic law that Strings in java are immutable and case sensitive.

Java creates a String object for each string literal you use in your code. Any time "" is used, it is the same as calling new String().
Strings are complex data that just "act" like primitive data. String literals are actually objects even though we pretend they're primitive literals, like 6, 6.0, 'c', etc. So the String "literal" "text" returns a new String object with value char[] value = {'t','e','x','t}. Therefore, calling
new String("text");
is actually akin to calling
new String(new String(new char[]{'t','e','x','t'}));
Hopefully from here, you can see why your textbook considers this redundant.
For reference, here is the implementation of String: http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/lang/String.java.html
It's a fun read and might inspire some insight. It's also great for beginners to read and try to understand, as the code demonstrates very professional and convention-compliant code.
Another good reference is the Java tutorial on Strings:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/data/strings.html

In most versions of the JDK the two versions will be the same:
String s = new String("silly");
String s = "No longer silly";
Because strings are immutable the compiler maintains a list of string constants and if you try to make a new one will first check to see if the string is already defined. If it is then a reference to the existing immutable string is returned.
To clarify - when you say "String s = " you are defining a new variable which takes up space on the stack - then whether you say "No longer silly" or new String("silly") exactly the same thing happens - a new constant string is compiled into your application and the reference points to that.
I dont see the distinction here. However for your own class, which is not immutable, this behaviour is irrelevant and you must call your constructor.
UPDATE: I was wrong!
I tested this and realise that my understanding is wrong - new String("Silly") does indeed create a new string rather than reuse the existing one. I am unclear why this would be (what is the benefit?) but code speaks louder than words!

We Keep Coding

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.