We Keep Coding

Java generics in ArrayList.toArray()

Say you have an arraylist defined as follows:
ArrayList<String> someData = new ArrayList<>();
Later on in your code, because of generics you can say this:
String someLine = someData.get(0);
And the compiler knows outright that it will be getting a string. Yay generics! However, this will fail:
String[] arrayOfData = someData.toArray();
toArray() will always return an array of Objects, not of the generic that was defined. Why does the get(x) method know what it is returning, but toArray() defaults to Objects?

If you look at the implementation of toArray(T[] a) of ArrayList<E> class, it is like:
public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a) {
if (a.length < size)
// Make a new array of a's runtime type, but my contents:
return (T[]) Arrays.copyOf(elementData, size, a.getClass());
System.arraycopy(elementData, 0, a, 0, size);
if (a.length > size)
a[size] = null;
return a;
}
Problem with this method is that you need to pass array of the same generic type. Now consider if this method do not take any argument then the implementation would be something similar to:
public <T> T[] toArray() {
T[] t = new T[size]; // compilation error
return Arrays.copyOf(elementData, size, t.getClass());
}
But the problem here is that you can not create generic arrays in Java because compiler does not know exactly what T represents. In other words creation of array of a non-reifiable type (JLS §4.7) is not allowed in Java.
Another important quote from Array Store Exception (JLS §10.5):
If the component type of an array were not reifiable (§4.7), the Java Virtual Machine could not perform the store check described in the
preceding paragraph. This is why an array creation expression with a
non-reifiable element type is forbidden (§15.10.1).
That is why Java has provided overloaded version toArray(T[] a).
I will override the toArray() method to tell it that it will return an
array of E.
So instead of overriding toArray(), you should use toArray(T[] a).
Cannot Create Instances of Type Parameters from Java Doc might also be interesting for you.

Generic information is erased at runtime. JVM does not know whether your list is List<String> or List<Integer> (at runtime T in List<T> is resolved as Object), so the only possible array type is Object[].
You can use toArray(T[] array) though - in this case JVM can use the class of a given array, you can see it in the ArrayList implementation:
public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a) {
if (a.length < size)
// Make a new array of a's runtime type, but my contents:
return (T[]) Arrays.copyOf(elementData, size, a.getClass());

If you look at the Javadoc for the List interface, you'll notice a second form of toArray: <T> T[] toArray(T[] a).
In fact, the Javadoc even gives an example of how to do exactly what you want to do:
String[] y = x.toArray(new String[0]);

The pertinent thing to note is that arrays in Java know their component type at runtime. String[] and Integer[] are different classes at runtime, and you can ask arrays for their component type at runtime. Therefore, a component type is needed at runtime (either by hard-coding a reifiable component type at compile time with new String[...], or using Array.newInstance() and passing a class object) to create an array.
On the other hand, type arguments in generics do not exist at runtime. There is absolutely no difference at runtime between an ArrayList<String> and a ArrayList<Integer>. It is all just ArrayList.
That's the fundamental reason why you can't just take a List<String> and get a String[] without passing in the component type separately somehow -- you would have to get component type information out of something that doesn't have component type information. Clearly, this is impossible.

I can, and will use an iterator instead of making an array sometimes, but this just always seemed strange to me. Why does the get(x) method know what it is returning, but toArray() defaults to Objects? Its like half way into designing it they decided this wasn't needed here??
As the intention of the question seems to be not just about getting around using toArray() with generics, rather also about understanding the design of the methods in the ArrayList class, I would like to add:
ArrayList is a generic class as it is declared like
public class ArrayList<E> extends AbstractList<E>
implements List<E>, RandomAccess, Cloneable, java.io.Serializable
which makes it possible to use Generic methods such as public E get(int index) within the class.
But if a method such as toArray() is not returning E, rather E[] then things start getting a bit tricky. It would not be possible to offer a signature such as public <E> E[] toArray() because it is not possible to create generic arrays.
Creation of arrays happen at runtime and due to Type erasure, Java runtime has no specific information of the type represented by E. The only workaround as of now is to pass the required type as a parameter to the method and hence the signature public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a) where clients are forced to pass the required type.
But on the other hand, it works for public E get(int index) because if you look at the implementation of the method, you would find that even though the method makes use of the same array of Object to return the element at the specified index, it is casted to E
E elementData(int index) {
return (E) elementData[index];
}
It is the Java compiler which at the compile time replaces E with Object

The very first thing you have to understand is what ArrayList own is just an array of Object
transient Object[] elementData;
When it comes to the reason why T[] is fail, it because you can't get an array of generic type without a Class<T> and this is because java's type erase( there is a more explanation and how to create one). And the array[] on the heap knows its type dynamically and you can't cast int[] to String[]. The same reason, you can't cast Object[] to T[].
int[] ints = new int[3];
String[] strings = (String[]) ints;//java: incompatible types: int[] cannot be converted to java.lang.String[]
public <T> T[] a() {
Object[] objects = new Object[3];
return (T[])objects;
}
//ClassCastException: [Ljava.lang.Object; cannot be cast to [Ljava.lang.Integer;
Integer[] a = new LearnArray().<Integer>a();
But what you put into the array is just a object which type is E(which is checked by compiler), so you can just cast it to E which is safe and correct.
return (E) elementData[index];
In short, you can't get what don't have by cast. You have just Object[], so toArray() can just return Object[](otherwise, you have to give it a Class<T> to make a new array with this type). You put E in ArrayList<E>, you can get a E with get().

An array is of a different type than the type of the array. It's sort of StringArray class instead of String class.
Assuming, it would be possible, an Generic method toArray() would look like
private <T> T[] toArray() {
T[] result = new T[length];
//populate
return result;
}
Now during compilation, the type T gets erased. How should the part new T[length] be replaced? The generic type information is not available.
If you look at the source code of (for example) ArrayList, you see the same. The toArray(T[] a) method either fills the given array (if the size matches) or creates a new new array using the type of the parameter, which is the array-type of the Generic Type T.

It is possible to create a "generic" array of the given(known) type. Normally I use something like this in my code.
public static <T> T[] toArray(Class<T> type, ArrayList<T> arrList) {
if ((arrList == null) || (arrList.size() == 0)) return null;
Object arr = Array.newInstance(type, arrList.size());
for (int i=0; i < arrList.size(); i++) Array.set(arr, i, arrList.get(i));
return (T[])arr;
}

Array and reified type [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What's the reason I can't create generic array types in Java?
(16 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm studying for my Java midterm but I have some problems with the reified type. Here there is a class that is wrong, but I cannot understand why. Can someone help me and maybe give me some explanation? The error is, of course, related to the reified type.
class Conversion {
public static <T> T[] toArray(Collection<T> c) {
T[] a = new T[c.size()];
int i = 0;
for (T x: c) a[i++] = x;
return a;
}
}

An array is a reified type. This means that the exact type of the array is known at runtime. So at runtime there is a difference between, for example, String[] and Integer[].
This is not the case with generics. Generics are a compile-time construct: they are used to check the types at compile-time, but at runtime the exact types are not available anymore. At runtime, the type parameters are just Object (or if the type parameter has an upper bound, its upper bound). So at run-time, there is no difference in the type of Collection<String> and Collection<Integer>.
Now, there is a problem when you want to create an array of a type parameter. At runtime it is unknown what T is, so if you write new T[10], the Java runtime doesn't known what kind of array is to be created, a String[] or a Integer[]. That's why you cannot create an array in this way.
There are a few work-arounds, none of which is entirely satisfactory. The usual solution is to create an Object[], and cast it to the kind of array you want:
T[] theArray = (T[]) new Object[size];
However, you have to remember that this is very unsafe. You should only do this if the scope of the created arrow is small, so that you can manually make sure that the array will only contain T instances and will never be assigned to anything that cannot hold it. The following code demonstrates the problem:
public class Foo<T extends Comparable> {
T[] createArray() {
return (T[])new Object[1];
}
public static void main(String... args) {
Foo<String> foo = new Foo<>();
String[] ss = foo.createArray(); // here
}
}
The line marked with here throws an exception, because you are trying to cast an Object[] to a String[]!
If you really need an array of the correct run-time type, you need to use reflection. Obtain a type token (of type Class<T>) of the type you need, and use Array.newInstance(type, cize) to create the array, for example:
public T[] createArray(Class<T> type, int size) {
return (T[]) Array.newInstance(type, size);
}

Reifiable type is defined by the JLS as:
A type is reifiable if and only if one of the following holds:
It refers to a non-generic class or interface type declaration.
It is a parameterized type in which all type arguments are unbounded wildcards (§4.5.1).
It is a raw type (§4.8).
It is a primitive type (§4.2).
It is an array type (§10.1) whose element type is reifiable.
It is a nested type where, for each type T separated by a ".", T itself is reifiable.
See also the notes that follow §4.7, the reasoning is described in great detail.
Your type parameter is none of the above, therefore it is not reifiable. And thus can't be used in an array creation expression:
It is a compile-time error if the ClassOrInterfaceType does not denote
a reifiable type (§4.7). Otherwise, the ClassOrInterfaceType may name
any named reference type, even an abstract class type (§8.1.1.1) or an
interface type.

You can't create an array of a generic type. The compiler likely complains with something like "generic array creation". There's no nice way around this, but there is a way to do this:
public static <T> T[] toArray(Class<T> type, Collection<T> c) {
T[] a = (T[]) Array.newInstance(type, c.size())
…
}
You'll need Class<T> for this, but it does work :)

Generic array in ArrayList implementation [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to create a generic array in Java?
(32 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
How to make following code completely generic?
Why I'm not allowed to write:
private E[]store = new E[length];
import java.util.Arrays;
public class MyArrayList<E> {
private int size = 0;
private int length = 10;
private Object [] store = new Object[length];
public E get(int index){
return (E)store[index];
}
public void add(E item){
if(size >= store.length -5){
increment(store);
}
store[size++] = item;
}
private <T> void increment(T[] store2) {
store = Arrays.copyOf(store2, store2.length * 2);
}
public int size(){
return size;
}
}

Array element type, unlike the generic type parameter, is a reified entity. In other words, new Integer[] creates a different kind of object than new Double[]. As opposed to that, new ArrayList<Integer>() creates exactly the same object as new ArrayList<Double>().
Since the generic type parameter is erased from the runtime code, the JVM is hopeless in instantiating the correct type of array you want it to.

You can only declare array variables whose component type is a type parameter, but you cannot create the corresponding array objects. The type of E is unknown at runtime, due to type erasure. The compiler does not know how to create an array of an unknown component type.
Similarly, you cannot create an array of concrete parameterized type.
A workaround is to use Array.newInstance method:
Class<E> clazz;
E[] array = (E[])Array.newInstance(clazz, length) ;
However, this will give you an Unchecked Cast warning, because Array.newInstance returns an Object, and you are casting it to E[]. You can suppress the warning using #SuppressWarnings annotation. But, you need to pass the clazz argument in that method, which should be the class type of E type parameter.
There is a major difference between an array and generic types - i.e, arrays are reified (As already stated by #Marko in his answer). I would add a paragraph, from the book Effective Java - Item 29 on this topic:
This means that arrays know and enforce their element types at
runtime. As noted above, if you try to store a String into an array of Long, you’ll
get an ArrayStoreException. Generics, by contrast, are implemented by erasure
[JLS, 4.6]. This means that they enforce their type constraints only at compile
time and discard (or erase) their element type information at runtime. Erasure is
what allows generic types to interoperate freely with legacy code that does not use
generics (Item 23).
Because of these fundamental differences, arrays and generics do not mix
well. For example, it is illegal to create an array of a generic type, a parameterized
type, or a type parameter. None of these array creation expressions are legal: new
List<E>[], new List<String>[], new E[]. All will result in generic array creation
errors at compile time.

Java SafeVarargs annotation, does a standard or best practice exist?

I've recently come across the java #SafeVarargs annotation. Googling for what makes a variadic function in Java unsafe left me rather confused (heap poisoning? erased types?), so I'd like to know a few things:
What makes a variadic Java function unsafe in the #SafeVarargs sense (preferably explained in the form of an in-depth example)?
Why is this annotation left to the discretion of the programmer? Isn't this something the compiler should be able to check?
Is there some standard one must adhere to in order to ensure his function is indeed varags safe? If not, what are the best practices to ensure it?

1) There are many examples on the Internet and on StackOverflow about the particular issue with generics and varargs. Basically, it's when you have a variable number of arguments of a type-parameter type:
<T> void foo(T... args);
In Java, varargs are a syntactic sugar that undergoes a simple "re-writing" at compile-time: a varargs parameter of type X... is converted into a parameter of type X[]; and every time a call is made to this varargs method, the compiler collects all of the "variable arguments" that goes in the varargs parameter, and creates an array just like new X[] { ...(arguments go here)... }.
This works well when the varargs type is concrete like String.... When it's a type variable like T..., it also works when T is known to be a concrete type for that call. e.g. if the method above were part of a class Foo<T>, and you have a Foo<String> reference, then calling foo on it would be okay because we know T is String at that point in the code.
However, it does not work when the "value" of T is another type parameter. In Java, it is impossible to create an array of a type-parameter component type (new T[] { ... }). So Java instead uses new Object[] { ... } (here Object is the upper bound of T; if there upper bound were something different, it would be that instead of Object), and then gives you a compiler warning.
So what is wrong with creating new Object[] instead of new T[] or whatever? Well, arrays in Java know their component type at runtime. Thus, the passed array object will have the wrong component type at runtime.
For probably the most common use of varargs, simply to iterate over the elements, this is no problem (you don't care about the runtime type of the array), so this is safe:
#SafeVarargs
final <T> void foo(T... args) {
for (T x : args) {
// do stuff with x
}
}
However, for anything that depends on the runtime component type of the passed array, it will not be safe. Here is a simple example of something that is unsafe and crashes:
class UnSafeVarargs
{
static <T> T[] asArray(T... args) {
return args;
}
static <T> T[] arrayOfTwo(T a, T b) {
return asArray(a, b);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String[] bar = arrayOfTwo("hi", "mom");
}
}
The problem here is that we depend on the type of args to be T[] in order to return it as T[]. But actually the type of the argument at runtime is not an instance of T[].
3) If your method has an argument of type T... (where T is any type parameter), then:
Safe: If your method only depends on the fact that the elements of the array are instances of T
Unsafe: If it depends on the fact that the array is an instance of T[]
Things that depend on the runtime type of the array include: returning it as type T[], passing it as an argument to a parameter of type T[], getting the array type using .getClass(), passing it to methods that depend on the runtime type of the array, like List.toArray() and Arrays.copyOf(), etc.
2) The distinction I mentioned above is too complicated to be easily distinguished automatically.

For best practices, consider this.
If you have this:
public <T> void doSomething(A a, B b, T... manyTs) {
// Your code here
}
Change it to this:
public <T> void doSomething(A a, B b, T... manyTs) {
doSomething(a, b, Arrays.asList(manyTs));
}
private <T> void doSomething(A a, B b, List<T> manyTs) {
// Your code here
}
I've found I usually only add varargs to make it more convenient for my callers. It would almost always be more convenient for my internal implementation to use a List<>. So to piggy-back on Arrays.asList() and ensure there's no way I can introduce Heap Pollution, this is what I do.
I know this only answers your #3. newacct has given a great answer for #1 and #2 above, and I don't have enough reputation to just leave this as a comment. :P

#SafeVarargs is used to indicate that methods will not cause heap pollution.
Heap pollution is when we mix different parameterized types in generic array.
For example:
public static <T> T[] unsafe(T... elements) {
return elements;
}
Object [] listOfItems = unsafe("some value", 34, new ArrayList<>());
String stringValue = (String) listOfItems[0]; // some value
String intValue = (String) listOfItems[1]; // ClassCastException
As you can see, such implementation could easily cause ClassCastException if we don't guess with the type.

What's the reason I can't create generic array types in Java?

What's the reason why Java doesn't allow us to do
private T[] elements = new T[initialCapacity];
I could understand .NET didn't allow us to do that, as in .NET you have value types that at run-time can have different sizes, but in Java all kinds of T will be object references, thus having the same size (correct me if I'm wrong).
What is the reason?

It's because Java's arrays (unlike generics) contain, at runtime, information about its component type. So you must know the component type when you create the array. Since you don't know what T is at runtime, you can't create the array.

Quote:
Arrays of generic types are not
allowed because they're not sound. The
problem is due to the interaction of
Java arrays, which are not statically
sound but are dynamically checked,
with generics, which are statically
sound and not dynamically checked.
Here is how you could exploit the
loophole:
class Box<T> {
final T x;
Box(T x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
class Loophole {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Box<String>[] bsa = new Box<String>[3];
Object[] oa = bsa;
oa[0] = new Box<Integer>(3); // error not caught by array store check
String s = bsa[0].x; // BOOM!
}
}
We had proposed to resolve this
problem using statically safe arrays
(aka Variance) bute that was rejected
for Tiger.
-- gafter
(I believe it is Neal Gafter, but am not sure)
See it in context here: http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=457033&forumID=316

By failing to provide a decent solution, you just end up with something worse IMHO.
The common work around is as follows.
T[] ts = new T[n];
is replaced with (assuming T extends Object and not another class)
T[] ts = (T[]) new Object[n];
I prefer the first example, however more academic types seem to prefer the second, or just prefer not to think about it.
Most of the examples of why you can't just use an Object[] equally apply to List or Collection (which are supported), so I see them as very poor arguments.
Note: this is one of the reasons the Collections library itself doesn't compile without warnings. If this use-case cannot be supported without warnings, something is fundamentally broken with the generics model IMHO.

The reason this is impossible is that Java implements its Generics purely on the compiler level, and there is only one class file generated for each class.
This is called Type Erasure.
At runtime, the compiled class needs to handle all of its uses with the same bytecode. So, new T[capacity] would have absolutely no idea what type needs to be instantiated.

The answer was already given but if you already have an Instance of T then you can do this:
T t; //Assuming you already have this object instantiated or given by parameter.
int length;
T[] ts = (T[]) Array.newInstance(t.getClass(), length);
Hope, I could Help,
Ferdi265

The main reason is due to the fact that arrays in Java are covariant.
There's a good overview here.

I like the answer indirectly given
by Gafter. However, I propose it is wrong. I changed Gafter's code a little. It compiles and it runs for a while then it bombs where Gafter predicted it would
class Box<T> {
final T x;
Box(T x) {
this.x = x;
}
}
class Loophole {
public static <T> T[] array(final T... values) {
return (values);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Box<String> a = new Box("Hello");
Box<String> b = new Box("World");
Box<String> c = new Box("!!!!!!!!!!!");
Box<String>[] bsa = array(a, b, c);
System.out.println("I created an array of generics.");
Object[] oa = bsa;
oa[0] = new Box<Integer>(3);
System.out.println("error not caught by array store check");
try {
String s = bsa[0].x;
} catch (ClassCastException cause) {
System.out.println("BOOM!");
cause.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
The output is
I created an array of generics.
error not caught by array store check
BOOM!
java.lang.ClassCastException: java.lang.Integer cannot be cast to java.lang.String
at Loophole.main(Box.java:26)
So it appears to me you can create generic array types in java. Did I misunderstand the question?

From Oracle tutorial:
You cannot create arrays of parameterized types. For example, the following code does not compile:
List<Integer>[] arrayOfLists = new List<Integer>[2]; // compile-time error
The following code illustrates what happens when different types are inserted into an array:
Object[] strings = new String[2];
strings[0] = "hi"; // OK
strings[1] = 100; // An ArrayStoreException is thrown.
If you try the same thing with a generic list, there would be a problem:
Object[] stringLists = new List<String>[]; // compiler error, but pretend it's allowed
stringLists[0] = new ArrayList<String>(); // OK
stringLists[1] = new ArrayList<Integer>(); // An ArrayStoreException should be thrown,
// but the runtime can't detect it.
If arrays of parameterized lists were allowed, the previous code would fail to throw the desired ArrayStoreException.
To me, it sounds very weak. I think that anybody with a sufficient understanding of generics, would be perfectly fine, and even expect, that the ArrayStoredException is not thrown in such case.

In my case, I simply wanted an array of stacks, something like this:
Stack<SomeType>[] stacks = new Stack<SomeType>[2];
Since this was not possible, I used the following as a workaround:
Created a non-generic wrapper class around Stack (say MyStack)
MyStack[] stacks = new MyStack[2] worked perfectly well
Ugly, but Java is happy.
Note: as mentioned by BrainSlugs83 in the comment to the question, it is totally possible to have arrays of generics in .NET

class can declare an array of type T[], but it cannot directly instantiate such an array. Instead, a common approach is to instantiate an array of type Object[], and then make a narrowing cast to type T[], as shown in the following:
public class Portfolio<T> {
T[] data;
public Portfolio(int capacity) {
data = new T[capacity]; // illegal; compiler error
data = (T[]) new Object[capacity]; // legal, but compiler warning
}
public T get(int index) { return data[index]; }
public void set(int index, T element) { data[index] = element; }
}

It is because generics were added on to java after they made it, so its kinda clunky because the original makers of java thought that when making an array the type would be specified in the making of it. So that does not work with generics so you have to do
E[] array=(E[]) new Object[15];
This compiles but it gives a warning.

There surely must be a good way around it (maybe using reflection), because it seems to me that that's exactly what ArrayList.toArray(T[] a) does. I quote:
public <T> T[] toArray(T[] a)
Returns an array containing all of the
elements in this list in the correct order; the runtime type of the
returned array is that of the specified array. If the list fits in the
specified array, it is returned therein. Otherwise, a new array is
allocated with the runtime type of the specified array and the size of
this list.
So one way around it would be to use this function i.e. create an ArrayList of the objects you want in the array, then use toArray(T[] a) to create the actual array. It wouldn't be speedy, but you didn't mention your requirements.
So does anyone know how toArray(T[] a) is implemented?

If we cannot instantiate generic arrays, why does the language have generic array types? What's the point of having a type without objects?
The only reason I can think of, is varargs - foo(T...). Otherwise they could have completely scrubbed generic array types. (Well, they didn't really have to use array for varargs, since varargs didn't exist before 1.5. That's probably another mistake.)
So it is a lie, you can instantiate generic arrays, through varargs!
Of course, the problems with generic arrays are still real, e.g.
static <T> T[] foo(T... args){
return args;
}
static <T> T[] foo2(T a1, T a2){
return foo(a1, a2);
}
public static void main(String[] args){
String[] x2 = foo2("a", "b"); // heap pollution!
}
We can use this example to actually demonstrate the danger of generic array.
On the other hand, we've been using generic varargs for a decade, and the sky is not falling yet. So we can argue that the problems are being exaggerated; it is not a big deal. If explicit generic array creation is allowed, we'll have bugs here and there; but we've been used to the problems of erasure, and we can live with it.
And we can point to foo2 to refute the claim that the spec keeps us from the problems that they claim to keep us from. If Sun had more time and resources for 1.5, I believe they could have reached a more satisfying resolution.

As others already mentioned, you can of course create via some tricks.
But it's not recommended.
Because the type erasure and more importantly the covariance in array which just allows a subtype array can be assigned to a supertype array, which forces you to use explicit type cast when trying to get the value back causing run-time ClassCastException which is one of the main objectives that generics try to eliminate: Stronger type checks at compile time.
Object[] stringArray = { "hi", "me" };
stringArray[1] = 1;
String aString = (String) stringArray[1]; // boom! the TypeCastException
A more direct example can found in Effective Java: Item 25.
covariance: an array of type S[] is a subtype of T[] if S is a subtype of T

T vals[]; // OK
But, you cannot instantiate an array of T
// vals = new T[10]; // can't create an array of T
The reason you can’t create an array of T is that there is no way for the
compiler to know what type of array to actually create.

Try this:
List<?>[] arrayOfLists = new List<?>[4];