We Keep Coding

Cast an object to its specific type at runtime Java [duplicate]

I'm experimenting with this code:
interface Callee {
public void foo(Object o);
public void foo(String s);
public void foo(Integer i);
}
class CalleeImpl implements Callee
public void foo(Object o) {
logger.debug("foo(Object o)");
}
public void foo(String s) {
logger.debug("foo(\"" + s + "\")");
}
public void foo(Integer i) {
logger.debug("foo(" + i + ")");
}
}
Callee callee = new CalleeImpl();
Object i = new Integer(12);
Object s = "foobar";
Object o = new Object();
callee.foo(i);
callee.foo(s);
callee.foo(o);
This prints foo(Object o) three times. I expect the method selection to take in consideration the real (not the declared) parameter type. Am I missing something? Is there a way to modify this code so that it'll print foo(12), foo("foobar") and foo(Object o)?

I expect the method selection to take
in consideration the real (not the
declared) parameter type. Am I missing
something?
Yes. Your expectation is wrong. In Java, dynamic method dispatch happens only for the object the method is called on, not for the parameter types of overloaded methods.
Citing the Java Language Specification:
When a method is invoked (§15.12), the
number of actual arguments (and any
explicit type arguments) and the
compile-time types of the arguments
are used, at compile time, to
determine the signature of the method
that will be invoked (§15.12.2). If
the method that is to be invoked is an
instance method, the actual method to
be invoked will be determined at run
time, using dynamic method lookup
(§15.12.4).

As mentioned before overloading resolution is performed at compile time.
Java Puzzlers has a nice example for that:
Puzzle 46: The Case of the Confusing Constructor
This puzzle presents you with two Confusing constructors. The main method invokes a constructor,
but which one? The program's output depends on the answer. What does the program print, or is it
even legal?
public class Confusing {
private Confusing(Object o) {
System.out.println("Object");
}
private Confusing(double[] dArray) {
System.out.println("double array");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Confusing(null);
}
}
Solution 46: Case of the Confusing Constructor
...
Java's overload resolution process operates in two phases. The first phase selects all the methods or constructors that are accessible and applicable. The second phase selects the most specific of the methods or constructors selected in the first phase. One method or constructor is less specific than another if it can accept any parameters passed to the other [JLS 15.12.2.5].
In our program, both constructors are accessible and applicable. The constructor
Confusing(Object) accepts any parameter passed to Confusing(double[]), so
Confusing(Object) is less specific. (Every double array is an Object, but not every Object is a double array.) The most specific constructor is therefore Confusing(double[]), which explains the program's output.
This behavior makes sense if you pass a value of type double[]; it is counterintuitive if you pass null. The key to understanding this puzzle is that the test for which method or constructor is most specific does not use the actual parameters: the parameters appearing in the invocation.
They are used only to determine which overloadings are applicable. Once the compiler determines which overloadings are applicable and accessible, it selects the most specific overloading, using only the formal parameters: the parameters appearing in the declaration.
To invoke the Confusing(Object) constructor with a null parameter, write new
Confusing((Object)null). This ensures that only Confusing(Object) is applicable. More
generally, to force the compiler to select a specific overloading, cast actual parameters to the declared types of the formal parameters.

Ability to dispatch a call to a method based on types of arguments is called multiple dispatch. In Java this is done with Visitor pattern.
However, since you're dealing with Integers and Strings, you cannot easily incorporate this pattern (you just cannot modify these classes). Thus, a giant switch on object run-time will be your weapon of choice.

In Java the method to call (as in which method signature to use) is determined at compile time, so it goes with the compile time type.
The typical pattern for working around this is to check the object type in the method with the Object signature and delegate to the method with a cast.
public void foo(Object o) {
if (o instanceof String) foo((String) o);
if (o instanceof Integer) foo((Integer) o);
logger.debug("foo(Object o)");
}
If you have many types and this is unmanageable, then method overloading is probably not the right approach, rather the public method should just take Object and implement some kind of strategy pattern to delegate the appropriate handling per object type.

I had a similar issue with calling the right constructor of a class called "Parameter" that could take several basic Java types such as String, Integer, Boolean, Long, etc. Given an array of Objects, I want to convert them into an array of my Parameter objects by calling the most-specific constructor for each Object in the input array. I also wanted to define the constructor Parameter(Object o) that would throw an IllegalArgumentException. I of course found this method being invoked for every Object in my array.
The solution I used was to look up the constructor via reflection...
public Parameter[] convertObjectsToParameters(Object[] objArray) {
Parameter[] paramArray = new Parameter[objArray.length];
int i = 0;
for (Object obj : objArray) {
try {
Constructor<Parameter> cons = Parameter.class.getConstructor(obj.getClass());
paramArray[i++] = cons.newInstance(obj);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("This method can't handle objects of type: " + obj.getClass(), e);
}
}
return paramArray;
}
No ugly instanceof, switch statements, or visitor pattern required! :)

Java looks at the reference type when trying to determine which method to call. If you want to force your code you choose the 'right' method, you can declare your fields as instances of the specific type:
Integeri = new Integer(12);
String s = "foobar";
Object o = new Object();
You could also cast your params as the type of the param:
callee.foo(i);
callee.foo((String)s);
callee.foo(((Integer)o);

If there is an exact match between the number and types of arguments specified in the method call and the method signature of an overloaded method then that is the method that will be invoked. You are using Object references, so java decides at compile time that for Object param, there is a method which accepts directly Object. So it called that method 3 times.

Overloading method with parent type and child type argument and passing null while calling. Why method with childtype argument is getting called [duplicate]

I have added three methods with parameters:
public static void doSomething(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Object called");
}
public static void doSomething(char[] obj) {
System.out.println("Array called");
}
public static void doSomething(Integer obj) {
System.out.println("Integer called");
}
When I am calling doSomething(null) , then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So is the issue because Integer and char[] methods or Integer and Object methods?

Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that's available (see JLS §15.12.2).
Object, char[] and Integer can all take null as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one.
Since Object is the super-type of char[], the array version is more specific than the Object-version. So if only those two methods exist, the char[] version will be chosen.
When both the char[] and Integer versions are available, then both of them are more specific than Object but none is more specific than the other, so Java can't decide which one to call. In this case you'll have to explicitly mention which one you want to call by casting the argument to the appropriate type.
Note that in practice this problem occurs far more seldom than one might think. The reason for this is that it only happens when you're explicitly calling a method with null or with a variable of a rather un-specific type (such as Object).
On the contrary, the following invocation would be perfectly unambiguous:
char[] x = null;
doSomething(x);
Although you're still passing the value null, Java knows exactly which method to call, since it will take the type of the variable into account.

Each pair of these three methods is ambiguous by itself when called with a null argument. Because each parameter type is a reference type.
The following are the three ways to call one specific method of yours with null.
doSomething( (Object) null);
doSomething( (Integer) null);
doSomething( (char[]) null);
May I suggest to remove this ambiguity if you actually plan to call these methods with null arguments. Such a design invites errors in the future.

null is a valid value for any of the three types; so the compiler cannot decide which function to use. Use something like doSomething((Object)null) or doSomething((Integer)null) instead.

Every class in Java extends Object class.Even Integer class also extends Object. Hence both Object and Integer are considered as Object instance. So when you pass null as a parameter than compiler gets confused that which object method to call i.e. With parameter Object or parameter Integer since they both are object and their reference can be null. But the primitives in java does not extends Object.

I Have tried this and when there is exactly one pair of overloaded method and one of them has a parameter type Object then the compiler will always select the method with more specific type. But when there is more than one specific type, then the compiler throws an ambiguous method error.
Since this is a compile time event, this can only happen when one intentionally passes null to this method. If this is done intentionally then it is better to overload this method again with no parameter or create another method altogether.

class Sample{
public static void main (String[] args) {
Sample s = new Sample();
s.printVal(null);
}
public static void printVal(Object i){
System.out.println("obj called "+i);
}
public static void printVal(Integer i){
System.out.println("Int called "+i);
}
}
The output is Int called null and so ambiguity is with char[] and Integer

there is an ambiguity because of doSomething(char[] obj) and doSomething(Integer obj).
char[] and Integer both are the same superior for null that's why they are ambiguous.

return void in a void method?

I know I can do this:
void someMethod(){
return;
}
but I get a syntax error on
void someMethod(){
return void;
}
Why is the latter not allowed? It makes more sense to me.
Edit: I know what a void method is, and that I don't have to return from it at all(and probably shouldn't, in most cases) but I don't understand why I can't return void from a void method. In my opinion, there should be no keyword in the method declaration (like constructors) if the you are able to write return;.

I think both are to be shunned. I prefer this:
void someMethod() {
// do stuff; no return at bottom
}
I'd be willing to be that you'd find lots of methods in the JDK source code that look like this.

When you declare a method as void, you're saying that the method does not return a value. Attempting to return a value, therefore, is illegal. Additionally, return void; has a syntax error because void is not (indeed, cannot be) the name of an in-scope variable.

void is a type, not an expression, so trying to write return void is the same as trying to write return int: syntactically invalid.

When you call return void;, you are using a reserved keyword in the incorrect manner. Since it would not expect the keyword void in that manner, it would cause an error.
The Void class is an uninstantiable placeholder class to hold a
reference to the Class object representing the Java keyword void.
If you would prefer to return something, then you can return null; by parameterizing a type Void like in this answer, but that's unconventional. Best bet is to omit return altogether or just say return;.

return x; indicates that control is leaving the method and that its result is the value of x.
return; indicates that control is leaving the method without a result.
The type void is a type with zero values, so for void methods there is no x such that return x makes sense.
All non-void methods must do one of three things:
Fail to exit ever.
Finish abnormally with an exception.
Finish normally with zero or one return values.
Since void is the only type with zero possible values (Classes with private uncalled ctors don't count because of null), there is no possible return in a non-void method such that return makes sense.

java: How can I do dynamic casting of a variable from one type to another?

I would like to do dynamic casting for a Java variable, the casting type is stored in a different variable.
This is the regular casting:
String a = (String) 5;
This is what I want:
String theType = 'String';
String a = (theType) 5;
Is this possible, and if so how? Thanks!
Update
I'm trying to populate a class with a HashMap that I received.
This is the constructor:
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> obj) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : obj.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
The problem here is that some of the class' variables are of type Double, and if the number 3 is received it sees it as Integer and I have type problem.

Yes it is possible using Reflection
Object something = "something";
String theType = "java.lang.String";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Object obj = theClass.cast(something);
but that doesn't make much sense since the resulting object must be saved in a variable of Object type. If you need the variable be of a given class, you can just cast to that class.
If you want to obtain a given class, Number for example:
Object something = new Integer(123);
String theType = "java.lang.Number";
Class<? extends Number> theClass = Class.forName(theType).asSubclass(Number.class);
Number obj = theClass.cast(something);
but there is still no point doing it so, you could just cast to Number.
Casting of an object does NOT change anything; it is just the way the compiler treats it.
The only reason to do something like that is to check if the object is an instance of the given class or of any subclass of it, but that would be better done using instanceof or Class.isInstance().
Update
according your last update the real problem is that you have an Integer in your HashMap that should be assigned to a Double. What you can do in this case, is check the type of the field and use the xxxValue() methods of Number
...
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
Object value = entry.getValue();
if (Integer.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Integer.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).intValue());
} else if (Double.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Double.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).doubleValue());
} // other cases as needed (Long, Float, ...)
f.set(this, value);
...
(not sure if I like the idea of having the wrong type in the Map)

You'll need to write sort of ObjectConverter for this. This is doable if you have both the object which you want to convert and you know the target class to which you'd like to convert to. In this particular case you can get the target class by Field#getDeclaringClass().
You can find here an example of such an ObjectConverter. It should give you the base idea. If you want more conversion possibilities, just add more methods to it with the desired argument and return type.

Regarding your update, the only way to solve this in Java is to write code that covers all cases with lots of if and else and instanceof expressions. What you attempt to do looks as if are used to program with dynamic languages. In static languages, what you attempt to do is almost impossible and one would probably choose a totally different approach for what you attempt to do. Static languages are just not as flexible as dynamic ones :)
Good examples of Java best practice are the answer by BalusC (ie ObjectConverter) and the answer by Andreas_D (ie Adapter) below.
That does not make sense, in
String a = (theType) 5;
the type of a is statically bound to be String so it does not make any sense to have a dynamic cast to this static type.
PS: The first line of your example could be written as Class<String> stringClass = String.class; but still, you cannot use stringClass to cast variables.

You can do this using the Class.cast() method, which dynamically casts the supplied parameter to the type of the class instance you have. To get the class instance of a particular field, you use the getType() method on the field in question. I've given an example below, but note that it omits all error handling and shouldn't be used unmodified.
public class Test {
public String var1;
public Integer var2;
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Map<String, Object> map = new HashMap<String, Object>();
map.put("var1", "test");
map.put("var2", 1);
Test t = new Test();
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : map.entrySet()) {
Field f = Test.class.getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(t, f.getType().cast(entry.getValue()));
}
System.out.println(t.var1);
System.out.println(t.var2);
}
}

You can write a simple castMethod like the one below.
private <T> T castObject(Class<T> clazz, Object object) {
return (T) object;
}
In your method you should be using it like
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> object) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : object.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, castObject(entry.getValue().getClass(), entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}

It works and there's even a common pattern for your approach: the Adapter pattern. But of course, (1) it does not work for casting java primitives to objects and (2) the class has to be adaptable (usually by implementing a custom interface).
With this pattern you could do something like:
Wolf bigBadWolf = new Wolf();
Sheep sheep = (Sheep) bigBadWolf.getAdapter(Sheep.class);
and the getAdapter method in Wolf class:
public Object getAdapter(Class clazz) {
if (clazz.equals(Sheep.class)) {
// return a Sheep implementation
return getWolfDressedAsSheep(this);
}
if (clazz.equals(String.class)) {
// return a String
return this.getName();
}
return null; // not adaptable
}
For you special idea - that is impossible. You can't use a String value for casting.

Your problem is not the lack of "dynamic casting". Casting Integer to Double isn't possible at all. You seem to want to give Java an object of one type, a field of a possibly incompatible type, and have it somehow automatically figure out how to convert between the types.
This kind of thing is anathema to a strongly typed language like Java, and IMO for very good reasons.
What are you actually trying to do? All that use of reflection looks pretty fishy.

Don't do this. Just have a properly parameterized constructor instead. The set and types of the connection parameters are fixed anyway, so there is no point in doing this all dynamically.

For what it is worth, most scripting languages (like Perl) and non-static compile-time languages (like Pick) support automatic run-time dynamic String to (relatively arbitrary) object conversions. This CAN be accomplished in Java as well without losing type-safety and the good stuff statically-typed languages provide WITHOUT the nasty side-effects of some of the other languages that do evil things with dynamic casting. A Perl example that does some questionable math:
print ++($foo = '99'); # prints '100'
print ++($foo = 'a0'); # prints 'a1'
In Java, this is better accomplished (IMHO) by using a method I call "cross-casting".
With cross-casting, reflection is used in a lazy-loaded cache of constructors and methods that are dynamically discovered via the following static method:
Object fromString (String value, Class targetClass)
Unfortunately, no built-in Java methods such as Class.cast() will do this for String to BigDecimal or String to Integer or any other conversion where there is no supporting class hierarchy. For my part, the point is to provide a fully dynamic way to achieve this - for which I don't think the prior reference is the right approach - having to code every conversion. Simply put, the implementation is just to cast-from-string if it is legal/possible.
So the solution is simple reflection looking for public Members of either:
STRING_CLASS_ARRAY = (new Class[] {String.class});
a) Member member = targetClass.getMethod(method.getName(),STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
b) Member member = targetClass.getConstructor(STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
You will find that all of the primitives (Integer, Long, etc) and all of the basics (BigInteger, BigDecimal, etc) and even java.regex.Pattern are all covered via this approach. I have used this with significant success on production projects where there are a huge amount of arbitrary String value inputs where some more strict checking was needed. In this approach, if there is no method or when the method is invoked an exception is thrown (because it is an illegal value such as a non-numeric input to a BigDecimal or illegal RegEx for a Pattern), that provides the checking specific to the target class inherent logic.
There are some downsides to this:
1) You need to understand reflection well (this is a little complicated and not for novices).
2) Some of the Java classes and indeed 3rd-party libraries are (surprise) not coded properly. That is, there are methods that take a single string argument as input and return an instance of the target class but it isn't what you think... Consider the Integer class:
static Integer getInteger(String nm)
Determines the integer value of the system property with the specified name.
The above method really has nothing to do with Integers as objects wrapping primitives ints.
Reflection will find this as a possible candidate for creating an Integer from a String incorrectly versus the decode, valueof and constructor Members - which are all suitable for most arbitrary String conversions where you really don't have control over your input data but just want to know if it is possible an Integer.
To remedy the above, looking for methods that throw Exceptions is a good start because invalid input values that create instances of such objects should throw an Exception. Unfortunately, implementations vary as to whether the Exceptions are declared as checked or not. Integer.valueOf(String) throws a checked NumberFormatException for example, but Pattern.compile() exceptions are not found during reflection lookups. Again, not a failing of this dynamic "cross-casting" approach I think so much as a very non-standard implementation for exception declarations in object creation methods.
If anyone would like more details on how the above was implemented, let me know but I think this solution is much more flexible/extensible and with less code without losing the good parts of type-safety. Of course it is always best to "know thy data" but as many of us find, we are sometimes only recipients of unmanaged content and have to do the best we can to use it properly.
Cheers.

So, this is an old post, however I think I can contribute something to it.
You can always do something like this:
package com.dyna.test;
import java.io.File;
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
public class DynamicClass{
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public Object castDynamicClass(String className, String value){
Class<?> dynamicClass;
try
{
//We get the actual .class object associated with the specified name
dynamicClass = Class.forName(className);
/* We get the constructor that received only
a String as a parameter, since the value to be used is a String, but we could
easily change this to be "dynamic" as well, getting the Constructor signature from
the same datasource we get the values from */
Constructor<?> cons =
(Constructor<?>) dynamicClass.getConstructor(new Class<?>[]{String.class});
/*We generate our object, without knowing until runtime
what type it will be, and we place it in an Object as
any Java object extends the Object class) */
Object object = (Object) cons.newInstance(new Object[]{value});
return object;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
DynamicClass dynaClass = new DynamicClass();
/*
We specify the type of class that should be used to represent
the value "3.0", in this case a Double. Both these parameters
you can get from a file, or a network stream for example. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.lang.Double", "3.0"));
/*
We specify a different value and type, and it will work as
expected, printing 3.0 in the above case and the test path in the one below, as the Double.toString() and
File.toString() would do. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.io.File", "C:\\testpath"));
}
Of course, this is not really dynamic casting, as in other languages (Python for example), because java is a statically typed lang. However, this can solve some fringe cases where you actually need to load some data in different ways, depending on some identifier. Also, the part where you get a constructor with a String parameter could be probably made more flexible, by having that parameter passed from the same data source. I.e. from a file, you get the constructor signature you want to use, and the list of values to be used, that way you pair up, say, the first parameter is a String, with the first object, casting it as a String, next object is an Integer, etc, but somehwere along the execution of your program, you get now a File object first, then a Double, etc.
In this way, you can account for those cases, and make a somewhat "dynamic" casting on-the-fly.
Hope this helps anyone as this keeps turning up in Google searches.

Try this for Dynamic Casting. It will work!!!
String something = "1234";
String theType = "java.lang.Integer";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Constructor<?> cons = theClass.getConstructor(String.class);
Object ob = cons.newInstance(something);
System.out.println(ob.equals(1234));

I recently felt like I had to do this too, but then found another way which possibly makes my code look neater, and uses better OOP.
I have many sibling classes that each implement a certain method doSomething(). In order to access that method, I would have to have an instance of that class first, but I created a superclass for all my sibling classes and now I can access the method from the superclass.
Below I show two ways alternative ways to "dynamic casting".
// Method 1.
mFragment = getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
switch (mUnitNum) {
case 0:
((MyFragment0) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 1:
((MyFragment1) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 2:
((MyFragment2) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
}
and my currently used method,
// Method 2.
mSuperFragment = (MySuperFragment) getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
mSuperFragment.sortNames(sortOptionNum);

Just thought I would post something that I found quite useful and could be possible for someone who experiences similar needs.
The following method was a method I wrote for my JavaFX application to avoid having to cast and also avoid writing if object x instance of object b statements every time the controller was returned.
public <U> Optional<U> getController(Class<U> castKlazz){
try {
return Optional.of(fxmlLoader.<U>getController());
}catch (Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
return Optional.empty();
}
The method declaration for obtaining the controller was
public <T> T getController()
By using type U passed into my method via the class object, it could be forwarded to the method get controller to tell it what type of object to return. An optional object is returned in case the wrong class is supplied and an exception occurs in which case an empty optional will be returned which we can check for.
This is what the final call to the method looked like (if present of the optional object returned takes a Consumer
getController(LoadController.class).ifPresent(controller->controller.onNotifyComplete());

Java Generics: Generic type defined as return type only

I'm looking at some GXT code for GWT and I ran across this use of Generics that I can't find another example of in the Java tutorials. The class name is com.extjs.gxt.ui.client.data.BaseModelData if you want to look at all of the code. Here are the important parts:
private RpcMap map;
public <X> X get(String property) {
if (allowNestedValues && NestedModelUtil.isNestedProperty(property)) {
return (X)NestedModelUtil.getNestedValue(this, property);
}
return map == null ? null : (X) map.get(property);
}
X is defined nowhere else in the class or anywhere in the hierarchy, and when I hit "go to declaration" in eclipse it just goes to the <X> in the public method signature.
I've tried to call this method with the following two examples to see what happens:
public Date getExpiredate() {
return get("expiredate");
}
public String getSubject() {
return get("subject");
}
They compile and show no errors or warnings. I would think at the very least I would have to do a cast to get this to work.
Does this mean that Generics allow a magic return value that can be anything and will just blow up at runtime? This seems counter to what generics are supposed to do. Can anyone explain this to me and possibly give me a link to some documentation that explains this a little better? I've went through Sun's 23 page pdf on generics and every example of a return value is defined either at the class level or is in one of the parameters passed in.

The method returns a type of whatever you expect it to be (<X> is defined in the method and is absolutely unbounded).
This is very, very dangerous as no provision is made that the return type actually matches the returned value.
The only advantage this has is that you don't have to cast the return value of such generic lookup methods that can return any type.
I'd say: use such constructs with care, because you lose pretty much all type-safety and gain only that you don't have to write an explicit cast at each call to get().
And yes: this pretty much is black magic that blows up at runtime and breaks the entire idea of what generics should achieve.

The type is declared on the method. That's that "<X>" means. The type is scoped then to just the method and is relevant to a particular call. The reason your test code compiles is that the compiler tries to determine the type and will complain only if it can't. There are cases where you have to be explicit.
For example, the declaration for Collections.emptySet() is
public static final <T> Set<T> emptySet()
In this case, the compiler can guess:
Set<String> s = Collections.emptySet();
But if it can't, you must type:
Collections.<String>emptySet();

I was just trying to figure out the same thing with a GXT class. Specifically I was trying to call a method with the signature of:
class Model {
public <X> X get(String property) { ... }
}
To call the above method from your code and have it cast X to a String I do the following:
public String myMethod(Data data) {
Model model = new Model(data);
return model.<String>get("status");
}
The above code will call the get method and tell it that the type being returned by X should be returned as a String.
In the case where the method is in the same class as you, I've found that I have to call it with a "this.". For example:
this.<String>get("status");
As others have said, this is rather sloppy and dangerous by the GXT team.

BaseModelData raises unchecked warnings when compiled, because it is unsafe. Used like this, your code will throw a ClassCastException at runtime, even though it doesn't have any warnings itself.
public String getExpireDate() {
return get("expiredate");
}

Interesting note, from RpcMap (GXT API 1.2)
get's header:
public java.lang.Object get(java.lang.Object key)
Having a generic parameter of <X> in there that's uninstantiated has the same effect, except you don't have to say "Object" all over the place. I agree with the other poster, this is sloppy and a bit dangerous.

Yes, this is dangerous. Normally, you'd protect this code like so:
<X> getProperty(String name, Class<X> clazz) {
X foo = (X) whatever(name);
assert clazz.isAssignableFrom(foo);
return foo;
}
String getString(String name) {
return getProperty(name, String.class);
}
int getInt(String name) {
return getProperty(name, Integer.class);
}