From wikipedia:
reflection is the ability of a computer program to examine and modify the structure and behavior (specifically the values, meta-data, properties and functions) of an object at runtime.
Can anyone give me a concrete example of modifying the structure of an object? I'm aware of the following example.
Object foo = Class.forName("complete.classpath.and.Foo").newInstance();
Method m = foo.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("hello", new Class<?>[0]);
m.invoke(foo);
Other ways to get the class and examine structures. But the questions is how modify is done?
Just an additional hint since the previous answers and comments answer the question concerning reflection.
To really change the structur of a class and therefore its behaviour during runtime look at Byte code instrumentaion and in this case javassist and asm libs. In any case this is not trivial task.
Additionally you might have a look at aspect programming technic, which enables you to enhance methods with some functionallity. Often used to introduce logging without the need to have a dependency of the logging classes within your class and also dont have the invocations of the logging methods between the problem related code.
In English reflection means "mirror image".
So I'd disagree with the Wikipedia definition. For me, reflection is about runtime inspection of code, not manipulation.
In java, you can modify the bytecode at runtime using byte code manipulation. One well known library and in wide spread use is CGLIB.
In java, reflection is not fully supported as defined by the wikipedia.
Only Field.setAccessible(true) or Method.setAccessible(true) really modifies a class, and still it only changes security, not behaviour.
Frameworks like e.g. hibernate use this to add behaviour to a class by e.g. generating a subclass in bytecode that accesses private fields in the parent class.
Java is still a static typed language, unlike javascript where you can change any behaviour at runtime.
The only method in reflection (java.lang.reflect) to modify object's class behaviour is to change the accessibility flag of Constructor, Method and Field - setAccessible, whatever wiki says. Though there are libraries like http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte_Code_Engineering_Library for decomposing, modifying, and recomposing binary Java classes
Related
I generally oppose extension since it creates a very strong connection between classes, which is easy to accidentally break.
However, I finally thought I'd found a reasonable case for it - I want to optionally use a compressed version of a file type in an existing system. The compressed version would be almost as quick as the uncompressed, and would have exactly the same methods available (i.e. read and write) - the only difference would be in the representation on disk. Therefore, I had the compressed version extend the uncompressed version so that either kind of file could be used, just by optionally insantiating the other type.
public class CompressedSpecialFile extends SpecialFile(){ ... }
if (useCompression){
SpecialFile = new CompressedSpecialFile();
} else {
SpecialFile = new SpecialFile();
}
However, at a later point in the program, we use reflection:
Object[] values = new Object[]{SpecialFile sf, Integer param1, String param2, ...}
Class myclass = Class.forName(algorithmName);
Class[] classes = // created by calling .getClass on each object in values
constructor = myclass.getConstructor(classes);
Algorithm = (Algorithm) constructor.newInstance(values)
Which all worked fine, but now the myclass.getConstructor class throws a NoSuchMethodException since the run-time type of the SpecialFile is CompressedSpecialFile.
However, I thought that was how extension is supposed to work - since CompressedSpecialFile extends SpecialFile, any parameter accepting a SpecialFile should accept a CompressedSpecialFile. Is this an error in Java's reflection, or a failure of my understanding?
Hmm, the response to this bug report seems to indicate that this is intentional.
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4301875
We cannot make this change for compatibility reaons. Furthermore, we
would expect that getConstructor should behave analogously to getDeclaredMethod,
which also requires an exact match, thus it does not make sense to change one
without changing the other. It would be possible to add an additional suite of
methods that differed only in the way in which the argument types were matched,
however.
There are certainly cases where we might want to apply at runtime during
reflection the same overload-resolution algorithm used statically by the
compiler, i.e., in a debugger. It is not difficult to implement this
functionality with the existing API, however, so the case for adding this
functionality to core reflection is weak.
That bug report was closed as a duplicate of the following one, which provides a bit more implementation detail:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;jsessionid=1b08c721077da9fffffffff1e9a6465911b4e?bug_id=4287725
Work Around
Users of getMethod must be precise identifying the Class passed to the argument.
Evaluation
The essence of this request is that the user would like for Class.getMethod
to apply the same overloading rules as the compiler does. I think this is
a reasonable request, as I see a need for this arising frequently in certain
kinds of reflective programs, such as debuggers and scripting interpreters,
and it would be helpful to have a standard implementation so that everybody
gets it right. For compatibility, however, the behavior of the existing
Class.getMethod should be left alone, and a new method defined. There is
a case for leaving this functionality out on the basis of footprint, as it
can be implemented using existing APIs, albeit somewhat inefficiently.
See also 4401287.
Consensus appears to be that we should provide overload resolution in
reflection. Exactly when such functionality is provided would depend largely
on interest and potential uses.
For compatibility reasons, the Class.get(Declared)+{Method,Constructor}
implementation should not change; new method should be introduced. The
specification for these methods does need to be modified to define "match". See
bug 4651775.
You can keep digging into those referenced bugs and the actual links I provided (where there's discussion as well as possible workarounds) but I think that gets at the reasoning (though why a new method reflecting java's oop in reflection as well has not yet been implemented, I don't know).
In terms of workarounds, I suppose that for the one-level-deep version of inheritance, you can just call getSuperclass() on each class whose name is that of the extending class, but that's extremely inelegant and tied to you using it only on your classes implementing in the prescribed manner. Very kludgy. I'll try and look for another option though.
Java's Foo.class as well Scala's classOf[Foo] literal class syntax return a reflective view about the class in question.
Is it possible and would it make sense to provide something like .method/.field or methodOf[]/fieldOf[] for getting comparable reflective access to methods and fields?
How would something like this be implemented in Java/Scala?
In the case of Java, I would assume that this would either require a language change (very unlikely) or some wizardry with bytecode tools/AspectJ, whereas in Scala it is probably possible to implement it with an implicit conversion.
Yes and no. Paul Phillips has certainly expressed an interest in such a thing, and there's a lot of work currently happening in trunk around the forthcoming scala reflections.
It's doubtful that we'll see anything like your proposed syntax though. Methods are not a first-class construct and, as such, and only be referenced via their containing class. But we will be getting a nice scala-friendly way to access members via reflection, including default params, parameter names, etc.
I don't recall where, but I stumbled across a Java library recently that would take Java classes as input and generate a metaclass, so to speak, that had static fields (I think) that were references to all of the fields and methods on the target class. It's certainly not as elegant as what you're looking for, but it struck me as a potentially useful bit of wizardry.
I have read about Java Reflections but till date it has been a vague concept to me. Can someone give a brief details with short example on how to use reflections in Java ?
Thanks.
I have read about Java Reflections but
till date it has been a vague concept
to me.
Here is a quick into to reflection in java:
Structural introspection. Basic reflection deals with the introspection of object at run-time. This means that you can learn the structure of objects and classes at run-time programmatically, e.g. get the class of the object, list the methods of the class, list the fields defined in the class, etc.
Reflective invocation and instantiation. With reflection you can invoke a method at run-time which is not defined at compile-time, e.g. invoke method named M on object O, where M is read in a configuration file. You can also instantiate object dynamically without knowing the class at compile-time.
Annotations. Then you can move one level up in the meta levels, and play with annotations. Annotations describe other elements such as class, method and fields. Many framework rely on this.
Dynamic proxy. Dynamic proxy can be generated at run-time. In this case, it's really like if you create a class dynamically at run-time. To use with care, but definitively handy and powerful in some cases.
I guess you will start with structural introspection. There are links to tutorials in the other answers, but I hope this gives you an overview of what else can be done.
I guess the article 'Using Java Reflection' found on sun.com might be a good starting point.
It's primarily to be used to access classes/methods/fields programmatically (i.e. during runtime instead of compiletime). Good real world API's which uses reflection intensively are ORM's like Hibernate/JPA.
You can find here a Sun tutorial on the subject (click Next link at the bottom to paginate through it).
Something worth mentioning as well is Javassist. Not only does it have reflective abilities, but it also allows run-time bytecode manipulation using ordinary source syntax! Once you've gotten into reflection a bit more (which you probably have by now), you'll truly appreciate it's beauty.
Is there any way we can inject new methods and properties into classes during run-time.
http://nurkiewicz.blogspot.com/2009/09/injecting-methods-at-runtime-to-java.html states we may do that by using Groovy.
Is it possible by just doing using Java?
Is it possible by just doing using
Java?
The simple answer is an emphatic "You don't want to do that!".
It is technically possible, but not without resorting to extremely complex, expensive and fragile tricks like bytecode modification1. And even then, you have to rely on dynamic loading to access the modified type and (probably) reflection to make use of its new members. In short, you would be creating lots of pain for yourself, for little if any gain.
Java is a statically typed language, and adding / modifying class type signatures can break the static typing contract of a class.
1 - AspectJ and the like allow you to inject additional behaviour into a class, but it is probably not the "runtime" injection that you are after. Certainly, the injected methods won't be available for statically compiled code to call.
So if you were really crazy, you could do something like what they outline here. What you could do is load the .java file, find the correct insertion point, add whatever methods you need to, call the java compiler and reload the class. Good luck debugging that mess though :)
Edit This actually might be of some use...
You can do some quite funky things with AOP, although genuine modification of classes at runtime is a pretty hairy technique that needs a lot of classloading magic and sleight of hand.
What is easier is using AOP techniques to generate a subclass of your target class and to introduce new methods into this instead, what AOP called a "mixin" or "introduction". See here to read how Spring AOP does it, although this may be quite lame compared to what you're actually trying to achieve.
Is it possible by just doing using Java?
Quite so, the "only" thing you have to do is define an instrumentation agent which supplies an appropriate ClassFileTransformer, and you'll have to use reflection to invoke the added methods. Odds are this isn't what you want to do, though, but it's doable and there's a well-defined interface for it. If you want to modify existing methods you may be interested in something like AspectJ.
While it might be possible, it is not useful.
How would you access these new fields and methods?
You could not use these methods and fields directly (as "ordinary" fields and methods), since they wouldn't be compiled in.
If all you want is the possibility to add "properties" and "methods", you can use a Map<String, Object> for the "dynamic properties", and a Map<String, SuitableInterface> for the "dynamic methods", and look them up by name.
If you need an extension language for Java, an embedded dynamic language (such as Javascript, or Groovy) can be added; most of these can access arbitrary java objects and methods.
I wonder if there's an easy way to determine which classes from a library are "used" by a compiled .NET or Java application, and I need to write a simple utility to do that (so using any of the available decompilers won't do the job).
I don't need to analyze different inputs to figure out if a class is actually created for this or that input set - I'm only concerned whether or not the class is referenced in the application. Most likely the application would subclass from the class I look for and use the subclass.
I've looked through a bunch of .Net .exe's and Java .classes with a hex editor and it appears that the referenced classes are spelled out in plaintext, but I am not sure if it will always be the case - my knowledge of MSIL/Java bytecode is not enough for that. I assume that even though the application itself can be obfuscated, it'll still have to call the library classes by the original name?
Extending what overslacked said.
EDIT: For some reason I thought you asked about methods, not types.
Types
Like finding methods, this doesn't cover access through the Reflection API.
You have to locate the following in a Reflector plugin to identify referenced types and perform a transitive closure:
Method parameters
Method return types
Custom attributes
Base types and interface implementations
Local variable declarations
Evaluated sub-expression types
Field, property, and event types
If you parse the IL yourself, all you have to do is process from the main assembly is the TypeRef and TypeSpec metadata, which is pretty easy (of course I'm speaking from parsing the entire byte code here). However, the transitive closure would still require you process the full byte code of each referenced method in the referenced assembly (to get the subexpression types).
Methods
If you can write a plugin for Reflector to handle the task, it will definitely be the easiest way. Parsing the IL is non-trivial, though I've done it now so I would just use that code if I had to (just saying it's not impossible). :D
Keep in mind that you may have method dependencies you don't see on the first pass that neither method mentioned will catch. These are due to indirect dispatch via the callvirt (virtual and interface method calls) and calli (generally delegates) instructions. For each type T created with newobj and for each method M within the type, you'll have to check all callvirt, ldftn, and ldvirtftn instructions to see if the base definition for the target (if the target is a virtual method) is the same as the base method definition for M in T or M is in the type's interface map if the target is an interface method. This is not perfect, but it is about the best you can do for static analysis without a theorem prover. It is a superset of the actual methods that will be called outside of the Reflection API, and a subset of the full set of methods in the assembly(ies).
For .NET: it looks like there's an article on MSDN that should help you get started. For what it's worth, for .NET the magic Google words are ".net assembly references".
In Java, the best mechanism to find class dependencies (in a programmatic fashion) is through bytecode inspection. This can be done with libraries like BCEL or (preferably) ASM. If you wish to parse the class files with your own code, the class file structure is well documented in the Java VM specification.
Note that class inspection won't cover runtime dependencies (like classes loaded using the service API).