We Keep Coding

Java ASM method override check

I have a problem with method override checks. I can detect simple override relations, but if the parent class has generics and the abstract method uses type parameters (return value/args), my code breaks down because the method description is not equal to the checked method.
Example:
public interface ISetting<T> {
public T method();
}
public class Setting implements ISetting<Integer> {
public Integer method() {
//Something
}
}
In ISetting, the method description is ()Ljava/lang/Object;
and in Setting, the method description is ()Ljava/lang/Integer;
How I can check this Override ?
On my head no thoughts come, how I can make this >~< All ideas which come to my head are bad (example: ignore check on desc, but overload method just break this idea)

Note that your issue does not only apply to generic supertype. You can also override a method with a more specific return type, with no Generics involved, e.g.
interface SomeInterface {
Object method();
}
class SomeImplementation implements SomeInterface {
#Override
public Integer method() {
return null;
}
}
You have to understand the concept of bridge methods.
A bridge method performs the task of overriding a method on the byte code level, having exactly the same parameter types and return type as the overridden method, and delegates to the actual implementation method.
Since the bridge method only consists of this invocation instruction, some type casts if required, and the return instruction, it is easy to parse such a method to find the actual method it belongs to, without dealing with the complex rules of the Generic type system.
Using, the following helper classes
record MethodSignature(String name, String desc) {}
record MethodInfo(int access, String owner, String name, String desc) {
MethodSignature signature() {
return new MethodSignature(name, desc);
}
}
final class MethodAndBridges {
MethodInfo actual;
final List<MethodInfo> bridges = new ArrayList<>();
MethodAndBridges(MethodSignature sig) {}
void set(MethodInfo mi) {
if(actual != null) throw new IllegalStateException();
actual = mi;
}
void addBridge(MethodInfo mi) {
bridges.add(mi);
}
}
We can gather the information in a form ready for checking override relations with the ASM library as follows:
class MethodCollector extends ClassVisitor {
static Map<MethodSignature, MethodAndBridges> getMethods(ClassReader cr) {
MethodCollector mc = new MethodCollector();
cr.accept(mc, ClassReader.SKIP_DEBUG | ClassReader.SKIP_FRAMES);
return mc.found;
}
final Map<MethodSignature, MethodAndBridges> found = new HashMap<>();
String owner, superClass;
List<String> interfaces;
protected MethodCollector() {
super(Opcodes.ASM9);
}
#Override
public void visit(int version, int acc,
String name, String sig, String superName, String[] ifNames) {
owner = name;
superClass = superName;
this.interfaces = ifNames == null? List.of(): List.of(ifNames);
}
#Override
public MethodVisitor visitMethod(
int acc, String name, String desc, String sig, String[] exceptions) {
MethodInfo mi = new MethodInfo(acc, owner, name, desc);
if((acc & Opcodes.ACC_BRIDGE) == 0) {
found.computeIfAbsent(mi.signature(), MethodAndBridges::new).set(mi);
return null;
}
return new MethodVisitor(Opcodes.ASM9) {
#Override public void visitMethodInsn(
int op, String owner, String name, String tDesc, boolean i) {
found.computeIfAbsent(new MethodSignature(name, tDesc),
MethodAndBridges::new).addBridge(mi);
}
};
}
}
To demonstrate how this work, let’s enhance your example, to address more cases
interface SupplierOfSerializable {
Serializable get();
}
interface ISetting<T extends CharSequence> extends Supplier<T>, Consumer<T> {
T get();
#Override void accept(T t);
Number method(int i);
static void method(Object o) {}
private void method(Number n) {}
}
class Setting implements ISetting<String>, SupplierOfSerializable {
public String get() {
return "";
}
#Override
public void accept(String t) {}
public Integer method(int i) {
return i;
}
static void method(Object o) {}
void method(Number n) {}
}
and check the override relations (only considering the direct interfaces, without recursion)
public class CheckOverride {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
MethodCollector mc = new MethodCollector();
new ClassReader(Setting.class.getName())
.accept(mc, ClassReader.SKIP_DEBUG | ClassReader.SKIP_FRAMES);
Map<MethodSignature, MethodAndBridges> implMethods = mc.found;
Map<MethodInfo, Set<MethodInfo>> overrides = new HashMap<>();
for(String ifType: mc.interfaces) {
Map<MethodSignature, MethodAndBridges> ifMethods
= MethodCollector.getMethods(new ClassReader(ifType));
System.out.println("interface " + ifType.replace('/', '.'));
printMethods(ifMethods);
System.out.println();
ifMethods.values().removeIf(CheckOverride::nonOverridable);
implMethods.forEach((sig, method) -> {
if(nonOverridable(method)) {
overrides.putIfAbsent(method.actual, Set.of());
return;
}
var overridden = ifMethods.get(sig);
if(overridden == null && method.bridges.isEmpty()) {
overrides.putIfAbsent(method.actual, Set.of());
return;
}
Set<MethodInfo> set = overrides.compute(method.actual,
(k, s) -> s == null || s.isEmpty()? new HashSet<>(): s);
if(overridden != null) set.add(overridden.actual);
for(var mi: method.bridges) {
overridden = ifMethods.get(mi.signature());
if(overridden != null) set.add(overridden.actual);
}
});
}
System.out.println("class " + mc.owner.replace('/', '.'));
printMethods(implMethods);
System.out.println();
System.out.println("Final result");
System.out.println("class " + mc.owner.replace('/', '.'));
overrides.forEach((m,overridden) -> {
System.out.println(" " + toDeclaration(m, false));
if(!overridden.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println(" overrides");
overridden.forEach(o ->
System.out.println(" " + toDeclaration(o, true)));
}
});
}
static boolean nonOverridable(MethodAndBridges m) {
return (m.actual.access() & (Opcodes.ACC_PRIVATE|Opcodes.ACC_STATIC)) != 0
|| m.actual.name().startsWith("<");
}
static void printMethods(Map<MethodSignature, MethodAndBridges> methods) {
methods.forEach((sig, methodAndBridges) -> {
System.out.println(" "+toDeclaration(methodAndBridges.actual,false));
if(!methodAndBridges.bridges.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println(" bridges");
for(MethodInfo mi: methodAndBridges.bridges) {
System.out.println(" " + toDeclaration(mi, false));
}
};
});
}
private static String toDeclaration(MethodInfo mi, boolean withType) {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.append(Modifier.toString(mi.access() & Modifier.methodModifiers()));
if(sb.length() > 0) sb.append(' ');
String clName = mi.owner();
var mt = MethodTypeDesc.ofDescriptor(mi.desc());
if(mi.name().equals("<init>"))
sb.append(clName, clName.lastIndexOf('/') + 1, clName.length());
else {
sb.append(mt.returnType().displayName()).append(' ');
if(withType) sb.append(clName.replace('/', '.')).append('.');
sb.append(mi.name());
}
if(mt.parameterCount() == 0) sb.append("()");
else {
String sep = "(";
for(ClassDesc cd: mt.parameterList()) {
sb.append(sep).append(cd.displayName());
sep = ", ";
}
sb.append(')');
}
return sb.toString();
}
}
interface ISetting
public static void method(Object)
public abstract void accept(CharSequence)
bridges
public void accept(Object)
public abstract Number method(int)
private void method(Number)
public abstract CharSequence get()
bridges
public Object get()
interface SupplierOfSerializable
public abstract Serializable get()
class Setting
Setting()
public Integer method(int)
bridges
public Number method(int)
public void accept(String)
bridges
public void accept(Object)
public void accept(CharSequence)
static void method(Object)
public String get()
bridges
public Object get()
public CharSequence get()
public Serializable get()
void method(Number)
Final result
class Setting
public String get()
overrides
public abstract Serializable SupplierOfSerializable.get()
public abstract CharSequence ISetting.get()
Setting()
public Integer method(int)
overrides
public abstract Number ISetting.method(int)
public void accept(String)
overrides
public abstract void ISetting.accept(CharSequence)
void method(Number)
static void method(Object)
The code uses newer Java features, like var, record, and the constant API, but I think, the result is straight-forward enough for converting it to older Java versions, if really required.

OO: Does container contain bike or chair?

A container may contain bikes and chairs, both belonging to a person. I would like to check, if the container contains either bikes or chairs of said person. Is this possible without using instanceof?
public class Container {
public Map<Person, List<Item>> items = new HashMap<>();
public void add(Person p, Item item) {
items.get(p).add(item);
}
public boolean containsChair(Person owner) {
for(Item i : items.get(owner)) {
if(i instanceof Chair) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public boolean containsBike(Person owner) {
for(Item i : items.get(owner)) {
if(i instanceof Bike) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
For the purpose of illustration, Item, Bike, Chair, Person are all simplest class stubs:
public class Person { public String name; }
public abstract class Item {}
public class Bike extends Item { public Wheel[] wheels;}
public class Chair extends Item { public Leg[] legs;}
public class Wheel {}
public class Leg {}
In the runner, a Person should be able to add Chairs and Bikes to its container:
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Runner {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
// Prevent null pointer exception
c.items.put(p, new ArrayList<>());
c.add(p, new Chair());
// True
System.out.println(c.containsChair(p));
}
}

You could add to class Item an abstract method ItemType getType(). ItemType would be an enum enumerating all possible item types.
public abstract class Item {
public abstract ItemType getType();
}
public enum ItemType {
BIKE, CHAIR;
}
Implementation of Chair:
public static class Chair extends Item {
public Leg[] legs;
#Override
public ItemType getType() {
return ItemType.CHAIR;
}
}
Then you could define a contains method to search for a the given Person if it has an item with a certain ItemType:
public boolean contains(Person owner, ItemType itemType) {
return items.get(owner).stream().anyMatch(item ->itemType.equals(item.getType()));
}
Or null-safe regarding the owners items list:
public boolean contains(Person owner, ItemType itemType) {
return Optional.ofNullable(items.get(owner))
.map(i -> i.stream().anyMatch(item -> itemType.equals(item.getType())))
.orElse(false);
}
Usage:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
// Prevent null pointer exception
c.items.put(p, new ArrayList<>());
c.add(p, new Chair());
// True
System.out.println(c.contains(p, ItemType.CHAIR));
}
EDIT
Following this approach there is no need for instanceof checks. The usage of instanceof can be a hint indicating that the design has some flaws.

You can store Bike and Chair in two different datastructure.
public final class Container {
private final Map<Person, List<Chair>> chairs = new HashMap<>();
private final Map<Person, List<Bike>> bikes = new HashMap<>();
public void add(Person p, Chair chair) {
chairs.putIfAbsent(p, new ArrayList<Chair>());
chairs.get(p).add(chair);
}
public void add(Person p, Bike bike) {
bikes.putIfAbsent(p, new ArrayList<Bike>());
bikes.get(p).add(bike);
}
public boolean containsChair(Person owner) {
return chairs.getOrDefault(owner, Collections.emptyList()).size() > 0;
}
public boolean containsBike(Person owner) {
return bikes.getOrDefault(owner, Collections.emptyList()).size() > 0;
}
}
Note that I also made your instance fields private to hide the fact that data is stored in a Map and avoid the runner code to have the responsibility to instanciate an ArrayList if not existant. Both the class and its fields are also final to achieve a better immutability. Both encapsulation and immutability are considered good practices when doing OOP.
Usage
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
c.add(p, new Chair());
System.out.println(c.containsChair(p)); //true
System.out.println(c.containsBike(p)); //false
}

What I ended up doing was to add two methods to Item:
public boolean containsBike() {return false;}
public boolean containsChair() {return false;}
While this certainly could be optimized, the check is now done by calling the method of the object:
public boolean containsBike(Person p) {
boolean hasBike = false;
// Prevent NullPointerException
if(containsSomethingOf(p)) {
for(Item i : items.get(p)) {
if(i != null) {
if (i.containsBike()) {
hasBike = true;
}
}
}
}
return hasTrousers;
}
I think this is what is called polymorphism.

Unique classes in generic list

I have a generic class with a generic list in it. I want to ensure that the generic list only contains unique classes.
What I have done so far is to compare the class names with reflection (getClass()). But I think that's not a clean solution. Are there any better practices to check?
public class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
public void add(T t) {
final boolean[] classInMembers = {false};
members.forEach(member -> {
if (member.getClass().getName().equals(t.getClass().getName())) {
classInMembers[0] = true;
}
});
if (!classInMembers[0]) {
members.add(t);
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething(String text);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3());
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3()); // should not be inserted!
}
private static class Performer1 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 1!";
}
}
private static class Performer2 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 2!";
}
}
private static class Performer3 implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
#Override
public void doSomething(String text) {
text = "Hi, I am performer 3!";
}
}
}

You could subclass a java.util.Set interface implementation. It will likely be easiest to subclass java.util.AbstractSet.
By default 'Set' will compare objects by their .equals() method - In your case, this is not sufficient. You will need to override the contains method to ensure that only instances of a unique class are added.
In your overrideen contains, it's probably the same / easier to compare class instances rather than their stringified package name
I.e. use a.getClass() == b.getClass(), rather than a.getClass().getName()

Don't use a List, use a java.util.Set instead.
A collection that contains no duplicate elements. More formally, sets contain no pair of elements e1 and e2 such that e1.equals(e2), and at most one null element.
If the iteration order is important or if you want to use a custom Comparator, the TreeSet implementation can be used:
A NavigableSet implementation based on a TreeMap. The elements are ordered using their natural ordering, or by a Comparator provided at set creation time, depending on which constructor is used.
Example of a Set using a Comparator:
class MyComparator implements Comparator<Object> {
#Override
public int compare(Object e1, Object e2) {
if (e1.getClass() == e2.getClass())
return 0;
//if you wish to have some extra sort order
return e1.getClass().getName().compareTo(e2.getClass().getName());
}
}
. . .
Set mySet = new TreeSet<Object>(new MyComparator());
mySet.add(new Object());
mySet.add(new Object());//same class already in set
mySet.add("wtf");
//mySet.size() is now 2 - the second "new Object()" was not inserted due to the comparator check

Why so complicated?
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Class<?> helloClass = "Hello".getClass();
final Class<?> worldClass = "World".getClass();
final Class<?> intClass = Integer.class;
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(worldClass)); // -> true
System.out.println(helloClass.equals(intClass)); // -> false
}
}

You could maintain a roster of members in a Set.
public static class MyGenericClass<T extends MyGenericClass.MyInterface> {
private List<T> members = new ArrayList<>(0);
// Add this.
private Set<Class<?>> roster = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
if (!roster.contains(t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
roster.add(t.getClass());
}
}
private void soundOff() {
for (T t : members) {
t.doSomething();
}
}
public interface MyInterface {
void doSomething();
}
}
private static class Performer implements MyGenericClass.MyInterface {
final int n;
public Performer(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Hi, I am a " + this.getClass().getSimpleName() + "(" + n + ")");
}
}
private static class Performer1 extends Performer {
public Performer1(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer2 extends Performer {
public Performer2(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
private static class Performer3 extends Performer {
public Performer3(int n) {
super(n);
}
}
public void test() {
MyGenericClass<MyGenericClass.MyInterface> myGenericClass = new MyGenericClass<>();
myGenericClass.add(new Performer1(1));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer2(2));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(3));
myGenericClass.add(new Performer3(4)); // should not be inserted!
myGenericClass.soundOff();
}

You could implement a Wrapper which provides the necessary comparison and add the wrapped instance to the set. This way you don't have to override equals and hashcode in your concrete Performer classes and you don't have to subclass a concrete Set implementation (which you are coupled to. When you subclass a HashSet, you have to use that concrete class. But what if you want to use a LinkedHashSet at some point? You have to override LinkedHashSet as well) , which may be fragile since you have to make sure that the overridden method is consistent with the rest of the class.
class MyGenericClass<T extends MyInterface> {
private Set<ClassCompareWrapper<T>> members = new HashSet<>();
public void add(T t) {
members.add(new ClassCompareWrapper<T>(t));
}
}
class ClassCompareWrapper<T> {
T t;
public ClassCompareWrapper(T t) {
this.t = t;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o)
return true;
if (!(o instanceof ClassCompareWrapper))
return false;
ClassCompareWrapper<?> that = (ClassCompareWrapper<?>) o;
return Objects.equals(t.getClass(), that.t.getClass());
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(t.getClass());
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Wrapper{" +
"t=" + t +
'}';
}
}

Here are a few other ideas.
Using streams:
public void add(T t) {
if (!members.stream().anyMatch(m -> m.getClass() == t.getClass())) {
members.add(t);
}
}
Using AbstractSet and HashMap:
class ClassSet<E> extends AbstractSet<E> {
private final Map<Class<?>, E> map = new HashMap<>();
#Override
public boolean add(E e) {
// this can be
// return map.putIfAbsent(e.getClass(), e) != null;
// in Java 8
Class<?> clazz = e.getClass();
if (map.containsKey(clazz)) {
return false;
} else {
map.put(clazz, e);
return true;
}
}
#Override
public boolean remove(Object o) {
return map.remove(o.getClass()) != null;
}
#Override
public boolean contains(Object o) {
return map.containsKey(o.getClass());
}
#Override
public int size() {
return map.size();
}
#Override
public Iterator<E> iterator() {
return map.values().iterator();
}
}
A HashMap could also be used without wrapping it in a Set. The Set interface is defined around equals and hashCode, so any implementation which deviates from this is technically non-contractual. Additionally, you might want to use LinkedHashMap if the values are iterated often.

How can I get data of different types from an anonymous class

I have an object that delegates some work to another object which is implementing an interface. Then, I am creating anonymous classes implementing this interface and I would like to get information from these.
Is it okay to use a final array with a size of one as a pointer to a primitve to share data with the anonymous class?
Here is a working example of what I mean :
public class ExampleClass
{
public static final int INVALID_VALUE = -1;
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final int[] buffer = { INVALID_VALUE }; // buffer is created
final InterfaceA iaObject = new InterfaceA()
{
#Override
public void doStuff(final String paramA)
{
buffer[0] = paramA.length(); // buffer is filled in anonymous class
}
};
final ClassA objA = new ClassA(iaObject);
objA.doStuff("hello, world");
if (buffer[0] == INVALID_VALUE) // buffer is used
{
System.err.println("Invalid length !");
}
else
{
System.err.println("The length is : " + Integer.toString(buffer[0]));
}
}
public static class ClassA
{
private final InterfaceA iaObject;
public ClassA(final InterfaceA iaObject)
{
this.iaObject = iaObject;
}
public void doStuff(final String paramA)
{
this.iaObject.doStuff(paramA);
}
}
public static interface InterfaceA
{
void doStuff(String paramA);
}
}
Thanks

Suggestion: why not using a generic for an out parameter?
interface InterfaceA {
public <T> void doStuff( String paramA, Holder<T> holder );
}
class Holder<T> {
public T t;
}
Full example:
public class ExampleClass
{
public static final int INVALID_VALUE = -1;
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final InterfaceA< Integer > iaObject = new InterfaceA< Integer >() {
#Override
public Integer doStuff( String paramA, Holder<Integer> holder ) {
return holder.value = paramA.length();
}
};
final ClassA<Integer> objA = new ClassA<>( iaObject );
int result = objA.doStuff("hello, world", new Holder<>( INVALID_VALUE ));
if( result == INVALID_VALUE ) {
System.err.println("Invalid length !");
}
else {
System.err.println("The length is : " + Integer.toString( result ));
}
}
public static class ClassA<T> {
private final InterfaceA<T> iaObject;
public ClassA( final InterfaceA<T> iaObject_ ) {
this.iaObject = iaObject_;
}
public T doStuff( final String paramA, Holder<T> holder ) {
return this.iaObject.doStuff( paramA, holder );
}
}
public static interface InterfaceA<T> {
public T doStuff( String paramA, Holder<T> resultHolder );
}
public static class Holder<T> {
public T value;
public Holder( T value_ ) {
value = value_;
}
}
}

If I understand the gist of your question, you're wondering if it is good design principle to use a final array as a wrapper to share memory between an anonymous inner class and its enclosing class.
In my experience, this is a pretty poor way of sharing data between two objects. It is probably wiser to declare your interface differently. Either return an object or use a generic to specify what type you expect back from your anonymous class.

I think one of the largest problems with your approach is the lack of encapsulation - your InterfaceA implementation uses some "global" data holder (the array), and there is no way to prevent that this array can be used elsewhere, which in turn could lead to all kinds of problems (race conditions or whatever).
A cleaner way would be the definition of some separate class (or interface) with a getInt()-method or something similar.

How to write a method that returns an instance of an abstract class?

I am a beginner in Java and i trying to understand the abstract classes.
Below is the code that I've written; the question is: how do i write a method that will return an instance of that class.
public abstract class VehicleEngine
{
protected String name;
protected double fabricationCons;
protected double consum;
protected int mileage;
public VehicleEngine(String n, double fC)
{
name = n;
fabricationCons = fC;
mileage = 0;
consum = 0;
}
private void setFabricationCons(double fC)
{
fabricationCons = fC;
}
public abstract double currentConsum();
public String toString()
{
return name + " : " + fabricationCons + " : " + currentConsum();
}
public void addMileage(int km)
{
mileage += km;
}
public double getFabricationConsum()
{
return fabricationCons;
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
public int getMileage()
{
return mileage;
}
//public VehicleEngine get(String name){
//if(getName().equals(name)){
//return VehicleEngine;
//}
//return null;
//}
}
public class BenzinVehicle extends VehicleEngine
{
public BenzinVehicle(String n, double fC)
{
super(n, fC);
}
#Override
public double currentConsum()
{
if (getMileage() >= 75000) {
consum = getFabricationConsum() + 0.4;
} else {
consum = getFabricationConsum();
}
return consum;
}
}
public class DieselVehicle extends VehicleEngine
{
public DieselVehicle(String n, double fC)
{
super(n, fC);
}
#Override
public double currentConsum()
{
int cons = 0;
if (getMileage() < 5000) {
consum = getFabricationConsum();
} else {
consum = getFabricationConsum() + (getFabricationConsum() * (0.01 * (getMileage() / 5000)));
}
return consum;
}
}
This is the main.
public class Subject2
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
VehicleEngine c1 = new BenzinVehicle("Ford Focus 1.9", 5.0);
DieselVehicle c2 = new DieselVehicle("Toyota Yaris 1.4D", 4.0);
BenzinVehicle c3 = new BenzinVehicle("Citroen C3 1.6",5.2);
c1.addMileage(30000);
c1.addMileage(55700);
c2.addMileage(49500);
c3.addMileage(35400);
System.out.println(c1);
System.out.println(c2);
System.out.println(VehicleEngine.get("Citroen C3 1.6")); //this is the line with problems
System.out.println(VehicleEngine.get("Ford Focus "));
}
}
And the output should be:
Ford Focus 1.9 : 5.0 : 5.4
Toyota Yaris 1.4D : 4.0 : 4.36
Citroen C3 1.6 : 5.2 : 5.2
null

You can not return an instance of an abstract class, by definition. What you can do, is return an instance of one of the concrete (non-abstract) subclasses that extend it. For example, inside the VehicleEngine you can create a factory that returns instances given the type of the instance and the expected parameters, but those instances will necessarily have to be concrete subclasses of VehicleEngine

Have a look at the Factory Method pattern. Your concrete classes will implement an abstract method that returns a class instance.

Abstract classes do not keep a list of their instances. Actually no Java class does that. If you really want to do that, you could add a static map to VehicleEngine like this:
private static Map<String, VehicleEngine> instanceMap = new HashMap<String, VehicleEngine>();
and change your get method to a static one like this:
public static VehicleEngine get(String name) {
return instanceMap.get(name);
}
and add this line to the end of the constructor of VehicleEngine:
VehicleEngine.instanceMap.put(n, this);
this way every new instance created puts itself into the static map. However this actually is not a good way to implement such a functionality. You could try to use a factory to create instances, or you could consider converting this class into an enum if you will have a limited predefined number of instances.