We Keep Coding

Is this class immutable or not?

The below class doesn't have final keyword but its member variables are private and final and the class exposes no mutate/set methods. Is this class immutable or not?
public class Abc {
private final int id;
private final String name;
public Abc(int id, String name) {
this.id = id;
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
}

The class itself is immutable, yes - if you create an instance of just Abc, no aspect of that can be changed after the instance has been created.
However, that doesn't mean that any code receiving a parameter of type Abc can assume it's immutable with all the benefits that carries... because the class isn't final. It's entirely possible for an object of a type compatible with Abc to be mutable:
public class Mutable extends Abc {
private String value;
public Mutable(int id, String name) {
super(id, name);
}
public void setValue(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override public String toString() {
return value;
}
}
Now imagine you've got code which deals with an Abc:
public class AbcConsumer {
private final Abc abc;
public AbcConsumer(Abc abc) {
this.abc = abc;
}
// No need to create a defensive copy or anything like that...
// abc is immutable, right?
public Abc getAbc() {
return abc;
}
}
Here the consumer assumes it's fine to treat Abc as if it's an immutable class - but if someone creates an AbcConsumer by passing in a Mutable instance instead of "vanilla" Abc instance, it could cause problems.
That's why it's generally a good idea when you're creating an immutable type to make it final as well - that way any consumers know that if they receive a reference with that type, it's definitely immutable.
To put it another way: yes, the Abc class is immutable... but you can't assume that a reference with a compile-time type of Abc refers to an immutable object.

As presented, yes, the class is immutable.
The "final" keyword on a class declaration prevents it from being extended - it's not related to immutability (unless your variables are declared public or protected).
Edit; "not related" is a poor choice of words, please see Jon Skeet's answer below

No, it is most likely not.
A problem is terminology. What do you mean by class? If you mean this code, sure, it's immutable. But 'this code' is not something that is particularly relevant to the concept of immutability. That usually makes a lot more sense if we consider it: this type.
As in, is the type Abc immutable?
As in, given:
public void foo(Abc abc) { ... }
is it safe to assume that the received abc couldn't possibly change?
And then the answer is no. That is not safe to assume: The type Abc is mutable.
The reason is that someone could make this:
class SneakyAbc extends Abc {
private int id;
public void setId(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
}
This is why immutable classes are virtually always made final, to fully guarantee it.
Depending on how fancy you want to paint with the brush of 'what does this term mean', if all methods of Abc are final, you can consider it immutable as well if you really want to: Whilst the class does not need to be immutable (a subclass can add a new non-final field and create getters and setters for this), all the stuff you can 'witness' from the Abc type, assuming you don't use reflection, do appear immutable.
Exactly what definition of immutable you go with would be required knowledge to delve any further.
Note that something like java.io.File has only final fields and is final, and yet, it has easily observable state that can be modified: just.. delete the file, and voila you can see it. You can pull similar stunts with an IdentityHashMap to create a faux but nevertheless very observable 'field'.
Thus, 'immutable' as a concept: Useful. As a boolean flag to bestow upon a certain type or some java source file: Not useful.

Records
Other Answers directly addressed your questions about immutability, class being marked final, and subclasses being mutable. I’ll add an alternative option to more briefly accomplish your goal of immutability: Records.
Java 16 brings the new records feature. If the main purpose of your class is to immutably and transparently carry data, define your class as a record. The compiler implicitly creates default constructor, getters, equals & hashCode, and toString.
A record is implicitly final, so no risk of a subclass becoming mutable.
Declare the properties in parentheses. By default, you need not put anything in the curly braces body of a record.
record Abc ( int id , String name ) {}
Instantiate like any other class.
Abc x = new Abc ( 42 , "Snuffleupagus" ) ;
The implicit getter methods are simply the property names. The JavaBeans-style get…/is… method naming is not used. (You could add such methods if required.)
System.out.println( x.name() ) ;
Snuffleupagus

It is mutable if its internal states can be changed after the class is created.
In your example, although there is no class final, the inside situations cannot be changed again because of final keyword. In this way, the class becomes immutable again

Is My java class Immutable

Please see i am not asking what is immutability, i understand immutability but question is more how to make an immutable class when you are giving reference to a mutable object. Moreover my class failed the check with mutability detector project, hence requesting your view.
I have created a Immutable class EmpAndAddress.java and it has reference to a mutable class EmpAddress.java which is cloneable.
I have followed the java rules and tried to test my class using mutability detector but my class is failing the immutable test. Just want to check if I am missing something. In my Immutable i am always creating new Object of type EmpAddress mutable to follow the rules.
http://mutabilitydetector.github.io/MutabilityDetector/
1. Mutable EmpAddress.java
public class EmpAddress implements Cloneable{
public String empCity;
public int zipCode;
public EmpAddress(String empCity, int zipCode) {
super();
this.empCity = empCity;
this.zipCode = zipCode;
}
public String getEmpCity() {
return empCity;
}
public void setEmpCity(String empCity) {
this.empCity = empCity;
}
public int getZipCode() {
return zipCode;
}
public void setZipCode(int zipCode) {
this.zipCode = zipCode;
}
protected Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
EmpAddress clone=(EmpAddress)super.clone();
return clone;
}
}
public final class EmpAndAddress implements Cloneable {
private final int empId;
private final String empName;
private final EmpAddress eAddr;
public EmpAndAddress(int empId,String empName,EmpAddress eAddr){
super();
this.empId = empId;
this.empName = empName;
this.eAddr = new EmpAddress(" ", -1);
}
public int getEmpId() {
return empId;
}
public String getEmpName() {
return empName;
}
public EmpAddress geteAddr() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
return (EmpAddress) eAddr.clone();
}
}

The only problem I see is that you are actually not using the EmpAddress instance being passed to the EmpAndAddress constructor. I doubt that was intentional on your part.
In any case, to ensure that your class is immutable despite a reference to a mutable object is by performing clones both when receiving the EmpAddress instance in the constructor, and when returning an instance from the geteAddr() method.
You are already doing that inside the geteAddr() method, so you're ok on that front.
All that you are missing is fixing your constructor, like this:
public EmpAndAddress(int empId,String empName,EmpAddress eAddr){
this.empId = empId;
this.empName = empName;
this.eAddr = (EmpAddress) eAddr.clone();
}

The MutabilityDetector code is checking that the class is transitively immutable. It is not sufficient for the class itself to be immutable. The types of all of the classes fields must also be immutable. The child objects referenced by the fields are assumed to be part of the state of the parent object, so changing a child object changes the parent.
In your case, the (supposedly) immutable class EmpAndAddress has a field whose type is mutable. Furthermore, the field in an EmpAndAddress object is initialized with a value that is passed as a constructor argument. If the caller of the constructor keeps the EmpAddress reference, it can change the state of the EmpAndAddress object.

Full disclosure: author of Mutability Detector here... with a loooong answer.
If we start out with the class you defined in your question, and assert on it being immutable, like so;
#Test
public void isImmutable() {
assertImmutable(EmpAndAddress.class);
}
You get a test failure with the following message:
org.mutabilitydetector.unittesting.MutabilityAssertionError:
Expected: org.mutabilitydetector.stackoverflow.Question_32020847$EmpAndAddress to be IMMUTABLE
but: org.mutabilitydetector.stackoverflow.Question_32020847$EmpAndAddress is actually NOT_IMMUTABLE
Reasons:
Field can have a mutable type (org.mutabilitydetector.stackoverflow.Question_32020847$EmpAddress) assigned to it. [Field: eAddr, Class: org.mutabilitydetector.stackoverflow.Question_32020847$EmpAndAddress]
Allowed reasons:
None.
(I've defined both classes as a static inner class, hence showing up as $EmpAndAddress in the message, but ignore that for now.)
Another answer to this question is totally correct. EmpAndAddress is considered mutable because EmpAddress is considered mutable, and every field of an immutable object should also be immutable. EmpAddress is mutable for several reasons: can be subclassed; has public non-final fields; setter methods. The first question is, why does cloning the EmpAddress field in the getter not help make it immutable? Well, in this case it does happen to make it immutable, but Mutability Detector doesn't perform the kind of analysis required to be confident of it. Mutability Detector doesn't have any special analysis for safely cloning mutable objects when letting them "escape" to callers. This is because it's very easy to misuse .clone and introduce mutability. Imagine if EmpAddress had a mutable field, like List, you can observe mutation like so:
#Test
public void go_on_try_to_mutate_me_now_i_have_a_list_field() throws Exception {
EmpAndAddress e = new EmpAndAddress(1234, "John Doe");
assertThat(e.geteAddr().getMyList(), is(Collections.<String>emptyList()));
e.geteAddr().getMyList().add("Haha, I'm mutating you");
assertThat(e.geteAddr().getMyList(), is(Collections.<String>emptyList())); // Fails because list now has one element in it
}
This is because Object.clone does not perform deep copies. It's only safe in this case because the fields cloned in EmpAddress are immutable (String and primitive int). Mutability Detector could try to recognise safe usages of .clone, but it would probably be very fragile. Because it can't be confident that your class is immutable, Mutability Detector decides it is mutable.
You are correct that creating a new Object of type EmpAddress is helping to make the class immutable, that's because it is "protecting" the instance, keeping it private, where no other code can access it. If the constructor took an instance and assigned it to a field, whoever passed the parameter to the constructor could modify it, thus mutating any instance that used it for a field. Like in this example:
#Test
public void mutate_object_by_giving_it_a_parameter_then_modifying_it() throws Exception {
EmpAddress empAddress = new EmpAddress("New York", 1234);
EmpAndAddress e = new EmpAndAddress(1234, "John Doe", empAddress);
assertThat(e.geteAddr().getCity, is("New York"));
empAddress.setCity("Haha, I'm mutating you");
assertThat(e.geteAddr().getCity(), is("New York")); // fails because city has been changed
}
So, what to do about it? There are a couple of options.
Method 1: Override Mutability Detector because you know better
Change your test to add an "allowed reason" to be mutable. That is, you are satisfied the failure is a false positive, you want to catch other potential errors which introduce mutability, but ignore this case. To do this, add code like the following:
#Test
public void isImmutable_withAllowedReason() {
assertInstancesOf(EmpAndAddress.class, areImmutable(),
AllowedReason.assumingFields("eAddr").areNotModifiedAndDoNotEscape());
}
You should be very sure about this before you take this option, and if you are new to immutable objects, I would recommend not doing this, so that you can learn to create immutable objects more safely.
Method 2: Make EmpAddress immutable as well, like so:
#Immutable
public static final class ImmutableEmpAddress {
private final String empCity;
private final int zipCode;
public ImmutableEmpAddress(String empCity, int zipCode) {
this.empCity = empCity;
this.zipCode = zipCode;
}
public String getEmpCity() { return empCity; }
public int getZipCode() { return zipCode; }
}
Then when you return it as a field from EmpAndAddress you don't need to clone it. This would be an ideal solution.
Method 3: Create an immutable adapter
However, in some cases you can't make EmpAddress immutable. Maybe the code is in a different library, or it's used by a framework that needs to set fields on it with reflection (such as Hibernate, or other JavaBean libraries). In this case you could create an immutable adapter like so:
#Immutable
public static final class ImmutableEmpAddressAdapter {
public final String empCity;
public final int zipCode;
public ImmutableEmpAddressAdapter(EmpAddress mutableAddress) {
// perform a deep copy of every field on EmpAddress that's required to re-construct another instance
this.empCity = mutableAddress.getEmpCity();
this.zipCode = mutableAddress.getZipCode();
}
public EmpAddress getEmpAddress() {
return new EmpAddress(this.empCity, this.zipCode);
}
}
Then in EmpAndAddress could look like this:
public static final class EmpAndAddress {
// some code ommitted for brevity
private final ImmutableEmpAddressAdapter immutableEmpAddressAdapter;
public EmpAndAddress(int empId, String empName){
this.immutableEmpAddressAdapter = new ImmutableEmpAddressAdapter(new EmpAddress(" ", -1));
}
public EmpAddress geteAddr() {
return immutableEmpAddressAdapter.getEmpAddress();
}
}
Although this technique would require more code, it makes it very explicit to other readers of this class that EmpAddress has an immutable field, and doesn't rely on fragile behaviour of Object.clone
This is also a good technique if you want to make a class immutable, but you have to make many code changes to do it. This allows you to gradually introduce an immutable version in more and more places in a codebase until eventually the original mutable class is only used at the margins of your system, or even disappears entirely.
I hope this anwser, and Mutability Detector have been useful in learning how to create immutable objects.

How can we get immutable object if class did not implement cloneable

I have few issues/doubts to fill values in a HashMap
I want a HashMap to accept "Student" as key and "Details" as value.
Since key to a hashMap should be immutable I have some doubts how can this be dealt if
Student class did not cloneable
Student class has reference to which in turn have reference to "Lab"
public class Student {
private String id;
private String name;
private Department dept;
public Student(String id, String name, Department dept)
{
this.id=id;
this.name=name;
this.dept=dept;
}
public Department getDepartment()
{
return this.dept;
}
}
public class Department {
private String deptId;
private Lab lab;
public Department(String deptId, Lab lab)
{
this.deptId=deptId;
this.lab=lab;
}
public void setLab(Lab lab)
{
this.lab=lab;
}
}
public class Lab {
private String labId;
private String labName;
public Lab(String labId, String labName)
{
this.labId=labId;
this.labName=labName;
}
}
public class StudentDetails
{
private String fatherName;
private String address
public StudentDetails(String fatherName, String address)
{
this.fatherName=fatherName;
this.address=address;
}
}
public class StudentMaintainer {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
StudentDetails stDetails= new StudentDetails("John","Mumbai");
Lab lab= new Lab("100","CS");
Department dept= new Department("900", lab);
Student st = new Student("3000",dept);
Map<Student,StudentDetails> studentMaintainer= new ArrayList<>();
studentMaintainer.put(st,stDetails);
}
}
Now Even if Student is cloneable, I can get reference of Department and call setLab() which changes the StudentObject. (Am I wrong?)
Now if Department and Lab are from 3rd party jars, how can I use Student Object in my Map if Student hashCode is (primeNumber+Student.id+Department.id+Lab.id).hashcode() [just some weird case];

Immutability has nothing to do with Cloneable as far as I understand it, and in fact just the opposite. Immutability has more to do with declaring the class final and using immutable fields, non-overridable methods, no setter methods, getter methods that return deep copies of fields or immutable fields, etc... Please read A Strategy for Defining Immutable Objects for more on this.
Also your code has a pseudo-constructor:
public void Student(String id, String name, Department dept)
{
this.id=id;
this.name=name;
this.dept=dept;
}
A true constructor should not be declared to return anything, not even void. Better would be:
// note the difference?
public Student(String id, String name, Department dept)
{
this.id=id;
this.name=name;
this.dept=dept;
}
Also, your Student class should properly override equals and hashCode if it is to work well as a key for a HashMap.

Now Even if Student is cloneable, I can get reference of Department
and call setLab() which changes the StudentObject. (Am I wrong?)
You are correct. This can happen, and can cause your Student class to appear to be mutated. For an instance of Student to be immutable, you must not be able to modify any of its fields[0]. That includes calling something like a setter method on one of its fields.
Now if Department and Lab are from 3rd party jars, how can I use
Student Object in my Map if Student hashCode is
(primeNumber+Student.id+Department.id+Lab.id).hashcode() [just some
weird case];
That is a very good question. You obviously can't just change the classes to be immutable, since you don't have control over them, so you may have to get a bit creative. Possible solutions:
if the third party objects you want to use are interfaces, you could implement the interface with your own type, where the body of every mutator method throws an exception (think e.g. java.util.Collections.unmodfiableList). This has the benefits that you can still refer to the third party class in your codebase, but the drawback that calling mutator methods will fail at runtime, rather than at compile time.
write adapters in your own codebase, like this:
public final class MyImmutableDepartment {
private final MyImmutableLab lab;
private final String departmentId;
public MyImmutableDepartment(Department thirdPartyMutableDepartment) {
this.departmentId = thirdPartyMutableDepartment.getId();
this.lab = new MyImmutableLab(thirdPartyMutableDepartment.getLab());
}
// getters and the MyImmutableLab class left as an exercise
}
This has the advantage that you know at compile time, the classes cannot be mutated.
The downside in both approaches is that you basically have to mirror every class from the third party library, to ensure they're immutable.
I don't think there's any other alternatives.
[0] there are some cases where this is possible, and can be used for internal caching, but it's a decent guideline to stick to when learning.

Student does not need to be immutable! Specifically, the requirement is that the behavior of equals/hashCode doesn't change when the key is in the HashMap.
This can be accomplished in three ways:
Don't implement equals/hashCode. If you use the default reference equality, it doesn't matter how you mutate the key. To clarify intent, override those methods, explicitly call super.equals, and make them final.
Don't include any fields that will mutate in your calculation of equals/hashCode. Or, if the properties of a field may change but not the reference, use reference equality (==) instead of field.equals() and call System.identityHashCode(field) instead of field.hashCode()
Don't mutate the object while it is used as a key in the HashMap. A bit dangerous, but works fine if references aren't held by code beyond your control. Document the requirement.
But, in your concrete example, each student has an id. Why would you use any other properties when implementing equals/hashCode.?

using abstract class methods

I am having some issues understand something about abstract classes. I have an abstract class created with a method for setting/getting a name:
public abstract class Person {
private String firstName;
public void setFirstname(String name)
{
this.firstName = name;
}
public String getFirstName()
{
return firstname;
}
I have 2 other classes that extend this class and they are Worker and Employer. I have the different workers and employers being created and stored into arraylists in a forth class called WorkPlace. My question is if I wanted to get every first name of every Person is there a way to do it without going through each arraylist and doing something like workerList.get.getFirstName?

Not unless your abstract class statically keeps a record of all first names, and you provide a static method to get all of those names.

Perhaps you could create a class like Workplace, and whenever you want a new Employer or Worker you would call something to the effect of workplaceName.newWorker(), which would return a new Worker and at the same time keep track of all Workers, so that you can later call workplaceName.getAllWorkerNames().

What you could do is override the toString() method in your Person class and return the first name.
When you then get out of ArrayList.toString() is a something like [firstname1, firstname2, firstname3]. You can remove the leading and trailing brackets and split the string with with ", ". This is a bit complicated and may decrease performance because of unnecessary string operations, but you would not required to loop over all elements in the collection.
Here is an example:
// in Person class do this
#Override
public String toString() {
return this.firstName;
}
// in your WorkPlace class do this
public String[] getAllFirstNames() {
String allNames = workerList.toString();
allNames = allNames.substring(1, allNames.length - 2);
return allNames.split(", ");
}
This should work and there is no loop (better: no loop you've written by your own). But as mentioned before, it may cost to much. In addition it may be not very save, in case the behavior of the collection's toString() method changes.

so if you have:
ArrayList<Person> list = new ArrayList<Person>();
Then:
Employer e1 = new Employer();
Worder w1 = new Worker();
list.add(e1);
list.add(w1);
Then you have to do:
list.get(0).getFirstName();

Immutability property in java

I know that when it comes to passing objects in java, the reference of object is passed as value. So what ever changes you make to that object is reflected in the original object as well. To avoid this we make use of immutability property in java.
So my question is, I have created an immutable class Employee, When I pass an object of this Employee class to some method in other class, I don't want that method to make any changes to this object. Even if it does, I don't want the changes to be affected to the original object created in the calling class.
Here is my sample code.
public final class Employee {
int employeeId;
public int getId() {
return employeeId;
}
public void setId(int id) {
this.employeeId = id;
}
}
public class Worker {
public static void process(Employee f, Employee g){
int c = f.getId();
f.setId(g.getId());
g.setId(c);
}
}
public class ImmutabilityTest{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Employee teamMember = new Employee();
Employee teamLead = new Employee();
teamMember.setId(5);
teamLead.setId(10);
System.out.println("Before process "+teamMember.getId() + " " + teamLead.getId());
Worker.process(teamMember, teamLead);
System.out.println("After process "+teamMember.getId() + " " + teamLead.getId());
}
}
The output will be
Before process 5 10
After process 10 5
Is there any way to avoid the change in the values of the member variables of the Employee class ? (apart from making them final)If not then how are we actually exploiting the Immutability property in java in user defined class ?
Any suggestions/opinions/pointers are appreciated ! Thanks..

Immutability is not a property in Java that can be applied to an Object with a single keyword, its a strategy that needs to be implemented on a case by case basis. Generally speaking, you utilize the final keyword and cloning in order to accomplish this. Note that the deeper your object nesting, the greater the level of difficulty in achieving true object immutability.
Here is a (more) immutable version of your Employee class:
public class Employee {
final int employeeId;
public Employee(final int id) {
super();
this.employeeId = id;
}
public int getId() {
return employeeId;
}
}
Note that reflection in Java makes it practically impossible to achieve true immutability, even with the use of the final instance variables and cloning.

Employee has a setter and has a non-private field, therefore it is not immutable.
Remove the setter, and make the field private, and your problem is solved.
Your other option is to pass a copy of the object (typically using a copy constructor to create it)

Applying the final keyword to a class simply indicates that the class can not be extended (or sub-classed).
It has nothing to do with whether or not its members can be modified.

You could change the visibility of the setId method to be package private, and make sure that Worker is in a different package to Employee.
Alternatively remove the setId method entirely.
[If the other class makes changes] I don't want the changes to be affected to the original object created in the calling class.
If you want to take that approach, then you need to create and pass a copy of the original object.
Note that unless you declare the private employeeId field to be final, you won't get the full benefit of immutability. Strictly speaking, the getId method needs to be synchronized if there is any possibility that different threads will call getId on the same Employee instance.

If you Don't want someone to change your properties value, you can keep them as private without setter.