We do have a cache (Map) with objects of Class TestClass. Another classloader initializes/loads TestClass at runtime again, so below code will threw a ClassCastException:
TestClass obj1 = (TestClass)map.get("key"); // throws a ClassCastException
ClassCastException when casting to the same class
Alright, I do understand this issue up to this point.
So, I was trying to find background information why is TestClass.class not equals TestClass.class. I assume that the different classloader set a different id to the ReferenceType? Anyone able to explain the background to me?
Best page I've found:
http://www.objectsource.com/j2eechapters/Ch21-ClassLoaders_and_J2EE.htm
Yes, your research points to the right direction: the same class definition loaded by different class loaders is seen as two distinct classes by the JVM. Thus casting between them fails with ClassCastException.
I think the difference is simply because there are two distinct class token objects in play. It has to be like this, since the classes loaded by the different loaders may in fact be different versions of the same class. It is known that the class token for every class is unique (within the same classloader realm, that is). It would open up a can of worms if the JVM started to compare class tokens by their various attributes, rather than by physical equality (==).
What you experienced is the reason why custom class loaders exist. They allow to load different class with the same name in one JVM. The identity of a class in a JVM is given by the tuple consisting of the class name and the class loader. In the language Java a class is identified just by fully qualified name.
Anyone able to explain the background to me?
As Péter Török already explained they are considered different when loaded from different classloaders.
The background is that an application server should be able to support different versions of an application e.g. different versions of the same libraries included in your ear-files.
There is no mystery. Runtime equality of types is defined in the Java Language Specification as follows:
"At run time, several reference types with the same binary name may be loaded simultaneously by different class loaders. These types may or may not represent the same type declaration. Even if two such types do represent the same type declaration, they are considered distinct."
JLS 4.3.4 - When reference types are the same. (2nd paragraph)
Related
Due to a requirement of my program, I am in the situation where I need to define multiple classes at runtime with a classloader of null (The bootstrap classloader).
This would normally be very easy using something like
unsafe.defineClass(name, bytes, 0, bytes.length, null, null);
This however does not work if I need to define say 5 different classes, each with references to each other. The JVM attempts to resolve these classes before they have been defined resulting in a NoClassDefFoundError.
Is there a way to prevent the JVM resolving classes when I define them with unsafe.defineClass?
If not is there potentially a way to do this using JNI?
This question is similar to this one, however the answers provided are not suitable as it includes defining the classes under a non null classloader.
Unsafe.defineClass does not resolve classes, as specified in JVMS §5.4.3. The most of symbolic references in the constant pool remain unresolved.
The only dependencies that need to be satisfied at class definition time are
the list of implemented interfaces;
the superclass.
Any valid set of classes can be ordered in a way that
for any class or interface C being defined, all interfaces C implements are already defined before, and the superclass of C is also defined before.
This means, it is possible to define classes one by one, if done in the proper order. The above condition does not hold only in the case of circular inheritance (which is not valid anyway).
But make sure not to initialize classes or otherwise cause class resolution, until all of the referenced classes are defined.
I am writing code that adds functions to a 'mod' if it exists in the classpath (referenced by pixelmonPresent)
PixelHammerTool extends ItemHammer
, ItemHammer only exists if pixelmon is present
The issue im having is, if i do this in the class (same package)
if(Basemod.pixelmonPresent) {
rubyHammer = new PixelHammerTool(Basemod.RUBY, "pixelutilitys:RubyHammer", "rubyHammer");
}
It will cause a class not found on PixelHammerTool,
Why is this being called if the if statement is false and what can i do about it ?
The why is simple and straightforward: because when a class is loaded, all the classes referenced by it are loaded too. (In fact they are loaded first.)
Avoiding it isn't too complicated either, although the code won't look nice: you need to load the class with reflection, using Class.forName(), find the constructor you want from the array returned by Class.getConstructors() and then create an instance using Constructor.newInstance().
Note that while if it only happens a few times in your code, this solution is fine, if you find yourself doing this a lot then you should probably look for a dependency injection framework that will do the heavy lifting for you.
Under the Linking section in the specs, we see this:
For example, a Java Virtual Machine implementation may choose to resolve each symbolic reference in a class or interface individually when it is used ("lazy" or "late" resolution), or to resolve them all at once when the class is being verified ("eager" or "static" resolution). This means that the resolution process may continue, in some implementations, after a class or interface has been initialized. Whichever strategy is followed, any error detected during resolution must be thrown at a point in the program that (directly or indirectly) uses a symbolic reference to the class or interface.
So when the constant has to be defined is implementation-dependent, based on the class loader. The behavior you're seeing is consistent with the "eager" resolution mentioned: when you reference PixelHammerTool in your code, even if it's for a runtime path that will never be hit, the class loader tries to link in its definition, which does not exist.
This strategy causes the JVM to start slower but execute faster at runtime, which is generally the strategy taken in all the implementations I'm familiar with. Indeed, the default class loader is given the name "bootstrap class loader" because it has this behavior - load classes at JVM bootstrap time.
You can either instantiate the class via reflection, as biziclop suggested (the easier route), which forces linking at runtime, or find or create a class loader that instantiates classes lazily.
I'm having a strange problem that I can't figure out that popped up when trying to pluginize my program. An additional problem is that I'm not able to create a simple test case, because every time I try it works. There must be some complication I'm missing. But I'll try to describe the situation as clearly as possible, in case it sounds familiar to anyone.
I have a base class called Seed which is part of the main application and loaded by the system classloader. I have a plugin which contains a class Road which is a subclass of Seed. It is loaded at runtime from a separate jar file. The class Road references the field Seed.garden, which is defined as:
protected final Garden garden;
Note that I don't get compilation errors. I also don't get runtime errors when the plugin jar is included on the system classpath. Only when my main application loads the plugin using a new classloader (that has the system classloader as its parent) do I get the error. The error is:
java.lang.IllegalAccessError: tried to access field package.Seed.garden from class package.Road$4
It must have something to do with the fact that the subclass has been loaded by a different class loader than the superclass, but I can't find any official reason why that shouldn't work. Also, like I said, when I try to reproduce the problem with a simple test case (that includes the separate jars, loading the subclass with a different classloader, etc.), I don't get the error.
It also doesn't seem likely that I'm violating the access rules since it works when the classes are loaded by the same classloader, and I don't get compilation errors.
I'm out of ideas! Does anyone recognise this problem, or have some pointers for me for directions in which to look? Help!
OK, so with the help of axtavt and other respondents I figured out what the problem is. The other answers helped, but they didn't get it exactly right, which is why I'm answering my own question. The problem turned out to be the concept of "runtime packages", defined in the Java Virtual Machine specification as follows:
5.3 Creation and Loading
...
At run time, a class or interface is determined not by its name alone, but by a pair: its fully qualified name and its defining class loader. Each such class or interface belongs to a single runtime package. The runtime package of a class or interface is determined by the package name and defining class loader of the class or interface.
...
5.4.4 Access Control
...
A field or method R is accessible to a class or interface D if and only if any of the following conditions is true: ...
R is protected and is declared in a class C, and D is either a subclass of C or C itself.
R is either protected or package private (that is, neither public nor protected nor private), and is declared by a class in the same runtime package as D.
The first clause explains why Road is allowed to access Seed.garden, since Road is a subclass of Seed, and the second clause explains why Road$4 is not allowed to access it, despite being in the same package as Road, since it is not in the same runtime package, having been loaded by a different class loader. The restriction is not actually a Java language restriction, it is a Java VM restriction.
So the conclusion for my situation is that the exception occurs due to a legitimate restriction of the Java VM, and I'm going to have to work around it, probably by making the fields public, which is not a problem in this case since they are final, and not secret, or perhaps by exporting Seed.garden to Road$4 via Road, which does have access.
Thank you everyone for your suggestions and answers!
Sounds like you have a class identity crisis, having two different class loaders loading the same class in the class hierarchy or similar. Read up some on the java class loaders. Here is a good one for introduction, for "class identity crisis" see figure 2: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-dyn0429/
I should add that Road$4 is an anonymous inner class of Road...
Someone else thought this was a bug as well back in 1998:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4116802
An inner class has no greater access to members of another class than
a top-level class, except for those members that are declared within
an enclosing, enclosed, or sibling class. It is a common misconception
that an inner class has unrestricted access to inherited members of
its enclosing classes. This is not true.
I would probably research that fact a bit more though because this was reported originally against Java 1.2, but I seem to remember from my reading that this is true today as well.
EDIT:
I confirmed this to be true:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/summarynested.html
The scope for an anonymous inner class is only the point where it is defined. So it will not have access to inherited members, even if the outer class does.
This is permission error, so it depends on the framework you use to run your runtime.
Just to clarify this is indeed this, make the parent member public, and then try to run. In case everything is ok, then restore your code, and according to the runtime you use we need to configure the correct security access.
I want to know how Java linker works. Specifically, in which order it combines classes, interfaces, packages, methods and etc into jvm-executable format. I have found some information here, but there is not so much information about linking order.
There is no such thing as a Java "linker". There is, however, the concept of a classloader which - given an array of java byte codes from "somewhere" - can create an internal representation of a Class which can then be used with new etc.
In this scenario interfaces are just special classes. Methods and fields are available when the class has been loaded.
First of all: methods are always part of a class. Interfaces are basically just special classes, and packages are just a part of the fully qualified name of a class with some impact on visibility and the physical organization of class files.
So the question comes down to: how does a JVM link class files? The JVM spec you linked to says:
The Java programming language allows
an implementation flexibility as to
when linking activities (and, because
of recursion, loading) take place,
provided that the semantics of the
language are respected, that a class
or interface is completely verified
and prepared before it is initialized,
and that errors detected during
linkage are thrown at a point in the
program where some action is taken by
the program that might require linkage
to the class or interface involved in
the error.
For example, an implementation may
choose to resolve each symbolic
reference in a class or interface
individually, only when it is used
(lazy or late resolution), or to
resolve them all at once, for example,
while the class is being verified
(static resolution). This means that
the resolution process may continue,
in some implementations, after a class
or interface has been initialized.
Thus, the question can only be answered for a specific JVM implementation.
Furthermore, it should never make a difference in the behaviour of Java programs, except possibly for the exact point where linking errors result in runtime Error instances being thrown.
Java doesn't do linking the way C does. The principle unit is the class definition. A lot of the matching of a class reference to its definition happens at runtime. So you could compile a class against one version of a library, but provide another version at runtime. If the relevant signatures match, everything will be ok. There's some in-lining of constants at compile time, but that's about it.
As noted previously Java compiler doesn't have a linker. However, JVM has a linking phase, which performed after class loading. JVM spec defines it at best:
Linking a class or interface involves verifying and preparing that
class or interface, its direct superclass, its direct superinterfaces,
and its element type (if it is an array type), if necessary.
Resolution of symbolic references in the class or interface is an
optional part of linking.
This specification allows an implementation flexibility as to when
linking activities (and, because of recursion, loading) take place,
provided that all of the following properties are maintained:
A class or interface is completely loaded before it is linked.
A class or interface is completely verified and prepared before it is
initialized.
Errors detected during linkage are thrown at a point in the program
where some action is taken by the program that might, directly or
indirectly, require linkage to the class or interface involved in the
error.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-5.html#jvms-5.4
Linking is one of the three activities performed by ClassLoaders. It includes verification, preparation, and (optionally) resolution.
Verification : It ensures the correctness of .class file i.e. it check whether this file is properly formatted and generated by valid compiler or not. If verification fails, we get run-time exception java.lang.VerifyError.
Preparation : JVM allocates memory for class variables and initializing the memory to default values.
Resolution : It is the process of replacing symbolic references from the type with direct references. It is done by searching into method area to locate the referenced entity.
I have a class that I know will be loaded by a URLClassLoader for each instance of it, so if I have a static variable in one, will the other instances be able to access it?
For example, Class MyClass is loaded by ClassLoader A and ClassLoader B, and I want to know if MyClass loaded by A will have the same static fields as MyClass loaded by B.
So basically, will the following statement always be true:
A.loadClass("MyClass").getField("MyField").get(null).equals(B.loadClass("MyClass").getField("MyField").get(null));
Static variables are unique across classloaders. (The references to these that is) The values might be the same. Using equals will work, using == will not.
EDIT: Each ClassLoader will load a different class (They can even be different versions). The initialized statics will be different. Two different classes from different ClassLoaders can have variables (static or not) that are identical in value.
Unfortunately #Dinesh/#DAJ's answer is incorrect. (#Romain's maybe too, but the wording is hard to parse.)
Suppose you have a class a.b.C and you arrange that the same class gets loaded by two different classloaders. According to the specifications, you will end up with two distinct Class objects with the fully qualified name a.b.C, and from the type system perspective two distinct types. Each of the types will have a different set of static variables.
The primary reference for this is JLS 4.3.4 - paragraphs 2 and 3.
You can infer that each reference type that is distinct (at runtime) will have a distinct set of statics from JLS 4.12.3, JLS 8.3.1.1, JLS 12.4, and other parts of the language spec.
So basically, will the following statement always be true:
A.loadClass("MyClass").getField("myField").get(null)
.equals(B.loadClass("MyClass").getField("myField").get(null));
In general it won't.
It will always be true in some cases, depending on how MyClass initializes myField. For instance, if the field is initialized to a literal String, then it will.
(The trick to observing this is to arrange that MyClass is actually loaded by the two classloaders A and B, and not by a common ancestor classloader.)
AFAIK, it shouldn't matter who loads the class. As long as the fields are static, they should be the same. Did you try to experiment with some code?