We Keep Coding

Java Method that returns different types of generic Lists

I'm currently trying to write a method that goes through a list of Ant-Objects and returns a list of AntScouts, that extend Ant. In general, List<Ant> can contain a lot of different Objects that inherit from Ant.
I also have an enum for the different kinds of ants:
public enum AntType {
QUEEN,WARRIOR,GATHERER,SCOUT;
public Class getClass(AntType type){
return switch (type) {
case QUEEN -> AntQueen.class;
case WARRIOR -> AntWarrior.class;
case GATHERER -> AntGatherer.class;
case SCOUT -> AntScout.class;
};
}
}
This enum causes a warning:
Raw use of parameterized class 'Class'
And this is the method that currently returns a List<Ant>.
public List<Ant> getAntsType(AntType type){
return ants.stream().filter(ant -> ant.getType() == type).toList();
}
How can I write the method so that it get's the AntType enum as argument and returns a List<AntScout> or List<AntWarrior> corresponding to the enum? I REALLY don't want to use Class<T> clazz as argument since that would defeat the point of the enum. (I also use that enum elsewhere, so I can't get rid of it)
How can I write the method so that it get's the AntType enum as argument and returns a List or List corresponding to the enum?
Edit: This comment probably comes closest to the desired solution:
Java Method that returns different types of generic Lists

Use the Power of Polymorphism
How can I write the method so that it get's the AntType enum as argument and returns a List or List corresponding to the enum?
You're overengineering your code for no good reason.
When you're using inheritance, your classes should be designed in a way that allow to benefit from the Polymorphism.
I.e. by using super type Ant for all your objects and interacting with them through overridden behavior without a need to discriminate between the concrete implementations and operating via type casts.
Therefore, your method returning List<Ant> is quite fine.
And even if you wanted to obtain a List<AntQueen> or List<AntScout> as a result of the method execution then you would need a to use a generic type variable T, or rather T extends Ant, and that would imply that you need a mean of representing the T. And enum would not help you with this task because in Java enums can't be generic. You need to provide as a method argument either an instance of T or a Class<T>.
public <T extends Ant> List<T> getAntsByType(Class<T> tClass) {
return ants.stream().filter(tClass::isAssignableFrom).toList();
}
But I would advise sticking with the initial version returning a List of super type Ant declaring method getType() which returns an instance of enum AntType.
public List<Ant> getAntsByType(AntType type) {
return ants.stream().filter(ant -> ant.getType() == type).toList();
}
And as I've said, Java-enums can't be generic, there's no way to obtain Class<T> through it. Hence, you can remove contrived method getClass() from AntType.
public enum AntType {
QUEEN, WARRIOR, GATHERER, SCOUT;
}
Simulated self-type
But if you're still convinced that your application logic require the ability to generate a list of concrete type like List<AntScout> from a list of super type, then you can make use of a recursive type bound.
For that, you need to define the super type as Ant<T extends Ant<T>>.
This approach is also called a simulated self-type idiom and can be observed in the declaration of the parent type of all enums java.lang.Enum<E extends Enum<E>> and in some other parts of the JDK like method Collections.sort(List<T>) where T is defined as <T extends Comparable<? super T>>.
Let's apply self-type idiom for this case.
Consider super type Ant defined as an interface, declaring a self-returning method (you can change into abstract class if you need to declare some skeletal implementations and common fields):
interface Ant<T extends Ant<T>> {
T self();
AntType getType();
}
And here's a couple of concrete classes:
public static class AntWarrior implements Ant<AntWarrior> {
#Override
public AntWarrior self() {
return this;
}
#Override
public AntType getType() {
return AntType.WARRIOR;
}
}
public static class AntScout implements Ant<AntScout> {
#Override
public AntScout self() {
return this;
}
#Override
public AntType getType() {
return AntType.SCOUT;
}
}
That how we can perform conversion using self() method:
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static <T extends Ant<T>> List<T> getAntsByType(List<Ant<?>> ants,
AntType type) {
return ants.stream()
.filter(ant -> ant.getType() == type)
.map(ant -> (T) ant.self())
.toList();
}
Usage example:
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Ant<?>> ants = List.of(new AntWarrior(), new AntScout());
// compiles and runs without issues
List<AntWarrior> antWarriors = getAntsByType(ants, AntType.WARRIOR);
System.out.println(antWarriors);
// compiles and runs without issues
List<AntScout> antScouts = getAntsByType(ants, AntType.SCOUT);
System.out.println(antScouts);
}
Output:
[AntWarrior{}]
[AntScout{}]
A link to Online Demo

This could be possible if enums could be generic, but they can't. However, that is no big deal. Just use a final class with a bunch of public static final fields and a private constructor. A little verbose surely, but is as effective as an enum.
Also, your getClass() method should either be a static method with the switch or else be an instance method without the switch. The later is much better, so went that way. Further, calling it getClass() is not a good idea since it is unrelated with Object.getClass() method. So I called it getAntTypeClass().
And this is the result:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(AntType.QUEEN.getAntTypeClass().getName());
System.out.println(AntType.SCOUT.getAntTypeClass().getName());
}
}
final class AntType<T extends Ant> {
public static final AntType<AntQueen> QUEEN = new AntType<>(AntQueen.class );
public static final AntType<AntWarrior> WARRIOR = new AntType<>(AntWarrior.class );
public static final AntType<AntGatherer> GATHERER = new AntType<>(AntGatherer.class);
public static final AntType<AntScout> SCOUT = new AntType<>(AntScout.class );
private final Class<T> antTypeClass;
private AntType(Class<T> antTypeClass) {
this.antTypeClass = antTypeClass;
}
public Class<T> getAntTypeClass() {
return antTypeClass;
}
}
interface Ant {}
class AntWarrior implements Ant {}
class AntGatherer implements Ant {}
class AntScout implements Ant {}
class AntQueen implements Ant {}
See it working on ideone.

I would change your AntType enum method so that it acts as the filter in your stream. I've had to guess at the rest of the class hierarchy but this might give you a starting point.
import java.util.List;
import static java.util.stream.Collectors.toList;
public class Demo {
private List<Ant> ants = List.of(
new AntQueen(),
new AntScout(),
new AntGatherer(),
new AntWarrior());
public static void main(String[] args) {
var demo = new Demo();
System.out.println(demo.getAntsType(AntType.QUEEN));
}
public List<Ant> getAntsType(AntType type) {
return ants.stream().filter(type::matches).collect(toList());
}
}
class Ant {}
class AntQueen extends Ant {}
class AntWarrior extends Ant {}
class AntGatherer extends Ant {}
class AntScout extends Ant {}
enum AntType {
QUEEN, WARRIOR, GATHERER, SCOUT;
public boolean matches(Ant a) {
return switch (this) {
case QUEEN -> a instanceof AntQueen;
case WARRIOR -> a instanceof AntWarrior;
case GATHERER -> a instanceof AntGatherer;
case SCOUT -> a instanceof AntScout;
};
}
}

There are a couple ways you can do this.
First, fix the method in your enum:
public enum AntType {
QUEEN,WARRIOR,GATHERER,SCOUT;
public Class<? extends Ant> getImplClass(){
return switch (this) {
case QUEEN -> AntQueen.class;
case WARRIOR -> AntWarrior.class;
case GATHERER -> AntGatherer.class;
case SCOUT -> AntScout.class;
};
}
}
Since this is a non static method, you don't need to take in the type as an argument. In your example it's not clear where the list is coming from, but if I add it as an argument, it would look like this:
public static List<Ant> getAntsType(AntType type, List<Ant> ants){
return ants.stream().filter(ant -> ant.getClass() == type.getImplClass()).toList();
}
The second way to do it would be to add a method called getType() in the Ant class which returns a type variable that is set by the constructor.
public class Ant {
private AntType type;
protected Ant(AntType type) {
this.type = type;
}
public AntType getType() {
return type;
}
}
Then you set the type in each of the subclass's constructors:
public class AntQueen extends Ant {
protected AntQueen() {
super(AntType.QUEEN);
}
}
Then the filtering code looks like this:
public static List<Ant> getAntsType(AntType type, List<Ant> ants){
return ants.stream().filter(ant -> ant.getType() == type).toList();
}

Is there any hack to know the actual concrete class of the generic of an instance at runtime? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Get generic type of class at runtime
(30 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'd like to find a hack to infer the actual generic instance of another instance's var in runtime, without:
Changing my needed method signature (adding the helper parameter Class<T>, the obvious way)
Having to instanceof all possible subtypes in a hardcoded way
MyInterface<? extends Number> myInterface = whateverReturnsWildcardDoubleInterface();
Class<?> type = inferInstanceType(myInterface);
assert type == Double.class;
/** This is the method that represents the code I am looking for with the conrete signature**/
public <T extends Number> Class<T> inferInstanceType(MyInterface<T> myInterface){
return T.class; //Concrete T (can or cannot be the very Number)
}
Ideally, it should return Double when T is particular subtype Integer,Double.. and Number when T is Number
I checked reflection, several "TypeResolver"/"GenericResolver" libs (as the one in Spring or others in Github), but I cannot fin a way to hack it.
EDIT: I reached the conclusion that he only feasible way to do that would be some kind of very complex reflection through the stack trace up to the acutal line that passes the type in the very instantiation
EDIT2: I know it's stupid... but I solved it by simply adding a T getT() method to my interface, so I could return myInterface.getT().getClass()

Disclaimer: This solution is provided as a hack tailored to my understanding of your setup, i.e. one generic interface with a single type parameter, multiple classes, which are not themselves generic, directly implementing this one interface alone, and implementing no other generic interfaces, directly or indirectly.
Assuming that all of the above is true, there is a relatively straightforward way of hacking a solution: calling getClass().getGenericInterfaces() returns a Type object that provides the actual type with which your generic interface has been instantiated.
interface MyInterface<T extends Number> {
T getVal();
}
class DoubleImpl implements MyInterface<Double> {
public Double getVal() {return 42.42; }
}
...
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception {
MyInterface<? extends Number> x = new DoubleImpl();
Type[] ifs = x.getClass().getGenericInterfaces();
System.out.println(ifs.length);
for (Type c : ifs) {
System.out.println(c);
Type[] tps = ((ParameterizedType)c).getActualTypeArguments();
for (Object tp : tps) {
System.out.println("===="+tp); // <<== This produces class java.lang.Double
}
}
}
Demo.

As assylias pointed out, Java's erasure will make that information unavailable at runtime - and thus a need for a hack.
On the assumption that myInterface has a getter for T, as in, MyInterface.getValue():T (or the hack would be to add it) you could do something like this (ignoring the possibility that getValue() could return null):
public <T extends Number> Class<T> inferInstanceType(MyInterface<T> myInterface){
return myInterface.getValue().getClass()
}
Below is the full implementation
public class Q34271256 {
public static interface MyInterface<T> {
T getValue();
}
public static class MyDoubleClass implements MyInterface<Double> {
private final Double value;
public MyDoubleClass(Double value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public Double getValue() {
return value;
}
}
public static class MyIntegerClass implements MyInterface<Integer> {
private final Integer value;
public MyIntegerClass(Integer value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public Integer getValue() {
return value;
}
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static <T extends Number> Class<T> inferInstanceType(MyInterface<T> myInterface){
Number value = myInterface.getValue();
if (value == null) return null;
return (Class<T>)value.getClass();
}
public static void main(String...args) {
List<MyInterface<? extends Number>> list = Arrays.asList(
new MyDoubleClass(1.1),
new MyIntegerClass(5)
);
for (MyInterface<? extends Number> myInterface : list) {
Class<?> type = inferInstanceType(myInterface);
System.out.printf("%s inferred type is %s\n",
myInterface.getClass().getName(),
type.getName());
}
}
}
And the output should look something like this:
MyDoubleClass inferred type is java.lang.Double
MyIntegerClass inferred type is java.lang.Integer

Overloading / generics in Java

I want to run certain tests in Lists. The Lists can contain entirely different classes.
I have one method to check the consistency of the list - not null, not empty, no more than x elements. This is common to all the lists. Then I want to test each of the objects, using overloading.
The idea would be something like:
public static <T> void check(List<T> list) {
//do general checks
for (T element : list) {
check(element);
}
}
and then
public static void check(SomeType element) {...}
public static void check(SomeOtherType element) {...}
But I also had to add a method like this:
public static void check(T element) {...}
And this was called at runtime - not my other methods with the specific classes. Although the class was exactly the same. I'm evidently missing some generics understanding.
Now if I don't use the general method at all and try to solve it this way:
public static void check(List<SomeType> list) {...}
public static void check(List<SomeOtherType> list) {...}
Compiler error - "Method check(List) has the same erasure check(List) as another method..."
So is there any elegant solution for this? I could just use different method names but would like to know how it's possible without that.
Thanks!

This isn't something about generics that you're missing. Java does not have double dispatch. The call to check must be resolved at compile-time, and check(T) is the only match since the compiler can't tell if T is SomeType or SomeOtherType in a given scenario. It needs to choose one method to call that will work for all possible Ts.
This is sometimes solved using the visitor pattern.

The problem should be solved by the caller. When it instanciate your class with a concrete type for T, it should also pass an instance of Checker<T> with the same concrete type:
public class SomeClass<T> {
private List<T> list;
private Checker<T> checker;
public SomeClass(Checker<T> checker) {
this.checker = checker;
}
public void check() {
checker.check(list);
}
}
public interface Checker<T> {
public void check(List<T> list);
}
...
SomeClass<Foo> someClass = new SomeClass<Foo>(new Checker<Foo>() {
#Override
public void check(List<Foo> list) {
// do whatever you want here
}
});

You can use instanceof to dispatch:
public static <T> void check(List<T> list) {
for (T element : list) {
check(element);
}
}
public static void check(T t) {
if (t instanceof SomeType) {
SomeType someType = (SomeType) t;
// code for SomeType ...
} else if (t instanceof OtherType) {
OtherType otherType = (OtherType) t;
// code for OtherType ...
} else {
// we got a type that we don't have a method for
}
}

With generics, the type parameter is actually erased during compilation, and the list object don't know anything about the static type of the object it contains. Since it doesn't know it, it can not use overloading to call methods with different parameters, because Java doesn't support multiple dispatch.
You have then three choices:
Make your objects implement a Checked interface with a check method that does the check logic. Downside is that the check logic is now dispersed in several places and it is not practical if you have objects of classes you don't have control of.
Use instanceof to call explicitly the check methods according to the dynamic type of the object. Downside is you potentially end up with a big if/else block a bit harder to maintain.
Implement the visitor pattern. Downside is that you have to change the object classes too, but the check logic stay in a single place.

Since the type of the variable is lost in check(List<T> list) you have two options:
1. Do different things by checking runtime type
check(T element) {
if (element.getClass().equals(SomeType.class)) {
check((SomeType) element);
} elseif (element.getClass().equals(SomeOtherType.class)) {
check((SomeOtherType) element);
}
This can be made a little more sophisticated, for example by wrapping each check in a Callable and using a Map<Class, Callable>
This is similar to visitor pattern.
2. Calling a virtual method on the element to be checked itself
If the checking logic can be pushed to the object to be checked itself (this is not necessarily a bad thing) then you don't need to check types:
interface Checkable { void check(); }
class SomeType implements Checkable { .... }
class SomeOtherType implements Checkable { .... }
Then:
public static <T extends Checkable> void check(List<T> list) {
for (T element : list) {
element.check();
}
}
These are the only two options, any implementation has to be a variation on one of these

Generic instance variable in non-generic class

I'm trying to write a class that has a generic member variable but is not, itself, generic. Specifically, I want to say that I have an List of values of "some type that implements comparable to itself", so that I can call sort on that list... I hope that makes sense.
The end result of what I'm trying to do is to create a class such that I can create an instance of said class with an array of (any given type) and have it generate a string representation for that list. In the real code, I also pass in the class of the types I'm passing in:
String s = new MyClass(Integer.class, 1,2,3).asString();
assertEquals("1 or 2 or 3", s);
String s = new MyClass(String.class, "c", "b", "a").asString();
assertEquals("\"a\" or \"b\" or \"c\"", s);
Originally I didn't even want to pass in the class, I just wanted to pass in the values and have the code examine the resulting array to pick out the class of the values... but that was giving me troubles too.
The following is the code I have, but I can't come up with the right mojo to put for the variable type.
public class MyClass {
// This doesn't work as T isn't defined
final List<T extends Comparable<? super T>> values;
public <T extends Comparable<? super T>> MyClass (T... values) {
this.values = new ArrayList<T>();
for(T item : values) {
this.values.add(item);
}
}
public <T extends Comparable<? super T>> List<T> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return this.values;
}
}
error on variable declaration line:
Syntax error on token "extends", , expected
Any help would be very much appreciated.
Edit: updated code to use List instead of array, because I'm not sure it can be done with arrays.
#Mark: From everything I've read, I really want to say "T is a type that is comparable to itself", not just "T is a type that is comparable". That being said, the following code doesn't work either:
public class MyClass {
// This doesn't work
final List<? extends Comparable> values;
public <T extends Comparable> MyClass (T... values) {
this.values = new ArrayList<T>();
for(T item : values) {
this.values.add(item);
}
}
public <T extends Comparable> List<T> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return this.values;
}
}
error on add line:
The method add(capture#2-of ? extends Comparable) in the type List<capture#2-of ? extends Comparable> is not applicable for the arguments (T)
error on sort line:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from List<capture#4-of ? extends Comparable> to List<T>
Conclusion:
What it comes down to, it appears, is that Java can't quite handle what I want to do. The problem is because what I'm trying to say is:
I want a list of items that are
comparable against themselves, and I
create the whole list at once from the
data passed in at creation.
However, Java sees that I have that list and can't nail down that all the information for my situation is available at compile time, since I could try to add things to the list later and, due to type erasure, it can't guarantee that safety. It's not really possible to communicate to Java the conditions involved in my situation without applying the generic type to the class.

I think that the simple answer is that you cannot do that. If the type of one of a classes attributes depends on a type parameter, that parameter has to be declared at the class level. And I don't think that it "makes sense" any other way.
If T in your example is not a type parameter of the class, what is it? It cannot be the type parameter of the method, because that type is determined by how the method is called. (If the method is called in different static contexts with different inferred types for T, what is the notional type of T in the context of the attribute declaration?)
So to bring this back to what you are trying to do here, an instance of MyClass will hold elements of some type, and you want to be able to insert and remove elements in a statically typesafe fashion. But at the same time you don't want to be able to say what that type is. So how is the compiler supposed to statically distinguish between a MyClass instance that holds (say) Integer objects and one that holds String objects?
I don't even think you could implement this with explicit dynamic typechecks. (I think that type erasure means that the implementation of the getSortedList() method cannot find out what actual type is bound to its return type.)
No. The real solution is to make MyClass a generic class that declares the type parameter T; e.g.
public class MyClass <T extends Comparable<T>> {
and remove the declaration of the method-level type parameter T from the two methods.

There's plenty of unchecked warnings in this, but in principle it's not necessary to keep the List as anything but something containing things you know are Comparable. You enforce the rules you need to in the constructor, and everything else should be fine. How about something like this:
public class MyClass {
final private List<Comparable> values;
public <T extends Comparable<? super T>>MyClass(T... values){
this.values = new ArrayList<Comparable>();
for(T item : values) {
this.values.add(item);
}
}
public <T extends Comparable<? super T>> List<T> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return (List<T>)this.values;
}
}
A quick test using the following shows that for classes that implement Comparable (like Integer and String) MyClass behaves as expected, but will throw a compilation error for classes that do not implement Comparable:
class Junk { }
public static void main(String[] args){
MyClass s = new MyClass(1,2,3);
System.out.println(s.getSortedLst());
MyClass a = new MyClass("c", "a", "b");
System.out.println(a.getSortedLst());
MyClass c = new MyClass(new Junk());
}

I believe the following will achieve what you want (stronger typing of Comparable). This will prevent people adding Comparable objects which are not from your interface to the list and allow multiple implementations.
public class test<T extends ComparableType> {
final List<T> values = new ArrayList<T>();
public test (T... values) {
for(T item : values) {
this.values.add(item);
}
}
public List<T> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return Collections.unmodifiableList(this.values);
}
}
public interface ComparableType extends Comparable<ComparableType> {}
public class ConcreteComparableA implements ComparableType {
#Override
public int compareTo(ComparableType o) {
return 0;
}
}
public class ConcreteComparableB implements ComparableType {
#Override
public int compareTo(ComparableType o) {
return 0;
}
}
edit:
I know this may be obvious; but if you do not wish the class to be Generic this solution will also work with:
public class test {
final List<ComparableType> values = new ArrayList<ComparableType>();
public test (ComparableType... values) {
for(ComparableType item : values) {
this.values.add(item);
}
}
public List<ComparableType> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return Collections.unmodifiableList(this.values);
}
}

Consider it like this (what I am about to say isn't reality. but it illustrates why you need to do what you need to do):
class Foo<T>
{
private T value;
T getValue() { return value; }
void setValue(T val) {value = val; }
}
// some code that uses the above class
Foo<Integer> iFoo = new Foo<Integer>();
Foo<String> sFoo = new Foo<String>();
iFoo.setValue(5);
sFoo.setValue("Hello");
When this happens the compiler (DOES NOT REALLY DO WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY!) generates the following code:
class IntegerFoo
{
private Integer value;
Integer getValue() { return value; }
void setValue(Integer val) {value = val; }
}
class StringFoo
{
private String value;
String getValue() { return value; }
void setValue(String val) {value = val; }
}
// some code that uses the above class
IntegerFoo iFoo = new IntegerFoo();
StringFoo< sFoo = new StringFoo();
iFoo.setValue(5);
sFoo.setValue("Hello");
If you were able to have the instance variables/methods parameterized without parameterizing the class the above thing (WHICH IS NOT REALITY!) wouldn't work.
What you are trying to do should be possible with static methods, but I don't think that is what you want.
Can you explain why you want to do the code you are trying to do? Perhaps we can figure out a better way to do what you want to do that works within the language.

I'd do it this way (I did it as a list or as an array), unless you really need the instance variable/methods:
import java.lang.reflect.Array;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.List;
public class MyClass
{
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> List<T> asSortedList(final T ... vals)
{
final List<T> temp;
temp = new ArrayList<T>(vals.length);
temp.addAll(Arrays.asList(vals));
Collections.sort(temp);
return (Collections.unmodifiableList(temp));
}
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> T[] asSortedArray(final Class<?> clazz,
final T ... vals)
{
final T[] temp;
temp = (T[])Array.newInstance(clazz,
vals.length);
System.arraycopy(vals,
0,
temp,
0,
vals.length);
Arrays.sort(temp);
return (temp);
}
public static void main(final String[] argv)
{
final List<String> list;
final String[] array;
list = MyClass2.asSortedList("c", "a", "b");
System.out.println(list);
array = MyClass2.asSortedArray(String.class, "z", "y", "x");
System.out.println(Arrays.deepToString(array));
}
}

the type constraint you want on the variable can't be expressed directly. you can introduce a new type to bridge the problem.
static class MyList<T extends Comparable<? super T>> extends ArrayList<T>{}
final MyList<?> values;
however, there is no point to be extremely type safe in a private piece of code. Generic is there to help you clarify your types, not to obfuscate them.

public class MyClass<T extends Comparable<? super T>> {
// This doesn't work as T isn't defined
final List<T> values;
public MyClass (T... values) {
this.values = new ArrayList<T>(Arrays.asList(values));
}
public List<T> getSortedLst() {
Collections.sort(this.values);
return this.values;
}
}

Java Class hierarchies with Generics, Comparator and sort error

I've been looking around to see if I find something to help me with my problem, but no luck until now. I've got the following classese:
public interface ISort<T> {
public List<T> sort(List<T> initialList);
}
public abstract class Sort<T> implements ISort<T> {
private Comparator<? super T> comparator;
public Sort(Comparator<? super T> comparator) {
this.comparator = comparator;
}
#Override
public List<T> sort(List<T> initialList) {
ArrayList<T> list = new ArrayList<T>(initialList);
Collections.sort(list, comparator);
return list;
}
}
public abstract class InternalTreeItem<T> {
public abstract String getValue();
}
public class D extends InternalTreeItem<Integer> {
private Integer i;
public D(Integer i) {
this.i = i;
}
#Override
public String getValue() {
return i.toString();
}
public Integer getInteger() {
return i;
}
}
public class DComparator implements Comparator<D> {
#Override
public int compare(D o1, D o2) {
return o1.getInteger() - o2.getInteger();
}
}
public class DSort extends Sort<D> {
public DSort(Comparator<D> comparator) {
super(comparator);
}
public DSort() {
super(new DComparator());
}
}
And the test class:
public class TestClass {
#Test
public void test1() {
List<InternalTreeItem<?>> list= new ArrayList<InternalTreeItem<?>>();
list.add(new D(1));
list.add(new D(10));
list.add(new D(5));
ISort<?> sorter = new DSort();
sorter.sort(list);
}
}
The compiler gives an error at the line
sorter.sort(list);
and states
The method sort(List<capture#2-of ?>)
in the type ISort<capture#2-of ?>
is not applicable for the arguments
(List<InternalTreeItem<?>>)
Ok, after a couple of hours and help from a friend, we realized the problem lies with Collections#sort(List<T> list, Comparator<? super T> c) in the abstract class Sort, as I use a Comparator<? extends T>.
I use generics, as I have 2 models, one model's super class is a generic abstract subclassed by 35 classes, and the second model actually has 2 different super classes, which combined, are subclassed by again 35 classes. These hierarchies are given, there's nothing I can do to modify them.
The model here is very simple, but you get the point. Also, there's a factory, that depending on the type of T, returns one sorter, or another.
Can any one please help and provide a solution for my issue (that is to sort a generic list; the parameter type can be a generic superclass or one of it's subclasses).
Thanks and best regards,
Domi

One way to approach this is to use a wrapper class for the classes that you cannot change.
So in your example you want to order a list of object D, based on an Integer value. By putting your objects in a wrapper and then adding this to the list, you can expose the value you wish to sort the list by.
For example, you could define an interface like:
private interface SortableListItem<T> extends Comparable<SortableListItem<T>> {
public T getValue();
}
Then, create a wrapper class for D:
public class DWrapper implements SortableListItem<Integer> {
private D item;
public DWrapper(D item) {
this.item = item;
}
public Integer getValue() {
return item.getInteger();
}
public int compareTo(SortableListItem<Integer> o) {
return getValue().compareTo(o.getValue());
}
}
From here it is pretty simple to create and sort your list:
D item1= new D(1);
D item2= new D(10);
D item3= new D(5);
DWrapper wrapper1 = new DWrapper(item1);
DWrapper wrapper2= new DWrapper(item2);
DWrapper wrapper3= new DWrapper(item3);
List<SortableListItem<Integer>> sortableList = new ArrayList<SortableListItem<Integer>>();
sortableList.add(wrapper1 );
sortableList.add(wrapper2);
sortableList.add(wrapper3);
Collections.sort(sortableList);
You can of course make the wrapper class accept a more generic object - the key is that each object returns a value (in this case an Integer) that the List can be sorted by.

The variable sorter is of type ISort<?>. It could have, say, an ISort<String> assigned to it. The sort method takes an argument of List<T> where T could be String. Clearly you cannot use List<InternalTreeItem<?>> for List<String>, so fortunately the compiler points out the error.
(Note: It's generally a good idea to keep to coding conventions. No I Hungarian prefixes, or single letter class names.)

Running your code what I can deduce is that you get a compile error since it is not possible to capture the wildcard that you specify in below line of class TestClass:
ISort<?> sorter = new DSort();
As I understand an occurrence of wild card is taken to stand for some unknown type and from your code it is not possible to infer the type (for the compiler).
But looking at the code, the class DSort is not written in a way to take type parameters
and any attempt to pass type parameters during creation of instance of DSort gave the error:
The type DSort is not generic; it cannot be parameterized with arguments
But you mention that you cannot alter the code of the modules (i.e I presume of classes DSort etc).
So one way to fix the error would be to not use generics during creation of instance of ISort.
The below code works and the prints the the sorted output (1,5,10)
List<InternalTreeItem<?>> list= new ArrayList<InternalTreeItem<?>>();
list.add(new D(1));
list.add(new D(10));
list.add(new D(5));
// no generic arguments
ISort sorter = new DSort();
List<InternalTreeItem<?>> sortedList = sorter.sort(list);
for(InternalTreeItem i:sortedList) {
System.out.println(i.getValue());
}
but results in a warning of the form ISort is a raw type. References to generic type ISort should be parameterized. But having code that uses generic and having warning of this form is not a good practice . This warning implies that the compiler cannot give cast-iron guarantee about the implicit casts it does to use generics.
If feasible, I think the better solution would be to see how the modules class can re-designed.