Strange Compilation Error About Generics

[dhafirnz]

Hi all,
I'm getting a strange type casting compilation error for what seems to be a simple case.

Have the following class:
class GenericResult<T> implements Serializable {

private List<Message> messages = new ArrayList<Message>();
private T data;

public T getData() {
return data;
}


public void setData(T data) {
this.data = data;
}

if I don't specify a type for the class above when creating it (which is valid with a warning) the compiler converts the List of <Messages> to a List of <Object> and I lose the type although the List has nothing to do with the Class type parameter!

So, if I go like this:

GenericResult myResult = new GenericResult();
for(Message msg: myResult.getMessages() ) {
...
}

This will create compilation error on the for loop saying it cannot convert from Object to Message, although the list is defined as Message type!

If I specify any dummy type when creating the class above (say like new GenericResult<Date>()) then the compiler will be happy!

Note that any other non-List property will maintain its type regardless, it seems that the Collection has this problem?

Can someone explain please?

Thanks,

[Tolls]

Curious.
I'm sure Jos can explain why...

(Tolls waits patiently)

[JosAH]

Show us the code for your getMessages method; does it return something of type List<Message>?

kind regards,

Jos

[dhafirnz]

Hi,
Yes, the getter/setter all typed.



public List<Message> getMessages() {
return messages;
}

public void setMessages(List<Message> messages) {
this.messages = messages;
}

Thanks for any help in solving this mystery. I am using Java 1.6 by the way.

[dhafirnz]

My guess is that because a type was not bound to the generic type, the compiler downgrades the byte code to a pre Java 5 version (like 1.4), and hence a typed List will loose its type!

Very confusing! Why would it do that?

[JosAH]

My guess is that because a type was not bound to the generic type, the compiler downgrades the byte code to a pre Java 5 version (like 1.4), and hence a typed List will loose its type!

Very confusing! Why would it do that?

Legacy support; read paragraph 4.8 Raw Types in the JLS; any member of a parameterized type that is also parameterized (no matter if the types are the same as the parameter type of the class you're defining) will be 'erased' to its raw type to avoid 'rare' types. Personally I find it a bit rude but I can see the problems that arise if the erasure isn't complete. They also sort of warn that raw types may not be supported in the future. Interesting, I never thought about it until I read your example; thanks for that ...

kind regards,

Jos

ps. Both javacc and jide (the Eclipse compiler) do this; I don't know about other compilers.

[Tolls]

"Personally I find it a bit rude"
:)

That made me chuckle.

[JosAH]

"Personally I find it a bit rude"
:)

That made me chuckle.

I wanted to write: "such a shitty solution can only have come from the brains of a no balls moron"; but this is a family forum and kids can read it so I didn't write it ... ;-)

kind regards,

Jos