The following examples show typical errors which may be encountered when reflecting on classes.
When a method is invoked, the types of the argument values are checked and possibly converted.
invokes
ClassWarning
getMethod()
to cause a typical unchecked conversion warning:
import java.lang.reflect.Method; public class ClassWarning { void m() { try { Class c = ClassWarning.class; Method m = c.getMethod("m"); // warning // production code should handle this exception more gracefully } catch (NoSuchMethodException x) { x.printStackTrace(); } } }
$ javac ClassWarning.java Note: ClassWarning.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations. Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details. $ javac -Xlint:unchecked ClassWarning.java ClassWarning.java:7: warning: [unchecked] unchecked call to getMethod(java.lang.String,java.lang.Class<?>...) as a member of the raw type java.lang.Class Method m = c.getMethod("m"); // warning ^ 1 warning
Many library methods have been retrofitted with generic declarations including several in
Class
. Since c
is declared as a raw type (has no type parameters) and the corresponding parameter of
getMethod()
is a parameterized type, an unchecked conversion occurs. The compiler is required to generate a warning. (See The Java Language Specification, Third Edition, sections 5.1.9 and 5.3.)
There are two possible solutions. The more preferable it to modify the declaration of c
to include an appropriate generic type. In this case, the declaration should be:
Class<?> c = warn.getClass();
Alternatively, the warning could be explicitly suppressed using the predefined annotation
@SuppressWarnings
preceding the problematic statement.
Class c = ClassWarning.class; @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Method m = c.getMethod("m"); // warning gone
As a general principle, warnings should not be ignored as they may indicate the presence of a bug. Parameterized declarations should be used as appropriate. If that is not possible (perhaps because an application must interact with a library vendor's code), annotate the offending line using
@SuppressWarnings
.
Class.newInstance()
will throw an
InstantiationException
if an attempt is made to create a new instance of the class and the zero-argument constructor is not visible. The
example illustrates the resulting stack trace.ClassTrouble
class Cls { private Cls() {} } public class ClassTrouble { public static void main(String... args) { try { Class<?> c = Class.forName("Cls"); c.newInstance(); // InstantiationException // production code should handle these exceptions more gracefully } catch (InstantiationException x) { x.printStackTrace(); } catch (IllegalAccessException x) { x.printStackTrace(); } catch (ClassNotFoundException x) { x.printStackTrace(); } } }
$ java ClassTrouble java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Class ClassTrouble can not access a member of class Cls with modifiers "private" at sun.reflect.Reflection.ensureMemberAccess(Reflection.java:65) at java.lang.Class.newInstance0(Class.java:349) at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Class.java:308) at ClassTrouble.main(ClassTrouble.java:9)
Class.newInstance()
behaves very much like the new
keyword and will fail for the same reasons new
would fail. The typical solution in reflection is to take advantage of the
java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject
class which provides the ability to suppress access control checks; however, this approach will not work because
java.lang.Class
does not extend
AccessibleObject
. The only solution is to modify the code to use
Constructor.newInstance()
which does extend
AccessibleObject
.
In general, it is preferable to use
Constructor.newInstance()
for the reasons described in the Creating New Class Instances section in the Members lesson.
Additional examples of potential problems using
Constructor.newInstance()
may be found in the Constructor Troubleshooting section of the Members lesson.