Generic interface with a method that return a list

Question

I have a Generic interface (Pack<A extends PackAnimal>) with one method that returns List<A>. Today I've found that if in a class that implements the interface I forget to speficy the class (class XXX implements PackAnimal) the return type is not checked in compilation time and fail during execution

interface PackAnimal {
}
class Buffalo implements PackAnimal {
}

interface LonelyAnimal {
}
class Puma implements LonelyAnimal {
}

interface Pack<A extends PackAnimal> {
    List<A> getMembers();
}

class PumaPack implements Pack {

    @Override
    public List<Puma> getMembers() {
        return null;
    }
}

Why is that? How could I force that if there any type of mistake in the declaration the compilation will fail?

Bohemian · Answer 1 · 2016-08-04T14:39:24.450

2

Your List is declared with an unknown type. Use the class type:

interface Pack<A extends PackAnimal> {
    List<A> getMembers();
}

// won't compile because Puma not within bound
class PumaPack implements Pack<Puma> {
    List<Puma> getMembers() {return null;}
}

// compiles OK
class BuffaloPack implements Pack<Buffalo> {
    List<Buffalo> getMembers() {return null;}
}

But you can't stop someone coding a raw (missing type) implementation like your PumpPack example, however you will get a compiler warning:

// compile warning
class PumaPack implements Pack {
    List getMembers() {return null;}
}

If you set your compile to fail if there are warnings:

javac -Werror ...

then you will achieve your goal even for raw types.

edited Aug 04 '16 at 14:39

answered Aug 04 '16 at 14:24

Bohemian

412,405
93
575
722

In my test, it throws a compile error, and not just a warning with `Pack` – 4castle Aug 04 '16 at 14:29
@4castle it shouldn't cause an *error*. It's legitimate code. A raw type has all generic info stripped from it. – Bohemian Aug 04 '16 at 14:31
Right, but with the generics it does cause an error. – 4castle Aug 04 '16 at 14:32
@4castle right again (thumbing code on a phone has it's limitations). Yes, edited. – Bohemian Aug 04 '16 at 14:35
I should pay more atention to compilation warnings xD But now I'm curious about how to force in code that thing like could not happend – Narkha Aug 04 '16 at 14:45

score 1 · Accepted Answer · edited Aug 05 '16 at 09:16

You are experiencing the scary and wierd results of using Raw Types.

Essentially if you miss out the <...> anywhere it should be the compiler treats your code as legacy and does not do much of the normal type checking it should. MOst compilers try their best but it leaves gaping holes in the checking process.

interface PackAnimal {
}

class Buffalo implements PackAnimal {
}

interface LonelyAnimal {
}

class Puma implements LonelyAnimal {
}

interface Pack<A extends PackAnimal> {
    // Obviously fine.
    List<A> getMembers();
}

// Raw type so no checking.
class PumaPack implements Pack {

    @Override
    public List<Puma> getMembers() {
        // Raw typed class so Puma isn't checked for PackAnimal super.
        return Arrays.asList(new Puma());
    }
}

class Six {

}

// Properly typed so Raw Types not happening.
class SixPack implements Pack<Six> {

    @Override
    // NOT ALLOWED: Attempt to use incompatible return type!!!
    public List<Six> getMembers() {
        return null;
    }
}

nice, there a flag to disable raw types http://stackoverflow.com/questions/697879/javac-flag-to-disallow-raw-types — Narkha, Aug 04 '16 at 14:59

Generic interface with a method that return a list

2 Answers2