有可能在Java中创建泛型类型的实例吗?我在想，根据我所看到的，答案是否定的(由于类型擦除)，但如果有人能看到我遗漏的东西，我会很感兴趣:
class SomeContainer<E>
{
E createContents()
{
return what???
}
}
编辑:事实证明，超级类型令牌可以用来解决我的问题，但它需要大量基于反射的代码，如下面的一些答案所示。
我将把这个问题放一段时间，看看是否有人提出了与Ian Robertson的Artima文章截然不同的东西。
当前回答
如果你在泛型类中需要一个类型参数的新实例，那么让你的构造函数要求它的类…
public final class Foo<T> {
private Class<T> typeArgumentClass;
public Foo(Class<T> typeArgumentClass) {
this.typeArgumentClass = typeArgumentClass;
}
public void doSomethingThatRequiresNewT() throws Exception {
T myNewT = typeArgumentClass.newInstance();
...
}
}
用法:
Foo<Bar> barFoo = new Foo<Bar>(Bar.class);
Foo<Etc> etcFoo = new Foo<Etc>(Etc.class);
优点:
比Robertson的超级类型令牌(STT)方法简单得多(而且问题更少)。 比STT方法更有效(STT方法会把你的手机当早餐吃)。
缺点:
Can't pass Class to a default constructor (which is why Foo is final). If you really do need a default constructor you can always add a setter method but then you must remember to give her a call later. Robertson's objection... More Bars than a black sheep (although specifying the type argument class one more time won't exactly kill you). And contrary to Robertson's claims this does not violate the DRY principal anyway because the compiler will ensure type correctness. Not entirely Foo<L>proof. For starters... newInstance() will throw a wobbler if the type argument class does not have a default constructor. This does apply to all known solutions though anyway. Lacks the total encapsulation of the STT approach. Not a big deal though (considering the outrageous performance overhead of STT).
其他回答
你可以用类加载器和类名，最终一些参数。
final ClassLoader classLoader = ...
final Class<?> aClass = classLoader.loadClass("java.lang.Integer");
final Constructor<?> constructor = aClass.getConstructor(int.class);
final Object o = constructor.newInstance(123);
System.out.println("o = " + o);
正如你说的，你不能真正做到这一点，因为类型擦除。你可以使用反射来实现，但这需要大量的代码和错误处理。
下面是基于ParameterizedType的改进解决方案。getActualTypeArguments， @noah、@Lars Bohl和其他一些人已经提到过。
首先是实施上的小改进。Factory不应该返回实例，而是返回类型。一旦使用Class.newInstance()返回实例，就减少了使用范围。因为只有无参数构造函数可以像这样调用。更好的方法是返回一个类型，并允许客户端选择他想调用的构造函数:
public class TypeReference<T> {
public Class<T> type(){
try {
ParameterizedType pt = (ParameterizedType) this.getClass().getGenericSuperclass();
if (pt.getActualTypeArguments() == null || pt.getActualTypeArguments().length == 0){
throw new IllegalStateException("Could not define type");
}
if (pt.getActualTypeArguments().length != 1){
throw new IllegalStateException("More than one type has been found");
}
Type type = pt.getActualTypeArguments()[0];
String typeAsString = type.getTypeName();
return (Class<T>) Class.forName(typeAsString);
} catch (Exception e){
throw new IllegalStateException("Could not identify type", e);
}
}
}
下面是一个用法示例。@Lars Bohl只展示了一种通过扩展具体化通用的方式。@noah只能通过使用{}创建实例。下面是演示这两种情况的测试:
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
public class TypeReferenceTest {
private static final String NAME = "Peter";
private static class Person{
final String name;
Person(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
@Test
public void erased() {
TypeReference<Person> p = new TypeReference<>();
Assert.assertNotNull(p);
try {
p.type();
Assert.fail();
} catch (Exception e){
Assert.assertEquals("Could not identify type", e.getMessage());
}
}
@Test
public void reified() throws Exception {
TypeReference<Person> p = new TypeReference<Person>(){};
Assert.assertNotNull(p);
Assert.assertEquals(Person.class.getName(), p.type().getName());
Constructor ctor = p.type().getDeclaredConstructor(NAME.getClass());
Assert.assertNotNull(ctor);
Person person = (Person) ctor.newInstance(NAME);
Assert.assertEquals(NAME, person.name);
}
static class TypeReferencePerson extends TypeReference<Person>{}
@Test
public void reifiedExtenension() throws Exception {
TypeReference<Person> p = new TypeReferencePerson();
Assert.assertNotNull(p);
Assert.assertEquals(Person.class.getName(), p.type().getName());
Constructor ctor = p.type().getDeclaredConstructor(NAME.getClass());
Assert.assertNotNull(ctor);
Person person = (Person) ctor.newInstance(NAME);
Assert.assertEquals(NAME, person.name);
}
}
注意:你可以强制TypeReference的客户端在创建实例时总是使用{}，方法是让这个类成为抽象类:我没有这样做，只是为了显示被擦除的测试用例。
你能做的就是——
首先声明该泛型类的变量 2.然后创建它的构造函数并实例化该对象 那就在任何你想用的地方用吧
的例子,
1
私有类<E>实体;
2
public xyzservice(Class<E> entity) {
this.entity = entity;
}
public E getEntity(Class<E> entity) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
return entity.newInstance();
}
3.
E E = getEntity(实体);
如果你在泛型类中需要一个类型参数的新实例，那么让你的构造函数要求它的类…
public final class Foo<T> {
private Class<T> typeArgumentClass;
public Foo(Class<T> typeArgumentClass) {
this.typeArgumentClass = typeArgumentClass;
}
public void doSomethingThatRequiresNewT() throws Exception {
T myNewT = typeArgumentClass.newInstance();
...
}
}
用法:
Foo<Bar> barFoo = new Foo<Bar>(Bar.class);
Foo<Etc> etcFoo = new Foo<Etc>(Etc.class);
优点:
比Robertson的超级类型令牌(STT)方法简单得多(而且问题更少)。 比STT方法更有效(STT方法会把你的手机当早餐吃)。
缺点:
Can't pass Class to a default constructor (which is why Foo is final). If you really do need a default constructor you can always add a setter method but then you must remember to give her a call later. Robertson's objection... More Bars than a black sheep (although specifying the type argument class one more time won't exactly kill you). And contrary to Robertson's claims this does not violate the DRY principal anyway because the compiler will ensure type correctness. Not entirely Foo<L>proof. For starters... newInstance() will throw a wobbler if the type argument class does not have a default constructor. This does apply to all known solutions though anyway. Lacks the total encapsulation of the STT approach. Not a big deal though (considering the outrageous performance overhead of STT).
