我受到了Ira的启发，并对其稍加修改。

abstract class SomeContainer<E>
{
    protected E createContents() {
        throw new NotImplementedException();
    }

    public void doWork(){
        E obj = createContents();
        // Do the work with E 
     }
}

class BlackContainer extends SomeContainer<Black>{
    // this method is optional to implement in case you need it
    protected Black createContents() {
        return new Black();
    }
}

如果你需要E实例，你可以在你的派生类中实现createContents方法(或者不实现它，以防你不需要它)。

现在就可以这样做，而且不需要一堆反射代码。

import com.google.common.reflect.TypeToken;

public class Q26289147
{
    public static void main(final String[] args) throws IllegalAccessException, InstantiationException
    {
        final StrawManParameterizedClass<String> smpc = new StrawManParameterizedClass<String>() {};
        final String string = (String) smpc.type.getRawType().newInstance();
        System.out.format("string = \"%s\"",string);
    }

    static abstract class StrawManParameterizedClass<T>
    {
        final TypeToken<T> type = new TypeToken<T>(getClass()) {};
    }
}

当然，如果您需要调用需要一些反射的构造函数，但这是很好的文档，这个技巧不是!

下面是用于TypeToken的JavaDoc。

当您在编译时使用E时，您并不真正关心实际的泛型类型“E”(无论是使用反射还是使用泛型类型的基类)，因此让子类提供E的实例。

abstract class SomeContainer<E>
{
    abstract protected E createContents();
    public void doWork(){
        E obj = createContents();
        // Do the work with E 
     }
}

class BlackContainer extends SomeContainer<Black>{
    protected Black createContents() {
        return new Black();
    }
}

考虑一种更函数化的方法:与其凭空创建一些E(这显然是一种代码味道)，不如传递一个知道如何创建E的函数。

E createContents(Callable<E> makeone) {
     return makeone.call(); // most simple case clearly not that useful
}

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).

正如您所提到的，您不能从泛型中获得实例。在我看来，你必须改变设计，使用FACTORY METHOD设计模式。通过这种方式，你不需要你的类或方法是泛型:

class abstract SomeContainer{
    Parent execute(){
        return method1();
    }
    
    abstract Parent method1();
}


class Child1 extends Parent{
    Parent method1(){
        return new Parent();
    } 
} 

class Child2 extends Parent{
    Parent method1(){
        return new Child2();
    } 
}