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);

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。

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。

你可以使用:

Class.forName(String).getConstructor(arguments types).newInstance(arguments)

但是您需要提供确切的类名，包括包，例如。java.io.FileInputStream。我使用它来创建数学表达式解析器。

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();
    } 
} 

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).