还有一个更重要的原因，它在技术上不能做到，因为它破坏了地图。

Java has polymorphic generic construction like <? extends SomeClass>. Marked such reference can point to type signed with <AnySubclassOfSomeClass>. But polymorphic generic makes that reference readonly. The compiler allows you to use generic types only as returning type of method (like simple getters), but blocks using of methods where generic type is argument (like ordinary setters). It means if you write Map<? extends KeyType, ValueType>, the compiler does not allow you to call method get(<? extends KeyType>), and the map will be useless. The only solution is to make this method not generic: get(Object).

谷歌的一名出色的Java编码器Kevin Bourrillion不久前在一篇博客文章中就这个问题写了一篇文章(当然是在Set而不是Map的上下文中)。最相关的句子:

的方法 Collections框架(和谷歌. Collections框架) 收藏图书馆也是)从不 限制其参数的类型 除非是为了预防 收集从破碎。

我不完全确定我是否同意这一原则——例如，. net似乎需要正确的键类型就可以了——但值得遵循博客文章中的推理。(提到。net之后，有必要解释一下，为什么在。net中它不是问题的部分原因是。net中存在更大的问题，即更有限的方差…)

我们正在做大的重构，我们错过了这个强类型的get()，以检查我们是否错过了旧类型的get()。

但是我发现了编译时间检查的变通/丑陋的技巧:创建Map接口，强类型get, containsKey, remove…然后放到java中。您的项目的Util包。

你只调用get()就会得到编译错误，…对于错误的类型，其他的编译器似乎都可以(至少在eclipse kepler内部)。

不要忘记在检查构建后删除此接口，因为这不是您在运行时想要的。

还有一个更重要的原因，它在技术上不能做到，因为它破坏了地图。

Java has polymorphic generic construction like <? extends SomeClass>. Marked such reference can point to type signed with <AnySubclassOfSomeClass>. But polymorphic generic makes that reference readonly. The compiler allows you to use generic types only as returning type of method (like simple getters), but blocks using of methods where generic type is argument (like ordinary setters). It means if you write Map<? extends KeyType, ValueType>, the compiler does not allow you to call method get(<? extends KeyType>), and the map will be useless. The only solution is to make this method not generic: get(Object).

合同的表述如下:

更正式地说，如果这个映射包含 从键k到值v的映射 (key==null ?)k = =零: key。equals(k))，然后这个方法 返回v;否则返回null。 (最多可以有一个这样的 映射)。

(我的重点)

因此，成功的键查找取决于输入键对等式方法的实现。它不一定依赖于k的类。

I was looking at this and thinking why they did it this way. I don't think any of the existing answers explains why they couldn't just make the new generic interface accept only the proper type for the key. The actual reason is that even though they introduced generics they did NOT create a new interface. The Map interface is the same old non-generic Map it just serves as both generic and non-generic version. This way if you have a method that accepts non-generic Map you can pass it a Map<String, Customer> and it would still work. At the same time the contract for get accepts Object so the new interface should support this contract too.

在我看来，他们应该添加一个新的接口，并在现有的集合上实现这两个接口，但他们决定支持兼容接口，即使这意味着get方法的设计更糟糕。注意，集合本身与现有方法兼容，只有接口不兼容。