使用单个语句更方便,更简洁,比如
import java.awt.*;
而不是导入一堆单独的类
import java.awt.Panel;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.Canvas;
...
在import语句中使用通配符有什么问题?
使用单个语句更方便,更简洁,比如
import java.awt.*;
而不是导入一堆单独的类
import java.awt.Panel;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.Canvas;
...
在import语句中使用通配符有什么问题?
当前回答
忘掉混乱的命名空间……想想那些不得不在GitHub、vi、notepad++或其他非ide文本编辑器中阅读和理解你的代码的可怜人吧。
这个人必须煞费苦心地查找每个通配符作用域中所有类和引用中来自一个通配符的每个标记……只是想搞清楚到底发生了什么。
如果你只是为编译器编写代码——而且你知道你在做什么——我相信通配符没有问题。
但是,如果其他人(包括未来的您)希望一次阅读就能快速理解某个特定的代码文件,那么显式引用会有很大帮助。
其他回答
唯一的问题是它会混淆本地名称空间。例如,假设您正在编写一个Swing应用程序,因此需要java.awt。事件,并且还与公司的日历系统进行接口,该系统具有com.mycompany.calendar.Event。如果你使用通配符方法导入两者,会发生以下三种情况之一:
event和com.mycompany.calendar之间存在完全的命名冲突。事件,因此您甚至无法编译。 您实际上只导入了一个(两个导入中只有一个导入了。*),但它是错误的,并且您很难弄清楚为什么代码声称类型是错误的。 在编译代码时,没有com.mycompany.calendar。事件,但当他们后来添加一个时,您以前有效的代码突然停止编译。
显式列出所有导入的好处是,我可以一眼看出您打算使用哪个类,这使得代码的阅读更加容易。如果您只是在做一个快速的一次性的事情,那么没有什么明显的错误,但是未来的维护者会因为您的清晰而感谢您。
我更喜欢特定的导入,因为它允许我查看文件中使用的所有外部引用,而无需查看整个文件。(是的,我知道不一定会有完全合格的推荐信。但我尽量避免使用。)
There is no runtime impact, as compiler automatically replaces the * with concrete class names. If you decompile the .class file, you would never see import ...*. C# always uses * (implicitly) as you can only using package name. You can never specify the class name at all. Java introduces the feature after c#. (Java is so tricky in many aspects but it's beyond this topic). In Intellij Idea when you do "organize imports", it automatically replaces multiple imports of the same package with *. This is a mandantory feature as you can not turn it off (though you can increase the threshold). The case listed by the accepted reply is not valid. Without * you still got the same issue. You need specify the pakcage name in your code no matter you use * or not.
在Java import语句中使用通配符并不坏。
在《Clean Code》中,Robert C. Martin建议使用它们来避免冗长的导入列表。
以下是建议:
J1: Avoid Long Import Lists by Using Wildcards If you use two or more classes from a package, then import the whole package with import package.*; Long lists of imports are daunting to the reader. We don’t want to clutter up the tops of our modules with 80 lines of imports. Rather we want the imports to be a concise statement about which packages we collaborate with. Specific imports are hard dependencies, whereas wildcard imports are not. If you specifically import a class, then that class must exist. But if you import a package with a wildcard, no particular classes need to exist. The import statement simply adds the package to the search path when hunting for names. So no true dependency is created by such imports, and they therefore serve to keep our modules less coupled. There are times when the long list of specific imports can be useful. For example, if you are dealing with legacy code and you want to find out what classes you need to build mocks and stubs for, you can walk down the list of specific imports to find out the true qualified names of all those classes and then put the appropriate stubs in place. However, this use for specific imports is very rare. Furthermore, most modern IDEs will allow you to convert the wildcarded imports to a list of specific imports with a single command. So even in the legacy case it’s better to import wildcards. Wildcard imports can sometimes cause name conflicts and ambiguities. Two classes with the same name, but in different packages, will need to be specifically imported, or at least specifically qualified when used. This can be a nuisance but is rare enough that using wildcard imports is still generally better than specific imports.
性能:由于字节码相同,对性能没有影响。 尽管这会导致一些编译开销。
编译:在我的个人机器上,编译一个空白类而不导入任何东西需要100毫秒,但导入java时是同一个类。*占用170毫秒。