Java - 将泛型类型映射到所述类型的使用者

Question

I ran into this problem recently when I was playing around. Basically, I wanted to make a central class where consumers of a certain type could register themselves. Something then publishes objects for the consumers, and only those consuming the published type should receive it.

The entire program can be summarised to this:

public class Main
{
    public interface Fruit
    {
    }

    public class Apple implements Fruit
    {
    }

    public class Banana implements Fruit
    {
    }

    public interface FruitConsumer<T extends Fruit>
    {
        public void consume(T fruit);
    }

    public class Consumers<T extends Fruit>
    {
        Map<Class<T>, Collection<FruitConsumer<T>>> consumers = new HashMap<>();

        public void register(Class<T> clazz, FruitConsumer<T> consumer)
        {
            consumers.putIfAbsent(clazz, new HashSet<>());
            consumers.get(clazz).add(consumer);
        }

        public void consume(T fruit)
        {
            Collection<FruitConsumer<T>> cons = consumers.get(fruit.getClass());
            for (FruitConsumer<T> c : cons)
            {
                c.consume(fruit); // <-- Breaks if T is Apple
            }
        }
    }

    public class BananaConsumer implements FruitConsumer<Banana>
    {
        void register(Consumers c)
        {
            c.register(Banana.class, this);
            c.register(Apple.class, this); // <-- Why does this work?
        }

        @Override
        public void consume(Banana banana)
        {
            System.out.println("Mmm, banana");
        }
    }

    public static void main(String... args)
    {
        Main main = new Main();
        main.run();
    }

    private void run()
    {
        Consumers consumers = new Consumers<>();
        BananaConsumer bananaConsumer = new BananaConsumer();

        bananaConsumer.register(consumers);

        Banana banana = new Banana();
        consumers.consume(banana);

        Apple apple = new Apple();
        consumers.consume(apple);
    }
}

Now, I think I understand why this crashes. There is no way for the compiler to know that the T in the Consumers.register method is the same T , for both parameters. The compiler can only enforce that both arguments meets the requirement T extends Fruit . I want to remember being able to use a similar code structure in C++, so there has to be something the two languages does different. Is my assumption here correct?

Also, what would be the correct way of going about this? I would like different consumers of subtypes of Fruit to be able to register themselves, and receive only those fruits they enlist themselves as consumers of. Also, I would like some safety in what you can register yourself as a consumer off (I noticed that this code works as long as no one registers themselves "wrong").

Lastly, what is the name of this phenomena? Basically, what do I google to learn more about this.

Answer 1

You're declaring void register(Consumers c) in BananaConsumer and its parameter is a raw type. You could do like this:

    public interface FruitConsumer<T extends Fruit> {
    void register(final Consumers<T> c);
    void consume(T fruit);
}

And when you implement FruitConsumer<Banana> , this parameter will be a banana consumer.

(I was explaining why that line works without reading all your code, and the solutions provided by other answers seems to be more logical for your problem.)

Answer 2

I think you've taken the generics a little too far.

Your Consumers object doesn't need to be generic, only the Map it holds. Are you ever going to need a Consumers<Banana> for example?

Try this:

public interface Fruit {
}

public class Apple implements Fruit {
}

public class Banana implements Fruit {
}

public interface FruitConsumer<T extends Fruit> {
    void consume(T fruit);
}

public class Consumers {
    Map<Class<? extends Fruit>, Collection<FruitConsumer<? extends Fruit>>> consumers = new HashMap<>();

    public <T extends Fruit> void register(Class<T> clazz, FruitConsumer<T> consumer) {
        consumers.putIfAbsent(clazz, new HashSet<>());
        consumers.get(clazz).add(consumer);
    }

    public <T extends Fruit> void consume(T fruit) {
        Collection<FruitConsumer<? extends Fruit>> cons = consumers.get(fruit.getClass());
        for (FruitConsumer<? extends Fruit> con : cons) {
            // Fair to cast here because we KNOW (because of the key) that it is the right type.
            FruitConsumer<T> c = (FruitConsumer<T>)con;
            c.consume(fruit);
        }
    }
}

public class BananaConsumer implements FruitConsumer<Banana> {
    void register(Consumers c) {
        c.register(Banana.class, this);
        c.register(Apple.class, this); // <-- Now it breaks as expected.
    }

    @Override
    public void consume(Banana banana) {
        System.out.println("Mmm, banana");
    }
}

Now also notice the unexpectedly allowed behavior goes away.

Answer 3

You can use a type token the way ClassToInstanceMap does:

A map, each entry of which maps a Java raw type to an instance of that type. In addition to implementing Map , the additional type-safe operations putInstance(java.lang.Class<T>, T) and getInstance(java.lang.Class<T>) are available.

So you could define a pair of methods that expose your registry like

<F extend Fruit> FruitConsumer<? super F> consumerFor(Class<F> fruitType);
<F extend Fruit> void registerConsumer(Class<F> fruitType, FruitConsumer<? super F> consumer);

You'd need to do an unchecked conversion on fetching from the internal map but it should be typesafe if all register calls are typesafe.

As long as you're not registering consumers for interface types, Consumers.consume could walk up the super-type chain to find an appropriate consumer.