Java 9 replace Class.newInstance
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
Class.newInstance was deprecated in Java 9:
clazz.newInstance()
can be replaced by
clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()
The problem is that getDeclaredConstructor returns any constructor without regarding the access level.
If I want to replace all occurrences in my code (on different packages/access level) should I use getConstructor to get the public constructor?
the Constructor object of the public constructor that matches the specified parameterTypes
Or can't I bulk replace all occurrences because it needs to be per case (if a public constructor exists and/or if I have the right access level for the class)?
EDIT
getDeclaredConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.DECLARED);
getConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.PUBLIC);
java reflection constructor java-9
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
Class.newInstance was deprecated in Java 9:
clazz.newInstance()
can be replaced by
clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()
The problem is that getDeclaredConstructor returns any constructor without regarding the access level.
If I want to replace all occurrences in my code (on different packages/access level) should I use getConstructor to get the public constructor?
the Constructor object of the public constructor that matches the specified parameterTypes
Or can't I bulk replace all occurrences because it needs to be per case (if a public constructor exists and/or if I have the right access level for the class)?
EDIT
getDeclaredConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.DECLARED);
getConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.PUBLIC);
java reflection constructor java-9
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
1
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you usegetDeclaredConstructors()(notgetDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?
– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
5
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code toclazz.newInstance()isclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully usingclazz.newInstance()can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replaceclazz.newInstance()withclazz.getConstructor().newInstance()you're changing the semantics of the code.
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
2
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expectclazz.newInstance()to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by usingclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()instead?
– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
2
@OleV.V. Yes,Class.newInstance()works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws anIllegalAccessException(from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
5
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
Class.newInstance was deprecated in Java 9:
clazz.newInstance()
can be replaced by
clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()
The problem is that getDeclaredConstructor returns any constructor without regarding the access level.
If I want to replace all occurrences in my code (on different packages/access level) should I use getConstructor to get the public constructor?
the Constructor object of the public constructor that matches the specified parameterTypes
Or can't I bulk replace all occurrences because it needs to be per case (if a public constructor exists and/or if I have the right access level for the class)?
EDIT
getDeclaredConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.DECLARED);
getConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.PUBLIC);
java reflection constructor java-9
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
Class.newInstance was deprecated in Java 9:
clazz.newInstance()
can be replaced by
clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()
The problem is that getDeclaredConstructor returns any constructor without regarding the access level.
If I want to replace all occurrences in my code (on different packages/access level) should I use getConstructor to get the public constructor?
the Constructor object of the public constructor that matches the specified parameterTypes
Or can't I bulk replace all occurrences because it needs to be per case (if a public constructor exists and/or if I have the right access level for the class)?
EDIT
getDeclaredConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.DECLARED);
getConstructor:
return getConstructor0(parameterTypes, Member.PUBLIC);
java reflection constructor java-9
java reflection constructor java-9
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
edited Nov 13 at 14:33
Holger
161k23223428
161k23223428
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
asked Nov 12 at 6:44
user7294900
19.8k93257
19.8k93257
1
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you usegetDeclaredConstructors()(notgetDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?
– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
5
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code toclazz.newInstance()isclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully usingclazz.newInstance()can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replaceclazz.newInstance()withclazz.getConstructor().newInstance()you're changing the semantics of the code.
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
2
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expectclazz.newInstance()to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by usingclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()instead?
– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
2
@OleV.V. Yes,Class.newInstance()works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws anIllegalAccessException(from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
5
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09
|
show 1 more comment
1
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you usegetDeclaredConstructors()(notgetDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?
– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
5
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code toclazz.newInstance()isclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully usingclazz.newInstance()can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replaceclazz.newInstance()withclazz.getConstructor().newInstance()you're changing the semantics of the code.
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
2
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expectclazz.newInstance()to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by usingclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()instead?
– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
2
@OleV.V. Yes,Class.newInstance()works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws anIllegalAccessException(from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).
– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
5
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09
1
1
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you use
getDeclaredConstructors() (not getDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you use
getDeclaredConstructors() (not getDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
5
5
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code to
clazz.newInstance() is clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully using clazz.newInstance() can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replace clazz.newInstance() with clazz.getConstructor().newInstance() you're changing the semantics of the code.– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code to
clazz.newInstance() is clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully using clazz.newInstance() can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replace clazz.newInstance() with clazz.getConstructor().newInstance() you're changing the semantics of the code.– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
2
2
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expect
clazz.newInstance() to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by using clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() instead?– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expect
clazz.newInstance() to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by using clazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() instead?– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
2
2
@OleV.V. Yes,
Class.newInstance() works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws an IllegalAccessException (from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
@OleV.V. Yes,
Class.newInstance() works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws an IllegalAccessException (from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
5
5
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
Class.newInstance() invokes the zero-argument constructor, whether it is public or not. It performs a runtime check of the caller's access to that constructor.
Calling getDeclaredConstructor() returns that same constructor. Calling getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() performs the same runtime checks. Except for the different handling of exceptions, it does the same thing.
No, don't change it to getConstructor(). That would cause a NoSuchMethodException for non-public constructors.
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53257073%2fjava-9-replace-class-newinstance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
Class.newInstance() invokes the zero-argument constructor, whether it is public or not. It performs a runtime check of the caller's access to that constructor.
Calling getDeclaredConstructor() returns that same constructor. Calling getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() performs the same runtime checks. Except for the different handling of exceptions, it does the same thing.
No, don't change it to getConstructor(). That would cause a NoSuchMethodException for non-public constructors.
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
Class.newInstance() invokes the zero-argument constructor, whether it is public or not. It performs a runtime check of the caller's access to that constructor.
Calling getDeclaredConstructor() returns that same constructor. Calling getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() performs the same runtime checks. Except for the different handling of exceptions, it does the same thing.
No, don't change it to getConstructor(). That would cause a NoSuchMethodException for non-public constructors.
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
Class.newInstance() invokes the zero-argument constructor, whether it is public or not. It performs a runtime check of the caller's access to that constructor.
Calling getDeclaredConstructor() returns that same constructor. Calling getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() performs the same runtime checks. Except for the different handling of exceptions, it does the same thing.
No, don't change it to getConstructor(). That would cause a NoSuchMethodException for non-public constructors.
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
Class.newInstance() invokes the zero-argument constructor, whether it is public or not. It performs a runtime check of the caller's access to that constructor.
Calling getDeclaredConstructor() returns that same constructor. Calling getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance() performs the same runtime checks. Except for the different handling of exceptions, it does the same thing.
No, don't change it to getConstructor(). That would cause a NoSuchMethodException for non-public constructors.
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
answered Nov 12 at 15:22
Boann
36.6k1287121
36.6k1287121
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
add a comment |
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
Thank you, so any exceptions thrown will only be a valid initialization failures?
– user7294900
Nov 12 at 17:03
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
@user7294900 Yes.
– Boann
Nov 12 at 22:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53257073%2fjava-9-replace-class-newinstance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If you need to access constructor at different levels, getDeclaredConstructor(s) is the only way out. Can't you use
getDeclaredConstructors()(notgetDeclaredConstructor()) to get all constructors and replace one depending on your logic?– Sukhpal Singh
Nov 12 at 7:02
5
As the deprecation message says, the equivalent code to
clazz.newInstance()isclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance(). I would assume this means that anywhere you're successfully usingclazz.newInstance()can be replaced with the recommended code. If you replaceclazz.newInstance()withclazz.getConstructor().newInstance()you're changing the semantics of the code.– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:04
2
I haven’t tried, but I wouldn’t expect
clazz.newInstance()to work either if the zero-arg constructor isn’t public — does it?? So what would you be losing in practice by usingclazz.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance()instead?– Ole V.V.
Nov 12 at 7:22
2
@OleV.V. Yes,
Class.newInstance()works with non-public constructors. But it requires you to have the proper access else it throws anIllegalAccessException(from some quick, non-exhaustive testing).– Slaw
Nov 12 at 7:28
5
Related (on the reasons why it was deprecated): stackoverflow.com/questions/195321/…
– Hulk
Nov 12 at 8:09