Here I can see that "Collections.unmodifiableSet" returns an unmodifiable view of the specified set. But I do not understand why we cannot just use final modifier to create an unmodifiable set.
In my understanding final declare a constant (i.e. something that cannot be modified). So, if a set is declared as a constant it cannot be modified (nothing can be removed from the set, nothing can be added to the set).
final only guarantees that the reference to the object the variable represents can't be changed it doesn't do anything for the instance of the object and its mutability.
final Set s = new Set(); just guarantees you can't do s = new Set(); again. It doesn't make the set unmodifiable, it if did you couldn't add anything to it to begin with. So to make it really clear, final only affects the variable reference not the object the reference points to.
I can do the following:
final List<String> l = new ArrayList<String>();
l.add("hello");
l.add("world");
l.remove(0);
but I can't do this.
l = new ArrayList<String>();
again because of the final I can't modify what the variable l points to.
you have to do one of the following three things to make a Collection container thread safe.
java.util.Collections.syncronizedXXX();
or
java.util.Collections.unmodifiableXXX();
or
use one of the appropriate containers from java.util.concurrency.* package.
if I had a Person object and did final Person p = new Person("me"); it means I can't reassign p to point to another Person object. I can still do p.setFirstName("you");
What confuses the situation is that
final int PI = 3.14;
final String greeting = "Hello World!";
look like const in C++, when in fact the objects that they point to are immutable/unmodifiable by nature. Containers or objects with mutator methods that can alter the internal state of the object are not const just the reference to those objects are final and can't be reassigned to reference another object.
final declares an object reference that can't be modified, e.g.
private final Foo something = new Foo();
creates a new Foo and places the reference in something. Thereafter, it's not possible to alter something to point to a different instance of Foo.
This does not prevent modification of the internal state of the object. I can still call whatever methods on Foo there are accessible to the relevant scope. If one or more of those methods modifies the internal state of that object, then final won't prevent that.
As such, the following:
private final Set<String> fixed = new HashSet<String>();
does not create a Set that can't be added to or otherwise altered; it just means that fixed will only ever reference that instance.
By contrast, doing:
private Set<String> fixed = Collections.unmodifiableSet( new HashSet<String>() );
creates an instance of a Set which will throw UnsupportedOperationException if one attempts to call fixed.add() or fixed.remove(), for example - the object itself will protect its internal state and prevent it from being modified.
For completeness sake:
private final Set<String> fixed = Collections.unmodifiableSet( new HashSet<String>() );
creates an instance of a Set which won't allow its internal state to be changed, and also means that fixed will only ever point to an instance of that set.
The reason that final can be used to create constants of primitives is based on the fact that the value can't be changed. Remember that fixed above was just a reference - a variable containing an address that can't be changed. Well, for primitives, e.g.
private final int ANSWER = 42;
the value of ANSWER is that 42. Since ANSWER can't be changed, it will only ever have the value 42.
An example that blurs all the lines would be this:
private final String QUESTION = "The ultimate question";
Per the rules above, QUESTION contains the address of an instance of String which represents "The ultimate question", and that address can't be changed. The thing to remember here is that String itself is immutable - you can't do anything to an instance of String which changes it, and any operations which would otherwise do so (such as replace, substring, etc.) return references to entirely different instances of String.
final is not (C++-style) const. Unlike C++, Java does not have const-methods or anything like that, and methods that can change the object can be called via a final reference.
Collections.unmodifiable* is a wrapper that enforces (at run time only, not at compile time) the read-only-ness for the collection concerned.