views:

82

answers:

4

With an abstract class I want to define a method that returns "this" for the subclasses:

public abstract class Foo {
    ...
    public <T extends Foo> T eat(String eatCake) {
        ...
        return this;
    }
}  

public class CakeEater extends Foo {}

I want to be able to do things like:

CakeEater phil = new CakeEater();
phil.eat("wacky cake").eat("chocolate cake").eat("banana bread");

Arguably banana bread would throw an IllegalArgumentException with the message "Not a cake!"

+5  A: 

I don't think you need generics Java 5 (and later) has covariant return types, e.g.:

public abstract class Foo {
    ...
    public Foo eat(String eatCake) {
        ...
        return this;
    }
}  

public class CakeEater extends Foo {

    public CakeEater eat(String eatCake) {
        return this;
    }
}
Michael Barker
If it's fully defined in the superclass then it creates redundant code to define it in the subclass; It could call the superclass but this seems unnecessary. It works if you cast this as type T and suppress warnings.
Sarabjot
It works if you cast this as type T and suppress warnings.The reason it should be return the type of the subclass is because: methodTakesCakeEater( (new CakeEater).eat("cake").eat("pie");methodTakesCakeEater needs a CakeEater parameter.
Sarabjot
If a solution contains `@SuppressWarnings` it shouldn't be considered a solution. Just my two cents.
Willi
don't worry about warnings when you are doing edgy stuff.
irreputable
A: 
public abstract class Foo<T extends Foo<T>>  // see ColinD's comment
{
    public T eat(String eatCake) 
    {
        return (T)this;
    }
}

public class CakeEater extends Foo<CakeEater> 
{
    public void f(){}
}

Edit

There is no problem to require subclass behave in a certain way that's beyond what static typing can check. We do that all the time - pages and pages of plain english to specify how you write a subclass.

The other proposed solution, with covariant return type, must do the same - asking subclass implementers, in plain english, to return the type of this. That requirement cannot be specified by static typing.

irreputable
Should be `Foo<T extends Foo<T>>`. This works, though you can easily make a class that will blow up with a `ClassCastException` when you call `eat`, such as `class Bar extends Foo<CakeEater>`.
ColinD
This is the solution I ended up using, but you'll notice that the return has an unchecked cast warning. While logically it makes sense that we can cast to T as this is a subclass of T.
Sarabjot
Yes. In a better world, Java could have a `This` type, which would be very useful in a lot of cases.
irreputable
`class FakeEater extends Foo<CakeEater> { }` Now take notice of the warning.
Tom Hawtin - tackline
Tom, I didn't notice any warning. Maybe that's the point of your response, that there is no compile time warning. When calling FakeEater's eat there will be a a compile-time exception that the returning type is not of type FakeEater if it is being assigned to a FakeEater field.
Sarabjot
+1  A: 

The tasteful approach from the client point of view (which is usually the one you want to take) is to use covariant return types which was added to support generics, as Michael Barker points out.

The slightly less tasteful, but more tasteful that a cast is to add a getThis method:

protected abstract T getThis();

public <T extends Foo> T eat(String eatCake) {
    ...
    return getThis();
}
Tom Hawtin - tackline
A: 

An approach I've used before to achieve similar behaviour is to have the subclass pass its type into a constructor of the (generified) parent type. By way of disclaimer I was generating the subclasses on the fly and inheritence was a bit of a cheat to keep my code generation simple, as always my first instinct is to try to remove the extends relationship altogether.

CurtainDog