Skip to main content

Invoking variable-arity methods with Java reflection?



I would like to understand what might be going on with invoking variable-arity methods using Java reflection. Let's say we have a simple method:







void doAllTheThings(Object ... things) {

// ...which does something with all the things...

}







And we want to invoke it dynamically, so we grab the method through reflection:







Method doItAll = Superklass.getDeclaredMethod("doAllTheThings", Object[].class);







And pass in an array:







Object[] allTheThings = new Object[] { "abc", true, 15 };

doItAll.invoke(allTheThings);







Now, this doesn't seem to work quite like my intuition had figured; in particular, I seem to be getting various shades of IllegalArgumentException when I try invoking a method with varargs like this.





There's clearly something I'm missing here. My guess is this is related somehow to how the variables get marshalled into the varargs. I've found this four year old blog post which seems to be talking about the same issue , but am unable to reproduce the 'successful' case there. Any thoughts on what might be going on here?


Comments

  1. You need to pass in an Object[][] in this case:

    Object[] allTheThings = new Object[] { "abc", true, 15 };
    doItAll.invoke(o, new Object[]{allTheThings});


    The reason is that the single things parameter is converted by the compiler into a single parameter of type Object[], and invoke takes an array with the values of the parameters.

    Consider a method with more parameters to make it clearer:

    void doMoreThings(Foo bar, Object ... things) { ... }

    Object[] allTheThings = new Object[] { "abc", true, 15 };
    doMore.invoke(o, new Object[]{new Foo(), allTheThings});


    invoke is itself declared to take varargs, so you can let the compiler create the outer array for you. But it won't do this if you pass an Object[], because it thinks you already did that. So just hide that fact from the compiler:

    doItAll.invoke(o, (Object)allTheThings);
    doMore.invoke(o, new Foo(), allTheThings);


    Note the cast in the first line, now the compiler does not now anymore that there is already an array, so it creates one. In the second line this is not needed, because the compiler has no other chance anyway.

    Edit:
    Note that your code does not even compile because you missed to pass an instance of the class with the doAllTheThings method to invoke (I named it o in my code).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[韓日関係] 首相含む大幅な内閣改造の可能性…早ければ来月10日ごろ=韓国

div not scrolling properly with slimScroll plugin

I am using the slimScroll plugin for jQuery by Piotr Rochala Which is a great plugin for nice scrollbars on most browsers but I am stuck because I am using it for a chat box and whenever the user appends new text to the boxit does scroll using the .scrollTop() method however the plugin's scrollbar doesnt scroll with it and when the user wants to look though the chat history it will start scrolling from near the top. I have made a quick demo of my situation http://jsfiddle.net/DY9CT/2/ Does anyone know how to solve this problem?

Why does this javascript based printing cause Safari to refresh the page?

The page I am working on has a javascript function executed to print parts of the page. For some reason, printing in Safari, causes the window to somehow update. I say somehow, because it does not really refresh as in reload the page, but rather it starts the "rendering" of the page from start, i.e. scroll to top, flash animations start from 0, and so forth. The effect is reproduced by this fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/fYmnB/ Clicking the print button and finishing or cancelling a print in Safari causes the screen to "go white" for a sec, which in my real website manifests itself as something "like" a reload. While running print button with, let's say, Firefox, just opens and closes the print dialogue without affecting the fiddle page in any way. Is there something with my way of calling the browsers print method that causes this, or how can it be explained - and preferably, avoided? P.S.: On my real site the same occurs with Chrome. In the ex