Why is String class declared final in Java?
From when I learned that the class java.lang.String is declared as final in Java, I was wondering why is that? I didn't find any answer back then, but this post: How to create a replica of String class in Java? reminded me of my query.
Sure, String provides all the functionality I ever needed, and never thought of any operation that would require an extension of class String, but still you'll never know what someone might need!
So, does anyone know what was the intent of the designers when they decided to make it final?
It is very useful to have strings implemented as immutable objects . You should read about immutability to understand more about it.
One advantage of immutable objects is that
You can share duplicates by pointing them to a single instance.
(from here).
If String were not final, you could create a subclass and have two strings that look alike when "seen as Strings", but that are actually different.
This is a nice article that outlines two reasons already mentioned on the above answers:
And this probably is the most detailed comment in that article. Its has to do with the string pool in Java and security issues. Its about how to decide what goes into the string pool. Assuming both strings are equal if their sequence of characters are the same, then we have a race condition on who gets there first and along with it security issues. If not, then the string pool will contain redundant strings thus losing the advantage of having it in the first place. Just read it out for yourself, will ya?
Extending String would play havoc with equals and intern. JavaDoc says equals:
Compares this string to the specified object. The result is true if and only if the argument is not null and is a String object that represents the same sequence of characters as this object. Assuming java.lang.String wasn't final, a SafeString could equal a String , and vice versa; because they'd represent the same sequence of characters.
What would happen if you applied intern to a SafeString -- would the SafeString go into the JVM's string pool? The ClassLoader and all objects the SafeString held references to would then get locked in place for the lifetime of the JVM. You'd get a race condition about who could be the first to intern a sequence of characters -- maybe your SafeString would win, maybe a String , or maybe a SafeString loaded by a different classloader (thus a different class).
If you won the race into the pool, this would be a true singleton and people could access your whole environment (sandbox) through reflection and secretKey.intern().getClass().getClassLoader() .
Or the JVM could block this hole by making sure that only concrete String objects (and no subclasses) were added to the pool.
If equals was implemented such that SafeString != String then SafeString.intern != String.intern , and SafeString would have to be added to the pool. The pool would then become a pool of <Class, String> instead of <String> and all you'd need to enter the pool would be a fresh classloader.
The absolutely most important reason that String is immutable or final is that it is used by the class loading mechanism, and thus have profound and fundamental security aspects.
Had String been mutable or not final, a request to load "java.io.Writer" could have been changed to load "mil.vogoon.DiskErasingWriter"
reference : Why String is immutable in Java
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/23872.html