DRAFT
Copyright (C) 2005, International Business Machines Corporation and
others. All Rights Reserved.
Provides a flexible mechanism for controlling access, without requiring that
a class be immutable. Once locked, an object can never be unlocked, so it is
thread-safe from that point onward. The implementation of both methods must
be synchronized. Once the object has been locked, it must guarantee that no
changes can be made to it. Any attempt to alter it must raise an
UnsupportedOperationException exception. This means that when the object
returns internal objects, or if anyone has references to those internal
objects, that those internal objects must either be immutable, or must also
raise exceptions if any attempt to modify them is made. Of course, the object
can return clones of internal objects, since those are safe.
Background
There are often times when you need objects to be objects 'safe', so that
they can't be modified. Examples are when objects need to be thread-safe, or
in writing robust code, or in caches. If you are only creating your own
objects, you can guarantee this, of course -- but only if you don't make a
mistake. If you have objects handed into you, or are creating objects using
others handed into you, it is a different story. It all comes down to whether
you want to take the Blanche Dubois approach ("depend on the kindness of
strangers") or the Andy Grove approach ("Only the Paranoid
Survive").
For example, suppose we have a simple class:
public class A {
protected Collection b;
protected Collection c;
public Collection get_b() {
return b;
}
public Collection get_c() {
return c;
}
public A(Collection new_b, Collection new_c) {
b = new_b;
c = new_c;
}
}
Since the class doesn't have any setters, someone might think that it is
immutable. You know where this is leading, of course; this class is unsafe in
a number of ways. The following illustrates that.
public test1(SupposedlyImmutableClass x, SafeStorage y) {
<font color="#0000FF"> <b>// unsafe getter</b>
</font> A a = x.getA();
Collection col = a.get_b();
col.add(something);<font color="#0000FF"> // a has now been changed, and x too
</font>
<font color="#0000FF"><b>// unsafe constructor</b></font>
a = new A(col, col);
y.store(a);
col.add(something);<font color="#0000FF"> // a has now been changed, and y too
</font>}
There are a few different techniques for having safe classes.
- Const objects. In C++, you can declare parameters const.
- Immutable wrappers. For example, you can put a collection in an
immutable wrapper.
- Always-Immutable objects. Java uses this approach, with a few
variations. Examples:
- Simple. Once a Color is created (eg from R, G, and B integers) it is
immutable.
- Builder Class. There is a separate 'builder' class. For example,
modifiable Strings are created using StringBuffer (which doesn't have the
full String API available). Once you want an immutable form, you create one
with toString().
- Primitives. These are always safe, since they are copied on input/output
from methods.
- Cloning. Where you need an object to be safe, you clone it.
There are advantages and disadvantages of each of these.
- Const provides a certain level of protection, but since const can be and
is often cast away, it only protects against most inadvertent mistakes. It
also offers no threading protection, since anyone who has a pointer to the
(unconst) object in another thread can mess you up.
- Immutable wrappers are safer than const in that the constness can't be
cast away. But other than that they have all the same problems: not safe if
someone else keeps hold of the original object, or if any of the objects
returned by the class are mutable.
- Always-Immutable Objects are safe, but usage can require excessive
object creation.
- Cloning is only safe if the object truly has a 'safe' clone; defined as
one that ensures that no change to the clone affects the original.
Unfortunately, many objects don't have a 'safe' clone, and always cloning can
require excessive object creation.
Freezable Model
The Freezable model supplements these choices by giving you
the ability to build up an object by calling various methods, then when it is
in a final state, you can make it immutable. Once immutable, an
object cannot ever be modified, and is completely thread-safe: that
is, multiple threads can have references to it without any synchronization.
If someone needs a mutable version of an object, they can use
cloneAsThawed() , and modify the copy. This provides a simple,
effective mechanism for safe classes in circumstances where the alternatives
are insufficient or clumsy. (If an object is shared before it is immutable,
then it is the responsibility of each thread to mutex its usage (as with
other objects).)
Here is what needs to be done to implement this interface, depending on the
type of the object.
Immutable Objects
These are the easiest. You just use the interface to reflect that, by adding
the following:
public class A implements Freezable {
...
public final boolean isFrozen() {return true;}
public final Object freeze() {return this;}
public final Object cloneAsThawed() { return this; }
}
These can be final methods because subclasses of immutable objects must
themselves be immutable. (Note: freeze is returning
this for chaining.)
Mutable Objects
Add a protected 'flagging' field:
protected boolean immutable;
Add the following methods:
public final boolean isFrozen() {
return frozen;
};
public Object freeze() {
frozen = true;
return this;
}
Add a cloneAsThawed() method following the normal pattern for
clone() , except that frozen=false in the new
clone.
Then take the setters (that is, any method that can change the internal state
of the object), and add the following as the first statement:
if (isFrozen()) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Attempt to modify frozen object");
}
Subclassing
Any subclass of a Freezable will just use its superclass's
flagging field. It must override freeze() and
cloneAsThawed() to call the superclass, but normally does not
override isFrozen() . It must then just pay attention to its
own getters, setters and fields.
Internal Caches
Internal caches are cases where the object is logically unmodified, but
internal state of the object changes. For example, there are const C++
functions that cast away the const on the "this" pointer in order
to modify an object cache. These cases are handled by mutexing the internal
cache to ensure thread-safety. For example, suppose that UnicodeSet had an
internal marker to the last code point accessed. In this case, the field is
not externally visible, so the only thing you need to do is to synchronize
the field for thread safety.
Unsafe Internal Access
Internal fields are called safe if they are either
frozen or immutable (such as String or primitives). If you've
never allowed internal access to these, then you are all done. For example,
converting UnicodeSet to be Freezable is just accomplished
with the above steps. But remember that you have allowed
access to unsafe internals if you have any code like the following, in a
getter, setter, or constructor:
Collection getStuff() {
return stuff;
} // caller could keep reference & modify
void setStuff(Collection x) {
stuff = x;
} // caller could keep reference & modify
MyClass(Collection x) {
stuff = x;
} // caller could keep reference & modify
These also illustrated in the code sample in Background above.
To deal with unsafe internals, the simplest course of action is to do the
work in the
freeze() function. Just make all of your internal
fields frozen, and set the frozen flag. Any subsequent getter/setter will
work properly. Here is an example:
public Object freeze() {
if (!frozen) {
foo.freeze();
frozen = true;
}
return this;
}
If the field is a Collection or Map , then to
make it frozen you have two choices. If you have never allowed access to the
collection from outside your object, then just wrap it to prevent future
modification.
zone_to_country = Collections.unmodifiableMap(zone_to_country);
If you have ever allowed access, then do a clone()
before wrapping it.
zone_to_country = Collections.unmodifiableMap(zone_to_country.clone());
If a collection (or any other container of objects) itself can
contain mutable objects, then for a safe clone you need to recurse through it
to make the entire collection immutable. The recursing code should pick the
most specific collection available, to avoid the necessity of later
downcasing.
Note: An annoying flaw in Java is that the generic collections, like
Map or Set , don't have a clone()
operation. When you don't know the type of the collection, the simplest
course is to just create a new collection:
zone_to_country = Collections.unmodifiableMap(new HashMap(zone_to_country));
|