Saturday, September 1, 2012

About Class.newInstance()

Today, a little story about a problem that I encountered recently, problem related to java reflection.

The problem is the following : I had a couple of Java classes, that happen to be Java beans and that I wanted to manipulate by reflection.
Actually, it's not me but a third part library, typically JPA related, that manipulates my objects and especially construct them by reflection using :

SomeObject obj = SomeObject.class.newInstance();

Fair enough, expect that to do this I must ensure that all my objects have a public constructor with no argument. And it's something that I don't have in my case, my objects implement the factory design pattern, and the constructors of my objects are private or protected, and thus failed the previous code.

So I thought, let's just use reflection to change the visibility of the constructor by a well known:


The problem is that, this method works if I instantiate the object from the constructor that I just set accessible, but it will not make the constructor visible by my library when it will call newInstance() method on the class.
Why ? For a simple reason, the setAccessible method does not actually change the modifier of the constructor, but just set some override attribute in the Constructor object, and the newInstance()  check this boolean and does not throw an Exception if set.

But in the case of the of a newInstance() called on the Class object, the private method privateGetDeclaredConstructors(boolean publicOnly) is called, and this method does not rely on the Constructor object itself, but either ask the JVM by reading the byte code of the class, or uses the publicConstructors object that caches the public constructors of this class.
So if I add my modified constructor to the publicConstructors, let's say by reflection, it will do the trick. But the problem is that the publicConstructors is a SoftReference to an array of constructors. So if I do so, the change might disappear if my program run out memory and my modified constructor, softly referenced, is cleaned up.

So the only choice that remains is to change the byte code itself.
For that purpose, I will simply use the famous javassist library.

CtClass someClass= ClassPool.getDefault().get("sandbox.SomeObject");

Just a couple of things I need to be careful of, I mustn't load the SomeObject class before changing the bytecode (at least on the ClassLoader that I will use to override this class, in my case the SystemClassLoader).
So no SomeObject.class.getCanonicalName() to get the name of the class, if I don't follow this rule, the someClass.toClass() method, that forces the (in this case System) class loader to load the class will throw a

java.lang.LinkageError: loader (instance of  sun/misc/Launcher$AppClassLoader): attempted  duplicate class definition for name: "sandbox/SomeObject"

And we are done, the complete (and simple) code :

My dummy object :

package sandbox;

public class SomeObject {
    // private constructor
    private SomeObject() {    }

My main class :

package sandbox;

import java.lang.reflect.Modifier;
import javassist.ClassPool;
import javassist.CtClass;

public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        try {
            // don't use SomeObject.class.getCanonicalName()
            CtClass classToEdit = ClassPool.getDefault().get("sandbox.SomeObject");

            // some stuffs
             // instantiate the object using the modified constructor
            SomeObject obj = SomeObject.class.newInstance();

        } catch (Exception e) {

Java Collections Performance

Performances of data structures, especially collections is a recurrent subject when coding.

If you have never heard about such a topic, here is the chance, otherwise it's the hundredth time you see such title, and you are probably thinking "Another article about this topic, I'll probably not learn anything new, but anyway I'm bored so I'm gonna read it ...". And you are probably 90% right, nothing really new here, but I promise you a couple of colorful and beautiful charts that we don't have the opportunity to see everyday (and the ability to create your own) .

The first time I started wondering about collection performances was when I started working with some > 100 000 elements collections. At that time, I heard some bad jokes such as "I just understood why the Java logo is a cup of coffee, because Java collections are so slow that when manipulating them, you have the time to go and grab some coffee before they do the job ... Just kidding' !".

At that time, I wanting to use am implementation of a java.util.List that would have good performances on all the common methods provided by the interface (let's say get(index), add(Object), remove(Object), remove(index), contains(Object), iterator(), add other methods that you like), without wondering about memory usage (I mean, even this List would take 4 times the size of a LinkedList it wouldn't be a big deal).

In other words, some List that would not be instantiated a million times in my application, but a couple of times, and each instance will have great performances. For example, the model of a GUI Table, or some other GUI component, which data will evolve frequently, usually in batch of operation (the user add 100 000 elements, remove 50 000, etc.) , and which performances will sometimes be critical.

First of all, what do I mean by good performances ? Usually good performances are equivalent to an average complexity of O(1). But this one is impossible to get all the time, so at first let's study current JDK List/Collection implementations and see what we have.

Well, we already know so basic information about Collection methods complexity, such as the fact that a HashSet has an average O(1) complexity for its contains(o) method, or that ArrayList is also in O(1) for its method get(int index), etc.
For more details, check this post of Lalit Pant which did a nice summary on this subject.

Let's do some basic benchmark on some collections to see concreatly what they are capable of ...

For that purpose, I wrote this very simple benchmark code, that is not very elegant I have to admit, but do the trick. Here is the core of the benchmark :

private void execute(BenchRunnable run, int loop, String taskName) {
    System.out.print(taskName + " ... ");
    // set default context
    // warmup
    isTimeout = false;
    // timeout timer
    Timer timer = new Timer((int) timeout, new ActionListener() {
        public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
            isTimeout = true;
            // to raise a ConcurrentModificationException or a
            // NoSuchElementException to interrupt internal work in the List
    long startTime = System.nanoTime();
    int i;
    for (i = 0; i < loop && !isTimeout; i++) {
        try {
        } catch (Exception e) {
            // on purpose so ignore it
    long time = isTimeout ? timeout * 1000000 : System.nanoTime() - startTime;
    System.out.println((isTimeout ? "Timeout (>" + time + "ns) after " + i + " loop(s)" : time + "ns"));
    // restore default context
    // the collection instance might have been corrupted by the timeout,
    // create a new instance
    try {
        Constructor<? extends Collection> constructor = collection.getClass().getDeclaredConstructor(
                    (Class<?>[]) null);
            collection = constructor.newInstance();
        collection = collection.getClass().newInstance();
        // update the reference
        if (collection instanceof List) {
            list = (List<String>) collection;
    } catch (Exception e1) {
    // gc to clean all the stuff

where the BenchRunnable is just like a Runnable, but which can use the current loop index :

private interface BenchRunnable {

    public void run(int loopIndex);


and the warmUp() method will manipulate a little the collection, to be sure that the internal structure is allocated.
A timer is used to timeout too long method benchmark, indeed my purpose is not to have a complete benchmark, but just a global idea of what implementations of Collection are efficient for a given method.

For example, I will call this method this way :

int nb = 1000000;

final List<String> list = new LinkedList<String>();

execute(new BenchRunnable() {


    public void run(int i) {

        list.add(Integer.toString(i % 100));


}, nb, "add " + nb + " distinct elements : ");

I will finally display the results in a JFreeChart component, because the console output is not very friendly to compare results.
The complete source of the Benchmark class can be found here, feel free to play with it ! (To those who will think "You should have used a proper tool to do this stuff", I would answer "Yes, you're totally right, but the fact is that when I started it, I didn't mean it to be so big in the end. Anyway, I like the press-button execution ...").

I first launched it on a couple of famous lists, from the JDK, from Javolution, from Apache Commons, I also added a HashSet, just for the records. Here is what I got (the colorful charts that I promised you) (Note that every bench is done with an instance of the given collection populated with 100 000 elements) :

We can see some interesting things here, we confirm what we already knew about some collections, the CopyOnWriteArray is significantly slow on data modification, etc, we also can see, between ArrayList and LinkedList some significant differences (OK, the benchmark does not cover all the different cases, and maybe we are in the particular case were ArrayList is better than LinkedList, anyway it gives us an interesting overall).

The point here is to talk about List and especially fast implementations, but just for the records, I post the results that I got for some Sets :

  • A CombinedList
So, after tuning a little bit the benchmark, studying my charts, I thought "How about creating my humble but own implementation of List ?" with a simple idea, not by implementing some cute-edge algorithm, but just by combining existing implementations. (If you're not very enthusiastic about this idea, you can go directly to the Memory usage of Collections section below).

By this I mean a CombinedList which will use internally a HashSet, an ArrayList and a TreeList, and in each of its method, will use the data structure the most efficient to do the job, and so my CombinedList will be almost as fast as the fastest collection for all of its methods.

By almost I mean their will be a little delay involved by the fact that we will sometimes need to synchronize the data in the internal collections. But it's not a big deal, because the clear() and addAll(collection) methods are quite fast, as we saw in our first charts, and they are definitely faster than some other O(n) or O(n x n) operations on some collections. So it's faster to recreate from scratch the all collection than applying a remove(Object) on an ArrayList (once again, here I don't care about Memory and GC).

So here we go, here are the attributes of my CombinedList

/** HashSet */
private HashSet<E> hashSet;

/** ArrayList */
private ArrayList<E> arrayList;

/** LinkedList */
private Tree linkedList;

/** If hashSet is up-to-date */
private boolean isHashSetUpToDate = true;

/** If arrayList is up-to-date */
private boolean isArrayListUpToDate = true;

/** If linkedList is up-to-date */
private boolean isLinkedListUpToDate = true;

After that, in each method I will use the fastest collection, for example, the contains(o) has an average O(1) in the HashSet implemetation, so :

 * @see java.util.Collection#contains(java.lang.Object)
public boolean contains(Object o) {
    // most efficient is HashSet
    return hashSet.contains(o);

where the updateHashSetIfOutOfDate() will be coded like this :

 * Update the hashSet if out of date
private void updateHashSetIfOutOfDate() {
    // one of the two collection arrayList or linkedList is necessarily up-to-date
    if (!isHashSetUpToDate) {
        if (isArrayListUpToDate) {
        } else {
        isHashSetUpToDate = true;

Concerning data modification, we will do a similar trick :

 * @see java.util.List#set(int, java.lang.Object)
public E set(int index, E element) {
    // most efficient is ArrayList
    E old = arrayList.set(index, element);
    return old;

where setOtherThanArrayListOutOfDate() will look like :

private void setOtherThanArrayListOutOfDate() {
    isHashSetUpToDate = false;
    isLinkedListUpToDate = false;

We'll extend <strong>java.util.AbstractList</strong>, and don't forget to increment modCount when changing internal data, so that the ConcurrentModificationException mechanism is inherited from it.

Finally, we'll do some custom optimization, on the retainAll(Collection) as mentioned on this Java bug.

And we are done, the complete source of the CombinedList class can be found here.

And here are the benchmark results :

We are quite good on contains(Object) and containsAll(Collection) thanks to the HashSet, and we should statistically be a better than ArrayList on remove(Object) and removeAll(Collection) thanks to LinkedList. We could eventually replace the LinkedList by a TreeList to be better on the remove (TreeList is in O(log n) for the remove). We could also parametrized the use of an internal collection with the size of the data, or the index of the data regarding the size of the list etc.

  • Memory usage of Collections
Ok, I said that I didn't care about memory, but let's take a look at what is the size of this CombinedList, and at the same time the size of other collections.
For that purpose, and as I still don't want to use Yourkit profiler today (which is an excellent tool by the way), I just added some simple method to measure our collection size :

long usedMemory = ManagementFactory.getMemoryMXBean().getHeapMemoryUsage().getUsed();
Constructor<? extends Collection> constructor = clazz.getDeclaredConstructor((Class<?>[]) null);
// do the test on 100 objects, to be more accurate
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
    this.collection = (Collection<String>) constructor.newInstance();
    // polulate
    // do some operation to be sure that the inernal structure is allocated
    if (collection instanceof List) {
        ((List) collection).indexOf(((List) collection).get(collection.size() - 1));

// measure size
long objectSize = (long) ((ManagementFactory.getMemoryMXBean().getHeapMemoryUsage().getUsed() - usedMemory) / 100f);
System.out.println(clazz.getCanonicalName() + " Object size : " + objectSize + " bytes");
collection = null;

And display the results in the same JFreeChart component :

Ok, we have what we were expecting, that is to say our CombinedList size a LinkedList + an ArrayList + a HashSet.
Also, this means that this List will generate a lot of GC, and thus make it not suitable for massive random operations. But for my first purpose of a model for my JTable, it's a pretty good deal !

  • And what about JIT compilation, Heap allocation impact on the benchmarck ?
  • Just a final remark concerning the benchmark. Does the fact that all the benchmarks are done in the some JVM impact the results ? The answer (correct me if I'm wrong) is that, if I executed just one time each method, and if the methods were very fast, the JIT compilation time could have an impact on the performances measured on the first Collections tested. That's the reason why in my benchmark, I first test the CombinedList, to be sure to have the worst case performances.
    But the fact is that we execute several (thousand of ) times the same method, so I consider the JIT compilation time is negligible.
    Also, what about Heap allocation and status and its impact on the test ? For this purpose, I carefully free all objects at the end of each collection benchmark, and call a heavyGc() to be sure to minimize this matter.

    private void heavyGc() { 
      try { 
      } catch (InterruptedException ex) {