Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I found this answer about cloning java objects. However, with the approach in the accepted answer there, is the cloned object is totally a new instance? I mean not really a linked copy?
I am asking this because the java object I need to clone is a “global object” which gets updated at some point in time. And at some point in time I need to “snapshot” the object and essentially put than on a HashMap.
The accepted answer in the other question briefly explains the copy constructor and, yes, this pattern will create new objects and can (should!) be used to create those snapshots.
The new object will get the current state of the original object. Which is easy for strings and java primitives.
For objects, it’s more tricky: the current state is a pointer to another object, and if this other objects changes, the changes will be reflected in your snapshot. If you need to avoid that, then you have to clone these objects too (deep cloning).
The “Problem” with cloning via copy constructor: the cloneable classes need to provide such a constructor. Easy, if you own the source code – then you can implement it yourself. Otherwise you may have to play with Reflection API and implement a clone factory which would be at least … err, challenging.