Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

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.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3671398
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 19, 20262026-05-19T02:28:56+00:00 2026-05-19T02:28:56+00:00

Possible Duplicate: What are the reasons why Map.get(Object key) is not (fully) generic This

  • 0

Possible Duplicate:
What are the reasons why Map.get(Object key) is not (fully) generic

This method and a number of other methods in the Map interface are not generic. Almost anywhere a key value is expected as a parameter, it accepts Object instead, namely remove, get and containsKey.

Any idea as to why they made this decision. My assumption is that it was done to support legacy code, but to me, I think that is a weak position.

Can anyone provide me a specific reason why it would be preferable to accept Object here instead of KeyType.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-19T02:28:56+00:00Added an answer on May 19, 2026 at 2:28 am

    The objects used to retrieve/remove/check for existance of a given key need not necessarily be of the same type as the object used to store it (= the key).

    It needs to be equal and return the same hashCode as the key, but nothing in the spec says that it must be of the same type.

    That fact is rarely used and most of the time you’ll retrieve the values with the same keys (or at least objects of the same types) as the ones you use to store them.

    But since that was a supported use case in the “old” HashMap, it needs to be supported in the generics version as well.

    Note that all methods that keySet() uses the specific type, as it’s sure to return exactly the objects used as keys when put() was called.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.