How do I identify immutable objects in Java

Question

In my code, I am creating a collection of objects which will be accessed by various threads in a fashion that is only safe if the objects are immutable. When an attempt is made to insert a new object into my collection, I want to test to see if it is immutable (if not, I'll throw an exception).

One thing I can do is to check a few well-known immutable types:

private static final Set<Class> knownImmutables = new HashSet<Class>(Arrays.asList(
        String.class, Byte.class, Short.class, Integer.class, Long.class,
        Float.class, Double.class, Boolean.class, BigInteger.class, BigDecimal.class
));

...

public static boolean isImmutable(Object o) {
    return knownImmutables.contains(o.getClass());
}

This actually gets me 90% of the way, but sometimes my users will want to create simple immutable types of their own:

public class ImmutableRectangle {
    private final int width;
    private final int height;
    public ImmutableRectangle(int width, int height) {
        this.width = width;
        this.height = height;
    }
    public int getWidth() { return width; }
    public int getHeight() { return height; }
}

Is there some way (perhaps using reflection) that I could reliably detect whether a class is immutable? False positives (thinking it's immutable when it isn't) are not acceptable but false negatives (thinking it's mutable when it isn't) are.

Edited to add: Thanks for the insightful and helpful answers. As some of the answers pointed out, I neglected to define my security objectives. The threat here is clueless developers -- this is a piece of framework code that will be used by large numbers of people who know next-to-nothing about threading and won't be reading the documentation. I do NOT need to defend against malicious developers -- anyone clever enough to mutate a String or perform other shenanigans will also be smart enough to know it's not safe in this case. Static analysis of the codebase IS an option, so long as it is automated, but code reviews cannot be counted on because there is no guarantee every review will have threading-savvy reviewers.

Answer 1

There is no reliable way to detect if a class is immutable. This is because there are so many ways a property of a class might be altered and you can't detect all of them via reflection.

The only way to get close to this is:

• Only allow final properties of types that are immutable (primitive types and classes you know are immutable),
• Require the class to be final itself
• Require that they inherit from a base class you provide (which is guaranteed to be immutable)

Then you can check with the following code if the object you have is immutable:

static boolean isImmutable(Object obj) {
    Class<?> objClass = obj.getClass();

    // Class of the object must be a direct child class of the required class
    Class<?> superClass = objClass.getSuperclass();
    if (!Immutable.class.equals(superClass)) {
        return false;
    }

    // Class must be final
    if (!Modifier.isFinal(objClass.getModifiers())) {
        return false;
    }

    // Check all fields defined in the class for type and if they are final
    Field[] objFields = objClass.getDeclaredFields();
    for (int i = 0; i < objFields.length; i++) {
        if (!Modifier.isFinal(objFields[i].getModifiers())
                || !isValidFieldType(objFields[i].getType())) {
            return false;
        }
    }

    // Lets hope we didn't forget something
    return true;
}

static boolean isValidFieldType(Class<?> type) {
    // Check for all allowed property types...
    return type.isPrimitive() || String.class.equals(type);
}

Update: As suggested in the comments, it could be extended to recurse on the superclass instead of checking for a certain class. It was also suggested to recursively use isImmutable in the isValidFieldType Method. This could probably work and I have also done some testing. But this is not trivial. You can't just check all field types with a call to isImmutable, because String already fails this test (its field hash is not final!). Also you are easily running into endless recursions, causing StackOverflowErrors ;) Other problems might be caused by generics, where you also have to check their types for immutablity.

I think with some work, these potential problems might be solved somehow. But then, you have to ask yourself first if it really is worth it (also performance wise).

Answer 2

Use the Immutable annotation from Java Concurrency in Practice. The tool FindBugs can then help in detecting classes which are mutable but shouldn't be.

Answer 3

At my company we've defined an Attribute called @Immutable. If you choose to attach that to a class, it means you promise you're immutable.

It works for documentation, and in your case it would work as a filter.

Of course you're still depending on the author keeping his word about being immutable, but since the author explicitly added the annotation it's a reasonable assumption.

Answer 4

Basically no.

You could build a giant white-list of accepted classes but I think the less crazy way would be to just write in the documentation for the collection that everything that goes is this collection must be immutable.

Edit: Other people have suggested having an immutable annotation. This is fine, but you need the documentation as well. Otherwise people will just think "if I put this annotation on my class I can store it in the collection" and will just chuck it on anything, immutable and mutable classes alike. In fact, I would be wary of having an immutable annotation just in case people think that annotation makes their class immutable.

Answer 5

This could be another hint:

If the class has no setters then it cannot be mutated, granted the parameters it was created with are either "primitive" types or not mutable themselves.

Also no methods could be overriden, all fields are final and private,

I'll try to code something tomorrow for you, but Simon's code using reflection looks pretty good.

In the mean time try to grab a copy of the "Effective Java" book by Josh Block , it has an Item related to this topic. While is does not for sure say how to detect an inmmutable class, it shows how to create a good one.

The item is called: "Favor immutability"

link: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/effective/

Answer 6

In my code, I am creating a collection of objects which will be accessed by various threads in a fashion that is only safe if the objects are immutable.

Not a direct answer to your question, but keep in mind that objects that are immutable are not automatically guaranteed to be thread safe (sadly). Code needs to be side-effect free to be thread safe, and that's quite a bit more difficult.

Suppose you have this class:

class Foo {
  final String x;
  final Integer y;
  ...

  public bar() {
    Singleton.getInstance().foolAround();
  }
}

Then the foolAround() method might include some non-thread safe operations, which will blow up your app. And it's not possible to test for this using reflection, as the actual reference can only be found in the method body, not in the fields or exposed interface.

Other than that, the others are correct: you can scan for all declared fields of the class, check if every one of them is final and also an immutable class, and you're done. I don't think methods being final is a requirement.

Also, be careful about recursively checking dependent fields for immutability, you might end up with circles:

class A {
  final B b; // might be immutable...
}

class B {
  final A a; // same so here.
}

Classes A and B are perfectly immutable (and possibly even usable through some reflection hacks), but naive recursive code will go into an endless loop checking A, then B, then A again, onwards to B, ...

You can fix that with a 'seen' map that disallows cycles, or with some really clever code that decides classes are immutable if all their dependees are immutable only depending on themselves, but that's going to be really complicated...

Answer 7

You Can Ask your clients to add metadata (annotations) and check them at runtime with reflection, like this:

Metadata:

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Target(ElementType.CLASS)
public @interface Immutable{ }

Client Code:

@Immutable
public class ImmutableRectangle {
    private final int width;
    private final int height;
    public ImmutableRectangle(int width, int height) {
        this.width = width;
        this.height = height;
    }
    public int getWidth() { return width; }
    public int getHeight() { return height; }
}

Then by using reflection on the class, check if it has the annotation (I would paste the code but its boilerplate and can be found easily online)

Answer 8

why do all the recommendations require the class to be final? if you are using reflection to check the class of each object, and you can determine programmatically that that class is immutable (immutable, final fields), then you don't need to require that the class itself is final.

Answer 9

You can use AOP and @Immutable annotation from jcabi-aspects:

@Immutable
public class Foo {
  private String data;
}
// this line will throw a runtime exception since class Foo
// is actually mutable, despite the annotation
Object object = new Foo();

Answer 10

Like the other answerers already said, IMHO there is no reliable way to find out if an object is really immutable.

I would just introduce an interface "Immutable" to check against when appending. This works as a hint that only immutable objects should be inserted for whatever reason you're doing it.

interface Immutable {}

class MyImmutable implements Immutable{...}

public void add(Object o) {
  if (!(o instanceof Immutable) && !checkIsImmutableBasePrimitive(o))
    throw new IllegalArgumentException("o is not immutable!");
  ...
}

Answer 11

Try this:

public static boolean isImmutable(Object object){
    if (object instanceof Number) { // Numbers are immutable
        if (object instanceof AtomicInteger) {
            // AtomicIntegers are mutable
        } else if (object instanceof AtomicLong) {
            // AtomLongs are mutable
        } else {
            return true;
        }
    } else if (object instanceof String) {  // Strings are immutable
        return true;
    } else if (object instanceof Character) {   // Characters are immutable
        return true;
    } else if (object instanceof Class) { // Classes are immutable
        return true;
    }

    Class<?> objClass = object.getClass();

    // Class must be final
    if (!Modifier.isFinal(objClass.getModifiers())) {
            return false;
    }

    // Check all fields defined in the class for type and if they are final
    Field[] objFields = objClass.getDeclaredFields();
    for (int i = 0; i < objFields.length; i++) {
            if (!Modifier.isFinal(objFields[i].getModifiers())
                            || !isImmutable(objFields[i].getType())) {
                    return false;
            }
    }

    // Lets hope we didn't forget something
    return true;
}

Answer 12

To my knowledge, there is no way to identify immutable objects that is 100% correct. However, I have written a library to get you closer. It performs analysis of bytecode of a class to determine if it is immutable or not, and can execute at runtime. It is on the strict side, so it also allows whitelisting known immutable classes.

You can check it out at: www.mutabilitydetector.org

It allows you to write code like this in your application:

/*
* Request an analysis of the runtime class, to discover if this
* instance will be immutable or not.
*/
AnalysisResult result = analysisSession.resultFor(dottedClassName);

if (result.isImmutable.equals(IMMUTABLE)) {
    /*
    * rest safe in the knowledge the class is
    * immutable, share across threads with joyful abandon
    */
} else if (result.isImmutable.equals(NOT_IMMUTABLE)) {
    /*
    * be careful here: make defensive copies,
    * don't publish the reference,
    * read Java Concurrency In Practice right away!
    */
}

It is free and open source under the Apache 2.0 license.

Answer 13

Check out joe-e, a implementation of capabilities for java.

Answer 14

Something which works for a high percentage of builtin classes is test for instanceof Comparable. For the classes which are not immutable like Date, they are often treated as immutable in most cases.

Answer 15

I appreciate and admire the amount of work Grundlefleck has put into his mutability detector, but I think it is a bit of an overkill. You can write a simple but practically very adequate (that is, pragmatic) detector as follows:

(note: this is a copy of my comment here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/28111150/773113)

First of all, you are not going to be just writing a method which determines whether a class is immutable; instead, you will need to write an immutability detector class, because it is going to have to maintain some state. The state of the detector will be the detected immutability of all classes which it has examined so far. This is not only useful for performance, but it is actually necessary because a class may contain a circular reference, which would cause a simplistic immutability detector to fall into infinite recursion.

The immutability of a class has four possible values: Unknown, Mutable, Immutable, and Calculating. You will probably want to have a map which associates each class that you have encountered so far to an immutability value. Of course, Unknown does not actually need to be implemented, since it will be the implied state of any class which is not yet in the map.

So, when you begin examining a class, you associate it with a Calculating value in the map, and when you are done, you replace Calculating with either Immutable or Mutable.

For each class, you only need to check the field members, not the code. The idea of checking bytecode is rather misguided.

First of all, you should not check whether a class is final; The finality of a class does not affect its immutability. Instead, a method which expects an immutable parameter should first of all invoke the immutability detector to assert the immutability of the class of the actual object that was passed. This test can be omitted if the type of the parameter is a final class, so finality is good for performance, but strictly speaking not necessary. Also, as you will see further down, a field whose type is of a non-final class will cause the declaring class to be considered as mutable, but still, that's a problem of the declaring class, not the problem of the non-final immutable member class. It is perfectly fine to have a tall hierarchy of immutable classes, in which all the non-leaf nodes must of course be non-final.

You should not check whether a field is private; it is perfectly fine for a class to have a public field, and the visibility of the field does not affect the immutability of the declaring class in any way, shape, or form. You only need to check whether the field is final and its type is immutable.

When examining a class, what you want to do first of all is to recurse to determine the immutability of its super class. If the super is mutable, then the descendant is by definition mutable too.

Then, you only need to check the declared fields of the class, not all fields.

If a field is non-final, then your class is mutable.

If a field is final, but the type of the field is mutable, then your class is mutable. (Arrays are by definition mutable.)

If a field is final, and the type of the field is Calculating, then ignore it and proceed to the next field. If all fields are either immutable or Calculating, then your class is immutable.

If the type of the field is an interface, or an abstract class, or a non-final class, then it is to be considered as mutable, since you have absolutely no control over what the actual implementation may do. This might seem like an insurmountable problem, because it means that wrapping a modifiable collection inside an UnmodifiableCollection will still fail the immutability test, but it is actually fine, and it can be handled with the following workaround.

Some classes may contain non-final fields and still be effectively immutable. An example of this is the String class. Other classes which fall into this category are classes which contain non-final members purely for performance monitoring purposes (invocation counters, etc.), classes which implement popsicle immutability (look it up), and classes which contain members that are interfaces which are known to not cause any side effects. Also, if a class contains bona fide mutable fields but promises not to take them into account when computing hashCode() and equals(), then the class is of course unsafe when it comes to multi-threading, but it can still be considered as immutable for the purpose of using it as a key in a map. So, all these cases can be handled in one of two ways:

1. Manually adding classes (and interfaces) to your immutability detector. If you know that a certain class is effectively immutable despite the fact that the immutability test for it fails, you can manually add an entry to your detector which associates it with Immutable. This way, the detector will never attempt to check whether it is immutable, it will always just say 'yes, it is.'

2. Introducing an @ImmutabilityOverride annotation. Your immutability detector can check for the presence of this annotation on a field, and if present, it may treat the field as immutable despite the fact that the field may be non-final or its type may be mutable. The detector may also check for the presence of this annotation on the class, thus treating the class as immutable without even bothering to check its fields.

I hope this helps future generations.