How to prevent changing the value of variable The Next CEO of Stack OverflowConvert an array of primitive longs into a List of LongsIs Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?How do I efficiently iterate over each entry in a Java Map?Sort a Map<Key, Value> by valuesHow do I call one constructor from another in Java?How do I read / convert an InputStream into a String in Java?How do I generate random integers within a specific range in Java?How to get an enum value from a string value in Java?How do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I convert a String to an int in Java?How do I fix android.os.NetworkOnMainThreadException?

Physiological effects of huge anime eyes

How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable?

Can this transistor (2n2222) take 6V on emitter-base? Am I reading datasheet incorrectly?

Create custom note boxes

Raspberry pi 3 B with Ubuntu 18.04 server arm64: what pi version

Why does freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

Compilation of a 2d array and a 1d array

Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?

How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?

Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?

Shortening a title without changing its meaning

Direct Implications Between USA and UK in Event of No-Deal Brexit

Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?

What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?

Horror film about a man brought out of cryogenic suspension without a soul, around 1990

Gauss' Posthumous Publications?

What does it mean 'exit 1' for a job status after rclone sync

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Find a path from s to t using as few red nodes as possible

Does int main() need a declaration on C++?

Is the offspring between a demon and a celestial possible? If so what is it called and is it in a book somewhere?

Could a dragon use its wings to swim?

MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?



How to prevent changing the value of variable



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowConvert an array of primitive longs into a List of LongsIs Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?How do I efficiently iterate over each entry in a Java Map?Sort a Map<Key, Value> by valuesHow do I call one constructor from another in Java?How do I read / convert an InputStream into a String in Java?How do I generate random integers within a specific range in Java?How to get an enum value from a string value in Java?How do I determine whether an array contains a particular value in Java?How do I convert a String to an int in Java?How do I fix android.os.NetworkOnMainThreadException?










11















I am a beginner in Java. When developing a program, I created an object with a constructor with variables as arguments. But when I change the value of the variable after creating the object, my object has the second value instead of the first one. I don't want my object to change the value. What do I do?



public class Person 

public Person(int[] arrayTest)
this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


public int[] getArray()
return this.arrayTest;


public boolean canHaveAsArray(int[] arrayTest)
return true;


private int[] arrayTest = new int[2];

public static void main(String[] args)
int[] array = new int[] 5, 10;
Person obj1 = new Person(array);
array[0] = 20;
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(obj1.getArray()));




My output should be [5, 10], but instead, I am getting [20,10]. I need to get [5,10] even when I change an element of the array as shown above. What should I do?










share|improve this question




























    11















    I am a beginner in Java. When developing a program, I created an object with a constructor with variables as arguments. But when I change the value of the variable after creating the object, my object has the second value instead of the first one. I don't want my object to change the value. What do I do?



    public class Person 

    public Person(int[] arrayTest)
    this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


    public int[] getArray()
    return this.arrayTest;


    public boolean canHaveAsArray(int[] arrayTest)
    return true;


    private int[] arrayTest = new int[2];

    public static void main(String[] args)
    int[] array = new int[] 5, 10;
    Person obj1 = new Person(array);
    array[0] = 20;
    System.out.println(Arrays.toString(obj1.getArray()));




    My output should be [5, 10], but instead, I am getting [20,10]. I need to get [5,10] even when I change an element of the array as shown above. What should I do?










    share|improve this question


























      11












      11








      11


      1






      I am a beginner in Java. When developing a program, I created an object with a constructor with variables as arguments. But when I change the value of the variable after creating the object, my object has the second value instead of the first one. I don't want my object to change the value. What do I do?



      public class Person 

      public Person(int[] arrayTest)
      this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


      public int[] getArray()
      return this.arrayTest;


      public boolean canHaveAsArray(int[] arrayTest)
      return true;


      private int[] arrayTest = new int[2];

      public static void main(String[] args)
      int[] array = new int[] 5, 10;
      Person obj1 = new Person(array);
      array[0] = 20;
      System.out.println(Arrays.toString(obj1.getArray()));




      My output should be [5, 10], but instead, I am getting [20,10]. I need to get [5,10] even when I change an element of the array as shown above. What should I do?










      share|improve this question
















      I am a beginner in Java. When developing a program, I created an object with a constructor with variables as arguments. But when I change the value of the variable after creating the object, my object has the second value instead of the first one. I don't want my object to change the value. What do I do?



      public class Person 

      public Person(int[] arrayTest)
      this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


      public int[] getArray()
      return this.arrayTest;


      public boolean canHaveAsArray(int[] arrayTest)
      return true;


      private int[] arrayTest = new int[2];

      public static void main(String[] args)
      int[] array = new int[] 5, 10;
      Person obj1 = new Person(array);
      array[0] = 20;
      System.out.println(Arrays.toString(obj1.getArray()));




      My output should be [5, 10], but instead, I am getting [20,10]. I need to get [5,10] even when I change an element of the array as shown above. What should I do?







      java






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago









      Peter Mortensen

      13.8k1987113




      13.8k1987113










      asked 2 days ago









      OpheliaOphelia

      643




      643






















          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          12














          Array is passed by reference in Java. If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.



          If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:




          • You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:



            public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
            this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);




          • Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:



            Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));


          However, I would prefer first approach.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 2





            I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

            – LeoN
            2 days ago












          • On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

            – DreamConspiracy
            2 days ago


















          4














          There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this, and neither does the JVM. You can't solve this at the language level.



          In general, the only way to prevent changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.



          In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:



          • copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or

          • have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.

          (See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)



          The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)






          share|improve this answer

























          • by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

            – Pac0
            2 days ago


















          1














          There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:



          List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);


          You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.




          If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:



          List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));


          However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].






          share|improve this answer
































            0














            Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,



            this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


            It should be



            this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);


            This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.






            share|improve this answer






























              0















              In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#




              When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address



              To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:



              public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
              this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();



              # Source: Wikipedia






              share|improve this answer
































                0














                As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.




                Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".



                And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:



                int originalArray[] = new int[2];
                originalArray[0] = 12;
                originalArray[1] = 34;

                Person person = new Person(originalArray);
                int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();

                originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
                System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!

                arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
                System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!


                Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.



                Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.



                In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:



                public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                public int[] getArray()
                return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array



                But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:



                public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                public int getArrayLength()
                return this.arrayTest.length;

                public int getArrayElement(int index)
                return this.arrayTest[index];



                (Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)



                Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.






                share|improve this answer























                  Your Answer






                  StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
                  StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
                  StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
                  StackExchange.snippets.init();
                  );
                  );
                  , "code-snippets");

                  StackExchange.ready(function()
                  var channelOptions =
                  tags: "".split(" "),
                  id: "1"
                  ;
                  initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                  StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
                  // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                  if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
                  StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
                  createEditor();
                  );

                  else
                  createEditor();

                  );

                  function createEditor()
                  StackExchange.prepareEditor(
                  heartbeatType: 'answer',
                  autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                  convertImagesToLinks: true,
                  noModals: true,
                  showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                  reputationToPostImages: 10,
                  bindNavPrevention: true,
                  postfix: "",
                  imageUploader:
                  brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                  contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                  allowUrls: true
                  ,
                  onDemand: true,
                  discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                  ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                  );



                  );













                  draft saved

                  draft discarded


















                  StackExchange.ready(
                  function ()
                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55428172%2fhow-to-prevent-changing-the-value-of-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                  );

                  Post as a guest















                  Required, but never shown

























                  6 Answers
                  6






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  6 Answers
                  6






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  12














                  Array is passed by reference in Java. If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.



                  If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:




                  • You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:



                    public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                    this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);




                  • Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:



                    Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));


                  However, I would prefer first approach.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 2





                    I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                    – LeoN
                    2 days ago












                  • On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                    – DreamConspiracy
                    2 days ago















                  12














                  Array is passed by reference in Java. If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.



                  If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:




                  • You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:



                    public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                    this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);




                  • Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:



                    Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));


                  However, I would prefer first approach.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 2





                    I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                    – LeoN
                    2 days ago












                  • On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                    – DreamConspiracy
                    2 days ago













                  12












                  12








                  12







                  Array is passed by reference in Java. If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.



                  If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:




                  • You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:



                    public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                    this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);




                  • Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:



                    Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));


                  However, I would prefer first approach.






                  share|improve this answer















                  Array is passed by reference in Java. If you pass the original array to the constructor of Person, you are passing the reference to the original array. So any change in arrayTest inside Person instance will reflect in original array(int[] array) and vice-versa.



                  If you don't want to change the value of elements of original array in Person instance then you have two options:




                  • You can modify the code in Person constructor to create a copy of original array using java.util.Arrays.copyOf method and then use that copy:



                    public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                    this.arrayTest = java.util.Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);




                  • Don't pass the original array to constructor, instead just send a copy of original array:



                    Person obj1 = new Person(java.util.Arrays.copyOf(array, array.length));


                  However, I would prefer first approach.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 2 days ago

























                  answered 2 days ago









                  Aniket SahrawatAniket Sahrawat

                  6,44621340




                  6,44621340







                  • 2





                    I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                    – LeoN
                    2 days ago












                  • On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                    – DreamConspiracy
                    2 days ago












                  • 2





                    I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                    – LeoN
                    2 days ago












                  • On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                    – DreamConspiracy
                    2 days ago







                  2




                  2





                  I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                  – LeoN
                  2 days ago






                  I agree with this answer. But from the two options stated here, First option should be the most suitable approach. The reason is, whenever you or someone else is going to use the code, they will not make the mistake mentioned in the question.

                  – LeoN
                  2 days ago














                  On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                  – DreamConspiracy
                  2 days ago





                  On the one hand, the first option is clearly better for the reason stated above, but the second option is useful too and should be considered. Doing what the OP accidentally did is useful in quite a few cases (although it violates some OOP principles, but I don't hold those in very high regard anyway)

                  – DreamConspiracy
                  2 days ago













                  4














                  There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this, and neither does the JVM. You can't solve this at the language level.



                  In general, the only way to prevent changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.



                  In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:



                  • copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or

                  • have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.

                  (See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)



                  The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)






                  share|improve this answer

























                  • by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                    – Pac0
                    2 days ago















                  4














                  There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this, and neither does the JVM. You can't solve this at the language level.



                  In general, the only way to prevent changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.



                  In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:



                  • copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or

                  • have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.

                  (See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)



                  The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)






                  share|improve this answer

























                  • by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                    – Pac0
                    2 days ago













                  4












                  4








                  4







                  There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this, and neither does the JVM. You can't solve this at the language level.



                  In general, the only way to prevent changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.



                  In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:



                  • copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or

                  • have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.

                  (See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)



                  The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)






                  share|improve this answer















                  There is no such thing as immutable (unchangeable) array in Java. The Java language does not support this, and neither does the JVM. You can't solve this at the language level.



                  In general, the only way to prevent changes to an array is to not share the reference to the array with other code that might change it.



                  In your example, you have what is known as a leaky abstraction. You are passing an array to your Person class, and the caller is keeping a reference to that array so that it can change it. To solve this, you can:



                  • copy the array, and pass a reference to the copy, or

                  • have the constructor (or a setter for the array attribute) make the copy.

                  (See answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/55428214/139985 for example code.)



                  The second alternative is preferable from an OO perspective. The Person class should be responsible for preserving its own internal state from interference ... if that is your design requirement. It should not rely on the caller to do this. (Even if the caller is technically part of the same class as is the case here.)







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 2 days ago

























                  answered 2 days ago









                  Stephen CStephen C

                  525k72585944




                  525k72585944












                  • by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                    – Pac0
                    2 days ago

















                  • by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                    – Pac0
                    2 days ago
















                  by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                  – Pac0
                  2 days ago





                  by the way, about Leaky abstraction, Joel on Software has a relevant blog article joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-abstractions

                  – Pac0
                  2 days ago











                  1














                  There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:



                  List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);


                  You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.




                  If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:



                  List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));


                  However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].






                  share|improve this answer





























                    1














                    There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:



                    List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);


                    You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.




                    If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:



                    List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));


                    However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].






                    share|improve this answer



























                      1












                      1








                      1







                      There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:



                      List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);


                      You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.




                      If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:



                      List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));


                      However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].






                      share|improve this answer















                      There is no unmodifiable array, but you can make an unmodifiable list:



                      List<Integer> list = List.of(5, 10);


                      You will have to change your code to use lists instead of arrays, but this is generally preferable anyway.




                      If you already have an array of a non-primitive type, you can wrap it in an unmodifiable list, like so:



                      List<Integer> list = Collections.unmodifiableList(Arrays.asList(array));


                      However, while you can't change the list directly, changing the array will change the list. Moreover, this won't work on int[], but only on subclasses of Object[].







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 2 days ago

























                      answered 2 days ago









                      Brian McCutchonBrian McCutchon

                      4,98222136




                      4,98222136





















                          0














                          Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,



                          this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


                          It should be



                          this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);


                          This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            0














                            Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,



                            this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


                            It should be



                            this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);


                            This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.






                            share|improve this answer

























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,



                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


                              It should be



                              this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);


                              This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.






                              share|improve this answer













                              Instead of passing a copy of the array to the object, as others have suggested, I would recommend that the Person object's constructor should create a copy. Which means instead of,



                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest;


                              It should be



                              this.arrayTest = Arrays.copyOf(arrayTest, arrayTest.length);


                              This would allow the object to be defensive against malicious code trying to modify arrays after construction and validation by constructor. In fact most IDEs have analysis tools which will give you a warning against saving array reference.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 2 days ago









                              Sourabh BhatSourabh Bhat

                              1,2601018




                              1,2601018





















                                  0















                                  In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#




                                  When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address



                                  To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:



                                  public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                  this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();



                                  # Source: Wikipedia






                                  share|improve this answer





























                                    0















                                    In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#




                                    When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address



                                    To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:



                                    public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                    this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();



                                    # Source: Wikipedia






                                    share|improve this answer



























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0








                                      In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#




                                      When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address



                                      To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:



                                      public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                      this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();



                                      # Source: Wikipedia






                                      share|improve this answer
















                                      In Java, objects/arrays are manipulated through reference variables#




                                      When a function is invoked with arrays as their arguments, only a reference to the array is passed. Therefore, when you mutate array array, the arrayTest field also get mutated as they are referring to the same address



                                      To override this behavior, you can create a copy of the array in your constructor using Object.clone() method like:



                                      public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                      this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone();



                                      # Source: Wikipedia







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited 2 days ago

























                                      answered 2 days ago









                                      rv7rv7

                                      2,2061425




                                      2,2061425





















                                          0














                                          As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.




                                          Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".



                                          And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:



                                          int originalArray[] = new int[2];
                                          originalArray[0] = 12;
                                          originalArray[1] = 34;

                                          Person person = new Person(originalArray);
                                          int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();

                                          originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
                                          System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!

                                          arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
                                          System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!


                                          Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.



                                          Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.



                                          In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:



                                          public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                          this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                          public int[] getArray()
                                          return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array



                                          But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:



                                          public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                          this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                          public int getArrayLength()
                                          return this.arrayTest.length;

                                          public int getArrayElement(int index)
                                          return this.arrayTest[index];



                                          (Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)



                                          Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.






                                          share|improve this answer



























                                            0














                                            As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.




                                            Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".



                                            And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:



                                            int originalArray[] = new int[2];
                                            originalArray[0] = 12;
                                            originalArray[1] = 34;

                                            Person person = new Person(originalArray);
                                            int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();

                                            originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
                                            System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!

                                            arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
                                            System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!


                                            Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.



                                            Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.



                                            In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:



                                            public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                            this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                            public int[] getArray()
                                            return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array



                                            But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:



                                            public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                            this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                            public int getArrayLength()
                                            return this.arrayTest.length;

                                            public int getArrayElement(int index)
                                            return this.arrayTest[index];



                                            (Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)



                                            Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.






                                            share|improve this answer

























                                              0












                                              0








                                              0







                                              As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.




                                              Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".



                                              And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:



                                              int originalArray[] = new int[2];
                                              originalArray[0] = 12;
                                              originalArray[1] = 34;

                                              Person person = new Person(originalArray);
                                              int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();

                                              originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
                                              System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!

                                              arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
                                              System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!


                                              Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.



                                              Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.



                                              In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:



                                              public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                              public int[] getArray()
                                              return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array



                                              But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:



                                              public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                              public int getArrayLength()
                                              return this.arrayTest.length;

                                              public int getArrayElement(int index)
                                              return this.arrayTest[index];



                                              (Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)



                                              Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.






                                              share|improve this answer













                                              As others have already pointed out: The array is passed as a reference to the Person. So changes that are later done to the array will be visible to the Person object. But that's only one half of the problem: You are not only passing a reference to the array to the constructor of the Person, you are also returning a reference from the getArray method.




                                              Generally speaking, and as StephenC already pointed out in his answer: One important aspect of Object-Oriented design is to properly manage the state space of objects. It should not be possible for users of a class to bring an object into any form of "inconsistent state".



                                              And this is difficult with plain primitive arrays. Consider the following pseudocode, referring to the class that you posted:



                                              int originalArray[] = new int[2];
                                              originalArray[0] = 12;
                                              originalArray[1] = 34;

                                              Person person = new Person(originalArray);
                                              int arrayFromPerson[] = person.getArray();

                                              originalArray[0] = -666; // Modify the original array
                                              System.out.println(arrayFromPerson[0]) // Prints -666 - this is unexpected!

                                              arrayFromPerson[1] = 12345678; // Modify the array from the person
                                              System.out.println(originalArray[1]) // Prints 12345678 - this is unexpected!


                                              Nobody knows who has a reference to the array, and nobody can verify or track that the contents of the array is not changed in any way. How critical this is becomes more obvious when you anticipate that the Person object will be used at different places, possibly even by multiple threads.



                                              Plain primitive arrays in Java do have their justification. But when they appear in the interface of a class (that is, in its public methods), they should be view with scrutiny.



                                              In order to be absolutely sure that nobody can interfere with the array that is stored in the Person object, you'd have to create defensive copies everywhere:



                                              public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                              public int[] getArray()
                                              return this.arrayTest.clone(); // Return a clone of the array



                                              But this may be cumbersome. A more object-oriented solution could be to expose a "read-only view" on the state that is represented with the array. For example:



                                              public Person(int[] arrayTest) 
                                              this.arrayTest = arrayTest.clone(); // Store a clone of the array

                                              public int getArrayLength()
                                              return this.arrayTest.length;

                                              public int getArrayElement(int index)
                                              return this.arrayTest[index];



                                              (Of course, in practice, you'd name the methods accordingly, depending on what the array actually represents. For example, if it's the ages of the children of the person, you'd call the methods getNumChildren() and getAgeOfChild(int i) or so...)



                                              Another option how this can be solved is to expose an (unmodifiable) List view on the array. This can, for example, be done with the asUnmodifiableList method that is shown in this answer.







                                              share|improve this answer












                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer










                                              answered 2 days ago









                                              Marco13Marco13

                                              43k858111




                                              43k858111



























                                                  draft saved

                                                  draft discarded
















































                                                  Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                                                  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                  But avoid


                                                  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                                  To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                                  draft saved


                                                  draft discarded














                                                  StackExchange.ready(
                                                  function ()
                                                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55428172%2fhow-to-prevent-changing-the-value-of-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                                  );

                                                  Post as a guest















                                                  Required, but never shown





















































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown

































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Popular posts from this blog

                                                  Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

                                                  419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

                                                  Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB