When we are introduced to Java Generics, parameterized types, or what you choose to call it, it is usually in the context of container classes. The most well-known containers in Java are probably the ones offered by the Collections Framework. Parameterized types is an intuitive fit for managing lists, sets, maps, and other generic collections in a safe way. The alternative before Generics was introduced, was scattering collections around which you can add anything to, and must remember which type you must manually cast to when retrieving elements. Generic collections is an easy concept to grasp and use. It is almost as if Java Generics were introduced solely for collection classes.

But what are those extends and super words for? They always introduce problems. They seem to be related to why we can't pass a List<Car> to a method accepting a Collection<Vehicle> , even though a List is a Collection and a Car is a Vehicle . We can fix this by having the method accept a Collection<? extends Vehicle> instead. Ok, so we can settle with the fact that we can assign the List to its super type of Collection , but this does not work with those types inside the < and > . In some cases, and for some reason, we have to be so darn verbose by saying "oh, this is a Collection of something which is a Vehicle of some particular type".

And that super word. That's just weird.

The extends wildcard

The extends keyword used with a type parameter is probably the most familiar wildcard type annotation in Java. With collections in Java they may still be confusing at first. For instance, why is this not possible:

void addYourCars ( List < ? extends Vehicle > vehicles ) { vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; }

It is a list of anything which extends the Vehicle class and Car extends Vehicle , so why can I not add a Car ? Is it bug in the type system?

It is actually quite easy to get an understanding to why being able to add a Car to this list would be a hole in the type system. Consider adding some more context to the code above:

void collectVehicles ( ) { List < Boat > vehicles = getYourBoats ( ) ; addYourCars ( vehicles ) ; } void addYourCars ( List < ? extends Vehicle > vehicles ) { vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; }

The list of boats, which is passed as a list of some particular type of vehicles, can not have cars added to it, and the type system prevents us from having such an error in our program. We can not trick the type system by assigning the List<Boat> to the lesser specific type List<? extends Vehicle> , which is what we do by passing it as an argument to the method.

The following code example should make this very evident:

List < Boat > boats = new ArrayList < Boat > ( ) ; List < ? extends Vehicle > vehicles = boats ; vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ;

There is only one list being instantiated, and it is an ArrayList<Boat> . The list instance is then (correctly) assigned as a List<? extends Vehicle> , but that does not change what the list originally was instantiated as, and that integrity is maintained by the type system, which refuses to add a car to the list of boats.

If the list was indeed instantiated as an ArrayList<Vehicle> , then it would be possible to add both cars and boats to it. And that is also why it is not allowed to assign a List<Boat> to a List<Vehicle> , as they exhibit different behaviour in what type of elements you may add to them.

You are allowed to assign a List<Vehicle> as a, also in this case lesser specific, type of List<? extends Vehicle> , and you will lose the ability to add anything to the list through the new reference:

List < Vehicle > vehicles = new ArrayList < Vehicle > ( ) ; vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; vehicles . add ( new Boat ( ) ) ; List < ? extends Vehicle > sameVehicles = vehicles ; sameVehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ;

In summary

In the previous examples, List<? extends Vehicle> is a parameterized type, and ? extends Vehicle is a wildcard type.

Types describe properties of instances passed around in our program, and the type system must always be able to guarantee the integrity of what an instance was originally created as. When an instance is passed as a compatible less specific type than what it was originally declared, we lose some options for what we may do with this instance. As in the examples with the lists of vehicles, cars and boats, it makes sense that when we don't know exactly of which specific type a list was originally declared as, the type system can not allow us to add anything to it, because it may be list of boats, or a list of cars. It may also be a list of vehicles, which can hold both cars and boats, but we don't know as long as we have a List<? extends Vehicle> .

But how does the compiler know that the add(..) method is not safe? Having a List<? extends Vehicle> or List<Vehicle> does not stop us from retrieving the vehicle instances contained in the list.

Generics with extends — in general

The compiler and type system does not know anything about the semantics of lists and what it means to add elements to them. The compiler knows about a certain property of the signature of the add(..) -method: it accepts an argument of the same type as the declared type parameter for the List: add(T element) . We can not pass arguments to the add method when the type states that T may have been declared as either Boat or Car . It may even be declared as Vehicle , making the list capable to hold both boats and cars, but the wildcard type has lost this information.

💡 If we do not know exactly which type T is, all methods accepting arguments of this type are effectively useless.

The extends wildcard have a distinct relation to method arguments, in that it renders any method with parameters of the wildcard type as simply not invocable. The compiler will not allow it. Now this seems like a rather annoying restriction. Why would anyone want to disable perfectly usable functionality? But this is what a type system is about, to impose restrictions on what you may express in code in order to provide certain guarantees on correctness.

So what do we gain with declaring wildcard types?

💡 The extends wildcard type widens the scope of assignable references for the parameterized type, e.g. what you may pass as a method argument, at the cost of effectively shutting off all methods of the parameterized type accepting the wildcard type as input parameter.

So for collections, methods retrieving elements from a given collection, but does not mutate it by adding new elements, will typically benefit from accepting a more flexible parameterized type declared with the extends wildcard. Using our cars and boats, and say they need to be registered in some vehicle registry, the following code skeleton should demonstrate how to be able to accept collections of different types of vehicles:

class VehicleRegistry { void register ( Collection < ? extends Vehicle > vehicles ) { } } VehicleRegistry registry = new VehicleRegistry ( ) ; List < Car > cars = new ArrayList < > ( ) ; List < Boat > boats = new ArrayList < > ( ) ; registry . register ( cars ) ; registry . register ( boats ) ;

The register(..) -method is able to accept collections of cars and boats because of the wildcard type, but are not able to add elements to the given list.

So what about super ?

As the extends wildcard puts restrictions on the use of methods having the wildcard type in their parameters, the super keyword puts restrictions on methods returning the wildcard type. Not in a way that you can not invoke such methods, but you can only ever get a value of type Object when invoking methods returning a wildcard type declared with super .

Continuing with our types of vehicles, consider the following example:

List < ? super Car > vehicles = new ArrayList < Vehicle > ( ) ; vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; Object x = vehicles . get ( 0 ) ;

We create a list for containing vehicles, but somewhat strangely assign it to a list of something that may be cars or any super-class of Car . This has, what is probably expected, the implication that you can not add a Boat to the list, as it is not a super-class of Car . But it also has the somewhat strange effect that the only thing that is safe to add to a List<? super Car> is specifically a Car . We can not add a Vehicle . Perhaps even more non-intuitive is that if we have a Volvo class which extends Car , we can add a Volvo to a list declared to contain ? super Car !

List < ? super Car > vehicles = new ArrayList < Vehicle > ( ) ; vehicles . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; vehicles . add ( new Volvo ( ) ) ;

This is weird, but still valid code. And again, if your experience with Generics is mostly by using them with the Collections Framework, the super keyword will seem very esoteric. Granted, the super keyword is not meant to be used as shown above, and does not yield any advantages.

super -generics — in general

With the more elaborate assessment of the extends wildcard fresh in memory, let's look at the effects of the super wildcard from a general point of view as well.

The super wildcard is all about flexibility when consuming values of specific types, since a wildcard type of ? super T enables the parameterized type to accept any arguments of type T as method arguments. But a type parameter without a wildcard already enables this capability.

💡 The super wildcard type widens the scope of assignable references for the parameterized type, e.g. what you may pass as a method argument, at the cost of effectively making the wildcard type unusable as a return type for all methods of the parameterized type.

So analogous to the extends wildcard, super is also about enabling flexibility when passing references of parameterized types. And in the case of the super wildcard, the parameterized type is used for consuming values of the wildcard type.

Some super awkward collection manipulation

Passing a list of some type to a method, which then mutates the list by adding elements to it as a side effect, is rarely a natural way of solving how to populate a list. But to bring some closure to our use of the Collections Framework as examples for applying wildcard types, consider this code:

class ParkingLot { List < Car > cars = new ArrayList < > ( ) ; void putExpiredInto ( Collection < ? super Car > expired ) { } } ParkingLot parkingLot = new ParkingLot ( ) ; parkingLot . cars . add ( new Car ( ) ) ; List < Car > expiredCars = new ArrayList < > ( ) ; parkingLot . putExpiredInto ( expiredCars ) ;

The implementation of putExpiredInto(Collection) -method is just a matter of invoking expired.add(..) for applicable cars in the parking lot, and not affected by the Collection being parameterized with a type with or without a super wildcard. But the wildcard adds more flexibility in which types of collections that are accepted as input parameters by the method, but still being type safe. Code using putExpiredInto(Collection) may actually not be interested in having the expired parked cars put into a collection of cars, but a more general kind, say a List<Vehicle> , or even a Set<Object> , and that should not matter to the ParkingLot . What does matter though, is that it is not accepted to add the cars to a collection of for instance boats, and the type system is able to enforce that.

ParkingLot parkingLot = new ParkingLot ( ) ; List < Vehicle > expiredVehicles = new ArrayList < > ( ) ; parkingLot . putExpiredInto ( expiredVehicles ) ; Set < Object > expiredAnything = new HashSet < > ( ) ; parkingLot . putExpiredInto ( expiredAnything ) ; Set < Boat > boats = new HashSet < > ( ) ; parkingLot . putExpiredInto ( boats ) ;

The ? super Car wildcard type enables to express that the method needs to be able to add cars to the given collection, but the caller is free to choose any level of compatible generality of the collection. Without the super wildcard, it would not be possible to pass any of the collections instantiated in the last example. With the wildcard, only the non-sensical operation of adding cars to a collections of boats is prohibited.

Applying the general super powers

The super wildcard has arguably become more applicable with the introduction of facilities for functional programming in the Java language. Functions, and especially passing functions to other functions, creates a more natural motivation for designing methods accepting arguments with flexible means for consuming values. Functions are notorious for consuming values.

So finally leaving the Collections Framework, let us apply the general understanding we now should have on where the two types of wildcard apply to method signatures:

extends adds flexibility to return types, but disables method parameter types

adds flexibility to return types, but disables method parameter types super adds flexibility to method parameter types, but makes return types not useful

So which simple concept can we apply this knowledge to in an actual useful way? The new facilities introduced in Java 8: Functional Interfaces. You are probably already passing lambdas and method references to various methods in APIs of the JDK and third parties which utilizes both types of wildcards. The Function<T, R> interface is a perfect fit for both super and extends , because its two type parameters, T and R , assigns types to respectively a method input parameter type, and a return type.

Say that every vehicle has a name, so we add a method for getting it to Vehicle . Then, with an instance of another ubiquitous type introduced in Java 8, an Optional , we wish to map the Car to a String containing the car's name:

Optional < Car > car = Optional . of ( new Car ( ) ) ; String carName = car . map ( Vehicle : : getName ) . orElse ( "no car" ) ;

This is simple enough, nothing controversial. But what is the type of Vehicle::getName ? Let's assign it to a reference to make it more explicit:

Optional < Car > car = Optional . of ( new Car ( ) ) ; Function < Vehicle , String > getName = Vehicle : : getName ; String carName = car . map ( getName ) . orElse ( "no car" ) ;

Here we see that the signature of the method reference is Function<Vehicle, String> , so the .map(..) -method is able to accept a Function which is parameterized with a super-type of what is contained in the Optional . The signature of the method is declared like this:

< U > Optional < U > map ( Function < ? super T , ? extends U > mapper ) ;

And we recognize the super wildcard being used for the type parameter for what the function declares as it's input type. It is perfectly valid to do that since the contained value of the Optional is passed to the given mapping function, and it is up to the caller of .map() to pass a function of appropriate level of generality. It may be as specific as only accepting Car , but not anything more specific. I.e. a subclass of Car will not be allowed, because the type system can not guarantee the value is anything more specific than a Car .

The effect of the extends wildcard is a bit more subtle. It enables the function to return a more specific type than the resulting type parameter of the returned Optional<U> . This kind of flexibility is important, as the resulting Optional could very likely be used as a return value from a method which signature is already defined by an interface, or for some other reason needs to be assigned to an Optional of a less specific type. And, as already demonstrated, an Optional<A> is never compatible with Optional<B> even though if B is a subclass of A . But the extends wildcard enables the function to for instance return a value of type String , and if the result of the mapping must be of type Optional<CharSequence> , the compiler is inspecting the target type to verify it is parameterized with a super-type of the type returned from the function, making it in fact assignable.

Optional < CharSequence > getCarName ( ) { Optional < Car > car = Optional . of ( new Car ( ) ) ; Function < Vehicle , String > getName = Vehicle : : getName ; return car . map ( getName ) ; }

Recalling the signature of Optional.map(..) , the compiler verifies that String , when substituted with U such that ? extends String , is indeed a type which extends the target type parameter of CharSequence . This holds, and the compiler can safely allow this type transformation.

Summary

Types are about guarantees of the constructs we are working on in code. For a type system to be sound it must maintain the integrity of values starting out as some specific type, and being passed around and referred to as potentially less specific types by code on various levels of generality. Treating values as less specific parameterized types than what it was originally conceived as, imposes certain restrictions on how the parameter types may be used.

The intention of this article has been to give an understanding and appreciation for how types enables to prove certain properties of our programs, automatically, and how maintaining the integrity of these proofs requires the type system to be very strict about how hierarchies of types are managed, and how working with parameterized types in hierarchies naturally imposes restrictions on what operations are possible to safely perform with generic types. The use of familiar examples instead of introducing theoretical concepts on type theory, should hopefully help the reader being able to begin to internalize more advanced use of Java Generics.