Map<String, Map<String, Boolean>> myMap = new HashMap<String,HashMap<String,Boolean>>();

24,458

Solution 1

This is because generics in Java are invariant, i.e. even if class B is an A, a Collection<B> is not a Collection<A>.

And this is for a good reason. If your example were legal, this would be possible:

Map<String, HashMap<String, Boolean>> myHashMap = new HashMap<String,HashMap<String,Boolean>>();
Map<String, Map<String, Boolean>> myMap = myHashMap;
myMap.put("oops", new TreeMap<String, Boolean>());
HashMap<String, Boolean> aHashMap = myMap.get("oops"); // oops - ClassCastException!

Solution 2

In the second case myMap is a map which keys are of type String and values are of type Map<String, Boolean>. HashMap<String, Boolean> is not a Map<String, Boolean> it implements it. Therefore, this will compile:

Map<String, ? extends Map<String, Boolean>> myOtherMap = 
    new HashMap<String,HashMap<String,Boolean>>();
Share:
24,458
NimChimpsky
Author by

NimChimpsky

side hustle : metriculous.network Spring is too bloated, I created my own web app framework Infrequent tweets What if programming languages were methods to eat an orange?

Updated on October 03, 2020

Comments

  • NimChimpsky
    NimChimpsky over 3 years

    Why doesn't that work in java, but this does

    Map<String, Map<String, Boolean>> myMap = new HashMap<String,Map<String,Boolean>>();
    

    Just to clarify the below alteration of the nested HashMap shows a compiler error, whereas the above does not not; with a Map (not hashmap)

    Map<String, Map<String, Boolean>> myMap = new HashMap<String,HashMap<String,Boolean>>();