Why can final object be modified?

Question

I came across the following code in a code base I am working on:

public final class ConfigurationService {
    private static final ConfigurationService INSTANCE = new ConfigurationService();
    private List providers;

    private ConfigurationService() {
        providers = new ArrayList();
    }

    public static void addProvider(ConfigurationProvider provider) {
        INSTANCE.providers.add(provider);
    }

    ...

INSTANCE is declared as final. Why can objects be added to INSTANCE? Shouldn't that invalidate the use of final. (It doesn't).

I'm assuming the answer has to do something with pointers and memory but would like to know for sure.

Solution 1

final simply makes the object reference unchangeable. The object it points to is not immutable by doing this. INSTANCE can never refer to another object, but the object it refers to may change state.

Solution 2

Being final is not the same as being immutable.

final != immutable

The final keyword is used to make sure the reference is not changed ( that is, the reference it has can't be substituted with a new one )

But, if the attribute is self is modifiable it is ok to do what you have just described.

For instance

class SomeHighLevelClass {
    public final MutableObject someFinalObject = new MutableObject();
}

If we instantiate this class, we won't be able to assign other value to the the attribute someFinalObject because it is final.

So this is not possible:

....
SomeHighLevelClass someObject = new SomeHighLevelClass();
MutableObject impostor  = new MutableObject();
someObject.someFinal = impostor; // not allowed because someFinal is .. well final

But if the object it self is mutable like this:

class MutableObject {
     private int n = 0;

     public void incrementNumber() {
         n++;
     }
     public String toString(){
         return ""+n;
     }
}  

Then, the value contained by that mutable object may be changed.

SomeHighLevelClass someObject = new SomeHighLevelClass();

someObject.someFinal.incrementNumber();
someObject.someFinal.incrementNumber();
someObject.someFinal.incrementNumber();

System.out.println( someObject.someFinal ); // prints 3

This has the same effect that your post:

public static void addProvider(ConfigurationProvider provider) {
    INSTANCE.providers.add(provider);
}

Here you are not changing the value of INSTANCE, your are modifying its internal state ( via, providers.add method )

if you want to prevent that the class definition should be changed like this:

public final class ConfigurationService {
    private static final ConfigurationService INSTANCE = new ConfigurationService();
    private List providers;

    private ConfigurationService() {
        providers = new ArrayList();
    }
    // Avoid modifications      
    //public static void addProvider(ConfigurationProvider provider) {
    //    INSTANCE.providers.add(provider);
    //}
    // No mutators allowed anymore :) 
....

But, it might not make much sense :)

By the way, you also have to synchronize access to it basically for the same reason.

Solution 3

The key to the misunderstanding is in your question's title. It's not the object which is final, it's the variable. The variable's value can't change, but the data within it can.

Always remember that when you declare a reference type variable, the value of that variable is a reference, not an object.

Solution 4

final just means the reference can't be changed. You can't reassign INSTANCE to another reference if it's declared as final. The internal state of the object is still mutable.

final ConfigurationService INSTANCE = new ConfigurationService();
ConfigurationService anotherInstance = new ConfigurationService();
INSTANCE = anotherInstance;

would throw a compilation error

Solution 5

Once a final variable has been assigned, it always contains the same value. If a final variable holds a reference to an object, then the state of the object may be changed by operations on the object, but the variable will always refer to the same object. This applies also to arrays, because arrays are objects; if a final variable holds a reference to an array, then the components of the array may be changed by operations on the array, but the variable will always refer to the same array.

Source

Here's a guide on making an object immutable.

View more solutions

Comments

[Abel Morelos]

+1, For more details please check java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/…, section 4.5.4.

[diegoaguilar]

So let's say I deserialize an ConfigurationService object and I try to do a INSTANCE = deserializedConfigurationService wouldn't be allowed?

[Sean Owen]

You could never assign INSTANCE to refer to another object. It doesn't matter where the other object came from. (NB there is one INSTANCE per ClassLoader that has loaded this class. You could in theory load the class several times in one JVM and each is separate. But this is a different, technical point.)

[Sean Owen]

@AkhilGite your edit to my answer made it wrong; it actually reversed the sense of the sentence, which was correct. The reference is immutable. The object remains mutable. It does not "become immutable".

[AkhilGite]

@SeanOwen Sry for the edit I did, Your statement is completely right and Thanks.