generic implementation for future flexibility

public class CollectionsRef {
 
    private HashSet<Integer> numbers;
 
    public ArrayList<String> getList() {
 
        return new ArrayList<String>();
    }
 
    public void setNumbers(HashSet<Integer> numbers) {
        this.numbers = numbers;
    }
}
Look at the reference types which are collection implementation classes - this locks the code to work with only these classes HashSet and ArrayList. What if we want the method getList() can return a LinkedList and the method setNumbers() can accept a TreeSet?
The above class can be improved by replace the class references to interface references like this:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
public class CollectionsRef {
 
    private Set<Integer> numbers;
 
    public List<String> getList() {
        // can return any kind of List
     [b]   return new ArrayList<String>();[/b]
    }
 
    public void setNumbers(Set<Integer> numbers) {
        // can accept any kind of Set
        this.numbers = numbers;
    }
}

Open in new window


can we have generic List as return type to provide more flexibility to future changes to collection implementation?
https://www.codejava.net/coding/10-java-core-best-practices-every-java-programmer-should-know
Please advise
LVL 7
gudii9Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

mccarlIT Business Systems Analyst / Software DeveloperCommented:
Yes!

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
ste5anSenior DeveloperCommented:
No.

Cause the reason for choosing the correct type is not "being future proof". This would be an wasted effort.

The reason for choosing a more generic type is that you're able to change between different kind of collections used in your implementation. This is part of polymorphism in OOP.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
System Programming

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.