使用单个语句更方便,更简洁,比如
import java.awt.*;
而不是导入一堆单独的类
import java.awt.Panel;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.Canvas;
...
在import语句中使用通配符有什么问题?
使用单个语句更方便,更简洁,比如
import java.awt.*;
而不是导入一堆单独的类
import java.awt.Panel;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.Canvas;
...
在import语句中使用通配符有什么问题?
当前回答
在Java import语句中使用通配符并不坏。
在《Clean Code》中,Robert C. Martin建议使用它们来避免冗长的导入列表。
以下是建议:
J1: Avoid Long Import Lists by Using Wildcards If you use two or more classes from a package, then import the whole package with import package.*; Long lists of imports are daunting to the reader. We don’t want to clutter up the tops of our modules with 80 lines of imports. Rather we want the imports to be a concise statement about which packages we collaborate with. Specific imports are hard dependencies, whereas wildcard imports are not. If you specifically import a class, then that class must exist. But if you import a package with a wildcard, no particular classes need to exist. The import statement simply adds the package to the search path when hunting for names. So no true dependency is created by such imports, and they therefore serve to keep our modules less coupled. There are times when the long list of specific imports can be useful. For example, if you are dealing with legacy code and you want to find out what classes you need to build mocks and stubs for, you can walk down the list of specific imports to find out the true qualified names of all those classes and then put the appropriate stubs in place. However, this use for specific imports is very rare. Furthermore, most modern IDEs will allow you to convert the wildcarded imports to a list of specific imports with a single command. So even in the legacy case it’s better to import wildcards. Wildcard imports can sometimes cause name conflicts and ambiguities. Two classes with the same name, but in different packages, will need to be specifically imported, or at least specifically qualified when used. This can be a nuisance but is rare enough that using wildcard imports is still generally better than specific imports.
其他回答
在DDD书中
在实现将基于的任何开发技术中,寻找最小化的方法 重构模块的工作。在Java中,无法逃避导入到单个类中,只能逃避导入到您 一次至少可以导入整个包,以反映包是高度内聚单元的意图吗 同时减少了更改包名的工作量。
如果它弄乱了本地命名空间,那不是你的错——是包的大小造成的。
它使您的名称空间变得混乱,要求您完全指定任何有歧义的类名。最常见的情况是:
import java.util.*;
import java.awt.*;
...
List blah; // Ambiguous, needs to be qualified.
它还有助于使依赖项具体化,因为所有依赖项都列在文件的顶部。
郑重声明: 当您添加导入时,您也在指示您的依赖项。
您可以很快看到文件的依赖关系(不包括相同名称空间的类)。
以下是我关于这个话题的一些发现。
During compilation, the compiler tries to find classes that are used in the code from the .* import and the corresponding byte code will be generated by selecting the used classes from .* import. So the byte code of using .* import or .class names import will be same and the runtime performance will also be the same because of the same byte code. In each compilation, the compiler has to scan all the classes of .* package to match the classes that are actually used in the code. So, code with .* import takes more time during the compilation process as compared to using .class name imports. Using .* import helps to make code more cleaner Using .* import can create ambiguity when we use two classes of the same name from two different packages. Eg, Date is available in both packages. import java.util.*; import java.sql.*; public class DateDemo { private Date utilDate; private Date sqlDate; }
忘掉混乱的命名空间……想想那些不得不在GitHub、vi、notepad++或其他非ide文本编辑器中阅读和理解你的代码的可怜人吧。
这个人必须煞费苦心地查找每个通配符作用域中所有类和引用中来自一个通配符的每个标记……只是想搞清楚到底发生了什么。
如果你只是为编译器编写代码——而且你知道你在做什么——我相信通配符没有问题。
但是,如果其他人(包括未来的您)希望一次阅读就能快速理解某个特定的代码文件,那么显式引用会有很大帮助。