What is the difference between the HashMap and Map objects in Java?

Question

What is the difference between the following maps I create (in another question, people answered using them seemingly interchangeably and I\'m wondering if/how they are diff

Answer 1

There is no difference between the objects; you have a HashMap<String, Object> in both cases. There is a difference in the interface you have to the object. In the first case, the interface is HashMap<String, Object>, whereas in the second it's Map<String, Object>. But the underlying object is the same.

The advantage to using Map<String, Object> is that you can change the underlying object to be a different kind of map without breaking your contract with any code that's using it. If you declare it as HashMap<String, Object>, you have to change your contract if you want to change the underlying implementation.

---

Example: Let's say I write this class:

class Foo {
    private HashMap<String, Object> things;
    private HashMap<String, Object> moreThings;

    protected HashMap<String, Object> getThings() {
        return this.things;
    }

    protected HashMap<String, Object> getMoreThings() {
        return this.moreThings;
    }

    public Foo() {
        this.things = new HashMap<String, Object>();
        this.moreThings = new HashMap<String, Object>();
    }

    // ...more...
}

The class has a couple of internal maps of string->object which it shares (via accessor methods) with subclasses. Let's say I write it with HashMaps to start with because I think that's the appropriate structure to use when writing the class.

Later, Mary writes code subclassing it. She has something she needs to do with both things and moreThings, so naturally she puts that in a common method, and she uses the same type I used on getThings/getMoreThings when defining her method:

class SpecialFoo extends Foo {
    private void doSomething(HashMap<String, Object> t) {
        // ...
    }

    public void whatever() {
        this.doSomething(this.getThings());
        this.doSomething(this.getMoreThings());
    }

    // ...more...
}

Later, I decide that actually, it's better if I use TreeMap instead of HashMap in Foo. I update Foo, changing HashMap to TreeMap. Now, SpecialFoo doesn't compile anymore, because I've broken the contract: Foo used to say it provided HashMaps, but now it's providing TreeMaps instead. So we have to fix SpecialFoo now (and this kind of thing can ripple through a codebase).

Unless I had a really good reason for sharing that my implementation was using a HashMap (and that does happen), what I should have done was declare getThings and getMoreThings as just returning Map<String, Object> without being any more specific than that. In fact, barring a good reason to do something else, even within Foo I should probably declare things and moreThings as Map, not HashMap/TreeMap:

class Foo {
    private Map<String, Object> things;             // <== Changed
    private Map<String, Object> moreThings;         // <== Changed

    protected Map<String, Object> getThings() {     // <== Changed
        return this.things;
    }

    protected Map<String, Object> getMoreThings() { // <== Changed
        return this.moreThings;
    }

    public Foo() {
        this.things = new HashMap<String, Object>();
        this.moreThings = new HashMap<String, Object>();
    }

    // ...more...
}

Note how I'm now using Map<String, Object> everywhere I can, only being specific when I create the actual objects.

If I had done that, then Mary would have done this:

class SpecialFoo extends Foo {
    private void doSomething(Map<String, Object> t) { // <== Changed
        // ...
    }

    public void whatever() {
        this.doSomething(this.getThings());
        this.doSomething(this.getMoreThings());
    }
}

...and changing Foo wouldn't have made SpecialFoo stop compiling.

Interfaces (and base classes) let us reveal only as much as is necessary, keeping our flexibility under the covers to make changes as appropriate. In general, we want to have our references be as basic as possible. If we don't need to know it's a HashMap, just call it a Map.

This isn't a blind rule, but in general, coding to the most general interface is going to be less brittle than coding to something more specific. If I'd remembered that, I wouldn't have created a Foo that set Mary up for failure with SpecialFoo. If Mary had remembered that, then even though I messed up Foo, she would have declared her private method with Map instead of HashMap and my changing Foo's contract wouldn't have impacted her code.

Sometimes you can't do that, sometimes you have to be specific. But unless you have a reason to be, err toward the least-specific interface.

Answer 2

As noted by TJ Crowder and Adamski, one reference is to an interface, the other to a specific implementation of the interface. According to Joshua Block, you should always attempt to code to interfaces, to allow you to better handle changes to underlying implementation - i.e. if HashMap suddenly was not ideal for your solution and you needed to change the map implementation, you could still use the Map interface, and change the instantiation type.

Answer 3

You create the same maps.

But you can fill the difference when you will use it. With first case you'll be able to use special HashMap methods (but I don't remember anyone realy useful), and you'll be able to pass it as a HashMap parameter:

public void foo (HashMap<String, Object) { ... }

...

HashMap<String, Object> m1 = ...;
Map<String, Object> m2 = ...;

foo (m1);
foo ((HashMap<String, Object>)m2); 

Answer 4

Map is the Interface and Hashmap is the class that implements that.

So in this implementation you create the same objects

Answer 5

Map is an interface that HashMap implements. The difference is that in the second implementation your reference to the HashMap will only allow the use of functions defined in the Map interface, while the first will allow the use of any public functions in HashMap (which includes the Map interface).

It will probably make more sense if you read Sun's interface tutorial

Answer 6

I was just going to do this as a comment on the accepted answer but it got too funky (I hate not having line breaks)

ah, so the difference is that in general, Map has certain methods associated with it. but there are different ways or creating a map, such as a HashMap, and these different ways provide unique methods that not all maps have.

Exactly--and you always want to use the most general interface you possibly can. Consider ArrayList vs LinkedList. Huge difference in how you use them, but if you use "List" you can switch between them readily.

In fact, you can replace the right-hand side of the initializer with a more dynamic statement. how about something like this:

List collection;
if(keepSorted)
    collection=new LinkedList();
else
    collection=new ArrayList();

This way if you are going to fill in the collection with an insertion sort, you would use a linked list (an insertion sort into an array list is criminal.) But if you don't need to keep it sorted and are just appending, you use an ArrayList (More efficient for other operations).

This is a pretty big stretch here because collections aren't the best example, but in OO design one of the most important concepts is using the interface facade to access different objects with the exact same code.

Edit responding to comment:

As for your map comment below, Yes using the "Map" interface restricts you to only those methods unless you cast the collection back from Map to HashMap (which COMPLETELY defeats the purpose).

Often what you will do is create an object and fill it in using it's specific type (HashMap), in some kind of "create" or "initialize" method, but that method will return a "Map" that doesn't need to be manipulated as a HashMap any more.

If you ever have to cast by the way, you are probably using the wrong interface or your code isn't structured well enough. Note that it is acceptable to have one section of your code treat it as a "HashMap" while the other treats it as a "Map", but this should flow "down". so that you are never casting.

Also notice the semi-neat aspect of roles indicated by interfaces. A LinkedList makes a good stack or queue, an ArrayList makes a good stack but a horrific queue (again, a remove would cause a shift of the entire list) so LinkedList implements the Queue interface, ArrayList does not.