The name reflection is used to describe code which is able to inspect other code in the same system (or itself).
For example, say you have an object of an unknown type in Java, and you would like to call a 'doSomething' method on it if one exists. Java's static typing system isn't really designed to support this unless the object conforms to a known interface, but using reflection, your code can look at the object and find out if it has a method called 'doSomething' and then call it if you want to.
So, to give you a code example of this in Java (imagine the object in question is foo) :
Method method = foo.getClass().getMethod("doSomething", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
One very common use case in Java is the usage with annotations. JUnit 4, for example, will use reflection to look through your classes for methods tagged with the @Test annotation, and will then call them when running the unit test.
There are some good reflection examples to get you started at http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/index.html
And finally, yes, the concepts are pretty much similar in other statically typed languages which support reflection (like C#). In dynamically typed languages, the use case described above is less necessary (since the compiler will allow any method to be called on any object, failing at runtime if it does not exist), but the second case of looking for methods which are marked or work in a certain way is still common.
Update from a comment:
The ability to inspect the code in the system and see object types is
not reflection, but rather Type Introspection. Reflection is then the
ability to make modifications at runtime by making use of
introspection. The distinction is necessary here as some languages
support introspection, but do not support reflection. One such example
is C++
There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereas HashMap
is not. This makes HashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.
Hashtable
does not allow null
keys or values. HashMap
allows one null
key and any number of null
values.
One of HashMap's subclasses is LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out the HashMap
for a LinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were using Hashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
Best Answer
The main difference from a user perspective - which I think the previous answer does not stress enough - is that Metaspace by default auto increases its size (up to what the underlying OS provides), while PermGen always has a fixed maximum size. You can set a fixed maximum for Metaspace with JVM parameters, but you cannot make PermGen auto-increase.
To a large degree it is just a change of name. Back when PermGen was introduced, there was no Java EE or dynamic class(un)loading, so once a class was loaded it was stuck in memory until the JVM shut down - thus Permanent Generation. Nowadays classes may be loaded and unloaded during the lifespan of the JVM, so Metaspace makes more sense for the area where the metadata is kept.
Both of them contain the
java.lang.Class
instances and both of them suffer from ClassLoader leaks. Only difference is that with Metaspace default settings, it takes longer until you notice the symptoms (since it auto increases as much as it can), i.e. you just push the problem further away without solving it. OTOH I imagine the effect of running out of OS memory can be more severe than just running out of JVM PermGen, so I'm not sure it is much of an improvement.Whether you're using a JVM with PermGen or with Metaspace, if you are doing dynamic class unloading, you should to take measures against classloader leaks, for example by using my ClassLoader Leak Prevention library.