If a class that was not declared abstract is changed to be declared abstract, then pre-existing binaries that attempt to create new instances of that class will throw either an InstantiationError at link time, or (if a reflective method is used) an InstantiationException at run time; such a change is therefore not recommended for widely distributed classes.

Changing a class that is declared abstract to no longer be declared abstract does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

If a class that was not declared final is changed to be declared final, then a VerifyError is thrown if a binary of a pre-existing subclass of this class is loaded, because final classes can have no subclasses; such a change is not recommended for widely distributed classes.

Changing a class that is declared final to no longer be declared final does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

Changing a class that is not declared public to be declared public does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

If a class that was declared public is changed to not be declared public, then an IllegalAccessError is thrown if a pre-existing binary is linked that needs but no longer has access to the class type; such a change is not recommended for widely distributed classes.

A ClassCircularityError is thrown at load time if a class would be a superclass of itself. Changes to the class hierarchy that could result in such a circularity when newly compiled binaries are loaded with pre-existing binaries are not recommended for widely distributed classes.

Changing the direct superclass or the set of direct superinterfaces of a class type will not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries, provided that the total set of superclasses or superinterfaces, respectively, of the class type loses no members.

If a change to the direct superclass or the set of direct superinterfaces results in any class or interface no longer being a superclass or superinterface, respectively, then linkage errors may result if pre-existing binaries are loaded with the binary of the modified class. Such changes are not recommended for widely distributed classes.

class Hyper { char h = 'h'; } 
class Super extends Hyper { char s = 's'; }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void printH(Hyper h) {
        System.out.println(h.h);
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        printH(new Super());
    }
}

h

class Super { char s = 's'; }

s

try {
    throwAorB();
} catch(ExceptionA | ExceptionB e) {
    ...
}

Adding or removing a type parameter of a class does not, in itself, have any implications for binary compatibility.

If such a type parameter is used in the type of a field or method, that may have the normal implications of changing the aforementioned type.

Renaming a type parameter of a class has no effect with respect to pre-existing binaries.

Changing the first bound of a type parameter of a class may change the erasure (§4.6) of any member that uses that type parameter in its own type, and this may affect binary compatibility. The change of such a bound is analogous to the change of the first bound of a type parameter of a method or constructor (§13.4.13).

Changing any other bound has no effect on binary compatibility.

No incompatibility with pre-existing binaries is caused by adding an instance (respectively static) member that has the same name and accessibility (for fields), or same name and accessibility and signature and return type (for methods), as an instance (respectively static) member of a superclass or subclass. No error occurs even if the set of classes being linked would encounter a compile-time error.

Deleting a class member or constructor that is not declared private may cause a linkage error if the member or constructor is used by a pre-existing binary.

class Hyper {
    void hello() { System.out.println("hello from Hyper"); }
}
class Super extends Hyper {
    void hello() { System.out.println("hello from Super"); }
}
class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Super().hello();
    }
}

hello from Super

class Super extends Hyper {}

hello from Hyper

The super keyword can be used to access a method declared in a superclass, bypassing any methods declared in the current class. The expression super.Identifier is resolved, at compile time, to a method m in the superclass S. If the method m is an instance method, then the method which is invoked at run time is the method with the same signature as m that is a member of the direct superclass of the class containing the expression involving super.

class Hyper {
    void hello() { System.out.println("hello from Hyper"); }
}
class Super extends Hyper { }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        new Test().hello();
    }
    void hello() {
        super.hello();
    }
}

hello from Hyper

class Super extends Hyper {
    void hello() { System.out.println("hello from Super"); }
}

hello from Super

Changing the declared access of a member or constructor to permit less access may break compatibility with pre-existing binaries, causing a linkage error to be thrown when these binaries are resolved. Less access is permitted if the access modifier is changed from package access to private access; from protected access to package or private access; or from public access to protected, package, or private access. Changing a member or constructor to permit less access is therefore not recommended for widely distributed classes.

Perhaps surprisingly, the binary format is defined so that changing a member or constructor to be more accessible does not cause a linkage error when a subclass (already) defines a method to have less access.

package points;
public class Point {
    public int x, y;
    protected void print() {
        System.out.println("(" + x + "," + y + ")");
    }
}

class Test extends points.Point {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Test t = new Test();
        t.print();
    }
    protected void print() { 
        System.out.println("Test"); 
    }
}

Test

Allowing superclasses to change protected methods to be public without breaking binaries of pre-existing subclasses helps make binaries less fragile. The alternative, where such a change would cause a linkage error, would create additional binary incompatibilities.

Widely distributed programs should not expose any fields to their clients. Apart from the binary compatibility issues discussed below, this is generally good software engineering practice. Adding a field to a class may break compatibility with pre-existing binaries that are not recompiled.

Assume a reference to a field f with qualifying type T. Assume further that f is in fact an instance (respectively static) field declared in a superclass of T, S, and that the type of f is X.

If a new field of type X with the same name as f is added to a subclass of S that is a superclass of T or T itself, then a linkage error may occur. Such a linkage error will occur only if, in addition to the above, either one of the following is true:

In particular, no linkage error will occur in the case where a class could no longer be recompiled because a field access previously referenced a field of a superclass with an incompatible type. The previously compiled class with such a reference will continue to reference the field declared in a superclass.

class Hyper { String h = "hyper"; }
class Super extends Hyper { String s = "super"; }
class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println(new Super().h);
    }
}

hyper

class Super extends Hyper {
    String s = "super";
    int h = 0;
}

hyper

class Hyper { String h = "Hyper"; }
class Super extends Hyper { }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String s = new Test().h;
        System.out.println(s);
    }
}

Hyper

class Super extends Hyper { char h = 'h'; }

Hyper

class Hyper { String h = "Hyper"; }
class Super extends Hyper { char h = 'h'; }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        String s = new Test().h;
        System.out.println(s);
    }
}

Deleting a field from a class will break compatibility with any pre-existing binaries that reference this field, and a NoSuchFieldError will be thrown when such a reference from a pre-existing binary is linked. Only private fields may be safely deleted from a widely distributed class.

For purposes of binary compatibility, adding or removing a field f whose type involves type variables (§4.4) or parameterized types (§4.5) is equivalent to the addition (respectively, removal) of a field of the same name whose type is the erasure (§4.6) of the type of f.

If a field that was not declared final is changed to be declared final, then it can break compatibility with pre-existing binaries that attempt to assign new values to the field.

class Super { char s; }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Super x = new Super();
        x.s = 'a';
        System.out.println(x.s);
    }
}

a

class Super { final char s = 'b'; }

Deleting the keyword final or changing the value to which a field is initialized does not break compatibility with existing binaries.

If a field is a constant variable (§4.12.4), and moreover is static, then deleting the keyword final or changing its value will not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries by causing them not to run, but they will not see any new value for a usage of the field unless they are recompiled. This result is a side-effect of the decision to support conditional compilation (§14.21). (One might suppose that the new value is not seen if the usage occurs in a constant expression (§15.28) but is seen otherwise. This is not so; pre-existing binaries do not see the new value at all.)

Another reason for requiring inlining of values of static constant variables is because of switch statements. They are the only kind of statement that relies on constant expressions, namely that each case label of a switch statement must be a constant expression whose value is different than every other case label. case labels are often references to static constant variables so it may not be immediately obvious that all the labels have different values. If it is proven that there are no duplicate labels at compile time, then inlining the values into the class file ensures there are no duplicate labels at run time either - a very desirable property.

class Flags { static final boolean debug = true; }
class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        if (Flags.debug)
            System.out.println("debug is true");
    }
}

debug is true

class Flags { static final boolean debug = false; }

debug is true

interface Flags { boolean debug = true; }
class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        if (Flags.debug)
            System.out.println("debug is true");
    }
}

The best way to avoid problems with "inconstant constants" in widely-distributed code is to use static constant variables only for values which truly are unlikely ever to change. Other than for true mathematical constants, we recommend that source code make very sparing use of static constant variables.

private static int N;
public static int getN() { return N; }

public static final int N = ...;

public static int N = ...;

We recommend, as a general rule, that only constant expressions be assigned to fields of interfaces.

We note, but do not recommend, that if a field of primitive type of an interface may change, its value may be expressed idiomatically as in:

interface Flags {
    boolean debug = new Boolean(true).booleanValue();
}

ensuring that this value is not a constant. Similar idioms exist for the other primitive types.

One other thing to note is that static constant variables must never appear to have the default initial value for their type (§4.12.5). This means that all such fields appear to be initialized first during class initialization (§8.3.2, §9.3.1, §12.4.2).

If a field that is not declared private was not declared static and is changed to be declared static, or vice versa, then a linkage error, specifically an IncompatibleClassChangeError, will result if the field is used by a pre-existing binary which expected a field of the other kind. Such changes are not recommended in code that has been widely distributed.

Adding or deleting a transient modifier of a field does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

Adding a method or constructor declaration to a class will not break compatibility with any pre-existing binaries, even in the case where a type could no longer be recompiled because an invocation previously referenced a method or constructor of a superclass with an incompatible type. The previously compiled class with such a reference will continue to reference the method or constructor declared in a superclass.

Assume a reference to a method m with qualifying type T. Assume further that m is in fact an instance (respectively static) method declared in a superclass of T, S.

If a new method of type X with the same signature and return type as m is added to a subclass of S that is a superclass of T or T itself, then a linkage error may occur. Such a linkage error will occur only if, in addition to the above, either one of the following is true:

Deleting a method or constructor from a class may break compatibility with any pre-existing binary that referenced this method or constructor; a NoSuchMethodError may be thrown when such a reference from a pre-existing binary is linked. Such an error will occur only if no method with a matching signature and return type is declared in a superclass.

If the source code for a non-inner class contains no declared constructors, then a default constructor with no parameters is implicitly declared (§8.8.9). Adding one or more constructor declarations to the source code of such a class will prevent this default constructor from being implicitly declared, effectively deleting a constructor, unless one of the new constructors also has no parameters, thus replacing the default constructor. The default constructor with no parameters is given the same access modifier as the class of its declaration, so any replacement should have as much or more access if compatibility with pre-existing binaries is to be preserved.

Adding or removing a type parameter of a method or constructor does not, in itself, have any implications for binary compatibility.

If such a type parameter is used in the type of the method or constructor, that may have the normal implications of changing the aforementioned type.

Renaming a type parameter of a method or constructor has no effect with respect to pre-existing binaries.

Changing the first bound of a type parameter of a method or constructor may change the erasure (§4.6) of any member that uses that type parameter in its own type, and this may affect binary compatibility. Specifically:

Changing any other bound has no effect on binary compatibility.

Changing the name of a formal parameter of a method or constructor does not impact pre-existing binaries.

Changing the name of a method, or the type of a formal parameter to a method or constructor, or adding a parameter to or deleting a parameter from a method or constructor declaration creates a method or constructor with a new signature, and has the combined effect of deleting the method or constructor with the old signature and adding a method or constructor with the new signature (§13.4.12).

Changing the type of the last formal parameter of a method from T[] to a variable arity parameter (§8.4.1) of type T (i.e. to T...), and vice versa, does not impact pre-existing binaries.

For purposes of binary compatibility, adding or removing a method or constructor m whose signature involves type variables (§4.4) or parameterized types (§4.5) is equivalent to the addition (respectively, removal) of an otherwise equivalent method whose signature is the erasure (§4.6) of the signature of m.

Changing the result type of a method, or replacing a result type with void, or replacing void with a result type, has the combined effect of deleting the old method and adding a new method with the new result type or newly void result (see §13.4.12).

For purposes of binary compatibility, adding or removing a method or constructor m whose return type involves type variables (§4.4) or parameterized types (§4.5) is equivalent to the addition (respectively, removal) of the an otherwise equivalent method whose return type is the erasure (§4.6) of the return type of m.

Changing a method that is declared abstract to no longer be declared abstract does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

Changing a method that is not declared abstract to be declared abstract will break compatibility with pre-existing binaries that previously invoked the method, causing an AbstractMethodError.

class Super { void out() { System.out.println("Out"); } }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Test t = new Test();
        System.out.println("Way ");
        t.out();
    }
}

Way
Out

abstract class Super {
    abstract void out();
}

Changing a method that is declared final to no longer be declared final does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

Changing an instance method that is not declared final to be declared final may break compatibility with existing binaries that depend on the ability to override the method.

class Super { void out() { System.out.println("out"); } }
class Test extends Super {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Test t = new Test();
        t.out();
    }
    void out() { super.out(); }
}

out

class Super { final void out() { System.out.println("!"); } }

Changing a class (static) method that is not declared final to be declared final does not break compatibility with existing binaries, because the method could not have been overridden.

Adding or deleting a native modifier of a method does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

The impact of changes to types on pre-existing native methods that are not recompiled is beyond the scope of this specification and should be provided with the description of an implementation. Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to implement native methods in a way that limits such impact.

If a method that is not declared private is also declared static (that is, a class method) and is changed to not be declared static (that is, to an instance method), or vice versa, then compatibility with pre-existing binaries may be broken, resulting in a linkage time error, namely an IncompatibleClassChangeError, if these methods are used by the pre-existing binaries. Such changes are not recommended in code that has been widely distributed.

Adding or deleting a synchronized modifier of a method does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

Changes to the throws clause of methods or constructors do not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries; these clauses are checked only at compile time.

Changes to the body of a method or constructor do not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

The keyword final on a method does not mean that the method can be safely inlined; it means only that the method cannot be overridden. It is still possible that a new version of that method will be provided at link-time. Furthermore, the structure of the original program must be preserved for purposes of reflection.

Therefore, we note that a Java compiler cannot expand a method inline at compile time. In general we suggest that implementations use late-bound (run-time) code generation and optimization.

Adding new methods or constructors that overload existing methods or constructors does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries. The signature to be used for each invocation was determined when these existing binaries were compiled; therefore newly added methods or constructors will not be used, even if their signatures are both applicable and more specific than the signature originally chosen.

While adding a new overloaded method or constructor may cause a compile-time error the next time a class or interface is compiled because there is no method or constructor that is most specific (§15.12.2.5), no such error occurs when a program is executed, because no overload resolution is done at execution time.

class Super {
    static void out(float f) {
        System.out.println("float");
    }
}
class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Super.out(2);
    }
}

float

class Super {
    static void out(float f) { System.out.println("float"); }
    static void out(int i)   { System.out.println("int");   }
}

float

int

If an instance method is added to a subclass and it overrides a method in a superclass, then the subclass method will be found by method invocations in pre-existing binaries, and these binaries are not impacted.

If a class method is added to a class, then this method will not be found unless the qualifying type of the reference is the subclass type.

Adding, deleting, or changing a static initializer (§8.7) of a class does not impact pre-existing binaries.

Adding or reordering constants in an enum will not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

If a pre-existing binary attempts to access an enum constant that no longer exists, the client will fail at run time with a NoSuchFieldError. Therefore such a change is not recommended for widely distributed enums.

In all other respects, the binary compatibility rules for enums are identical to those for classes.

Changing an interface that is not declared public to be declared public does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

If an interface that is declared public is changed to not be declared public, then an IllegalAccessError is thrown if a pre-existing binary is linked that needs but no longer has access to the interface type, so such a change is not recommended for widely distributed interfaces.

Changes to the interface hierarchy cause errors in the same way that changes to the class hierarchy do, as described in §13.4.4. In particular, changes that result in any previous superinterface of a class no longer being a superinterface can break compatibility with pre-existing binaries, resulting in a VerifyError.

Adding an abstract method to an interface does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries.

A field added to a superinterface of C may hide a field inherited from a superclass of C. If the original reference was to an instance field, an IncompatibleClassChangeError will result. If the original reference was an assignment, an IllegalAccessError will result.

Deleting a member from an interface may cause linkage errors in pre-existing binaries.

interface I { void hello(); }
class Test implements I {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        I anI = new Test();
        anI.hello();
    }
    public void hello() { System.out.println("hello"); }
}

hello

interface I {}

The effects of changes to the type parameters of an interface are the same as those of analogous changes to the type parameters of a class.

The considerations for changing field declarations in interfaces are the same as those for static final fields in classes, as described in §13.4.8 and §13.4.9.

The considerations for changing abstract method declarations in interfaces include those for abstract methods in classes, as described in §13.4.14, §13.4.15, §13.4.19, §13.4.21, and §13.4.23.

Adding a default method, or changing a method from abstract to default, does not break compatibility with pre-existing binaries, but may cause an IncompatibleClassChangeError if a pre-existing binary attempts to invoke the method. This error occurs if the qualifying type, T, is a subtype of two interfaces, I and J, where both I and J declare a default method with the same signature and result, and neither I nor J is a subinterface of the other.

In other words, adding a default method is a binary-compatible change because it does not introduce errors at link time, even if it introduces errors at compile time or invocation time. In practice, the risk of accidental clashes occurring by introducing a default method are similar to those associated with adding a new method to a non-final class. In the event of a clash, adding a method to a class is unlikely to trigger a LinkageError, but an accidental override of the method in a child can lead to unpredictable method behavior. Both changes can cause errors at compile time.

interface Painter {
    default void draw() {
        System.out.println("Here's a picture...");
    }
}

interface Cowboy {}

public class CowboyArtist implements Cowboy, Painter {
    public static void main(String... args) {
        new CowboyArtist().draw();
   }
}

Here's a picture...

interface Cowboy {
    default void draw() {
        System.out.println("Bang!");
    }
}

Annotation types behave exactly like any other interface. Adding or removing an element from an annotation type is analogous to adding or removing a method. There are important considerations governing other changes to annotation types, such as making an annotation type repeatable (§9.6.3), but these have no effect on the linkage of binaries by the Java Virtual Machine. Rather, such changes affect the behavior of reflective APIs that manipulate annotations. The documentation of these APIs specifies their behavior when various changes are made to the underlying annotation types.

Adding or removing annotations has no effect on the correct linkage of the binary representations of programs in the Java programming language.