public static String valueOf(char data) Returns the string representation of the char array argument. The contents of the character array are copied; subsequent modification of the character array does not affect the newly created string. Parameters: data - a char array. Returns: a newly allocated string representing the same sequence of characters contained in the character array argument
public static String copyValueOf(char data) Returns a String that is equivalent to the specified character array. It creates a new array and copies the characters into it. Parameters: data - the character array. Returns: a String that contains the characters of the character array.
Originally posted by Chetan Parekh: Just see what's there in API....
Uhh, from the quoted JavaDoc, I actually don't see any implied difference in behaviour. Am I missing something?
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus
Looking at the API and source code there doesn't seem to be any difference in functionality. Is someone saying there is a noticable difference? How about adding a comment to the copied API or source code you post here, it's hard to tell what your trying to say or point out.
Marilyn got me thinking. I rooted around for the oldest JDK source code I have -- JDK 1.0 beta for sparc -- and in String.java, you find this (emphasis mine
But the comments lie, actually. The array ends up being copied in both cases, although copyValueOf() does it explicitly and then calls "new String()", and valueOf calls "new String()" directly. The String constructor also copies the array, so this old version of copyValueOf results in the char being copied twice, for no reason.
The very strong implication is that, sometime in the history of Java Strings, before the 1.0 release, Strings weren't immutable, and they had constructors and a factory method which let you create instances that used a specific char to hold their contents! By the 1.0 release, that capability had been removed, but these two methods both remained -- even though copyValueOf() was redundant and could easily have been removed.
Chalk it up to... a mistake. [ June 07, 2005: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]