1. Overview
In this article, we’ll comment on the similarities and differences between the methods Paths.get() and Path.of().
2. Identical Behavior
The Path.of() method takes a URI as an argument and converts it into the Path of the associated object.
Let’s now have a look at the code of Paths.get():
public final class Paths {
public static Path get(URI uri) {
return Path.of(uri);
}
}
As we can see, the only thing Paths.get() does is call Path.of(). Therefore, the two methods return an identical result.
3. The Differences Between the Methods
We’ll now comment on the difference between those two methods.
3.1. Introduction Version
Before Java 8, it was not possible to define a default static method inside an interface. Hence Path needed a companion interface, Paths. All the factory methods were defined in Paths at this time.
Then this limitation was removed, and in Java 11, the code of the factory method has eventually been moved to the Path interface. Additionally, the code of Paths.get() was updated to defer to Path.of(). Paths.get() was indeed kept to ensure backward compatibility.
3.2. Naming Pattern
The code was not only moved, but the name of the factory method did also change. The problem with the original name is that it looks like a getter. However, Paths.get() doesn’t get anything that belongs to the Paths object. The standard name for static factory methods in Java is of. For instance, EnumSet.of() follows this pattern. As a consequence, the new method was called Path.of() for consistency purposes.
4. Which One Should We Use?
If we’re working with a version between Java 7 and 10, we have no other choice but to use Paths.get(). Otherwise, if we’re working with a later version, we should go for Path.of(). The Paths class may indeed be deprecated in a future Java release, as it’s stated in the class’ comments. Moreover, using directly the factory method from Path spares an additional input.
5. Conclusion
In this tutorial, we’ve understood that the two identical methods, Paths.get() and Path.of(), coexist for some historical reasons. We’ve analyzed their differences and concluded with the most suitable fit for us depending on our situation.
