Asked  7 Months ago    Answers:  5   Viewed   244 times

I have a Fragment with a constructor that takes multiple arguments. My app worked fine during development, but in production my users sometimes see this crash:$InstantiationException: Unable to instantiate fragment 
make sure class name exists, is public, and has an empty constructor that is public

I could make an empty constructor as this error message suggests, but that doesn't make sense to me since then I would have to call a separate method to finish setting up the Fragment.

I'm curious as to why this crash only happens occasionally. Maybe I'm using the ViewPager incorrectly? I instantiate all the Fragments myself and save them in a list inside the Activity. I don't use FragmentManager transactions, since the ViewPager examples I have seen did not require it and everything seemed to be working during development.



Yes they do.

You shouldn't really be overriding the constructor anyway. You should have a newInstance() static method defined and pass any parameters via arguments (bundle)

For example:

public static final MyFragment newInstance(int title, String message) {
    MyFragment f = new MyFragment();
    Bundle bdl = new Bundle(2);
    bdl.putInt(EXTRA_TITLE, title);
    bdl.putString(EXTRA_MESSAGE, message);
    return f;

And of course grabbing the args this way:

public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    title = getArguments().getInt(EXTRA_TITLE);
    message = getArguments().getString(EXTRA_MESSAGE);


Then you would instantiate from your fragment manager like so:

public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    if (savedInstanceState == null){
            .replace(, MyFragment.newInstance(
                "Oh no, an error occurred!")

This way if detached and re-attached the object state can be stored through the arguments. Much like bundles attached to Intents.

Reason - Extra reading

I thought I would explain why for people wondering why.

If you check:

You will see the instantiate(..) method in the Fragment class calls the newInstance method:

public static Fragment instantiate(Context context, String fname, @Nullable Bundle args) {
    try {
        Class<?> clazz = sClassMap.get(fname);
        if (clazz == null) {
            // Class not found in the cache, see if it's real, and try to add it
            clazz = context.getClassLoader().loadClass(fname);
            if (!Fragment.class.isAssignableFrom(clazz)) {
                throw new InstantiationException("Trying to instantiate a class " + fname
                        + " that is not a Fragment", new ClassCastException());
            sClassMap.put(fname, clazz);
        Fragment f = (Fragment) clazz.getConstructor().newInstance();
        if (args != null) {
        return f;
    } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
        throw new InstantiationException("Unable to instantiate fragment " + fname
                + ": make sure class name exists, is public, and has an"
                + " empty constructor that is public", e);
    } catch (java.lang.InstantiationException e) {
        throw new InstantiationException("Unable to instantiate fragment " + fname
                + ": make sure class name exists, is public, and has an"
                + " empty constructor that is public", e);
    } catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
        throw new InstantiationException("Unable to instantiate fragment " + fname
                + ": make sure class name exists, is public, and has an"
                + " empty constructor that is public", e);
    } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
        throw new InstantiationException("Unable to instantiate fragment " + fname
                + ": could not find Fragment constructor", e);
    } catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
        throw new InstantiationException("Unable to instantiate fragment " + fname
                + ": calling Fragment constructor caused an exception", e);
} Explains why, upon instantiation it checks that the accessor is public and that that class loader allows access to it.

It's a pretty nasty method all in all, but it allows the FragmentManger to kill and recreate Fragments with states. (The Android subsystem does similar things with Activities).

Example Class

I get asked a lot about calling newInstance. Do not confuse this with the class method. This whole class example should show the usage.

 * Created by chris on 21/11/2013
public class StationInfoAccessibilityFragment extends BaseFragment implements JourneyProviderListener {

    public static final StationInfoAccessibilityFragment newInstance(String crsCode) {
        StationInfoAccessibilityFragment fragment = new StationInfoAccessibilityFragment();

        final Bundle args = new Bundle(1);
        args.putString(EXTRA_CRS_CODE, crsCode);

        return fragment;

    // Views
    LinearLayout mLinearLayout;

     * Layout Inflater
    private LayoutInflater mInflater;
     * Station Crs Code
    private String mCrsCode;

    public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        mCrsCode = getArguments().getString(EXTRA_CRS_CODE);

    public View onCreateView(LayoutInflater inflater, ViewGroup container, Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        mInflater = inflater;
        return inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_station_accessibility, container, false);

    public void onViewCreated(View view, Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onViewCreated(view, savedInstanceState);
        mLinearLayout = (LinearLayout)view.findViewBy(;
        //Do stuff

    public void onResume() {

    // Other methods etc...
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
answered 7 Months ago

It will do the same thing (nothing, in essence). But it's not the same as if you didn't write it. Because writing the destructor will require a working base-class destructor. If the base class destructor is private or if there is any other reason it can't be invoked, then your program is faulty. Consider this

struct A { private: ~A(); };
struct B : A { }; 

That is OK, as long as your don't require to destruct an object of type B (and thus, implicitly of type A) - like if you never call delete on a dynamically created object, or you never create an object of it in the first place. If you do, then the compiler will display an appropriate diagnostic. Now if you provide one explicitly

struct A { private: ~A(); };
struct B : A { ~B() { /* ... */ } }; 

That one will try to implicitly call the destructor of the base-class, and will cause a diagnostic already at definition time of ~B.

There is another difference that centers around the definition of the destructor and implicit calls to member destructors. Consider this smart pointer member

struct C;
struct A {
    auto_ptr<C> a;

Let's assume the object of type C is created in the definition of A's constructor in the .cpp file, which also contains the definition of struct C. Now, if you use struct A, and require destruction of an A object, the compiler will provide an implicit definition of the destructor, just like in the case above. That destructor will also implicitly call the destructor of the auto_ptr object. And that will delete the pointer it holds, that points to the C object - without knowing the definition of C! That appeared in the .cpp file where struct A's constructor is defined.

This actually is a common problem in implementing the pimpl idiom. The solution here is to add a destructor and provide an empty definition of it in the .cpp file, where the struct C is defined. At the time it invokes the destructor of its member, it will then know the definition of struct C, and can correctly call its destructor.

struct C;
struct A {
    auto_ptr<C> a;
    ~A(); // defined as ~A() { } in .cpp file, too

Note that boost::shared_ptr does not have that problem: It instead requires a complete type when its constructor is invoked in certain ways.

Another point where it makes a difference in current C++ is when you want to use memset and friends on such an object that has a user declared destructor. Such types are not PODs anymore (plain old data), and these are not allowed to be bit-copied. Note that this restriction isn't really needed - and the next C++ version has improved the situation on this, so that it allows you to still bit-copy such types, as long as other more important changes are not made.

Since you asked for constructors: Well, for these much the same things are true. Note that constructors also contain implicit calls to destructors. On things like auto_ptr, these calls (even if not actually done at runtime - the pure possibility already matters here) will do the same harm as for destructors, and happen when something in the constructor throws - the compiler is then required to call the destructor of the members. This answer makes some use of implicit definition of default constructors.

Also, the same is true for visibility and PODness that i said about the destructor above.

There is one important difference regarding initialization. If you put a user declared constructor, your type does not receive value initialization of members anymore, and it is up to your constructor to do any initialization that's needed. Example:

struct A {
    int a;

struct B {
    int b;
    B() { }

In this case, the following is always true

assert(A().a == 0);

While the following is undefined behavior, because b was never initialized (your constructor omitted that). The value may be zero, but may aswell be any other weird value. Trying to read from such an uninitialized object causes undefined behavior.

assert(B().b == 0);

This is also true for using this syntax in new, like new A() (note the parentheses at the end - if they are omitted value initialization is not done, and since there is no user declared constructor that could initialize it, a will be left uninitialized).

Friday, June 11, 2021
answered 6 Months ago

static factories still have to call a constructor in the end. You can move most of the functionality into the static factory, but you cannot avoid using a constructor.

On the other hand for simple cases, you can have just a constructor without having a static factory.

Constructors are the only way to set final fields, which IMHO are preferable to non-final fields.

You can use constructors can in sub-classes. You cannot use static factories for a sub-class.

If you have a good dependency injection framework to build dependencies of a component, you may find that static factories don't add much.

Monday, September 20, 2021
answered 3 Months ago

Recently the is deprecated

It is not deprecated at the present time. For example, it is not marked as deprecated in the documentation.

'FragmentStatePagerAdapter(' is deprecated

The single-parameter FragmentStatePagerAdapter constructor is deprecated. However, if you read the documentation for that constructor, you will find:

This constructor is deprecated. use FragmentStatePagerAdapter(FragmentManager, int) with BEHAVIOR_RESUME_ONLY_CURRENT_FRAGMENT

So, replace FragmentStatePagerAdapter(fm) with FragmentStatePagerAdapter(fm, FragmentStatePagerAdapter.BEHAVIOR_RESUME_ONLY_CURRENT_FRAGMENT), to retain the functionality from the original one-parameter constructor.

Wednesday, October 6, 2021
Deepanshu Goyal
answered 2 Months ago
public static final int SERVICES_ALL = 1;
public static final int SERVICES_FEATURED = 2;
public static final int SERVICES_NEW = 3;

should be

public static final int SERVICES_ALL = 0;
public static final int SERVICES_FEATURED = 1;
public static final int SERVICES_NEW = 2;

getItem is 0-based-index, which means that in your code, the case 0 of your Adapter never matches one, and in that case you are returning a null fragment causing the exception

Tuesday, October 12, 2021
answered 2 Months ago
Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged :