Develop Reference

Avoid If-else code smell with creation of objects which depend upon specific conditions

Is there a better way to deal with an instanciation of an object (Product) which depends upon another object type (Condition) than using if-else paired with instanceof as the following code shows?
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
abstract class AbstractProduct {
private AbstractCondition condition;
public AbstractProduct(AbstractCondition condition) {
this.condition = condition;
}
public abstract void doSomething();
}
class ProductA extends AbstractProduct {
AbstractCondition condition;
public ProductA(AbstractCondition condition) {
super(condition);
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("I'm Product A");
}
}
class ProductB extends AbstractProduct {
public ProductB(AbstractCondition condition) {
super(condition);
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("I'm Product B");
}
}
class AbstractCondition { }
class ConditionA extends AbstractCondition { }
class ConditionB extends AbstractCondition { }
public class Try {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<AbstractCondition> conditions = new ArrayList<AbstractCondition>();
List<AbstractProduct> products = new ArrayList<AbstractProduct>();
conditions.add(new ConditionA());
conditions.add(new ConditionB());
conditions.add(new ConditionB());
conditions.add(new ConditionA());
for (AbstractCondition c : conditions) {
tryDoSomething(c);
}
}
public static void tryDoSomething(AbstractCondition condition) {
AbstractProduct product = null;
if (condition instanceof ConditionA) {
product = new ProductA(condition);
} else if (condition instanceof ConditionB) {
product = new ProductB(condition);
}
product.doSomething();
}
}
The difference with the code above of my real code is: I have NO direct control over AbstractCondition and its subtypes (as they are in a library), but the creation of a concrete subtype of AbstractProduct depends on the concrete condition.
My goal being: try to avoid the if-else code smell in tryDoSomething().
I would also like to avoid reflection because it feels like cheating and I do think it's not an elegant, clean and readable solution.
In other words, I would like to tackle the problem just with good OOP principles (e.g. exploiting polymorphism) and pheraps some design patterns (which apparently I don't know in this specific case).

Since you can't edit the original objects, you need to create a static map from condition type to product type:
private static HashMap< Class<? extends AbstractCondition>,
Class<? extends AbstractProduct>
> conditionToProduct;`
Fill it in static initialization with the pairs of Condition,Product:
static {
conditionToProduct.put(ConditionA.class, ProductA.class);
...
}
and in runtime just query the map:
Class<? extends AbstractProduct> productClass = conditionToProduct.get(condition.getClass());
productClass.newInstance();

AbstractCondition needs to know either the type or how to construct a product.
So add one of the following functions to AbstractCondition
Class<? extends AbstractProduct> getProductClass()
or
AbstractProduct createProduct()

You should create a Factory class to help you with that then.
interface IFactoryProduct{
AbstractProduct getProduct(AbstractCondition condition) throws Exception;
}
This will be your interface, just need to implement it like this.
class FactoryProduct implements IFactoryProduct{
public AbstractProduct getProduct(AbstractCondition condition) throws Exception{
return (AbstractProduct)getClass().getMethod("getProduct", condition.getClass()).invoke(this, condition);
}
public ProductA getProduct(ConditionA condition){
return new ProductA();
}
public ProductB getProduct(ConditionB condition){
return new ProductB();
}
}
Using the reflexion to redirect with the correct method will do the trick. this is upgradable for subclassed if you want.
EDIT:
Some example :
List<AbstractCondition> list = new ArrayList<AbstractCondition>();
list.add(new ConditionA());
list.add(new ConditionB());
for(AbstractCondition c : list){
try {
System.out.println(f.getProduct(c));
} catch (Exception ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Main.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
labo.ProductA#c17164
labo.ProductB#1fb8ee3
A more complexe reflexion version allowing a subclass to be received :
public AbstractProduct getProduct(AbstractCondition condition) throws Exception{
Method m = getMethodFor(condition.getClass());
if(m == null )
throw new Exception("No method for this condition " + condition.getClass().getSimpleName());
else
return (AbstractProduct) m.invoke(this, condition);
}
private Method getMethodFor(Class<? extends AbstractCondition> clazz ) throws Exception{
try {
return getClass().getMethod("getProduct", clazz);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) {
if(clazz.getSuperclass() != AbstractCondition.class){
return getMethodFor((Class<? extends AbstractCondition>)clazz.getSuperclass());
}
return null;
}
}
This allows me to send ConditionC extending ConditionB to build the same product has ConditionB would. Interesting for complexe heritage.

How can we access type and subtypes of enum in java?

I need to implement the following using enum.
import java.util.*;
/**
*
* #author mukesh
*/
public class MyTest {
private List<SubTypes> subTypes = new ArrayList<SubTypes>();
enum Types {
PercentArea, StackedArea, ChartSubType3;
}
enum SubTypes {
PERSENTAREA1(Types.PercentArea),
PERSENTAREA2(Types.PercentArea),
PERSENTAREA3(Types.PercentArea),
STACKAREA1(Types.StackedArea),
STACKAREA2(Types.StackedArea),
STACKAREA3(Types.StackedArea);
Types t;
private SubTypes(Types t) {
this.t = t;
}
}
public List<SubTypes> getSubTypes() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(subTypes);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
/* How can i get SubTypes based on base type ??? */
}}
Example :
Suppose in one combo I have Types - PercentArea, StackedArea, ChartSubType3 etc. and if I select PercentArea then second combo can get sub types e.g. PERSENTAREA1, PERSENTAREA2 etc.
Can any one guide me how do I can retrieve all the values of subtype for given types.

I think you need something like this
private static void getSubTypes(Types type)
{
SubTypes[] values = SubTypes.values();
for(SubTypes value : values)
{
if(value.t == type){
System.out.println("found subtype "+ value);
}
}
}
hope this helps!
Good luck!

You can use SubType cahce like follows:
private static final Map<Types, List<SubTypes>> typesMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public static void addSubType(Types type, SubTypes subTypes){
List<SubTypes> subTypeList;
synchronized (type)
{
subTypeList = typesMap.get(type);
if (subTypeList == null){
typesMap.put(type, subTypeList = new LinkedList<>());
}
}
subTypeList.add(subTypes);
}
public static List<SubTypes> getSybTypeList(Types type){
return typesMap.get(type);
}
enum Types {
PercentArea, StackedArea, ChartSubType3;
}
enum SubTypes {
PERSENTAREA1(Types.PercentArea), PERSENTAREA2(Types.PercentArea), PERSENTAREA3(Types.PercentArea), STACKAREA1(
Types.StackedArea), STACKAREA2(Types.StackedArea), STACKAREA3(Types.StackedArea);
Types t;
private SubTypes(Types t) {
this.t = t;
addSubType(t, this);
}
}

You can use the values() method on the enum to get all of the Subtypes, and then keep or discard as you please.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/enum.html

Use the command line to make new objects

In my program, the user needs to input what type of players the game will have. The players are "human", "good" (for a good AI), "bad" (for a bad AI) and "random" (for a random AI). Each of these players have their own class that extend one abstract class called PlayerType.
My struggle is mapping a String to the object so I can A) create a new object using the String as sort of a key and B) get the related String from an object of its subclass
Ultimately, I just want the implicit String to only appear once in the code so I can change it later if needed without refactoring.
I've tried using just a plain HashMap, but that seems clunky with searching the keys via the values. Also, I'm guessing that I'll have to use the getInstance() method of Class, which is a little less clunky, which is okay if it's the only way.

What I would do is create an enum which essentially functions as a factory for the given type.
public enum PlayerTypes {
GOOD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new GoodPlayer();
}
},
BAD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new BadPlayer();
}
},
RANDOM {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new RandomPlayer();
}
};
protected abstract PlayerType newPlayer();
public static PlayerType create(String input) {
for(PlayerTypes player : PlayerTypes.values()) {
if(player.name().equalsIgnoreCase(input)) {
return player.newPlayer();
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid player type [" + input + "]");
}
)
Because then you can just call it like so:
String input = getInput();
PlayerTypes.create(input);
Of course, you'll get an IllegalArgumentException which you should probably handle by trying to get the input again.
EDIT: Apparently in this particular case, you can replace that loop with just merely
return PlayerTypes.valueOf(input).newPlayer();
And it'll do the same thing. I tend to match for additional constructor parameters in the enum, so I didn't think of using valueOf(), but it's definitely cleaner.
EDIT2: Only way to get that information back is to define an abstract method in your PlayerType class that returns the PlayerTypes enum for that given type.
public class PlayerType {
public abstract PlayerTypes getType();
}
public class GoodPlayer extends PlayerType {
#Override
public PlayerTypes getType() {
return PlayerTypes.GOOD;
}
}

I like the answer provided by Epic but I don't find maps to be clunky. So it's possible to keep a map and get the constructor call directly.
Map<String, Supplier<PlayerType> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("human", Human::new);
Human h = map.get("human").get();

The two main options I can think of:
Using Class.newInstance(), as you mentioned (not sure if you had this exact way in mind):
// Set up your map
Map<String, Class> classes = new HashMap<String, Class>();
classes.put("int", Integer.class);
classes.put("string", String.class);
// Get your data
Object s = classes.get("string").newInstance();
You could use Class.getDeclaredConstructor.newInstance if you want to use a constructor with arguments (example).
Another option is using switch:
Object getObject(String identifier) {
switch (identifier) {
case "string": return new String();
case "int": return new Integer(4);
}
return null; // or throw an exception or return a default object
}

One potential solution:
public class ForFunFactory {
private ForFunFactory() {
}
public static AThing getTheAppropriateThing(final String thingIdentifier) {
switch (thingIdentifier) {
case ThingImplApple.id:
return new ThingImplApple();
case ThingImplBanana.id:
return new ThingImplBanana();
default:
throw new RuntimeException("AThing with identifier "
+ thingIdentifier + " not found.");
}
}
}
public interface AThing {
void doStuff();
}
class ThingImplApple implements AThing {
static final String id = "Apple";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm an Apple.");
}
}
class ThingImplBanana implements AThing {
static final String id = "Banana";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm a Banana.");
}
}

Make a Java class generic, but only for two or three types

(I was astonished not to be able to find this question already on stackoverflow, which I can only put down to poor googling on my part, by all means point out the duplicate...)
Here is a toy class that returns the reverse of what you put into it. Currently it works on integers, but would require only very minor changes to work for String.
public class Mirror {
int value;
public int get() {
return reverse(value);
}
private int reverse(int value2) {
String valueString = value + "";
String newString = reverse(valueString);
return Integer.parseInt(newString);
}
private String reverse(String valueString) {
String newString = "";
for (char c : valueString.toCharArray()) {
newString = c + newString;
}
return newString;
}
public void set(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
What I'd like to do is make the class generic, but only for, say, two or three possible types. So what I want to write is:
public class Mirror<X, where X is one of Integer, String, or MagicValue {
X value
public X get(){
[...]
What's the correct syntax? My Google-fu is failing me... :(
EDIT: it appears there isn't a correct syntax and it can't appear to be done, so my main question is: why? this seems like the sort of thing that people might want to do before they made the class truly generic...
EDIT EDIT: Managed to work out the why with some labmates today, so added the relevant why answer below.

Unfortunately java does not provide such functionality directly. However I can suggest you the following work around:
Create parametrized class Mirror with private constructor and 3 static factory methods that create instance of Mirror with specific parameter:
public class Mirror<T> {
private T value
private Mirror(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
public static Mirror<Integer> integerMirror(Integer value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
public static Mirror<String> stringMirror(String value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
public static Mirror<MagicValue> magicMirror(MagicValue value) {
return new Mirror(value);
}
}
EDIT
Obviously you can (and probably should) separate the class Mirror from its creating, e.g. put the factory methods to separate class MirrorFactory. In this case the constructor should become package protected.
If you want to support large yet limited number of classes you can implement only one generic factory method
public static <T> Mirror<T> createMirror(T value) {
checkTypeSupported(value);
return new Mirror(value);
}
Method checkTypeSupported(value); may use some kind of metadatat (e.g. properties, JSON etc file) to get supported types. In this case however you will not enjoy the compile time validation.
Other solution is to require that all supported types extend certain base class or implement interface:
public class Mirror<T extends MyInterface> {}
But this solution seems does not match your requirements since you need Integer, String and MagicValue.

Various ways to do what you need...Here is another option. No getter or setter.
One instance of Mirror for each type to be handled. One reverse() method.
Tweak as necessary. Add error checking/handling.
public class Mirror<T> {
public T reverse(final T value) {
T result = null;
while (true) {
if (value instanceof String) {
System.out.println("Do for String");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof Integer) {
System.out.println("Do for Integer");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof JFrame) {
System.out.println("Do for JFrame");
result = value;
break;
}
throw new RuntimeException("ProgramCheck: Missing handler for type " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
}
return result;
}
Tester:
final Mirror<String> testerString = new Mirror<>();
testerString.reverse("string");
final Mirror<Integer> testerInteger = new Mirror<>();
testerInteger.reverse(41);
testerInteger.reverse(42);
testerInteger.reverse(43);
final Mirror<JFrame> testerJFrame = new Mirror<>();
testerJFrame.reverse(new JFrame());
Results:
Do for String
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for JFrame

An alternative would be to just accept the fact that you have no control over the type hierarchy of String/Integer and create an interface to give a common type for the classes you do have control over
public int reverse(int value) {
return Integer.valueOf(new StringBuilder(value + "").reverse()
.toString());
}
public String reverse(String value) {
return new StringBuilder(value + "").reverse().toString();
}
public <T extends Reversible> T reverse(T value) {
value.reverse();
return value;
}
public interface Reversible {
public void reverse();
}

And if you only want one instance of the Mirror class...use a generic method.
public class Mirror {
public <T> T reverse(final T value) {
T result = null;
while (true) {
if (value instanceof String) {
System.out.println("Do for String");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof Integer) {
System.out.println("Do for Integer");
result = value;
break;
}
if (value instanceof JFrame) {
System.out.println("Do for JFrame");
result = value;
break;
}
throw new RuntimeException("ProgramCheck: Missing handler for type " + value.getClass().getSimpleName());
}
return result;
}
tester:
final Mirror tester = new Mirror();
String s = tester.reverse("string");
Integer i41 = tester.reverse(41);
Integer i42 = tester.reverse(42);
Integer i43 = tester.reverse(43);
JFrame j = tester.reverse(new JFrame());
results:
Do for String
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for Integer
Do for JFrame

You can't bound a generic parameter to range of values. You could however restrict it programatically:
public abstract class AbstractMirror<T> {
T value;
protected AbstractMirror(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz != Integer.class && clazz != String.class && clazz != MagicValue.class)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
public abstract T get();
protected abstract T reverse(T value);
}

You can use so-called "witness" types to make the compiler do what you want.
public interface Reversible< T > {
public static final class IntReversible implements Reversible< Integer > {}
public static final class StringReversible implements Reversible< String > {}
public static final class MagicReversible implements Reversible< MagicValue > {}
}
public abstract class Mirror< T, R extends Reversible< T > > {
// ...
}
public class IntMirror extends Mirror< Integer, IntReversible > {
// ...
}
However, the reason your example doesn't make any sense is because you gain virtually nothing from using a generic in this context. What possible algorithm will reverse an integer or a string or a MagicValue without resorting to awful run-time type-checking and casting? The code will be all three reverse algorithms, wrapped with a hideous if-ladder.

So here is the why (worked it out at work)
Generics are always from a subclass, although it looks like
Public class Thing<T> {}
will allow any type in there, really what it's saying is that it will allow any subtype of Object. I.e.
Public class Thing<T extends Object> {}
This is effectively working as inheritance, and indeed, the Oracle Website shows us this happening when the syntactic sugar is removed:
In the following example, the generic Node class uses a bounded type
parameter:
public class Node<T extends Comparable<T>> {
private T data;
private Node<T> next;
public Node(T data, Node<T> next) {
this.data = data;
this.next = next;
}
public T getData() { return data; }
// ...
}
The Java compiler replaces the bounded type parameter T with the first
bound class, Comparable:
public class Node {
private Comparable data;
private Node next;
public Node(Comparable data, Node next) {
this.data = data;
this.next = next;
}
public Comparable getData() { return data; }
// ...
}
...and so the answer turns out that the reason you can't limit the types in this way is because it effectively turns into multiple Inheritance, which is nasty, and which I'm happy to avoid....

Is it possible to extend enum in Java 8?

Just playing and came up with a sweet way to add functionality to enums in Java Enum toString() method with this.
Some further tinkering allowed me to nearly also add a tidy (i.e. not throwing an exception) reverse look-up but there's a problem. It's reporting:
error: valueOf(String) in X cannot implement valueOf(String) in HasValue
public enum X implements PoliteEnum, ReverseLookup {
overriding method is static
Is there a way?
The aim here is to silently add (via an interface implementation with a default method like I added politeName in the linked answer) a lookup method that does the valueOf function without throwing an exception. Is it possible? It is clearly now possible to extend enum - one of my major problems with Java until now.
Here's my failed attempt:
public interface HasName {
public String name();
}
public interface PoliteEnum extends HasName {
default String politeName() {
return name().replace("_", " ");
}
}
public interface Lookup<P, Q> {
public Q lookup(P p);
}
public interface HasValue {
HasValue valueOf(String name);
}
public interface ReverseLookup extends HasValue, Lookup<String, HasValue> {
#Override
default HasValue lookup(String from) {
try {
return valueOf(from);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
return null;
}
}
}
public enum X implements PoliteEnum/* NOT ALLOWED :( , ReverseLookup*/ {
A_For_Ism, B_For_Mutton, C_Forth_Highlanders;
}
public void test() {
// Test the politeName
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.politeName());
}
// ToDo: Test lookup
}

You are over-complicating your design. If you are willing to accept that you can invoke a default method on an instance only, there entire code may look like this:
interface ReverseLookupSupport<E extends Enum<E>> {
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
default E lookup(String name) {
try {
return Enum.valueOf(getDeclaringClass(), name);
} catch(IllegalArgumentException ex) { return null; }
}
}
enum Test implements ReverseLookupSupport<Test> {
FOO, BAR
}
You can test it with:
Test foo=Test.FOO;
Test bar=foo.lookup("BAR"), baz=foo.lookup("BAZ");
System.out.println(bar+" "+baz);
An non-throwing/catching alternative would be:
interface ReverseLookupSupport<E extends Enum<E>> {
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
default Optional<E> lookup(String name) {
return Stream.of(getDeclaringClass().getEnumConstants())
.filter(e->e.name().equals(name)).findFirst();
}
to use like:
Test foo=Test.FOO;
Test bar=foo.lookup("BAR").orElse(null), baz=foo.lookup("BAZ").orElse(null);
System.out.println(bar+" "+baz);

Here, there's basically two points. Specifically the reason it doesn't compile is 8.4.8.1:
It is a compile-time error if an instance method overrides a static method.
In other words, an enum can't implement HasValue because of the name clash.
Then there's the more general issue we have which is that static methods just cannot be 'overridden'. Since valueOf is a static method inserted by the compiler on the Enum-derived class itself, there's no way to change it. We also can't use interfaces to solve it since they do not have static methods.
In this specific case it's a place where composition can make this kind of thing less repetetive, for example:
public class ValueOfHelper<E extends Enum<E>> {
private final Map<String, E> map = new HashMap<String, E>();
public ValueOfHelper(Class<E> cls) {
for(E e : EnumSet.allOf(cls))
map.put(e.name(), e);
}
public E valueOfOrNull(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
}
public enum Composed {
A, B, C;
private static final ValueOfHelper<Composed> HELPER = (
new ValueOfHelper<Composed>(Composed.class)
);
public static Composed valueOfOrNull(String name) {
return HELPER.valueOfOrNull(name);
}
}
(Plus, I'd recommend that over catching the exception anyway.)
I realize "you can't do it" is not really a desirable answer but I don't see a way around it due to the static aspect.

The case is the same as you can not create default toString() in interface. The enum already contains signature for static valueOf(String) method therefore you can not override it.
The enum are compile time constant and because of that it really doubtful that they will be extensible someday.
If you want to get the constant via name you can use this:
public static <E extends Enum<E>> Optional<E> valueFor(Class<E> type, String name) {
return Arrays.stream(type.getEnumConstants()).filter( x -> x.name().equals(name)).findFirst();
}

I think I have an answer - it's hacky and uses reflection but seems to fit the brief - i.e. reverse lookup without methods in the enum and without throwing exception.
public interface HasName {
public String name();
}
public interface PoliteEnum extends HasName {
default String politeName() {
return name().replace("_", " ");
}
}
public interface Lookup<P, Q> {
public Q lookup(P p);
}
public interface ReverseLookup<T extends Enum<T>> extends Lookup<String, T> {
#Override
default T lookup(String s) {
return (T) useMap(this, s);
}
}
// Probably do somethiong better than this in the final version.
static final Map<String, Enum> theMap = new HashMap<>();
static Enum useMap(Object o, String s) {
if (theMap.isEmpty()) {
try {
// Yukk!!
Enum it = (Enum)o;
Class c = it.getDeclaringClass();
// Reflect to call the static method.
Method method = c.getMethod("values");
// Yukk!!
Enum[] enums = (Enum[])method.invoke(null);
// Walk the enums.
for ( Enum e : enums) {
theMap.put(e.name(), e);
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
// Ewwww
}
}
return theMap.get(s);
}
public enum X implements PoliteEnum, ReverseLookup<X> {
A_For_Ism,
B_For_Mutton,
C_Forth_Highlanders;
}
public void test() {
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.politeName());
}
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.lookup(x.name()));
}
}
prints
A For Ism
B For Mutton
C Forth Highlanders
A_For_Ism
B_For_Mutton
C_Forth_Highlanders
Added
Inspired by #Holger - this is what I feel is most like what I was looking for:
public interface ReverseLookup<E extends Enum<E>> extends Lookup<String, E> {
// Map of all classes that have lookups.
Map<Class, Map<String, Enum>> lookups = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
// What I need from the Enum.
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
#Override
default E lookup(String name) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
// What class.
Class<E> c = getDeclaringClass();
// Get the map.
final Map<String, Enum> lookup = lookups.computeIfAbsent(c,
k -> Stream.of(c.getEnumConstants())
// Roll each enum into the lookup.
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Enum::name, Function.identity())));
// Look it up.
return c.cast(lookup.get(name));
}
}
// Use the above interfaces to add to the enum.
public enum X implements PoliteName, ReverseLookup<X> {
A_For_Ism,
B_For_Mutton,
C_Forth_Highlanders;
}