Develop Reference

Dynamically cast classes

I'm trying to do something along the lines:
abstract class Base {}
public interface One {...}
public interface Two {...}
public class A extends Base implements One {...}
public class B extends Base implements One, Two {...}
public class C extends Base implements Two {...}
public class Container
{
class Handler
{
public void doSomething(A obj){System.out.println("A");}
public void doSomething(B obj){System.out.printLn("B");}
public void doSomething(C obj){System.out.println("C");}
}
Base base;
Handler handler;
public Container(Base base)
{
this.base = base;
this.handler=new Handler();
}
public void set(Base base)
{
this.base=base;
}
public void go()
{
this.handler.doSomething(this.base);
}
}
Container con=new Container(new A());
con.go();
con.set(new B());
con.go();
Where the output would end up being "A" "B", but I'm running into problems dynamically casting Container.base to the appropriate class;
The closest solution I have found is in the Container.go function add in an if else chain checking the instanceOf the class and casting the parameter to the corresponding class then calling handler.doSomething in each if block.
public void go()
{
if(this.base instanceOf A)
{
this.handler.doSomething((A)this.base);
}
else if(this.base instanceOf B)
....
}
Is there a better way to go about this?

Which method is called is determined at compile time and not at run time so dynamic casting isn't going to work without some reflection or other tinkering about. I would suggest a better approach is to move the logic for
public void doSomething(A obj){System.out.println("A");}
public void doSomething(B obj){System.out.printLn("B");}
public void doSomething(C obj){System.out.println("C");}
Into the the specific classes. For example:
abstract class Base {
absract public void doSomething();
}
public class A extends Base implements One {
public void doSomething() {System.out.printLn("A");}
}
...
class Handler {
public void doSomething(Base obj){obj.doSomething();}
}
Now your handler doesn't need to care about the specific class of a Base object it is getting.

You could use the visitor pattern:
public interface Visitor {
public void doSomething(A obj);
public void doSomething(B obj);
public void doSomething(C obj);
}
Declare an abstract method in Base (or in a new interface):
abstract class Base {
public abstract void accept(Visitor v);
}
and implement it in A, B, C:
public class A extends Base implements One {
#Override
public void accept(Visitor v) {
v.doSomething(this);
}
...
}
public class B extends Base implements One, Two {
#Override
public void accept(Visitor v) {
v.doSomething(this);
}
...
}
public class C extends Base implements Two {
#Override
public void accept(Visitor v) {
v.doSomething(this);
}
...
}
Handler implements Visitor:
class Handler implements Visitor {
#Override
public void doSomething(A obj){
System.out.println("A");
}
#Override
public void doSomething(B obj){
System.out.printLn("B");
}
#Override
public void doSomething(C obj){
System.out.println("C");
}
}
And finally, go becomes:
public void go() {
this.base.visit(this.handler);
}
UPDATE
Note that #Evan Jones' solution is simpler and it could be what you need. The visitor pattern is used when you want to separate the implementations of the doSomething methods from the A, B, C classes and/or you want the ability to add new operations without changing these classes.

Java Generics - Bounded Type Parameters

Let me describe my intention with an example,
class Base {
public void sayHi() {
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
class ChildOne extends Base {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-1");
}
}
class ChildTwo extends Base {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-2");
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static <T extends Base> void genericFunction(T child) {
child.sayBye();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ChildOne childOne = new ChildOne();
ChildTwo childTwo = new ChildTwo();
genericFunction(childOne);
genericFunction(childTwo);
}
}
This code is wrong. But my intention is the child class (some already existing classes in a project) which has similar properties between them are they extend the base class and have sayBye() member function.
Is there a way to pass all the child classes as parameter to a generic function and to call the member function sayBye() (as per this example)?

Sure, you can either create a common base class or common interface for all the classes that have a sayBye method.
Then you can change the type bound of your generic type parameter:
public static <T extends CommonInterface> void genericFunction(T child) {
child.sayBye();
}
or without generics:
public static void nonGenericFunction(CommonInterface child) {
child.sayBye();
}

You can bring common functionality together without adjusting the hierarchy by introducing an interface that defines it and creating empty classes extending the common objects.
class Base {
public void sayHi() {
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
class ChildOne extends Base {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-1");
}
}
class ChildTwo extends Base {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-2");
}
}
// The common functionality I want to use.
interface Bye {
public void sayBye();
}
class ChildOneBye extends ChildOne implements Bye {
// Don't need anything here.
}
class ChildTwoBye extends ChildTwo implements Bye {
// Don't need anything here.
}
public static <T extends Bye> void genericFunction(T child) {
child.sayBye();
}
public void test(String[] args) {
Bye childOne = new ChildOneBye();
Bye childTwo = new ChildTwoBye();
genericFunction(childOne);
genericFunction(childTwo);
}

One way is to mark the base class as abstract and have an abstract method sayBye(). In this way you don't need to change anything else in your codebase.
abstract class Base {
public void sayHi() {
System.out.println("Hi");
}
public abstract void sayBye();
}
Another approach is to use interface ByeInterface and use it to call sayBye(). Here is the with the required changes.
interface ByeInterface {
void sayBye();
}
class Base {
public void sayHi() {
System.out.println("Hi");
}
}
class ChildOne extends Base implements ByeInterface {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-1");
}
}
class ChildTwo extends Base implements ByeInterface {
public void sayBye() {
System.out.println("Bye-2");
}
}
public class MainClass {
public static <T extends ByeInterface> void genericFunction(T child) {
child.sayBye();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ChildOne childOne = new ChildOne();
ChildTwo childTwo = new ChildTwo();
genericFunction(childOne);
genericFunction(childTwo);
}
}
This approach can be used if you can not mark your base class as abstract class. Using interface, you can even call it without using generic.
public static void nonGenericFunction(ByeInterface child) {
child.sayBye();
}

How to use Java Generics to enforce type restrictions

This question is a bit advanced so naturally also a little complicated. I will try and do my best to be as clear as possible.
As the title reads, I'd like to use Java Generics to enforce type restrictions when constructing an objects from some top level (main).
I have never really used Java generics but I found a pretty good use case for it which I am not sure how to implement.
I'd like to enforce type restriction when composing an object. Let me try to clarify with an example:
I have a top level main method here where I am evoking a NumberEngine object where I initialize and call methods of it. Notice when I call setExecuteBehavior(), I pass it an object of type RunNumberEvaluation (which along with RunStringEvaluation implements an interface called ExecutionBehavior).
As the name implies, NumberEngine works only with Numbers and not Strings, so it's inappropriate for me to pass setExecuteBehavior() an object of type RunStringEvaluation. How can I enforce this behavior at compile time?
public static void main(String[] args) {
NumberEngine numberEngine = new NumberEngine();
numberEngine.init("/path/to/forms");
numberEngine.getEngineVesion();
numberEngine.setExecuteBehavior(new RunNumberEvaluation);
numberEngine.performExecution();
// Here this should not compile, essentially throw me a compile error saying it can only accept
// an object of type RunNumberEvaluation, sincle NumberEngine can only run
// objects of type RunNumberEvaluation, etc...
numberEngine.setExecuteBehavior(new RunStringEvaluation());
numberEngine.performExecution();
}
So here I would like to basically make NumberEngine's setExecuteBehavior to only accept behavior which is relevent to it like the processing of data which pertains to numbers and not Strings. And vice-versa for StringEngine. I want StringEngine to only accept objects which pertains to Strings and not Numbers.
How can I accomplish this with Java generics?
I was thinking about something like this...
NumberEngine<? extends Numbers> extends Engine
Not even sure if this makes sense...
I have included working code below as an illustration of what I'm attempting to communicate.
I have an object of type Engine which is an abstract class with many extending concrete classes such as StringEngine, NumberEngine, et cetera. I have decoupled the algorithmic functionality into an interface with classes that implement that interface.
Base Abstract Class
public abstract class Engine {
ExecuteBehavior executeBehavior;
public void setExecuteBehavior(ExecuteBehavior executeBehavior) {
this.executeBehavior = executeBehavior;
}
public void performExecution() {
executeBehavior.execute();
}
public abstract void init(String pathToResources);
}
Concrete Implementing Class 1
public class StringEngine extends Engine {
public StringEngine() {
executeBehavior = new RunNumberEvaluation();
}
#Override
public void init(String pathToResources) {
System.out.println("Initializing StringEngine with resources "+pathToResources);
System.out.println("Successfully initialized StringEngine!");
}
}
Concrete Implementing Class 2
public class NumberEngine extends Engine {
public NumberEngine() {
executeBehavior = new RunStringEvaluation();
}
#Override
public void init(String pathToResources) {
System.out.println("Initializing NumberEngine with resources "+pathToResources);
System.out.println("Successfully initialized NumberEngine!");
}
}
Algorithm Interface
public interface ExecuteBehavior {
void execute();
}
Algorithm Implementation 1
public class RunNumberEvaluation implements ExecuteBehavior {
#Override
public void execute() {
// some processing
System.out.println("Running numeric evaluation");
}
}
Algorithm Implementation 2
public class RunStringEvaluation implements ExecuteBehavior {
#Override
public void execute() {
// some processing
System.out.println("Running string evaluation");
}
}
If you haven't noticed but here I'm making use of the strategy pattern where I segregate the varying algorithms into a family via interface from the static non-changing code.
Edit: I'd like to maintain the strategy pattern used here.

First put the "variable" classes into Engine's formal parmaeter list:
public abstract class Engine<B extends ExecuteBehavior> {
B executeBehavior;
public void setExecuteBehavior(B executeBehavior) {
this.executeBehavior = executeBehavior;
}
public void performExecution() {
executeBehavior.execute();
}
public abstract void init(String pathToResources);
}
Then you can define the subclasses the way you want:
public class StringEngine extends Engine<RunStringEvaluation> {
public StringEngine() {
executeBehavior = new RunStringEvaluation();
}
#Override
public void init(String pathToResources) {
System.out.println("Initializing StringEngine with resources "+pathToResources);
System.out.println("Successfully initialized StringEngine!");
}
}
In the example code you've provided, you don't need that. Just move setExecuteBehavior to the subclasses and make it private.

It's fairly simple to achieve that using generics, you were totally right trying to use generics for that
All you had to do is to change your classes like this
First the interface
public interface ExecuteBehavior<T> {
void execute();
}
Then the abstract implementation
public abstract class Engine<T> {
ExecuteBehavior<T> executeBehavior;
public void setExecuteBehavior(ExecuteBehavior<T> executeBehavior) {
this.executeBehavior = executeBehavior;
}
public void performExecution() {
executeBehavior.execute();
}
public abstract void init(String pathToResources);
}
And finally the RunNumberEngine and NumberEngine
public class RunNumberEvaluation implements ExecuteBehavior<Number> {
#Override
public void execute() {
// some processing
System.out.println("Running numeric evaluation");
}
}
NumberEngine
public class NumberEngine extends Engine<Number> {
public NumberEngine() {
executeBehavior = new RunNumberEvaluation();
}
#Override
public void init(String pathToResources) {
System.out.println("Initializing NumberEngine with resources "+pathToResources);
System.out.println("Successfully initialized NumberEngine!");
}
}
And RunStringEngine, followed by StringEngine
public class RunStringEvaluation implements ExecuteBehavior<String> {
#Override
public void execute() {
// some processing
System.out.println("Running string evaluation");
}
}
StringEngine
public class StringEngine extends Engine<String> {
public StringEngine() {
executeBehavior = new RunStringEvaluation();
}
#Override
public void init(String pathToResources) {
System.out.println("Initializing StringEngine with resources "+pathToResources);
System.out.println("Successfully initialized StringEngine!");
}
}

Can a normal Class implement multiple interfaces?

I know that multiple inheritances between Interfaces is possible, e.g.:
public interface C extends A,B {...} //Where A, B and C are Interfaces
But is it possible to have a regular Class inherit from multiple Interfaces like this:
public class A implements C,D {...} //Where A is a Class and C and D are interfaces

A Java class can only extend one parent class. Multiple inheritance (extends) is not allowed. Interfaces are not classes, however, and a class can implement more than one interface.
The parent interfaces are declared in a comma-separated list, after the implements keyword.
In conclusion, yes, it is possible to do:
public class A implements C,D {...}

In a word - yes.
Actually, many classes in the JDK implement multiple interfaces. E.g., ArrayList implements List, RandomAccess, Cloneable, and Serializable.

public class A implements C,D {...} valid
this is the way to implement multiple inheritence in java

Yes, a class can implement multiple interfaces. Each interface provides contract for some sort of behavior. I am attaching a detailed class diagram and shell interfaces and classes.
Ceremonial example:
public interface Mammal {
void move();
boolean possessIntelligence();
}
public interface Animal extends Mammal {
void liveInJungle();
}
public interface Human extends Mammal, TwoLeggedMammal, Omnivore, Hunter {
void liveInCivilization();
}
public interface Carnivore {
void eatMeat();
}
public interface Herbivore {
void eatPlant();
}
public interface Omnivore extends Carnivore, Herbivore {
void eatBothMeatAndPlant();
}
public interface FourLeggedMammal {
void moveWithFourLegs();
}
public interface TwoLeggedMammal {
void moveWithTwoLegs();
}
public interface Hunter {
void huntForFood();
}
public class Kangaroo implements Animal, Herbivore, TwoLeggedMammal {
#Override
public void liveInJungle() {
System.out.println("I live in Outback country");
}
#Override
public void move() {
moveWithTwoLegs();
}
#Override
public void moveWithTwoLegs() {
System.out.println("I like to jump");
}
#Override
public void eat() {
eatPlant();
}
#Override
public void eatPlant() {
System.out.println("I like this grass");
}
#Override
public boolean possessIntelligence() {
return false;
}
}
public class Lion implements Animal, FourLeggedMammal, Hunter, Carnivore {
#Override
public void liveInJungle() {
System.out.println("I am king of the jungle!");
}
#Override
public void move() {
moveWithFourLegs();
}
#Override
public void moveWithFourLegs() {
System.out.println("I like to run sometimes.");
}
#Override
public void eat() {
eatMeat();
}
#Override
public void eatMeat() {
System.out.println("I like deer meat");
}
#Override
public boolean possessIntelligence() {
return false;
}
#Override
public void huntForFood() {
System.out.println("My females hunt often");
}
}
public class Teacher implements Human {
#Override
public void liveInCivilization() {
System.out.println("I live in an apartment");
}
#Override
public void moveWithTwoLegs() {
System.out.println("I wear shoes and walk with two legs one in front of the other");
}
#Override
public void move() {
moveWithTwoLegs();
}
#Override
public boolean possessIntelligence() {
return true;
}
#Override
public void huntForFood() {
System.out.println("My ancestors used to but now I mostly rely on cattle");
}
#Override
public void eat() {
eatBothMeatAndPlant();
}
#Override
public void eatBothMeatAndPlant() {
eatPlant();
eatMeat();
}
#Override
public void eatMeat() {
System.out.println("I like this bacon");
}
#Override
public void eatPlant() {
System.out.println("I like this broccoli");
}
}

Of course... Almost all classes implements several interfaces. On any page of java documentation on Oracle you have a subsection named "All implemented interfaces".
Here an example of the Date class.

It is true that a java class can implement multiple interfaces at the same time, but there is a catch here.
If in a class, you are trying to implement two java interfaces, which contains methods with same signature but diffrent return type, in that case you will get compilation error.
interface One
{
int m1();
}
interface Two
{
float m1();
}
public class MyClass implements One, Two{
int m1() {}
float m1() {}
public static void main(String... args) {
}
}
output :
prog.java:14: error: method m1() is already defined in class MyClass
public float m1() {}
^
prog.java:11: error: MyClass is not abstract and does not override abstract method m1() in Two
public class MyClass implements One, Two{
^
prog.java:13: error: m1() in MyClass cannot implement m1() in Two
public int m1() {}
^
return type int is not compatible with float
3 errors

Yes, it is possible. This is the catch: java does not support multiple inheritance, i.e. class cannot extend more than one class. However class can implement multiple interfaces.

An interface can extend other interfaces. Also an interface cannot implement any other interface.
When it comes to a class, it can extend one other class and implement any number of interfaces.
class A extends B implements C,D{...}

Ensure method A is called after every call of B (an abstract implemented method)?

Having this tasteful class
public abstract class CakeSkill
{
//..
boolean cherry=false;
private void finalMandatoryTouch()
{
cherry=true;
}
abstract public void cook();
}
A class that extends it would be something like
class Cheff extends CakeSkill
{
//..
void cook()
{
//..Secret recipe
}
}
But of course this won't work,
finalMandaroryTouch() hasn't been called, then no cake will end with a cherry..
[EDIT]
This one could be a solution
class MemoriousCheff extends CakeSkill
{
//..
void cook()
{
//..Secret recipe
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
}
but requires :
Cheff to have a perfect memory that don't forget to call finalMandatoryTouch()
Making finalMandatoryTouch() to be protected (at least)
[/EDIT]
It would be great! (but no Java) if something like this could be done
abstract public void cook()
{
#implementedMethod
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
How can be implemented this useful functionality ?
Thank you very much

Change cook to a protected method cookImpl then have a public final method called cook:
public final void cook()
{
cookImpl();
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
protected abstract void cookImpl();
That way the subclass only needs to worry about cookImpl, but callers of cook get the cherry on top. Callers not in the same package or class hierarchy won't even see cookImpl, so won't be able to call it directly.
This is the template method pattern, basically.

It's called the Template method pattern.
final public void cook() {
mainCookRecipe();
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
abstract public void mainCookRecipe();

public abstract class CakeSkill {
public void cook() {
doCook();
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
protected abstract doCook();
private finalMandatoryTouch() { ... }
}
Etc.

You could change your cook() method to an actual method and then invoke a separate abstract method as well as your finalMandatoryTouch() method.
In your abstract class:
public void cook() {
specificCook();
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
abstract void specificCook();

It seems that inheritance is not the right way to model your problem. In Java you can only inherit from one class, and since it's also a very static relationship, it limits your chef in the skills he can perform.
A better way would be to use composition. Cooking skills could be strategies that the chef performs:
interface CookingSkill {
void cook();
}
class CakeSkill implements CookingSkill {
private boolean cherry = false;
private void finalMandatoryTouch() {
cherry = true;
}
public void cook() {
//...
finalMandatoryTouch();
}
}
class Chef {
private CookingSkill cookingSkill;
// getters and setters ...
public void cook() {
// ...
cookingSkill.cook();
// ...
}
}
Now you can assign different cooking skills to your chef.