Develop Reference

Loop over object setters java [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Invoking all setters within a class using reflection
(4 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I have a POJO object and a collection of appropriate data.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class TestPojo {
private String name;
private String number;
private String id;
private String sex;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getNumber() {
return number;
}
public void setNumber(String number) {
this.number = number;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getSex() {
return sex;
}
public void setSex(String sex) {
this.sex = sex;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestPojo test = new TestPojo();
List<String> sampleData = new ArrayList<>();
sampleData.add("Bob");
sampleData.add("641-613-623");
sampleData.add("id-1451");
sampleData.add("Male");
test.setName(sampleData.get(0));
test.setNumber(sampleData.get(1));
test.setId(sampleData.get(2));
test.setSex(sampleData.get(3));
}
}
My question is how can i fill my POJO object with data in a loop? Is it posible to iterate all object setters and set data from List in appropriate places? I know that reflection can help in this case.

Here is an simple example to call setters via reflection (which needs to be adjusted):
[if this is a good approach, is another question. But to answer your question:]
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
//this is only to demonstrate java reflection:
Method[] publicMethods = TestPojo.class.getMethods(); //get all public methods
TestPojo testObj = TestPojo.class.newInstance(); //when you have a default ctor (otherwise get constructors here)
for (Method aMethod : publicMethods) //iterate over methods
{
//check name and parameter-count (mabye needs some more checks...paramter types can also be checked...)
if (aMethod.getName().startsWith("set") && aMethod.getParameterCount() == 1)
{
Object[] parms = new Object[]{"test"}; //only one parm (can be multiple params)
aMethod.invoke(testObj, parms); //call setter-method here
}
}
}
You can also save all setter-methods in an list/set for later re-use...
But as others already said, you have to be careful by doing so (using reflection)!
Cheers!

You can't easily - and you shouldn't.
You see, your POJO class offers some setters. All of them have a distinct meaning. Your first mistake is that all of these fields are strings in your model:
gender is not a string. It would rather be an enum.
"number" is not a string. It should rather be int/long/double (whatever the idea behind that property is)
In other words: you premise that "input" data is represented as array/list is already flawed.
The code you have written provides almost no helpful abstractions. So - instead of worrying how to call these setter methods in some loop context - you should rather step back and improve your model.
And hint: if this is really about populating POJO objects from string input - then get your string into JSON format, and use tools such as gson or jackson to do that (reflection based) mapping for you.

"Iterating over methods" seems pretty much of a wrong idea in OO programming. You could simply add a constructor to your class setting all of your attributes, and then just call that constructor in a loop as desired to create new objects with data you desire.
In your class define:
public TestPojo(String name, String number, String id, String sex){
this.name = name;
this.number = number;
this.id = id;
this.sex = sex;
}
Also using a List makes no much sense here. I'd recommend using a HashMap to then iterate over it in a for loop making proper calls of the above constructor.

How to access an object's fields/methods by their name as a string

Lets say I have a class
class A {
string name;
int age;
string gender;
//assuming all the constructors, getters and setters are present
}
for purpose of simplicity, lets assume all these members are public and to access them I create an object of that class as follows
A a = new A();
is there a way to access the each member as follows
String string = "age"
a.string
and get the age of the object and so on.
similarly, lets say I have a getter and can I access it using
String string = "getAge()";
a.string;
I am an beginner java programmer trying to optimize a code written in swift (needless to say I am a novice in swift), which has a class with more than 50 members and setting/getting each of them in some other module gets very tedious.
Just wondering if this is possible in either of the programming languages. In java I assume something like this might be possible using class reflection, but not very sure.

Well, you can use reflection, and do something like:
A a = new A();
Class cls = a.getClass();
//read a method value
String methodName = "getAge";
Method method = cls.getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
int methodReturnedResult = method.invoke(a, null);
//read a field value
String fieldName = "age";
Field field = cls.getDeclaredField(fieldName);
int fieldValue = field.get(a);
This is another example
Java Reflection tutorial
Though it is important to note that reflection wasn't meant for these cases and it isn't considered a good design to use reflection in these scenarios. What you need to do is to use IDE's abilities to generate setters and getters for you automatically.
Which IDE do you use? Most Java IDE's has the ability to generate getters and setters automatically according to the class fields.
This is how you do it in Eclipse, Netbeans, Intellij and in Android Studio.

As explained here (with an example), you can use java reflection to check whether class contains a field and get the value of that field.
Also, making the fields public isn't a good idea, they should be private and accessed only via getters and setters.

If you have to use reflation, below should work.
Class A
class A {
String name;
int age;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public int getAge() {
return age;
}
public void setAge(int age) {
this.age = age;
}
}
Utility method in your class
public Object get(String methodName, A a) throws Exception {
Object ret = null;
if(a != null){
Class<A> cl = A.class;
Method method = cl.getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
ret = method.invoke(a);
}
return ret;
}
public void set(String methodName, Object value, A a) throws Exception{
Class<A> cl = A.class;
Method method = cl.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, value.getClass());
method.invoke(a, value);
}
Test it
public void testIt() throws Exception{
A a = new A();
set("setName", "xyz", a);
String name = (String) get("getName",a);
System.out.println(name);
}
Note: be careful on boxed type i.e. int is represented as Integer. And good amount of null checks.

Duplicate and add fields between classes

I was wondering if the following scenario is possible.
Having two classes (Source and Destination) where in code I could do this:
public class Source{
private String fieldA;
private String fieldB;
public Source(){ ... }
}
...
public class Destination{
public Destination(Source src){ ... }
}
Source src = new Source();
Destination dest = new Destination(src);
dest.fieldA = "test";
dest.fieldB = "test";
So what I mean here is that I have two classes, one called Source that contains (private) fields and one called Destination with no fields. After creating two objects of these classes and passing in Source into the constructor of Destination, I want to be able to duplicate/copy the fields of Source into Destination.
Could something like this be possible in Java, whether or not using Reflection? And if possible, can someone give me a minor example I can start with.

A hackish version to accomplish this is to add all fields to a Map. The fields can be copied from the source object to the destination object and the field name can be the key. Something along the lines of this:
public class FieldAccessor {
public static class Destination {
private final Map<String, Object> fields = new HashMap<>();
public Destination(Object o) {
final Set<Field> accessibleFields = Arrays.stream(o.getClass().getDeclaredFields())
.map(field -> {
field.setAccessible(true);
return field;
})
.collect(Collectors.toSet());
accessibleFields.forEach(field -> {
try {
fields.put(field.getName(), field.get(o));
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Unable to access field", e);
}
});
}
public Set<String> fieldNames() {
return fields.keySet();
}
public Optional<Object> fieldValue(String fieldName) {
return Optional.ofNullable(fields.get(fieldName));
}
}
public static class Source {
private final String fieldA;
private final Integer fieldB;
private final int fieldC;
public Source(String fieldA, Integer fieldB, int fieldC) {
this.fieldA = fieldA;
this.fieldB = fieldB;
this.fieldC = fieldC;
}
public String getFieldA() {
return fieldA;
}
public Integer getFieldB() {
return fieldB;
}
public int getFieldC() {
return fieldC;
}
}
#Test
public void testFields() {
Destination destination = new Destination(new Source("Abc", 123, 456));
destination.fieldNames().stream().forEach(fieldName -> {
System.out.println("Fieldname: " + fieldName + ", value: " + destination.fieldValue(fieldName).get());
});
}
}
For more info, check out this SO.
However, this is not something I would use in real production code. Instead, I would use some sort of serialization by e.g. using Jackson.

So you want to dynamically create fields in an object ? That's not directly possible in Java. If you just wanted to copy methods of an interface, the answer would have be to use a JDK proxy. It may still be of interest if :
you accept to only use getters and setters in Destination class
Source class implements an interface defining the setters and getters you want to copy
If you cannot accept those restrictions, you will have to look to CGLIB proxies or Javassist, that is libraries that dynamically modify the bytecode of the compiled class objects at load time. It is a really advanced feature, that is mainly used in frameworks or other libraries and not in high-level programs. Typically it is used in Object Relational Mappers like Hibernate to replace simple collection classes with enhanced ones that transparently gets (an save) their elements in database.
In any other case, trying to access private fields outside of the class should be seen as an indicator for a possible design flaw. private means implementation dependant and can change across versions and should not be used without knowing why.

The simplest and most efficient way to do it is copying the fields explicitly :
public Destination(Source src)
{
this.fieldA = src.getFieldA();
this.fieldB = src.getFieldB();
}
I don't see the point in using reflection for this purpose.

The only thing is in my mind for this at this time is extending Destination class from Source
public class Source{
private String fieldA;
private String fieldB;
//You need to have both Getter and Setter for fieldA and fieldB
public Source(){ ... }
}
...
public class Destination extends Source{
public Destination(){...}
}
Source src = new Destination();
dest.setFieldA("test");
dest.setFieldB("test");

Private members of Source cannot be accessed from Destination object even if you are passing a Source object to Destination.
You need to add string fieldA, fieldB to Destination to
string fieldA, fieldB;
public Destination(Source src)
{
fieldA = src.fieldA;
fieldB = src.fieldB;
}

Java - Using Accessor and Mutator methods

I am working on a homework assignment. I am confused on how it should be done.
The question is:
Create a class called IDCard that contains a person's name, ID number,
and the name of a file containing the person's photogrpah. Write
accessor and mutator methods for each of these fields. Add the
following two overloaded constructors to the class:
public IDCard() public IDCard(String n, int ID, String filename)
Test your program by creating different ojbects using these two
constructors and printing out their values on the console using the
accessor and mutator methods.
I have re-written this so far:
public class IDCard {
String Name, FileName;
int ID;
public static void main(String[] args) {
}
public IDCard()
{
this.Name = getName();
this.FileName = getFileName();
this.ID = getID();
}
public IDCard(String n, int ID, String filename)
{
}
public String getName()
{
return "Jack Smith";
}
public String getFileName()
{
return "Jack.jpg";
}
public int getID()
{
return 555;
}
}

Let's go over the basics:
"Accessor" and "Mutator" are just fancy names fot a getter and a setter.
A getter, "Accessor", returns a class's variable or its value. A setter, "Mutator", sets a class variable pointer or its value.
So first you need to set up a class with some variables to get/set:
public class IDCard
{
private String mName;
private String mFileName;
private int mID;
}
But oh no! If you instantiate this class the default values for these variables will be meaningless.
B.T.W. "instantiate" is a fancy word for doing:
IDCard test = new IDCard();
So - let's set up a default constructor, this is the method being called when you "instantiate" a class.
public IDCard()
{
mName = "";
mFileName = "";
mID = -1;
}
But what if we do know the values we wanna give our variables? So let's make another constructor, one that takes parameters:
public IDCard(String name, int ID, String filename)
{
mName = name;
mID = ID;
mFileName = filename;
}
Wow - this is nice. But stupid. Because we have no way of accessing (=reading) the values of our variables. So let's add a getter, and while we're at it, add a setter as well:
public String getName()
{
return mName;
}
public void setName( String name )
{
mName = name;
}
Nice. Now we can access mName. Add the rest of the accessors and mutators and you're now a certified Java newbie.
Good luck.

You need to remove the static from your accessor methods - these methods need to be instance methods and access the instance variables
public class IDCard {
public String name, fileName;
public int id;
public IDCard(final String name, final String fileName, final int id) {
this.name = name;
this.fileName = fileName
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
You can the create an IDCard and use the accessor like this:
final IDCard card = new IDCard();
card.getName();
Each time you call new a new instance of the IDCard will be created and it will have it's own copies of the 3 variables.
If you use the static keyword then those variables are common across every instance of IDCard.
A couple of things to bear in mind:
don't add useless comments - they add code clutter and nothing else.
conform to naming conventions, use lower case of variable names - name not Name.

What's good practice of creating input validation method in Java?

If I want to validate my input, should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class? Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
More Information
Let's say I have a class
import java.util.Vector;
public class Place {
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
private String address;
private String name;
private String types;
private String icon;
private String phoneNumber;
private String websiteUrl;
private int rating;
private Vector<Integer> challenges;
public static class Builder {
// required parameter
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
// optional parameter
private String address = "n/a";
private String name = "n/a";
private String icon = "n/a";
private String phoneNumber = "n/a";
private String websiteUrl = "n/a";
private String types = "n/a";
private Vector<Integer> challenges = new Vector<Integer>();
private int rating = 0;
public Builder(double longitude, double latitude, String id) {
assert(longitude >= -180.0 && longitude <= 180.0);
assert(latitude >= -90.0 && longitude <= 90.0);
this.longitude = longitude;
this.latitude = latitude;
this.id = id;
}
public Builder address(String address) {
this.address = address;
return this;
}
public Builder types(String types) {
this.types = types;
return this;
}
public Builder name(String name) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
public Builder icon(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
return this;
}
public Builder phoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
return this;
}
public Builder websiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
return this;
}
public Builder builder(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
return this;
}
public Place build() {
return new Place(this);
}
}
public Place(Builder builder) {
// required parameters
longitude = builder.longitude;
latitude = builder.latitude;
id = builder.id;
// optional parameters
address = builder.address;
types = builder.types;
name = builder.name;
icon = builder.icon;
phoneNumber = builder.phoneNumber;
websiteUrl = builder.websiteUrl;
rating = builder.rating;
challenges = builder.challenges;
}
public double getLongitude() {
return longitude;
}
public double getLatitude() {
return latitude;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setAddress(String address) {
this.address = address;
}
public String getAddress() {
return address;
}
public String getTypes() {
return types;
}
public void setTypes(String types) {
this.types = types;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setIconUrl(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
}
public String getIcon() {
return icon;
}
public void setPhoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
}
public String getPhoneNumber() {
return phoneNumber;
}
public void setWebsiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
}
public String getWebsiteUrl() {
return websiteUrl;
}
public void setRating(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
}
public int getRating() {
return rating;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "(" + Double.toString(longitude) + ", " + Double.toString(latitude) + ")";
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + ((id == null) ? 0 : id.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Place other = (Place) obj;
if (id == null) {
if (other.id != null)
return false;
}
else if (!id.equals(other.id))
return false;
return true;
}
public Vector<Integer> getChallenges() {
return new Vector<Integer>(challenges);
}
public void addChallenges(Integer i) {
this.challenges.add(i);
}
public void showChallenges() {
for (Integer i : challenges) {
System.out.print(i + ", ");
}
}
}
If I have to validate address argument before setting it, where should I put the code for validating address in this case?

If you are talking just seeing if the entered String is formatted correctly or if the length is right, then you would use a private method. If you would on the other hand check if the address is correct (look it up on a map) or any more advanced stuff, it would make sense to create a AddressValidator interface and call it from that private method.
The reason for the private method being that you call this both from a constructor, setter or any other method that could suppy an address. The reason for the interface being that you might want to have e.g. an online / offline AddressValidator (MockAddressValidator, or one that calls a different class for each country etc).
As an AddressValidator could be reused in other classes, and to keep your code clean, I would create it as a top level interface + OnlineAddressValidator. This makes your class better readable as well. For full configurability, you might want to think about how you are going to supply the AddressValidator instance, e.g. through the constructor or one defined as a static final validator.
public interface AddressValidator {
static class AddressValidatorResult {
// some results, you might want to return some useful feedback (if not valid)
boolean isValid() {
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
public static class AddressValidationException extends Exception {
private AddressValidationException(AddressValidatorResult result) {
// add some implementation
}
}
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address);
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
}
public class DefaultAddressValidator implements AddressValidator {
public static class Params {
// some parameters for this specific validator
}
private final Params params;
public DefaultAddressValidator(Params params) {
// creates this validator
this.params = params;
}
#Override
public AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address) {
// perform your code here
// I don't like "return null" as it may lead to bugs
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
// and use it like this
private void validateAddress(String address) throws AddressValidationException {
// e.g. field AddressValidator set in constructor
AddressValidatorResult result = addressValidator.validateAddress(address);
if (!result.isValid()) {
throw new AddressValidationException(result);
}
}

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class?
This totally depends on your context. It's impossible to say what should be the best design, without knowing what you are trying to realise.
After you edit: IMO, it is still not easy to tell you. If you only have to validate the address in one single point of your application (id: the setter method), I would validate it inside the setter method. If the input was invalid, I whould throw an IllegalArgumentException.
Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
However, the answer to your second question is No. To understand why, you have to know what Object Oriented Programming is.
Some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_science)

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a
separate static helper class?
It depends if you think that you'll need to reuse the same method also in another class for the same purpose(input validation) it is better write the method in a separate static helper class so you can reuse the method and maintain it easily.
If you write the same private helper method in several class each time that you need to make a changes you have to edit each method in each class, with a static helper class you change the code in one place only ...

Read about PropertyChangeListener and Bean Validation.

I tend to validate within the get() and set() methods wherever possible - calling external static methods for common tasks such as checking dates or cleaning input (i.e. to avoid sql injection)
If you only use (and are only ever going to use) the validation within one class, keep it as a private helper method. If in doubt, I tend to pull the functionality out into a static helper class. It makes very little difference to the amount of code, is no more effort to implement, and is much more flexible.

The short answer is: you should implement your validation code the way that your framework tells you to. Typically, this is a public method or an annotation. An interface could work too. If you add code, your class size will increase.
Data validation should be automatically called by your software's infrastructure. This helps to prevent programmers from forgetting to call the appropriate code. So, the methods should be public (an interface would work too).
Frameworks like Struts, Spring, Hibernate and have their own validation systems. Java EE leverages bean validation.
I recommend bean validation, because it performs validation regardless of the input source. When most people think of input validation, they think of data coming from the user e.g. HTTP Request, command console, Swing text field. Spring and Struts validation is often fine for those situations. But in long lived programs developed for enterprises, other data feeds often get introduced e.g. SQL database updates from another programs, database restoration after a crash, enterprise service bus, JMS.
That is why I prefer bean validation. The downside is that "safe sources" (data that you know is untainted) are validated unnecessarily. But with today's processing power, that should rarely be a significant concern.
Java EE Tutorial