Develop Reference

Constructor Chaining with subclasses in Java

Just a question RE: Constructor Chaining in subclasses that I can't find a good answer on and I'm confusing myself a bit with.
I'm making a basic little Text Based RPG for some practice and I'm going through my constructors for an abstract class and have the constructors from 0-4 params chained together like below
abstract class Creature {
// Fields
private String name;
private int lifeForce;
private int strength;
private int agility;
// Constructors + Chaining
public Creature() {
this("Unknown")
}
public Creature(String name) {
this(name, 100);
}
public Creature(String name, int lifeForce) {
this(name, lifeForce, 10);
}
public Creature(String name, int lifeForce, int strength) {
this(name, lifeForce, strength, 10);
}
public Creature(String name, int lifeForce, int strength, int agility) {
this.name = name;
this.lifeForce = lifeForce;
this.strength = strength;
this.agility = agility;
}
My confusion is how best to format the constructors of a subclass of creature, for example this simple Person class introduces two new fields. There's definitely too much repetition if I write the constructors like this
// Constructors + Chaining
public Person() {
super("Unknown");
this.skillClass=new Mage();
this.dialogue="...";
}
public Person(String name) {
super(name);
this.skillClass=new Mage();
this.dialogue="...";
} etc etc etc
I suppose I could restrict the constructors to limit the repetition but I'm mostly just wondering if there's good best practice that I'm missing here.
Any and all suggestions welcome and if anyone has any good resources to recommend that go deeper than the usual
Class B extends Class A
examples I'd massively appreciate.

In situations like this one when you need to use multiple constructors with different parameters, it is recommended to use the builder pattern like this :
abstract class Creature {
// Fields
private String name;
private int lifeForce;
private int strength;
private int agility;
private Creature(Builder<?> builder) {
this.name = builder.name;
this.lifeForce = builder.lifeForce;
// Add the other attributes here.
}
public static abstract Builder extends Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
private String name;
private int lifeForce;
private int strength;
private int agility;
public Builder(//here you put the attributes that you need to have in all instances) {
// here you do the affectations.
}
// now you need to make the functions that set each property :
public Builder lifeForce(int lifeForce) {
this.lifeForce = lifeForce;
return this;
}
// you do the same thing for all the other attributes.
...
public Creature build() {
return new Creature(this);
}
}
}
So for the explanation : This pattern will allow you to create instances of your class by setting only the needed attributes.
As here you have subclasses the builder pattern will be little bit more harder to understand but it is the perfect solution in such situation.
We need to apply the builder pattern also for every subclasse so let's do it for the person class :
public class Person extends Creature {
private int anotherField;
public Person(Builder builder) {
super(builder);
this.anotherField = anotherField;
}
public static Builder extends Creature.Builder<Builder> {
public Builder(//add the fieldHere if it is needed in all class instances) {
// if the field is not mandatory you can omit this constructor but you need to put the function below.
}
public Builder anotherField(int anotherField) {
this.anotherField = anotherField;
}
public Person build() {
return new Person(this);
}
}
Now let me show you how tricky is this solution :
1/ declare person with 2 fields :
Person p1 = Person.Builder().name("name").anotherField(0).build();
2/ declare another one with just one field
Person p2 = Person.Builder().agility(1000).build();
Remark : In these two examples, i supposed that your builders' constructors don't have parameters. If for example the name is mandatory field :
Person p3 = Person.Builder("name").anotherField(0).build();
I wish that you had the idea about using builder pattern.

Builder Design Pattern with sub-classing and required parameters?

Recently I came into a situation where the builder pattern was very strong, but I had the need to subclass. I looked up some solutions and some suggested generics while others suggested normal subclassing. However, none of the examples I looked at had required fields in order to even begin building an object. I wrote a tiny example to illustrate where I'm getting stuck. At every turn I kept running into a wall of problems where things would return the wrong class, can't override static methods, returning super() returns the wrong data type, etc. I have a feeling there is no way out except excessive use of generics.
What is the correct way to go in this situation?
Tester
import person.Person;
import person.Student;
public class Tester
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Person p = Person.builder("Jake", 18).interest("Soccer").build();
// Student s = Student.builder(name, age) <-- It's weird that we still have access to pointless static method
// Student s = Student.builder("Johnny", 24, "Harvard", 3).address("199 Harvard Lane") <-- returns Person builder, not student
Student s = ((Student.Builder)Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1).address("Dormitory")).build(); // really bad
}
}
Person Class
package person;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Person
{
// Required
protected String name;
protected int age;
// Optional
protected List<String> interests = new ArrayList<>();
protected String address = "";
protected Person(String name, int age)
{
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
public String getName() { return name; }
public int getAge() { return age; }
public List<String> getInterests() { return interests; }
public String getAddress() { return address; }
// person.person does not allow builder construction
// unless all required fields are provided
/* Problem: I have to repeat the constructor fields here, very annoying */
public static Builder builder(String name, int age)
{
Person p = new Person(name, age);
return new Builder(p);
}
public static class Builder
{
Person reference;
protected Builder(Person reference)
{
this.reference = reference;
}
public Builder address(String address)
{
reference.address = address;
return this;
}
public Builder interest(String interest)
{
reference.interests.add(interest);
return this;
}
public Person build()
{
return reference;
}
}
}
Student Class
package person;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Student extends Person
{
// Required
protected String school;
protected int year;
// Optional
protected List<String> subjects = new ArrayList<>();
// This looks good
public Student(final String name, final int age, final String school, final int year)
{
super(name, age);
this.school = school;
this.year = year;
}
public String getSchool() { return school; }
public int getYear() { return year; }
public List<String> getSubjects() { return subjects; }
/* Here's where my issues are:
* Override doesn't compile on static methods but how else can I describe that I want to
* override this functionality from the Person class?
*
* Extending 'Person' does not enforce that I need to provide 'name', 'age', etc like it would
* if this was a normal design pattern using the 'new' keyword. I have to manually drag fields
* from 'person' and place them here. This would get VERY messy with an additional class
*
* User can STILL call the Person builder on a Student object, which makes no sense. */
/*#Override*/ public static Builder builder(String name, int age, String school, int year)
{
Student s = new Student(name, age, school, year);
return new Builder(s);
}
public static class Builder extends Person.Builder
{
// Student reference; <--- this should not be needed since we already
// have a variable for this purpose from 'Person.Builder'
public Builder(final Student reference)
{
super(reference);
}
/* Things begins to get very messy here */
public Builder subject(String subject)
{
((Student)reference).subjects.add(subject);
// I guess I could replace the reference with a student one, but
// I feel like that infringes on calling super() builder since we do the work twice.
return this;
}
#Override public Student build()
{
// I can either cast here or
// rewrite 'return reference' every time.
// Seems to infringe a bit on subclassing.
return (Student)super.build();
}
}
}

What you write here :
Student s = ((Student.Builder)Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1).address("Dormitory")).build(); // really bad
is indeed not very natural and you should not need to cast.
We expect rather something like :
Student s = Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1).address("Dormitory")).build();
Besides all casts you did in the implementation of Student.Builder are also noise and statements that may fail at runtime :
/* Things begins to get very messy here */
public Builder subject(String subject) {
((Student)reference).subjects.add(subject);
return this;
}
#Override public Student build() {
return (Student)super.build();
}
Your main issue is the coupling between the Builder classes and the building methods.
A important thing to consider is that at compile time, the method binding (method selected by the compiler) is performed according to the declared type of the target of the invocation and the declared type of its arguments.
The instantiated type is considered only at runtime as the dynamic binding is applied: invoking the method bounded at compile time on the runtime object.
So this overriding defined in Student.Builder is not enough :
#Override public Student build() {
return (Student)super.build();
}
As you invoke :
Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1).address("Dormitory").build();
At compile time, address("Dormitory") returns a variable typed as Person.Builder as the method is defined in Person.Builder :
public Builder address(String address){
reference.address = address;
return this;
}
and it not overriden in Student.Builder.
And at compile time, invoking build() on a variable declared as Person.Builder returns a object with as declared type a Person as the method is declared in Person.Builder as :
public Person build(){
return reference;
}
Of course at runtime, the returned object will be a Student as
Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1) creates under the hood a Student and not a Person.
To avoid cast to Student.builder both from the implementation and the client side, favor composition over inheritancy :
public static class Builder {
Person.Builder personBuilder;
private Student reference;
public Builder(final Student reference) {
this.reference = reference;
personBuilder = new Person.Builder(reference);
}
public Builder subject(String subject) {
reference.subjects.add(subject);
return this;
}
// delegation to Person.Builder but return Student.Builder
public Builder interest(String interest) {
personBuilder.interest(interest);
return this;
}
// delegation to Person.Builder but return Student.Builder
public Builder address(String address) {
personBuilder.address(address);
return this;
}
public Student build() {
return (Student) personBuilder.build();
}
}
You can now write :
Student s = Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1)
.address("Dormitory")
.build();
or even that :
Student s2 = Student.builder("Jack", 19, "NYU", 1)
.interest("Dance")
.address("Dormitory")
.build();
Composition introduces generally more code as inheritancy but it makes the code
both more robust and adaptable.
As a side note, your actual issue is enough close to another question I answered 1 month ago.
The question and its answers may interest you.

A few thoughts as background
Static methods are not so great,
they make unit testing more difficult.
It is fine to put the builder as a static, nested class, but if you are using a builder to construct a class you should make the constructor not-public.
I prefer to have the builder be a separate class in the same package and to make the constructor (of the class that is created by the builder) package access.
Limit the builder constructor parameters.
I'm not a fan of using a class hierarchy for builders.
The Person and Student classes each have a builder.
Some Code
public class PersonBuilder
{
private String address;
private int age;
private final List<String> interestList;
private String name;
public PersonBuilder()
{
interestList = new LinkedList<>();
}
public void addInterest(
final String newValue)
{
// StringUtils is an apache utility.
if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(newValue))
{
interestList.add(newValue);
}
return this;
}
public Person build()
{
// perform validation here.
// check for required values: age and name.
// send all parameters in the constructor. it's not public, so that is fine.
return new Person(address, age, interestList, name);
}
public PersonBuilder setAddress(
final String newValue)
{
address = newValue;
return this;
}
public PersonBuilder setAge(
final int newValue)
{
age = newValue;
return this;
}
public PersonBuilder setInterestList(
final List<String> newValue)
{
interestList.clear();
if (CollectionUtils.isNotEmpty(newValue))
{
interestList.addAll(newValue);
}
return this;
}
public PersonBuilder setName(
final String newValue)
{
name = newValue;
return this;
}
}
public class Person
{
private Person()
{
}
Person(
final String addressValue,
final int ageValue,
final List<String> interestListValue,
final String name)
{
// set stuff.
// handle null for optional parameters.
}
// create gets or the fields, but do not create sets. Only the builder can set values in the class.
}

I want to make universal method in CLASS for all enums

public class TableContent {
public static String EXCEL_SHEET_NAME = Nit.THEAD.getName();
public static String FILENAME= Nit.FILENAME.getName();
public enum Nit {
FILENAME("Nit-workorder-list"),
THEAD("NIT WORKORDER"),
TENDERSPECNO("TENDER SPECFICATION NO."),
FEE("TENDER FEE"),
SDAMOUNT("SD AMOUNT"),
TYPE("NIT TYPE"),
PRE_BID("PRE BIDDING DATE"),
OPEN_DATE("OPENING DATE"),
STATUS("CONTRACTOR STATUS");
private final String name;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
private Nit(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public static Nit getNitHeadByName(String name)
{
Nit[] nit=Nit.values();
if(nit==null)
{
return null;
}
for(Nit nitHead:nit)
{
if(nitHead.getName().equals(name))
return nitHead;
}
return null;
}
public enum NitWorkOrder {
}
public enum NitList {
}
My objective is:
I want to export excel sheet from my application, every time I need to hardcode the table headings, which was not good programming practice.
So I use enum to overcome the hardcode problem. Now there are different table heading according to the list, then I enclosed all the required ENUMS in single class.
I used to write getXXXByName() and getXXXByValue() to access the enum, by name or by value.
But he problem is I need to write getXXXByName() and getXXXByValue() everytime inside each enum. I want to write these methods inside the class and outside the enums, and access those methods with the help of class name.
I just want to declare my constants inside enum.
Please kindly suggest me an idea or a way so I can make this method universal which will work for each and every enum. I want to write these methods in such a way so it can be accessed for all enums enclosed in my class. I thought about generics but I have little knowledge.

You can use generics to push functionality up to a parent class by telling the parent class that the type is an enum that implements an interface.
// Use an interface to inform the super class what the enums can do.
public interface Named {
public String getName();
}
// Super class of all Tables.
public static class Table<E extends Enum<E> & Named> {
private final Class<E> itsClass;
private final String sheetName;
private final String fileName;
public Table(Class<E> itsClass) {
this.itsClass = itsClass;
// Walk the enum to get filename and sheet name.
String sheetName = null;
String fileName = null;
for ( E e: itsClass.getEnumConstants() ){
if ( e.name().equals("FILENAME")) {
fileName = e.getName();
}
if ( e.name().equals("THEAD")) {
sheetName = e.getName();
}
}
this.sheetName = sheetName;
this.fileName = fileName;
}
// Use the interface and the enum details to do your stuff.
public E getByName (String name) {
for ( E e: itsClass.getEnumConstants() ){
if ( e.getName().equals(name)) {
return e;
}
}
return null;
}
}
// Extend Table and tell it about your enum using the super constructor.
public static class TableContent extends Table<TableContent.Nit> {
public TableContent() {
super(TableContent.Nit.class);
}
public enum Nit implements Named{
FILENAME("Nit-workorder-list"),
THEAD("NIT WORKORDER"),
TENDERSPECNO("TENDER SPECFICATION NO."),
FEE("TENDER FEE"),
SDAMOUNT("SD AMOUNT"),
TYPE("NIT TYPE"),
PRE_BID("PRE BIDDING DATE"),
OPEN_DATE("OPENING DATE"),
STATUS("CONTRACTOR STATUS");
private final String name;
Nit(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
}

How to enable enum inheritance

I'm writing a library, which has a predefined set of values for an enum.
Let say, my enum looks as below.
public enum EnumClass {
FIRST("first"),
SECOND("second"),
THIRD("third");
private String httpMethodType;
}
Now the client, who is using this library may need to add few more values. Let say, the client needs to add CUSTOM_FIRST and CUSTOM_SECOND. This is not overwriting any existing values, but makes the enum having 5 values.
After this, I should be able to use something like <? extends EnumClass> to have 5 constant possibilities.
What would be the best approach to achieve this?

You cannot have an enum extend another enum, and you cannot "add" values to an existing enum through inheritance.
However, enums can implement interfaces.
What I would do is have the original enum implement a marker interface (i.e. no method declarations), then your client could create their own enum implementing the same interface.
Then your enum values would be referred to by their common interface.
In order to strenghten the requirements, you could have your interface declare relevant methods, e.g. in your case, something in the lines of public String getHTTPMethodType();.
That would force implementing enums to provide an implementation for that method.
This setting coupled with adequate API documentation should help adding functionality in a relatively controlled way.
Self-contained example (don't mind the lazy names here)
package test;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<HTTPMethodConvertible> blah = new ArrayList<>();
blah.add(LibraryEnum.FIRST);
blah.add(ClientEnum.BLABLABLA);
for (HTTPMethodConvertible element: blah) {
System.out.println(element.getHTTPMethodType());
}
}
static interface HTTPMethodConvertible {
public String getHTTPMethodType();
}
static enum LibraryEnum implements HTTPMethodConvertible {
FIRST("first"),
SECOND("second"),
THIRD("third");
String httpMethodType;
LibraryEnum(String s) {
httpMethodType = s;
}
public String getHTTPMethodType() {
return httpMethodType;
}
}
static enum ClientEnum implements HTTPMethodConvertible {
FOO("GET"),BAR("PUT"),BLAH("OPTIONS"),MEH("DELETE"),BLABLABLA("POST");
String httpMethodType;
ClientEnum(String s){
httpMethodType = s;
}
public String getHTTPMethodType() {
return httpMethodType;
}
}
}
Output
first
POST

Enums are not extensible. To solve your problem simply
turn the enum in a class
create constants for the predefined types
if you want a replacement for Enum.valueOf: track all instances of the class in a static map
For example:
public class MyType {
private static final HashMap<String,MyType> map = new HashMap<>();
private String name;
private String httpMethodType;
// replacement for Enum.valueOf
public static MyType valueOf(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
public MyType(String name, String httpMethodType) {
this.name = name;
this.httpMethodType = httpMethodType;
map.put(name, this);
}
// accessors
public String name() { return name; }
public String httpMethodType() { return httpMethodType; }
// predefined constants
public static final MyType FIRST = new MyType("FIRST", "first");
public static final MyType SECOND = new MyType("SECOND", "second");
...
}

Think about Enum like a final class with static final instances of itself. Of course you cannot extend final class, but you can use non-final class with static final instances in your library. You can see example of this kind of definition in JDK. Class java.util.logging.Level can be extended with class containing additional set of logging levels.
If you accept this way of implementation, your library code example can be like:
public class EnumClass {
public static final EnumClass FIRST = new EnumClass("first");
public static final EnumClass SECOND = new EnumClass("second");
public static final EnumClass THIRD = new EnumClass("third");
private String httpMethodType;
protected EnumClass(String name){
this.httpMethodType = name;
}
}
Client application can extend list of static members with inheritance:
public final class ClientEnum extends EnumClass{
public static final ClientEnum CUSTOM_FIRST = new ClientEnum("custom_first");
public static final ClientEnum CUSTOM_SECOND = new ClientEnum("custom_second");
private ClientEnum(String name){
super(name);
}
}
I think that this solution is close to what you have asked, because all static instances are visible from client class, and all of them will satisfy your generic wildcard.

We Fixed enum inheritance issue this way, hope it helps
Our App has few classes and each has few child views(nested views), in order to be able to navigate between childViews and save the currentChildview we saved them as enum inside each Class.
but we had to copy paste, some common functionality like next, previous and etc inside each enum.
To avoid that we needed a BaseEnum, we used interface as our base enum:
public interface IBaseEnum {
IBaseEnum[] getList();
int getIndex();
class Utils{
public IBaseEnum next(IBaseEnum enumItem, boolean isCycling){
int index = enumItem.getIndex();
IBaseEnum[] list = enumItem.getList();
if (index + 1 < list.length) {
return list[index + 1];
} else if(isCycling)
return list[0];
else
return null;
}
public IBaseEnum previous(IBaseEnum enumItem, boolean isCycling) {
int index = enumItem.getIndex();
IBaseEnum[] list = enumItem.getList();
IBaseEnum previous;
if (index - 1 >= 0) {
previous = list[index - 1];
}
else {
if (isCycling)
previous = list[list.length - 1];
else
previous = null;
}
return previous;
}
}
}
and this is how we used it
enum ColorEnum implements IBaseEnum {
RED,
YELLOW,
BLUE;
#Override
public IBaseEnum[] getList() {
return values();
}
#Override
public int getIndex() {
return ordinal();
}
public ColorEnum getNext(){
return (ColorEnum) new Utils().next(this,false);
}
public ColorEnum getPrevious(){
return (ColorEnum) new Utils().previous(this,false);
}
}
you could add getNext /getPrevious to the interface too

#wero's answer is very good but has some problems:
the new MyType("FIRST", "first"); will be called before map = new HashMap<>();. in other words, the map will be null when map.add() is called. unfortunately, the occurring error will be NoClassDefFound and it doesn't help to find the problem. check this:
public class Subject {
// predefined constants
public static final Subject FIRST;
public static final Subject SECOND;
private static final HashMap<String, Subject> map;
static {
map = new HashMap<>();
FIRST = new Subject("FIRST");
SECOND = new Subject("SECOND");
}
private final String name;
public Subject(String name) {
this.name = name;
map.put(name, this);
}
// replacement for Enum.valueOf
public static Subject valueOf(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
// accessors
public String name() {
return name;
}

Editing a complex Java object in a Tapestry 5 web application

I am using Tapestry 5.3.6 for a web application and I want the user to edit an instance of a Java class (a "bean", or POJO) using a web form (which immediately suggests the use of beaneditform) - however the Java class to be edited has a fairly complex structure. I am looking for the simplest way of doing this in Tapestry 5.
Firstly, lets define some utility classes e.g.
public class ModelObject {
private URI uri;
private boolean modified;
// the usual constructors, getters and setters ...
}
public class Literal<T> extends ModelObject {
private Class<?> valueClass;
private T value;
public Literal(Class<?> valueClass) {
this.valueClass = valueClass;
}
public Literal(Class<?> valueClass, T value) {
this.valueClass = valueClass;
this.value = value;
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
public class Link<T extends ModelObject> extends ModelObject {
private Class<?> targetClass;
private T target;
public Link(Class<?> targetClass) {
this.targetClass = targetClass;
}
public Link(Class<?> targetClass, T target) {
this.targetClass = targetClass;
this.target = target;
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
Now you can create some fairly complex data structures, for example:
public class HumanBeing extends ModelObject {
private Literal<String> name;
// ... other stuff
public HumanBeing() {
name = new Literal<String>(String.class);
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
public class Project extends ModelObject {
private Literal<String> projectName;
private Literal<Date> startDate;
private Literal<Date> endDate;
private Literal<Integer> someCounter;
private Link<HumanBeing> projectLeader;
private Link<HumanBeing> projectManager;
// ... other stuff, including lists of things, that may be Literals or
// Links ... e.g. (ModelObjectList is an enhanced ArrayList that remembers
// the type(s) of the objects it contains - to get around type erasure ...
private ModelObjectList<Link<HumanBeing>> projectMembers;
private ModelObjectList<Link<Project>> relatedProjects;
private ModelObjectList<Literal<String>> projectAliases;
// the usual constructors, getters and setters for all of the above ...
public Project() {
projectName = new Literal<String>(String.class);
startDate = new Literal<Date>(Date.class);
endDate = new Literal<Date>(Date.class);
someCounter = new Literal<Integer>(Integer.class);
projectLeader = new Link<HumanBeing>(HumanBeing.class);
projectManager = new Link<HumanBeing>(HumanBeing.class);
projectMembers = new ModelObjectList<Link<HumanBeing>>(Link.class, HumanBeing.class);
// ... more ...
}
}
If you point beaneditform at an instance of Project.class, you will not get very far before you have to supply a lot of custom coercers, translators, valueencoders, etc - and then you still run into the problem that you can't use generics when "contributing" said coercers, translators, valueencoders, etc.
I then started writing my own components to get around these problems (e.g. ModelObjectDisplay and ModelObjectEdit) but this would require me to understand a lot more of the guts of Tapestry than I have time to learn ... it feels like I might be able to do what I want using the standard components and liberal use of "delegate" etc. Can anyone see a simple path for me to take with this?
Thanks for reading this far.
PS: if you are wondering why I have done things like this, it is because the model represents linked data from an RDF graph database (aka triple-store) - I need to remember the URI of every bit of data and how it relates (links) to other bits of data (you are welcome to suggest better ways of doing this too :-)
EDIT:
#uklance suggested using display and edit blocks - here is what I had already tried:
Firstly, I had the following in AppPropertyDisplayBlocks.tml ...
<t:block id="literal">
<t:delegate to="literalType" t:value="literalValue" />
</t:block>
<t:block id="link">
<t:delegate to="linkType" t:value="linkValue" />
</t:block>
and in AppPropertyDisplayBlocks.java ...
public Block getLiteralType() {
Literal<?> literal = (Literal<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
Class<?> valueClass = literal.getValueClass();
if (!AppModule.modelTypes.containsKey(valueClass))
return null;
String blockId = AppModule.modelTypes.get(valueClass);
return resources.getBlock(blockId);
}
public Object getLiteralValue() {
Literal<?> literal = (Literal<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
return literal.getValue();
}
public Block getLinkType() {
Link<?> link = (Link<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
Class<?> targetClass = link.getTargetClass();
if (!AppModule.modelTypes.containsKey(targetClass))
return null;
String blockId = AppModule.modelTypes.get(targetClass);
return resources.getBlock(blockId);
}
public Object getLinkValue() {
Link<?> link = (Link<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
return link.getTarget();
}
AppModule.modelTypes is a map from java class to a String to be used by Tapestry e.g. Link.class -> "link" and Literal.class -> "literal" ... in AppModule I had the following code ...
public static void contributeDefaultDataTypeAnalyzer(
MappedConfiguration<Class<?>, String> configuration) {
for (Class<?> type : modelTypes.keySet()) {
String name = modelTypes.get(type);
configuration.add(type, name);
}
}
public static void contributeBeanBlockSource(
Configuration<BeanBlockContribution> configuration) {
// using HashSet removes duplicates ...
for (String name : new HashSet<String>(modelTypes.values())) {
configuration.add(new DisplayBlockContribution(name,
"blocks/AppPropertyDisplayBlocks", name));
configuration.add(new EditBlockContribution(name,
"blocks/AppPropertyEditBlocks", name));
}
}
I had similar code for the edit blocks ... however none of this seemed to work - I think because the original object was passed to the "delegate" rather than the de-referenced object which was either the value stored in the literal or the object the link pointed to (hmm... should be [Ll]inkTarget in the above, not [Ll]inkValue). I also kept running into errors where Tapestry couldn't find a suitable "translator", "valueencoder" or "coercer" ... I am under some time pressure so it is difficult to follow these twisty passages through in order to get out of the maze :-)

I would suggest to build a thin wrapper around the Objects you would like to edit though the BeanEditForm and pass those into it. So something like:
public class TapestryProject {
private Project project;
public TapestryProject(Project proj){
this.project = proj;
}
public String getName(){
this.project.getProjectName().getValue();
}
public void setName(String name){
this.project.getProjectName().setValue(name);
}
etc...
}
This way tapestry will deal with all the types it knows about leaving you free of having to create your own coersions (which is quite simple in itself by the way).

You can contribute blocks to display and edit your "link" and "literal" datatypes.
The beaneditform, beaneditor and beandisplay are backed by the BeanBlockSource service. BeanBlockSource is responsible for providing display and edit blocks for various datatypes.
If you download the tapestry source code and have a look at the following files:
tapestry-core\src\main\java\org\apache\tapestry5\corelib\pages\PropertyEditBlocks.java
tapestry-core\src\main\resources\org\apache\tapestry5\corelib\pages\PropertyEditBlocks.tml
tapestry-core\src\main\java\org\apache\tapestry5\services\TapestryModule.java
You will see how tapestry contributes EditBlockContribution and DisplayBlockContribution to provide default blocks (eg for a "date" datatype).
If you contribute to BeanBlockSource, you could provide display and edit blocks for your custom datatypes. This will require you reference blocks by id in a page. The page can be hidden from your users by annotating it with #WhitelistAccessOnly.
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/BeanBlockSource.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/DisplayBlockContribution.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/EditBlockContribution.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/annotations/WhitelistAccessOnly.html

Here's an example of using an interface and a proxy to hide the implementation details from your model. Note how the proxy takes care of updating the modified flag and is able to map URI's from the Literal array to properties in the HumanBeing interface.
package com.github.uklance.triplestore;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import org.junit.Test;
public class TripleStoreOrmTest {
public static class Literal<T> {
public String uri;
public boolean modified;
public Class<T> type;
public T value;
public Literal(String uri, Class<T> type, T value) {
super();
this.uri = uri;
this.type = type;
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Literal [uri=" + uri + ", type=" + type + ", value=" + value + ", modified=" + modified + "]";
}
}
public interface HumanBeing {
public String getName();
public void setName(String name);
public int getAge();
public void setAge();
}
public interface TripleStoreProxy {
public Map<String, Literal<?>> getLiteralMap();
}
#Test
public void testMockTripleStore() {
Literal<?>[] literals = {
new Literal<String>("http://humanBeing/1/Name", String.class, "Henry"),
new Literal<Integer>("http://humanBeing/1/Age", Integer.class, 21)
};
System.out.println("Before " + Arrays.asList(literals));
HumanBeing humanBeingProxy = createProxy(literals, HumanBeing.class);
System.out.println("Before Name: " + humanBeingProxy.getName());
System.out.println("Before Age: " + humanBeingProxy.getAge());
humanBeingProxy.setName("Adam");
System.out.println("After Name: " + humanBeingProxy.getName());
System.out.println("After Age: " + humanBeingProxy.getAge());
Map<String, Literal<?>> literalMap = ((TripleStoreProxy) humanBeingProxy).getLiteralMap();
System.out.println("After " + literalMap);
}
protected <T> T createProxy(Literal<?>[] literals, Class<T> type) {
Class<?>[] proxyInterfaces = { type, TripleStoreProxy.class };
final Map<String, Literal> literalMap = new HashMap<String, Literal>();
for (Literal<?> literal : literals) {
String name = literal.uri.substring(literal.uri.lastIndexOf("/") + 1);
literalMap.put(name, literal);
}
InvocationHandler handler = new InvocationHandler() {
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable {
if (method.getDeclaringClass().equals(TripleStoreProxy.class)) {
return literalMap;
}
if (method.getName().startsWith("get")) {
String name = method.getName().substring(3);
return literalMap.get(name).value;
} else if (method.getName().startsWith("set")) {
String name = method.getName().substring(3);
Literal<Object> literal = literalMap.get(name);
literal.value = args[0];
literal.modified = true;
}
return null;
}
};
return type.cast(Proxy.newProxyInstance(getClass().getClassLoader(), proxyInterfaces, handler));
}
}