Develop Reference

What is the idiomatic way to write common code for a group of classes with identical methods, but not implementing the same interface?

I'm using an external library that provides tightly related classes (generated from some template), but unfortunately without a shared interface, e.g.
public class A {
public UUID id();
public Long version();
public String foo();
public String bar();
}
public class B {
public UUID id();
public Long version();
public String foo();
public String bar();
}
public class C {
public UUID id();
public Long version();
public String foo();
public String bar();
}
// ... and more: D, E, F, etc.
Given I have no influence over the external library, what's the idiomatic way to write logic common to a group of classes that share the same method signatures (at least, for the methods being used by the common logic)?
Currently I do one of three things, on a case-by-case basis:
I write helper methods that take the primitive results from each object, e.g.
private static void myHelper(UUID id, Long version, String foo, String bar) {
...
}
This way I can "unpack" an object regardless of its type:
myHelper(whatever.id(), whatever.version(), whatever.foo(), whatever.bar());
But that can get very wordy, especially when I need to work with many members.
In the scenario where I'm only working with getters (i.e. only need to access current values of the objects), I've found a way to use mapping libraries like Dozer or ModelMapper to map A or B or C to my own common class, e.g.
public class CommonABC {
UUID id;
Long version;
String foo;
String bar;
}
By playing with configuration, you can get these libraries to map all members, whether method or field, public or private, to your class, e.g.
modelMapper.getConfiguration()
.setFieldMatchingEnabled(true)
.setFieldAccessLevel(Configuration.AccessLevel.PRIVATE);
But this was kind of a "broadsword" approach, a hack that IMO isn't clearly justified merely to factor out duplicate code.
Finally, in certain other scenarios it was most succinct to simply do
private static void myHelper(Object extLibEntity) {
if (extLibEntity instanceof A) {
...
} else if (extLibEntity instanceof B) {
...
} else if (extLibEntity instanceof C) {
...
} else {
throw new RuntimeException(...);
}
}
It's obvious why this is bad.
In enterprise situations where you have to live with a library that is this way, what would you do?
I'm leaning toward writing a very explicit, if verbose, mapper (not using a generic mapper library) that translates these entities from the start. But, I wonder if there's a better way. (Like, is there a way to "cast" an object as implementing a new interface, in runtime?)

An option that is (under the hood) likely similar to the second approach, but comparatively lean and flexible, is to use Dynamic Proxy Classes. With only a few lines of code, you can let any object "appear" to implement a certain interface, as long as it has the required methods. The following is an MCVE that shows the basic approach:
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.util.UUID;
public class DelegatingProxyExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
CommonInterface commonA = wrap(a);
CommonInterface commonB = wrap(b);
CommonInterface commonC = wrap(c);
use(commonA);
use(commonB);
use(commonC);
}
private static void use(CommonInterface commonInterface) {
System.out.println(commonInterface.id());
System.out.println(commonInterface.version());
System.out.println(commonInterface.foo());
System.out.println(commonInterface.bar());
}
private static CommonInterface wrap(Object object) {
CommonInterface commonInterface = (CommonInterface) Proxy.newProxyInstance(
CommonInterface.class.getClassLoader(),
new Class[] { CommonInterface.class }, new Delegator(object));
return commonInterface;
}
}
// Partially based on the example from
// https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/reflection/proxy.html
class Delegator implements InvocationHandler {
private static Method hashCodeMethod;
private static Method equalsMethod;
private static Method toStringMethod;
static {
try {
hashCodeMethod = Object.class.getMethod("hashCode", (Class<?>[]) null);
equalsMethod = Object.class.getMethod("equals", new Class[] { Object.class });
toStringMethod = Object.class.getMethod("toString", (Class<?>[]) null);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
throw new NoSuchMethodError(e.getMessage());
}
}
private Object delegate;
public Delegator(Object delegate) {
this.delegate = delegate;
}
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method m, Object[] args) throws Throwable {
Class<?> declaringClass = m.getDeclaringClass();
if (declaringClass == Object.class) {
if (m.equals(hashCodeMethod)) {
return proxyHashCode(proxy);
} else if (m.equals(equalsMethod)) {
return proxyEquals(proxy, args[0]);
} else if (m.equals(toStringMethod)) {
return proxyToString(proxy);
} else {
throw new InternalError("unexpected Object method dispatched: " + m);
}
} else {
// TODO Here, the magic happens. Add some sensible error checks here!
Method delegateMethod = delegate.getClass().getDeclaredMethod(
m.getName(), m.getParameterTypes());
return delegateMethod.invoke(delegate, args);
}
}
protected Integer proxyHashCode(Object proxy) {
return new Integer(System.identityHashCode(proxy));
}
protected Boolean proxyEquals(Object proxy, Object other) {
return (proxy == other ? Boolean.TRUE : Boolean.FALSE);
}
protected String proxyToString(Object proxy) {
return proxy.getClass().getName() + '#' + Integer.toHexString(proxy.hashCode());
}
}
interface CommonInterface {
UUID id();
Long version();
String foo();
String bar();
}
class A {
public UUID id() {
return UUID.randomUUID();
}
public Long version() {
return 1L;
}
public String foo() {
return "fooA";
}
public String bar() {
return "barA";
}
}
class B {
public UUID id() {
return UUID.randomUUID();
}
public Long version() {
return 2L;
}
public String foo() {
return "fooB";
}
public String bar() {
return "barB";
}
}
class C {
public UUID id() {
return UUID.randomUUID();
}
public Long version() {
return 3L;
}
public String foo() {
return "fooC";
}
public String bar() {
return "barC";
}
}
Of course, this uses reflection internally, and should only be used when you know what you're doing. Particularly, you should add some sensible error checking, at the place that is marked with TODO: There, the method of the interface is looked up in the given delegate object.

The only technique not tried:
package aplus;
public interface Common {
...
}
public class A extends original.A implements Common {
}
public class B extends original.B implements Common {
}

Implement a common function accepting argument of two different classes?

I have two classes A and B and they both have a common field in them, and I want to create a function in which if I pass Class A object then I want to set that common field value to the passed value and if I pass Class B object then I want to set that common field value to the passed value. Can anyone please tell me how can I do this, I am new to Java Generic Classes.
Otherwise I would have to make two different functions OR I would have to make an if and else which would decide that passed object belongs to which class ??
Class A
public class A{
int footer;
public void setFooter(int fo) {
footer = fo;
}
}
Class B
public class B{
int footer;
public void setFooter(int fo) {
footer = fo;
}
}
Class D
public class D{
public void change_footer(T generic_param, int value) {
generic_param.setFooter(value);
}
}
Class HelloWorld
public class HelloWorld{
public static void main(String []args){
Here I want to call
A a = new A();
new D().change_footer(a, 5);
B b = new B();
new D().change_footer(b, 5)
}
}
Thank You

And if I got all of the question wrong, and nor A nor B are generic, AND the type of field is fixed.
then you mean something like:
class D {
/*public <T extends Super> would be muuuch nicer here as well!*/
public /*static*/ <T> void change_footer(T obj, int data) {
//otherwise, you could just cast to Super...and set dat field.
if (obj instanceof A) {
((A) obj).setField(data);
} else if (obj instanceof B) {
((B) obj).setField(data);
} // else ... ?
}
}
Original answer:
Easy peasy (the "straight forward" implementation produces the desired results.):
class A<T> {
T daField;
public void setField(T pField) {
daField = pField;
}
public T getField() {
return daField;
}
}
class B<T> extends A {//empty
}
class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
B<Object> testB1 = new B<>(); //
testB1.setField(new Object());
System.out.println(testB1.getField());
B<String> testB2 = new B<>();
testB2.setField("blah blah");
System.out.println(testB2.getField());
B<Integer> testB3 = new B<>();
testB3.setField(42);
System.out.println(testB3.getField());
}
}
System.out:
java.lang.Object#6d06d69c
blah blah
42
It get's (little) more complicated, when you want to instantiate Ts ...but still possible/other question. :)
Edit to your comment:
If there's only one common field, then why not:
/*abstract */class Super<T> {
T daField;
public void setField(T pField) {
daField = pField;
}
public T getField() {
return daField;
}
}
? ...and:
class A<T> extends Super { ... }
class B<T> extends Super { ... }

using object functions in java

I'm trying to implement function objects in Java. I have a Unit class, with a default addition function that should be used in most initializations of a Unit object. However, for some issues, I need a different addition function. The code will look something like this:
public class Unit() {
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType == "specialType") {
additionFunc = defaultFunc } else {
additionFunc = specialFunc }
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc()
}
// definiion of regularFunc
// definition of specialFunc
}
Then, from the main file:
Unit fish = new Unit(regularTyoe);
Unit fatFish = new Unit(specialType);
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called
That's it.. does anyone know how this can be done?

You need to look up inheritance and method overriding. It would probably help to read up on proper Object Oriented Programming as well.
The proper way to do this is:
class Fish {
public void swim() {
// normal swim
}
}
class FatFish extends Fish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// special swim
}
}
Fish fish = new Fish()
Fish fatFish = new FatFish()
fish.swim() // normal swim
fatFish.swim() // slow swim

Make a new FatFish class which extends Unit and overrides swim().
Unit fish = new Unit();
Unit fatFish = new FatFish();
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called

There are many solutions for your problem, one of them is using inheritance, that you could have a default implementation of Unit, and extend it overriding the desired method with a new one.
Basically would be something like:
public class FatFish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// new behavior
}
}
Another approach would be to implement Strategy Design Pattern, which allows you to select algorithms on runtime. Therefore you could do something like:
public interface SwimStrategy {
void execute();
}
public class FatFishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// fat fish swim impl
}
}
public class FishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// normal fish swim impl
}
}
public class Fish {
private final SwimStrategy swimStrategy;
public Fish(SwimStrategy swimStrategy) {
this.swimStrategy = swimStrategy;
}
public void swim() {
swimStrategy.execute();
}
}
In order to instantiate an object you could do:
new Fish(new FatFishSwimStrategy());
or for the normal behavior:
new Fish(new FishSwimStrategy());

I think it can do by extends and factory method:
public class Unit {
public static Unit createUnit(UnitType type) {
if (UnitType.Special == type) {
return new Unit(type) {
#Override
public int swim() {
System.out.println("special swim");
return 0;
}
};
}
return new Unit(UnitType.Default);
}
private UnitType type;
private Unit(UnitType type) {
this.type = type;
System.out.println("create unit for " + type);
}
public int swim() {
System.out.println("default swim");
return 0;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Unit fish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Default);
Unit fatFish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Special);
fish.swim();
fatFish.swim();
}
}
This is a simple type enum:
public enum UnitType {
Default, Special
}

There are two ways to accomplish this polymorphic behavior in Java. The first is to use a inheritance and a hierarchical set of classes. For example, you could have an abstract base class which defines an abstract method called "swim". Then each concrete fish class would extend this base class and implement the swim method. Later when you have a set of fish objects, you can upcast them to the base class and invoke the swim method on each.
The second way is to use interfaces. You define an interface (e.g. ISwim) which declares the public method swim. Each fish class (whether part of a class hierarchy or no) would implement the ISwim interface, meaning they would define a swim method. Then if you have a set of fish class objects of different types, you can cast each to the ISwim interface and invoke the swim method on each object.
Java does not have function pointers, so the approach you are considering is inappropriate for the language. Even in languages with function pointers, the above two approaches would be most appropriate in my opinion.

One way to do this is with an enum for the types of Unit and with Unit subclasses:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType {
REGULAR {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new RegularUnit();
}
},
SPECIAL {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
};
abstract public Unit makeUnit();
}
protected Unit() {}
public abstract int swim();
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
RegularUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 0;
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
SpecialUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 1;
}
}
}
Unit fish = UnitType.REGULAR.makeUnit();
Unit fatFish = UnitType.SPECIAL.makeUnit();
Another way is with Callable objects:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType { REGULAR, SPECIAL }
private Callable<Integer> additionFunc;
public Unit(UnitType type) {
switch (type) {
case REGULAR:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 0;
}
};
break;
case SPECIAL:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 1;
}
};
break;
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc();
}
}

Using a simple if statement:
private String unitType;
public Unit(unitType) {
this.unitType = unitType;
}
public int swim() {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return specialFunc();
}
else {
return regularFunc();
}
}
Or using polymorphism and a factory method :
public abstract class Unit() {
protected Unit() {
}
protected abstract int addition();
public int swim() {
return addition();
}
public static Unit forType(String unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
else {
return new RegularUnit();
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// special addition
}
}
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// regular addition
}
}
}
Or using an Adder functional interface, defining an addition() method, and two concrete implementations of this interface:
private Adder adder;
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
this.adder = new SpecialAdder();
}
else {
this.adder = new RegularAdder();
}
}
public int swim() {
return adder.addition();
}
This last one is the closest to waht you asked in your question. function objects don't exist per se, but can be replaced by interfaces.

How to 'wrap' two classes with identical methods?

I have to handle two classes with identical methods but they don't implement the same interface, nor do they extend the same superclass. I'm not able / not allowed to change this classes and I don't construct instances of this classes I only get objects of this.
What is the best way to avoid lots of code duplication?
One of the class:
package faa;
public class SomethingA {
private String valueOne = null;
private String valueTwo = null;
public String getValueOne() { return valueOne; }
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) { this.valueOne = valueOne; }
public String getValueTwo() { return valueTwo; }
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) { this.valueTwo = valueTwo; }
}
And the other...
package foo;
public class SomethingB {
private String valueOne;
private String valueTwo;
public String getValueOne() { return valueOne; }
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) { this.valueOne = valueOne; }
public String getValueTwo() { return valueTwo; }
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) { this.valueTwo = valueTwo; }
}
(In reality these classes are larger)
My only idea is now to create a wrapper class in this was:
public class SomethingWrapper {
private SomethingA someA;
private SomethingB someB;
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingA someA) {
//null check..
this.someA = someA;
}
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingB someB) {
//null check..
this.someB = someB;
}
public String getValueOne() {
if (this.someA != null) {
return this.someA.getValueOne();
} else {
return this.someB.getValueOne();
}
}
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) {
if (this.someA != null) {
this.someA.setValueOne(valueOne);
} else {
this.someB.setValueOne(valueOne);
}
}
public String getValueTwo() {
if (this.someA != null) {
return this.someA.getValueTwo();
} else {
return this.someB.getValueTwo();
}
}
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) {
if (this.someA != null) {
this.someA.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
} else {
this.someB.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
}
}
}
But I'm not realy satisfied with this solution. Is there any better / more elegant way to solve this problem?

A better solution would be to create an interface to represent the unified interface to both classes, then to write two classes implementing the interface, one that wraps an A, and another that wraps a B:
public interface SomethingWrapper {
public String getValueOne();
public void setValueOne(String valueOne);
public String getValueTwo();
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo);
};
public class SomethingAWrapper implements SomethingWrapper {
private SomethingA someA;
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingA someA) {
this.someA = someA;
}
public String getValueOne() {
return this.someA.getValueOne();
}
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) {
this.someA.setValueOne(valueOne);
}
public String getValueTwo() {
return this.someA.getValueTwo();
}
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) {
this.someA.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
}
};
and then another class just like it for SomethingBWrapper.

There, a duck-typed solution. This will accept any object with valueOne, valueTwo properties and is trivially extensible to further props.
public class Wrapper
{
private final Object wrapped;
private final Map<String, Method> methods = new HashMap<String, Method>();
public Wrapper(Object w) {
wrapped = w;
try {
final Class<?> c = w.getClass();
for (String propName : new String[] { "ValueOne", "ValueTwo" }) {
final String getter = "get" + propName, setter = "set" + propName;
methods.put(getter, c.getMethod(getter));
methods.put(setter, c.getMethod(setter, String.class));
}
} catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public String getValueOne() {
try { return (String)methods.get("getValueOne").invoke(wrapped); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public void setValueOne(String v) {
try { methods.get("setValueOne").invoke(wrapped, v); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public String getValueTwo() {
try { return (String)methods.get("getValueTwo").invoke(wrapped); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public void setValueTwo(String v) {
try { methods.get("setValueTwo").invoke(wrapped, v); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
}

You can use a dynamic proxy to create a "bridge" between an interface you define and the classes that conform but do not implement your interface.
It all starts with an interface:
interface Something {
public String getValueOne();
public void setValueOne(String valueOne);
public String getValueTwo();
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo);
}
Now you need an InvocationHandler, that will just forward calls to the method that matches the interface method called:
class ForwardInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler {
private final Object wrapped;
public ForwardInvocationHandler(Object wrapped) {
this.wrapped = wrapped;
}
#Override
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
Method match = wrapped.getClass().getMethod(method.getName(), method.getParameterTypes());
return match.invoke(wrapped, args);
}
}
Then you can create your proxy (put it in a factory for easier usage):
SomethingA a = new SomethingA();
a.setValueOne("Um");
Something s = (Something)Proxy.newProxyInstance(
Something.class.getClassLoader(),
new Class[] { Something.class },
new ForwardInvocationHandler(a));
System.out.println(s.getValueOne()); // prints: Um
Another option is simpler but requires you to subclass each class and implement the created interface, simply like this:
class SomethingAImpl extends SomethingA implements Something {}
class SomethingBImpl extends SomethingB implements Something {}
(Note: you also need to create any non-default constructors)
Now use the subclasses instead of the superclasses, and refer to them through the interface:
Something o = new SomethingAImpl(); // o can also refer to a SomethingBImpl
o.setValueOne("Uno");
System.out.println(o.getValueOne()); // prints: Uno

i think your original wrapper class is the most viable option...however it can be done using reflection, your real problem is that the application is a mess...and reflection is might not be the method you are looking for
i've another proposal, which might be help: create a wrapper class which has specific functions for every type of classes...it mostly copypaste, but it forces you to use the typed thing as a parameter
class X{
public int asd() {return 0;}
}
class Y{
public int asd() {return 1;}
}
class H{
public int asd(X a){
return a.asd();
}
public int asd(Y a){
return a.asd();
}
}
usage:
System.out.println("asd"+h.asd(x));
System.out.println("asd"+h.asd(y));
i would like to note that an interface can be implemented by the ancestor too, if you are creating these classes - but just can't modify it's source, then you can still overload them from outside:
public interface II{
public int asd();
}
class XI extends X implements II{
}
class YI extends Y implements II{
}
usage:
II a=new XI();
System.out.println("asd"+a.asd());

You probably can exploit a facade along with the reflection - In my opinion it streamlines the way you access the legacy and is scalable too !
class facade{
public static getSomething(Object AorB){
Class c = AorB.getClass();
Method m = c.getMethod("getValueOne");
m.invoke(AorB);
}
...
}

I wrote a class to encapsulate the logging framework API's. Unfortunately, it's too long to put in this box.
The program is part of the project at http://www.github.com/bradleyross/tutorials with the documentation at http://bradleyross.github.io/tutorials. The code for the class bradleyross.library.helpers.ExceptionHelper in the module tutorials-common is at https://github.com/BradleyRoss/tutorials/blob/master/tutorials-common/src/main/java/bradleyross/library/helpers/ExceptionHelper.java.
The idea is that I can have the additional code that I want to make the exception statements more useful and I won't have to repeat them for each logging framework. The wrapper isn't where you eliminate code duplication. The elimination of code duplication is in not having to write multiple versions of the code that calls the wrapper and the underlying classes. See https://bradleyaross.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/java-logging-frameworks/
The class bradleyross.helpers.GenericPrinter is another wrapper that enables you to write code that works with both the PrintStream, PrintWriter, and StringWriter classes and interfaces.

Inheritance in Java

Consider the following code in Python:
class A(object):
CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 42
def f(self):
return "CLASS_ATTRIBUTE: %d" % self.CLASS_ATTRIBUTE
class B(A):
CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 44
Now A().f() and B().f() return "CLASS_ATTRIBUTE: 42" and "CLASS_ATTRIBUTE: 44" respectively.
How can I achieve a similar effect in Java? I want a CLASS_ATTRIBUTE field to be initialized statically and redefined in the inherited class but the f method should be only defined in the base class.

Is there a particular reason you want the attribute to be static? In Java the typical way you'd do this is to have A contain a protected variable that you then set in the constructors of the 2 classes:
public class A
{
protected int CLASS_ATTRIBUTE;
public A()
{
CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 42;
}
public String f()
{
return "CLASS_ATTRIBUTE: " + CLASS_ATTRIBUTE;
}
}
public class B extends A
{
public B()
{
CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 44;
}
}
Alternatively (and probably more consistent with Java design patterns) you'd declare a function that you can override to return the value instead of using a member variable.

Short answer: you cant solve it like this in Java. You'll have to solve it in another way.
In Java you can't override or "redeclare" fields in subclasses, and you can't override static methods.
It can be solved using an ugly reflection-hack (should be avoided though):
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) {
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
System.out.println(a.f()); // Prints 42.
System.out.println(a.fReflection()); // Prints 42.
System.out.println(b.f()); // Prints 42.
System.out.println(b.fReflection()); // Prints 44.
}
}
class A {
static int CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 42;
public int f() {
return CLASS_ATTRIBUTE;
}
public int fReflection() {
try {
return getClass().getDeclaredField("CLASS_ATTRIBUTE").getInt(null);
} catch (Exception wontHappen) {
return -1;
}
}
}
class B extends A {
// Compiles, but will not "override" A.CLASS_ATTRIBUTE.
static int CLASS_ATTRIBUTE = 44;
}

You can't do this directly with only a variable, because in Java variables cannot override (they only shadow the super classes variables).
You need to use a protected "getter" method, which can then be overridden by the subclass:
class A
{
private int attribute=42;
...
protected int getAttribute() {
return attribute;
}
}
class B
extends A
{
private int attribute=44;
...
protected int getAttribute() {
return attribute;
}
}
But note there's a special consideration to calling methods from an object's constructor, in that it allows object code to run before object construction is complete.

I'm not sure if you meant "statically" literally or not, but here's a brief example of how inheritance at it's most basic form looks in Java. Note that using a getter method to access the variable is a better idea for several reasons -- this is just an example.
public class Dog {
protected String whatISay = "Woof!";
public void speak(){
System.out.println(whatISay);
}
}
public class Poodle extends Dog {
public Poodle(){
whatISay = "Yap!";
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
Poodle fluffy = new Poodle();
fluffy.speak();
Dog dog = new Dog();
dog.speak();
}
}
Yap!
Woof!

This way of doing it introduces as little intrusion as I could think of. setAttribute() could be named something like setDefaultValue() if that's clearer.
public class A
{
protected int attribute;
public A()
{
setAttribute();
}
public String f()
{
return "CLASS_ATTRIBUTE: " + attribute;
}
protected void setAttribute()
{
attribute = 42;
}
}
public class B extends A
{
#Override
protected void setAttribute()
{
attribute = 44;
}
}
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
System.out.println("A: " + a.f());
System.out.println("B: " + b.f());
}
}