Develop Reference

Update a list reference inside a method

In Java we can not reassign a reference inside a method.
So the following does not work:
class SomeClass {
List<PaidOrders> paidOrders;
List<PendingOrders> pendingOrders;
List<CancelledOrders> cancelledOrders;
private void process(List<OrderStatus> data, List<Orders> currentOrderlist) {
List<Order> newOrders = fromOrderStatus(data);
currentOrderlist = newOrders;
}
}
But the following does work:
class SomeClass {
private void process(List<OrderStatus> data, List<Orders> currentOrderlist) {
List<Order> newOrders = fromOrderStatus(data);
currentOrderlist.clear();
currentOrderlist.addAll(newOrders); // <- extra linear loop
}
}
The problem is that the second example does an extra linear loop to copy from one list to the other.
Question:
I was wondering, is there some design approach so that I could neatly just replace the references instead? I.e. somehow make the first snippet work with some change in the parameters or something?
Update
After the comments I would like to clarify that the currentOrderList can be any of the paidOrders, pendingOrders, cancelledOrders.
The code for process is the same for all types.

Hm. I see two possibilities here. Either you use some wrapper object such as AtomicReference (might be a bit overpowered because of the multi-threading issues) as the argument and then just set it there or you use a consumer.
In the second case your method would look like this:
public void process(List<OrderStatus> data, Consumer<List<Orders>> target) {
List<Person> newOrders = fromOrderStatus(data);
target.accept(newOrders);
}
Then on the calling side you would implement it like this:
process(data, e-> <<targetList>> = e);

If your list will be wrapped by a different object (for example - AtomicReference), then you will be able to change it.
public static void doSomething(AtomicReference<List<Integer>> listAtomicReference){
List<Integer> newIntegers = new ArrayList<>();
listAtomicReference.set(newIntegers);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
AtomicReference<List<Integer>> listAtomicReference = new AtomicReference<>(Arrays.asList(4));
doSomething(listAtomicReference);
System.out.println(listAtomicReference.get());
}
Output:
[]
Making a public member variable in a class.
With that being said, I wouldn't recommend walking this path.
Is premature optimization really the root of all evil?

How can I change code based on Method Argument?

public static void calculate(List<Person> data, String categoryType) {
for(int i = 0; i < categoryData.size(); i++) {
if(data.get(i).calculateCategoryOne() == firstPlace) {
...
}
}
}
If you see data.get(i).calculateCategoryOne(), the method call is for category one. The problem is that I need to copy-paste the entire code in a if-block for each category to just change this method call data.get(i).calculateCategoryTwo(), data.get(i).calculateCategoryThree(), ... data.get(i).calculateCategoryTen(),
While I can still make the logic work in this way, I feel it is redundant and not a good programming practice. Just to change one line of code, I would have to replicate the same code ten different times which will add nearly 500 lines of code.
So, my question is: Is there a way to dynamically change my method call based on the category type string argument.
I was thinking one possible way is to pass the method call in a string and convert it to a method call itself. For example, let's assume CategoryType string argument is "calculateCategoryOne()". So, data.get(i)."calculateCategoryOne()" would be recognized by the compiler as the method call itself. Is there a way to actually implement this?
I'm open to other ideas as well to reduce redundancy.

I would think using a functional interface would be appropriate here. You want different functionality depending on the categoryType, so passing in the function you want to use, rather than a String representation of it, would accomplish this.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Calculate {
int calculate(Person data);
}
public static void calculate(List<Person> data, Calculate calculate) {
for(int i = 0; i < categoryData.size(); i++) {
if(calculate.calculate(data.get(i)) == firstPlace) {
...
}
}
}
and the call to the method would define what the calculation would be
calculate(list, p -> {
// calculation done here
});
or if this would happen frequently, you could predefine your categories once and pass those in:
Calculate categoryOne = p -> { ... };
Calculate categoryTwo = p -> { ... };
.
.
calculate(list, categoryOne);

What design pattern should be used when similarly if-else grows?

We have some code like:
public class ErrorCodeUtil {
public static void handleErrorCode(String errorCode) {
if (errorCode.equals("1")) {
handleErrorCode1();
} else if (errorCode.equals("2")) {
handleErrorCode2();
} else if (errorCode.equals("3")) {
handleErrorCode3();
} else {
handleErrorCodeByDefault(errorCode);
}
}
public static void logByErrorCode(String errorCode) {
if (errorCode.equals("1")) {
logErrorCode1();
} else if (errorCode.equals("2")) {
logErrorCode2();
} else if (errorCode.equals("3")) {
logErrorCode3();
} else {
logErrorCodeByDefault(errorCode);
}
}
//... a lot of method about error code
}
As you see, we have a Util to handle all things about ErrorCode, and when we want to add a special logic to an error code, we have to change many method of that utils class.
As expected, the value of error code varies in large range(possibly "112345" or "error_code_001"). So what design pattern is proper for that case?

I would implement a decision table.
The table would consist of a set of mappings between one or more Predicates as key and Function as a value. If a Predicate condition is met, then the corresponding Function is executed. If no Predicate condition is met, then a default Function should be executed. This can (easily) replace the humongous "if-else" statement and should be easier for maintenance.
How a Predicate should look like? It should take a String (in your case) and should return a boolean indicating whether a condition is met or no:
interface Predicate {
public boolean test(String x);
}
In the decision table, you'd add (anonymous) implementations of this interface as keys.
Hint: If you are already on Java8, even better, there's a built-in Predicate<T> interface. But if you're not, then you can introduce a Predicate interface of your own. :-)
The Function for the decision table's values will be a similar interface. It may (or may not) use an input parameters and should return void. In Java8 this is called a Consumer, however in my example I'll stick to the Function naming:
interface Function<T> {
void apply(T t);
}
By constructing pairs between Predicate as a key and Function<ErrorCodeUtil> as a value, we'll populate the decision table. When a Predicate condition is met, then we'll invoke the corresponding Function's .apply() method:
The decision table itself can be a simple Map<Predicate, Function<ErrorCodeUtil>>:
Map<Predicate, Function<ErrorCodeUtil>> decisionTable = new HashMap<>();
and you should populate it at construction time or whenever you wish (just before the handleErrorCode() method logic):
Predicate equalsOne = new Predicate() {
public void test(String x) {
return "1".equals(x);
}
};
Function<ErrorCodeUtil> actionOne = new Function<ErrorCodeUtil>() {
public void apply(ErrorCodeUtil t) {
t.handleErrorCode1();
}
}
decisionTable.put(equalsOne, actionOne);
and so for the other "condition-action" pairs, including the default action (i.e. the last else statement) for which the Predicate will always return true.
Note that in Java8, those anonymous classes can be significantly reduced by just using lambdas.
Finally, your "if-elseif" statements would be re-factored to a simple loop:
for (Map.Entry<Predicate, Function<ErrorCodeUtil>> entry: decisionTable.entrySet()){
Predicate condition = entry.getKey();
Function<ErrorCodeUtil> action = entry.getValue();
if (condition.test(errorCode)) {
action.apply(this);
}
}
So, everytime you add a new condition, you won't have to touch the handleErrorCode(String error) method, but you'll have to just introduce a new (anonymous) implementation of Predicate and Function and .put() it into the decision table.

I'd use Enum in that case.
public enum ErrorCodeEnum {
1 {
#Override
public void handleErrorCode() {
//doSomething
}
},
2 {
#Override
public void handleErrorCode() {
//doSomething
}
};
public abstract void handleErrorCode();
}
Then, having the error code in hands...
ErrorCodeEnum.valueOf("1").handleErrorCode();
PS: This is what I'd use to replace if-else statement, as you asked. But I'd use a Logger API for that specific problem (seems like you're logging erros).

You can keep all errorcodes in a list in one class. And check if list contains errorcode or not.
So this will reduce your if...else logic.
You have written different methods to handle error codes like handleErrorCode1(), handleErrorCode2() etc. Now if list contains desired error code then you can invoke these methods through java reflection.

regarding logging of errors, if all that is required is matching a code with a message, then a text file with mapping of codes to messages is the right way. the text file may be properties:
1=Item not Found
2=Item not valid
that can be loaded to a java.util.Properties instance, it may be xml that can be loaded into DOM or HashMap
<errors>
<error>
<code>1</code>
<msg>Item not Found</msg>
</error>
<error>
<code>2</code>
<msg>Item not Valid</msg>
</error>
<errors>
one advantage of this approach is that it can be made to support i18n if you specify language code in the file name and then get user language code from your client

retrieve instantiated objects from hashmap

I really didn't want to resort to asking, however I'm at a dead end. I'm trying to build an array of objects stored within a hashmap into a single array. I'm building a minecraft plugin, and I need to be able to do this in order to reset all players to their natural state. However, for whatever reason, I can't seem to actually parse the Spectator[] array into individual pieces.
The goal is simply to allow more than 1 person to spectate. Here's my code:
public class EagleEye extends JavaPlugin implements Listener{
public HashMap<Spectatee, Spectator[]> spec = new HashMap(Spectatee, Spectator[]);
public HashMap<Spectatee, Spectator[]> orinven = new HashMap<Spectatee, Spectator[]>;
public HashMap<Spectatee, Spectator[]> eeinven = new HashMap<Spectatee, Spectator[]>;
#Override
public void onEnable()
{
//TODO:Who knows.
}
#Override
public void onDisable()
{
//TODO:Spec off any players being spectated and spectating.
Spectator[] frickinhell = spec.get(key));
//Creates a master list of all spectators by uuid
for(Spectator spec : spec.get(Spectator.class))
{
master.add(spec);
}
for(Object spec : master.toArray())
{
//Verify the player is online
if(Bukkit.getPlayer(master)
{
//Verify the player is still spectating
if(tators.get(uuid) == true)
{
//Stop spectating
tators.put(uuid, false);
}
}
}
}
I understand that much of this code is broken. However, my main concern is taking Spectator[] stored within all instances of Spectators[] stored within the hashmap and resetting their values to their defaults. Once I can access each individual instance of each object itself, I can reset their respective values using setters.
Cheers.

In spec.get(Spectator.class), Spectator.class doesn't match the type of your key, which is Spectatee. Therefore, it returns null.
You should pass an instance of Spectatee to spec.get() if you want to have a chance of getting a non-null value.
If you want to collect all the Spectators regardless of their key, you can iterate over the values of the Map :
for (Spectator[] value : spec.values())
for(Spectator spec : value)
{
master.add(spec);
}

StringTemplate: increment value when if condition true

I want to find out if StringTemplate have/support incrementation of a number.
Situation is:
input: is an array of objects which have "isKey() and getName()" getter.
output should be (i=0; IF !obj.getKey() THEN ps.setObject(i++,obj.getName)) ENDIF):
ps.setObject(1,"Name");
ps.setObject(2,"Name");
ps.setObject(3,"Name");
...
Currently I have next ST: <objs:{<if(it.key)><else>ps.setObject(<i>, <it.name;>);<"\n"><endif>}>
And the output in case if 1st is key:
ps.setObject(2,"Name");
ps.setObject(3,"Name");
ps.setObject(4,"Name");
...
Issue now I need to find a way to replace the 'i' with something which will be increment only when if condition is true.
PLS advice who faced this kind of issue!

In general, changing the state in response to ST's getting the state is not a good idea, so numbering non-key fields should happen in your model, before you start with the generation.
Add a getter for nonKeyIndex to the class of your model that hosts the name property. Go through all siblings, and number them as you need (i.e. starting from one and skipping the keys in your numbering). Now you can use this ST to produce the desired output:
<objs:{<if(it.key)><else>ps.setObject(<it.nonKeyIndex>, <it.name;>);<"\n"><endif>}>
Sometimes it may not be possible to add methods such as nonKeyIndex to your model classes. In such cases you should wrap your classes into view classes designed specifically to work with string template, and add the extra properties there:
public class ColumnView {
private final Column c;
private int nonKeyIdx;
public ColumnView(Column c) {this.c = c;}
public String getName() { return c.getName(); }
public boolean getKey() { return c.getKey(); }
public int getNonKeyIndex() { return nonKeyIdx; }
public void setNonKeyIndex(int i) { nonKeyIdx = i; }
}