Develop Reference

Compilation error during calling methods containing Either and wildcards

I have problem with understanding how Java wildcard works in one particular case. Let's say I have class which represents generic response
public class MyResponse<T> {
private final int httpCode;
private final String message;
private final T data;
}
and resolver for that:
public class ResponseResolver {
public void resolve(Either<AppError, MyResponse<?>> responseToResolve) {
//some logic
}
public void resolveOption(Option<MyResponse<?>> responseToResolve) {
//some logic
}
}
and service where response is resolved with resolver
public class FooService {
private final ResponseResolver responseResolver;
public FooService(ResponseResolver responseResolver) {
this.responseResolver = responseResolver;
}
public void resolveFoo() {
Either<AppError, MyResponse<Foo>> either = Option.of(new MyResponse<>(200, "message", new Foo())).toEither(AppError.ERROR);
responseResolver.resolve(either);
}
public void resolveOptionFoo() {
MyResponse<Foo> foo = new MyResponse<>(200, "message", new Foo());
responseResolver.resolveOption(Option.of(foo));
}
}
I do not understand why resolveOption method which is called in resolveFooOption is a proper way but in method with Either compiler complies that required type is Either<AppError, MyResponse<?> but provided Either<AppError, MyResponse<Foo>. Can anybody explain me why second case is invalid?

How to pass params into a Factory for object creation?

I have RecipientTypesFactory that is going to create objects of the type RecipientType. For RecipientTypes object I have the followin hierarchy:
public interface RecipientType{
public abstract Object accept(RecipientTypeVisitor v);
}
public class DynamicGroupType implemetns RecipientType{
private Integer dynamicGroupId;
public Object accept(RecipientTypeVisitor visitor){
return visitor.visit(this);
}
//GET, SET
}
public class StaticGroupType implements RecipientType{
private Integer staticGroupId;
public Object accept(RecipientTypeVisitor visitor){
return visitor.visit(this);
}
//GET, SET
}
RecipientTypesFactory itself looks as follows:
public enum RecipientTypeEnum {
STATIC_GROUP, DYNAMIC_GROUP
}
public class RecipientTypesFactory{
private Map<RecipientTypeEnum, RecipientTypeCreator> creators;
public RecipientType createRecipientType(RecipientTypeEnum t){
return creators.get(t).create();
}
}
I'm not going to provide the actual definition of RecipientTypeCreator and its hierarchy because I don't think it's very important.
Now I have the controller:
public class CreateMailingController{
private RecipientTypesFactory recipientTypesFactory;
private Integer dynamicGroupId;
private Integer staticGroupId;
private RecipientTypeEnum selectedType;
//GET, SET, other staff
public void createMailing(){
Type t = recipientTypesFactory.createRecipientType(selectedType);
//How to initialize t's field with an appropriate value?
}
}
The thing is RecipientTypesFactory and its creators know nothing about CreateMailingController's dynamicGroupId and staticGroupId values. Those values are setting up by some user from web-interface. Therefore the factory cannot initialize the corresponding field of a type to create with these values.
RecipientTypesFactory and its creators are spring beans.
Question: How can I pass the values of dynamicGroupId and staticGroupId to the Factory in a flexible way and avoid wiriting switch-case like code? Is that possible?
Maybe there's another patter for that purposes. In fact the factory is creating the prototype of an object.

You can use map to avoid switch cases,like below:
private static final Map<String, RecipientType> factoryMap = Collections
.unmodifiableMap(new HashMap<String, RecipientType>() {
{
put("dynamicGroupId", new RecipientType() {
public RecipientType accept() {
return new DynamicGroupType();
}
});
put("staticGroupId", new RecipientType() {
public RecipientType accept() {
return new StaticGroupType();
}
});
}
});
public RecipientType createRecipientType(String type) {
RecipientType factory = factoryMap.get(type);
if (factory == null) {
}
return factory.accept();
}

Java - Calling method from child of abstract class

Given the following abstract class:
public abstract class BaseVersionResponse<T extends BaseVO> {
public abstract void populate(T versionVO);
}
and the following child class:
public class VersionResponseV1 extends BaseVersionResponse<VersionVOV1>
{
protected String testFieldOne;
protected String testFieldTwo;
public String getTestFieldOne() {
return testFieldOne;
}
public void setTestFieldOne(String value) {
this.testFieldOne = value;
}
public String getTestFieldTwo() {
return testFieldTwo;
}
public void setTestFieldTwo(String value) {
this.testFieldTwo = value;
}
#Override
public void populate(VersionVOV1 versionVO) {
this.setTestFieldOne(versionVO.getFieldOne());
this.setTestFieldTwo(versionVO.getFieldTwo());
}
I desire to do something like this from a calling method:
public void getVersionInfo(String version) {
BaseVO versionVO = null;
BaseVersionResponse<? extends BaseVO> baseVersionResponse = null;
baseVersionResponse = createVersionResponse(version);
versionVO = createVersionVO(version);
baseVersionResponse.populate(versionVO);
}
where createVersionResponse(...) and createVersionVO(...) look like this:
public BaseVersionResponse<? extends BaseVO> createVersionResponse(String version) {
BaseVersionResponse<? extends BaseVO> specificVersionResponse = null;
if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V1")) {
specificVersionResponse = new VersionResponseV1();
} else if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V2"))
specificVersionResponse = new VersionResponseV2();
return specificVersionResponse;
}
public BaseVO createVersionVO(String version) {
BaseVO versionVO = null;
if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V1")) {
versionVO = new VersionVOV1();
} else if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V2"))
versionVO = new VersionVOV2();
return versionVO;
}
and VersionVOV1 looks like this:
public class VersionVOV1 extends BaseVO {
private String fieldOne = null;
private String fieldTwo = null;
private String fieldThree = null;
public String getFieldOne() {
return fieldOne;
}
public void setFieldOne(String fieldOne) {
this.fieldOne = fieldOne;
}
public String getFieldTwo() {
return fieldTwo;
}
public void setFieldTwo(String fieldTwo) {
this.fieldTwo = fieldTwo;
}
public String getFieldThree() {
return fieldThree;
}
public void setFieldThree(String fieldThree) {
this.fieldThree = fieldThree;
}
}
My problem arises when I try to compile this line of code:
baseVersionResponse.populate(versionVO);
in getVersionInfo(...). I'm getting a message that looks like this:
The method populate(capture#3-of ?) in the type BaseVersionResponse is not applicable for the arguments (BaseVO)
on the populate method above.
My thought was (which is apparently incorrect) that since the baseVersionResponse is, at this point in the code, actually a specific child instance, that the class would know exactly which populate method to call from that specific child class.
What am I doing wrong here? Is there a better way to do this if this isn't the correct approach?
Thank you for your time!

Ok, I took a better look at this today. The problem is that the wildcard, while the right way to go, precludes you from doing:
BaseVO versionVO = createVersionVO(version);
Because the populate call wants an extension of BaseVO, not an actual BaseVO, which doesn't qualify. That means you can't pass that versionVO variable directly.
So, to keep the type checking in place, which I think is good because you'll always want an implementation, leave pretty much everything as-is above, and change your BaseVersionResponse class to something like:
public abstract class BaseVersionResponse<T extends BaseVO> {
public T getVersion(BaseVO versionVO) {
try {
return (T) versionVO;
} catch (ClassCastException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
}
public abstract void populate(BaseVO versionVO);
}
So, populate method now takes a BaseVO, and there's a new getVersion method to do some explicit casting for us. This should be ok since we know that the factory will always supply the right thing, but if another caller doesn't, an IllegalArgumentException is thrown.
Now, in your response class implementation, change the populate method accordingly:
public void populate(BaseVO version) {
VersionVOV1 versionVO = getVersion(version);
this.setTestFieldOne(versionVO.getFieldOne());
this.setTestFieldTwo(versionVO.getFieldTwo());
}
So, we've changed the populate method to take BaseVO, and the getVersion method does the casting for us. All the other type checks still apply, and we're good to go.
The casting makes it feel not as clean, but for the factory approach you're using, it's really the only way (I can think of) to keep the guarantees made by the type declarations and the code pattern in tact.
Hope that helps!

If you just take out the capture of type (the "<?>"), and leave it unchecked, it should work just fine. Even using type Object would have compiled.
But, given your specific example, what you probably want is the method:
public BaseVersionResponse<?> createVersionResponse(String version)
Changed to:
public BaseVersionResponse<? extends BaseVO> createVersionResponse(String version)
Then, instead of using
BaseVersionResponse<?>
use
BaseVersionResponse<? extends BaseVO>
Since you know that the return type will be one of those things that implements the interface/class.

Spring - Dynamic factory based on enum

I have the following classes:
public enum TaskType {
VERIFY_X_TASK, COMPUTE_Y_TASK, PROCESS_Z_TASK;
}
public interface Task{
void process();
}
#Component
public class VerifyXTask implements Task{
// Similar classes for the other types of tasks
public void process() {
}
}
#Component
public class TaskFactory{
private Map<TaskType, Task> tasks;
public Task getTask(TaskType type){
return tasks.get(type); // return a singleton with all it's fields injected by the application context
}
}
class UseTool{
#Autowired
private TaskFactory taskFactory;
public void run(String taskType){
Task task = taskFactory.getTask(TaskType.valueOf(taskType));
task.process();
}
}
What is the most elegant way of injecting the association between TaskType and Task into the factory?
Consider that there are almost 100 task types and that these may change quite frequently.
--
Further explanations:
I could do in the TaskFactory class smth like:
tasks.put(TaskType.VERIFY_X_TASK, new VerifyTask());
tasks.put(TaskType.COMPUTE_Y_TASK, new ComputeTask());
tasks.put(TaskType.PROCESS_Z_TASK, new ProcessTask());
But this does not inject any properties in the Task object.

I would suggest the following approach:
Define a custom annotation #ImplementsTask that takes a TaskType as a parameter, so that you can write your implementation class like this:
#Component
#ImplementsTask(TaskType.VERIFY_X_TASK)
public class VerifyXTask implements Task {
...
(Or you can meta-annotate #Component to avoid having to use it on all the classes.)
Inject all of the identified Task objects into your factory:
#Autowired
private Set<Task> scannedTasks;
In a #PostConstruct method on the factory, iterate over each of the elements in scannedTasks, reading the annotation value and adding a Map entry (to an EnumMap, of course). You'll need to decide how to deal with duplicate implementations for a given TaskType.
This will require a bit of reflection work in the factory setup, but it means that you can just annotate a Task implementation with the appropriate value and have it scanned in without any additional work by the implementor.

I got into similar kind of problem to solve, what I really did is, It may be helpful.
Define Tasks Enum like.
public enum Tasks {
Task1(SubTasks.values());
Tasks(PagesEnumI[] pages) {
this.pages = pages;
}
PagesEnumI[] pages;
// define setter and getter
}
Defined Subtask like
public interface PagesEnumI {
String getName();
String getUrl();
}
public enum SubTasks implements PagesEnumI {
Home("home_url");
SubTasks(String url) {
this.url = url;
}
private String url;
#Override
public String getUrl() {
return url;
}
#Override
public String getName() {
return this.name();
}
}
Defined Service to call per SubTasks enum like
public interface PageI {
void process();
Sites getTaskName();
PagesEnumI getSubTaskName();
}
#Component
public class Home implements PageI {
// function per SubTask to process
#Override
public void process() {}
// to get the information about Main Task
#Override
public Tasks getTaskName() {
return Tasks.Task1;
}
// to get the information about Sub Task
#Override
public PagesEnumI getSubTaskName() {
return Task1.Home;
}
}
Define a factory like...
#Component
public class PageFactory {
Set<PageI> pages;
// HashMap for keeping objects into
private static HashMap<String, PageI> pagesFactory = new HashMap<>();
#Autowired
public void setPages(Set<PageI> pages) {
this.pages = pages;
}
// construct key by
private static String constructKey(Tasks taks, PagesEnumI page) {
return task.name() + "__" + page.getName();
}
// PostConstruct means after construct class object this method should get run
// iterating over all pages and storing into Map
#PostConstruct
private void postConstruct() {
for (PageI pageI : pages) {
pagesFactory.put(constructKey(pageI.getTaskName(), pageI.getSubTaskName()), pageI);
}
}
// getting object from factory
public PageI getPageObject(Tasks task, PagesEnumI page) {
return pagesFactory.get(constructKey(task, page));
}
}
Till now we have registered our enum(Tasks and SunTasks) and their service(With getter of Tasks and SubTasks), Now defining a factory to call service process method.
#SpringBootApplication
public class Application implements CommandLineRunner {
PageFactory factory;
#Autowired
public void setFactory(PageFactory factory) {
this.factory = factory;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(Application.class, args);
}
#Override
public void run(String... args) throws Exception {
// for each task we might have different sub task
Arrays.stream(Tasks.values()).forEach(
task -> {
// for each and subtask of a task need to perform process
for (PagesEnumI page : task.getPages()) {
PageI pageI = factory.getPageObject(task, page);
pageI.process();
}
}
);
}
}
This is not exact similar problem, way to solve it may be similar. So I thought this might be helpful to put it here. Please don't by putting name, just trying to understand concept. If anyone have more inputs, please share.

Let Task tell the factory which TaskType it supports.
It can be done using a plain old Java method, no Spring annotations required.
public interface Task {
void process();
TaskType supportedType();
}
#Component
public class VerifyXTask implements Task {
#Override
public void process() {
}
#Override
public TaskType supportedType() {
return TaskType.VERIFY_X_TASK;
}
}
#Component
public class TaskFactory {
private Map<TaskType, Task> tasks;
public TaskFactory(List<Task> tasks) {
this.tasks = tasks.stream()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Task::supportedType, Function.identity()));
}
public Task getTask(TaskType type) {
return tasks.get(type);
}
}

Abstract enum a annotation attribute type

I have an interface which multiple enums are implementing, i.e
public interface MinorCodes {
public abstract int code();
public abstract String description();
}
public enum IdentityMinorCodes implements MinorCodes {
IDENTITY_UPLOAD_PICTURE_CODE(1, "Error while trying to upload a picture."),
}
Now I want to have a custom annotation which has a value type of one of these concrete enum values, i.e
public #interface PokenService {
MinorCodes[] exceptions();
}
But of course I cannot return an interface here.
Does anyone know any solution or workaround to this?
Thanks in advance.

You could create an additional enum that wraps all your MinorCodes enum values:
public enum MinorCodesWrapper {
IDENTITY_UPLOAD_PICTURE_CODE(IdentityMinorCodes.IDENTITY_UPLOAD_PICTURE_CODE),
SOME_CODE(AnotherMinorCodes.SOME_CODE);
private final MinorCodes _wrapped;
MinorCodesWrapper(MinorCodes wrapped) {
_wrapped = wrapped;
}
public MinorCodes getWrapped() {
return _wrapped;
}
}
public #interface PokenService {
MinorCodesWrapper[] exceptions();
}
Not pretty, but works ;)