I am trying to access the method GetDatbaseName(), from the returned object obj, but it is returning error that the method is not available.
However, when I Typecast the obj, it is working.
String name = ((Oracle)obj).GetDatabaseName();
How to handle this generic? Like I can't typecast for each return type like Oracle and MongoDB. Also any better implementation for this?
// one class needs to have a main() method
public class HelloWorld
{
// arguments are passed using the text field below this editor
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Data dt = new Data("Oracle");
Object obj = dt.GetObject();
String name = obj.GetDatabaseName();
System.out.println(name);
}
}
public class Data
{
public String _type;
public Data(String type)
{
_type = type;
}
public Object GetObject()
{
Object obj = null;
switch(_type)
{
case("Oracle"):
obj = new Oracle("Test");
break;
case("MongoDB"):
obj = new MongoDB("TestCollection");
break;
}
return obj;
}
}
public class Oracle
{
public String _databaseName;
public Oracle(String databaseName)
{
_databaseName = databaseName;
}
public String GetDatabaseName() { return _databaseName; }
}
public class MongoDB
{
public String _collectionName;
public MongoDB(String collectionName)
{
_collectionName = collectionName;
}
public String GetCollectionName() { return _collectionName; }
}
There are two ways to solve this, the first is using a generic class, while the second is using interface, the second approach is better if you know that the classes will have the same methods, while the generic approach is if the classes have different methods
Generic approach
public class DBtest{
public static void main(String[] args){
DataBase<Oracle> database = new DataBase<>(Oracle.class);
Oracle oracle = database.getDataBase();
System.out.println(oracle.getDatabaseName());
}
}
class DataBase<T>{
private T database;
public DataBase(Class<T> classOfT){
try {
database = classOfT.newInstance();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public T getDataBase(){
return database;
}
}
class Oracle{
private String _databaseName;
public Oracle(){
_databaseName = "test";
}
public String getDatabaseName() { return _databaseName; }
}
As you can see, it is not possible to define the name of the database, this would be possible of you write <T extends Name> which is an interface which has getName() and setName() method
Interface approach
public class DBtest{
// arguments are passed using the text field below this editor
public static void main(String[] args){
DataBase database = new DataBase(new Oracle("test"));
DatabaseName databaseName = database.getDataBase();
System.out.println(databaseName.getName());
}
}
interface DatabaseName {
String getName();
}
class DataBase{
private DatabaseName databaseName;
public DataBase(DatabaseName databaseName){
this.databaseName = databaseName;
}
public DatabaseName getDataBase(){
return databaseName;
}
}
class Oracle implements DatabaseName {
private String _databaseName;
public Oracle(String name){
_databaseName = name;
}
public String getName() {
return _databaseName;
}
}
class MongoDB implements DatabaseName {
private String _databaseName;
public MongoDB(String name){
_databaseName = name;
}
public String getName() {
return _databaseName;
}
}
Obviously DatabaseName is a bad name for an interface, but it is the only method which is the same for both classes, so it makes sense to call it that. The great thing about interfaces is that you don't have to give a shit about what class is used as long as you know the method names.
You problem is on the following lines:
Object obj = dt.GetObject();
String name = obj.GetDatabaseName();
As far as those lines are concerned, obj is of type Object, which does not have the invoked method; thus, the issue. This is due to Java being strongly typed.
To go around that, you need a type that has this method, or use reflection. To use a type that has this method, they need to inherit it from a common parent of implement it from a common interface. You can also wrap you objects or a bunch of other alternatives.
In your case, it seems that a common interface is the easiest way to go. In this case, each class should implement this interface and instead of using Object your reference would be of the type of that interface.
public Object GetObject()
Would become
public MyInterface GetObject()
and
public class Oracle
would be
public class Oracle implements MyInterface
Where MyInterface would declare the method
public interface MyInterface {
String GetDatabaseName();
}
Being mindful of Java conventions, methods should start with lowercase
public interface MyInterface {
String getDatabaseName();
}
In the case where you cannot change the code in order to implements those methods, you can use "instanceof" to test against the class type.
name = (obj instanceof Oracle)?((Oracle)obj).GetDatabaseName():((MongoDB )obj).getCollectionName();
You must have to create an Interface and then with getDatabaseName() method. Then your objects Oracle and MongoDB must implement that interface.
What you are trying to do is something similar to AbstractFactory Pattern. You should google it.
public interface MyDbInterface {
String getDatabaseName();
}
public class HelloWorld {
// arguments are passed using the text field below this editor
public static void main(String[] ){
MyDbInterface dt = DataFactory.create("Oracle");
String name = dt.getDatabaseName();
System.out.println(name);
}
}
public final class DataFactory{
private DataFactory(){
super();
}
public static MyDbInterface create(String type){
MyDbInterface obj = null;
switch(type) {
case("Oracle"):
obj = new Oracle("Test");
break;
case("MongoDB"):
obj = new MongoDB("TestCollection");
break;
}
return obj;
}
}
public class Oracle implement MyDbInterface{
public String databaseName;
public Oracle(String databaseName){
databaseName = databaseName;
}
#Override
public String getDatabaseName() {
return databaseName;
}
}
public class MongoDB implement MyDbInterface{
public String collectionName;
public MongoDB(String collectionName){
collectionName = collectionName;
}
public String getCollectionName() {
return collectionName;
}
#Override
public String getDatabaseName() {
return getCollectionName();
}
}
I suposed you come from C#, check java style guide. ;)
You should think about the design of your code. You need to use basic OOP principal to solve the problem. There are several ways to solve your problem like using interface/generics etc. Here I am giving one such example.
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Data dt = new Data("Oracle");
DataBase obj = dt.GetObject();
String name = obj.getDatabaseName();
System.out.println("Name : "+name);
}
}
class Data {
public String _type;
public Data(String type) {
_type = type;
}
public DataBase GetObject() {
DataBase dataBase=null;
switch (_type) {
case "Oracle":
dataBase = new Oracle();
break;
case "Mongo":
dataBase = new MongoDb();
break;
}
return dataBase;
}
}
interface DataBase {
String getDatabaseName();
}
class Oracle implements DataBase {
public String getDatabaseName() {
return "Oracle";
}
}
class MongoDb implements DataBase {
public String getDatabaseName() {
return "Mongo";
}
}
Edited:
Here is another way to solve your problem. I believe this approach might solve your problem.
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Data<Oracle> dt = new Data<Oracle>("Oracle");
Oracle obj = dt.getObject();
String name = obj.getDatabaseName();
System.out.println("Name : "+name);
}
}
class Data<T> {
public String _type;
public Data(String type) {
_type = type;
}
public T getObject() {
Object dataBase=null;
switch (_type) {
case "Oracle":
dataBase = new Oracle();
break;
case "Mongo":
dataBase = new MongoDb();
break;
}
return (T)dataBase;
}
}
class Oracle {
public String getDatabaseName() {
return "Oracle";
}
}
class MongoDb {
}
Related
I am writing a java (processing) library for unexperienced students, and am looking for the best architecture for implementing it.
Initialization of an object should be as close as possible to this:
myObject = new General("type1");
Such that myObject will become an instance of Type1 which extends General:
class General {
public General() {}
}
class Type1 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
class Type2 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
As far as I know, this isn't possible (choosing between extended classes during initialization), but I'm looking for the closest solution possible.
So far, my best solution is to make a static initializer inside General:
class General {
...
static General init (String type) {
General temp;
if (type.equals("type1") {
temp = new Type1();
}
...
return temp;
}
and the initialization is:
General myObject;
myObject = General.init("type1");
This is far from ideal...
thanks.
you can make a factory class that manages initialization.
instead of doing it inside the parent.
// Empty vocabulary of actual object
public interface IPerson
{
string GetName();
}
public class Villager : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "Village Person";
}
}
public class CityPerson : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "City Person";
}
}
public enum PersonType
{
Rural,
Urban
}
/// <summary>
/// Implementation of Factory - Used to create objects.
/// </summary>
public class Factory
{
public IPerson GetPerson(PersonType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case PersonType.Rural:
return new Villager();
case PersonType.Urban:
return new CityPerson();
default:
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
The State design pattern can be a solution here. Rather than the constructor argument changing the type of the object (which isn't possible) it can set a field of the object, to make it behave as if its type is different.
package stackoverflow.questions;
public class Main {
private interface MyInterface {
String foo();
int bar();
}
private static class Type1 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "lorem ipsum "; }
#Override public int bar() { return 6; }
}
private static class Type2 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "dolor sit amet"; }
#Override public int bar() { return 7; }
}
public static class General {
private final MyInterface type;
public General(String type) {
try {
this.type = (MyInterface) Class
.forName("stackoverflow.questions.Main$" + type)
.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid type: " + type);
}
}
public String method1() { return type.foo(); }
public int method2() { return type.bar(); }
}
public static void main(String... args) {
General one = new General("Type1");
General two = new General("Type2");
System.out.println(one.method1() + two.method1());
System.out.println(one.method2() * two.method2());
}
}
I have factory class to create object based on my conditional term, but i unable to create it because i need to declare which class i want to use meanwhile the class i use based on my rule condition. How to solve this?
CustomerFactory.class
public class CustomerFactory {
public CustomerBuyer getType(String type) {
if(type == "buyer") {
CustomerBuyer<DataDetailBuy> myCustomer = new CustomerBuyer();
myCustomer.setName("buyer1");
myCustomer.getDataDetail().setItemCode("ITEM001");
return myCustomer;
}else if(type == "seller"){
CustomerBuyer<DataDetailSell> myCustomer = new CustomerBuyer();
return myCustomer;
}
}
}
CustomerBuyer.class
public class CustomerBuyer<T> {
public String name;
public T dataDetail;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public T getDataDetail() {
return dataDetail;
}
public void setDataDetail(T dataDetail) {
this.dataDetail = dataDetail;
}
}
App.java
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
CustomerFactory customerFactory = new CustomerFactory();
CustomerBuyer person1 = customerFactory.getType("buyer");
person1.getName();
person1.getDataDetail();
CustomerBuyer person2 = customerFactory.getType("seller");
person2.getName();
person2.getDataDetail().getProfit();
}
}
The function getType on CustomerFactory has error, because the return class type is dynamic. How to tell the function to accept return dynamic type class based on my condition? On the other side the class type is chosen while in runtime
Note: <T> generic class i want to assign with different class each condition
I want to pass a string into a series of method. These method will check whether the string have all properties needed. so, if the string didn't meet the requirement on one validator method, it will return false.
example :
input : "customerid=cu01","name=someone","phone=+628770xxxxx","address=somewhere","balance=500000"
output : true
another example :
"customerid=cu01","name=someone","address=somewhere","balance=200000"
output : false (no phone number)
Is it possible to create a list of validator class like this
List<Validator> val = new ArrayList<Validator>();
val.add(ValidatorA);
val.add(ValidatorB);
etc.
so i can check the string with that list of validator. i just want to know, is it possible to check a string with a list of validator like that? i'm doing this because it will be easier to add another validator if needed someday.
thanks
You could use the decorator pattern.
Take a look at this example I think it suits your usecase:
http://blog.decarufel.net/2009/09/using-decorator-or-wrapper-design.html
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/decorator
public abstract class ValidationObject {
String description = "no particular";
public String getDescription(){
return description;
}
}
public class Account extends ValidationObject {
public Account(){
description = "account";
}
}
public class Book extends ValidationObject {
public Book () {
description = "book";
}
}
public abstract class ValidationObjectDecorator extends ValidationObject {
public abstract String getDescription();
}
public class ValidationOne extends ValidationObjectDecorator {
private ValidationObject account;
public ValidationOne (ValidationObject g) {
account = g;
}
#Override
public String getDescription() {
return account.getDescription() + "+ validationOneRan";
}
public void validateStuff() {
System.out.println("Big validation!");
}
}
We can add more method like "validateOtherStuff()" to each decorator without any limitations.
public class ValidationTwo extends ValidationObjectDecorator {
private ValidationObject book;
public ValidationTwo(ValidationObject g) {
book = g;
}
#Override
public String getDescription() {
return book.getDescription() + " ran validationTwo";
}
public void validationMethod() {
System.out.println("Big Validation!");
}
}
package designpatterns.decorator;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ValidationObject g1 = new Account();
System.out.println(g1.getDescription());
ValidationOne g2 = new Account(g1);
System.out.println(g2.getDescription());
ValidationTwo g3 = new Book(g2);
System.out.println(g3.getDescription());
}
}
Perhaps you can create an interface which will define a function such as "validate()", create implementations of this interface and then iterate over the list and apply the validate function.
Example:
public interface validator{
public boolean validate();
}
class validateUserName{
public boolean validate(){
return true;
}
}
class validatePhone{
public boolean validate(){
return false;
}
}
List<Validator> list = new ArrayList<Validator>();
list.add(new validPhone());
list.add(new validUserName());
for(Validator v : list)
v.validate();
I'm a bit confused with subclasses.
Here's my code:
public class MedHistory {
private String grafts;
private String allergies;
private String diseases;
private String surgeries;
private String medicalTreatment;
//Constructors (#2)
public MedHistory(String allergies, String diseases, String grafts,
String treatments, String surgeries) {
this.allergies=allergies;
this.diseases=diseases;
this.grafts=grafts;
this.medicalTreatment=treatments;
this.surgeries=surgeries;
}
public MedHistory() {
this.allergies="";
this.diseases="";
this.grafts="";
this.medicalTreatment="";
this.surgeries="";
}
//Getters
public String getGrafts() {
return grafts;
}
public String getAllergies() {
return allergies;
}
public String getDiseases() {
return diseases;
}
public String getSurgeries() {
return surgeries;
}
public String getMedicalTreatment() {
return medicalTreatment;
}
//Setters
public void setGrafts(String grafts) {
this.grafts = grafts;
}
public void setAllergies(String allergies) {
this.allergies = allergies;
}
public void setDiseases(String diseases) {
this.diseases = diseases;
}
public void setSurgeries(String surgeries) {
this.surgeries = surgeries;
}
public void setMedicalTreatment(String medicalTreatment) {
this.medicalTreatment = medicalTreatment;
}
public class FemMedHistory extends MedHistory {
private List<Birth> births = new ArrayList<Birth>();
//Constructors (#2)
public FemMedHistory(String allergies, String diseases, String grafts,String treatments, String surgeries, List<Birth> birthlist) {
super(allergies,allergies,grafts,treatments,surgeries);
this.births=birthlist;
}
public FemMedHistory() {
super();
this.births=null;
}
//Getter
public List<Birth> getBirths() {
return this.births;
}
//Setter
public void setBirths(List<Birth> list) {
this.births=list;
}
}
}
When I try to create an new FemMedHistory object like this:
List<Birth> list = new ArrayList<Birth>();
list.add(new Birth(new GregorianCalendar(2011,4,10),"kaisariki",4));
FemMedHistory female = new FemMedHistory("allergia2","astheneia2","emvolia2","farmekeutiki agwgi2", "xeirourgeia2", list);
I get the error:
No enclosing instance of type MedHistory is accessible. Must qualify
the allocation with an enclosing instance of type MedHistory (e.g.
x.new A() where x is an instance of MedHistory).
So, which is the right way to use a subclass?
When you declare a nested class it only available through the Outer class.
To access it outside, you will need to either make the FemMedHistory class static.
public static class FemMedHistory extends MedHistory {...}
access it through the MedHistory class
MedHistory.FemMedHistory myMedHistory = ...
or declare it in it's own Java file.
You have declared your subclass as an inner class, which means that you can't create an instance of it without first creating an instance of the containing class.
The most common way to solve this is to declare it as a separate class, which would get rid of your error.
Long story short: cut all the FemMedHistory code and paste it into FemMedHistory.java. The way it is now you have involved Java concepts which you have not yet mastered. Also, that class really does belong in a separate file.
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.