Develop Reference

Java generic builder

Suppose I need some DerivedBuilder to extend some BaseBuilder. Base builder has some method like foo (which returns BaseBuilder). Derived builder has method bar. Method bar should be invoked after method foo. In order to do it I can override foo method in DerivedBuilder like this:
#Override
public DerivedBuilder foo() {
super.foo();
return this;
}
The problem is that BaseBuilder has a lot of methods like foo and I have to override each one of them. I don't want to do that so I tried to use generics:
public class BaseBuilder<T extends BaseBuilder> {
...
public T foo() {
...
return (T)this;
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder<T extends DerivedBuilder> extends BaseBuilder<T> {
public T bar() {
...
return (T)this;
}
}
But the problem is that I still can not write
new DerivedBuilder<DerivedBuilder>()
.foo()
.bar()
Even though T here is DerivedBuilder. What can I do in order to not to override a lot of functions?

Your problem is the definition of DerivedBuilder:
class DerivedBuilder<T extends DerivedBuilder>;
And then instantiating it with a type erased argument new DerivedBuilder<DerivedBuilder<...what?...>>().
You'll need a fully defined derived type, like this:
public class BaseBuilder<T extends BaseBuilder<T>> {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public T foo() {
return (T)this;
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder extends BaseBuilder<DerivedBuilder> {
public DerivedBuilder bar() {
return this;
}
}
Check ideone.com.

In addition to BeyelerStudios's answer, if you want to nest further, you can just use this:
class Base<T extends Base<?>> {
public T alpha() { return (T) this; }
public T bravo() { return (T) this; }
public T foxtrot() { return (T) this; }
}
class Derived<T extends Derived<?>> extends Base<T> {
public T charlie() { return (T) this; }
public T golf() { return (T) this; }
}
class FurtherDerived<T extends FurtherDerived<?>> extends Derived<T> {
public T delta() { return (T) this; }
public T hotel() { return (T) this; }
}
class MuchFurtherDerived<T extends MuchFurtherDerived<?>> extends FurtherDerived<T> {
public T echo() { return (T) this; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new MuchFurtherDerived<MuchFurtherDerived<?>>()
.alpha().bravo().charlie().delta().echo().foxtrot().golf().hotel()
.bravo().golf().delta().delta().delta().hotel().alpha().echo()
.echo().alpha().hotel().foxtrot();
}

Instead of casting return (T) this; I here did a Class.cast(this).
To realize:
BaseBuilder.build(ExtendedBuilder.class).foo().bar().foo().bar();
Every class in the hierarch needs to know the actual final child class, hence I chose to make a factory method build in the base class.
The cast of this to the actual child is done in a final method of the base class too, providing return me();.
class BaseBuilder<B extends BaseBuilder<B>> {
protected Class<B> type;
public static <T extends BaseBuilder<T>> T build(Class<T> type) {
try {
T b = type.newInstance();
b.type = type;
return b;
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
protected final B me() {
return type.cast(this);
}
B foo() {
System.out.println("foo");
return me();
}
}
class ExtendedBuilder extends BaseBuilder<ExtendedBuilder> {
ExtendedBuilder bar() {
System.out.println("bar");
return me();
}
}

What I understand from your question is that the method foo() should be executed before method bar().
If that is correct, you can apply the Template Design Pattern.
Create a abstract method bar in the BaseBuilder.
And a new method say 'template'. The method template will define the sequence- first foo() is executed followed by bar().
DerivedBuilder will provide the implementation for the method bar.
public abstract class BaseBuilder {
public void foo(){
System.out.println("foo");
}
public abstract void bar();
public void template(){
foo();
bar();
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder extends BaseBuilder{
#Override
public void bar() {
System.out.println("bar");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
BaseBuilder builder = new DerivedBuilder();
builder.template();
}
}
Hope this helps.

How to implement factory pattern with generics in Java?

I have a generic interface Handler
public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
I can have n implementations of this interface. Let's say I have following 2 implementations for now. One which handles String objects and another handles Date
public class StringHandler implements Handler<String> {
#Override
public void handle(String str) {
System.out.println(str);
}
}
public class DateHandler implements Handler<Date> {
#Override
public void handle(Date date) {
System.out.println(date);
}
}
I want to write a factory which will return handler instances based on the class type. Something like this :
class HandlerFactory {
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) return new StringHandler();
if (clazz == Date.class) return new DateHandler();
}
}
I get following error in this factory :
Type mismatch: cannot convert from StringHandler to Handler<T>
How to fix this?

SIMPLE SOLUTION
You could save your mappings Class<T> -> Handler<T> in a Map. Something like:
Map<Class<T>, Handler<T>> registry = new HashMap<>();
public void registerHandler(Class<T> dataType, Class<? extends Handler> handlerType) {
registry.put(dataType, handlerType);
}
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
return registry.get(clazz).newInstance();
}
In some place, initialize handlers (could be in the factory itself):
factory.registerHandler(String.class, StringHandler.class);
factory.registerHandler(Date.class, DateHandler.class);
And in another place, you create and use them:
Handler<String> stringhandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
MORE COMPLEX SOLUTION
You can "scan" classes using reflection and, instead of register manually the mappings Class<T> -> Handler<T>, do it using reflection.
for (Class<? extends Handler> handlerType : getHandlerClasses()) {
Type[] implementedInterfaces = handlerType.getGenericInterfaces();
ParameterizedType eventHandlerInterface = (ParameterizedType) implementedInterfaces[0];
Type[] types = eventHandlerInterface.getActualTypeArguments();
Class dataType = (Class) types[0]; // <--String or Date, in your case
factory.registerHandler(dataType, handlerType);
}
Then, you create and use them like above:
Handler<String> stringhandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
To implement getHandlerClasses(), look at this to scan all classes in your jar. For each class, you have to check if it is a Handler:
if (Handler.class.isAssignableFrom(scanningClazz) //implements Handler
&& scanningClazz.getName() != Handler.class.getName()) //it is not Handler.class itself
{
//is a handler!
}
Hope it helps!

Your problem is that the compiler cannot make the leap to the fact thet the type of the result is correct.
To help the compiler you can make the factory delegate the construction. Although this looks strange and unwieldly it does manage to properly maintain type safety without sacrifices such as casting or using ? or raw types.
public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
public static class StringHandler implements Handler<String> {
#Override
public void handle(String str) {
System.out.println(str);
}
}
public static class DateHandler implements Handler<Date> {
#Override
public void handle(Date date) {
System.out.println(date);
}
}
static class HandlerFactory {
enum ValidHandler {
String {
#Override
Handler<String> make() {
return new StringHandler();
}
},
Date {
#Override
Handler<Date> make() {
return new DateHandler();
}
};
abstract <T> Handler<T> make();
}
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) {
return ValidHandler.String.make();
}
if (clazz == Date.class) {
return ValidHandler.Date.make();
}
return null;
}
}
public void test() {
HandlerFactory factory = new HandlerFactory();
Handler<String> stringHandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
}

The whole point of using a generic type is to share the implementation. If the n implementation of your Handler interface are so different that they can't be shared, then I don't think there is any reason to use define that generic interface at the first place. You'd rather just have StringHandler and DateHandler as top level classes.
On the other hand, if the implementation can be shared, as is the case of your example, then the factory works naturally:
public class Main {
static public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
static public class PrintHandler<T> implements Handler<T> {
#Override
public void handle(T obj) {
System.out.println(obj);
}
}
static class HandlerFactory {
public static <T> Handler<T> getHandler() {
return new PrintHandler<T>();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Handler<String> stringHandler = HandlerFactory.getHandler();
Handler<Date> dateHandler = HandlerFactory.getHandler();
stringHandler.handle("TEST");
dateHandler.handle(new Date());
}
}

You can use something like:
class HandlerFactory {
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz.equals(String.class)) return (Handler<T>) new StringHandler();
if (clazz.equals(Date.class)) return (Handler<T>) new DateHandler();
return null;
}
}
T is generic and the compiler can't map that at compile time. Also it is safer to use .equals instead of ==.

Define an interface for creating an object, but let subclasses decide which class to instantiate.
Factory method lets a class defer instantiation to subclasses.
Define generic abstract class
public abstract class Factory<T> {
public abstract T instantiate(Supplier<? extends T> supplier);
}
And a generic supplier
public class SupplierFactory<T> extends Factory<T> {
#Override
public T instantiate(Supplier<? extends T> supplier) {
return supplier.get();
}
}
Then an implementation needs to have concrete classes to implement the base interface and a main class to show class defer instantiation . i.e
The base interface (desired interface of the requirement)
public interface BaseInterface {
void doAction();
}
The first concrete class
public class Alpha implements BaseInterface {
#Override
public void doAction() {
System.out.println("The Alpha executed");
}
}
And the second one
public class Beta implements BaseInterface {
#Override
public void doAction() {
System.out.println("The Beta executed");
}
}
The main
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Factory<BaseInterface> secondFactory = new SupplierFactory<>();
secondFactory.instantiate(Beta::new).doAction();
secondFactory.instantiate(Alpha::new).doAction();
}
}

Basically you can do:
public Handler getHandler( Class clazz ){
if( clazz == String.class ) return new StringHandler();
if( clazz == Date.class ) return new DateHandler();
return null;
}
public static void main( String[] args ){
HandlerFactory handlerFactory = new HandlerFactory();
StringHandler handler = ( StringHandler )handlerFactory.getHandler( String.class );
handler.handle( "TEST" );
DateHandler handler2 = ( DateHandler )handlerFactory.getHandler( Date.class );
handler2.handle( new Date() );
}
Output:
TEST
Tue Dec 15 15:31:00 CET 2015
But instead writing two different methods to get handlers separately always is a better way.

I edited your code and allowed Eclipse to "fix" the errors and it came up with this.
public Handler<?> getHandler(Class<?> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class)
return new StringHandler();
if (clazz == Date.class)
return new DateHandler();
return null;
}

Yout HandlerFactory don't know about T. Use your factory like below-
public class HandlerFactory {
public Handler<?> getHandler(Class<?> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) {
return new StringHandler();
}
if (clazz == Date.class) {
return new DateHandler();
}
return null;
}
}

How to implement a generic wrapper for a ResultSet-like API?

I have an third-party RPC-API that provides an interface similar to that of java.sql.ResultSet (for reading values) and java.sql.PreparedStatement (for writing values). Assume it looks something like this:
public interface RemoteDeviceProxy {
public void setBoolean(Boolean value);
public void setInteger(Integer value);
// ...
public Boolean getBoolean();
public Integer getInteger();
// ...
}
I want to write a wrapper for this API that uses generics to create instances of specific types:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
}
public T get() {
// should call wrappedDevice.getBoolean() if T is Boolean, etc.
// how to implement?
}
public void set(T newValue) {
// should call wrappedDevice.setBoolean(newValue) if T is Boolean, etc.
// implement using instanceof
}
}
How can I implement the getter in my generic wrapper? I have found this answer which explains a similar scenario in depth, but I am not able to transfer this to my problem. Specifically, when I write this:
public T get() {
Type[] actualTypeArguments = ((ParameterizedType) getClass())
.getActualTypeArguments();
}
I get a compiler error saying I cannot cast to ParameterizedType, and I do not understand why. Can anyone explain how to achieve this?

Here is one way:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
private final Class<T> clazz;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice, Class<T> clazz) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
this.clazz = clazz;
}
public T get() {
if(clazz == Boolean.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getBoolean());}
else if(clazz == Integer.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getInteger());}
// ...
}
// ...
}

I thought over this quite a while and finally came up with a different approach:
First I added a getter to you RemoteVariable class:
protected RemoteDeviceProxy getWrappedProxy() {
return wrappedProxy;
}
Second I created a builder interface that will be used by a factory later:
public interface RemoteVariableBuilder {
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy);
}
Then I created non generic sub classes for Boolean...
public class RemoteBooleanVariable extends RemoteVariable<Boolean> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteBooleanVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteBooleanVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Boolean get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getBoolean();
}
#Override
public void set(Boolean value) {
getWrappedProxy().setBoolean(value);
}
}
... and Integer ...
public class RemoteIntegerBuilder extends RemoteVariable<Integer> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteIntegerBuilder(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteIntegerBuilder(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Integer get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getInteger();
}
#Override
public void set(Integer value) {
getWrappedProxy().setInteger(value);
}
}
actually eclipse created most of the code once it knew base class and interface.
The final step was to create a factory
public class RemoteVariableFactory {
private static final Map<String, RemoteVariableBuilder> BUILDERS = new HashMap<>();
static {
BUILDERS.put(Boolean.class.getName(), new RemoteBooleanVariable(null));
BUILDERS.put(Integer.class.getName(), new RemoteIntegerBuilder(null));
// add more builders here
}
public static <T> RemoteVariable<T> getRemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy, Class<T> typeClass) {
RemoteVariableBuilder remoteVariableBuilder = BUILDERS.get(typeClass.getName());
if (remoteVariableBuilder == null) {
return null; // or throw an exception whichever is better in your case
}
return remoteVariableBuilder.buildNewVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
}
Now we are ready to create new RemoteVariables...
RemoteVariable<Boolean> var1 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Boolean.class);
RemoteVariable<Integer> var2 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Integer.class);
To conclude this let's do a quick comparison to the answer of Eng.Fouad:
Disadvantage:
you need to create a new class for every datatype you provide
Advantage:
you only have to add one line to the static block of the factory and not two new if blocks to the getter and setter in RemoteVariable
get and set do not have to work through the if-else-blocks every time

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.

Is it possible to have an enum that contains constructors for objects?

I'm testing out a different sort of pattern. I've already got the code working in a switch statement, but I'd like to try something a little more ecclectic... for research purposes.
Say I have 4 classes, Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 that all extend BaseClass. I want to put them into an enum, like so:
enum ClassFactories {
Class1(Class1.class),
Class2(Class2.class),
Class3(Class3.class),
Class4(Class4.class);
private final Class factory;
ClassFactories(Class factory) {
this.factory = factory;
}
public BaseClass generate() {
BaseClass b = null;
try {
b = (BaseClass)this.factory.newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
// handle any exceptions
}
return f;
}
}
In a factory method that is passed an int, I want to be able to do something like this:
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
BaseClass someClass = ClassFactories.values()[type].generate();
someClass.doStuff();
}
Is there a cleaner/easier way of doing this? I'm not so much concerned with readability (right now), I'm just curious if this is possible.

Yes, this is possible. Something like a 'Template Method' approach. So for example
public enum ClassFactory {
Class1() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 1.");
}
},
Class2() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 2.");
}
};
//template method
public abstract void generate();
private static final Map<Integer, ClassFactory > lookup
= new HashMap<Integer, ClassFactory >();
static {
for (ClassFactory s : EnumSet.allOf(ClassFactory.class))
lookup.put(s.getIntValue(), s);
}
public static ClassFactory getValue(int intValue) {
return lookup.get(intValue);
}
}
INVOCATION CODE
With the use of static imports, the client code calling this enumeration would look like:
Class1.generate();
Class2.generate();
//or better...
getClass().generate();
Or
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
ClassFactory.getValue(type).generate();
}