Develop Reference

How can I generate and compile Java files in Android at Runtime

I know with javax.tools.* it is possible, but since this is not included in the Android API, I'm desperately wondering, is this possible?
Right now, my goal is to create a drag-and-drop tool to allow users to create their own layouts (as not everyone wants to learn Mobile Development, as it requires a lot of time, dedication and practice) similar to how Android Studio does it's own. However, of course the most important thing is to implement functionality via onClickListener and onTouchListeners. I've begun remedying this by creating my own DSL (Domain-Specific-Language) with a GUI front-end allowing users to choose what they want via PopupMenu and SubMenus. For example...
Statements
{ if, for, while }
Statements must be followed immediately by a reference and then a conditional (obtained from that reference), like a "if(Object.conditional())" statement.
References
{ Object1, Object2, Object3 }
The objects are references to other Views (I.E, Buttons, Layouts, WebView, etc.).
Conditionals|Actions|Getters|Setters
{ isSomething(), doSomething(), getSomething(), setSomething() }
Each Reference's methods, wrapped so that each wrapper keeps track of it's method's attributes and description (hence documentation).
It would go something like such...
IF ImageView1.isVisible()
ImageView1.setVisible(false)
ELSE
ImageView1.setVisible(true)
Of course, the method setVisible(boolean) is a wrapped version of setVisiblity(int).None of this is typed, it is obtained from a simple PopupMenu which shows them the applicable selections based on current context.
How I plan on transcribing this to compiling code was to convert the statement into Java code, inserting references on the fly as they are needed (I.E, ImageView1 would be defined in java as private ImageView ImageView1;), generate methods somewhat similar to how ButterKnife generates it's extra classes for it's onClick and onTouch annotations, etc.
Then, after planning all of this (been working on it for 2 weeks now), I find out that Android does not have support for compiling code like this. Please tell me something like this is possible. It's something I 100% wanted to do. Is this possible with any third party libraries?
If not, is there some possible way to mimic doing so? I could do it the long and slow way, of preparing every such possible way, keeping track of the references myself through a map, and when it is about to be called, directly call the implemented method for the View associated with that key, which theoretically COULD work. In fact, that'd be my second go-to if I can't. It'd be messy though.
Sorry if this is too long, I just want to get this to work.
TL;DR: Is there a way to compile a generated Java file created at Runtime in Android (since javax.tools.* does not exist), and if not what would be the best way to do so?

Where to put common attributes and method implementations if I can't change the parent class?

I am working with JavaFX, specifically with:
javafx.scene.shape.Rectangle
javafx.scene.shape.Ellipse
javafx.scene.shape.Line
I need additional methods so I created the interface MoreFunctions. I created three new classes that inherit from above classes and implement MoreFunctions, i.e.:
public class MyRectangle extends javafx.scene.shape.Rectangle implements MoreFunctions {
...
}
This is fine as long as MyRectangle and MyEllipse have different implementations of the additional methods. But where do I put methods that have the same implementation? I can't change the parent class since I can't modify the framework. Is a default interface method the only (feasible) way to go? But then what about common attributes that methods rely on?
EDIT: An example of a common method
public void toggleSelection() {
if (!selected) {
setStrokeWidth(5);
setStroke(Color.RED);
selected = true;
}
else {
setStrokeWidth(0);
selected = false;
}
}
This requires
private boolean selected;

It sounds a bit like you are looking for mixin functionality, which doesn't really exist in Java. You might be able to simulate mixins using Java 8 functionality or via a special purpose 3rd party mixin support library.
However, things might be a bit more straight-forward for other developers if you use either pass through methods or composed objects. Each of your Shape subclasses can delegate the functionality to common classes implementing particular functionality (e.g. selection toggling), rather than relying on new language features like default methods.
You can see the difference in inheritable or inherent functionality versus a delegated or compositional approach by examining the way selection capability is handled in various JavaFX classes. ToggleButton has a selectedProperty, so it is directly implementing the selection functionality. However, ListView has a selectionModelProperty, so the selection modeling capability of the ListView is delegated to an associated class, rather than directly implemented in the ListView itself.
Of course, things get a little complicated when you have MVC style systems like JavaFX Controls, but you probably don't need to code your system to that level of complexity. Though, you might want to examine how CSS support is added to controls and consider implementing functions such as styling a selected shape using similar CSS based support, rather than coding the style directly in code.

Using shared class libraries internally, but not providing access to them in released SDK

After some research I cannot come across the best approach for this. There will be certain color classes that I would like to share amongst multiple projects. Let's call one of them EncryptedColor. Since it is used across multiple projects I don't want multiple copies of it in existence of course. Otherwise I would need to make sure that an update in one location would need to be updated everywhere. However, these classes are needed in some released SDKs that we provide to customers.
How could I design it such that I can use these classes but not provide them with the classes that they don't need access to from their SDK. I don't want useless classes to become visible and flood the smaller subset of classes that they really need to be seeing.
A couple approaches I have thought of so far but aren't quite ideal:
Try and use a doclet structure that hides the calls within the javadoc such as doclava. Javadoc has not fully implemented its own hiding mechanism yet. As I understand this doesn't keep the functions from being visible, but it was mentioned in one spot that you would need reflection to use the calls. I don't see how just the javadoc does that so I must have been missing something.
Android has designed themselves it seems to force reflection from some #hide attributes included in methods that they have in source code. But from the sounds of it, the system hides those and then uses a different jar when it is loading to make those visible at launch time. Probably not useful here.
If I were to keep shared classes in the same package name I could access default and protected members, but...then I am keeping all my classes that use these in the same package name. Not quite ideal either, but it could be done in that manner if I needed to. Might get out of hand with large quantities of shared resources.
What approaches are taken typically in situations such as these? I haven't liked my findings and thought process thus far.

Short answer : you can't hide/remove these classes as they are needed at runtime by your application.
In my opinon, you have 3 alternatives :
Change the classes access to "package private". Yes, doing that doesn't make it impossible to access them, but these classes won't be accessible directly.
Remove the classes and create an API. You want to hide the logic ? Remove it and provide it through a REST API for instance. Depending or your architecture, it could be difficult or impossible.
Create all the instance of these classes in a dynamic way, with Class.forName, using Spring or as in #Steve K answer, with Java's ServiceLoader. As a result, you will be able to remove these classes from the main jar and make them more private, in a way. Again, classes will be here but a little less accessible.

My suggestion that could work would be to implement your color classes as a service using the Java ServiceLoader
You make an interface for your color classes, and implementations can be called using the ServiceLoader class. Then you simply separate your color classes into two packages - a public package you can jar up and distribute with your SDK, and a private package for those classes you want to be internal. The ServiceLoader will find all the color classes available so long as the jar files are in your project's classpath.
For example, if your color classes (as an example) had a common interface like this:
public interface MyAppColor {
public int getRed();
public int getGreen();
public int getBlue();
public int getAlpha();
public void setRed(int red);
public void setGreen(int green);
public void setBlue(int blue);
public void setAlpha(int alpha);
public boolean isValid();
public void doSomething(Object arg);
}
Then you could have a bunch of implementing classes in a jar file, with a service descriptor file included in the jar at the path:
META-INF/services/com.my.app.MyAppColor
The text of that file is simply the list of classes in the jar that implement the interface - one per line:
com.my.app.MyPublicAppColor
com.my.app.MyEncryptedPublicAppColor
com.my.app.MyOtherPublicAppColor
etc. Then all you have to do is make a factory for instantiating the correct type, which could be as simple as this:
public class MyAppColorFactory {
private static ServiceLoader<MyAppColor> serviceLoader = ServiceLoader.load(MyAppColor.class, null);
public static MyAppColor get(String className){
if (className != null){
for (MyAppColor c : serviceLoader){
if (className.equals(c.getClass().getName())){
return c;
}
}
}
return null;
}
}

Deploying only needed code:
- Use Only The Needed Source In Development (1) (2)
Since you have an entire library and many deployments which each use different components, the easiest way to do what you suggest is to use only the sources that you need; not a single library. You can ignore the unused sources. This will only ship the needed code.
- Make The Library "Package Private"
This will allow the access only for the public components of the library and everything else will not be callable. But, it will still ship all the code.
- Create an API as a REST SDK
This will require web access, not desirable for performance code {any code really}. You will ship no sdk code with this method.
- Obfuscate the code
Easy with the correct tools. Obfuscation will change the class and method names in production code to gibberish. This will make the library basically unusable to anyone but you. This will ship all the code but it will be obfuscated
- Native API
You can compile java to machine code and use it in production or as the api. You can also create the api in a native language {not desirable}.

Override public final method in Java (reflection?!)

I'm getting into a problem, when I was trying to create a custom LayoutAnimationController for an Android project. It has the method
public final Animation getAnimationForView(View v)
For my custom LayoutAnimationController, I need to override this method, because each view should get a "unique" animation.
Is it possible to override public final methods by using reflection or similar techniques, or do you have an alternative idea?
I know that something similar had been discuses in override java final methods via reflection or other means? but the "solution" which came up there, was pretty specific to the problems of the user and did not completely answer the question of overriding final methods.

It looks like LayoutAnimationController is not intended to be used like this.
If you would be able to override getAnimationForView(View v) with the functionality you want most methods/constructors of LayoutAnimationController would make no sense since this class is created for using a single animation (with different delays) on multiple views.
Maybe it is better to look into the source and create you own animation controller based on this information.

An old question, but I still feel I should answer as there doesn't seem to be a possible solution using LayoutAnimationController.
I ended up overriding AnimationSet and just moved the LayoutAnimationController functionality to that class. Of course, together with my custom code.
Finally, I just have to rant about this: this is hardly the first time I ran into some sort of private / final / access denied in your preferred way code in Google's framework. They seem to find it hilarious if they give us programmers a hard time. I understand that Transformation only Animations are there for performance, but sometimes we just need something different and disabling us through such childish ways is beyond ridiculous. /rant

java / gwt UI coding - clean code

i've started on some basic java coding with gwt, and im getting a bit concerned about the heft of my main class.
For instance - how does one compartmentalize the keyhandlers, since they trigger a number of changes to the UI, how could i move this into a separate .class file and still be able to access all the various widgets in the main class, without having to pass everything to the handler (ie. all the widgets i manipulate after the click event).
i've googled but didnt come across any particularly good examples - know of any readily legible code-bases i could read to see how it should be done? (gwt's own tuts are pretty basic, and just kitchen-sink every thing into a single file)
thanks!

I hate to say something so unimaginative, but MVC works--it's not the ultimate, but it can start getting you organized.
EDIT: While searching on a semi-related topic, I came across this which has similar ideas to mine but goes into more detail.
What that means in terms of GWT is that you should think of just laying out your GUI components in one class, put all your event handling in a second and put your object model objects separate from the other two.
One way to accomplish this is to make most or all the controls on your GUI public members. This sounds kind of lame, but their usage is encapsulated inside the controller so it's not like you have uncontrollable access--in fact your access is clearer/better defined than if all your members were private but your view code was combined with the controller.
Specific tricks:
Have listeners be their own class. You can often reuse them-- in other words, avoid anonymous inner classes. I sometimes create a listener class and instantiate a new instance for each button/control that needs to have a similar effect when pressed. If I need it to act slightly differently for a given button, I'll pass something into the constructor of the "special" handlers so that they know to act a little differently. You can also create different handler sub-classes if necessary--I'm just saying don't forget that event handlers are classes, you can use inheritance and everything if need be.
One Very Old GUI Trick I learned a long time ago, try not to have various mini-handlers modifying the GUI in different ways, instead have all the "active" buttons and controls set a state within your GUI and then call a single method that applies that state to ALL the controls on your GUI. When you get beyond a trivial GUI this can be a life-saver. If I'm not being clear, leave a comment and I'll leave an example for you.
Property sheets:
There is a special case for GUIs--the property sheet style GUI. I've done a LOT of these and they are irritating as HELL. They tend to have dozens or hundreds of controls on them, each GUI control tends to be tied to a specific field in your model and there are just hundreds of lines of copy and paste boilerplate code connecting them, each group copied and pasted with a few items changed--at minimum it's like 3 lines of code per control (Create control, copy value in and copy value out).
I always write these with a "Smart" controller--one that can intelligently bind the control to some data without any unique code. This can get tricky and if this is your problem let me know in the comments and I can give you some general advice as to some tricks you might try. I've gone from a minimal reflective solution to a full-on XML based solution. Were I to do it again, I might consider annotation-based.
Example of MVC:
Note, this is just an example, there are a MILLION ways to do MVC.
In your MAIN:
Instantiate MyView
Instantiate MyModel
Instantiate MyController(myView, myModel)
myView.setVisible(true)
in MyView
probably extends Frame
Most components are public final (public final Button b=new Button())
If public members make you nervous, use getters--same EXACT effect as public final members with a little extra syntax.
Remember that you can set final members in your constructor.
May have general methods such as reset(), but MyController may be a better place for this.
in MyController
saves references to myView and myModel
adds listeners to myView where necessary (see advice on listeners above)
configures myView based on state of myModel
when "done" button pressed, copies state from myView to myModel
notifies myModel that it's data has been updated and destroys itself.
in MyModel:
This would be a typical model class, it would contain your business logic (mostly not used as part of the GUI, that's more like GUI logic in MyController. The controller would tend to set values in your business logic then call some method like updated() to cause some business logic to take control. It should know nothing of a GUI--this is your "pure" business class.
Sometimes the GUI might call an update() or some other method to trigger some data change and then reload the GUI controls from the Model--this is a fairly good way to integrate your business logic with your GUI without your model knowing about the GUI...
Also, as I said above, I would put more work into MyController if I was working with property sheets just due to the sheer number of lines of boilerplate that you end up with if you aren't smart about it.
Note that View and Controller are nearly always paired. You can't just replace a Swing view with a web view and expect the controller to remain unmolested--but the model should not ever change for the view or controller.

You should take a look at the best practices for GWT applications first:
http://code.google.com/events/io/2009/sessions/GoogleWebToolkitBestPractices.html
One of the concepts they talk about is that of MVP (not MVC) to structure your application. There's a sample project on Google Code that you can look at to understand how to structure a GWT application in this way:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-mvp/