I have a few Management classes that are used for search methods, add, change and delete methods, print in table format method and write map to file method. The classes also have a container each as an attribute. Lets say there is a class X. This would be the class XManagement, and its container has objects of class X.
search() method returns the object of X, but first it gathers its ID via input.
add() method gathers input data for the creation of an object X, and the very last line of its code is for adding that object to its container.
change() method first searches for the object the user wants to change (via search() method), and then gathers data and changes the object via setter methods. It then calls the write() method for re-writing the file.
delete() method searches for the object (via search()), and then just removes it from its container, after which it calls the write() method.
The write() method is also void. It goes through the container for each object, and its data is then appended to a parse-able String, which is written to file.
Here are the examples:
public class XManagement {
protected Hashtable<Integer, X> xes = new Hashtable<>();
public XManagement(String fileName) {
// Constructor.
// Loads the input file, then parses it.
// Once parsed, the objects of X class are created.
// They are then put into the container (xes).
}
protected X search() {
// Both generic methods.
Integer uuid = enterInteger("ID");
return (X) find(uuid, xes);
}
public void add() {
Integer uuid = UUID(xes); // Generic method, generates UUID.hashCode()
// and checks for duplicates.
String a = enterString("Name");
Date d = enterDate("Start");
// ...............
X x = new X(uuid, a, d, etc);
xes.put(x.getID(), x);
write();
}
public void delete() {
X x = search();
xes.remove(x.getID(), x);
write();
}
public void change() {
X x = search();
String a = enterString("Name");
x.setA(a);
Date d = enterDate("Start");
x.setD(d);
// .......................
write();
}
protected void write() {
File file = new File("x.txt");
BufferedWriter out = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(file));
String curr = "";
for (int id : xes.keySet()) {
curr += xes.get(id).getA() + "|" + xes.get(id).getD() + "|"; // etc
}
out.write(curr);
// There's, naturally, try/catch/finally here. For the sake of simplicity, I left it out here.
}
}
Class X goes like this:
public class X {
String a;
Date d;
// etc
public X(String a, Date d) {
this.a = a;
this.d = d;
}
// Getters and setters.
}
It's a lot more complicated than that, I just tried to keep it simple here to get some help - I'll try to figure out the harder stuff when I get the basics.
In some management classes, methods and constructors have the instances of other Management classes as their input parameters, so that they can call their methods inside, because most of them are connected. Let's say the Y class has X as an attribute, and when I create a Y object in YManagement add() method, I need to be able to choose one from all the available X objects from xes, via the search() method contained in XManagement.
I decided to keep it simple for now, but if you want, you can tell me how to approach testing where I'd have instances of other Management classes as an input.
How do I write detailed JUnit 5 test cases for these methods?
Sorry if I made a mistake somewhere in the code, I haven't copied it but written in here, generalizing the stuff that gets repeated in other Management classes.
If you have any other suggestions, as to the code itself, feel free to write that.
These methods are hard to test because they're doing too much. You have input, output to files, and data modifications.
Let's look at this method:
protected X search() {
// Both generic methods.
Integer uuid = enterInteger("ID");
return (X) find(uuid, xes);
}
Why do you call enterInteger when you could pass the desired ID into the method as a parameter? Let the client tell your class which ID to search for. Now the search is doing one thing: looking up a reference in the map.
I think that naming a class X gives no information whatsoever about what it's for. I'd prefer something that gives me a hint - better readability. You abstract all information out of the code with this naming scheme. Good names matter. Think harder about this one.
Your XManagement class looks like a simplistic in-memory database. Have you thought about using something that would allow you to use SQL? Maybe H2 would be a better choice. If this class were interface based you could swap out the implementation and clients would not have to change.
A better design would partition responsibility out to separate classes. For example, your data object could be accompanied by an interface-based persistence tier that would handle searches, updates, persistence, etc.
When I find that methods are too hard to test, it's usually a sign that the class needs to be redesigned. Hard to test is the same thing as hard to use for clients.
I'd replace your XManagement class with an interface:
package persistence;
public interface Repository<K, V> {
List<V> find();
V find(K id);
List<V> find(Predicate<V> filter);
void save(V v);
void update(V v);
void delete(K id);
void delete(V v);
}
You'll have an instance for each one of your Shows, Performances, Tickets, Users, etc.
package persistence;
public class ShowRepository implements Repository<Integer, Show> {
// TODO: You'll need a constructor and a Map for Shows.
public List<Show> find() { // the rest for you }
public Show find(Integer id) { // the rest for you }
public List<Show> find(Predicate<Show> filter) { // the rest for you }
public void save(Show v) { // the rest for you }
public void update(Show v) { // the rest for you }
public void delete(Integer id) { // the rest for you }
public void delete(Show v) { // the rest for you }
}
Much better than your X, in my opinion.
If you write your class using my interface there won't be any console interaction in those classes. Everything it needs is passed in by callers.
You can create separate concrete implementations for an in-memory cache, a relational or NoSQL database that each implement this interface.
You need to redesign your code as current implementation is untestable. I suggest following steps:
break your code to more cohesive classes;
extract interfaces;
use dependency injection for provided classes;
use parametrized methods;
After that you will be able to test your class with mocked dependencies or fake objects. Check out SOLID principles as if you follow them your code will be testable and maintanable.
You question is rather broad.
So, I will focus on the essential.
1) How to test void methods ?
A void method doesn't return any result but it creates side effect on the underlying object/system.
So you have to assert that the void method does what it is designed to do by asserting that the expected side effect is effective.
For example your add() method adds the object in the HashTable (you should rather use a HashMap or a ConcurrentHashMap if you have race conditions), so you should check that the object was correctly added.
You could for example have a search() method that return an object if it is contained. And by using it you could check if the object was added :
X x = ...;
xManagement.add(x);
X actualX = xManagement.search(x.getId());
assertEquals(x, actualX)
To do it, you have to make evolve your actual class that actually doesn't provide a simple retrieval method.
2) How to test classes that have dependencies with other classes ?
Unit tests of a class should be done in isolation of other classes.
So if YManagement methods have to invoke methods of XManagement, you should mock XManagement dependency and record a behavior for it.
Don't test twice the same thing.
Related
Am I breaking the “Law of Demeter”?
For example i create a Class person which contains name, phone and id and it match the column in my database.
When I want to fill my Order info using person's id.I do like this.
public static void fill(Order order) {
DatabaseComponent databaseComponent = new DatabaseComponent();
Person person = databaseComponent.getById(order.getUserId());
order.setName(person.getName());
order.setPhone(person.getPhone());
}
I use getName and getPhone return by databaseComponent.That's break LoD.
Somebody recommend that I can do like this
public void fill(Order order) {
DatabaseComponent databaseComponent = new DatabaseComponent();
Person person = databaseComponent.getById(order.getId());
fillOrder(order,person);
}
private void fillOrder(Order order,Person person){
order.setPhone(person.getPhone());
order.setName(person.getName());
return;
}
But I think in public method it still break the LoD.Some people use this method.
public class Util {
public static void fillOrder(Order order,Person person){
order.setPhone(person.getPhone());
order.setName(person.getName());
return;
}}
Yeah Maybe it doesn't break LoD. But why?May be Client isn't coupled to the class Person.But it is coupled to Util. What are the advantages of LoD on this occasion.
LoD says:
More formally, the Law of Demeter for functions requires that a method m of an object O may only invoke the methods of the following kinds of objects:[2]
O itself
m's parameters
Any objects created/instantiated within m
O's direct component objects
A global variable, accessible by O, in the scope of m
You are creating objects in your method (order and person); and then you call methods on them. Or to be precise: you are creating one and instantiating another one.
Seems fine to me - no violation of LoD here.
I would rather be worried about tell don't ask here. You fetch all these properties of a Person to push that into an Order. Why not have a method on the order class like public void setRecipient(Person p) or something alike?
On the other hand, that could mean to break the single responsibility of Order. In that sense your code could still be ok, for example if to be found within some SetupOrderService support class.
I have a problem. So, assume there is this class native to the JRE with 100+ methods:
class HundredMethods {
public void method1(int) {
}
public void method2(int) {
}
... (98 more methods)
}
and I want to alter the arguments of 5 of those methods. Specifically, integers to doubles. and add an extra double argumentMy current solution involves a wrapper class that:-A: Provides direct access to the original class
-B: Has five methods that "translate" double arguments (with some extra inputs) into the integer arguments of the original. So:
class WrapperMethods{
public HundredMethods original = (assigned at constructor)
public void method1(double,double(extra)) {
int i = (assigned a value in "code" below)
this.original.method1(i);
}
}
Is there another lightweight solution to both changing and adding arguments to a few methods in a "heavy" class besides the one above? In terms of actually implementing this solution in my code, I've found that it can get messy when a user doesn't know what methods the wrapper class changes. In fact, I have a roughly 250+ method class that I'm changing 25 methods of, so the bigger the class, the messier my code becomes. Considering that I want to publish my code as public, someone would have to look up what methods the wrapper changes every time they wanted to use the wrapper.
Thanks!
You can make a subclass and add in 2 methods for each of the five methods that you want to modify. One that takes a double, that does your logic and does a super. invocation to the original method, and one that takes an int and makes sure that it does the same thing as when you pass in a double.
All the other 95 methods will still be accessible through your subclass as normal.
class WrapperMethods extends HundredMethods {
public void method1(double d) {
int i = (assigned a value in "code" below)
super.method1(i);
}
public void method1(int i) {
// Make sure that any calls that happen to pass in an integer,
// also go by your logic.
this.method1((double)i);
}
}
In English, a homograph pair is two words that have the same spelling but different meanings.
In software engineering, a pair of homographic methods is two methods with the same name but different requirements. Let's see a contrived example to make the question as clear as possible:
interface I1 {
/** return 1 */
int f()
}
interface I2 {
/** return 2*/
int f()
}
interface I12 extends I1, I2 {}
How can I implement I12? C# has a way to do this, but Java doesn't. So the only way around is a hack. How can it be done with reflection/bytecode tricks/etc most reliably (i.e it doesn't have to be a perfect solution, I just want the one that works the best)?
Note that some existing closed source massive piece of legacy code which I cannot legally reverse engineer requires a parameter of type I12 and delegates the I12 both to code that has I1 as a parameter, and code that has I2 as a parameter. So basically I need to make an instance of I12 that knows when it should act as I1 and when it should act as I2, which I believe can be done by looking at the bytecode at runtime of the immediate caller. We can assume that no reflection is used by the callers, because this is straightforward code. The problem is that the author of I12 didn't expect that Java merges f from both interfaces, so now I have to come up with the best hack around the problem. Nothing calls I12.f (obviously if the author wrote some code that actually calls I12.f, he would have noticed the problem before selling it).
Note that I'm actually looking for an answer to this question, not how to restructure the code that I can't change. I'm looking for the best heuristic possible or an exact solution if one exists. See Gray's answer for a valid example (I'm sure there are more robust solutions).
Here is a concrete example of how the problem of homographic methods within two interfaces can happen. And here is another concrete example:
I have the following 6 simple classes/interfaces. It resembles a business around a theater and the artists who perform in it. For simplicity and to be specific, let's assume they are all created by different people.
Set represents a set, as in set theory:
interface Set {
/** Complements this set,
i.e: all elements in the set are removed,
and all other elements in the universe are added. */
public void complement();
/** Remove an arbitrary element from the set */
public void remove();
public boolean empty();
}
HRDepartment uses Set to represent employees. It uses a sophisticated process to decode which employees to hire/fire:
import java.util.Random;
class HRDepartment {
private Random random = new Random();
private Set employees;
public HRDepartment(Set employees) {
this.employees = employees;
}
public void doHiringAndLayingoffProcess() {
if (random.nextBoolean())
employees.complement();
else
employees.remove();
if (employees.empty())
employees.complement();
}
}
The universe of a Set of employees would probably be the employees who have applied to the employer. So when complement is called on that set, all the existing employees are fired, and all the other ones that applied previously are hired.
Artist represents an artist, such as a musician or an actor. An artist has an ego. This ego can increase when others compliment him:
interface Artist {
/** Complements the artist. Increases ego. */
public void complement();
public int getEgo();
}
Theater makes an Artist perform, which possibly causes the Artist to be complemented. The theater's audience can judge the artist between performances. The higher the ego of the performer, the more likely the audience will like the Artist, but if the ego goes beyond a certain point, the artist will be viewed negatively by the audience:
import java.util.Random;
public class Theater {
private Artist artist;
private Random random = new Random();
public Theater(Artist artist) {
this.artist = artist;
}
public void perform() {
if (random.nextBoolean())
artist.complement();
}
public boolean judge() {
int ego = artist.getEgo();
if (ego > 10)
return false;
return (ego - random.nextInt(15) > 0);
}
}
ArtistSet is simply an Artist and a Set:
/** A set of associated artists, e.g: a band. */
interface ArtistSet extends Set, Artist {
}
TheaterManager runs the show. If the theater's audience judges the artist negatively, the theater talks to the HR department, which will in turn fire artists, hire new ones, etc:
class TheaterManager {
private Theater theater;
private HRDepartment hr;
public TheaterManager(ArtistSet artists) {
this.theater = new Theater(artists);
this.hr = new HRDepartment(artists);
}
public void runShow() {
theater.perform();
if (!theater.judge()) {
hr.doHiringAndLayingoffProcess();
}
}
}
The problem becomes clear once you try to implement an ArtistSet: both superinterfaces specify that complement should do something else, so you have to implement two complement methods with the same signature within the same class, somehow. Artist.complement is a homograph of Set.complement.
New idea, kinda messy...
public class MyArtistSet implements ArtistSet {
public void complement() {
StackTraceElement[] stackTraceElements = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
// the last element in stackTraceElements is the least recent method invocation
// so we want the one near the top, probably index 1, but you might have to play
// with it to figure it out: could do something like this
boolean callCameFromHR = false;
boolean callCameFromTheatre = false;
for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
if(stackTraceElements[i].getClassName().contains("Theatre")) {
callCameFromTheatre = true;
}
if(stackTraceElements[i].getClassName().contains("HRDepartment")) {
callCameFromHR = true;
}
}
if(callCameFromHR && callCameFromTheatre) {
// problem
}
else if(callCameFromHR) {
// respond one way
}
else if(callCameFromTheatre) {
// respond another way
}
else {
// it didn't come from either
}
}
}
Despite Gray Kemmey's valiant attempt, I would say the problem as you have stated it is not solvable. As a general rule given an ArtistSet you cannot know whether the code calling it was expecting an Artist or a Set.
Furthermore, even if you could, according to your comments on various other answers, you actually have a requirement to pass an ArtistSet to a vendor-supplied function, meaning that function has not given the compiler or humans any clue as to what it is expecting. You are completely out of luck for any sort of technically correct answer.
As practical programming matter for getting the job done, I would do the following (in this order):
File a bug report with whoever created an interface requiring ArtistSet and whoever generated the ArtistSet interface itself.
File a support request with the vendor supplying the function requiring an ArtistSet and ask them what they expect the behavior of complement() to be.
Implement the complement() function to throw an exception.
public class Sybil implements ArtistSet {
public void complement() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException('What am I supposed to do');
}
...
}
Because seriously, you don't know what to do. What would be the correct thing to do when called like this (and how do you know for sure)?
class TalentAgent {
public void pr(ArtistSet artistsSet) {
artistSet.complement();
}
}
By throwing an exception you have a chance at getting a stack trace that gives you a clue as to which of the two behaviors the caller is expecting. With luck nobody calls that function, which is why the vendor got as far as shipping code with this problem. With less luck but still some, they handle the exception. If not even that, well, at least now you will have a stack trace you can review to decide what the caller was really expecting and possibly implement that (though I shudder to think of perpetuation a bug that way, I've explained how I would do it in this other answer).
BTW, for the rest of the implementation I would delegate everything to actual Artist and Set objects passed in via the constructor so this can be easily pulled apart later.
How to Solve For Your Specific Case
ArtistSet is simply an Artist and a Set:
/** A set of associated artists, e.g: a band. */
interface ArtistSet extends Set, Artist { }
From an OO perspective, that's not a useful declaration. An Artist is a type of noun, a "thing" that has defined properties and actions (methods).
A Set is an aggregate of things - a collection of unique elements. Instead, try:
ArtistSet is simply a Set of Artists.
/** A set of associated artists, e.g: a band. */
interface ArtistSet extends Set<Artist> { };
Then, for your particular case, the homonym methods are on interfaces that are never combined within the one type, so you have no clash and can program away...
Further, you don't need to declare ArtistSet because you aren't actually extending Set with any new declarations. You're just instantiating a type parameter, so you can replace all usage with Set<Artist>.
How to Solve For the More General Case
For this clash the method names don't even need to be homographic in the english language sense - they can be the same word with same english meaning, used in different contexts in java. Clash occurs if you have two interfaces that you wish to apply to a type but they contain the same declaration (e.g. method signature) with conflicting semantic/processing definitions.
Java does not allow you to implement the behaviour you request - you must have an alternative work-around. Java doesn't allow a class to provide multiple implementations for the same method signature from multiple different interfaces (implementing the same method multiple times with some form of qualification/alias/annotation to distinguish). See Java overriding two interfaces, clash of method names,
Java - Method name collision in interface implementation
Avoid use of Inheritence (extends or implements) and instead use Object Composition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance)
E.g. If you have the following
interface TV {
void switchOn();
void switchOff();
void changeChannel(int ChannelNumber);
}
interface Video {
void switchOn();
void switchOff();
void eject();
void play();
void stop();
}
Then if you have an object that is both of these things, you can combine the two in a new interface (optional) or type:
interface TVVideo {
TV getTv();
Video getVideo();
}
class TVVideoImpl implements TVVideo {
TV tv;
Video video;
public TVVideoImpl() {
tv = new SomeTVImpl(....);
video = new SomeVideoImpl(....);
}
TV getTv() { return tv };
Video getVideo() { return video };
}
How can I implement a class which has two superinterfaces having homographic methods?
In Java, a class which has two superinterfaces having homographic methods is considered to have only one implementation of this method. (See the Java Language Specification section 8.4.8). This allows classes to conveniently inherit from multiple interfaces that all implement the same other interface and only implement the function once. This also simplifies the language because this eliminates the need for syntax and method dispatching support for distinguishing between homographic methods based on which interface they came from.
So the correct way to implement a class which has two superinterfaces having homographic methods is to provide a single method that satisfies the contracts of both superinterfaces.
C# has a way to do this. How can it be done in Java? Is there no construct for this?
C# defines interfaces differently than Java does and therefore has capabilities that Java does not.
In Java, the language construct is defined to mean that all interfaces get the same single implementation of homographic methods. There is no Java language construct for creating alternate behaviors of multiply-inherited interface functions based on the compile time class of the object. This was a conscious choice made by the Java language designers.
If not, how can it be done with reflection/bytecode tricks/etc most reliably?
"It" cannot be done with reflection/bytecode tricks because the information needed to decide which interface's version of the homographic method to choose is not necessarily present in the Java source code. Given:
interface I1 {
// return ASCII character code of first character of String s
int f(String s); // f("Hello") returns 72
}
interface I2 {
// return number of characters in String s
int f(String s); // f("Hello") returns 5
}
interface I12 extends I1, I2 {}
public class C {
public static int f1(I1 i, String s) { return i.f(s); } // f1( i, "Hi") == 72
public static int f2(I2 i, String s) { return i.f(s); } // f2( i, "Hi") == 2
public static int f12(I12 i, String s) { return i.f(s);} // f12(i, "Hi") == ???
}
According to the Java language specification, a class implementing I12 must do so in such a way that C.f1(), C.f2(), and C.f12() return the exact same result when called with the same arguments. If C.f12(i, "Hello") sometimes returned 72 and sometimes returned 5 based on how C.f12() were called, that would be a serious bug in the program and a violation of the language specification.
Furthermore, if the author of class C expected some kind of consistent behavior out of f12(), there is no bytecode or other information in class C that indicates whether it should be the behavior of I1.f(s) or I2.f(s). If the author of C.f12() had in mind C.f("Hello") should return 5 or 72, there's no way to tell from looking at the code.
Fine, so I cannot in general provide different behaviors for homographic functions using bytecode tricks, but I really have a class like my example class TheaterManager. What should I do to implement ArtistSet.complement()?
The actual answer to the actual question you asked is to create your own substitute implementation of TheaterManager that does not require an ArtistSet. You do not need to change the library's implementation, you need to write your own.
The actual answer to the other example question you cite is basically "delegate I12.f() to I2.f()" because no function that receives an I12 object goes on to pass that object to a function expecting an I1 object.
Stack Overflow is only for questions and answers of general interest
One of the stated reasons to reject a question here is that "it is only relevant to an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet." Because we want to be helpful, the preferred way to handle such narrow questions is to revise the question to be more broadly applicable. For this question I have taken the approach of answering the broadly applicable version of the question rather than actually editing the question to remove what makes it unique to your situation.
In the real world of commercial programming any Java library that has a broken interface like I12 would not accumulate even dozens of commercial clients unless it could be used by implementing I12.f() in one of these ways:
delegate to I1.f()
delegate to I2.f()
do nothing
throw an exception
pick one of the above strategies on a per-call basis based on the values of some members of the I12 object
If thousands or even only a handful of companies are using this part of this library in Java then you can be assured they have used one of those solutions. If the library is not in use by even a handful of companies then the question is too narrow for Stack Overflow.
OK, TheaterManager was an oversimplification. In the real case it is too hard for me to replace that class and I don't like any of the practical solutions you've outlined. Can't I just fix this with fancy JVM tricks?
It depends on what you want to fix. If you want to fix your specific library by mapping all the calls to I12.f() and then parsing the the stack to determine the caller and choosing a behavior based on that. You can access the stack via Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace().
If you run across a caller you do not recognize you may have a hard time figuring out which version they want. For example you may be called from a generic (as was the actual case in the other specific example you gave), like:
public class TalentAgent<T extends Artist> {
public static void butterUp(List<T> people) {
for (T a: people) {
a.complement()
}
}
}
In Java, generics are implemented as erasures, meaning all type information is thrown away at compile time. There is no class or method signature difference between a TalentAgent<Artist> and a TalentAgent<Set> and the formal type of the people parameter is just List. There is nothing in the class interface or method signature of the caller to tell you what to do by looking at the stack.
So you would need to implement multiple strategies, one of which would be decompiling the code of the calling method looking for clues that the caller is expecting one class or another. It would have to be very sophisticated to cover all the ways this could happen, because among other things you have no way of knowing in advance what class it actually expecting, only that it is expecting a class that implements one of the interfaces.
There are mature and extremely sophisticated open source bytecode utilities, including one that automatically generates a proxy for a given class at runtime (written long before there was support for that in the Java language), so the fact that there isn't an open source utility for handling this case speaks volumes about the ratio of effort to usefulness in pursuing this approach.
Okay, after much research, I have another idea to fully accommodate the situation. Since you can't directly modify their code... you can force the modifications yourself.
DISCLAIMER: The example code below is very simplified. My intention is to show the general method of how this might be done, not to produce functioning source code to do it (since that's a project in itself).
The issue is that the methods are homographic. So to solve it, we can just rename the methods. Simple, right? We can use the Instrument package to achieve this. As you'll see in the linked documentation, it allows you to make an "agent" which can directly modify classes as they're loaded or re-modify them even if they've already been loaded.
Essentially, this requires you to make two classes:
An agent class which preprocesses and reloads classes; and,
A ClassFileTransformer implementation which specifies the changes you want to make.
The agent class must have either a premain() or agentmain() method defined, based on whether you want it to begin its processing as the JVM starts up or after it is already running. Examples of this are in the package documentation above. These methods give you access to an Instrumenation instance, which will allow you to register your ClassFileTransformer. So it might look something like this:
InterfaceFixAgent.java
public class InterfaceFixAgent {
public static void premain(String agentArgs, Instrumentation inst) {
//Register an ArtistTransformer
inst.addTransformer(new ArtistTransformer());
//In case the Artist interface or its subclasses
//have already been loaded by the JVM
try {
for(Class<?> clazz : inst.getAllLoadedClasses()) {
if(Artist.class.isAssignableFrom(clazz)) {
inst.retransformClasses(clazz);
}
}
}
catch(UnmodifiableClassException e) {
//TODO logging
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
ArtistTransformer.java
public class ArtistTransformer implements ClassFileTransformer {
private static final byte[] BYTES_TO_REPLACE = "complement".getBytes();
private static final byte[] BYTES_TO_INSERT = "compliment".getBytes();
#Override
public byte[] transform(ClassLoader loader, String className,
Class<?> classBeingRedefined, ProtectionDomain protectionDomain,
byte[] classfileBuffer) throws IllegalClassFormatException {
if(Artist.class.isAssignableFrom(classBeingRedefined)) {
//Loop through the classfileBuffer, find sequences of bytes
//which match BYTES_TO_REPLACE, replace with BYTES_TO_INSERT
}
else return classfileBuffer;
}
This is, of course, simplified. It will replace the word "complement" with "compliment" in any class which extends or implements Artist, so you will very likely need to further conditionalize it (for example, if Artist.class.isAssignableFrom(classBeingRedefined) && Set.class.isAssignableFrom(classBeingRedefined), you obviously don't want to replace every instance of "complement" with "compliment", as the "complement" for Set is perfectly legitimate).
So, now we've corrected the Artist interface and its implementations. The typo is gone, the methods have two different names, so there is no homography. This allows us to have two different implementations in our CommunityTheatre class now, each of which will properly implement/override the methods from the ArtistSet.
Unfortunately, we've now created another (possibly even bigger) issue. We've just broken all the previously-legitimate references to complement() from classes implementing Artist. To fix this, we will need to create another ClassFileTransformer which replaces these calls with our new method name.
This is somewhat more difficult, but not impossible. Essentially, the new ClassFileTransformer (let's say we call it the OldComplementTransformer) will have to perform the following steps:
Find the same string of bytes as before (the one representing the old method name, "complement");
Get the bytes before this which represent the object reference calling the method;
Convert those bytes into an Object;
Check to see if that Object is an Artist; and,
If so, replace those bytes with the new method name.
Once you've made this second transformer, you can modify the InterfaceFixAgent to accommodate it. (I also simplified the retransformClasses() call, since in the example above we perform the needed check within the transformer itself.)
InterfaceFixAgent.java (modified)
public class InterfaceFixAgent {
public static void premain(String agentArgs, Instrumentation inst) {
//Register our transformers
inst.addTransformer(new ArtistTransformer());
inst.addTransformer(new OldComplementTransformer());
//Retransform the classes that have already been loaded
try {
inst.retransformClasses(inst.getAllLoadedClasses());
}
catch(UnmodifiableClassException e) {
//TODO logging
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
And now... our program is good to go. It certainly wouldn't be easy to code, and it will be utter hell to QA and test. But it's certainly robust, and it solves the issue. (Technically, I suppose it avoids the issue by removing it, but... I'll take what I can get.)
Other ways we might have solved the problem:
The Unsafe API
A native method written in C
Both of these would allow you to directly manipulate bytes in memory. A solution could certainly be designed around these, but I believe it would be much more difficult and much less safe. So I went with the route above.
I think this solution could even be made more generic into an incredibly useful library for integrating code bases. Specify which interface and which method you need refactored in a variable, a command line argument, or a configuration file, and let her loose. The library that reconciles conflicting interfaces in Java at runtime. (Of course, I think it would still be better for everyone if they just fixed the bug in Java 8.)
Here's what I'd do to remove the ambiguity:
interface Artist {
void complement(); // [SIC] from OP, really "compliment"
int getEgo();
}
interface Set {
void complement(); // as in Set Theory
void remove();
boolean empty(); // [SIC] from OP, I prefer: isEmpty()
}
/**
* This class is to represent a Set of Artists (as a group) -OR-
* act like a single Artist (with some aggregate behavior). I
* choose to implement NEITHER interface so that a caller is
* forced to designate, for any given operation, which type's
* behavior is desired.
*/
class GroupOfArtists { // does NOT implement either
private final Set setBehavior = new Set() {
#Override public void remove() { /*...*/ }
#Override public boolean empty() { return true; /* TODO */ }
#Override public void complement() {
// implement Set-specific behavior
}
};
private final Artist artistBehavior = new Artist() {
#Override public int getEgo() { return Integer.MAX_VALUE; /* TODO */ }
#Override public void complement() {
// implement Artist-specific behavior
}
};
Set asSet() {
return setBehavior;
}
Artist asArtist() {
return artistBehavior;
}
}
If I were passing this object to the HR department, I'd actually give it the value returned from asSet() to hire/fire the entire group.
If I were passing this object to the Theater for a performance, I'd actually give it the value returned from asArtist() to be treated as talent.
This works as long as YOU are in control of talking to the different components directly...
But I realize that your problem is a single third-party vendor has created a component, TheaterManager, that expects one object for both of these functions and it won't know about the asSet and asArtist methods. The problem is not with the vendors that created Set and Artist, it is the vendor that combined them instead of using a Visitor pattern or just specifying an interface that would mirror the asSet and asArtist methods I made above. If you can convince your one vendor "C" to fix that interface, your world will be a lot happier.
Good luck!
Dog, I have a strong feeling you are leaving out some details that are crucial to the solution. This often happens on SO because
people need to leave out a lot of details to get the question to a reasonable size and scope,
people do not fully understand the problem and the solution (which is why they are asking for help) so they cannot be sure which details are important and which are not, and
the reason the person cannot solve the problem on their own is because they do not understand the importance of this detail, which is the same reason they left it out.
I've said in another answer what I would do about ArtistSet. But keeping the above in mind I will give you another solution to a slightly different problem. Lets say I had code from a bad vendor:
package com.bad;
public interface IAlpha {
public String getName();
// Sort Alphabetically by Name
public int compareTo(IAlpha other);
}
This is bad because you should declare a function returning a Comparator<IAlpha> to implement the sorting strategy, but whatever. Now I get code from a worse company:
package com.worse;
import com.bad.IAlpha;
// an Alpha ordered by name length
public interface ISybil extends IAlpha, Comparable<IAlpha> {}
This is worse, because it is totally wrong, in that it overrides behavior incompatibly. An ISybil orders itself by name length, but an IAlpha orders itself alphabetically, except an ISybil is an IAlpha. They were mislead by the anti-pattern of IAlpha when they could and should have done something like:
public interface ISybil extends IAlpha {
public Comparator<IAlpha> getLengthComparator();
}
However, this situation is still much better than ArtistSet because here the expected behavior is documented. There is no confusion about what ISybil.compareTo() should do. So I would create classes as follows. A Sybil class that implements compareTo() as com.worse expects and delegates everything else:
package com.hack;
import com.bad.IAlpha;
import com.worse.ISybil;
public class Sybil implements ISybil {
private final Alpha delegate;
public Sybil(Alpha delegate) { this.delegate = delegate; }
public Alpha getAlpha() { return delegate; }
public String getName() { return delegate.getName(); }
public int compareTo(IAlpha other) {
return delegate.getName().length() - other.getName().length();
}
}
and an Alpha class that works exactly like com.bad said it should:
package com.hack;
import com.bad.IAlpha;
public class Alpha implements IAlpha {
private String name;
private final Sybil sybil;
public Alpha(String name) {
this.name = name;
this.sybil = new Sybil(this);
}
// Sort Alphabetically
public int compareTo(IAlpha other) {
return name.compareTo(other.getName());
}
public String getName() { return name; }
public Sybil getSybil() { return sybil; }
}
Note that I included type conversion methods: Alpha.getSybil() and Sybil.getAlpha(). This is so I could create my own wrappers around any com.worse vendor's methods that take or return Sybils so I can avoid polluting my code or any other vendor's code with com.worse's breakage. So if com.worse had:
public ISybil breakage(ISybil broken);
I could write a function
public Alpha safeDelegateBreakage(Alpha alpha) {
return breakage(alpha.getSybil).getAlpha();
}
and be done with it, except I would still complain vociferously to com.worse and politely to com.bad.
This is a design question. The design is pseudo-code and represents a small example but I may add a lot more methods, data, logic in the future.
In this example, I am considering two approaches. In the execute method below, should I return an immutable "data/bean/model" object with the output of the execute method or update the state of the BusinessLogic class.
The both accomplish the same goal, I want the result of execute and either the data should be contained in a bean container or in the internally in the BusinessLogic class.
I am kind of favoring just having the BusinessLogic class because SomeObject is just a useless bean that doesn't do anything.
What are your thoughts?
public class SomeObject {
private String data1;
private String data2;
}
public class BusinessLogic {
private final IWebObject webObject;
/* String data1; String data2 */
public BusinessLogic(final IWebObject webObject) {
this.webObject = webObject;
}
// Approach 1
public SomeObject execute() {
return new SomeObject();
}
or
...
...
// Approach 2
public void execute() {
// Do something
this.data1 = "data1";
this.data2 = "data2";
}
public String getData1() { }
public String getData2() { }
} // End of the Class //
My only problem with approach 2 is that data1 and data2 won't be immutable so. I can call execute arbitrarily and change those values.
If the main purpose of the method would be to execute and not return anything, I would personally go with your second approach and keep the data internally inside the BusinessLogic class.
For the most part, I'd say it depends on the nature of the code that's calling the execute() method. If it's going to just be reading the results as-is, then keeping it in the BusinessLogic class would be fine. If you're going to be passing the results around to different methods, you should put the results in a separate class (you could have BusinessLogic implement an interface that contains just the result methods, but that could blur the line between where the BusinessLogic implementation ends and where the result implementation begins).
To start with, it'd probably be best to keep it internal -- following the "You Ain't Gonna Need It" principle. When the time comes where you can see that you are going to need to pass the results around to other methods and other objects, you can refactor it to suit your needs at the time.
This isn't a general object-oriented design question - it depends on the domain you're trying to model.
Should execute change the state of BusinessLogic or not? (Option 2)
How is that class being consumed? Are data1 and data2 used in a different way? In a different context? (Option 1)
Do data1 and data2 have different lifetimes than BusinessLogic? (Option 1)
I have a method that's about ten lines of code. I want to create more methods that do exactly the same thing, except for a small calculation that's going to change one line of code. This is a perfect application for passing in a function pointer to replace that one line, but Java doesn't have function pointers. What's my best alternative?
Anonymous inner class
Say you want to have a function passed in with a String param that returns an int.
First you have to define an interface with the function as its only member, if you can't reuse an existing one.
interface StringFunction {
int func(String param);
}
A method that takes the pointer would just accept StringFunction instance like so:
public void takingMethod(StringFunction sf) {
int i = sf.func("my string");
// do whatever ...
}
And would be called like so:
ref.takingMethod(new StringFunction() {
public int func(String param) {
// body
}
});
EDIT: In Java 8, you could call it with a lambda expression:
ref.takingMethod(param -> bodyExpression);
For each "function pointer", I'd create a small functor class that implements your calculation.
Define an interface that all the classes will implement, and pass instances of those objects into your larger function. This is a combination of the "command pattern", and "strategy pattern".
#sblundy's example is good.
When there is a predefined number of different calculations you can do in that one line, using an enum is a quick, yet clear way to implement a strategy pattern.
public enum Operation {
PLUS {
public double calc(double a, double b) {
return a + b;
}
},
TIMES {
public double calc(double a, double b) {
return a * b;
}
}
...
public abstract double calc(double a, double b);
}
Obviously, the strategy method declaration, as well as exactly one instance of each implementation are all defined in a single class/file.
You need to create an interface that provides the function(s) that you want to pass around. eg:
/**
* A simple interface to wrap up a function of one argument.
*
* #author rcreswick
*
*/
public interface Function1<S, T> {
/**
* Evaluates this function on it's arguments.
*
* #param a The first argument.
* #return The result.
*/
public S eval(T a);
}
Then, when you need to pass a function, you can implement that interface:
List<Integer> result = CollectionUtilities.map(list,
new Function1<Integer, Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer eval(Integer a) {
return a * a;
}
});
Finally, the map function uses the passed in Function1 as follows:
public static <K,R,S,T> Map<K, R> zipWith(Function2<R,S,T> fn,
Map<K, S> m1, Map<K, T> m2, Map<K, R> results){
Set<K> keySet = new HashSet<K>();
keySet.addAll(m1.keySet());
keySet.addAll(m2.keySet());
results.clear();
for (K key : keySet) {
results.put(key, fn.eval(m1.get(key), m2.get(key)));
}
return results;
}
You can often use Runnable instead of your own interface if you don't need to pass in parameters, or you can use various other techniques to make the param count less "fixed" but it's usually a trade-off with type safety. (Or you can override the constructor for your function object to pass in the params that way.. there are lots of approaches, and some work better in certain circumstances.)
Method references using the :: operator
You can use method references in method arguments where the method accepts a functional interface. A functional interface is any interface that contains only one abstract method. (A functional interface may contain one or more default methods or static methods.)
IntBinaryOperator is a functional interface. Its abstract method, applyAsInt, accepts two ints as its parameters and returns an int. Math.max also accepts two ints and returns an int. In this example, A.method(Math::max); makes parameter.applyAsInt send its two input values to Math.max and return the result of that Math.max.
import java.util.function.IntBinaryOperator;
class A {
static void method(IntBinaryOperator parameter) {
int i = parameter.applyAsInt(7315, 89163);
System.out.println(i);
}
}
import java.lang.Math;
class B {
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.method(Math::max);
}
}
In general, you can use:
method1(Class1::method2);
instead of:
method1((arg1, arg2) -> Class1.method2(arg1, arg2));
which is short for:
method1(new Interface1() {
int method1(int arg1, int arg2) {
return Class1.method2(arg1, agr2);
}
});
For more information, see :: (double colon) operator in Java 8 and Java Language Specification §15.13.
You can also do this (which in some RARE occasions makes sense). The issue (and it is a big issue) is that you lose all the typesafety of using a class/interface and you have to deal with the case where the method does not exist.
It does have the "benefit" that you can ignore access restrictions and call private methods (not shown in the example, but you can call methods that the compiler would normally not let you call).
Again, it is a rare case that this makes sense, but on those occasions it is a nice tool to have.
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
class Main
{
public static void main(final String[] argv)
throws NoSuchMethodException,
IllegalAccessException,
IllegalArgumentException,
InvocationTargetException
{
final String methodName;
final Method method;
final Main main;
main = new Main();
if(argv.length == 0)
{
methodName = "foo";
}
else
{
methodName = "bar";
}
method = Main.class.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, int.class);
main.car(method, 42);
}
private void foo(final int x)
{
System.out.println("foo: " + x);
}
private void bar(final int x)
{
System.out.println("bar: " + x);
}
private void car(final Method method,
final int val)
throws IllegalAccessException,
IllegalArgumentException,
InvocationTargetException
{
method.invoke(this, val);
}
}
If you have just one line which is different you could add a parameter such as a flag and a if(flag) statement which calls one line or the other.
You may also be interested to hear about work going on for Java 7 involving closures:
What’s the current state of closures in Java?
http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/08/closures-for-java.html
http://tech.puredanger.com/java7/#closures
New Java 8 Functional Interfaces and Method References using the :: operator.
Java 8 is able to maintain method references ( MyClass::new ) with "# Functional Interface" pointers. There are no need for same method name, only same method signature required.
Example:
#FunctionalInterface
interface CallbackHandler{
public void onClick();
}
public class MyClass{
public void doClick1(){System.out.println("doClick1");;}
public void doClick2(){System.out.println("doClick2");}
public CallbackHandler mClickListener = this::doClick;
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyClass myObjectInstance = new MyClass();
CallbackHandler pointer = myObjectInstance::doClick1;
Runnable pointer2 = myObjectInstance::doClick2;
pointer.onClick();
pointer2.run();
}
}
So, what we have here?
Functional Interface - this is interface, annotated or not with #FunctionalInterface, which contains only one method declaration.
Method References - this is just special syntax, looks like this, objectInstance::methodName, nothing more nothing less.
Usage example - just an assignment operator and then interface method call.
YOU SHOULD USE FUNCTIONAL INTERFACES FOR LISTENERS ONLY AND ONLY FOR THAT!
Because all other such function pointers are really bad for code readability and for ability to understand. However, direct method references sometimes come handy, with foreach for example.
There are several predefined Functional Interfaces:
Runnable -> void run( );
Supplier<T> -> T get( );
Consumer<T> -> void accept(T);
Predicate<T> -> boolean test(T);
UnaryOperator<T> -> T apply(T);
BinaryOperator<T,U,R> -> R apply(T, U);
Function<T,R> -> R apply(T);
BiFunction<T,U,R> -> R apply(T, U);
//... and some more of it ...
Callable<V> -> V call() throws Exception;
Readable -> int read(CharBuffer) throws IOException;
AutoCloseable -> void close() throws Exception;
Iterable<T> -> Iterator<T> iterator();
Comparable<T> -> int compareTo(T);
Comparator<T> -> int compare(T,T);
For earlier Java versions you should try Guava Libraries, which has similar functionality, and syntax, as Adrian Petrescu has mentioned above.
For additional research look at Java 8 Cheatsheet
and thanks to The Guy with The Hat for the Java Language Specification §15.13 link.
#sblundy's answer is great, but anonymous inner classes have two small flaws, the primary being that they tend not to be reusable and the secondary is a bulky syntax.
The nice thing is that his pattern expands into full classes without any change in the main class (the one performing the calculations).
When you instantiate a new class you can pass parameters into that class which can act as constants in your equation--so if one of your inner classes look like this:
f(x,y)=x*y
but sometimes you need one that is:
f(x,y)=x*y*2
and maybe a third that is:
f(x,y)=x*y/2
rather than making two anonymous inner classes or adding a "passthrough" parameter, you can make a single ACTUAL class that you instantiate as:
InnerFunc f=new InnerFunc(1.0);// for the first
calculateUsing(f);
f=new InnerFunc(2.0);// for the second
calculateUsing(f);
f=new InnerFunc(0.5);// for the third
calculateUsing(f);
It would simply store the constant in the class and use it in the method specified in the interface.
In fact, if KNOW that your function won't be stored/reused, you could do this:
InnerFunc f=new InnerFunc(1.0);// for the first
calculateUsing(f);
f.setConstant(2.0);
calculateUsing(f);
f.setConstant(0.5);
calculateUsing(f);
But immutable classes are safer--I can't come up with a justification to make a class like this mutable.
I really only post this because I cringe whenever I hear anonymous inner class--I've seen a lot of redundant code that was "Required" because the first thing the programmer did was go anonymous when he should have used an actual class and never rethought his decision.
The Google Guava libraries, which are becoming very popular, have a generic Function and Predicate object that they have worked into many parts of their API.
One of the things I really miss when programming in Java is function callbacks. One situation where the need for these kept presenting itself was in recursively processing hierarchies where you want to perform some specific action for each item. Like walking a directory tree, or processing a data structure. The minimalist inside me hates having to define an interface and then an implementation for each specific case.
One day I found myself wondering why not? We have method pointers - the Method object. With optimizing JIT compilers, reflective invocation really doesn't carry a huge performance penalty anymore. And besides next to, say, copying a file from one location to another, the cost of the reflected method invocation pales into insignificance.
As I thought more about it, I realized that a callback in the OOP paradigm requires binding an object and a method together - enter the Callback object.
Check out my reflection based solution for Callbacks in Java. Free for any use.
Sounds like a strategy pattern to me. Check out fluffycat.com Java patterns.
oK, this thread is already old enough, so very probably my answer is not helpful for the question. But since this thread helped me to find my solution, I'll put it out here anyway.
I needed to use a variable static method with known input and known output (both double). So then, knowing the method package and name, I could work as follows:
java.lang.reflect.Method Function = Class.forName(String classPath).getMethod(String method, Class[] params);
for a function that accepts one double as a parameter.
So, in my concrete situation I initialized it with
java.lang.reflect.Method Function = Class.forName("be.qan.NN.ActivationFunctions").getMethod("sigmoid", double.class);
and invoked it later in a more complex situation with
return (java.lang.Double)this.Function.invoke(null, args);
java.lang.Object[] args = new java.lang.Object[] {activity};
someOtherFunction() + 234 + (java.lang.Double)Function.invoke(null, args);
where activity is an arbitrary double value. I am thinking of maybe doing this a bit more abstract and generalizing it, as SoftwareMonkey has done, but currently I am happy enough with the way it is. Three lines of code, no classes and interfaces necessary, that's not too bad.
To do the same thing without interfaces for an array of functions:
class NameFuncPair
{
public String name; // name each func
void f(String x) {} // stub gets overridden
public NameFuncPair(String myName) { this.name = myName; }
}
public class ArrayOfFunctions
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final A a = new A();
final B b = new B();
NameFuncPair[] fArray = new NameFuncPair[]
{
new NameFuncPair("A") { #Override void f(String x) { a.g(x); } },
new NameFuncPair("B") { #Override void f(String x) { b.h(x); } },
};
// Go through the whole func list and run the func named "B"
for (NameFuncPair fInstance : fArray)
{
if (fInstance.name.equals("B"))
{
fInstance.f(fInstance.name + "(some args)");
}
}
}
}
class A { void g(String args) { System.out.println(args); } }
class B { void h(String args) { System.out.println(args); } }
Check out lambdaj
http://code.google.com/p/lambdaj/
and in particular its new closure feature
http://code.google.com/p/lambdaj/wiki/Closures
and you will find a very readable way to define closure or function pointer without creating meaningless interface or use ugly inner classes
Wow, why not just create a Delegate class which is not all that hard given that I already did for java and use it to pass in parameter where T is return type. I am sorry but as a C++/C# programmer in general just learning java, I need function pointers because they are very handy. If you are familiar with any class which deals with Method Information you can do it. In java libraries that would be java.lang.reflect.method.
If you always use an interface, you always have to implement it. In eventhandling there really isn't a better way around registering/unregistering from the list of handlers but for delegates where you need to pass in functions and not the value type, making a delegate class to handle it for outclasses an interface.
None of the Java 8 answers have given a full, cohesive example, so here it comes.
Declare the method that accepts the "function pointer" as follows:
void doCalculation(Function<Integer, String> calculation, int parameter) {
final String result = calculation.apply(parameter);
}
Call it by providing the function with a lambda expression:
doCalculation((i) -> i.toString(), 2);
If anyone is struggling to pass a function that takes one set of parameters to define its behavior but another set of parameters on which to execute, like Scheme's:
(define (function scalar1 scalar2)
(lambda (x) (* x scalar1 scalar2)))
see Pass Function with Parameter-Defined Behavior in Java
Since Java8, you can use lambdas, which also have libraries in the official SE 8 API.
Usage:
You need to use a interface with only one abstract method.
Make an instance of it (you may want to use the one java SE 8 already provided) like this:
Function<InputType, OutputType> functionname = (inputvariablename) {
...
return outputinstance;
}
For more information checkout the documentation: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/lambdaexpressions.html
Prior to Java 8, nearest substitute for function-pointer-like functionality was an anonymous class. For example:
Collections.sort(list, new Comparator<CustomClass>(){
public int compare(CustomClass a, CustomClass b)
{
// Logic to compare objects of class CustomClass which returns int as per contract.
}
});
But now in Java 8 we have a very neat alternative known as lambda expression, which can be used as:
list.sort((a, b) -> { a.isBiggerThan(b) } );
where isBiggerThan is a method in CustomClass. We can also use method references here:
list.sort(MyClass::isBiggerThan);
The open source safety-mirror project generalizes some of the above mentioned solutions into a library that adds functions, delegates and events to Java.
See the README, or this stackoverflow answer, for a cheat sheet of features.
As for functions, the library introduces a Fun interface, and some sub-interfaces that (together with generics) make up a fluent API for using methods as types.
Fun.With0Params<String> myFunctionField = " hello world "::trim;`
Fun.With2Params<Boolean, Object, Object> equals = Objects::equals;`
public void foo(Fun.With1ParamAndVoid<String> printer) throws Exception {
printer.invoke("hello world);
}
public void test(){
foo(System.out::println);
}
Notice:
that you must choose the sub-interface that matches the number of parameters in the signature you are targeting. Fx, if it has one parameter, choose Fun.With1Param.
that Generics are used to define A) the return type and B) the parameters of the signature.
Also, notice that the signature of the Method Reference passed to the call to the foo() method must match the the Fun defined by method Foo. If it do not, the compiler will emit an error.