Develop Reference

what's the best way to check if an object's attribute is empty?

For example, I use StringUtils.isEmpty(Object.attribute); to check if an attribute is empty. Should I put that code everytime I need to check if this attribute is empty. Or is it better to wrap it in a method Object.isAttributeEmpty() then call the StringUtils.isEmpty() inside isAttributeEmpty().
Which way is the best practice or preferred way.

If "attribute being empty" has special significance, then you're better off creating a boolean getter to name it and have as its implementation to call to the utility method:
class MyClass {
String attribute;
boolean isIncomplete() {
return isEmpty(attribute);
}
// other stuff
}
there is also the opportunity to name it in the opposite sense, eg taking my example above:
boolean isComplete() {
return !isEmpty(attribute);
}

I think it can really be a matter of style, and the rest is up to having a little vigilance in the code right before either of these is called to make sure that Object itself isn't null.
Personally I've done ways where I would write a static method in a Utility class that would then provide a method like ObjectUtility.isAttributeEmpty(Object object) and let the black box internals figure it out safely.
And at other times, it can be comfortable to have the object itself know. It depends on if the style dictates that you should be writing simple Java objects or if you allow for more complex methods to be inherent in the objects.
The even worse question becomes how do you answer a true/false question when the third answer is "it's null".

Best strategies when calling a method that should modify more than one variable

I am pretty new to Java, I have to convert C/C++ code to Java and I am running into obstacles. Because of the way variables are passed to the methods, their modification in the method is not straightforward, and I have no idea what is the most reasonable approach to take. Sorry for the pseudocode examples, I hope they will clearly explain what I am talking about without delving into unnecessary details.
I need something that would be equivalent to C
ModifyMyString(type1 &t1,type2 &t2);
(return type doesn't matter, it can be void) as I need the function to modify both t1 and t2.
I can easily modify one of the variables, say t1, by declaring in Java
type1 modifyMyString(type1 t1, type2 t2);
and assigning the returned value to
t1 = modifyMyString(t1,t2);
but it is only half of a success, as the new value of t2 is lost.
I can declare new class
class JustToPassTwoVariables {
type1 t1;
type2 t2;
JustToPassTwoVariables(type1 tt1, type2 tt2) { t1 = tt1; t2 = tt2; }
}
and do something like
JustToPassTwoVariables jtptv = modifyMyString(JustToPassTwoVariables(t1,t2));
but I feel like it is clumsy and makes the code unreadable.
In desperation I could also resign the idea of using a modifyMyString method, and repeat all the code locally in each place I would call modifyMyString - but it makes even less sense than using JustToPassTwoVariables class.
Is there a correct (or at least widely used, accepted as a standard, whatever) strategy to code such things in Java?

The recommended way in java is (in some people's opinion the clumsy way) to create a class containing the two fields and return an instance of that class.
I feel that it is much less clumsy if you stop and think about what the method is actually doing, and taking care to properly name both the method and the class returning the two values.

The simple answer is no. This sort of feature is not allowed in Java.
The correct way to do it is to pass in the object to be modified not the two variables. After all in virtually all cases those variables are already wrapped in an object, in cases where they aren't they often easily can be.
Either split the function into two functions and call it once for each variable, or wrap the variables into an object and pass that object into the function.
Don't forget Java allows Inner Classes which makes this sort of thing less painful.

You can't return two values from a method in java. The way is to return an object and set all the values in it. i.e. In your case, you need to create a value container class i.e. say Result class that will have two fields storing the type1 and type2 value in it. The return type of the method would be of value container object type i.e. say Result instance with two fields in it - type1 and type2
Example :
Result result = modifyMyString(t1,t2);
result.getT1(); //gets t1 value
result.getT2(); // gets t2 value
Please learn about setters and getters in Java to work on the class or object level fields

In Java if you want to do this you would generally make type1 and type2 into object whose values can be modified. The method can then modify the values of the parameters to get the desired effect. For example :
void myMethod(type1 arg0, type2 arg1) {
arg0.setValue(newValue0);
arg1.setValue(newValue1);
}
If type1 and/or type2 do not have any way of changing their values (e.g. they are of type String) then you would either make a wrapper class for each of them e.g.
class Type1Wrapper {
private type1 type1;
type1 getType1() {
return type1;
}
void setType1(type1 newType1) {
type1 = newType1;
}
}
or you would make a wrapper for both of the types simultaneously like you have in your question (although the method return type will be void and the method will modify your wrapper's values)

There are several methods to modify a group of objects "of the same type/class". The simplest of them being, add them to a "list" pass that list to your modification function, do whatever modifications/additions/deletions etc.. The list reference will be automatically available outside with the "changes made in the called function" .
So, you can do
List<String> l = new ArrayList<String>();
l.add("Hello");
l.add("world");
ModifyMyString(l);
// here also l = "hello" , "world" , "added"
public void ModifyMyString(List l)
{
l.add("added"); // now l = "hello" , "world" , "added"
}

Java is an OO language so to get the best out of it you should look to an OO solution. It's hard to give you a definite solution with this abstract example but this is how I would approach this.
You mention that t1 and t2 both need to be updated by this modify procedure/method. Also that they need to be updated at the same time, if they were unrelated then you could just call modify on each string in turn. If these two strings are related like this then it's likely they belong to the same type.
So we need a class containing type 1 and type 2.
public class TypeContainer
{
private String type1;
private String type2;
.. getters and setters
}
Obviously you'll want a better class name.
You suggest something similar yourself but call it JustToPassTwoVariables. This is missing the point of OO. You could write a simple wrapper like this and pass it to some other method to modify the values but a more OO approach would be to add the modify method to this class itself.
...
public void modfiy(String val1, String val2)
{
type1 = val1;
type2 = val2;
}
...
I'm not sure what your modify is trying to do but in this case I would probably have these as two separate setter methods. This is quite an abstract example!
Basically I would avoid having the modify method in some other unrelated class. You should look to group common related attributes into classes and then write methods in those classes for any actions you need to take (such as modify).
Trying to convert a procedural C program into an OO Java program sounds like a PITA. It's a complete paradigm shift. Having said that I have seen automated conversions which while technically Java are still very procedural. Not very pretty and hard to maintain but was done for political reasons.

Java discourages this strategy beacause in-variable should be immutable, but if you have to migrate from C/C++/C# and you have a lot of "void function with parameters passed as in/out", you can create a Custom "Reference" class like this and you can incapsulate the original object.
public class CustomRef {
public Object internal;
public CustomRef(Object object) {
this.internal=object;
}
}
then when you call
CustomRef ref1= new CustomRef(myParams1);
CustomRef ref2= new CustomRef(myParams2);
myFunction(ref1, ref2);
myParams1 = ref1.internal;
myParams2 = ref2.internal;
the function is
void myFunction(CustomRef ref1, CustomRef ref2) {
Object param1 = ref1.internal
// a lot of code
ref1.internal = param1;
}
really discouraged way ... such as using ArrayList, arrays [] to "pass by reference".
NOTE: this way is a waste of resource; CustomRef instance should be reused through object pool (another discouraged way).

I would use a StringBuffer. You can initialize it with a String and convert it back to a String

Is there a way in Java to pass multiple parameter pairs to a method?

Pretty new to Java
I would like to be able to use a method in following sort of way;
class PairedData {
String label;
Object val:
}
public void myMethod(String tablename, PairedData ... pD) {
/*
insert a record into a table -tablename with the various fields being
populated according to the information provided by the list of
PairedData objects
*/
}
myMethod("firststring",{"field1",Date1},{"field2",12},{"field3","aString"});
I realise the syntax is not valid but I hope it gives the gist of what I would like to do.
What I am trying to do is to directly pass the data rather than populate the instances of the class and then pass those. Is that possible or am I just trying to break a whole lot of OOPs rules?

No, what you're trying to do really isn't possible. It looks to me like it would be much better to pass instances of your class to the method as opposed to doing something convoluted with arrays like that. Another answer suggested using an Object[] varargs parameter - that's probably the closest you'll get to achieving something like what you show in your example. Another alternative (and I think a better one) would be
public void myMethod(String tablename, String[] labels, Object[] vals) {
You could instantiate your class for each labels[i] and vals[i] (pairing them up) in those arrays. In other words, in your method you could have something like
pD = new PairedData[labels.length];
for (i = 0; i < labels.length; i++)
pD[i] = new PairedData(labels[i], vals[i]); // assuming you
// added this
// constructor
The method call example that you included would then be converted to
myMethod("firststring", new String[]{"field1", "field2", "field3"},
new Object[]{date1, 12, "aString"});

You can do this by using arrays of Object:
public void myMethod(String tableName, Object[] ...pairs)
and invoke this method in a such style:
myMethod("someTable", new Object[] {"field1", date1}, new Object[] {"field2", date2});

usually...
you would make a class that has variable in it for all the parameters.
then you would build an instance of that class and populate the values.
then you could use that class instance to pass those around.
if you want a whole bunch... then make a Collection (Map, HashMap, List etc.) and pass that.

Seems to be a good case for a future language extension if you ask me. But by slightly changing the way you call your method we should be able to get close ...
myMethod("someTable",
new PairedData("field1", date1),
new PairedData("field2", date2)
);
It’s more type-work, but it is probably the safest as it is typesafe and not error prone to matching pairs.
You would also be required to write your constructor for ‘PairedData(String label, Object val)‘ for which I advise to write multiple overloaded versions one for each type of val you plan to store.

How to pass mutable objects by value to java

Is there any way that I can pass mutable Objects by value to a function in java?
What I actually want is to pass an object to a method, do some operations on it (change it) and again call that method with that old object only(not the changed value).
here is some sample:
{ MyObj obj = new MyObj(); obj.setName("name");
append(obj);
System.out.println(obj.name);
prepend(obj);
System.out.println(obj.name);
}
void append(MyObj obj){ obj.name+="1"; }
void prepend(MyObj obj){ String a = "1"; obj.name=a+obj.name; }
At the end of this code, I want output as:
name1
1name

Objects themselves aren't passed at all in Java. Ever.
But everything is passed by value - where the only things that can be passed are primitive values and references.
It's not quite clear what you're trying to do - is the idea that you'd like to have a method with (say) a StringBuilder parameter, but without any changes made to the object from within the method being visible to the caller? If so, you basically need to clone the object yourself.

Unfortunately, no. Java never passes Objects by value, it passes the reference of the object by value.
Explanation from here:
What's really happening is that
objects are always held by reference
in java -- never by value -- and the
references are, indeed, being passed
by value.

Why do you need to do this? If you don't change the object, then it doesn't matter. If you do change the object, and don't want to affect the caller's object, then just make a copy locally. But I would guess that at least 90% of the time people think they need to do that, they really don't.
Show some code. What are you really trying to do?

AFAIK immutable/mutable is not related with passing by value/reference. Strings are passed by reference, not value. What makes string immutable is design of string class itself.
Perhaps you may explain a bit more what you looking for.

In Java, Prevent a field from being changed after being returned by instance method

In a software development class at my university, the teacher kept mentioning that on a quiz we needed to make sure that a field returned by a getter needed to be "protected." I guess she meant that nothing outside the class should be able to change it. She didn't give much more of an explanation than that.
For instance:
class Foo {
string[] bar = <some array contents>;
public string[] getBar() {
return bar;
}
}
Any code calling getBar would be able to modify the elements in that array. How do you prevent that from happening? I'm assuming that the object itself should be able to modify the array, just not anything outside the object.
This isn't homework help since the quiz is a couple of weeks old. I simply want to understand Java better since my teacher didn't explain very well.
Update: The teacher wouldn't merely allow us to use protected as the access modifier on the field.

You either use a collection and wrap it in Collections.unmodifiable*() or you defensively copy your array, collection or object if its mutable (which arrays always are).
For example:
class Foo {
private String[] bar = <some array contents>;
public String[] getBar() {
return bar == null ? bar : Arrays.copyOf(bar);
}
}
What you have to watch out for is that this is a shallow copy (so is clone). Not sure what your teacher's problem with clone was.

Just to add to one of the previous answers, you want to make sure that with a collection you aren't using the clone() method to achieve what you are trying to achieve here. This creates a shallow copy of the collection only, all object references contained in the collection copy still point to the same objects as in the original, e.g. the objects in the collection copy can still be modified, even though the original collection cannot. Be sure you are making a deep copy of a returned collection if this is what you are trying to do.

I suspect what she meant was that the visibility of the field itself should be protected (or private) so that access only occurs through the getter. In the case of a collection, you may also want to do as #cletus suggests and return a copy of the collection if you don't want it to be modified outside the class. EDIT Based on your edit, she probably meant both.
class Foo {
protected string[] bar = <some array contents>;
public string[] getBar() {
return bar;
}
}

To protect that field from being changed you need to first make it private and don't provide any setter of any other method which changes that field. This way nobody can change the reference of that variable.
If the field is a mutable Object then again its value can be changed. For that you would need to do deep cloning before returning that object.

I'd add to cletus' first suggestion - the easiest way of making bar immutable would be to use a List instead of an array and return it wrapped in an unmodifiableList. That way it's immediately clear to the client of the class that the contents of bar can't be altered - an UnsupportedOperationException is thrown. Messing about with deep cloning will probably be pretty inefficient, depending on the complexity of your objects, and still returns a bunch of mutable objects - it's just that any changes made to those will be ignored by Foo.
class Foo {
private List<String> bar = new ArrayList<String>();
public Collection<String> getBar() {
return Collection.unmodifiableList(bar);
}
}
(Also might be worth noting that with generics in Java 5+, a list behaves much more like an array than it used to).

Please tell the professor that all non-final fields must be private to preserve encapsulation.
Protected allows your subclass or other classes in the same package to modify the field without your class knowing it.
The only class that should touch non-final fields directly is the class that defines them.
(Think about what would happen if you wanted to later fire an event when the field changes... you can only do that if all access is through the setter...)