I am writing a java (processing) library for unexperienced students, and am looking for the best architecture for implementing it.
Initialization of an object should be as close as possible to this:
myObject = new General("type1");
Such that myObject will become an instance of Type1 which extends General:
class General {
public General() {}
}
class Type1 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
class Type2 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
As far as I know, this isn't possible (choosing between extended classes during initialization), but I'm looking for the closest solution possible.
So far, my best solution is to make a static initializer inside General:
class General {
...
static General init (String type) {
General temp;
if (type.equals("type1") {
temp = new Type1();
}
...
return temp;
}
and the initialization is:
General myObject;
myObject = General.init("type1");
This is far from ideal...
thanks.
you can make a factory class that manages initialization.
instead of doing it inside the parent.
// Empty vocabulary of actual object
public interface IPerson
{
string GetName();
}
public class Villager : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "Village Person";
}
}
public class CityPerson : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "City Person";
}
}
public enum PersonType
{
Rural,
Urban
}
/// <summary>
/// Implementation of Factory - Used to create objects.
/// </summary>
public class Factory
{
public IPerson GetPerson(PersonType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case PersonType.Rural:
return new Villager();
case PersonType.Urban:
return new CityPerson();
default:
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
The State design pattern can be a solution here. Rather than the constructor argument changing the type of the object (which isn't possible) it can set a field of the object, to make it behave as if its type is different.
package stackoverflow.questions;
public class Main {
private interface MyInterface {
String foo();
int bar();
}
private static class Type1 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "lorem ipsum "; }
#Override public int bar() { return 6; }
}
private static class Type2 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "dolor sit amet"; }
#Override public int bar() { return 7; }
}
public static class General {
private final MyInterface type;
public General(String type) {
try {
this.type = (MyInterface) Class
.forName("stackoverflow.questions.Main$" + type)
.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid type: " + type);
}
}
public String method1() { return type.foo(); }
public int method2() { return type.bar(); }
}
public static void main(String... args) {
General one = new General("Type1");
General two = new General("Type2");
System.out.println(one.method1() + two.method1());
System.out.println(one.method2() * two.method2());
}
}
I have following code implementing abstract builder (as in effective java book):
interface I {
I ret();
}
abstract class A implements I {
private String s = "";
A(Builder b) {
s = b.s;
}
#Override
public I ret() {
String s = "some new string from calc.";
//HERE I NEED TO CONSTRUCT class B
//THIS IS PROBLEMATIC LINE BELOW <<<<--------------------------------------
return new Builder<>().withString(s).build();
}
static abstract class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
String s = "";
T withString(String s) {
this.s = s;
return self();
}
protected abstract A build();
//simulated self-type idiom
protected abstract T self();
}
}
class B extends A {
private B(A.Builder b) {
super(b);
}
static class Builder extends A.Builder<Builder> {
#Override
protected B build() {
return new B(this);
}
#Override
protected Builder self() {
return this;
}
}
}
and this is small use-case
public static void main(String[] args) {
I b = new B.Builder().withString("bclass").build();
I b2 = b.ret(); //<---- this one should construct new immutable B
}
What I want to do is - from ret() method in the class A, I would like to construct immutable object that is ignorant of parent type - so in my example it would be new class B that has new inner string.
Problem is that class A does not know about class B, since B is it's parent.
Is something like this possible without resorting for generics?
If I use mutable class, it would be as simple as this.s = newS;.
UPDATE
abstract class A implements I {
private String s = "";
A(Builder b) {
s = b.s;
}
#Override
public I ret() {
String s = "SOME NEW STING FROM CALCULATION";
return builder().withString(s).build();
}
abstract Builder<?> builder();
static abstract class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
String s = "";
T withString(String s) {
this.s = s;
return self();
}
protected abstract A build();
//simulated self-type idiom
protected abstract T self();
}
}
class B extends A {
B(A.Builder b) {
super(b);
}
#Override
Builder builder() {
return new Builder();
}
static class Builder extends A.Builder<Builder> {
#Override
protected B build() {
return new B(this);
}
#Override
protected Builder self() {
return this;
}
}
}
You need to provide an abstract method in A to construct a suitable instance of Builder:
abstract Builder<A> toBuilder();
Then implement that in the concrete subclasses, and invoke:
return toBuilder().withString(s).build();
I have two classes A and B and they both have a common field in them, and I want to create a function in which if I pass Class A object then I want to set that common field value to the passed value and if I pass Class B object then I want to set that common field value to the passed value. Can anyone please tell me how can I do this, I am new to Java Generic Classes.
Otherwise I would have to make two different functions OR I would have to make an if and else which would decide that passed object belongs to which class ??
Class A
public class A{
int footer;
public void setFooter(int fo) {
footer = fo;
}
}
Class B
public class B{
int footer;
public void setFooter(int fo) {
footer = fo;
}
}
Class D
public class D{
public void change_footer(T generic_param, int value) {
generic_param.setFooter(value);
}
}
Class HelloWorld
public class HelloWorld{
public static void main(String []args){
Here I want to call
A a = new A();
new D().change_footer(a, 5);
B b = new B();
new D().change_footer(b, 5)
}
}
Thank You
And if I got all of the question wrong, and nor A nor B are generic, AND the type of field is fixed.
then you mean something like:
class D {
/*public <T extends Super> would be muuuch nicer here as well!*/
public /*static*/ <T> void change_footer(T obj, int data) {
//otherwise, you could just cast to Super...and set dat field.
if (obj instanceof A) {
((A) obj).setField(data);
} else if (obj instanceof B) {
((B) obj).setField(data);
} // else ... ?
}
}
Original answer:
Easy peasy (the "straight forward" implementation produces the desired results.):
class A<T> {
T daField;
public void setField(T pField) {
daField = pField;
}
public T getField() {
return daField;
}
}
class B<T> extends A {//empty
}
class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
B<Object> testB1 = new B<>(); //
testB1.setField(new Object());
System.out.println(testB1.getField());
B<String> testB2 = new B<>();
testB2.setField("blah blah");
System.out.println(testB2.getField());
B<Integer> testB3 = new B<>();
testB3.setField(42);
System.out.println(testB3.getField());
}
}
System.out:
java.lang.Object#6d06d69c
blah blah
42
It get's (little) more complicated, when you want to instantiate Ts ...but still possible/other question. :)
Edit to your comment:
If there's only one common field, then why not:
/*abstract */class Super<T> {
T daField;
public void setField(T pField) {
daField = pField;
}
public T getField() {
return daField;
}
}
? ...and:
class A<T> extends Super { ... }
class B<T> extends Super { ... }
Structure
-ClassA
|---|
|---ClassAImplA
|---ClassAImplB
-Main
Class A:
public interface ClassA {
public void execute();
}
Implementaion A:
public class ClassAImplA implements ClassA
{
private int a = 5;
public ClassAImplA (int a){setA(a);}
#Override
public void execute() {
System.out.println(a);
}
public int getA() {
return a;
}
public void setA(int a) {
this.a = a;
}
Implementaion B:
public class ClassAImplB implements ClassA
{
private boolean b = false;
public ClassAImplB (int a){setB(b);}
#Override
public void execute() {
System.out.println(b);
}
public booelan getB() {
return b;
}
public void setA(boolean b) {
this.b = b;
}
main:
public class main {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassAImplA param1 = new ClassAImplA(10);
ClassA = param1;
}
}
By doing this I make ClassA interchangeable,
but I lose the capability to access the parameter int a.
Is there a way to still make it interchangeable, and still have access to int a,
or in case of ClassAImplB, the field boolean b ?
There is a way, but it's not a good idea to do, as it defeats the purpose:
ClassAImplA param1 = new ClassAImplA(10);
ClassA = param1;
if (param1 instanceof ClassAImplA) {
param1x = (ClassAImplA) param1;
System.out.println(param1x.getA());
}
But don't do this. It defeats the purpose of the pattern.
The purpose of the pattern is to use objects of type ClassA,
without having to know how they work.
The getA method is only defined in ClassAImplA,
it's an implementation detail that should not be relevant to users of the ClassA type.
They shouldn't have to know. It's hidden.
This is called good encapsulation and information hiding.
you need one more class using composition to decide which implementation is needed.
public ClassHelper{
private A a;
public ClassHelper(A a){
this.a = a;
}
public void execute() {
this.a.execute();
}
}
public class main {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassHelper param1 = new ClassHelper(new ClassAImplA(10));
param1.execute();
//or when you need classBIMpl
param1 = new ClassHelper(new ClassAImplB(true));
param1.execute();
}
}
And about the ability to access member of implA or implB , no you cannot have that flexibilty with this patter, whole point of this pattern is that caller need not be aware of implementation details.
Define an interface for the strategy and a Factory with different overloaded methods to create the concrete instances of the classes. Of course the methods are typed to the interface instead of the concrete classes.
The interface.
public interface Strategy {
void execute();
}
The first implementation.
public class ConcreteStrategy implements Strategy {
private boolean a;
public ConcreteStrategy(final boolean a) { this.a = a; }
public void execute() {}
}
The second implementation.
public class AnotherConcreteStrategy implements Strategy {
private int a;
public AnotherConcreteStrategy(final int a) { this.a = a; }
public void execute() {}
}
The factory.
public class Factory {
public static Strategy create(final boolean a) {
return new ConcreteStrategy(a);
}
public static Strategy create(final int a) {
return new AnotherConcreteStrategy(a);
}
}
Give this Dr Dobbs article, and the Builder Pattern in particular, how do we handle the case of subclassing a Builder? Taking a cut-down version of the example where we want to subclass to add GMO labelling, a naive implementation would be:
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
public Builder calories(int val) { calories = val; return this; }
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
Subclass:
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) { hasGMO = val; return this; }
public GMOFacts build() { return new GMOFacts(this); }
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}
Now, we can write code like this:
GMOFacts.Builder b = new GMOFacts.Builder();
b.GMO(true).calories(100);
But, if we get the order wrong, it all fails:
GMOFacts.Builder b = new GMOFacts.Builder();
b.calories(100).GMO(true);
The problem is of course that NutritionFacts.Builder returns a NutritionFacts.Builder, not a GMOFacts.Builder, so how do we solve this problem, or is there a better Pattern to use?
Note: this answer to a similar question offers up the classes I have above; my question is regarding the problem of ensuring the builder calls are in the correct order.
You can solve it using generics. I think this is called the "Curiously recurring generic patterns"
Make the return type of the base class builder methods a generic argument.
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
public T calories(int val) {
calories = val;
return (T) this;
}
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder<?> builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
Now instantiate the base builder with the derived class builder as the generic argument.
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder<Builder> {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() { return new GMOFacts(this); }
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}
Just for the record, to get rid of the
unchecked or unsafe operations warning
for the return (T) this; statement as #dimadima and #Thomas N. talk about, following solution applies in certain cases.
Make abstract the builder which declares the generic type (T extends Builder in this case) and declare protected abstract T getThis() abstract method as follows:
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
/** The solution for the unchecked cast warning. */
public abstract T getThis();
public T calories(int val) {
calories = val;
// no cast needed
return getThis();
}
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
Refer to http://www.angelikalanger.com/GenericsFAQ/FAQSections/ProgrammingIdioms.html#FAQ205 for further details.
Based off of a blog post, this approach requires all the non-leaf classes to be abstract, and all the leaf classes must be final.
public abstract class TopLevel {
protected int foo;
protected TopLevel() {
}
protected static abstract class Builder
<T extends TopLevel, B extends Builder<T, B>> {
protected T object;
protected B thisObject;
protected abstract T createObject();
protected abstract B thisObject();
public Builder() {
object = createObject();
thisObject = thisObject();
}
public B foo(int foo) {
object.foo = foo;
return thisObject;
}
public T build() {
return object;
}
}
}
Then, you have some intermediate class that extends this class and its builder, and as many more as you need:
public abstract class SecondLevel extends TopLevel {
protected int bar;
protected static abstract class Builder
<T extends SecondLevel, B extends Builder<T, B>> extends TopLevel.Builder<T, B> {
public B bar(int bar) {
object.bar = bar;
return thisObject;
}
}
}
And, finally a concrete leaf class that can call all the builder methods on any of its parents in any order:
public final class LeafClass extends SecondLevel {
private int baz;
public static final class Builder extends SecondLevel.Builder<LeafClass,Builder> {
protected LeafClass createObject() {
return new LeafClass();
}
protected Builder thisObject() {
return this;
}
public Builder baz(int baz) {
object.baz = baz;
return thisObject;
}
}
}
Then, you can call the methods in any order, from any of the classes in the hierarchy:
public class Demo {
LeafClass leaf = new LeafClass.Builder().baz(2).foo(1).bar(3).build();
}
You can override also the calories() method, and let it return the extending builder. This compiles because Java supports covariant return types.
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val)
{ hasGMO = val; return this; }
public Builder calories(int val)
{ super.calories(val); return this; }
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
}
[...]
}
There is also another way to create classes according to Builder pattern, which conforms "Prefer composition over inheritance".
Define an interface, that parent class Builder will inherit:
public interface FactsBuilder<T> {
public T calories(int val);
}
The implementation of NutritionFacts is almost the same (except for Builder implementing 'FactsBuilder' interface):
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
return this;
}
public NutritionFacts build() {
return new NutritionFacts(this);
}
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
The Builder of a child class should extend the same interface (except different generic implementation):
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
NutritionFacts.Builder baseBuilder;
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
baseBuilder = new NutritionFacts.Builder();
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
}
Notice, that NutritionFacts.Builder is a field inside GMOFacts.Builder (called baseBuilder). The method implemented from FactsBuilder interface calls baseBuilder's method of the same name:
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
There is also a big change in the constructor of GMOFacts(Builder builder). The first call in the constructor to parent class constructor should pass appropriate NutritionFacts.Builder:
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder.baseBuilder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
The full implementation of GMOFacts class:
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
NutritionFacts.Builder baseBuilder;
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder.baseBuilder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}
A full 3 level example of multiple builder inheritance would look like this:
(For the version with a copy constructor for the builder see the second example below)
First level - parent (potentially abstract)
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public abstract class Class1 {
protected int f1;
public static class Builder<C extends Class1, B extends Builder<C, B>> {
C obj;
protected Builder(C constructedObj) {
this.obj = constructedObj;
}
B f1(int f1) {
obj.f1 = f1;
return (B)this;
}
C build() {
return obj;
}
}
}
Second level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class2 extends Class1 {
protected int f2;
public static class Builder<C extends Class2, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class1.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
this((C) new Class2());
}
protected Builder(C obj) {
super(obj);
}
B f2(int f2) {
obj.f2 = f2;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
Third level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class3 extends Class2 {
protected int f3;
public static class Builder<C extends Class3, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class2.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
this((C) new Class3());
}
protected Builder(C obj) {
super(obj);
}
B f3(int f3) {
obj.f3 = f3;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
And an example of usage
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class2 b1 = new Class2.Builder<>().f1(1).f2(2).build();
System.out.println(b1);
Class2 b2 = new Class2.Builder<>().f2(2).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(b2);
Class3 c1 = new Class3.Builder<>().f1(1).f2(2).f3(3).build();
System.out.println(c1);
Class3 c2 = new Class3.Builder<>().f3(3).f1(1).f2(2).build();
System.out.println(c2);
Class3 c3 = new Class3.Builder<>().f3(3).f2(2).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c3);
Class3 c4 = new Class3.Builder<>().f2(2).f3(3).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c4);
}
}
A bit longer version featuring a copy constructor for the builder:
First level - parent (potentially abstract)
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public abstract class Class1 {
protected int f1;
public static class Builder<C extends Class1, B extends Builder<C, B>> {
C obj;
protected void setObj(C obj) {
this.obj = obj;
}
protected void copy(C obj) {
this.f1(obj.f1);
}
B f1(int f1) {
obj.f1 = f1;
return (B)this;
}
C build() {
return obj;
}
}
}
Second level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class2 extends Class1 {
protected int f2;
public static class Builder<C extends Class2, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class1.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
setObj((C) new Class2());
}
public Builder(C obj) {
this();
copy(obj);
}
#Override
protected void copy(C obj) {
super.copy(obj);
this.f2(obj.f2);
}
B f2(int f2) {
obj.f2 = f2;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
Third level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class3 extends Class2 {
protected int f3;
public static class Builder<C extends Class3, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class2.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
setObj((C) new Class3());
}
public Builder(C obj) {
this();
copy(obj);
}
#Override
protected void copy(C obj) {
super.copy(obj);
this.f3(obj.f3);
}
B f3(int f3) {
obj.f3 = f3;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
And an example of usage
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class3 c4 = new Class3.Builder<>().f2(2).f3(3).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c4);
// Class3 builder copy
Class3 c42 = new Class3.Builder<>(c4).f2(12).build();
System.out.println(c42);
Class3 c43 = new Class3.Builder<>(c42).f2(22).f1(11).build();
System.out.println(c43);
Class3 c44 = new Class3.Builder<>(c43).f3(13).f1(21).build();
System.out.println(c44);
}
}
If you don't want to poke your eye out on an angle bracket or three, or perhaps don't feel you... umm... I mean... cough... the rest of your team will quickly comprehend curiously recurring generics pattern, you can do this:
public class TestInheritanceBuilder {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SubType.Builder builder = new SubType.Builder();
builder.withFoo("FOO").withBar("BAR").withBaz("BAZ");
SubType st = builder.build();
System.out.println(st.toString());
builder.withFoo("BOOM!").withBar("not getting here").withBaz("or here");
}
}
supported by
public class SubType extends ParentType {
String baz;
protected SubType() {}
public static class Builder extends ParentType.Builder {
private SubType object = new SubType();
public Builder withBaz(String baz) {
getObject().baz = baz;
return this;
}
public Builder withBar(String bar) {
super.withBar(bar);
return this;
}
public Builder withFoo(String foo) {
super.withFoo(foo);
return this;
}
public SubType build() {
// or clone or copy constructor if you want to stamp out multiple instances...
SubType tmp = getObject();
setObject(new SubType());
return tmp;
}
protected SubType getObject() {
return object;
}
private void setObject(SubType object) {
this.object = object;
}
}
public String toString() {
return "SubType2{" +
"baz='" + baz + '\'' +
"} " + super.toString();
}
}
and the parent type:
public class ParentType {
String foo;
String bar;
protected ParentType() {}
public static class Builder {
private ParentType object = new ParentType();
public ParentType object() {
return getObject();
}
public Builder withFoo(String foo) {
if (!"foo".equalsIgnoreCase(foo)) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
getObject().foo = foo;
return this;
}
public Builder withBar(String bar) {
getObject().bar = bar;
return this;
}
protected ParentType getObject() {
return object;
}
private void setObject(ParentType object) {
this.object = object;
}
public ParentType build() {
// or clone or copy constructor if you want to stamp out multiple instances...
ParentType tmp = getObject();
setObject(new ParentType());
return tmp;
}
}
public String toString() {
return "ParentType2{" +
"foo='" + foo + '\'' +
", bar='" + bar + '\'' +
'}';
}
}
Key points:
Encapsulate the object in the builder so that inheritance prevents you from setting the field on the object held in the parent type
Calls to super ensure that logic (if any) added to the super type builder methods is retained in the sub types.
Down side is spurious object creation in the parent class(es)... But see below for a way to clean that up
Up side is much easier to understand at a glance, and no verbose constructor transferring properties.
If you have multiple threads accessing your builder objects... I guess I'm glad I'm not you :).
EDIT:
I found a way around the spurious object creation. First add this to each builder:
private Class whoAmI() {
return new Object(){}.getClass().getEnclosingMethod().getDeclaringClass();
}
Then in the constructor for each builder:
if (whoAmI() == this.getClass()) {
this.obj = new ObjectToBuild();
}
The cost is an extra class file for the new Object(){} anonymous inner class
One thing you could do is to create a static factory method in each of your classes:
NutritionFacts.newBuilder()
GMOFacts.newBuilder()
This static factory method would then return the appropriate builder. You can have a GMOFacts.Builder extending a NutritionFacts.Builder, that is not a problem. THE problem here will be to deal with visibility...
I created a parent, abstract generic builder class that accepts two formal type parameters. First is for the type of object returned by build(), the second is the type returned by each optional parameter setter. Below are parent and child classes for illustrative purpose:
// **Parent**
public abstract static class Builder<T, U extends Builder<T, U>> {
// Required parameters
private final String name;
// Optional parameters
private List<String> outputFields = null;
public Builder(String pName) {
name = pName;
}
public U outputFields(List<String> pOutFlds) {
outputFields = new ArrayList<>(pOutFlds);
return getThis();
}
/**
* This helps avoid "unchecked warning", which would forces to cast to "T" in each of the optional
* parameter setters..
* #return
*/
abstract U getThis();
public abstract T build();
/*
* Getters
*/
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
// **Child**
public static class Builder extends AbstractRule.Builder<ContextAugmentingRule, ContextAugmentingRule.Builder> {
// Required parameters
private final Map<String, Object> nameValuePairsToAdd;
// Optional parameters
private String fooBar;
Builder(String pName, Map<String, String> pNameValPairs) {
super(pName);
/**
* Must do this, in case client code (I.e. JavaScript) is re-using
* the passed in for multiple purposes. Doing {#link Collections#unmodifiableMap(Map)}
* won't caught it, because the backing Map passed by client prior to wrapping in
* unmodifiable Map can still be modified.
*/
nameValuePairsToAdd = new HashMap<>(pNameValPairs);
}
public Builder fooBar(String pStr) {
fooBar = pStr;
return this;
}
#Override
public ContextAugmentingRule build() {
try {
Rule r = new ContextAugmentingRule(this);
storeInRuleByNameCache(r);
return (ContextAugmentingRule) r;
} catch (RuleException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}
#Override
Builder getThis() {
return this;
}
}
This one has met my needs to satisfaction.
The following IEEE contribution Refined Fluent Builder in Java gives a comprehensive solution to the problem.
It dissects the original question into two sub-problems of inheritance deficiency and quasi invariance and shows how a solution to these two sub-problems opens for inheritance support with code reuse in the classical builder pattern in Java.