Simple pass of variable to new class, then output in Java - java

I've seen this question asked in several ways, but the code is usually specific to the user, and I get lost a little. If I'm missing a nice clear and simple explanation, I'm sorry! I just need to understand this concept, and I've gotten lost on the repeats that I've seen. So I've simplified my own problem as much as I possibly can, to get at the root of the issue.
The goal is to have a main class that I ask for variables, and then have those user-inputted variables assessed by a method in a separate class, with a message returned depending on what the variables are.
import java.io.*;
public class MainClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
InputStreamReader input = new InputStreamReader(System.in);
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(input);
String A;
String B;
try {
System.out.println("Is A present?");
A = reader.readLine();
System.out.println("Is B present?");
B = reader.readLine();
Assess test = new Assess();
} catch (IOException e){
System.out.println("Error reading from user");
}
}
}
And the method I'm trying to use is:
public class Assess extends MainClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String A = MainClass.A;
String B = MainClass.B;
if ((A.compareToIgnoreCase("yes")==0) &&
((B.compareToIgnoreCase("yes")==0) | (B.compareToIgnoreCase("maybe")==0)))
{
System.out.println("Success!");
}
else {
System.out.println ("Failure");
}
}
}
I recognize that I'm not properly asking for the output, but I can't even get there and figure out what the heck I'm doing there until I get the thing to compile at all, and I can't do THAT until I figure out how to properly pass values between classes. I know there's fancy ways of doing it, such as with arrays. I'm looking for the conceptually simplest way of sending a variable inputted from inside one class to another class; I need to understand the basic concept here, and I know this is super elementary but I'm just being dumb, and reading what might be duplicate questions hasn't helped.
I know how to do it if the variable is static and declared globally at the beginning, but not how to send it from within the subclass (I know it's impossible to send directly from the subclass...right? I have to set it somehow, and then pull that set value into the other class).

In order to pass variables to an object you have either two options
Constructor - will pass parameter when creating the object
Mutator method - will pass parameters when you call the method
For example in your Main class:
Assess assess = new Assess(A, B);
Or:
Assess assess = new Assess();
assess.setA(A);
assess.setB(B);
In your Assess class you have to add a constructor method
public Assess(String A, String B)
Or setter methods
public void setA(String A)
public void setB(String B)
Also, Assess class should not extend the main class and contain a static main method, it has nothing to do with the main class.
Below there is a code example!
Assess.java
public class Assess {
private a;
private b;
public Assess(String a, String b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
public boolean check() {
if ((A.compareToIgnoreCase("yes")==0) &&
((B.compareToIgnoreCase("yes")==0) ||
(B.compareToIgnoreCase("maybe")==0)))
{
System.out.println("Success!");
return true;
} else {
System.out.println ("Failure");
return false;
}
MainClass .java
public class MainClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
InputStreamReader input = new InputStreamReader(System.in);
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(input);
String A;
String B;
try {
System.out.println("Is A present?");
A = reader.readLine();
System.out.println("Is B present?");
B = reader.readLine();
Assess test = new Assess(A, B);
boolean isBothPresent = test.check();
// ................
} catch (IOException e){
System.out.println("Error reading from user");
}
}

I think what you're looking for are method parameters.
In a method definition, you define the method name and the parameters it takes. If you have a method assess that takes a string and returns an integer, for example, you would write:
public int assess(String valueToAssess)
and follow it with code to do whatever you wanted with valueToAssess to determine what integer you wanted to return. When you had decided that i was the int to return, you would put the statement
return i;
into the method; that terminates the method and returns that value to the caller.
The caller obtains the string to be assesed, then calls the method and passes in that string. So it's more of a push than a pull, if you see what I mean.
...
String a = reader.readLine();
int answer = assess(a);
System.out.println("I've decided the answer is " + answer);
Is that what you're looking for?

A subclass will have access to the public members of the superclass. If you want to access a member using {class}.{member} (i.e. MainClass.A) it needs to be statically declared outside of a method.
public class MainClass {
public static String A;
public static String B;
...
}
public class Subclass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// You can access MainClass.A and MainClass.B here
}
}
Likely a better option is to create a class that has these two Strings as objects that can be manipulated then passed in to the Assess class
public class MainClass {
public String A;
public String B;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Manipulate A, B, assign values, etc.
Assess assessObject = new Assess(A, B);
if (assessObject.isValidInput()) {
System.out.println("Success!");
} else {
System.out.println("Success!");
}
}
}
public class Assess {
String response1;
String response2;
public Assess (String A, String B) {
response1 = A;
response2 = B;
}
public boolean isValidInput() {
// Put your success/fail logic here
return (response1.compareToIgnoreCase("yes") == 0);
}
}

First you don't need inheritance. Have one class your main class contain main take the main out of Assess class. Create a constructor or setter methods to set the variables in the Assess class.
For instance.
public class MainClass
{
public static void main(String[] Args)
{
Assess ns = new Assess( );
ns.setterMethod(variable to set);
}
}

I'm not 100% sure of your problem, but it sounds like you just need to access variables that exist in one class from a subclass. There are several ways...
You can make them public static variables and reference them as you show in your Assess class. However, they are in the wrong location in MainClass use
public static String A, B;
You can make those variables either public or protected in the parent class (MainClass in your example). Public is NOT recommended as you would not know who or what modified them. You would reference these from the sub-class as if present in the sub-class.
public String A, B; // Bad practice, who modified these?
protected String A, B;
The method that might elicit the least debate is to make them private members and use "accessors" (getters and setters). This makes them accessible programmatically which lets you set breakpoints to catch the culprit that is modifying them, and also let you implement many patterns, such as observer, etc., so that modification of these can invoke services as needed. If "A" were the path to a log file, changing its value could also cause the old log to close and the new one to be opened - just by changing the name of the file.
private String A, B;
public setA(String newValue) {
A = newValue;
}
public String getA() {
return A;
}
BUT ...
Your question says "send to the subclass", but confounded by your knowing how to do this using global variables. I would say that the simplest way is to provide the values with the constructor, effectively injecting the values.
There are other ways, however, your example shows the assessment performed by the constructor. If your Assess class had a separate method to perform the assessment, you would just call that with the variables as arguments.
Your example is confusing since both classes have main methods and the child class does the assessing - I would think you would want the opposite - Have MainClass extend Assess, making "MainClass an Assess'or", let main assign the Strings to Assess' values (or pass them as arguments) to the parent class' "assess" method ("super" added for clarity):
super.setA(local_a);
super.setB(local_b);
super.assess();
or
super.assess(A, B);

Related

how can i use java scanner with lazy singeleton?

i want to make 2 input scanner in java with Lazy singeleton algorithm..
and print it..
the question is : write a java program to get username and password then print it(with Lazy singeleton algorithm)
import java.util.Scanner;
public class lazy1 {
String a1;
String a2;
private static lazy1 Instance;
public synchronized static lazy1 getInstance() {
if (Instance == null) {
Instance = new lazy1();
}
return Instance;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner sc = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("uesrname");
String a1 = sc.nextLine();
System.out.println("password");
String a2 = sc.nextLine();
System.out.println("username : "+ a1);
System.out.println("password : "+ a2);
}
}
lazy singletons are completely useless*. The aim is, presumably, that the singleton is not 'initialized' or 'takes up memory'. But, good news! It won't. Not until some code touches the singleton class, at which point, well, you needed that initialization anyway. Thus:
public class Lazy1 {
private static final Lazy1 INSTANCE = new Lazy1();
private Lazy1() {} // prevent instantiation by anybody else
public static Lazy1 getInstance() { return INSTANCE; }
}
Does what you want: It is simpler, not buggy, and fast. In contrast to your take, which is quite slow (a synchronized lock every time, even on hour 100, after a million calls to getinstance. However, remove the synchronized and you end up in a buggy scenario. You can try to get around that in turn with volatiles and double locking, but now you have quite complicated code that is almost impossible to test, and which still cannot outperform the fast locking that the classloader itself gives you).
You may think this is non-lazy, but that's false. Try it: print something in that constructor and observe when it prints. It'll print only when the first getInstance() is ever invoked.
Given that it is a singleton, if you need some property (such as 'a scanner') to operate, you have only two options:
The singleton is in an invalid state until it is initialized
All methods that need this state check if the state is valid and throw if it is not:
public class Lazy1 {
private static final Lazy1 INSTANCE = new Lazy1();
private Lazy1() {} // prevent instantiation by anybody else
public static Lazy1 getInstance() { return INSTANCE; }
private Scanner scanner;
public void menu() {
if (scanner == null) throw new IllegalStateException("Uninitialized");
// ....
}
public void init(Scanner s) {
this.scanner = s;
}
}
Every method that needs the 'scanner state' should first check, then throw.
The singleton doesn't have state. Instead, its methods take the required state as parameter
Your Lazy1 doesn't have, say, public void menu(). It has public void menu(Scanner s) {} - every time any code calls it, it passes scanner along.
*) There is actually a point, but only if some code refers to the Lazy1 class without getting the singleton. If you're doing that, you probably need to fix your code; that'd be rather weird.

Return a Reference to a Class with Static Methods and Static Fields Without Instantiation

I want to create a wrapper class that calls static methods and member fields from a class that is provided by a library I am unable to view the code.
This is to avoid boilerplate setting code of the global member fields when I need to use a static method in a specific context.
I want to try to avoid creating wrapper methods for each static method.
My question:
Is it possible to return a class with static methods from a method to access just the static methods without instantiating it?
Code is below with comments in-line.
The code is used to demonstrate a change in a static value when the method getMath() is invoked.
I want to avoid the setting of the value before calling the static method.
StaticMath.setFirstNumber(1);
StaticMath.calc(1);
StaticMath.setFirstNumber(2);
StaticMath.calc(1);
I am using the Eclipse IDE and it comes up with Warnings, which I understand, but want to avoid.
I tried searching for something on this subject, so if anyone can provide a link I can close this.
public class Demo {
// Static Methods in a class library I don't have access to.
static class StaticMath {
private static int firstNum;
private StaticMath() {
}
public static int calc(int secondNum) {
return firstNum + secondNum;
}
public static void setFirstNumber(int firstNum) {
StaticMath.firstNum = firstNum;
}
}
// Concrete Class
static class MathBook {
private int firstNum;
public MathBook(int firstNum) {
this.firstNum = firstNum;
}
// Non-static method that gets the class with the static methods.
public StaticMath getMath() {
StaticMath.setFirstNumber(firstNum);
// I don't want to instantiate the class.
return new StaticMath();
}
}
public static void main(String... args) {
MathBook m1 = new MathBook(1);
MathBook m2 = new MathBook(2);
// I want to avoid the "static-access" warning.
// Answer is 2
System.out.println(String.valueOf(m1.getMath().calc(1)));
// Answer is 3
System.out.println(String.valueOf(m2.getMath().calc(1)));
}
}
I'd just wrap it to make for an atomic operation:
public static class MyMath{
public static synchronized int myCalc( int num1 , int num2 ){
StaticMath.setFirstNum(num1);
return StaticMath.calc(num2);
}
}
Drawback: You'll have to make sure, StaticMath is not used avoiding this "bridging" class.
Usage:
int result1 = MyMath.myCalc( 1, 1 );
int result1 = MyMath.myCalc( 2, 1 );
You shouldnt call a static method through an object reference. You should directly use class reference to call a static method like this:
StaticMath.calc(1)
But if you still need it for some reason, you can return null in getMath method, but you will still get warning in Eclipse:
public StaticMath getMath() {
StaticMath.setFirstNumber(firstNum);
return null;
}
I infer that question is not properly asked if the answer is not
StaticMath.calc(1)
Other issue you may be facing due to package visibility to static inner classes. Which is a design choice by the writer of Demo class. If you can mark your classes MathBook and StaticMath public then you can access them like below:
Demo.StaticMath.calc(1);

Making a static duplicate of non-static integer

For my programming class in first year engineering I have to make a D-game in Java, with only very little knowledge of Java.
In one class I am generating a random integer via
public int rbug = (int)(Math.random() * 18);
every so many ticks. I have to use this integer in another class (in the requirements for an if-loop), and apparently it needs to be static. But when I change the variable to public int static, the value doesn't change any more.
Is there an easy way to solve this problem?
Edit: part of code added:
public int rbug = (int)(Math.random() * 18);
which is used in
public void render(Graphics g){
g.drawImage(bugs.get(rbug), (int)x, (int)y, null);
And in another class:
if(Physics.Collision(this, game.eb, i, BadBug.rbug)){
}
As error for BadBug.rbug I get the message
Cannot make a static reference to a non-static field
Using static to make things easier to access is not a very good ideal for design. You would want to make variables have a "getter" to access them from another class' instance, and possibly even a "setter". An example of this:
public class Test {
String sample = 1337;
public Test(int value) {
this.sample = value;
}
public Test(){}
public int getSample() {
return this.sample;
}
public void setSample(int setter) {
this.sample = setter;
}
}
An example of how these are used:
Test example = new Test();
System.out.println(example.getSample()); // Prints: 1337
example = new Test(-1);
System.out.println(example.getSample()); // Prints: -1
example.setSample(12345);
System.out.println(example.getSample()); // Prints: 12345
Now you might be thinking "How do I get a string from the class that made the instance variable within the class?". That's simple as well, when you construct a class, you can pass a value of the class instance itself to the constructor of the class:
public class Project {
private TestTwo example;
public void onEnable() {
this.example = new TestTwo(this);
this.example.printFromProject();
}
public int getSample() {
return 1337;
}
}
public class TestTwo {
private final Project project;
public TestTwo(Project project) {
this.project = project;
}
public void printFromProject() {
System.out.println(this.project.getSample());
}
}
This allows you to keep single instances of classes by passing around your main class instance.
To answer the question about the "static accessor", that can also be done like this:
public class Test {
public static int someGlobal = /* default value */;
}
Which allows setting and getting values through Test.someGlobal. Note however that I would still say that this is a horrible practice.
Do you want to get a new number every time that you want BadBug.rbug? Then convert it from a variable to a method.

Encapsulating what doesn't vary?

It's a common practice to encapsulate code that often changes. In fact, it is often in the form of using an object to delegate the varying logic to. A sample would be the following:
public class SampleClass {
Object obj = new ObjectWithVaryingMethod();
public SampleClass(Object obj){
this.obj=obj;
}
public String getString(){
return obj.toString();
}
public static void main(String args[]){
SampleClass sampleClass=new SampleClass(new ObjectWithVaryingMethod());
System.out.println(sampleClass.getString());
}
}
class ObjectWithVaryingMethod{
#Override
public String toString(){
return "Hi";
}
}
Can you suggest what problems I may encounter when "encapsulation" is done on what doesn't vary? I find it to be a good coding conduct when the main class itself is the one that is often subject to change or improvement. A sample would be the following. In this second case, retrieving "Hi", which is the part that doesn't vary, was "encapsulated" in another class.
public class SampleVaryingClass {
public static void main(String args[]) {
//here I may opt to print getHi's value on sysout or on a dialog
System.out.println(ObjectWithNonVaryingMethod.getHi());
}
}
In a completely different class...
public class ObjectWithNonVaryingMethod {
private static final String hi = "Hi";
//"Hi" should always be returned
public static String getHi() {
return hi;
}
}
Can you give some pro's and con's on doing this?
Both code cannot be compared each other. One is static, another one isn't. I hope you understand the concept of encapsulating the object in the first code. Here is the pros and cons for the second one. Remember that static is "generally" bad, and do not support concurrency by default.
pros:
With getHi, you are keeping the string field private, meaning that it cannot be set from other source
Say that you need to do setHi from other source, you can add several guard clauses for it. This is called defensive programming.
public static setHi(String input){
if(input == null) { input = ""; } // can throw exception instead
hi = input;
}
cons:
It is static, needless to say
You don't get any advantage other than guard clauses. If your class is not static, you can swap it with other class implementing same interface, or other class inherited from that class.

getting the current class object

I have three classes.. A,B,C.
In both classes B and C i have a static string variable "name" which contains the name of B and C, as-
class B
{
static name;
public static void main(String args[])
{
name="Class B";
A.getName();
}
I am calling class A's getName method from class B and C.. Class A is as follows:
class A
{
getName()
{
System.out.println(this class called me);
}
}
class C is:
class C
{
static name;
public static void main(String args[])
{
name="Class C";
A.getName();
}
Now my question is, what code should i use in place of "this class called me" in class A so that i get the name of whichever class calls A! I hope i am clear!!
Your A.getName method cannot know what class's code called it. You have to pass that information into it.
Okay, so that's not strictly true, you could figure it out by generating a stack trace and inspecting that. But it would be a very bad idea. In general, if a method needs to know something, you either A) Make it part of an instance that has that information as instance data, or B) Pass the information into it as an argument.
class A {
getName()
{
StackTraceElement[] stackTraceElements = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace();
int lastStackElement = stackTraceElements.length-1;
String callingObjectsName = stackTraceElements[lastStackElement].getClassName();
System.out.println(callingObjectsName + " called me.");
}
}
Modify your code to something like this:
class A
{
getName(String className)
{
System.out.println(className);
}
}
and use it like :
class B
{
static name;
public static void main(String args[])
{
name="Class B";
A.getName(name);
}
}
It sounds like what you're really trying to do is to pass information from one stack frame to another one -- and specifically, from a frame A to a frame B, where A invoked B. This is an easy thing to do, and I think you're over-engineering it.
public class B {
static String name = ...
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.getName(name);
}
}
public class C {
static String name = ...
public static void main(String[] args) {
A.getName(name);
}
}
public class A {
public static void getName(String name) {
System.out.println(name);
}
}
Your approach would require:
Getting the stack trace
Using that to get the calling stack frame, which is element 1 in the stack trace array
Using that to get the class name for the calling method
Using Class.forName to get the Class<?> object
Calling getField("name") on that Class<?> object to get a Field object
(optional but recommended) Confirming that the Field represents static field of type String
calling get(null) on the Field to get its value (the null represents the object for which you want the field -- since the field is static and thus not tied to any object, this argument is ignored), and casting this value down to String
Or, instead you could:
Just pass the name to the function that needs it.
Your approach also requires that the name field be static, since there's no way to get the calling instance (even though you can get the calling instance's class). The simpler approach works even if name is an instance field.

Categories

Resources