Develop Reference

How to add field and manipulate value to a class with ByteBuddy?

I'd like to add the following code to existing classes using ByteBuddy. Given an existing class SomeSample I want to turn this into the follwoing:
class SomeSample {
private #Transient boolean isNew = true;
public boolean isNew() {
return isNew;
}
#PrePersist
#PostLoad
void markNotNew() {
this.isNew = false;
}
}
Original attempt
I can get the field and methods added properly. What I cannot really get to work is the assignment of the value. I've learned that I need to augment all existing constructors of the class I want to augment as technically an assignment declared like this is compiled into the constructors.
I've created the following helper:
public class Helper {
#OnMethodExit
public static void initField(#FieldValue(value = "isNew", readOnly = false) boolean value) {
value = !value;
}
}
and tried to assign this as follows:
builder.constructor(ElementMatchers.any())
.intercept(Advice.to(Helper.class));
I would've expected the advice to be added at the end of the original declarations but during the build I receive the following error:
Failed to transform class files in …: Cannot call super (or default) method for public ….SomeSample()
Alternative approach
Instead of flipping the value of the field I thought I could also stay with the default (false) and negate the value returned from the generated isNew() method. If I change my helper to this:
public class Helper {
public static boolean isNew(#FieldValue(value = "isNew") boolean value) {
return !value;
}
}
When I change my method generating code for isNew() to the following:
builder = builder.defineMethod("isNew", boolean.class, Visibility.PUBLIC)
.intercept(MethodDelegation.to(Helper.class));
I get:
None of [public static boolean ….Helper.isNew(boolean)] allows for delegation from public boolean SomeSample.isNew()
Any idea?

That was maybe an unfortunate API choice but you can use Advice both as decorator and interceptor. What you likely would want to would be to set:
builder = builder.visit(Advice.to(Helper.class).on(isConstructor()))
This adds the code around the existing code. With the suggested approach, you replace the method around a call to the original implementation. If you define a new method, such an implementation does not exist and the error you are seeing is yielded.

builder = builder
.defineField("isNew", boolean.class, Visibility.PRIVATE)
.annotateField(yourTransientAnnotationLiteral);
builder = builder
.defineConstructor(Visibility.PUBLIC)
.intercept(MethodCall.invokeSuper()
.andThen(FieldAccessor.of("isNew")
.setsValue(Boolean.TRUE)));
builder = builder
.defineMethod("isNew", boolean.class, Visibility.PUBLIC)
.intercept(FieldAccessor.of("isNew"));
builder = builder
.defineMethod("markNotNew", TypeDescription.VOID, Visibility.PACKAGE_PRIVATE)
.intercept(FieldAccessor.of("isNew")
.setsValue(Boolean.FALSE));
This is untested (I'm particularly not sure about the implementation of the isNew() method) but I hope gives you an idea of one general way to do this programmatically without using #Advice or other higher-level mechanisms.

refreshable javafx ReadOnlyProperty

Say that i have a boolean property that should represent the fact that a specific file inside a specific path exists or not.
Here is some code:
class SomeClass {
protected static final File FILE_TO_TEST = new File("test.canc.me");
//My javafx property
public ReadOnlyBooleanPropertyBase fileExistingProperty = new ReadOnlyBooleanPropertyBase() {
#Override public boolean get() {
return FILE_TO_TEST.exists();
}
#Override public Object getBean() { return null; }
#Override public String getName() { return ""; }
};
//old style property property
public boolean isFileExisting() {
return fileExistingProperty.get();
}
Ok. The fact is that this property is read only since it cannot be set, its value depends of the "external" condition represented by the file to be existent in the application home.
Yet, i need to refresh the property, that is look again to see if the file still exsist or not, and raise change and invalidation events accordingly.
I could easily add a refresh method to the property class, but in order to call it, i would have to create an inner class and not just an anonyous one.
And i would need an anonymous class for each different type of read-only-yet-refreshable property, that is boolean, String, Integer etc.
The question is: is there a more convenient way to accomplish this?

i would have to create an inner class and not just an anonyous one.
I would go down this approach rather than try to create a bunch of anonymous inner classes.
And i would need an anonymous class for each different type of read-only-yet-refreshable property, that is boolean, String, Integer etc.
Use generics - that's what they're designed for! Create a ReadOnlyRefreshableProperty<T>, then the return types and parameters of the relevant methods all use T as their type, removing the need for a separate class for each type.

Right way to prevent subclass instantiation without calling a desired initialisation method?

Can somebody help a novice programmer to understand if his solution is correct?
My question is similar to the the following two:
What's wrong with overridable method calls in constructors?
Factory pattern in C#: How to ensure an object instance can only be created by a factory class?
Problem: I want to have subclasses which will differ only in their initialisation method. However, I also want to prevent instantiating these classes without initialization. In other words, I want to ensure, that some "initialize()" method will always be called after instantiation of a subclass:
public abstract class Data {
protected Parameter dataSource;
Data(parameter1){
this.dataSource = parameter1;
loadData(); // should be called to initialise class fields and ensure correct work of other class methods
}
protected abstract loadData(){
... //uses dataSource
}
}
So I decided to perform initialization on a constructor. It worked (now I know that it's a very bad practice) until I created a subclass where the initialize method used some additional parameters:
public class DataFromSpecificSources extends Data {
private Parameter dataSource2;
public DataFromSpecificSources(parameter1, parameter2){
this.dataSource2 = parameter2; // I can't put it here because the constructor is not called yet
super(parameter1); // this, of course, will not work
}
#Override
private void loadData(){
... // uses both dataSource 1 and 2
// or just dataSource2
}
}
This, of course, is not going to work. And I started searching for a right pattern... After I read the answers on questions posted before, I decided to use the factory and limit visibility of the subclass constructor to the package:
My solution:
// factory ensures that loadData() method will be called
public class MyDataFactory(){
public Data createSubClass(parameter1,parameter2){
Data subClass;
if (parameter2 != null){
subClass = new DataFromSpecificSources(parameter1, parameter2);
subClass.loadData();
} else {
subClass = new AnotherSubClass(parameter1);
subClass.loadData()
}
return subClass;
}
}
public abstract class Data {
protected Parameter dataSource;
Data(parameter1){
this.dataSource = parameter1;
}
// I don't call it in constructor anymore - instead it's controlled within the factory
protected abstract loadData(){
... //uses dataSource
}
}
public class DataFromSpecificSources {
private Parameter dataSource2;
protected DataFromSpecificSources(){}
// now this constructor is only visible within package (only for the factory in the same package)
DataFromSpecificSources(parameter1, parameter2){
super(parameter1); // it does not initialise data anymore
this.dataSource2 = parameter2;
}
#Override
protected void loadData(){
... // uses dataSources 1 and 2
}
}
Now factory ensures that subclasses will be initialized (data will be loaded) and instantiation of subclasses is not allowed in other packages. Other classes have no access to constructor of subclasses and are forced to use factory to get an instance of a subclass.
I just wanted to ask if my solution is correct (logically) and Factory method with subclass constructor visibility limited to the package is right choice here?! Or there is any other more effective pattern solving the problem?!

Using a factory is definitely a step in the right direction. The issue I see is that what happens when you want to add a third class that takes a third parameter. Now your Factory is either going to have to have a second overloaded createSubClass method taking the third parameter, or all your code is going to have to be rewritten to provide the third parameter. Additionally you are forcing anyone using the Factory to specify null for the second parameter even if they only want the single parameter class.... when you get to the class that takes 15 parameters how are you going to remember which parameter is which
The solution to this is to use the Builder pattern instead.
public class MyDataBuilder(){
private parameter1 = null;
private parameter2 = null;
public MyDataBuilder withParameter1(parameter1) {
this.parameter1 = parameter1;
return this;
}
public MyDataBuilder withParameter2(parameter2) {
this.parameter2 = parameter2;
return this;
}
public Data createSubClass(){
Data subClass;
if (parameter2 != null){
subClass = new DataFromSpecificSources(parameter1, parameter2);
} else {
subClass = new AnotherSubClass(parameter1);
}
subClass.loadData();
return subClass;
}
}
Now the code creating the Data instances can work like so:
Data data = new MyDataBuilder().withParameter1(param1).withParameter2(param2).create();
or
Data data = new MyDataBuilder().withParameter1(param1).create();
And that code is future-proofed for when you add parameter3... and you can even have the builder with a non-null default for parameter3 if you so need that.
The next thing you notice is that you now have this nice Builder object that contains all the required parameters... so now you can add getters to the Builder and just pass the Builder as the constructor parameter, e.g.
public class DataFromSpecificSources {
...
DataFromSpecificSources(MyDataBuilder builder){
...
}
...
}
So that you now almost have a standard constructor signature
Now for some Java specific improvements. We can make the builder not need to know about the sub-classes at all!
Using a DI framework we can inject the classes that implement the Data interface / abstract class into the Builder and then just iterate through each class until we find a class that supports the configuration of the Builder instance.
The poor-man's DI framework is the /META-INF/services contract and the ServiceLoader class available since JRE 1.6 (though the core logic has been in Java since 1.2)
Your builder's create method will then look a little something like
public Data create() {
for (DataFactory factory: ServiceLoader.load(DataFactory.class)) {
if (factory.canCreate(this)) {
Data result = factory.newInstance(this);
result.loadData();
return result;
}
}
throw new IllegalStateException("not even the default instance supports this config");
}
Whether you want to go to that extreme is questionable... but since you might come across it at some point in time when looking at other people's code, it is probably a good time to point it out to you now.
Oh, the reason why we have to add a Factory class to be looked up by the ServiceLoader is because ServiceLoader expects to call the default constructor, and we have hidden the default constructor so we use a Factory class to do the work for us and allow us to keep the constructor hidden.
There is nothing preventing the Factory classes from being static inner classes in the Data classes (which gives them great visibility on the class they are creating), e.g.
public class UberData extends Data {
private UberData(MyDataBuilder config) {
...
}
public static class Factory extends DataFactory {
protected Data create(MyDataBuilder config) {
return new UberData(config);
}
protected boolean canCreate(MyDataBuilder config) {
return config.hasFlanges() and config.getWidgetCount() < 7;
}
}
}
As we can then list in META-INF/services/com.mypackage.DataFactory
com.mypackage.UberData.Factory
com.mypackage.DataFromSpecificSources.Factory
com.some.otherpackage.AnotherSubClass.Factory
The best bit about this type of solution is it allows adding additional implementations just by adding those implementations to the classpath at run-time... i.e. very loose coupling

How to make this part of code scalable,

There is a part in my java code where I am extending a class from a library which I haven't written.
#override
public Object getPropertyValue(Object id) {
if(id.equals(model.PROPERTY_RENAME))
model.setName((String)value);
else if(id.equals(model.PROPERTY_COLOUR))
model.setColor((Color)value);
}
Now in this case how should I modify this code to make it scalable. There would be many more properties like location, dimension, etc. Now this model is instance of an abstract class AbsModel.
So every class implementing the AbsModel would have different properties. So the class architecture should be there, so that this part of code remains unchanged, no matter how many more model classes I add.

It looks like you want to carry out some operation on the model when this method (getPropertyValue) is called. I would create a Map of id onto the interface ModelOperation defined as follows:
public interface ModelOperation {
void operate(Object value);
}
Then the map would be defines as follows:
map.put(model.PROPERTY_RENAME, new RenameOperation(model));
Your extension class would then look like this:
#Override
public Object getPropertyValue(Object id) {
map.get(id).operate(model);
// etc...
}
For example, RenameOperation would be defined like this:
public class RenameOperation implements ModelOperation {
public RenameOperation(Model model) {
// etc...
}
public void operate(Object value) {
model.setName((String)value);
}
}
This allows you to support as many model operations as you like and means you don't have to change the extension class you have to write. The above is just an outline. You could use generics on the ModelOperation implementations to avoid the cast of the value in each one.

I guess reflection is probably the answer here if you can rely on some naming to help direct you.
It's not going to be nice, but the idea would be that you'd have a method that would reflect on the type and look up the appropriate method. The code belwo
public Object setPropertyValue(Object id) {
String className = id.getClass().getSimpleName();
// Hope that the method is called set<CLASS> and takes a single parameter that is the class
Method method = model.class.getMethod("set" + className, id.getClass());
// Invoke the method (TODO deal with all of the exceptions)
method.invoke(model, id);
}

There are multiple ways of doing this -- though it depends on what do you mean by "scalable" (being able to cope with lots of requests per second or being able to cope with lots of properties?):
one way -- if you're going to go down the path you have outlined in your code is to have those properties that are used very often at the top of your if/then/else block -- so their execution path is very short. this would "scale up" well for lots of requests as not too much time is being spent in actually executing the method (in most cases at least!)
another way -- and this scales up well for lots of properties and easiness of maintaining the code but you will take a hit on execution time: have a Map that maps property names to setxxx() method names, then you can use reflection to invoke these methods on the target object (id in your case) on each call. Classes extended your class will only have to provide a getMap() method which will return the mapping name-to-setter method, which can be a static member and initialized on class load.
Store your properties in a Map -- in which case setName() is the same as map.put( PROPERTY_RENAME, value)

Since in Java functions are not first class citizens, the "nice" route would be very awkward: define an enum with one value per each constant above (i.e. for each property), and a virtual method e.g. update(Object value, then override the method in each enum to update the corresponding property. If you can, redefine the constants PROPERTY_RENAME etc. themselves as enums. This still results in code bloat.
The other way is to use reflection. If you can use the same ids as the property names you want to update, you only need to invoke the setter for the property (as illustrated in other answers). Otherwise you may need to introduce a mapping from ids to property names.

A version not using reflection, call the base class's implementation:
public Object getValue(Object id) {
Object ret = super.getValue(id);
if (ret == null) {
// Subclass specific properties
}
return ret;
}

A common way around this is to use reflection like
public Object getValue(IdType id) {
Method getter = model.getClass().getMethod("get" + id);
return getter.invoke(model); // throws Exceptions.
}
OR
public void setValue(IdType id, Object value) {
Method setter = model.getClass().getMethod("set" + id, value.getClass());
setter.invoke(model, value); // throws Exceptions.
}

I solved this issue by creating an interface. So the code is.
public interface IModel
{
public void setProperty(String propertyName);
}
Rest of the classes were
public class HelloModel implements IModel
{
public void setProperty(String propertyName)
{ code for handling the properties goes here ... }
}
So in this case every class has to handle it's own property setters.
Is this the best way to handle abstraction ? I think this model is very scalable ...

Simulate static abstract and dynamic linking on static method call in Java

Introduction
As a disclaimer, I'v read Why can't static methods be abstract in Java and, even if I respectfully disagree with the accepted answer about a "logical contradiction", I don't want any answer about the usefulness of static abstract just an answer to my question ;)
I have a class hierarchy representing some tables from a database. Each class inherits the Entity class which contains a lot of utility methods for accessing the database, creating queries, escaping characters, etc.
Each instance of a class is a row from the database.
The problem
Now, in order to factorize as much code as possible, I want to add information about related columns and table name for each class. These informations must be accessible without a class instance and will be used in Entity to build queries among other things.
The obvious way to store these data are static fields returned by static methods in each class. Problem is you can't force the class to implement these static methods and you can't do dynamic linking on static methods call in Java.
My Solutions
Use a HashMap, or any similar data structure, to hold the informations. Problem : if informations are missing error will be at runtime not compile time.
Use a parallel class hierarchy for the utility function where each corresponding class can be instantiated and dynamic linking used. Problem : code heavy, runtime error if the class don't exist
The question
How will you cope with the absence of abstract static and dynamic linking on abstract method ?
In a perfect world, the given solution should generate a compile error if the informations for a class are missing and data should be easily accessible from withing the Entity class.
The answer doesn't need to be in Java, C# is also ok and any insight on how to do this without some specific code in any language will be welcomed.
Just to be clear, I don't have any requirement at all besides simplicity. Nothing have to be static. I only want to retrieve table and columns name from Entity to build a query.
Some code
class Entity {
public static function afunction(Class clazz) { // this parameter is an option
// here I need to have access to table name of any children of Entity
}
}
class A extends Entity {
static String table = "a";
}
class B extends Entity {
static String table = "b";
}

You should use the Java annotation coupled with the javac annotation processor, as it's the most efficient solution. It's however a bit more complicated than the usual annotation paradigm.
This link shows you how you can implement an annotation processor that will be used at the compile time.
If I reuse your example, I'd go this way:
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
#Retention(RetentionType.SOURCE)
#interface MetaData {
String table();
}
abstract class Entity {}
#MetaData(table="a")
class A extends Entity {}
#MetaData(table="b")
class B extends Entity {}
class EntityGetter {
public <E extends Entity> E getEntity(Class<E> type) {
MetaData metaData = type.getAnnotation(MetaData.class);
if (metaData == null) {
throw new Error("Should have been compiled with the preprocessor.");
// Yes, do throw an Error. It's a compile-time error, not a simple exceptional condition.
}
String table = metaData.table();
// do whatever you need.
}
}
In your annotation processing, you then should check whether the annotation is set, whether the values are correct, and make the compilation fail.
The complete documentation is available in the documentation for the package javax.annotation.processing.
Also, a few tutorials are available on the Internet if you search for "java annotation processing".
I will not go deeper in the subject as I never used the technology myself before.

I have run into the same problems as you, and am using the following approach now. Store Metadata about columns as annotations and parse them at runtime. Store this information in a map. If you really want compile time errors to appear, most IDEs (Eclipse e.g.) support custom builder types, that can validate the classes during build time.
You could also use the compile time annotation processing tool which comes with java, which can also be integrated into the IDE builds. Read into it and give it a try.

In Java the most similar approach to "static classes" are the static enums.
The enum elements are handed as static constants, so they can be accesed from any static context.
The enum can define one or more private constructors, accepting some intialization parameters (as it could be a table name, a set of columns, etc).
The enum class can define abstract methods, which must be implemented by the concrete elements, in order to compile.
public enum EntityMetadata {
TABLE_A("TableA", new String[]{"ID", "DESC"}) {
#Override
public void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive() {
Logger.getLogger(getTableName()).info("I'm positively TableA Metadata");
}
},
TABLE_B("TableB", new String[]{"ID", "AMOUNT", "CURRENCY"}) {
#Override
public void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive() {
Logger.getLogger(getTableName()).info("FOO BAR message, or whatever");
}
};
private String tableName;
private String[] columnNames;
private EntityMetadata(String aTableName, String[] someColumnNames) {
tableName=aTableName;
columnNames=someColumnNames;
}
public String getTableName() {
return tableName;
}
public String[] getColumnNames() {
return columnNames;
}
public abstract void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive();
}
Then to access a concrete entity metadata this would be enough:
EntityMetadata.TABLE_B.doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive();
You could also reference them from an Entity implemetation, forcing each to refer an EntityMetadata element:
abstract class Entity {
public abstract EntityMetadata getMetadata();
}
class A extends Entity {
public EntityMetadata getMetadata() {
return EntityMetadata.TABLE_A;
}
}
class B extends Entity {
public EntityMetadata getMetadata() {
return EntityMetadata.TABLE_B;
}
}
IMO, this approach will be fast and light-weight.
The dark side of it is that if your enum type needs to be really complex, with lot of different params, or a few different complex overriden methods, the source code for the enum can become a little messy.

Mi idea, is to skip the tables stuff, and relate to the "There are not abstract static methods". Use "pseudo-abstract-static" methods.
First define an exception that will ocurr when an abstract static method is executed:
public class StaticAbstractCallException extends Exception {
StaticAbstractCallException (String strMessage){
super(strMessage);
}
public String toString(){
return "StaticAbstractCallException";
}
} // class
An "abstract" method means it will be overriden in subclasses, so you may want to define a base class, with static methods that are suppouse to be "abstract".
abstract class MyDynamicDevice {
public static void start() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.start()");
}
public static void doSomething() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.doSomething()");
}
public static void finish() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.finish()");
}
// other "abstract" static methods
} // class
...
And finally, define the subclasses that override the "pseudo-abstract" methods.
class myPrinterBrandDevice extends MyDynamicDevice {
public static void start() {
// override MyStaticLibrary.start()
}
/*
// ops, we forgot to override this method !!!
public static void doSomething() {
// ...
}
*/
public static void finish() {
// override MyStaticLibrary.finish()
}
// other abstract static methods
} // class
When the static myStringLibrary doSomething is called, an exception will be generated.

I do know of a solution providing all you want, but it's a huge hack I wouldn't want in my own code nowadays:
If Entity may be abstract, simply add your methods providing the meta data to that base class and declare them abstract.
Otherwise create an interface, with methods providing all your data like this
public interface EntityMetaData{
public String getTableName();
...
}
All subclasses of Entity would have to implement this interface though.
Now your problem is to call these methods from your static utility method, since you don't have an instance there. So you need to create an instance. Using Class.newInstance() is not feasable, since you'd need a nullary constructor, and there might be expensive initialization or initialization with side-effects happening in the constructor, you don't want to trigger.
The hack I propose is to use Objenesis to instantiate your Class. This library allows instatiating any class, without calling the constructor. There's no need for a nullary constructor either. They do this with some huge hacks internally, which are adapted for all major JVMs.
So your code would look like this:
public static function afunction(Class clazz) {
Objenesis objenesis = new ObjenesisStd();
ObjectInstantiator instantiator = objenesis.getInstantiatorOf(clazz);
Entity entity = (Entity)instantiator.newInstance();
// use it
String tableName = entity.getTableName();
...
}
Obviously you should cache your instances using a Map<Class,Entity>, which reduces the runtime cost to practically nothing (a single lookup in your caching map).
I am using Objenesis in one project of my own, where it enabled me to create a beautiful, fluent API. That was such a big win for me, that I put up with this hack. So I can tell you, that it really works. I used my library in many environments with many different JVM versions.
But this is not good design! I advise against using such a hack, even if it works for now, it might stop in the next JVM. And then you'll have to pray for an update of Objenesis...
If I were you, I'd rethink my design leading to the whole requirement. Or give up compile time checking and use annotations.

Your requirement to have static method doesn't leave much space for clean solution. One of the possible ways is to mix static and dynamic, and lose some CPU for a price of saving on RAM:
class Entity {
private static final ConcurrentMap<Class, EntityMetadata> metadataMap = new ...;
Entity(EntityMetadata entityMetadata) {
metadataMap.putIfAbsent(getClass(), entityMetadata);
}
public static EntityMetadata getMetadata(Class clazz) {
return metadataMap.get(clazz);
}
}
The way I would like more would be to waste a reference but have it dynamic:
class Entity {
protected final EntityMetadata entityMetadata;
public Entity(EntityMetadata entityMetadata) {
this.entityMetadata=entityMetadata;
}
}
class A extends Entity {
static {
MetadataFactory.setMetadataFor(A.class, ...);
}
public A() {
super(MetadataFactory.getMetadataFor(A.class));
}
}
class MetadataFactory {
public static EntityMetadata getMetadataFor(Class clazz) {
return ...;
}
public static void setMetadataFor(Class clazz, EntityMetadata metadata) {
...;
}
}
You could get even get rid of EntityMetadata in Entity completely and leave it factory only. Yes, it would not force to provide it for each class in compile-time, but you can easily enforce that in the runtime. Compile-time errors are great but they aren't holy cows after all as you'd always get an error immediately if a class hasn't provided a relevant metadata part.

I would have abstracted away all meta data for the entities (table names, column names) to a service not known by the entities them selfs. Would be much cleaner than having that information inside the entities
MetaData md = metadataProvider.GetMetaData<T>();
String tableName = md.getTableName();

First, let me tell you I agree with you I would like to have a way to enforce static method to be present in classes.
As a solution you can "extend" compile time by using a custom ANT task that checks for the presence of such methods, and get error in compilation time. Of course it won't help you inside you IDE, but you can use a customizable static code analyzer like PMD and create a custom rule to check for the same thing.
And there you java compile (well, almost compile) and edit time error checking.
The dynamic linking emulation...well, this is harder. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you write an example of what you expect to happen?