I just learned what the Strategy pattern really is from the Internet. But I wondered how it can improve my code. For example, i have the following codes found in the Internet like this. This is the Superclass named Animal:
abstract public class Animal {
private String name;
private int weight;
private String sound;
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
public void setWeight(int weight){
if(weight > 0){
this.weight = weight;
}else {
System.out.println("Weight must be bigger than 0");
}
}
public int getWeight(){
return weight;
}
public void setSound(String sound){
this.sound = sound;
}
public String getSound(){
return sound;
}
public void specialMethod(){
System.out.println("Ok");
}
}
This is the subclass named Dog:
public class Dog extends Animal {
public void digHole(){
System.out.println("Dig a hole");
}
public Dog(){
super();
setSound("bark");
}
public void testSuper(Animal obj){
System.out.println(obj.getName());
}
}
In the tutorial, it said that if we want to add flying ability so that I can check whether dog can fly or not. Adding the code directly like this one is bad as shown in the code below.
The Superclass Animal with an added flying ability method
abstract public class Animal {
private String name;
private int weight;
private String sound;
// Add fly method to the superclass which is a bad idea
public String fly(){
return " I am flying ";
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
public void setWeight(int weight){
if(weight > 0){
this.weight = weight;
}else {
System.out.println("Weight must be bigger than 0");
}
}
public int getWeight(){
return weight;
}
public void setSound(String sound){
this.sound = sound;
}
public String getSound(){
return sound;
}
public void specialMethod(){
System.out.println("Ok");
}
}
Using the Strategy pattern, we can create interface named Flys with the method fly, allowing any subclass to implement the method, thus as shown in the tutorial, I created Interface named Flys with 2 subclasses implementing the interface:
public interface Flys {
String fly();
}
class ItFlys implements Flys{
public String fly(){
return "Flying high";
}
}
class CantFly implements Flys{
public String fly(){
return "I can't fly";
}
}
Once I made the interface, I can refactor the class Animal,
abstract public class Animal {
private String name;
private int weight;
private String sound;
Flys flyingType; // Add an object of the interface to the superclass
public String tryToFly(){ // add a new method tryToFly
return flyingType.fly();
}
// Adding another method named setFlyingAbility
public void setFlyingAbility(Flys newFlyType){
flyingType = newFlyType;
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
public void setWeight(int weight){
if(weight > 0){
this.weight = weight;
}else {
System.out.println("Weight must be bigger than 0");
}
}
public int getWeight(){
return weight;
}
public void setSound(String sound){
this.sound = sound;
}
public String getSound(){
return sound;
}
public void specialMethod(){
System.out.println("Ok");
}
}
Now, in my Dog subclass, I simply add another code
public class Dog extends Animal {
public Dog(){
super();
setSound("bark");
flyingType = new CantFly(); // I set flyingType object
}
public void digHole(){
System.out.println("Dig a hole");
}
public void testSuper(Animal obj){
System.out.println(obj.getName());
}
}
The final class is where I can execute all codes, checking whether my Dog class can fly or not.
public class AnimalPlay {
public static void main(String args[]){
Animal sparky = new Dog();
Animal tweety = new Bird();
System.out.println("Dog " + sparky.tryToFly()); // the result is I can't fly
System.out.println("Bird " + tweety.tryToFly()); // the result is I am flying
sparky.setFlyingAbility(new ItFlys());
System.out.println("Dog " + sparky.tryToFly()); // the result is I am flying
}
}
My question is, what about If I still add the fly() method the traditional way, it gives the same result, doesn't it?
Adding the fly() method to the superclass so I can override the fly() method in my Dog class, but this is not a good idea.
abstract public class Animal {
private String name;
private int weight;
private String sound;
// Add fly method to the superclass which is a bad idea
public String fly(){
return " I am flying ";
}
public void setName(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
public void setWeight(int weight){
if(weight > 0){
this.weight = weight;
}else {
System.out.println("Weight must be bigger than 0");
}
}
public int getWeight(){
return weight;
}
public void setSound(String sound){
this.sound = sound;
}
public String getSound(){
return sound;
}
public void specialMethod(){
System.out.println("Ok");
}
}
My question is, what about If I still add the fly() method the traditional way, it gives the same result, doesn't it?
The answer is 'NO'.
Strategy pattern allows you to move behavior into separate class which is good by SOLID principle 'S' - single responsibility. Image that you need to learn robot or human to 'bark' - you don't need to make them inherit animal base class. And you also don't need to implement barking in each class.
Having all properties in base class is also not good as it is against SOLID 'L' - Liskou substitution. What if monkey don't need to bark which is implemented in base animal class?
Strategy pattern allows you to design code accordingly to SOLID 'I' - Interface segregation - just make IAnimalAction interface make many implementations of barking and assign IAnimalAction property to desired animal classes (as property or as one more interface to implement)
Strategy also helps with SOLID 'D' - you can inject desired animal strategy (barking, flying) without having each animal even know about it
We can continue and find other bonuses. But you can see a picture
Good luck!
I am not sure which came first, but the Strategy pattern like any other behavioral pattern is a specific instance of the open close principle. In general you want to change the behavior of an object without having to change it's code. This has a profound consequences in terms of extendability, maintainability and coherence.
Related
This is for learning. I have an interface that is implemented by 2 classes, and I am supposed to reduce the amount of code I use in order to keep things more clean and less messy. Currently, the code looks like this:
public abstract class VClass implements IntFace {
protected String name;
public VClass(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public int value (SClass sc) {//comes from a diff class
return sc.lookup(name);
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return getName();
}
}
public abstract class NClass extends VClass implements IntFace {
public Number(String name) {
super(name);
this.name = name;
}
public int value (SClass sc) {
return sc.lookup(name);
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return getName();
}
}
public interface IntFace {
public int value (SClass sc);
public String toString (int num);
}
can this code be more condensed?
You can remove the following things from your code:
implements IntFace from NClass declaration. Since NClass extends VClass, it implements IntFace as well.
this.name = name; from NClass constructor. name is initialized in a superclass constructor
value and getName methods from NClass. These methods are implemented in a superclass.
public modifier from interface methods declaration. Methods in interfaces are public by default.
Now you can also make name field private since it's no longer used in a NClass.
Im practicing polymorphism and inheritance, and i made a class (Animals) that sets the name of the animal, then i made a subclass (Cat) that sets the sound it makes, favourite toy.. all that. i tried testing it in a seperate class (Test) to print out "Cat likes to Moew, its favourite toy is Yarn" but its not working unless i extend Cat in the test class.
Heres my code.
Animals.java
public class Animals {
protected static String name;
public Animals() {
}
public Animals(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String setName(String newName) {
return this.name = newName;
}
public String getName() {
return name = name;
}
public static void animMove() {
System.out.println(name + " likes to walk");
}
}
Cat.java
public class Cat extends Animals {
public static String sound;
public static String favToy;
public String getSound(String sound) {
return this.sound = sound;
}
public String getToy(String favToy) {
return this.favToy = favToy;
}
public Cat() {
}
public Cat(String name, String sound, String favToy) {
super(name);
this.sound = sound;
this.favToy = favToy;
}
}
test.java
public class test{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Animals anim = new Animals();
Cat cat = new Cat("Cat", "moew", "Yarn ball");
System.out.println(anim.getName() + " Likes to " + cat.getSound(sound)
+ ", its favourite toy is a " + cat.getToy(favToy));
}
}
All works fine if i extend Cat to the test class, but when i dont, none of the variables like sound and favToy work. how would i do this without extending anything to the test class
Do not make the name variable static. This would mean that it belongs to the class and not an Animal object, meaning there will only ever be one Animal.name in the class. Your Cat.sound, Cat.favoriteToy variables are also static, which will mean all cats will have the same sound and same favorite toy (I guess this is acceptable, but then dont assign this in a constructor).
Setters don't need to have a return value (you are only changing some variable). For example:
public void setName(String newName) {
this.name = newName;
}
Getters do not need any parameters. You already know what to return, no need for a parameter. For example:
public String getSound() {
return this.sound;
}
Also, your Animals should be Animal, as this class represents a single animal.
If you create a Cat object, this will automatically be Animal as well (its inherited), so no need to create both, as you do in your main method
Cat myCat = new Cat("Purr","meow","ball"); //create cat
System.out.println(myCat.getName());
variables are static so all cats will have this name, sound and fav toy now...
Maybe you tried to do something like
1)
public class Animal {
protected String name;
public String animMove() {
return new String(this.name + " likes to walk");
}
}
2)
public class Cat extends Animal {
public String sound;
public String favToy;
public Cat(String name, String sound, String favToy) {
super(name);
this.sound = sound;
this.favToy = favToy;
}
public String getName() {
return super.name;
}
public String getSound() {
return this.sound;
}
public String getToy() {
return this.favToy;
}
}
3)
public class test{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Animal anim = new Cat("Cat", "moew", "Yarn ball");
System.out.println(anim.getName() + " Likes to " + anim.getSound(sound) + ", its favourite toy is a " + anim.getToy(favToy) + " " + anim.animMove());
}
}
problem
I want to create a class with a fluent builder, both of which can be inherited and extended. Base class should have all the common and mandatory fields, children should have different optional fields
simple example below (best, simplistic usecase I could come up with ;p)
base: Animal
name
age
static Builder
impl: Snake extends Animal
length
static Builder extends Animal.Builder
impl: Spider extends Animal
numberOfLegs
static Builder extends Animal.Builder
and I'd like to use it in one of those ways (most preferred one is the first one):
Spider elvis = Spider.name("elvis").age(1).numberOfLegs(8).build();
Spider elvis = Spider.builder().name("elvis").age(1).numberOfLegs(8).build();
Spider elvis = new Spider.Builder().name("elvis").age(1).numberOfLegs(8).build();
what I want to achieve is
user of this builder will have to provide some minimal information (so the system can work without problems), otherwise he won't be able to build that object
all the optional fields can be declared, with no particular order, after mandatory fields are there
it is possible that I'll need to add some mandatory fields for children, but that can be handled with ease by just changing the first method called in the builder
I don't want to have any casts outside those classes (here: in Main), but I don't mind them inside this code (here: in Animal or Spider)
so far I failed and I'd be very grateful if you could please help me find a way out of it :)
or maybe there is just a different approach that I should think about?
most valuable sources I used
http://blog.crisp.se/2013/10/09/perlundholm/another-builder-pattern-for-java
http://egalluzzo.blogspot.com/2010/06/using-inheritance-with-fluent.html
Generic fluent Builder in Java
work done so far
the code so far can be found below. there are some traces of the things I tried and failed, there are some unused or just weird stuff (best example is IBuildImpl). Those are left to give you an understanding of what I tried, but if you think that this needs moderation - please let me know and I'll clean them up
Base
package fafafa;
public abstract class Animal<T> {
String name; //mandatory field, one of many
Integer age; //mandatory field, one of many
public String getName() {
return name;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Animal{" +
"name='" + name + '\'' +
", age='" + age + '\'' +
'}';
}
interface IName {
IAge name(String name);
}
interface IAge {
IBuild age(Integer age);
}
interface IBuild<T extends Animal<T>> {
T build();
}
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Animal<T>, B extends Builder<T, B>>
implements IName, IAge, IBuild<T> {
protected T objectBeingBuilt;
protected abstract B that();
protected abstract T createEmptyObject();
Builder(){
this.objectBeingBuilt = createEmptyObject();
System.out.println();
}
#Override
public IAge name(String name) {
objectBeingBuilt.name = name;
return that();
}
#Override
public IBuild age(Integer age) {
objectBeingBuilt.age = age;
return that();
}
// #Override
// public T build() {
// return objectBeingBuilt;
// }
}
}
Impl
package fafafa;
public class Spider extends Animal<Spider> {
Integer numberOfLegs; //optional field, one of many
private Spider() {
}
public Integer getNumberOfLegs() {
return numberOfLegs;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Spider{" +
"numberOfLegs='" + numberOfLegs + '\'' +
"} " + super.toString();
}
// public static Builder<Spider, Builder> name(String name) {
// return (Builder) new Builder().name(name);
// }
interface INumberOfLegs {
IBuild numberOfLegs(Integer numberOfLegs);
}
interface IBuildImpl extends IBuild<Spider>, INumberOfLegs {
#Override
Spider build();
}
public static class Builder extends Animal.Builder<Spider, Builder> implements IBuildImpl {
#Override
protected Builder that() {
return this;
}
#Override
protected Spider createEmptyObject() {
return new Spider();
}
public IBuild numberOfLegs(Integer numberOfLegs) {
objectBeingBuilt.numberOfLegs = numberOfLegs;
return that();
}
public Spider build() {
return objectBeingBuilt;
}
}
}
Main
package fafafa;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Spider build = new Spider.Builder().name("elvis")
.age(1)
.numberOfLegs(8) //cannot resolve method numberOfLegs
.build();
System.out.println(build);
}
}
Looks like to many generics in a code, I've tried to simplify it a little.
Animal
package come.stackoverflow.builder;
public abstract class Animal {
private final String name; //mandatory field, one of many
private final Integer age; //mandatory field, one of many
Animal(final String name, final Integer age) {this.name = name; this.age = age;}
public String getName() {return name;}
public Integer getAge() {return age;}
#Override public String toString() {return String.format("Animal {name='%s', age='%s'}'", name, age);}
interface IBuild<T> {
T build();
}
public abstract static class AnimalBuilder<B extends AnimalBuilder, T extends Animal> implements IBuild<T> {
String name;
Integer age;
public B name(final String name) {this.name = name; return (B) this;}
public B age(final Integer age) {this.age = age; return (B) this;}
}
}
Spider
package come.stackoverflow.builder;
public class Spider extends Animal {
private final Integer numberOfLegs; //optional field, one of many
private Spider(final String name, final Integer age, final Integer numberOfLegs) {super(name, age); this.numberOfLegs = numberOfLegs;}
public Integer getNumberOfLegs() {return numberOfLegs;}
#Override public String toString() {return String.format("Spider {numberOfLegs='%s'}, %s", getNumberOfLegs(), super.toString());}
public static class SpiderBuilder extends AnimalBuilder<SpiderBuilder, Spider> {
Integer numberOfLegs;
public SpiderBuilder numberOfLegs(final Integer numberOfLegs) {this.numberOfLegs = numberOfLegs; return this;}
public Spider build() {return new Spider(name, age, numberOfLegs);}
}
}
Main Test
import come.stackoverflow.builder.Spider;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Spider build = new Spider.SpiderBuilder()
.name("elvis").numberOfLegs(8).age(1)
.build();
System.out.println(build);
}
}
Execution Result:
Spider {numberOfLegs='8'}, Animal {name='elvis', age='1'}'
The problem of your code is the interface:
interface IAge {
IBuild age(Integer age);
}
This will always return the basic IBuild interface with no parameter, no matter, if the implementation implements it with some argument. Actually even returning it with the parameter wouldn't extend the builder with additional methods.
The parameter in the builder needs to be the extended builder, and not the type to be built.
All interfaces for the common parameters need to be parametrized with it to allow propper continuation.
Here is a suggestion:
1. Don't use IName interface. Replace it with static entry method of the builder
2. Parametrize IAge interface
3. No common builder needed. It can be replaced with inline lambda implementation
Here is the code:
#FunctionalInterface
public interface IAge<B> {
B age(Integer age);
}
public class AnimalBuilder implements IBuild<Animal> {
private final String name;
private final Integer age;
private Integer numberOfLegs;
private AnimalBuilder(String name, Integer age) {
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
// Builder entry method
public static IAge<AnimalBuilder> name(String name) {
return age -> new AnimalBuilder(name, age);
}
public AnimalBuilder numberOfLegs(int value) {
numberOfLegs = value;
return this;
}
#Override
public Animal build() {
return new Animal(name, age, numberOfLegs);
}
}
This allows following usage:
AnimalBuilder.name("elvis").age(1).numberOfLegs(8).build();
The problem is in the abstract builder :
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Animal<T>, B extends Builder<T, B>>
implements IName, IAge, IBuild<T> {
...
#Override
public IAge name(String name) {
objectBeingBuilt.name = name;
return that();
}
#Override
public IBuild age(Integer age) {
objectBeingBuilt.age = age;
return that();
}
So, all your concrete builders return the same IBuild<T> interface when you invoke the age() method.
and as you see :
interface IBuild<T extends Animal<T>> {
T build();
}
this interface doesn't allow to return a object where you have methods to set properties with your builder.
When you invoke the name() method, you also don't get the builder :
interface IAge {
IBuild age(Integer age);
}
You should declare age() and name() in the abstract builder like that :
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Animal<T>, B extends Builder<T, B>>{
...
public B name(String name) {
objectBeingBuilt.name = name;
return that();
}
public B age(Integer age) {
objectBeingBuilt.age = age;
return that();
}
In this way, at the compile time, the concrete builder will return the builder of the animal you are creating when you will invokebuilder.age(..).
Besides, I don't understand why having a builder interface for name and another one for age. What is interest to handle IAge and IName interfaces ?
It seems a too low level information to be useful in your builder.
Why not simply declaring you base builder like that :
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Animal<T>, B extends Builder<T, B>>
implements IBuild<T> {
protected T objectBeingBuilt;
protected abstract B that();
protected abstract T createEmptyObject();
Builder(){
this.objectBeingBuilt = createEmptyObject();
System.out.println();
}
public B name(String name) {
objectBeingBuilt.name = name;
return that();
}
public B age(Integer age) {
objectBeingBuilt.age = age;
return that();
}
}
I have not tested the code.
For my assignment, I am trying to throw an exception so that my program does not allow objects "Wolf" to eat "Plants". I am however struggling to find a way to implement this. I have so far tried using an if statement to search for the condition of food (x) being equal to "Plants" but this does not seem to be working. Here is the code:
Animal class
abstract public class Animal
{
String name;
int age;
String noise;
abstract public void makeNoise();
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String newName) {
name = newName;
}
abstract public Food eat(Food x) throws Exception;
}
Food class
public class Food {
//field that stores the name of the food
public String name;
//constructor that takes the name of the food as an argument
public Food(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
Carnivore class
public class Carnivore extends Animal
{//if statement that throws exception
public Food eat(Food x) throws Exception
{
if (x.equals(new Meat("Plants"))) {
throw new Exception("Carnivores only eat meat!");
} else {
return x;
}
}
public void makeNoise()
{
noise = null;
}
public String getNoise()
{
return noise;
}
}
Meat class
public class Meat extends Food
{
public Meat(String name) {
super(name);
}
public String getName() {
return super.getName();
}
}
Wolf class
public class Wolf extends Carnivore
{
Wolf()
{
name = "Alex";
age = 4;
}
public void makeNoise()
{
noise = "Woof!";
}
public String getNoise()
{
return noise;
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
public int getAge()
{
return age;
}
public String eat(String x)
{
return x;
}
}
Main
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Wolf wolfExample = new Wolf();
System.out.println("************Wolf\"************");
System.out.println("Name = " + wolfExample.getName());
System.out.println("Age = " + wolfExample.getAge());
wolfExample.makeNoise();
System.out.println("Noise = " + wolfExample.getNoise());
Meat meatExample = new Meat("Plants");
System.out.println("************Wolf eating habits************");
System.out.println("Wolves eat " + wolfExample.eat(meatExample.getName()));
}
}
Output
************Wolf"************
Name = Alex
Age = 4
Noise = Woof!
************Wolf eating habits************
Wolves eat Plants//this should throw exception message
Any help on how to fix this to get the desired output would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
This code is causing the problem:
if (x.equals(new Meat("Plants"))) {
throw new Exception("Carnivores only eat meat!");
} else {
return x;
}
You don't have a equals method defined in your classes, so it compares objects using == operator - checking if the references are the same.
This expression:
x == (new Meat("Plants"))
is always false - new operator creates new instance of Meat object so the reference is always different.
Do not use equals to check types, use instanceof operator instead.
So your code should look like this:
public Food eat(Food x) throws Exception
{
if (x instanceof Meat) {
return x;
} else {
throw new Exception("Carnivores only eat meat!");
}
}
In that case you will need to define Plant class that extends Food.
Alternatively you can define equals method in your Food class that compares name field.
How to override equals method in java
I have my Pet super class which then has a Dog subclass, and a particular method in my super class is getSpecies(). In my subclass I want to be able to return super.getSpecies(), but also return another variable (in this case, smell) inside that method as well.
Super class:
public class Pet {
protected int lifeSpan;
protected String species, name, interaction;
public Pet(){
}
public Pet(int lifeSpan, String species, String name){
this.lifeSpan = lifeSpan;
this.species = species;
this.name = name;
}
public final float costs(float cost){
return cost;
}
public void setSpecies(String species){
this.species = species;
}
public String getSpecies(){
return this.species;
}
}
Subclass "Dog":
public class Dog extends Pet{
protected String smell;
private String species;
public Dog(String smell){
super(15, "Dog", "Rex");
this.smell = smell;
}
public Dog(){
}
public void setSmell(String smell){
this.smell = smell;
}
public String getSpecies(){
super.getSpecies();
smell = "high"; //Meant to deliberately set it to "High". How am I to return this?
}
public String getSmell(){
return this.smell;
}
}
You cannot return two values in a single function. What you have to do is use your getter for the smell member variable instead.
public class Dog extends Pet{
protected String smell;
private String species;
public Dog(String smell){
super(15, "Dog", "Rex");
this.smell = smell;
}
public Dog(){
}
public void setSmell(String smell){
this.smell = smell;
}
public String getSpecies(){
super.getSpecies();
}
public String getSmell(){
return this.smell;
}
}
Then let's say you want both species and smell, you have to check if the pet is in fact a dog, and if it is, you can safely cast it as a dog and use the specific methods of the Dog class.
if ( pet instanceof Dog ) {
String species = pet.getSpecies();
String smell = (Dog)pet.getSmell();
}
First things first: When calling super.getSpecies() you should save or hand over it's return value somewhere. Then you might consider concatenating this return string an your second return value (high) like this:
public String getSpecies(){
return "high " + super.getSpecies();
}
But:
the return of that high dog doesn't make much sense IMO.
a getter is expected to return only one value, the one it's name comes from.
There is no ather way to return multiple values except for passing objects that take the results as arguements. But that solution would be far away from a simple getter.
You should consider (like Pilibobby pointed out in his comment below) using two different getters in your case, getSpecies() and getSmell(), and combine their results at the place you are calling them from.