Develop Reference

Static to non-static refactoring, can't have both?

I have a refactoring situation that I cannot find an elegant solution for...
Disclaimer:
Keep in mind that I am oversimplifying this example to reduce clutter, and not disclose things I am not allowed to disclose :)
As such, please do not assume that this is the ONLY code in my giant codebase, and offer solutions that cut corners or change parts of the design that I mention cannot be changed due to outside constraints.
The facts:
I have a utility class, it has a bunch of static methods, they utilize a singleton resource:
public final class Utility
{
private static final Resource RES = Resource.getInstance();
private Utility() {} // Prevent instantiating Utility
public static boolean utilMethodOne() { return RES.isSomething(); }
public static int utilMethodTwo() { RES.getNumThings(); }
...
public static void utilMethodInfinity() { ... }
}
Utility is in a library JAR that is used by several applications in a large codebase -- let's say on the order of 10,000 calls to its static methods, e.g.: if(Utility.utilMethodOne()) { ... }
Resource is an outside class from another library JAR.
Resource also has a method Resource.getInstance(String name) that will return a named instance, which may relate to a different underlying resource based on the name (internally it keeps the named resources in a Map<String,Resource>).
Resource.getInstance() returns the equivalent of Resoruce.getInstance(""), aka the default instance.
The situation:
The Utility needs to be enhanced to now execute against one of several resources, so my plan is to make the Utility an instantiable class with a non-static Resource member variable. Something like this:
public final class Utility
{
private Resource res;
public Utility(String resName)
{
this.res = = Resource.getInstance(resName);
}
public boolean utilMethodOne() { return this.res.isSomething(); }
public int utilMethodTwo() { this.res.getNumThings(); }
...
public void utilMethodInfinity() { ... }
}
Now all this is great, and I can start creating Utility objects that access their specified resource instead of just the default one. However, as I mentioned, there are 10-100K method calls that are now invalid as they were calling static methods!
The problem:
My plan was to keep the static methods in Utility, and have them use the default instance from Resource, while adding in non-static variants for the instantiated Utility objects that use their "local" resource reference.
// Best of both worlds:
public static boolean utilMethodOne() { return RES.isSomething(); }
public boolean utilMethodOne() { return this.res.isSomething(); }
Maybe I can't have my cake & eat it too:
error: method utilMethodOne() is already defined in class Utility
public static boolean utilMethodOne(String sql)
So it seems I am going to have to either...
Introduce a whole new BetterUtility class for places that want to use the named-resources.
Update 10,000 places to instantiate & use the revised Utility object.
...? (hint: this is where your suggestions come in!)
I really don't like 1 or 2 for a variety of reasons, so I need to ensure there is no better 3 option before settling. Is there any way to retain a single class that can provide both the static & non-static interfaces in this case?
UPDATE 2020-06-01:
I am coming to the realization that this magical option 3 doesn't exist. So out of my original two options I think #2 is best as it's just one time "just get it out of the way and be done with it" type effort. Also incorporated some of your suggestions in the design(s).
So now that I have a direction on this, I am left with [hopefully only] one more key decision...
Update all the calls to create new objects
// For a one-off call, do it inline
boolean foo = new Utility("res1").utilMethodOne();
// Or when used multiple times, re-use the object
Utility util = new Utility("res1");
boolean foo = util.utilMethodOne();
int bar = util.utilMethodTwo();
...
Given the amount/frequency of usage, this seems like a whole lot of wasted efforts creating short-lived objects.
Follow the pattern that Resource itself uses, creating my own named-singleton map of Utilities (1:1 with their respectively named Resource)
public final class Utility
{
private static final Map<String,Utility> NAMED_INSTANCES = new HashMap<>();
private Resource res;
private Utility(String resName)
{
this.res = Resource.getInstance(resName);
}
public static Utility getInstance(String resName)
{
synchronized(NAMED_INSTANCES)
{
Utility instance = NAMED_INSTANCES.get(resName);
if(instance == null)
{
instance = new Utility(resName);
NAMED_INSTANCES.put(resName, instance);
}
return instance;
}
}
public boolean utilMethodOne() { return this.res.isSomething(); }
public int utilMethodTwo() { this.res.getNumThings(); }
...
public void utilMethodInfinity() { ... }
}
// Now the calls can use
Utility.getInstance("res1")
// In place of
new Utility("res1")
So essentially this boils down to object creation vs. a synchronization + map lookup at each usage. Probably a little bit of premature optimization here, but I'll probably have to stick with this decision long term.
UPDATE 2020-06-29:
Didn't want to leave an "Internet dead end" here...
I did eventually get all the call sites updated as described above (including option #2 from the 2020-06-01 update). It has made it through all testing and been running in production for a week or so now in various applications.

It seems that you may want to turn the Utility into a singleton map that will have the same static methods that access the singleton without any arguments on for the function invocations (just like you have now)
The singleton will support a static method of adding a new resource, you will then add it to the map.
In addition you can overload the existing methods to also accept an argument resource name, that will then use a particular resource from the map, otherwise will use the default entry from the map.

Keep the old methods and the new methods static.
private static final String DEFAULT = "RESOURCE1";
private static Map<String, Resource> resources = new HashMap();
static{
// initialize all resources
}
public static boolean utilMethod() { return resources.get(DEFAULT).isSomething(); }
public static boolean utilMethod(String resourceName) { return resources.get(resourceName).isSomething(); }

Equivalent of Java's anonymous class in C#?

I am trying to port an SDK written in java to C#.
In this software there are many "handler" interfaces with several methods (for example: attemptSomethingHandler with success() and several different failure methods). This interface is then implemented and instantiated anonymously within the calling class and passed to the attemptSomething method of the SomethingModel class. This is an async method and has several places where it could fail or calls another method (passing on the handler). This way, the anonymous implementation of attemptSomethingHandler can reference private methods in the class that calls attemptSomething.
In C# it is not possible to anonymously implement an interface. I could explicitly implement a new class, but this implementation would be unique to this calling class and not used for anything else. More importantly, I would not be able to access the private methods in the calling class, which I need and do not want to make public.
Basically, I need to run different code from the calling class depending on what happens in the SomethingModel class methods.
I've been reading up on delegates but this would require passing as many delegates as there are methods in the handler interface (as far as I can tell).
What is the appropriate way to do this in C#? I feel like I'm missing out on a very common programming strategy. There simply must be an easy, clean way to structure and solve this problem.

Using delegates:
void AttemptSomethingAsync(Action onSuccess, Action<string> onError1, Action onError2 = null) {
// ...
}
// Call it using:
AttemptSomethingAsync(onSuccess: () => { Yes(); }, onError1: (msg) => { OhNo(msg); });
Or, using a class
class AttemptSomethingHandler {
Action OnSuccess;
Action<string> OnError1;
Action OnError2;
}
void AttemptSomethingAsync(AttemptSomethingHandler handler) {
// ...
}
// And you call it like
AttemptSomethingAsync(new AttemptSomethingHandler() {
OnSuccess = () => { Yes() };
});
Or events
public delegate void SuccessHandler();
public delegate void ErrorHandler(string msg);
class SomethingModel {
public event SuccessHandler OnSuccess;
public event ErrorHandler OnError1;
public void AttemptSomethingAsync() {
// ...
}
}
// Use it like
var model = new SomethingModel();
model.OnSuccess += Yes;
model.AttemptSomethingAsync();
private void Yes() {
}

In C#, we don't have anonymous types like Java per se. You can create an anonymous type which contains fields like so:
var myObject = new { Foo = "foo", Bar = 1, Quz = 4.2f }
However these cannot have methods placed in them and are only passable into methods by use of object or dynamic (as they have no type at compile-time, they are generated by the compiler AFAIK)
Instead in C# we use, as you said, delegates or lambdas.
If I understand your pickle correctly, you could implement a nested private class like so:
interface IMyInterface
{
void Foo();
}
class MyClass
{
public void Bar()
{
var obj = new MyInterface();
obj.Foo();
}
private class MyInterface : IMyInterface
{
public void Foo()
{
// stuff
}
}
}
Now MyClass can create an instance of MyInterface which implements IMyInterface. As commentors have mentioned, MyInterface can access members of MyClass (although you most certainly want to try and stick to using publicly accessible members of both types).
This encapsulates the "anonymous" class (using Java terms here to make it simpler) and also means that you could potentially return MyInterface as an IMyInterface and the rest of the software would be none the wiser. This is actually how some abstract factory patterns work.
Basically, I need to run different code from the calling class depending on what happens in the SomethingModel class methods.
This smells of heavy coupling. Oh dear!
It sounds to me like your particular problem could use refactoring. In C# you can use Events to solve this (note: Can, not should). Just have an Event for each "branch" point of your method. However I must say that this does make your solution harder to envisage and maintain.
However I suggest you architect your solution in a way such that you don't need such heavy coupling like that.
You could also try using a Pipeline model but I'm not sure how to implement that myself. I know that jetty (or is it Netty? the NIO for Java by JBOSS) certainly used a similar model.
You may find that throwing out some unit tests in order to test the expected functionality of your class will make it easier to architect your solution (TDD).

You can use nested classes to simulate anonymous classes, but in order to use nested classes in the same way as Java you will need to pass a reference to the outer class. In Java all nested and anonymous classes have this by default, and only static ones do not.
interface IMyInterface
{
void Foo();
}
class MyClass
{
public void Bar()
{
IMyInterface obj = new AnonymousAnalog(this);
obj.Foo();
}
private class AnonymousAnalog : IMyInterface
{
public void Foo(MyClass outerThis)
{
outerThis.privateFieldOnOuter;
outerThis.PrivateMethodOnOuter();
}
}
...
}

How to use a factory pattern to get the instance of my Database Client?

Below is my Interface -
public interface IDBClient {
public String read(String input);
public String write(String input);
}
This is my Implementation of the Interface -
public class DatabaseClient implements IDBClient {
#Override
public String read(String input) {
}
#Override
public String write(String input) {
}
}
Now I am thinking to write Thread Safe Singleton Factory to get the instance of DatabaseClient so that I can call read and write method accordingly.. So I wrote like this by following the Initialization On Demand Holder idiom, it is still incomplete -
public class DatabaseClientFactory {
public static DatabaseClientFactory getInstance() {
return ClientHolder.s_instance;
}
private static class ClientHolder {
}
}
And I am not sure how to get the instance of DatabaseClient correctly in my above Factory? Do I need to add another method getClient() to get the instance of DatabaseClient and then call like this -
IDBClient client = DatabaseClientFactory.getInstance().getClient();
client.read(input); // or client.write(input)

You shold use Initialization-on-demand holder idiom, implementing your factory:
public class DatabaseClientFactory {
private DatabaseClientFactory() {}
private static class LazyHolder {
private static final DatabaseClient INSTANCE = new DatabaseClient();
}
public static DatabaseClient getInstance() {
return LazyHolder.INSTANCE;
}
}
This code doesn't need synchronization because of the contract of the class loader:
the class loader loads classes when they are first accessed
all static initialization is executed before anyone can use class
class loader has its own synchronization that make previous two points guaranteed to be thread safe

Here is very a nice description of correct implementation of singleton from Joshua Bloch's (one of the Java's creators) "Effective Java" book. I would strictly recommend to read at least this chapter.
A few comments:
If you want your DatabaseClient to be singleton, you have to move your factory method to this class and make it's constructor private. Otherwise there is no guarantee, that everyone will use your factory and someone won't create the second instance of this class;
Even with such approach there is no guarantee, that someone won't use reflection to create new instance of your "singleton";
If you decide for some reason to make your DatabaseClient serializable - you'll expose another ability of getting the second instance of "singleton" and will have to apply some additional techniques to avoid this (which are also not always effective).
If you still decide to go this way - you can use one of the approaches suggested by "AgilePro" or "user987339" (with moving that logic to the DatabaseClient). I believe method, described by "user987339" is preferable as it will help to make this initialization really lazy. It's not really the case with approach described by "AgilePro" cause each call to some of the static methods of that class will initialize all static fields.
If you want to get really robust singleton - I suggest you to use enums. So your DatabaseClient will look like:
public enum DatabaseClient {
INSTANCE;
DatabaseClient() {
}
public String read(String input) {
}
public String write(String input) {
}
}
And its usage:
final DatabaseClient databaseClient = DatabaseClient.INSTANCE;
P.S. One more note related to all approaches: if you get some exception during initialization of DatabaseClient - you'll get "java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError" which won't let you to initialize this class any longer (for all further calls to this class you'll get "java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError").

This is all you need:
public class DatabaseClientFactory {
private static final DatabaseClient mySingleton = new DatabaseClient();
public static IDBClient getInstance() {
return mySingleton;
}
}
Note the private static final member that holds the singleton instance. Declaring it final prevents you fromwriting code that might create another instance. In this case we construct as static initialization time which happens before any thread can possibly access it, but you could construct with lazy initialization at run time if you desired. In this latter case you would need to make the method synchronized, which is a bit more overhead.
I made the factory method return the interface, but it could if you wish be declared to return the concrete class instead. If your concrete class has some additional methods beyond the interface you may want to do the latter.
Access it like this
IDBClient client = DatabaseClientFactory.getInstance();
It is thread safe because the variable that holds the singleton object is initialized at static initialization time, before any thread can access it. Since it is never changed after that, there is no possibility of a race condition.
This approach is simpler than that other answer because this involves only two classes, which is all you need: the factory class and the client class. One of the other answers requires three classes. This is a very small difference, since an extra class is a very small overhead, but if you believe that code should remain as simple as possible for maintenance reasons, then using three classes when two would do is a waste.

Singleton or static class?

I have the following class :
public class EnteredValues {
private HashMap<String, String> mEnteredValues;
public boolean change = false;
public boolean submit = false;
private static final EnteredValues instance = new EnteredValues();
// Singleton
private EnteredValues() {
mEnteredValues = new HashMap<String, String>();
}
public static EnteredValues getInstance() {
return instance;
}
public void addValue(String id, String value) {
if (mEnteredValues.put(id, value) != null) {
// A change has happened
change = true;
}
}
public String getValueForIdentifier(String identifier) {
return mEnteredValues.get(identifier);
}
public HashMap<String, String> getEnteredValues() {
return mEnteredValues;
}
public void clean() {
mEnteredValues.clear();
change = false;
submit = false;
}
}
This class is used to manage the values that a user has already entered, and the class should be accessible to all classes across the application.
When the activity changes I 'reset' the singleton by calling the clear method.
I chose the singleton pattern without really considering the option of a static class.
But now I was wondering if I shouldn't just use a static class..
What is the common way to handle a class that just manages values?
Is a static class faster as a singleton?
thx

The very fact that you are providing a clear method to reset the state of your Singleton dictates that you should not use Singleton. This is risky behavior as the state is global. This also means that unit testing is going to be a big pain.
One more thing. Never ever declare instance variables as public. Declare them as private or protected and provide getters and setters. Also, there is no need to initialize instance variables with a value that is their default value.

The main difference between a static class and the singleton pattern is that singleton may be used if you need to implement an interface or such. For this particular case I think you might be better off with a static class since you are not implementing any interface. Relating your question if its one faster to the other, I'd say is negligible the difference but using a static class will remove a small overhead of dynamic instantiation of the class.

What is bad in using singleton if you need such a design? If you need exactly one instance of some object designed to do specified things singleton is not a bad choice for sure.
#see Are Java static calls more or less expensive than non-static calls?
Read
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html
From there:
Note: A static nested class interacts with the instance members of its outer class (and other classes) just like any other top-level class. In effect, a static nested class is behaviorally a top-level class that has been nested in another top-level class for packaging convenience.

Just for style
I prefer not to rely on Singleton if I don't need to. Why? Less cohesion. If it's a property you can set from outside, then you can test your Activity (or whatever) with unit testing. You can change your mind to use diferent instances if you like, and so on.
My humble advise is to have a property in each of your Activities (maybe you can define a common base class?), and set it at activity initialization with a new fresh instance.
Your code will not know nothing about how to get it (except the init code and maybe you can change it in the future).
But as I've said... just a matter of taste! :)

Java Decorating The Easy Way

Say you have an API that is not accessible to change:
List<LegacyObject> getImportantThingFromDatabase(Criteria c);
Imaging Legacy Object has a ton of fields and you want to extend it to make getting at certain information easier:
class ImprovedLegacyObject extends LegacyObject {
String getSomeFieldThatUsuallyRequiresIteratorsAndAllSortsOfCrap() {
//cool code that makes things easier goes here
}
}
However, you can't just cast to your ImprovedLegacyObject, even though the fields are all the same and you haven't changed any of the underlying code, you've only added to it so that code that uses LegacyObject still works, but new code is easier to write.
Is it possible to have some easy way to convert LegacyObject to ImprovedLegacyObject without recreating all of the fields, or accessors? It should be a fast opperation too, I konw you could perform something by using reflections to copy all properties, but I don't think that would be fast enough when doing so to masses of LegacyObjects
EDIT: Is there anything you could do with static methods? To decorate an existing object?

You would have to perform the copying yourself. You can either have a constructor that does this (called a copy constructor):
public ImprovedLegacyObject(LegacyObject legacyObject) {
...
//copy stuff over
this.someField = legacyObject.getSomeField();
this.anotherField = legacyObject.getAnotherField();
...
}
or you can have a static factory method that returns an ImprovedLegacyObject
public static ImprovedLegacyObject create(LegacyObject legacyObject) {
...
//copy stuff over
...
return improvedLegacyObject;
}
If you're planning on extending this behavior to other legacy objects, then you should create an interface
public interface CoolNewCodeInterface {
public String getSomeFieldThatUsuallyRequiresIteratorsAndAllSortsOfCrap() {
}
public String getSomeFieldInAReallyCoolWay() {
}
}
Then your ImprovedLegacyObject would look like this:
public ImprovedLegacyObject extends LegacyObject implements CoolNewCodeInterface {
//implement methods from interface
}

How about making a copy constructor for your Improved Legacy Object that takes a Legacy Object as an argument. Then just create new objects from the old ones.