I am busy with a project in which I have to do native calls to a proprietary C library. I came across JNA, which seems to be tried and tested with a number of successful projects.
I am having trouble passing a structure (or pointer to) through to a callback function. I have tried many different scenarios before, and basically, any structure member that requires memory allocation, like a String (char *), for instance, is null when I retrieve it.
I have tried to illustrate the problem with the following example:
C code:
typedef struct {
int number;
char *string;
} TEST_STRUCT;
typedef union {
int number;
TEST_STRUCT test_struct;
} TEST_UNION;
typedef void (*TEST_CB)(TEST_UNION*);
void test(TEST_CB test_cb)
{
TEST_STRUCT *test_struct = malloc(sizeof *test_struct);
test_struct->number = 5;
test_struct->string = "Hello";
TEST_UNION *test_union = malloc(sizeof *test_union);
test_union->number = 10;
test_union->test_struct = *test_struct;
test_cb(test_union);
free(test_struct);
free(test_union);
}
Java-code:
public interface TestLib extends Library
{
class TestStruct extends Structure
{
public int number;
public String string;
public TestStruct() {
super();
}
protected List<? > getFieldOrder() {
return Arrays.asList("number", "string");
}
public TestStruct(int number, String string) {
super();
this.number = number;
this.string = string;
}
public TestStruct(Pointer peer) {
super(peer);
}
public static class ByReference extends MBTStatus implements Structure.ByReference {}
public static class ByValue extends MBTStatus implements Structure.ByValue {}
}
class TestUnion extends Union {
public int number;
public TestStruct testStruct;
public TestUnion() {
super();
}
public TestUnion(int number, TestStruct testStruct) {
super();
this.number = number;
this.testStruct = testStruct;
}
public TestUnion(Pointer pointer) {
super(pointer);
}
public static class ByReference extends TestUnion implements com.sun.jna.Structure.ByReference {}
public static class ByValue extends TestUnion implements com.sun.jna.Structure.ByValue {}
}
interface TestCallback extends Callback
{
public void callback(TestUnion testUnion);
}
void test(TestCallback testCallback);
}
The main Java class:
public class TestMain
{
static
{
System.loadLibrary("test");
}
public static void main (String [] args)
{
TestLib.INSTANCE.test(
new TestLib.TestCallback()
{
public void callback(TestLib.TestUnion testUnion)
{
System.out.println(testUnion.testStruct.string == null ? "The string value is null" : "The string value is: " + testUnion.testStruct.string);
}
}
);
}
}
The string value is then null:
The string value is null
I am a complete noob when it comes to JNA, so I have lots to learn. I'm not sure if the mapping of the structure is correct, which might be the cause of the null value.
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
EDIT: I made the question a bit more interesting:
So the argument to a callback function is a union, instead of a struct. The struct is now part of the union. When I do it this way, the value of the struct string variable seems to be null as well.
I just found the answer to the updated question myself. This example ultimatley shows how to do it. As a union only takes up the memory of its largest member, its type has to be set to that member. The Union.read() function must then be called to read the "selected" variable. This is done as follows:
testUnion.setType(TestLib.TestStruct.class);
testUnion.read();
The testStruct variable can then be accessed. The correct callback function is then:
public void callback(TestLib.TestUnion testUnion)
{
testUnion.setType(TestLib.TestStruct.class);
testUnion.read();
System.out.println(testUnion.testStruct.string == null ? "The string value is null" : "The string value is: " + testUnion.testStruct.string);
}
It might be useful when you implement the Union's Pointer-based constructor to invoke read after calling super, and override read() so that it always does the right thing, e.g.
class MyStructure1 {
public int type;
public int intField;
}
class MyStructure2 {
public int type;
public float floatField;
}
class MyUnion extends Union {
public int type;
public MyStructure1 s1;
public MyStructure2 s2;
public MyUnion(Pointer p) {
super(p);
read();
}
protected void read() {
int type = getPointer().getInt(0);
switch(type) {
case 0: setType(MyStruct1); break;
case 1: setType(MyStruct2); break;
}
super.read();
}
}
JNA will generally try to auto-populate as much data as it can if the union's type has not been set, avoiding any pointer fields (like strings) which might result in memory faults if they contain invalid data.
Related
Small question regarding the diamond operator and design pattern strategy for Java, please.
I would like to implement a very specific requirement:
there are some objects to store (in my example called MyThingToStore)
and the requirement is to store them with different kinds of data structures, for comparison.
Therefore, I went to try with a strategy pattern, where each of the strategies is a different way to store, I think this pattern is quite lovely.
The code is as follows:
public class MyThingToStore {
private final String name;
public MyThingToStore(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
MyThingToStore that = (MyThingToStore) o;
return Objects.equals(name, that.name);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(name);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "MyThingToStore{" +
"name='" + name + '\'' +
'}';
}
}
public class MyStorage {
private final StorageStrategy storageStrategy;
public MyStorage(StorageStrategy storageStrategy) {
this.storageStrategy = storageStrategy;
}
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storageStrategy.addToStore(myThingToStore);
}
public int getSize() {
return storageStrategy.getSize();
}
}
public interface StorageStrategy {
void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore);
int getSize();
}
public class StorageUsingArrayListStrategy implements StorageStrategy {
private final List<MyThingToStore> storeUsingArrayList = new ArrayList<>();
#Override
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storeUsingArrayList.add(myThingToStore);
}
#Override
public int getSize() {
return storeUsingArrayList.size();
}
}
public class StorageUsingHashSetStrategy implements StorageStrategy{
private final Set<MyThingToStore> storeUsingHashSet = new HashSet<>();
#Override
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storeUsingHashSet.add(myThingToStore);
}
#Override
public int getSize() {
return storeUsingHashSet.size();
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final StorageStrategy storageStrategy = new StorageUsingArrayListStrategy();
final MyStorage myStorage = new MyStorage(storageStrategy);
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("firstItem"));
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("duplicatedSecondItem"));
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("duplicatedSecondItem"));
System.out.println(myStorage.getSize()); //changing strategy will return a different size, working!
}
}
And this is working fine, very happy, especially tackled the requirement "easy to change the data structure to do the actual store".
(By the way, side question, if there is an even better way to do this, please let me know!)
Now, looking online at different implementations of strategy patterns, I see this diamond operator which I am having a hard time understanding:
MyThingToStore stays the same.
public class MyStorage {
private final StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> storageStrategy; //note the diamond here
public MyStorage(StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> storageStrategy) {
this.storageStrategy = storageStrategy;
}
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storageStrategy.addToStore(myThingToStore);
}
public int getSize() {
return storageStrategy.getSize();
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "MyStorage{" +
"storageStrategy=" + storageStrategy +
'}';
}
}
public interface StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> {
//note the diamond, and it will be colored differently in IDEs
void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore);
int getSize();
}
public class StorageUsingArrayListStrategy implements StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> {
private final List<MyThingToStore> storeUsingArrayList = new ArrayList<>();
#Override
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storeUsingArrayList.add(myThingToStore);
}
#Override
public int getSize() {
return storeUsingArrayList.size();
}
}
public class StorageUsingHashSetStrategy implements StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> {
private final Set<MyThingToStore> storeUsingHashSet = new HashSet<>();
#Override
public void addToStore(MyThingToStore myThingToStore) {
storeUsingHashSet.add(myThingToStore);
}
#Override
public int getSize() {
return storeUsingHashSet.size();
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> storageStrategy = new StorageUsingArrayListStrategy();
final MyStorage myStorage = new MyStorage(storageStrategy);
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("firstItem"));
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("duplicatedSecondItem"));
myStorage.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("duplicatedSecondItem"));
System.out.println(myStorage.getSize()); //changing strategy will return a different size, working!
}
}
And both versions will yield the same good result, also be able to answer requirements.
My question is: what are the differences between the version without a diamond operator, and the version with the diamond operator, please?
Which of the two ways are "better" and why?
While this question might appear to be "too vague", I believe there is a reason for a better choice.
I think the confusion comes from how you named type parameter for StorageStrategy in your 2nd example.
Let's name it T for type instead. T in this case is just a placeholder to express what type of objects your StorageStrategy can work with.
public interface StorageStrategy<T> {
void addToStore(T myThingToStore);
int getSize();
}
E.g.
StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore> strategy1 = // Initialization
StorageStrategy<String> strategy2 = // Initialization
strategy1.addToStore(new MyThingToStore("Apple"));
// This works fine, because strategy2 accepts "String" instead of "MyThingToStore"
strategy2.addToStore("Apple");
// Last line doesn't work, because strategy1 can only handle objects of type "MyThingToStore"
strategy1.addToStore("Apple");
To make it work properly, you need to change your different StorageStrategy implementations to also include the type parameter.
public class StorageUsingHashSetStrategy<T> implements StorageStrategy<T> {
private final Set<T> storeUsingHashSet = new HashSet<>();
#Override
public void addToStore(T myThingToStore) {
storeUsingHashSet.add(myThingToStore);
}
#Override
public int getSize() {
return storeUsingHashSet.size();
}
}
And lastly you also want to have a type paremeter for MyStorage
public class MyStorage<T> {
private final StorageStrategy<T> storageStrategy;
public MyStorage(StorageStrategy<T> storageStrategy) {
this.storageStrategy = storageStrategy;
}
public void addToStore(T myThingToStore) {
storageStrategy.addToStore(myThingToStore);
}
public int getSize() {
return storageStrategy.getSize();
}
}
Now you can create a MyStorage and can use it to store essentially any object into it and not just MyThingToStore. Whether that is something you want or not is up to you.
In the second code sample in the declaration of the interface StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore>, MyThingToStore is a Type Variable.
I.e. it's not the actual type, only a placeholder for a type, like T. The common convention is to use single-letter generic type variables (T, U, R, etc.), otherwise it might look confusing like in this case.
Note that in the class declarations, like:
public class StorageUsingArrayListStrategy
implements StorageStrategy<MyThingToStore>
MyThingToStore is no longer a type variable, but the name of the class MyThingToStore because in this case parameterized interface is implemented by a non-parameterized class (i.e. the actual type known to the compile is expected to be provided).
I am trying to re-build an OOP approach to mobile verification at the developers discretion. The concept I come up with is to allow for interfaces to manipulate the class. If the class implements the interface, then the verify method will be executed.
The problem I am facing, because I am only used to programming in less strongly-typed languages (PHP) is how to get a protected variable from a class extending the current class.
_areaCodes.stream().forEach(o -> {
try {
int prefix = Integer.parseInt(this._mobileNumber.charAt(0), this._mobileNumber.charAt(1));
} catch (Exception e) {}
});
This line of code is now giving me an error
_mobileNumber cannot be resolved or is not a field
Here is my full code and here is an example I wrote of the same concept in PHP which I am trying to implement in Java.
import java.util.ArrayList;
interface Verification
{
public void initVerification();
}
class AreaCode
{
private int _code;
private String _country;
public AreaCode(int code, String country)
{
this._code = code;
this._country = country;
}
public int getAreaCode() { return this._code; }
public String getAreaCountry() { return this._country; }
}
class VerificationHandler
{
private ArrayList<AreaCode> _areaCodes = new ArrayList<AreaCode>() {{
this.add(new AreaCode(44, "UNITED KINGDOM"));
this.add(new AreaCode(91, "INDIA"));
}};
public void initVerification()
{
if(this instanceof Verification) {
this.verify();
}
}
protected void verify()
{
_areaCodes.stream().forEach(o -> {
try {
int prefix = Integer.parseInt(this._mobileNumber.charAt(0), this._mobileNumber.charAt(1));
} catch (Exception e) {}
});
}
}
class Main extends VerificationHandler implements Verification {
protected String _mobileNumber = "+447435217761";
}
public class Hack1337 { public static void main(String[] args) { new Main(); } }
How can I retrieve a variable in a class extending another, ie:
class A { public String getB() { return this.b; } }
class B extends A { protected String b = 'A should get this'; }
B b = new B().getB();
Only instances of class B, or sub-classes of B can access the b instance variable directly (unless you cast A to B within the body of the A class, which is bad practice).
You can give class A read-only access to that value by overriding getB():
class B extends A
{
protected String b = 'A should get this';
#Override
public String getB() {
return this.b;
}
}
and you may also want to make the getB() method abstract in class A (which means making class A abstract):
abstract class A
{
public abstract String getB();
}
This would only make sense if different sub-classes of A are expected to return different things in getB(). Otherwise, you may as well move the b variable to the base class A.
I'm trying to do my current project at my university, and I'm given an abstract class Value, and I'm needed to change basic types: int, string, object(map) and array(list) into Value. Value is made into an abstract constructor, and I need to create four different extended classes from Value. Each extended class will be able to get one of the types and convert into Value. added is the code I made for the get method, I want to know if it's possible to return the Value as it is below...
public class Number extends Value {
private Number k;
public Number(Number k)
{
super();
this.k = k;
}
public Value get(int i) {
this.k=i;
return this;
}
}
The following is the super class given by the university...
public abstract class Value
{
public abstract Value get(int i);
public abstract Value get(String s);
}
You can use some thing like this
public abstract class Value {
public abstract Value get(int i);
public abstract Value get(String s);
}
public class Number extends Value {
private Number k;
private Object o;
public Number(Number k) {
super();
this.k = k;
}
#Override
public Value get(int i) {
this.k.o = i;
return this;
}
#Override
public Value get(String s) {
this.k.o = s;
return this;
}
}
I have a case where all instances of subclasses should return the same value.
Since there will be a lot of instances I want to reduce the amount of memory the use.
I made the following experiment:
1) Using fields and implementing the methods once. (This implementation uses 24 bytes)
private abstract class A{
private String string;
private int i;
public A(String string, int i) {
this.string = string;
this.i = i;
}
public String getName() {
return string;
}
public int getAge() {
return i;
}
}
private class B extends A{
public B() {
super("B",10);
}
}
2) Reimplementing methods for each class. (This implementation uses 16 bytes)
private abstract class A{
public abstract String getName();
public abstract int getAge();
}
private class B extends A{
#Override
public String getName() {
return "B";
}
#Override
public int getAge() {
return 10;
}
}
I read the object size using VisualVm.
Does anyone see a way I could implement the methods only once while reducing the amount of memory used?
Thank you in advance.
EDIT:
Since my question got downvoted a few times please let me know how I can improve it.
It is more subtle. In fact you want to have every child class to have its specific class (static) constant. A non-static method is used for that, as Java seems to offer no other means.
Though less neat-looking, the second solution seems more adequate. What is hard on my sense of nice code style.
I propose collecting all constants in an immutable class, and use either method, the second being nicer, though needing a method.
However one could do it following both intent of using a class static constant,
and optimal memory resp. not copying same data in every field:
class MetaData {
public final String string;
public final int i;
MetaData(String string, int i) {
this.string = string;
this.i = i;
}
}
Just one instance per child class. In fact one could consider not using child classes but a factory and delegation in class A.
private abstract class A {
protected final MetaData metaData;
public A(MetaData metaData) {
this.metaData = metaData;
}
public String getName() {
return metaData.string;
}
public int getAge() {
return metaData.i;
}
public MetaData getMetaData() {
return metaData;
}
}
private class B extends A {
private static final MetaData b = new MetaData("B", 10);
public B() {
super(b);
}
}
Of course instead of constructor+super field, one could better make
protected abstract MetaData getMetaData();
#Override
protected MetaData getMetaData() {
return b;
}
The advantage would be when later an extra constant has to be added in the hierarchy.
I have a class hierarchy like below
Vehicle
|_ TransaportationVehicle has method getLoadCapacity
|_ PassengerVehicle has method getPassengerCapacity
and I have one more class Booking it have a reference to Vehicle.
Now whenever I have to call getPassengerCapacity or getLoadCapacity on vehicle reference I need to type cast vehicle to its concrete implementation like ((PassengerVehicle)vehicle).getPassengerCapacity() and this type of calls spans over multiple parts in the project. So is there any way with which I can avoid these type of casts and my code will look beautiful and clean?
Note: These are not actual classes I have taken these as an example to demonstrate current problem.
Obviously, when booking a Vehicle you need to distinguish at some point whether it’s a TransportationVehicle or a PassengerVehicle as both have different properties.
The easiest way would be to initiate two different Booking processes: one for vehicles that can transport goods, and one for vehicles that can transport passengers. As for how to differentiate between these two types of vehicles: you could add canTransportPassengers() and canTransportGoods() methods to Vehicle, the subclasses would then override these methods to return true where appropriate. Also, this way a vehicle that can transport both is possible, like a train.
If You want to use different method names then You must cast to concrete class.
But if You can make this methods return same type value and have same names You can use polymorphism for it. Create abstract method in Vehicle class and override it in each child.
A quick way I would accomplish this is to create a Generified Booking parent class.
public abstract class Booking<V extends Vehicle> {
protected abstract V getVehicle();
}
public class TransportationVehicleBooking extends Booking<TransaportationVehicle> {
#Override
protected TransaportationVehicle getVehicle() {
return new TransaportationVehicle();
}
}
public class PassengerVehicleBooking extends Booking<PassengerVehicle> {
#Override
protected PassengerVehicle getVehicle() {
return new PassengerVehicle();
}
}
Your Booking class will have all the logic that spans all the booking subclasses and some abstract method each subclasses will need to do effective calculations.
Then all you have to do is have reference to a Booking class and calling the relevant method required without having to worry about the "logistics" (get it) of the booking itself.
I hope this helps.
You method overriding concepts. You need to have all these method in the Parent class and same can be overriden in the child clasees.
You can then access all the methods from super class using Runtime polymorphism
Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public int getCapacity();
}
TransaportationVehicle
public class TransaportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getLoadCapacity();
}
private int getLoadCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
PassengerVehicle
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getPassengerCapacity();
}
private int getPassengerCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
USAGE
Vehicle passenger = new PassengerVehicle();
passenger.getCapacity();
Vehicle transaportation = new TransaportationVehicle();
transaportation.getCapacity()
First try to extract an abstract method suitable for all vehicles. If you can't do this you can also use an often forgotten pattern - the visitor pattern. E.g.
Introduce a visitor interface
public interface VehicleVisitor {
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle);
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle);
}
add an accept method to the Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor);
}
implement the accept method in the sub classes
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int passengerCapacity;
public static PassengerVehicle withPassengerCapacity(int passengerCapacity) {
return new PassengerVehicle(passengerCapacity);
}
private PassengerVehicle(int passengerCapacity) {
this.passengerCapacity = passengerCapacity;
}
public int getPassengerCapacity() {
return passengerCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
public class TransportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int loadCapacity;
public static TransportationVehicle withLoadCapacity(int loadCapacity) {
return new TransportationVehicle(loadCapacity);
}
private TransportationVehicle(int loadCapacity) {
this.loadCapacity = loadCapacity;
}
public int getLoadCapacity() {
return loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
implement a visitor...
public class LoadSupported implements VehicleVisitor {
private boolean supported;
private int load;
public LoadSupported(int load) {
this.load = load;
}
public boolean isSupported() {
return supported;
}
#Override
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle) {
int loadCapacity = transportationVehicle.getLoadCapacity();
supported = load <= loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle) {
supported = false;
}
}
...and use it
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle1 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(5);
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle2 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(10);
PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle = PassengerVehicle
.withPassengerCapacity(5);
LoadSupported loadSupported = new LoadSupported(7);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle1, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle2, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(passengerVehicle, loadSupported);
}
private static void supportsLoad(Vehicle vehicle,
LoadSupported loadSupported) {
vehicle.accept(loadSupported);
System.out.println(vehicle.getClass().getSimpleName() + "[" + System.identityHashCode(vehicle) + "]" + " does"
+ (loadSupported.isSupported() ? " " : " not ")
+ "support load capacity");
}
}
The output will be something like this
TransportationVehicle[778966024] does not support load capacity
TransportationVehicle[1021653256] does support load capacity
PassengerVehicle[1794515827] does not support load capacity
Assuming that passenger capacity is always an integer and load capacity could very well a big number depending on what is the unit for load. I would go ahead and create Vehicle class as follow:
class Vehicle {
Number capacity;
public Number getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
The reason I am using Number is so that I then use Integer in PassengerVehicle class and Double in TransporatationVehicle and that is because Integer and Double are subtype of Number and you can get away with a cast.
class TransportationVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Double getCapacity() {
//all I have to do is cast Number to Double
return (Double) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
Similarly the PassengerVehicle class as follow:
class PassengerVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Integer getCapacity() {
//Cast to Integer and works because Integer is subtype of Number
return (Integer) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
You can then use above classes to create vehicle object as follow:
public class Booking {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//
Vehicle transportationVehicle = new TransportationVehicle();
//assigning Double to setCapacity
transportationVehicle.setCapacity(new Double(225.12));
Vehicle passengerVehicle = new PassengerVehicle();
//assigning Integer to setCapacity
passengerVehicle.setCapacity(5);
System.out.println(transportationVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 225.12
System.out.println(passengerVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 5
}
}
On the side notes if you try to pass TransportationVehicle anything but Number or Double then you will get Exception and similarly if you pass PassengerVehicle anything but Number or Integer you will get exception.
I know that I am deviating from the scope of your question but, I really want to show how you can make your methods generics. This allow you to decide to return type of getCapacity() during coding which is very flexible. See below:
class Vehicle<T> {
//generic type T
T capacity;
//generic method getCapacity
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
//generic method setCapacity
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class TransportationVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class PassengerVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
As you can see above the generic methods and you can use them as follow:
Vehicle<String> vehicleString = new TransportationVehicle<String>();
vehicleString.setCapacity("Seriously!"); //no problem
Vehicle<Integer> vehicleInteger = new PassengerVehicle<Integer>();
vehicleInteger.setCapacity(3); //boxing done automatically
Vehicle<Double> vehicleDouble = new PassengerVehicle<Double>();
vehicleDouble.setCapacity(2.2); //boxing done automatically
You can decide the type while coding and if you supply a Vehicle<String> with capacity as Integer then you will get compile time error, so you won't be allowed.
System.out.println(vehicleString.getCapacity());
//output: Seriously!
System.out.println(vehicleInteger.getCapacity());
//output: 3
System.out.println(vehicleDouble.getCapacity());
//output: 2.2
I don't understand the example. How do you realize that you are dealing with a concrete type in the first place? Are you instanceOf-ing? Are you type matching?
If so your problem is way past casting...
Anyways when you have objects that must belong to the same family and algorithms which are not abstract and change according to the object being handled you typically use some sort of behavioral pattern like visitor, or the Bridge pattern.