I'm using a UI framework which doesn't follow a strict MVC design. I create a component and add the appropriated properties to "style" this instance of a class. Some pseudo code:
Button bu = new Button();
bu.setCaption("Something");
bu.addClickListener(...);
bu.setAnotherProperty(1);
However, when do I decide to make an extra class instead of this whole setter block?
Like (pseudo code):
public class MyButton extends Button {
this.setCaption("Something");
this.addClickListener(...);
this.setAnotherProperty(1);
}
Is it a good practice to do it like this always? Is it a bad practice to do it in general? Or is there a special case where one should decide to create a class instead of a huge setter block?
Your MyButton isn't really (at least based on the code shown) a special type of button. It's just a Button with some parameters set in a certain way. Based on that I would probably not create a separate class, but factory methods that build buttons according to different specifications.
This has the added benefit that if you suddenly realize that you need 2 types of "special" buttons, you'd add another factory method instead of creating another class that's still basically just a Button with some extra make-up.
So instead of Button b = new MyButton(); I'd have something along the lines of (implementation style free) Button b = ButtonFactory.myButton();.
Do you use your custom button more than once? If so, then it would be good practice to create a separate class. If not, then generally it is not necessary.
Even if this custom button is only used once, I'd still recommend a separate class for "safe keeping".
Related
I have tried to adhere to the mvc pattern in the java code that I have written. I want to keep the view and model independant of the controller and from each other. I am also trying my best to use interfaces to keep things modular.
My view has JButtons that I want to "bind" to specific methods in the model through the controller. I have tried two approaches to still keep the view independent of controller:
Registered the controller as an ActionListener to the view-object. Pros: The void addListener(ActionListener listener) abstract method encapsulates this behaviour in the view interface, so more buttons can be added without changing the interface. It also decouples the controller from the view, since it does not know anything about the actual buttons in the view. It is also easier to add more views or more controllers, so it follows the open-closed principle well. Con: For the controller to know the nature of the ActionEvent, I have only been able to come up with using the ActionEvent.getActionCommaned() in a switch statement, so mapping each case to its' corresponding method in the model. This seem unsafe and prone to cause irritation, since it seems like bad practice to match strings like this.
I also came up with adding public addActionListener(ActionListener) methods for each button in the view, like addGasButtonListener(ActionListener). Then doing something like view.addGasListener(e -> model.gasVehicles(view.getGasAmount())) in the controller. Pro: This seems like it reduces the uncertainty of matching strings. Cons: It means I have to add these new methods to the view interface, and each time a new button is added I have to do the same, making it difficult to add new views that does not have anything to do with some of the methods.
Main question:
I prefer the first method since it seems better to me, but I still would like to find a way to avoid matching strings, and find some nice way to do it (more similar to the rigidity of the second way of binding buttons to methdods). Is there?
Follow-up (less important) question:
I should also mention that my controller contains an inner class TimerListener implements ActionListener, that contains the loop of the app that acts on ActionEvents from the Timer. It also acts on ActionEvents from buttons if approach number one is used, which is why my follow-up question is: how would I seperate this main loop that only cares about the timer, from the switch statement used to act on button events. Since the ActionEvent.getActionCommand() is null almost all the time, it would be nice to seperate the two. Is there a approach that would let me do that?
I don't really see the value of working with ActionListener instances in the first place.
From your own example:
view.addGasListener(e -> model.gasVehicles(view.getGasAmount()))
You don't do anything with the actual event
In case you decide to use a different UI element in the future that doesn't fire ActionEvents, you will have to change the type of the listener.
I would rather expose a custom listener/callback that the controller (or model) can register on the view:
void onGasAmountChange(double gasAmount);
That being said, you might be focusing too hard on having a model, view and controller. If you look at more complicated Swing components (JList, JTable, ...), they have a view component and a model (ListModel and TableModel).
You could do something similar and create your own model for your view, and let the view call the necessary methods on the model directly (just like it happens for those Swing components).
That avoids having to write a bunch of one-liner listeners that basically delegate to the model.
In Android/Java, if I have a button, I can add a click listener two ways -
1)
Button button = findViewById(R.id.my_button);
button.setOnClickListener(new View.OnClickListener() {
#Override
public void onClick(View v) {
}
});
-- or --
2)
Button button = findViewById(R.id.my_button);
button.setOnClickListener(this);
I sometimes prefer option #2, mainly because of brevity, but am curious about the performance considerations of essentially passing the entire class/context to the Listener...
Does anyone have any thoughts/experience in regards to this ?
I think both methods are valid
All depends on what you want to do. For example, if you have many buttons on a screen and you choose to use the first option, for each button you'll need a new object to handle the click. In contrast to the second option, with the same object (activity) as a listener, you'll consume fewer resources because it would be creating fewer objects (Java).
On the other hand, remember that the view holds a reference to context.
The latter approach is obviously more efficient: All it does is passing a reference to this, an already existing object, to setOnClickListener, which will then be used to call onClick.
The first approach is slightly less efficient as it creates a new object, an instance of an anonymous inner class. The creation of a new object and the existence of an additional class is the main difference.
You might also produce some overhead using the first approach when dealing with variable transactions between the surrounding class and the anonymous inner class. Most issues, e.g. threading related problems, affect both approaches.
Summing up, there is no real performance difference. If you are going to create a lot of buttons, you should consider sharing a single instance of a View.OnClickListener.
I usually prefer anonymous inner classes (up to a limited size), because it separates the code that actually belongs to the surrounding class from the code related to the listener.
The actual contents of your listener implementation will affect the performance way more than the call to setOnClickListener. From the perspective of setOnClickListener, both calls are equal as they both pass an instance of a class implementing View.OnClickListener, whether reused or created.
Let's say I have a gui, and the gui is composed of two parts where each part has its own class.
So one class contains a JLabel.
And second class contains a text field with a submit button.
How would I go about making those two components talk to each other?
This is of course a simple example, but if I have two classes where I use one for submitting data, and one for showing the submitted data, then how do I make the two components communicate?
Some thoughts:
Don't add such bindings to the GUI classes, look for a pattern like MVC
Unidirectional change propagation (input -> output as in your example) is usually never problematic, but in many cases, full synchronization of editable component groups is required. So one may keep that in mind during development of the simple case for good reusability of any custom class or interface.
Avoid infinite circular updates with a flag, rather than with a comparison of component values.
Whatever you do, keep things separated and whatever pattern you use, don't add bidirectional references (e.g. among GUI class <-> controller)
Regardless of MVC, there could be a controller class, getting all necessary references to the UI objects (i.E. JPanels with nested JTextFields and JLabels, etc.) via constructor.
On construction, that controller can attach itself to those nested components.
The controller should preferably contain nested, inner or perhaps anonymous classes for implementing the listener interfaces, rather than adding the listener interface to the controller itself. First, to encapsulate these listeners and second, to avoid the event source distinction, if the same interface needs to be implemented for multiple components (sources). These listener implementations (perhaps pretty generic PropertyChangeListener's) could then act as, or use mediator objects (as mentioned), for updating other components.
If you have a submit button, you can add an action listener to it. When clicked you can call a method in your other class that will receive the string and then display it on your JLabel. However having multiple classes for different components isn't usually a good idea, and having a MVC like what Sam said is much better.
Class with JTextArea
//Have this object created
JLabelClass JLC = new JLabelClass();
//When submit button is clicked run this
JLC.displayText(JTextArea.getText());
Inside Class with JLabel
//add this method
public void displayText(String text){
JLabel.setText(text);
//Refresh Gui and display stuff....
}
Hope this helped... Sorry about the formatting I'm still new to StackOverflow
i've started on some basic java coding with gwt, and im getting a bit concerned about the heft of my main class.
For instance - how does one compartmentalize the keyhandlers, since they trigger a number of changes to the UI, how could i move this into a separate .class file and still be able to access all the various widgets in the main class, without having to pass everything to the handler (ie. all the widgets i manipulate after the click event).
i've googled but didnt come across any particularly good examples - know of any readily legible code-bases i could read to see how it should be done? (gwt's own tuts are pretty basic, and just kitchen-sink every thing into a single file)
thanks!
I hate to say something so unimaginative, but MVC works--it's not the ultimate, but it can start getting you organized.
EDIT: While searching on a semi-related topic, I came across this which has similar ideas to mine but goes into more detail.
What that means in terms of GWT is that you should think of just laying out your GUI components in one class, put all your event handling in a second and put your object model objects separate from the other two.
One way to accomplish this is to make most or all the controls on your GUI public members. This sounds kind of lame, but their usage is encapsulated inside the controller so it's not like you have uncontrollable access--in fact your access is clearer/better defined than if all your members were private but your view code was combined with the controller.
Specific tricks:
Have listeners be their own class. You can often reuse them-- in other words, avoid anonymous inner classes. I sometimes create a listener class and instantiate a new instance for each button/control that needs to have a similar effect when pressed. If I need it to act slightly differently for a given button, I'll pass something into the constructor of the "special" handlers so that they know to act a little differently. You can also create different handler sub-classes if necessary--I'm just saying don't forget that event handlers are classes, you can use inheritance and everything if need be.
One Very Old GUI Trick I learned a long time ago, try not to have various mini-handlers modifying the GUI in different ways, instead have all the "active" buttons and controls set a state within your GUI and then call a single method that applies that state to ALL the controls on your GUI. When you get beyond a trivial GUI this can be a life-saver. If I'm not being clear, leave a comment and I'll leave an example for you.
Property sheets:
There is a special case for GUIs--the property sheet style GUI. I've done a LOT of these and they are irritating as HELL. They tend to have dozens or hundreds of controls on them, each GUI control tends to be tied to a specific field in your model and there are just hundreds of lines of copy and paste boilerplate code connecting them, each group copied and pasted with a few items changed--at minimum it's like 3 lines of code per control (Create control, copy value in and copy value out).
I always write these with a "Smart" controller--one that can intelligently bind the control to some data without any unique code. This can get tricky and if this is your problem let me know in the comments and I can give you some general advice as to some tricks you might try. I've gone from a minimal reflective solution to a full-on XML based solution. Were I to do it again, I might consider annotation-based.
Example of MVC:
Note, this is just an example, there are a MILLION ways to do MVC.
In your MAIN:
Instantiate MyView
Instantiate MyModel
Instantiate MyController(myView, myModel)
myView.setVisible(true)
in MyView
probably extends Frame
Most components are public final (public final Button b=new Button())
If public members make you nervous, use getters--same EXACT effect as public final members with a little extra syntax.
Remember that you can set final members in your constructor.
May have general methods such as reset(), but MyController may be a better place for this.
in MyController
saves references to myView and myModel
adds listeners to myView where necessary (see advice on listeners above)
configures myView based on state of myModel
when "done" button pressed, copies state from myView to myModel
notifies myModel that it's data has been updated and destroys itself.
in MyModel:
This would be a typical model class, it would contain your business logic (mostly not used as part of the GUI, that's more like GUI logic in MyController. The controller would tend to set values in your business logic then call some method like updated() to cause some business logic to take control. It should know nothing of a GUI--this is your "pure" business class.
Sometimes the GUI might call an update() or some other method to trigger some data change and then reload the GUI controls from the Model--this is a fairly good way to integrate your business logic with your GUI without your model knowing about the GUI...
Also, as I said above, I would put more work into MyController if I was working with property sheets just due to the sheer number of lines of boilerplate that you end up with if you aren't smart about it.
Note that View and Controller are nearly always paired. You can't just replace a Swing view with a web view and expect the controller to remain unmolested--but the model should not ever change for the view or controller.
You should take a look at the best practices for GWT applications first:
http://code.google.com/events/io/2009/sessions/GoogleWebToolkitBestPractices.html
One of the concepts they talk about is that of MVP (not MVC) to structure your application. There's a sample project on Google Code that you can look at to understand how to structure a GWT application in this way:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-mvp/
The naive way of writing building a menu in a Java Swing app is to do something like:
JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File");
JMenuItem openItem = new JMenuItem("Open...");
openItem.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { /* action listener stuff */ } )
fileMenu.addMenuItem(openItem);
A more experienced developer will recognize that actions can be accessed through a variety of mechanisms - menus, toolbar buttons, maybe even other workflows in the system. That person is more likely to write:
Action openAction = new AbstractAction();
openAction.setName("Open...");
openAction.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { /* action listener stuff */ } )
...
JMenuItem openItem = new JMenuItem(openAction);
My question is, what is the best way to manage these Action objects so they can be used across menus, toolbars, etc?
Create a factory class that returns specific actions?
Declare all of the actions as private static final Action in some utility class?
Take advantage of a Java application framework?
Something else?
Applications that I have developed that need to use that same actions across menus, toolbars, and other buttons have been done using Swing Application Framework.
Swing Application Framework
This framework will allow you to have a resource file where you can define all menu text, tooltips, and ICONS. I think the icons are the key, you do not have to load them yourself. Also, if you have any actions that you need to enable/disable you can override the method to control its state.
The website is worth the read.
You can group all your abstractAction using the dedicated Map javax.swing.actionmap .
See http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/swing/ActionMap.html
Moreover each JComponent has an internal actionMap (getActionMap()).
class MyComponent
extends JPanel
{
public static final String ACTION_NAME1="my.action.1";
public MyComponent()
{
AbstractAction action= new AbstractAction() { ... }
getActionMap().put(ACTION_NAME1,action);
...
menu.add(getActionMap().get(ACTION_NAME1));
}
}
Hope it helps
Action is a bad abstraction - an ActionListener welded to a poor man's Map.
Certainly do not assign them to a static as they are mutable and also need some context to operate usefully.
My general advice for GUI programming is to note that it is actually much the same as any other area of programming. Follow the usual good practices. Notably, layering, separation of concerns, use (implementation) inheritance rarely and don't write a big ball of mud.
Also see this question, which is pretty much the same as what you're asking.
Create a base action for your application; this will help you IMMENSELY later on
Do create actions as you have in your code, instead favor subclasses of your base action
To organize them, it will depend on what you are doing with them, and you may have some actions organized one way and others created a different way. It will all depend.
What you want is to have a consistent way to locate/create an action in your code.
Depending on your UI, you may need to differentiate between "static" actions (i.e. stuff that's always available in your app, such as the menu system) and dynamic actions that are created only on certain screens or in certain locations.
In any case, using concrete subclasses of your specialized base action will help you keep these things organized. What you don't want is to be specifying things like labels, mnemonics, and icons all over the place in your code.
Edit: I got the feeling people didn't believe this was possible or easy, so I did it--took about an hour from scratch--would have taken 40 mins if I'd just used a single method as a target instead of reflecting it out to separate methods for each menu item.
Here's the Tested source code. It works, but is one big method and ugly--refactor it if you use it. I may fix it up a little over the next few days, I've always wanted to have a copy of this to keep around to reuse.
--- original post
First of all, remember to separate your code from data. That means you should NEVER type:
new Menu("File...");
The string "File..." is data. If you start thinking this way, you will find that your question answers itself.
First you need to build up some data. You need to get "File..." and "Save" into menus. I generally start off with a string array (which you can easily move to a file)
new String[]{"File...","+Save","Load"...}
This is one of the simpler patterns I've started out with. Then you can parse out the + sign and use it to mean "Drop down a level in the menu when you add this one"
This is just a silly convention, invent your own if you don't like it.
The next step is binding that to code to run. You could have them all call the same method, but what a pain in the ass (Giant switch statement). One possibility is to use reflection to bind a method name while you are reading in the data. Here's one solution (again it might not fit your tastes)
new String[]{"File...[fileMenu]","+Save[saveMenu]","Load[loadMenu]"...}
Then you parse out the thing in square braces, reflectively hook it up to a method in your current class and you are set.
There is a temptation I ALWAYS have at this point, and I've learned to fight it because it NEVER works out. The temptation is to use the first set of data ("File...") and manipulate it to fit some pattern and auomatically bind to your code (in this case, remove all non-alpha chars, make the first letter lower case and append "Menu" to get the correct method name). Feel free to try this, it's very attractive and seems slick, but be ready to abandon it when it doesn't meet some need (such as two menu items with the exact same name in different sub-menus).
Another way would be if your language supports closures, then you could actually create the file name and closure in the same place..
Anyway, once you start coding like this, you'll find that ALL your menu construction is in a single 10 line method and you can alter it to suit your needs. I had a case where I had to change a set of menus to a button hierarchy and I did it in 2 minutes.
In the end, you can use this pattern to set up the action objects easily and change how they are used easily (in a single location, single line of code), so you experiment with them. There are many ways to use them, but if you don't do what I'm recommending here, you will end up having to re-implement across every menu item for every change, which is really annoying--after a single change you will have wasted more time than if you had just implemented a data-driven solution in the first place.
This really isn't hard code, should take like an hour or two then you never have to write new Menu("... again. Trust me, this kind of tooling is just about always worth it.
edit:
I just about always code data-driven these days. Usually I'll prototype a few things the normal way, recognize the pattern and refactor--and if you are refactoring correctly, the data just about always factors out and what you're left with is beautiful, tight and maintainable.
I could do what I suggested above in less than 1/2 an hour (maybe an hour to do the reflective version). This is almost always just as long as it would do to use the unfactored version, and from then on, your savings multiply for every change.
This is very similar to what people like about ruby, except with ruby they seem to insert even more data into their code (which makes it awfully hard to extract your data from the code completely, which is always a nice goal for internationalization).
Hmm, did I mention that if you're good at extracting your data like this, i18n is virtually free?
I suggest you just give it a try sometime and see what you think. Embedding the control in the strings is unnecessary if it makes you uncomfortable. I tend to use string/object arrays just because they are really easy to enter, are still in the file while you are coding and are trivial to externalize later, but if you like YML or XML or properties files, use whatever you're comfortable with--just abstract your data from your code!