I need to receive some data via JSON, and I'm using Volley, with a Callback.
Data could be a simple string or a JSONArray.
Is it possibile to rewrite in only one generic method?
public interface BaseMapper {
final static String API_URL_LOGIN = "/apiv2/account";
final static String API_URL_CAMPAIGN = "/apiv2/campaign";
final static String API_URL_SEARCH_CARD ="/apiv2/member-card?card=";
public interface VolleyCallbackArray {
void onSuccess(JSONArray array);
}
public interface VolleyCallbackString {
void onSuccess(String string);
}
}
VolleyCallbackArray and VolleyCallbackString could be replaced by a single generic:
public interface VolleyCallback<T> {
void onSuccess(T result);
}
Then you specify T at time of implementing:
public class A implements BaseMapper.VolleyCallback<JSONArray> {
public void onSuccess(JSONArray result){
}
}
public class B implements BaseMapper.VolleyCallback<String> {
public void onSuccess(String result){
}
}
Related
I'm trying to solve this "composition + generics" situation, and make PostCompany.send(msg) be compatible with the type passed/injected to the class.
What could I change to allow both Fedex and FedexPlus being used as generic Types at PostCompany class, since Fexed's send method expects String as parameter and FeexPlus expects Integer?
interface Poster<T> {
void send(T msg);
}
class Fedex implements Poster<String> {
#Override
public void send(String msg) {
// do something
}
}
class FedexPlus implements Poster<Integer> {
#Override
public void send(Integer msg) {
// do something
}
}
class PostCompany<P extends Poster> {
private final P poster;
public PostCompany(P poster) {
this.poster = poster;
}
public void send(??? msg) { // <-- Here
this.poster.send(msg);
}
}
You missed the type of a Poster
class PostCompany<T, P extends Poster<T>> {
public void send(T msg) { // <-- Here
this.poster.send(msg);
}
}
But it actually better to just type the type of the object
class PostCompany<T> {
private final Poster<T> poster;
public PostCompany(Poster<T> poster) {
this.poster = poster;
}
public void send(T msg) { // <-- Here
this.poster.send(msg);
}
}
Since you will always be using the interface methods of Poster
You are using the raw form of Poster when defining PostCompany. You need to define another type parameter to capture the type argument for Poster.
Then you can use that new type parameter as the type argument to Poster and as the parameter type to the send method.
class PostCompany<T, P extends Poster<T>> {
and
public void send(T msg) {
I'm using a multiplayer Game Client that's called AppWarp (http://appwarp.shephertz.com), where you can add event listeners to be called back when event's happen, let's assume we'll be talking about the Connection Listener, where you need to implement this interface:
public interface ConnectionRequestListener {
void onConnectDone(ConnectEvent var1);
void onDisconnectDone(ConnectEvent var1);
void onInitUDPDone(byte var1);
}
My goal here is to mainly create a Reactive version of this client to be used in my Apps Internally instead of using the Client itself directly (I'll also rely on interfaces later instead of just depending on the WarpClient itself as in the example, but that's not the important point, please read my question at the very end).
So what I did is as follows:
1) I introduced a new event, named it RxConnectionEvent (Which mainly groups Connection-Related events) as follows:
public class RxConnectionEvent {
// This is the original connection event from the source client
private final ConnectEvent connectEvent;
// this is to identify if it was Connection / Disconnection
private final int eventType;
public RxConnectionEvent(ConnectEvent connectEvent, int eventType) {
this.connectEvent = connectEvent;
this.eventType = eventType;
}
public ConnectEvent getConnectEvent() {
return connectEvent;
}
public int getEventType() {
return eventType;
}
}
2) Created some event types as follows:
public class RxEventType {
// Connection Events
public final static int CONNECTION_CONNECTED = 20;
public final static int CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED = 30;
}
3) Created the following observable which emits my new RxConnectionEvent
import com.shephertz.app42.gaming.multiplayer.client.WarpClient;
import com.shephertz.app42.gaming.multiplayer.client.events.ConnectEvent;
import rx.Observable;
import rx.Subscriber;
import rx.functions.Action0;
import rx.subscriptions.Subscriptions;
public class ConnectionObservable extends BaseObservable<RxConnectionEvent> {
private ConnectionRequestListener connectionListener;
// This is going to be called from my ReactiveWarpClient (Factory) Later.
public static Observable<RxConnectionEvent> createConnectionListener(WarpClient warpClient) {
return Observable.create(new ConnectionObservable(warpClient));
}
private ConnectionObservable(WarpClient warpClient) {
super(warpClient);
}
#Override
public void call(final Subscriber<? super RxConnectionEvent> subscriber) {
subscriber.onStart();
connectionListener = new ConnectionRequestListener() {
#Override
public void onConnectDone(ConnectEvent connectEvent) {
super.onConnectDone(connectEvent);
callback(new RxConnectionEvent(connectEvent, RxEventType.CONNECTION_CONNECTED));
}
#Override
public void onDisconnectDone(ConnectEvent connectEvent) {
super.onDisconnectDone(connectEvent);
callback(new RxConnectionEvent(connectEvent, RxEventType.CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED));
}
// not interested in this method (for now)
#Override
public void onInitUDPDone(byte var1) { }
private void callback(RxConnectionEvent rxConnectionEvent)
{
if (!subscriber.isUnsubscribed()) {
subscriber.onNext(rxConnectionEvent);
} else {
warpClient.removeConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
}
}
};
warpClient.addConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
subscriber.add(Subscriptions.create(new Action0() {
#Override
public void call() {
onUnsubscribed(warpClient);
}
}));
}
#Override
protected void onUnsubscribed(WarpClient warpClient) {
warpClient.removeConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
}
}
4) and finally my BaseObservable looks like the following:
public abstract class BaseObservable<T> implements Observable.OnSubscribe<T> {
protected WarpClient warpClient;
protected BaseObservable (WarpClient warpClient)
{
this.warpClient = warpClient;
}
#Override
public abstract void call(Subscriber<? super T> subscriber);
protected abstract void onUnsubscribed(WarpClient warpClient);
}
My question is mainly: is my implementation above correct or should I instead create separate observable for each event, but if so, this client has more than 40-50 events do I have to create separate observable for each event?
I also use the code above as follows (used it in a simple "non-final" integration test):
public void testConnectDisconnect() {
connectionSubscription = reactiveWarpClient.createOnConnectObservable(client)
.subscribe(new Action1<RxConnectionEvent>() {
#Override
public void call(RxConnectionEvent rxEvent) {
assertEquals(WarpResponseResultCode.SUCCESS, rxEvent.getConnectEvent().getResult());
if (rxEvent.getEventType() == RxEventType.CONNECTION_CONNECTED) {
connectionStatus = connectionStatus | 0b0001;
client.disconnect();
} else {
connectionStatus = connectionStatus | 0b0010;
connectionSubscription.unsubscribe();
haltExecution = true;
}
}
}, new Action1<Throwable>() {
#Override
public void call(Throwable throwable) {
fail("Unexpected error: " + throwable.getMessage());
haltExecution = true;
}
});
client.connectWithUserName("test user");
waitForSomeTime();
assertEquals(0b0011, connectionStatus);
assertEquals(true, connectionSubscription.isUnsubscribed());
}
I suggest you avoid extending the BaseObservable directly since it's very error prone. Instead, try using the tools Rx itself gives you to create your observable.
The easiest solution is using a PublishSubject, which is both an Observable and a Subscriber. The listener simply needs to invoke the subject's onNext, and the subject will emit the event. Here's a simplified working example:
public class PublishSubjectWarpperDemo {
public interface ConnectionRequestListener {
void onConnectDone();
void onDisconnectDone();
void onInitUDPDone();
}
public static class RxConnectionEvent {
private int type;
public RxConnectionEvent(int type) {
this.type = type;
}
public int getType() {
return type;
}
public String toString() {
return "Event of Type " + type;
}
}
public static class SimpleCallbackWrapper {
private final PublishSubject<RxConnectionEvent> subject = PublishSubject.create();
public ConnectionRequestListener getListener() {
return new ConnectionRequestListener() {
#Override
public void onConnectDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(1));
}
#Override
public void onDisconnectDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(2));
}
#Override
public void onInitUDPDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(3));
}
};
}
public Observable<RxConnectionEvent> getObservable() {
return subject;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
SimpleCallbackWrapper myWrapper = new SimpleCallbackWrapper();
ConnectionRequestListener listner = myWrapper.getListener();// Get the listener and attach it to the game here.
myWrapper.getObservable().observeOn(Schedulers.newThread()).subscribe(event -> System.out.println(event));
listner.onConnectDone(); // Call the listener a few times, the observable should print the event
listner.onDisconnectDone();
listner.onInitUDPDone();
System.in.read(); // Wait for enter
}
}
A more complex solution would be to use one of the onSubscribe implementations to create an observable using Observable.create(). For example AsyncOnSubscibe. This solution has the benefit of handling backperssure properly, so your event subscriber doesn't become overwhelmed with events. But in your case, that sounds like an unlikely scenario, so the added complexity is probably not worth it.
I have the following need and please help me to write good and abstract class.
Different types of operations is needed based on the type
I have a abstract class,
abstract public class FileHelper{
//Template method
//This method defines a generic structure for parsing data
public void parseDataAndGenerateFile(String fileDownloadType)
{
createHeader(fileDownloadType);
generateFile();
}
//We have to write output in a excel file so this step will be same for all subclasses
public void createHeader(String fileDownloadType)
{
System.out.println('Creating HEADER in EXCEL');
}
public void generateFile(String fileDownloadType)
{
System.out.println('Output generated,writing to XLX');
}
}
public class ExcelDataParser extends FileHelper {
String fileDownloadType="";
}
public class TemplateMethodMain {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String fileDownloadType="expired";
ExcelDataParser csvDataParser=new ExcelDataParser();
csvDataParser.parseDataAndGenerateFile(fileDownloadType);
}
}
Please help me and correct me to have a good way of doing this.
If you want to use an abstract base class, you better should declare an abstract method String getDownloadType() in your abstract base class. These method must be overridden by the derived classes and the type could be fix in the derived class.
For example:
abstract public class FileHelper {
abstract String getFileDownloadType();
public void parseDataAndGenerateFile() {
createHeader();
generateFile();
}
public void createHeader() {
if ("expired".equals(getFileDownloadType())) {
} else {
}
}
public void generateFile() {
if ("expired".equals(getFileDownloadType())) {
} else {
}
}
}
public class ExcelDataParser extends FileHelper {
#Override
String getFileDownloadType() {
return "expired";
}
}
public class TemplateMethodMain {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExcelDataParser csvDataParser = new ExcelDataParser();
csvDataParser.parseDataAndGenerateFile();
}
}
But if you don't need a class for every type, you also could make the type a variable inside a single class and passing the type to the contructor
For example:
public class CsvFileHelper {
private final String fileDownloadType;
public CsvFileHelper(String type) {
fileDownloadType = type;
}
public void parseDataAndGenerateFile() {
createHeader();
generateFile();
}
public void createHeader() {
if ("expired".equals(fileDownloadType)) {
} else {
}
}
public void generateFile() {
if ("expired".equals(fileDownloadType)) {
} else {
}
}
}
public class TemplateMethodMain {
public static void main(String[] args) {
CsvFileHelper csvDataParser = new CsvFileHelper("expired");
csvDataParser.parseDataAndGenerateFile();
}
}
Is it possible to define following in Java:
public interface IGenericRepo<T> {
void add();
void delete();
void attach();
}
public interface IGenericRepo<Book> {
default String bookSpecificMethod(){
return "smthn";
}
}
public class NHGenericRepo<T> implements IGenericRepo<T>{
/* implementation */
}
public class NHUnitOfWork implements UnitOfWork{
#Autowired
public void setBookRepo(NHGenericRepo<Book> bookRepo) {
this.bookRepo= bookRepo;
}
public NHGenericRepo<Book> getBookRepo() {
return bookRepo;
}
private NHGenericRepo<Book> bookRepo;
}
And to be able somewhere in code to have:
{
#Autowired
public void setNhuw(NHUnitOfWork nhuw) {
this.nhuw = nhuw;
}
private NHUnitOfWork nhuw;
/**/
{
String st = this.nhuw.getBookRepo().bookSpecificMethod();
}
}
In .net this is possible by using Extension Method with "this IGenericRepo<Book>" as a first method parameter.
The closest you can come is:
public interface IBookGenericRepo extends IGenericRepo<Book> {
void BookSpecificMethod();
}
Please help resolve an issue regarding generics. I tried many ways but it's still not working.
Problem is:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Utils.execute(new TestAction(), new TestCallBack());
}
Compiler show error:
The method execute(Action<?>, CallBack<?,Action<?>>) in the type Utils is not applicable for the arguments (ImplementClass.TestAction, ImplementClass.TestCallBack)
My classes is:
Action class:
public abstract class Action<R> {
public R getResult() {
return null;
}
}
TestAction class is:
class TestAction extends Action<String> {
#Override
public String getResult() {
return super.getResult();
}
}
Callback class is:
public interface CallBack<R, A extends Action<R>> {
public void onCall(A action);}
TestCallback class is:
class TestCallBack implements CallBack<String, TestAction> {
#Override
public void onCall(TestAction action) {
}
}
And Utils class is:
public class Utils {
public static void execute(Action<?> action, CallBack<?, Action<?>> callback) {
}
}
Thanks a lot.
The second parameter of the execute method is CallBack<?, Action<?>>, and Action there means the Action class itself, subclass of it is not allowed. What you need there is - ? extends Action<?>, which means either Action or some subclass of it.
Try changing the method signature -
public static void execute(Action<?> action, CallBack<?, ? extends Action<?>> callback) {
Note:
Generics are not co-variant. Take for example a method as follows -
static void method(List<Object> l) {}
And an invocation as follows is not allowed -
method(new ArrayList<String>());
You need to change two things,
TestCallBack should be like this -
public static class TestCallBack implements CallBack<String, Action<String>> {
#Override
public void onCall(Action<String> action) {
}
}
and, Utils should be like this -
public static class Utils {
// You need to ensure the same type, not just try and accept anything.
public static <T> void execute(Action<T> action, CallBack<?, Action<T>> callback) {
}
}
or using inner classes of a class called Question -
public abstract class Action<R> {
public R getResult() {
return null;
}
}
public class TestAction extends Action<String> {
#Override
public String getResult() {
return super.getResult();
}
}
public interface CallBack<R, A extends Action<R>> {
public void onCall(A action);
}
public class TestCallBack implements CallBack<String, TestAction> {
#Override
public void onCall(TestAction action) {
}
}
public class Utils {
public void execute(Action<?> action, CallBack<?, ? extends Action<?>> callback) {
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Question question = new Question();
question.new Utils().execute(question.new TestAction(), question.new TestCallBack());
}