Develop Reference

May I query lambda function lifetime at runtime?

I know the Java compiler generates different classes for lambda functions depending on the context and closure they have. When I receive the lambda as a parameter (using the Consumer<> class), may I know the lifetime of the parameter?
For example, I have the following Observable class, that keeps a weak reference to its observes.
class Observable {
private final List<WeakReference<Consumer<Object>>> observables = new ArrayList<>();
private Object obj;
public Observable(Object obj){
this.obj = obj;
}
public void observe(Consumer<Object> cons){
this.observables.add(new WeakReference<>(cons));
}
public void set(Object obj){
this.obj = obj;
// notify observes
for(WeakReference<Consumer<Object>> cons : this.observables){
if(cons.get() != null)
cons.get().accept(this.obj);
// clearing the non-existing observes from the list is ommited for simplicity
}
}
}
Now I use it as follows.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object c = new Object();
Observable obs = new Observable(c);
new ContainingClass(obs);
obs.set(c);
System.gc();
obs.set(c);
}
}
The code just creates the object and its observer and creates ContainingClass (definition follows) that observes. Then the object is set once, garbage collector explicitly called (so the created ContainingClass is deleted) and set the object a second time.
Now, as long as the lambda is instance-specific (reference either this or its instances method) it's called only once (because it is destroyed by the GC).
public class ContainingClass {
public ContainingClass(Observable obs){
obs.observe(this::myMethod);
}
private void myMethod(Object obj) {
System.out.println("Hello here");
}
}
public class ContainingClass {
private Object obj;
public ContainingClass(Observable obs){
obs.observe(obj -> {
this.obj = obj;
System.out.println("Hello here");
});
}
}
But as the lambda becomes static, it is called twice, even after GC.
public class ContainingClass {
public ContainingClass(Observable obs){
obs.observe((obj) -> System.out.println("Hello here"));
}
}
The reference to this lambda is never destroyed and therefore add as an observer every time ContainingClass instance is created. As a result, it will be stuck in observers until the program ends.
Is there a way to detect this and at least show a warning, that the lambda will be never removed?
One thing I figured out is that lambda with instance lifetime has arg$1 property, so I can ask about the number of properties.
public void observe(Consumer<Object> cons){
if(cons.getClass().getDeclaredFields().length == 0)
System.out.println("It is static lifetime lambda");
this.observables.add(new WeakReference<>(cons));
}
Is it a universal approach? May there be a situation when this doesn't work?

I think a good solution would be the one hinted by #Olivier: you can return an object with a remove method that removes your Consumer from your list when called, like the following example:
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Registration {
void remove();
}
class Observable {
private final List<Consumer<Object>> observables = new ArrayList<>();
private Object obj;
public Observable(Object obj) {
this.obj = obj;
}
public Registration observe(Consumer<Object> cons) {
this.observables.add(cons);
return () -> this.observables.remove(cons);
}
public void set(Object obj) {
[...]
}
}
The alternative would be to check if the class the lambda belongs to is static or not, as suggested by #kutschkem, but I don't like resorting to introspection if there is a good alternative.
As already stated by #shalk, relying on WeakReference to handle GC can lead to unwanted behaviours, because there is no way to ensure that your Consumer isn't referenced (maybe by mistake) somewhere else.

Your question is similar to this question, so the answers there apply here too.
A static nested class has a flag that can be checked:
Modifier.isStatic(clazz.getModifiers()) // returns true if a class is static, false if not

Call method of unknown object

I have two ArrayLists - ArrayList1 and ArrayList2. Each of them is filled with objects - Object1 and Object2, respectively.
Both of these objects have method 'getText'.
Object1:
public String getText() { return "1";}
Object2:
public String getText() { return "2";}
At certain point I would like to loop through each of these lists using the same method (just with different parameter).
loopThroughList(1)
loopThroughList(2)
What is the syntax if I want to call a method, but I don't know which object it is going to be? This is the code I have so far:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getText());
}
It says Cannot resolve method getText. I googled around and found another solution:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getMethod("getText"));
}
But this gives me NoSuchMethodException error. Even though the 'getText' method is public.
EDIT: To get the correct list, I am calling the method 'getList' of a different object (lists) that returns either ArrayList1 or ArrayList2 (depending on the provided parameter).
class Lists
public getList(list) {
if (list == 1) {
return ArrayList1;
}
else if (list == 2) {
return ArrayList2;
}
}

Define an interface for the getText method
public interface YourInterface {
String getText();
}
Implement the interface on the respective classes
public class Object1 implements YourInterface {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "1";
}
}
public class Object2 implements YourInterface {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "2";
}
}
Modify your getList method to return List<YourInterface>
public static List<YourInterface> getList(int list){
List<YourInterface> result = new ArrayList<>();
if(list == 1){
// your initial type
List<Object1> firstList = new ArrayList<>();
result.addAll(firstList);
} else {
// your initial type
List<Object2> secondList = new ArrayList<>();
result.addAll(secondList);
}
return result;
}
Declaration for loopThroughList
public static void loopThroughList(List<YourInterface> list){
list.forEach(yourInterface -> System.out.println(yourInterface.getText()));
}
Sample usage.
public static void main(String[] args) {
loopThroughList(getList(1));
loopThroughList(getList(2));
}

Interfaces work great here, but there a couple of other options if you're dealing with legacy code and cannot use interfaces.
First would be to cast the list items into their respective types:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
if(o instanceof Object1) {
Object1 o1 = (Object1)o;
System.out.println(o1.getText());
}
else if(o instanceof Object2) {
Object1 o2 = (Object2)o;
System.out.println(o2.getText());
}
else {
System.out.println("Unknown class");
}
}
You can also use reflection to see if the object has a getText method and then invoke it:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
try {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("getName").invoke(o));
}
catch(Exception e) {
System.out.println("Object doesn't have getText method");
}
}

This is awful. Can you elaborate on what specifically you are trying to do? Java is strong typed by design, and you are trying to get around it. Why? Instead of Object, use the specific class, or interface as previously suggested. If that's not possible, and you must use lists of Objects, use instanceof and casting eg:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
if (o instanceof Object1) {
Object1 o1 = (Object1) o;
System.out.println(o1.getText());
} else if (o instanceof Object2) {
Object2 o2 = (Object2) o;
System.out.println(o2.getText());
}
}

This is where interfaces come in.
interface HasText {
public String getText();
}
class Object1 implements HasText {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "1";
}
}
class Object2 implements HasText {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "2";
}
}
private void test() {
List<HasText> list = Arrays.asList(new Object1(), new Object2());
for (HasText ht : list) {
System.out.println(ht);
}
}
If one of your objects is not in your control you can use a Wrapper class.
class Object3DoesNotImplementHasText {
public String getText() {
return "3";
}
}
class Object3Wrapper implements HasText{
final Object3DoesNotImplementHasText it;
public Object3Wrapper(Object3DoesNotImplementHasText it) {
this.it = it;
}
#Override
public String getText() {
return it.getText();
}
}
private void test() {
List<HasText> list = Arrays.asList(new Object1(), new Object2(), new Object3Wrapper(new Object3DoesNotImplementHasText()));
for (HasText ht : list) {
System.out.println(ht);
}
}

Just to add more to this answer and give you some more to think on this (Will try to do it in a simple, non-formal way). Using interfaces is the proper way of doing such operation. However, I want to stand on the "bad idea":
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getMethod("getText"));
}
What you are doing here, is using a mechanism called Reflection:
Reflection is a feature in the Java programming language. It allows an
executing Java program to examine or "introspect" upon itself, and
manipulate internal properties of the program. For example, it's
possible for a Java class to obtain the names of all its members and
display them.
What you actually attempted, is using that mechanism, to retrieve the method through a Class reflection object instance of your Class (sounds weird, isn't it?).
From that perspective, you need to think that, if you want to invoke your method, you now have, in a sense, a meta-Class instance to manipulate your objects. Think of it like an Object that is one step above your Objects (Similarly to a dream inside a dream, in Inception). In that sense, you need to retrieve the method, and then invoke it in a different (meta-like) way:
java.lang.reflect.Method m = o.getClass().getMethod("getText");
m.invoke(o);
Using that logic, you could possibly iterate through the object list, check if method exists, then invoke your method.
This is though a bad, BAD idea.
Why? Well, the answer relies on reflection itself: reflection is directly associated with runtime - i.e. when the program executes, practically doing all things at runtime, bypassing the compilation world.
In other words, by doing this, you are bypassing the compilation error mechanism of Java, allowing such errors happen in runtime. This can lead to unstable behavior of the program while executing - apart from the performance overhead using Reflection, which will not analyze here.
Side note: While using reflection will require the usage of Checked Exception handling, it still is not a good idea of doing this - as you practically try to duck tape a bad solution.
On the other hand, you can follow the Inheritance mechanism of Java through Classes and Interfaces - define an interface with your method (let's call it Textable), make sure that your classes implement it, and then use it as your base object in your list declaration (#alexrolea has implemented this in his answer, as also #OldCurmudgeon has).
This way, your program will still make the method call decision making at Runtime (via a mechanism called late binding), but you will not bypass the compilation error mechanism of Java. Think about it: what would happen if you define a Textable implementation without providing the class - a compile error! And what if you set a non-Textable object into the list of Textables? Guess what! A compile error again. And the list goes on....
In general, avoid using Reflection when you are able to do so. Reflection is useful in some cases that you need to handle your program in such a meta-way and there is no other way of making such things. This is not the case though.
UPDATE: As suggested by some answers, you can use instanceof to check if you have a specific Class object instance that contains your method, then invoke respectively. While this seems a simple solution, it is bad in terms of scaling: what if you have 1000 different classes that implement the same method you want to call?

your objects have to implement a common interface.
interface GetTextable {
String getText();
}
class One implements GetTextable {
private final String text;
public One(final String text) {
this.text = text;
}
public String getText() {
return this.text;
}
}
class Two implements GetTextable {
private final String text;
public Two(final String text) {
this.text = text;
}
public String getText() {
return this.text;
}
}
#Test
public void shouldIterate() throws Exception {
List<GetTextable> toIterate = Arrays.asList(new One("oneText"), new Two("twoText"));
for(GetTextable obj: toIterate) {
System.out.println(obj.getText());
}
}

Passing Anonymous Classes

This is a question for Java. I have an interface called IMyObjectPredicate which implements a single test method to apply to an input:
public interface IMyObjectPredicate {
boolean test(MyObject x);
}
What I would like is to be able to pass an instance of IMyObjectPredicate around between objects and have the test function update its references to variables to those of the new object it is being passed to. For instance, consider a class which makes use of this predicate:
public class Tester {
MyObject o;
IMyObjectPredicate myTestFunction;
int myThreshold;
public Tester(/*stuff*/) {
/*Code here which initialises the Tester instance and 'myThreshold'*/
myTestFunction = new IMyObjectPredicate() {
#Override
public boolean test(MyObject o) {
return (o.value() > myThreshold);
}
};
}
public boolean isGood() {
return myTestFunction.test(o);
}
}
I would like to be able to perform a deep clone of the Tester object for reasons I won't go into here. But the idea is that the cloned instance of Tester should test the predicate against its own value of myThreshold, not reference the myThreshold of the first instance. But if I pass myTestFunction to a new instance of Tester, I guess it will still be referencing the myThreshold value of the first instance, instead of dynamically evaluating myThreshold based on the reference of the enclosing class.
How can I accomplish the passing of a IMyObjectPredicate object whose test function uses references to the fields of the new object it is passed to?
Edit:
A complicating factor is that, in general, it will not be possible to reconstruct myTestFunction solely from the fields within a Tester object. myTestFunction may be overwritten by other parts of the program in a way that does not correlate with the other fields of Tester. I can sacrifice this functionality if need be, but I would rather not for the sake of elegance.

Java does not have an API to replace enclosed context of anonymous class.
The simplest solution I can see from your simplified example is to add threshold to the signature of test function. As I understand the threshold is going to be there anyway.
public interface IMyObjectPredicate {
boolean test(MyObject x, int threshold);
}
Another approach would use some factory method that will create a predicate for provided threshold like
class PredicateFactory {
IMyObjectPredicate thresholdPredicate(int threshold) {
return new IMyObjectPredicate {
//...
}
}
}
then you can pas this factory to object that will use it's own threshold to construct new instance of predicate
factory.thresholdPredicate(myThreshold);

It is a lot easier if ImObjectPredicate is an class that simply stores a reference to a predicate instead of an interface. If you're able to make that change, each predicate can store its own threshold, which solves the issue.
public IMyObjectPredicate {
private int threshold;
private Predicate<MyObject> pred;
public int getThreshold() {
return threshold;
}
public Predicate<MyObject> getPredicate() {
return pred;
}
public IMObjectPredicate(int threshold, Predicate<MyObject> pred) {
this.threshold = threshold;
this.pred = pred;
}
public boolean test(MyObject o) {
return pred.test(o);
}
}
public class Tester {
MyObject o;
IMyObjectPredicate myTestFunction;
IMyObjectPredicate myTestFunctionCopyWithDiffThreshold;
int myThreshold;
public Tester(/*stuff*/) {
/*Code here which initialises the Tester instance and 'myThreshold'*/
myTestFunction =
new IMyObjectPredicate(myThreshold, o -> o.value() > getThreshold());
myTestFunctionCopyWithDiffThreshold =
new ImObjectPredicate(5, myTestFunction.getPredicate());
}
public boolean isGood() {
return myTestFunction.test(o);
}
}
This is the most sensible solution, as ImObjectPredicate should store its own threshold if that value uniquely refers to that ImObjectPredicate.

Passing object by reference to a thread

Let's say I have a class called Object and a thread called ObjectCreator that manages the creation of an Object. For the sake of simplicity, Object has attributes: objectNumber and objectName.
If I were to create an instance of Object called instance, it would be held by ObjectCreator. Now let's say I needed another thread (let's call it ObjectChanger) to be able to see and manipulate instance; does it make sense to turn instance into a static Object?
I've managed to see results by making instance static so now I can do something like:
ObjectCreator.instance.getName();
Where getName() is a method of Object. From what I've read from answers to similar questions, static things are evil and there's always workarounds. One suggestion I've read is to pass instance to ObjectChanger as an argument for its constructor but what if instance wasn't created yet at the time I need to create an ObjectChanger?
Perhaps this question is more about OOP concepts than multi-threading or it may be a duplicate so forgive me but I'm quite lost here.
EDIT: To address frankie's and Jim's suggestions, here are some code snippets:
Object:
class Object
{
private String objectName = "Something";
private int objectNumber = 1;
public synchronized void changeNumber(int newNumber)
{
objectNumber = newNumber;
}
}
ObjectCreator:
class ObjectCreator extends Thread
{
static Object instance;
public ObjectCreator (Object something)
{
instance = something;
}
static void createObject()
{
...
}
static Object getObject()
{
return instance;
}
}
ObjectChanger:
public class ObjectChanger extends Thread
{
private Object currentInstance = null;
private int instanceNumber = null;
public void run()
{
currentInstance = ObjectCreator.getObject(); //If I were to make getObject() non-static, this line churns up an error
instanceNumber = currentInstance.getObjectNumber();
currentInstance.changeNumber(2); //valid?
}
}

If you want a thread to obtain access to an object not created within it, you must ensure that said thread has a path of references which it can follow, leading to the new object.
Consider the following code, with no threads involved.
class MyObject { /* ... */ }
interface MyObjectProvider {
MyObject getMyObject();
}
class Creator implements MyObjectProvider {
private MyObject obj;
/* ... */
#Override
public MyObject getMyObject() {
return obj;
}
/** Invoked at some point in time. */
void createMyObject() {
obj = new MyObject();
}
}
class Consumer {
private MyObjectProvider provider;
Consumer(MyObjectProvider mop) {
provider = mop;
}
void consume() {
// At some point in time...
MyObject o = provider.getMyObject();
}
}
Example of a program:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Creator creator = new Creator();
Consumer consumer = new Consumer(creator);
creator.createMyObject();
consumer.consume();
}
When you add threads to the mix, some code has to change, but the struture is the same.
The idea is to run the Creator in a thread, and the Consumer in another, as you've pointed out.
So, in short, these are the things you should be looking into:
Concurrency control: look into data races, synchronized, mutual exclusion, and their friends. Start here.
wait and notify, if the Consumer should wait for MyObject to be created. Look here.
When you have a nice grasp on these concepts, you may look into the volatile keyword (watch out for its pitfalls), and the java.util.concurrent package which provides better concurrency primitives, concurrent collections, and atomic variables.

You can put your objects in a list structure like Vector and store them in the ObjectCreator. Add a getter method to ObjectCreator which will accept an index of the object to be received.

This is just a skeleton showing the basic structure. Error handling is left as an exercise :-)
public class MyObject { ... }
...
public class MyObjectCreator {
private Map<String,MyObject> createdObjects = new HashMap<>();
public MyObject makeNewObject(int objNum, String objName)
{
MyObject o = new MyObject(objNum, objName);
this.createdObjects.put(objName,o);
}
public MyObject getObject(String objName)
{
return this.createdObjects.get(objName);
}
}
...
public class MyProgram {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
MyObjectCreator oc = new MyObjectCreator();
MyObject mo = oc.makeNewObject(10,"aNewObject");
...
MyObject o = oc.get("aNewObject");
...

If you only want to change the values of the fields of your class, you should just pass the object into your newly created thread. Then there is really no need to keep a static reference around in a holder class.
But as commented already, we need a bit more information to get to what you want to do with your object and thread.

Why cant you just make an getter in the ObjectCreator class that retrieves said Object?
ex: ObjectCreater.getMyObject()
EDIT:
I think you're looking for something like this if Im not mistaken:
public class ObjectCreator{
ArrayList<Object> children;
public ObjectCreator(){
children = new ArrayList<Object>();
}
//returns back index in children array (for accessing from other threads)
public int createObject( whatever params here ){
Object o = new Object( params );
children.add(o);
return children.size()-1;
}
}
since I dont know much about the problem you're trying to solve, Im not sure if it has to be thread safe, if you want these objects mapped, or accessed differently, but Im confused where all the confusion about static is coming...

Get every references to some object in Java [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
All references to an object
I'm looking for a way to get a list of class/instance members who have a reference to some variable, in Java.
For instance, for this case:
public class MyClass {
public LinkedList list;
}
public class MyOtherClass {
public LinkedList list;
}
public class Program {
public static void main(...) {
LinkedList list = new LinkedList();
MyClass c1 = new MyClass();
MyOtherClass c2 = new MyOtherClass();
c1.list = list;
c2.list = list;
}
}
At the end of the program we have 3 references for the LinkedList created on my first line of code in Program.main:
Program.main.list
MyClass.list
MyOtherClass.list
While the first one is a local variable (doesn't care for me), the others are instance fields. In this case, what I need it's some way to get, for 2. and 3., the reference to the objects (MyClass and MyOtherClass) and the field name that have the reference for the LinkedList created on line 1.
How can I do that?

"Pure" Java solution: not sure if it works for you, but if you can afford to wrap your object and access it only via wrapper, then you can try WeakHashMap:
public class Wrapper {
private final Object yourObject;
private final WeakHashMap<Object, Object> accessors = new WeakHashMap<Object, Object>();
public Wrapper(Object yourObject) {
this.yourObject = yourObject;
}
// add synchronized if you want thread-safety.
public Object getYourObject(Object accessor) {
accessors.put(accessor, accessor);
return yourObject;
}
// add synchronized if you want thread-safety.
public Object[] getAccessors() {
return accessors.keySet().toArray(new Object[accessors.keySet().size()]);
}
}