Android AIDL with Java generics

Android AIDL with Java generics - java

Does Android AIDL support generics?
For example, assume that I have a class Result<T>, where T can be any type including primitives (via autoboxing) or other custom classes such as Car. Any custom classes implement Parcelable as required by Binder.
Then possible AIDL method signatures would be
Result<Car> m1();
Result<Void> m2();
Result<Boolean> m3();

From what I could gather, the AIDL compiler doesn't like things like Result<Animal> getResult();. However, Result getResult(); does work. So this is what I did:
Created a class with the signature public class Result<T extends Parcelable> implements Parcelable.
Created a new class to throw into the first one, which is called Animal. The signature is public class Animal implements Parcelable.
Had to implement methods required by interface Parcelable and a CREATOR in both Result and Animal, and also created one AIDL for each as is required and imported both classes in the main AIDL. This stuff is regular AIDL work and is describe in the AIDL site.
Inside Result, we store not only an object of type T but also a Class object. When writing the parcel we need to write first the class type and only then the generic object. When reading, we do it in the same order. We need to write the class type because when we read we have to do t = (T) in.readValue(classType.getClassLoader()); and without a class type we do not know which class loader to fetch. There are probably other ways to do this but this is how I've done it for this example.
When receiving on the client node, I can successfully do Result<Animal> r = MainActivity.this.service.getResult(); and then call methods on both Result and Animal.
Some code that will hopefully makes things more clearer can be found below.
public class Result<T extends Parcelable> implements Parcelable {
private String msg;
private Class classType;
private T value;
public Result(String msg, T value, Class classType) {
this.msg = msg;
this.value = value;
this.classType = classType;
}
// to reconstruct object
public Result(Parcel in) {
readFromParcel(in);
}
public String getMsg() {
return msg;
}
public T getValue() {
return value;
}
#Override
public int describeContents() {
return 0;
}
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
dest.writeString(msg);
dest.writeValue(classType);
dest.writeValue(value);
}
private void readFromParcel(Parcel in) {
this.msg = in.readString();
this.classType = (Class) in.readValue(Class.class.getClassLoader());
this.value = (T) in.readValue(classType.getClassLoader());
}
public static final Creator<Result> CREATOR = new Creator<Result>() {
#Override
public Result createFromParcel(Parcel source) {
return new Result(source);
}
#Override
public Result[] newArray(int size) {
return new Result[size];
}
};
}
public class Animal implements Parcelable {
private int n;
public Animal(int n) {
this.n = n;
}
public Animal(Parcel in) {
readFromParcel(in);
}
public int getN() {
return n;
}
#Override
public int describeContents() {
return 0;
}
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
dest.writeInt(n);
}
private void readFromParcel(Parcel in) {
n = in.readInt();
}
public static final Creator<Animal> CREATOR = new Creator<Animal>() {
#Override
public Animal createFromParcel(Parcel source) {
return new Animal(source);
}
#Override
public Animal[] newArray(int size) {
return new Animal[size];
}
};
}
Excerpt from the Service:
#Override
public Result getResult() throws RemoteException {
Result<Animal> r = new Result<Animal>("this is an animal", new Animal(42), Animal.class);
return r;
}
Excerpt from the Client:
Result<Animal> r = MainActivity.this.service.getResult();
Log.d(TAG, "Received the following (Outer): " + r.getMsg());
Log.d(TAG, "Received the following (Inner): " + r.getValue().getN());
Another way to do it is changing the signature of Result into public class Result<T extends Serializable> implements Parcelable, making Animal implement Serializable, and then use dest.writeSerializable(value); and this.value = (T) in.readSerializable(); inside Result.
With this approach there is no need to send the class type to the other side or even use it at all. You will, nonetheless, pay the price.

Daniels solution almost worked for me except the thing with marshalling and unmarshaling classtype.
Instead of "dest.writeValue(classType);" and "this.classType = (Class) in.readValue(Class.class.getClassLoader());" I had to use "dest.writeSerializable(classType);" and "classType = (Class) in.readSerializable();" and it worked like a charm
Thank you Daniel

Related

Parcelable.CREATOR on abstract class

I'm trying to pass an ArrayList of unknown class type that extend an abstract class, to another activity using Parcelable. Since its not possible to use Parcelable.CREATOR on the abstract class, there is an error when I try to create the ArrayList: in.readTypedList(AbstractChannel.CREATOR), see below:
public class TvNetwork implements Parcelable {
public String name;
public ArrayList<? extends AbstractChannel> mChannels;
public TvNetwork(String name, ArrayList<? extends AbstractChannel> channels) {
this.name = name;
this.mChannels = channels;
}
protected TvNetwork(Parcel in) {
name = in.readString();
mChannels = in.readTypedList(AbstractChannel.CREATOR); // here is the error
}
public static final Creator<TvNetwork> CREATOR = new Creator<TvNetwork>() {
#Override
public TvNetwork createFromParcel(Parcel in) {
return new TvNetwork(in);
}
#Override
public TvNetwork[] newArray(int size) {
return new TvNetwork[size];
}
};
public ArrayList<? extends AbstractChannel> getChannels() {
return mChannels;
}
#Override
public int describeContents() {
return 0;
}
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
dest.writeString(name);
dest.writeTypedList(mChannels);
}
}
Writing seems to work but not reading. This obviously does not work either, but explains a bit more what I want to do:
in.readTypedList(mChannels, <? extends AbstractChannel>.class.getClassLoader());
Any ideas?

Abstract class constructor param vs. abstract method for final data

What are the pros/cons of using the abstract class constructor vs. an abstract method for passing final data to an abstract class?
Pass via constructor:
public abstract class MyAbstractClass<T> {
private final String type;
private final Function<String, T> factoryFn;
protected MyAbstractClass(String type, Function<String, T> factoryFn) {
this.type = type;
this.factoryFn = factoryFn;
}
public T doSomething(String value) { ... }
}
Pass via abstract method:
public abstract class MyAbstractClass<T> {
abstract String getType();
abstract T getFactoryFn(String value);
public T doSomething(String value) { ... }
}
I'm aware that the abstract methods can potentially be misused, because it doesn't enforce to always return the same value.
But apart from that, is it just a matter of personal preference, or are there any real (dis)advantages for using one over the other?

I hope I am understanding your question correctly..
Usually, when a property of a class is always held in a field, it is more concise to use an abstract constructor. For example, consider the two following scenarios....
// Scenario 1:
abstract class AClass {
final int field;
public AClass(int f) {
field = f;
}
public int getField() {
return field;
}
}
class Class1 extends AClass {
public Class1(int f) {
super(f);
}
// Class Unique Code...
}
class Class2 extends AClass {
public Class2(int f) {
super(f);
}
// Class Unique Code...
}
// Scenario 2:
abstract class AClass {
public abstract int getField();
}
class Class1 extends AClass {
final int field;
public Class1(int f) {
field = f;
}
#Override
public int getField() {
return field;
}
// Class Unique Code...
}
class Class2 extends AClass {
final int field;
public Class2(int f) {
field = f;
}
#Override
public int getField() {
return field;
}
// Class Unique Code...
}
Scenario 1 is shorter since the getter logic for field only needs to be specified once. Whereas in scenario 2, the getter logic must be overridden by both subclasses. I find scenario 2 to be redundant... why write the same code twice when you can use java inheritance to your advantage.
As a final note, I usually don't hold functions in fields unless totally necessary. Whenever you have a function in a field, it's usually a sign that an abstract function can be applied.
Here is your original code with my advice applied...
public abstract class MyAbstractClass<T> {
private final String type;
protected MyAbstractClass(String t) {
type = t;
}
protected abstract T applyFactoryFunction(String value);
public T doSomething(String value) { ... }
}
Hope this helped!

Is it possible to parcel a generic class?

I'm trying to create public class MyClass<T extends Parcelable> implements Parcelable. I'm having trouble implementing Parcelable. Is it possible to create a generic class that implements Parcelable? (Note that T is bounded so that it also must implement Parcelable).
I am running into trouble with the fact that the Parcelable interface requires a static variable: public static final Parcelable.Creator<MyParcelable> CREATOR. Thus I cannot do public static final Parcelable.Creator<MyClass<T>> CREATOR because MyParcelable<T> is nonstatic.
André

I had similar issues with implementing Parcelable on a class with a generic, the first issue was the same as what you were experiencing:
Thus I cannot do public static final Parcelable.Creator> CREATOR because MyParcelable is nonstatic.
The second was to read in a Parcelable object you need access to the ClassLoader which cannot be gotten from T due to type erasure.
The class below is an adaption of a class I am using in production which overcomes both issues. Note: I have not tested this class specifically, so let me know if you have any issues.
public class TestModel<T extends Parcelable> implements Parcelable {
private List<T> items;
private String someField;
public List<T> items() {
return items;
}
public void setItems(List<T> newValue) {
items = newValue;
}
public String someField() {
return someField;
}
public void setSomeField(String newValue) {
someField = newValue;
}
//region: Parcelable implementation
public TestModel(Parcel in) {
someField = in.readString();
int size = in.readInt();
if (size == 0) {
items = null;
}
else {
Class<?> type = (Class<?>) in.readSerializable();
items = new ArrayList<>(size);
in.readList(items, type.getClassLoader());
}
}
#Override
public int describeContents() {
return 0;
}
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
dest.writeString(someField);
if (items == null || items.size() == 0)
dest.writeInt(0);
else {
dest.writeInt(items.size());
final Class<?> objectsType = items.get(0).getClass();
dest.writeSerializable(objectsType);
dest.writeList(items);
}
}
public static final Parcelable.Creator<TestModel> CREATOR = new Parcelable.Creator<TestModel>() {
public TestModel createFromParcel(Parcel in) {
return new TestModel(in);
}
public TestModel[] newArray(int size) {
return new TestModel[size];
}
};
//endregion
}

Write the generic data member class name to the parcel and then read it back in order to create its class loader. Example,
public class MyClass<T> implements Parcelable {
T data;
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
dest.writeString(data.getClass().getName());
dest.writeParcelable((Parcelable) data, 0);
}
private MyClass(Parcel in) {
final String className = in.readString();
try {
data = in.readParcelable(Class.forName(className).getClassLoader());
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
Log.e("readParcelable", className, e);
}
}

Yes you can. You just need to store the class name or class loader during the construction of your subclass object and then you can pass it during the read/write operation of the parcelable.
Step by step instructions:
Step 1. Store the class name that extends from your Generic class like this:
public abstract class GenericClass<T> implements Parcelable {
private String className;
Step 2. Any classes that extends from your generic class must specify the class name during its construction like this:
public class MyClass extends GenericClass<MyClass> {
public MyClass () {
super();
setClassName(MyClass.class.getName()); // Generic class setter method
}
Step 3. In your generic class, you can then read/write your class names to getClassLoader() like this:
public abstract class GenericClass<T> implements Parcelable {
private String className;
T myGenericObject;
protected MyClass (Parcel in) {
super(in);
this.className = in.readString();
ClassLoader classLoader;
try {
classLoader = Class.forName(this.className).getClassLoader();
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
myGenericObject = in.readParcelable(classLoader);
//... Other class members can go here
}
#Override
public void writeToParcel(Parcel dest, int flags) {
super.writeToParcel(dest, flags);
dest.writeString(className);
//... Other class members can go here
}
}

Based on answers above, have created extension functions for this.
fun <T : Parcelable> Parcel.writeGenericParcelable(data: T, flags: Int) {
writeString(data::class.java.name)
writeParcelable(data, flags)
}
fun <T : Parcelable> Parcel.readGenericParcelable(): T {
val className = readString()!!
val classNameLoader = Class.forName(className).classLoader
return readParcelable(classNameLoader)!!
}

How to implement a generic wrapper for a ResultSet-like API?

I have an third-party RPC-API that provides an interface similar to that of java.sql.ResultSet (for reading values) and java.sql.PreparedStatement (for writing values). Assume it looks something like this:
public interface RemoteDeviceProxy {
public void setBoolean(Boolean value);
public void setInteger(Integer value);
// ...
public Boolean getBoolean();
public Integer getInteger();
// ...
}
I want to write a wrapper for this API that uses generics to create instances of specific types:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
}
public T get() {
// should call wrappedDevice.getBoolean() if T is Boolean, etc.
// how to implement?
}
public void set(T newValue) {
// should call wrappedDevice.setBoolean(newValue) if T is Boolean, etc.
// implement using instanceof
}
}
How can I implement the getter in my generic wrapper? I have found this answer which explains a similar scenario in depth, but I am not able to transfer this to my problem. Specifically, when I write this:
public T get() {
Type[] actualTypeArguments = ((ParameterizedType) getClass())
.getActualTypeArguments();
}
I get a compiler error saying I cannot cast to ParameterizedType, and I do not understand why. Can anyone explain how to achieve this?

Here is one way:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
private final Class<T> clazz;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice, Class<T> clazz) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
this.clazz = clazz;
}
public T get() {
if(clazz == Boolean.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getBoolean());}
else if(clazz == Integer.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getInteger());}
// ...
}
// ...
}

I thought over this quite a while and finally came up with a different approach:
First I added a getter to you RemoteVariable class:
protected RemoteDeviceProxy getWrappedProxy() {
return wrappedProxy;
}
Second I created a builder interface that will be used by a factory later:
public interface RemoteVariableBuilder {
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy);
}
Then I created non generic sub classes for Boolean...
public class RemoteBooleanVariable extends RemoteVariable<Boolean> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteBooleanVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteBooleanVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Boolean get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getBoolean();
}
#Override
public void set(Boolean value) {
getWrappedProxy().setBoolean(value);
}
}
... and Integer ...
public class RemoteIntegerBuilder extends RemoteVariable<Integer> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteIntegerBuilder(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteIntegerBuilder(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Integer get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getInteger();
}
#Override
public void set(Integer value) {
getWrappedProxy().setInteger(value);
}
}
actually eclipse created most of the code once it knew base class and interface.
The final step was to create a factory
public class RemoteVariableFactory {
private static final Map<String, RemoteVariableBuilder> BUILDERS = new HashMap<>();
static {
BUILDERS.put(Boolean.class.getName(), new RemoteBooleanVariable(null));
BUILDERS.put(Integer.class.getName(), new RemoteIntegerBuilder(null));
// add more builders here
}
public static <T> RemoteVariable<T> getRemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy, Class<T> typeClass) {
RemoteVariableBuilder remoteVariableBuilder = BUILDERS.get(typeClass.getName());
if (remoteVariableBuilder == null) {
return null; // or throw an exception whichever is better in your case
}
return remoteVariableBuilder.buildNewVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
}
Now we are ready to create new RemoteVariables...
RemoteVariable<Boolean> var1 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Boolean.class);
RemoteVariable<Integer> var2 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Integer.class);
To conclude this let's do a quick comparison to the answer of Eng.Fouad:
Disadvantage:
you need to create a new class for every datatype you provide
Advantage:
you only have to add one line to the static block of the factory and not two new if blocks to the getter and setter in RemoteVariable
get and set do not have to work through the if-else-blocks every time

Subclassing a Java Builder class

Give this Dr Dobbs article, and the Builder Pattern in particular, how do we handle the case of subclassing a Builder? Taking a cut-down version of the example where we want to subclass to add GMO labelling, a naive implementation would be:
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
public Builder calories(int val) { calories = val; return this; }
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
Subclass:
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) { hasGMO = val; return this; }
public GMOFacts build() { return new GMOFacts(this); }
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}
Now, we can write code like this:
GMOFacts.Builder b = new GMOFacts.Builder();
b.GMO(true).calories(100);
But, if we get the order wrong, it all fails:
GMOFacts.Builder b = new GMOFacts.Builder();
b.calories(100).GMO(true);
The problem is of course that NutritionFacts.Builder returns a NutritionFacts.Builder, not a GMOFacts.Builder, so how do we solve this problem, or is there a better Pattern to use?
Note: this answer to a similar question offers up the classes I have above; my question is regarding the problem of ensuring the builder calls are in the correct order.

You can solve it using generics. I think this is called the "Curiously recurring generic patterns"
Make the return type of the base class builder methods a generic argument.
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
public T calories(int val) {
calories = val;
return (T) this;
}
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder<?> builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
Now instantiate the base builder with the derived class builder as the generic argument.
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder<Builder> {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() { return new GMOFacts(this); }
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}

Just for the record, to get rid of the
unchecked or unsafe operations warning
for the return (T) this; statement as #dimadima and #Thomas N. talk about, following solution applies in certain cases.
Make abstract the builder which declares the generic type (T extends Builder in this case) and declare protected abstract T getThis() abstract method as follows:
public abstract static class Builder<T extends Builder<T>> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {}
/** The solution for the unchecked cast warning. */
public abstract T getThis();
public T calories(int val) {
calories = val;
// no cast needed
return getThis();
}
public NutritionFacts build() { return new NutritionFacts(this); }
}
Refer to http://www.angelikalanger.com/GenericsFAQ/FAQSections/ProgrammingIdioms.html#FAQ205 for further details.

Based off of a blog post, this approach requires all the non-leaf classes to be abstract, and all the leaf classes must be final.
public abstract class TopLevel {
protected int foo;
protected TopLevel() {
}
protected static abstract class Builder
<T extends TopLevel, B extends Builder<T, B>> {
protected T object;
protected B thisObject;
protected abstract T createObject();
protected abstract B thisObject();
public Builder() {
object = createObject();
thisObject = thisObject();
}
public B foo(int foo) {
object.foo = foo;
return thisObject;
}
public T build() {
return object;
}
}
}
Then, you have some intermediate class that extends this class and its builder, and as many more as you need:
public abstract class SecondLevel extends TopLevel {
protected int bar;
protected static abstract class Builder
<T extends SecondLevel, B extends Builder<T, B>> extends TopLevel.Builder<T, B> {
public B bar(int bar) {
object.bar = bar;
return thisObject;
}
}
}
And, finally a concrete leaf class that can call all the builder methods on any of its parents in any order:
public final class LeafClass extends SecondLevel {
private int baz;
public static final class Builder extends SecondLevel.Builder<LeafClass,Builder> {
protected LeafClass createObject() {
return new LeafClass();
}
protected Builder thisObject() {
return this;
}
public Builder baz(int baz) {
object.baz = baz;
return thisObject;
}
}
}
Then, you can call the methods in any order, from any of the classes in the hierarchy:
public class Demo {
LeafClass leaf = new LeafClass.Builder().baz(2).foo(1).bar(3).build();
}

You can override also the calories() method, and let it return the extending builder. This compiles because Java supports covariant return types.
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder extends NutritionFacts.Builder {
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val)
{ hasGMO = val; return this; }
public Builder calories(int val)
{ super.calories(val); return this; }
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
}
[...]
}

There is also another way to create classes according to Builder pattern, which conforms "Prefer composition over inheritance".
Define an interface, that parent class Builder will inherit:
public interface FactsBuilder<T> {
public T calories(int val);
}
The implementation of NutritionFacts is almost the same (except for Builder implementing 'FactsBuilder' interface):
public class NutritionFacts {
private final int calories;
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
private int calories = 0;
public Builder() {
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
return this;
}
public NutritionFacts build() {
return new NutritionFacts(this);
}
}
protected NutritionFacts(Builder builder) {
calories = builder.calories;
}
}
The Builder of a child class should extend the same interface (except different generic implementation):
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
NutritionFacts.Builder baseBuilder;
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
baseBuilder = new NutritionFacts.Builder();
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
}
Notice, that NutritionFacts.Builder is a field inside GMOFacts.Builder (called baseBuilder). The method implemented from FactsBuilder interface calls baseBuilder's method of the same name:
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
There is also a big change in the constructor of GMOFacts(Builder builder). The first call in the constructor to parent class constructor should pass appropriate NutritionFacts.Builder:
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder.baseBuilder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
The full implementation of GMOFacts class:
public class GMOFacts extends NutritionFacts {
private final boolean hasGMO;
public static class Builder implements FactsBuilder<Builder> {
NutritionFacts.Builder baseBuilder;
private boolean hasGMO = false;
public Builder() {
}
public Builder GMO(boolean val) {
hasGMO = val;
return this;
}
public GMOFacts build() {
return new GMOFacts(this);
}
#Override
public Builder calories(int val) {
baseBuilder.calories(val);
return this;
}
}
protected GMOFacts(Builder builder) {
super(builder.baseBuilder);
hasGMO = builder.hasGMO;
}
}

A full 3 level example of multiple builder inheritance would look like this:
(For the version with a copy constructor for the builder see the second example below)
First level - parent (potentially abstract)
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public abstract class Class1 {
protected int f1;
public static class Builder<C extends Class1, B extends Builder<C, B>> {
C obj;
protected Builder(C constructedObj) {
this.obj = constructedObj;
}
B f1(int f1) {
obj.f1 = f1;
return (B)this;
}
C build() {
return obj;
}
}
}
Second level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class2 extends Class1 {
protected int f2;
public static class Builder<C extends Class2, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class1.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
this((C) new Class2());
}
protected Builder(C obj) {
super(obj);
}
B f2(int f2) {
obj.f2 = f2;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
Third level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class3 extends Class2 {
protected int f3;
public static class Builder<C extends Class3, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class2.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
this((C) new Class3());
}
protected Builder(C obj) {
super(obj);
}
B f3(int f3) {
obj.f3 = f3;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
And an example of usage
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class2 b1 = new Class2.Builder<>().f1(1).f2(2).build();
System.out.println(b1);
Class2 b2 = new Class2.Builder<>().f2(2).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(b2);
Class3 c1 = new Class3.Builder<>().f1(1).f2(2).f3(3).build();
System.out.println(c1);
Class3 c2 = new Class3.Builder<>().f3(3).f1(1).f2(2).build();
System.out.println(c2);
Class3 c3 = new Class3.Builder<>().f3(3).f2(2).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c3);
Class3 c4 = new Class3.Builder<>().f2(2).f3(3).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c4);
}
}
A bit longer version featuring a copy constructor for the builder:
First level - parent (potentially abstract)
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public abstract class Class1 {
protected int f1;
public static class Builder<C extends Class1, B extends Builder<C, B>> {
C obj;
protected void setObj(C obj) {
this.obj = obj;
}
protected void copy(C obj) {
this.f1(obj.f1);
}
B f1(int f1) {
obj.f1 = f1;
return (B)this;
}
C build() {
return obj;
}
}
}
Second level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class2 extends Class1 {
protected int f2;
public static class Builder<C extends Class2, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class1.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
setObj((C) new Class2());
}
public Builder(C obj) {
this();
copy(obj);
}
#Override
protected void copy(C obj) {
super.copy(obj);
this.f2(obj.f2);
}
B f2(int f2) {
obj.f2 = f2;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
Third level
import lombok.ToString;
#ToString(callSuper=true)
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class Class3 extends Class2 {
protected int f3;
public static class Builder<C extends Class3, B extends Builder<C, B>> extends Class2.Builder<C, B> {
public Builder() {
setObj((C) new Class3());
}
public Builder(C obj) {
this();
copy(obj);
}
#Override
protected void copy(C obj) {
super.copy(obj);
this.f3(obj.f3);
}
B f3(int f3) {
obj.f3 = f3;
return (B)this;
}
}
}
And an example of usage
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class3 c4 = new Class3.Builder<>().f2(2).f3(3).f1(1).build();
System.out.println(c4);
// Class3 builder copy
Class3 c42 = new Class3.Builder<>(c4).f2(12).build();
System.out.println(c42);
Class3 c43 = new Class3.Builder<>(c42).f2(22).f1(11).build();
System.out.println(c43);
Class3 c44 = new Class3.Builder<>(c43).f3(13).f1(21).build();
System.out.println(c44);
}
}

If you don't want to poke your eye out on an angle bracket or three, or perhaps don't feel you... umm... I mean... cough... the rest of your team will quickly comprehend curiously recurring generics pattern, you can do this:
public class TestInheritanceBuilder {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SubType.Builder builder = new SubType.Builder();
builder.withFoo("FOO").withBar("BAR").withBaz("BAZ");
SubType st = builder.build();
System.out.println(st.toString());
builder.withFoo("BOOM!").withBar("not getting here").withBaz("or here");
}
}
supported by
public class SubType extends ParentType {
String baz;
protected SubType() {}
public static class Builder extends ParentType.Builder {
private SubType object = new SubType();
public Builder withBaz(String baz) {
getObject().baz = baz;
return this;
}
public Builder withBar(String bar) {
super.withBar(bar);
return this;
}
public Builder withFoo(String foo) {
super.withFoo(foo);
return this;
}
public SubType build() {
// or clone or copy constructor if you want to stamp out multiple instances...
SubType tmp = getObject();
setObject(new SubType());
return tmp;
}
protected SubType getObject() {
return object;
}
private void setObject(SubType object) {
this.object = object;
}
}
public String toString() {
return "SubType2{" +
"baz='" + baz + '\'' +
"} " + super.toString();
}
}
and the parent type:
public class ParentType {
String foo;
String bar;
protected ParentType() {}
public static class Builder {
private ParentType object = new ParentType();
public ParentType object() {
return getObject();
}
public Builder withFoo(String foo) {
if (!"foo".equalsIgnoreCase(foo)) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
getObject().foo = foo;
return this;
}
public Builder withBar(String bar) {
getObject().bar = bar;
return this;
}
protected ParentType getObject() {
return object;
}
private void setObject(ParentType object) {
this.object = object;
}
public ParentType build() {
// or clone or copy constructor if you want to stamp out multiple instances...
ParentType tmp = getObject();
setObject(new ParentType());
return tmp;
}
}
public String toString() {
return "ParentType2{" +
"foo='" + foo + '\'' +
", bar='" + bar + '\'' +
'}';
}
}
Key points:
Encapsulate the object in the builder so that inheritance prevents you from setting the field on the object held in the parent type
Calls to super ensure that logic (if any) added to the super type builder methods is retained in the sub types.
Down side is spurious object creation in the parent class(es)... But see below for a way to clean that up
Up side is much easier to understand at a glance, and no verbose constructor transferring properties.
If you have multiple threads accessing your builder objects... I guess I'm glad I'm not you :).
EDIT:
I found a way around the spurious object creation. First add this to each builder:
private Class whoAmI() {
return new Object(){}.getClass().getEnclosingMethod().getDeclaringClass();
}
Then in the constructor for each builder:
if (whoAmI() == this.getClass()) {
this.obj = new ObjectToBuild();
}
The cost is an extra class file for the new Object(){} anonymous inner class

One thing you could do is to create a static factory method in each of your classes:
NutritionFacts.newBuilder()
GMOFacts.newBuilder()
This static factory method would then return the appropriate builder. You can have a GMOFacts.Builder extending a NutritionFacts.Builder, that is not a problem. THE problem here will be to deal with visibility...

I created a parent, abstract generic builder class that accepts two formal type parameters. First is for the type of object returned by build(), the second is the type returned by each optional parameter setter. Below are parent and child classes for illustrative purpose:
// **Parent**
public abstract static class Builder<T, U extends Builder<T, U>> {
// Required parameters
private final String name;
// Optional parameters
private List<String> outputFields = null;
public Builder(String pName) {
name = pName;
}
public U outputFields(List<String> pOutFlds) {
outputFields = new ArrayList<>(pOutFlds);
return getThis();
}
/**
* This helps avoid "unchecked warning", which would forces to cast to "T" in each of the optional
* parameter setters..
* #return
*/
abstract U getThis();
public abstract T build();
/*
* Getters
*/
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
// **Child**
public static class Builder extends AbstractRule.Builder<ContextAugmentingRule, ContextAugmentingRule.Builder> {
// Required parameters
private final Map<String, Object> nameValuePairsToAdd;
// Optional parameters
private String fooBar;
Builder(String pName, Map<String, String> pNameValPairs) {
super(pName);
/**
* Must do this, in case client code (I.e. JavaScript) is re-using
* the passed in for multiple purposes. Doing {#link Collections#unmodifiableMap(Map)}
* won't caught it, because the backing Map passed by client prior to wrapping in
* unmodifiable Map can still be modified.
*/
nameValuePairsToAdd = new HashMap<>(pNameValPairs);
}
public Builder fooBar(String pStr) {
fooBar = pStr;
return this;
}
#Override
public ContextAugmentingRule build() {
try {
Rule r = new ContextAugmentingRule(this);
storeInRuleByNameCache(r);
return (ContextAugmentingRule) r;
} catch (RuleException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}
#Override
Builder getThis() {
return this;
}
}
This one has met my needs to satisfaction.

The following IEEE contribution Refined Fluent Builder in Java gives a comprehensive solution to the problem.
It dissects the original question into two sub-problems of inheritance deficiency and quasi invariance and shows how a solution to these two sub-problems opens for inheritance support with code reuse in the classical builder pattern in Java.

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.

Android AIDL with Java generics - java

Related

Parcelable.CREATOR on abstract class

Abstract class constructor param vs. abstract method for final data

Is it possible to parcel a generic class?

How to implement a generic wrapper for a ResultSet-like API?

Subclassing a Java Builder class

Categories

Resources