Develop Reference

Graceful alternative to nested Optional.map?

I have multiple Optionals that must be mapped to a POJO. Is there a better alternative than the following?
class SimplePojo {
private String stringField;
private Integer integerField;
// All args. constructor, getter, setter
}
Optional<String> stringOptional = ...
Optional<Integer> integerOptional = ...
Optional<SimplePojo> simplePojoOptional = stringOptional.flatMap(
string -> integerOptional.map(integer -> new SimplePojo(string, integer)))
I have reduced the problem to 2 Optionals in the above example to keep it short. But I actually have 3 Optionals with more on the way. I am afraid the last line can easily become unwieldy soon.
Please note: Use of functional frameworks like Vavr or Functional Java is not an option for me.

How about using a Builder ?
class SimplePojo {
public static class Builder {
private String stringField;
public Builder withStringField(String str) {
this.stringField = str;
return this;
}
// and other "with" methods...
public Optional<SimplePojo> build() {
if (stringField == null || anotherField == null /* and so forth */) {
return Optional.empty();
} else {
return Optional.of(new SimplePojo(this));
}
}
}
private final String stringField;
/* private constructor, so client code has to go through the Builder */
private SimplePojo(Builder builder) {
this.stringField = builder.stringField;
// etc.
}
}
Then you could use it as follows:
SimplePojo.Builder builder = new SimplePojo.builder();
optionalStringField.ifPresent(builder::withStringField);
// etc.
return builder.build();

I do not see any advantage from pursuing the functional style this way here. see three options:
ONE: If you can alter the SimplePojo class and if this scenario is a common one, you might consider to add a factory method to the SimplePojo:
class SimplePojo {
public static Optional<SimplePojo> of(final Optional<String> stringField, final Optional<Integer> integerField) {
if (stringField.isPresent() && integerField.isPresent()) {
return new SimplePojo(stringField.get(), integerField.get());
else
return Optional.empty();
}
}
TWO: If you cannot alter the SimplePojo, you might want to create this as a utility method somewhere else. If you need this pattern only in one class, make the method private in this class!
THREE: If you need to do this only once or twice, I would prefer the if...then construction from the first option over the functional notation you used for the sake of readability:
final Optional<SimplePojo> simplePojoOptional;
if (stringField.isPresent() && integerField.isPresent()) {
simplePojoOptional = new SimplePojo(stringField.get(), integerField.get());
else
simplePojoOptional = Optional.empty();

Use the command line to make new objects

In my program, the user needs to input what type of players the game will have. The players are "human", "good" (for a good AI), "bad" (for a bad AI) and "random" (for a random AI). Each of these players have their own class that extend one abstract class called PlayerType.
My struggle is mapping a String to the object so I can A) create a new object using the String as sort of a key and B) get the related String from an object of its subclass
Ultimately, I just want the implicit String to only appear once in the code so I can change it later if needed without refactoring.
I've tried using just a plain HashMap, but that seems clunky with searching the keys via the values. Also, I'm guessing that I'll have to use the getInstance() method of Class, which is a little less clunky, which is okay if it's the only way.

What I would do is create an enum which essentially functions as a factory for the given type.
public enum PlayerTypes {
GOOD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new GoodPlayer();
}
},
BAD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new BadPlayer();
}
},
RANDOM {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new RandomPlayer();
}
};
protected abstract PlayerType newPlayer();
public static PlayerType create(String input) {
for(PlayerTypes player : PlayerTypes.values()) {
if(player.name().equalsIgnoreCase(input)) {
return player.newPlayer();
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid player type [" + input + "]");
}
)
Because then you can just call it like so:
String input = getInput();
PlayerTypes.create(input);
Of course, you'll get an IllegalArgumentException which you should probably handle by trying to get the input again.
EDIT: Apparently in this particular case, you can replace that loop with just merely
return PlayerTypes.valueOf(input).newPlayer();
And it'll do the same thing. I tend to match for additional constructor parameters in the enum, so I didn't think of using valueOf(), but it's definitely cleaner.
EDIT2: Only way to get that information back is to define an abstract method in your PlayerType class that returns the PlayerTypes enum for that given type.
public class PlayerType {
public abstract PlayerTypes getType();
}
public class GoodPlayer extends PlayerType {
#Override
public PlayerTypes getType() {
return PlayerTypes.GOOD;
}
}

I like the answer provided by Epic but I don't find maps to be clunky. So it's possible to keep a map and get the constructor call directly.
Map<String, Supplier<PlayerType> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("human", Human::new);
Human h = map.get("human").get();

The two main options I can think of:
Using Class.newInstance(), as you mentioned (not sure if you had this exact way in mind):
// Set up your map
Map<String, Class> classes = new HashMap<String, Class>();
classes.put("int", Integer.class);
classes.put("string", String.class);
// Get your data
Object s = classes.get("string").newInstance();
You could use Class.getDeclaredConstructor.newInstance if you want to use a constructor with arguments (example).
Another option is using switch:
Object getObject(String identifier) {
switch (identifier) {
case "string": return new String();
case "int": return new Integer(4);
}
return null; // or throw an exception or return a default object
}

One potential solution:
public class ForFunFactory {
private ForFunFactory() {
}
public static AThing getTheAppropriateThing(final String thingIdentifier) {
switch (thingIdentifier) {
case ThingImplApple.id:
return new ThingImplApple();
case ThingImplBanana.id:
return new ThingImplBanana();
default:
throw new RuntimeException("AThing with identifier "
+ thingIdentifier + " not found.");
}
}
}
public interface AThing {
void doStuff();
}
class ThingImplApple implements AThing {
static final String id = "Apple";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm an Apple.");
}
}
class ThingImplBanana implements AThing {
static final String id = "Banana";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm a Banana.");
}
}

Cleaner way to filter collections in Java 7/Guava?

I have the following classes:
class ServiceSnapshot {
List<ExchangeSnapshot> exchangeSnapshots = ...
...
}
class ExchangeSnapshot{
Map<String, String> properties = ...
...
}
SayI have a collection of ServiceSnapshots, like so:
Collection<ServiceSnapshot> serviceSnapshots = ...
I'd like to filter the collection so that the resulting collection of ServiceSnapshots only contains ServiceSnapshots that contain ExchangeSnapshots where a property on the ExchangeSnapshots matches a given String.
I have the following untested code, just wondering is there a cleaner/more readable way to do this, using Java 7, and maybe Google Guava if necessary?
Updtae: Note also that the code sample I've provided below isn't suitable for my purposes, since I'm using iterator.remove() to filter the collection. It turns out I cannot do this as it is modifying the underlying collection , meaning subsequent calls to my method below result in fewer and fewer snashots due to previous calls removing them from the collection - this is not what I want.
public Collection<ServiceSnapshot> getServiceSnapshotsForComponent(final String serviceId, final String componentInstanceId) {
final Collection<ServiceSnapshot> serviceSnapshots = getServiceSnapshots(serviceId);
final Iterator<ServiceSnapshot> serviceSnapshotIterator = serviceSnapshots.iterator();
while (serviceSnapshotIterator.hasNext()) {
final ServiceSnapshot serviceSnapshot = (ServiceSnapshot) serviceSnapshotIterator.next();
final Iterator<ExchangeSnapshot> exchangeSnapshotIterator = serviceSnapshot.getExchangeSnapshots().iterator();
while (exchangeSnapshotIterator.hasNext()) {
final ExchangeSnapshot exchangeSnapshot = (ExchangeSnapshot) exchangeSnapshotIterator.next();
final String foundComponentInstanceId = exchangeSnapshot.getProperties().get("ComponentInstanceId");
if (foundComponentInstanceId == null || !foundComponentInstanceId.equals(componentInstanceId)) {
exchangeSnapshotIterator.remove();
}
}
if (serviceSnapshot.getExchangeSnapshots().isEmpty()) {
serviceSnapshotIterator.remove();
}
}
return serviceSnapshots;
}

Using Guava:
Iterables.removeIf(serviceSnapshots, new Predicate<ServiceSnapshot>() {
#Override
public boolean apply(ServiceSnapshot serviceSnapshot) {
return !Iterables.any(serviceSnapshot.getExchangeSnapshots(), new Predicate<ExchangeSnapshot>() {
#Override
public boolean apply(ExchangeSnapshot exchangeSnapshot) {
String foundComponentInstanceId = exchangeSnapshot.getProperties().get("ComponentInstanceId");
return foundComponentInstanceId != null && foundComponentInstanceId.equals(componentInstanceId);
}
});
}
});
I may have a ! missing or inverted somewhere, but the basic strategy is to remove any ServiceSnapshot objects that do not have any ExchangeSnapshot whose ID matches.

checking whether an object is present in a List of Objects on the basis of some member variable

suppose I have defined a List as
private BlockingQueue<MyDelayed> DelayedIds = new DelayQueue<>();
class MyDelayed is like:
private class MyDelayed implements Delayed {
private String myId;
private Long creationTime;
MyDelayed (String myId) {
this.myId= myId;
this.creationTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
String getMyId() {
return this.myId;
}
#Override
public long getDelay(TimeUnit unit) {
//TODO
}
#Override
public int compareTo(Delayed o) {
//TODO
}
}
Now suppose that I want to add an Object of class MyDelayed in DelayedIds list.
I can do it by using add function.
But If I want to add obbject in list only if list does not contain an object of class MyDelayed which has the same myId attribute which I am trying to insert.
Obviously DelayedIds .contains(new MyDelayed(myId)) will not work.
Is there any easy way to check this thing ?
Am I missing something ?

You could write something like this and compare every element in the list to see if it contains your id. If at any point you find a matching one you return true, if the loop finished having found none it returns false.
public boolean contains(String id){
for (MyDelayed md : DelayedIds){
if(md.getMyId().equals(id)){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Now to check before adding you would do something like:
if(!contains(myNewObject.getMyId())){
DelayedIds.add(myNewObject)
}
Also, I'd suggest that you rename DelayedIds to delayedIds in order to follow coding standards (see Variables).

Is it possible to set multiple messages using oval AbstractAnnotationCheck?

I am using the Oval validation framework to validate fields that HTML fields cannot hold malicious javascript code. For the malicious code detection, I am using an external framework that returns me a list of errors that I would like to use as error messages on the field. The problem I am running into is that I can only setMessage in the check implementation, while I would rather do something like setMessages(List). So while I am currently just joining the errors with a comma, I would rather pass them back up as a list.
Annotation
#Target({ ElementType.METHOD, ElementType.FIELD})
#Retention( RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Constraint(checkWith = HtmlFieldValidator.class)
public #interface HtmlField {
String message() default "HTML could not be validated";
}
Check
public class HtmlFieldValidator extends AbstractAnnotationCheck<HtmlDefaultValue> {
public boolean isSatisfied( Object o, Object o1, OValContext oValContext, Validator validator ) throws OValException {
if (o1 == null) {
return true;
} else {
CleanResults cleanResults = UIowaAntiSamy.cleanHtml((String) o1);
if (cleanResults.getErrorMessages().size() > 0) {
String errors = StringUtils.join(cleanResults.getErrorMessages(), ", ");
this.setMessage(errors);
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
}
}
Model class
class Foo {
#HtmlField
public String bar;
}
Controller code
Validator validator = new Validator(); // use the OVal validator
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.bar = "<script>hack()</script>";
List<ConstraintViolation> violations = validator.validate(bo);
if (violations.size() > 0) {
// inform the user that I cannot accept the string because
// it contains invalid html, using error messages from OVal
}

If setMessage(String message) is a method created by a superclass, you can override it and once it receives the data, simply split the string into a list and call a second function in which you would actually place your code. On a side note, I would also recommend changing the separating string to something more unique as the error message itself could include a comma.
Your question doesn't really make much sense though. If you are "passing them back up" to a method implemented in a superclass, then this voids the entire point of your question as the superclass will be handling the data.
I am going to assume the setError methods is a simple setter that sets a String variable to store an error message that you plan to access after checking the data. Since you want to have the data in your preferred type, just create a new array of strings in your class and ignore the superclass. You can even use both if you so desire.
public class HtmlFieldValidator extends AbstractAnnotationCheck<HtmlDefaultValue> {
public String[] errorMessages = null;
public void setErrorMessages(String[] s) {
this.errorMessages = s;
}
public boolean isSatisfied( Object o, Object o1, OValContext oValContext, Validator validator ) throws OValException {
if (o1 == null) {
return true;
} else {
CleanResults cleanResults = UIowaAntiSamy.cleanHtml((String) o1);
if (cleanResults.getErrorMessages().size() > 0) {
//String errors = StringUtils.join(cleanResults.getErrorMessages(), ", ");
//this.setMessage(errors);
this.setErrorMessages(cleanResults.getErrorMessages());
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
}
}
Elsewhere:
HtmlFieldValidator<DefaultValue> hfv = new HtmlFieldValidator<DefaultValue>();
boolean satisfied = hfv.isSatisfied(params);
if (!satisfied) {
String[] errorMessages = hfv.errorMessages;
//instead of using their error message
satisfy(errorMessages);//or whatever you want to do
}
EDIT:
After you updated your code I see what you mean. While I think this is sort of overdoing it and it would be much easier to just convert the string into an array later, you might be able to do it by creating a new class that extends Validator its setMessage method. In the method, you would call super.setMethod as well as splitting and storing the string as an array in its class.
class ValidatorWithArray extends Validator {
public String[] errors;
public final static String SPLIT_REGEX = ";&spLit;";// Something unique so you wont accidentally have it in the error
public void setMessage(String error) {
super.setMessage(error);
this.errors = String.split(error, SPLIT_REGEX);
}
}
In HtmlFieldValidator:
public boolean isSatisfied( Object o, Object o1, OValContext oValContext, Validator validator ) throws OValException {
if (o1 == null) {
return true;
} else {
CleanResults cleanResults = UIowaAntiSamy.cleanHtml((String) o1);
if (cleanResults.getErrorMessages().size() > 0) {
String errors = StringUtils.join(cleanResults.getErrorMessages(), ValidatorWithArray.SPLIT_REGEX);
this.setMessage(errors);
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
}
And now just use ValidatorWithArray instead of Validator

The situation in which I want to achieve this was different from yours, however what I found was best in my case was to create an annotation for each error (rather than having one that would return multiple errors). I guess it depends on how many errors you are likely to be producing in my case it was only two or three.
This method makes also makes your code really easy to reuse as you can just add the annotations wherenever you need them and combine them at will.