I have an implementation class which catches all the declared exceptions of a method of an Interface. As I inject and use the Interface instance variable inside a class and hope to call the implementation method - I am naturally getting a compiler error pointing that I either need to throw/catch the exceptions declared in parent.
Few options that come to my mind are these, but I don't like them. Just want to know the best way to go about this.
Cast the interface instance to impl
Create child interface with a method with no exceptions
May be just not declare exceptions in Interface. Just catch all of the possible exceptions in impl.
EDIT 1: Attached some example code
public interface ServiceUtilInterface {
public abstract String getMessage(String ID) throws CustomException;
}
#Component(value="MyServiceUtil")
public class MyServiceUtil implements ServiceUtilInterface {
#Override
public String getMessage(String ID) {
try{
//do something
}catch(CustomException e){
}
return "";
}
#Component
public class Usage {
#Autowired
ServiceUtilInterface serviceUtil;
public void someMethod(){
serviceUtil.getMessage("123");
//This where compiler expects me to throw /catch the exception defined in interface
}
}
UPDATE
Cast the interface instance to impl - never ever do that. If you use Spring then you never know what the implementation of an interface could be. This should be configuration dependent.
If you start do write jUnits you will probably need to use mock (fake) components for testing. Then if you try to cast your mock to a concrete implementation your code will fail. In other words you will never be able to write proper unit tests. The other thing is that if you add some Aspects or make a service #Transactional or #Validated then you wont be able to cast because instead of your implementation you may receive a proxy object.
and 3 that strongly depends on your code design. Try to find some materials about good practices for throwing and handling exceptions. There are some general rules about that. Probably no one can help you with this because this is service specific.
Related
Let's say I have 1 complete class with around 20 methods which provide different functionalities.
Now we have multiple clients using this class, but we want them to have restricted access.
For e.g. -
Client 1 - Gets access to method1/m3/m5/m7/m9/m11
Client 2 - Gets access to method2/m4/m6/m8/m10/m12
Is there any way I can restrict this access?
One solution which I thought:
Create 2 new classes extending Parent class and override methods which are not accessible and throw Exception from them.
But then if 3rd client with different requirement, we have to create new subclass for them.
Is there any other way to do this?
Create 2 new classes extending Parent class and override methods which
are not accessible and throw Exception from them. But then if 3rd
client with different requirement, we have to create new subclass for
them.
It is a bad solution because it violates Polymorphism and the Liskov Substitution Principle. This way will make your code less clear.
At first, you should think about your class, are you sure that it isn't overloaded by methods? Are you sure that all of those methods relate to one abstraction? Perhaps, there is a sense to separate methods to different abstractions and classes?
If there is a point in the existence of those methods in the class then you should use different interfaces to different clients. For example, you can make two interfaces for each client
interface InterfaceForClient1 {
public void m1();
public void m3();
public void m5();
public void m7();
public void m9();
public void m11();
}
interface InterfaceForClient2 {
public void m2();
public void m4();
public void m6();
public void m8();
public void m10();
public void m12();
}
And implement them in your class
class MyClass implements InterfaceForClient1, InterfaceForClient2 {
}
After it, clients must use those interfaces instead of the concrete implementation of the class to implement own logic.
You can create an Interface1 which defines methods only for Client1, and an Interface2 which defines methods only for Client2. Then, your class implements Interface1 and Interface2.
When you declare Client1 you can do something like: Interface1 client1.
With this approach, client1 can accesses only methods of this interface.
I hope this will help you.
The other answers already present the idiomatic approach. Another idea is a dynamic proxy decorating the API with an access check.
In essence, you generate a proxy API that has additional checks on method calls to implement a form of Access Control.
Example Implementation:
package com.example;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
#FunctionalInterface
public interface ACL<P, Q> {
boolean allowed(P accessor, Q target, Method method, Object[] args);
class ACLException extends RuntimeException {
ACLException(String message) {
super(message);
}
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
default Q protect(P accessor, Q delegate, Class<Q> dType) {
if (!dType.isInterface()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Delegate type must be an Interface type");
}
final InvocationHandler handler = (proxy, method, args) -> {
if (allowed(accessor, delegate, method, args)) {
try {
return method.invoke(delegate, args);
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
throw e.getCause();
}
} else {
throw new ACLException("Access denies as per ACL");
}
};
return (Q) Proxy.newProxyInstance(dType.getClassLoader(), new Class[]{dType}, handler);
}
}
Example Usage:
package com.example;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class Main {
interface API {
void doAlpha(int arg);
void doBeta(String arg);
void doGamma(Object arg);
}
static class MyAPI implements API {
#Override
public void doAlpha(int arg) {
System.out.println("Alpha");
}
#Override
public void doBeta(String arg) {
System.out.println("Beta");
}
#Override
public void doGamma(Object arg) {
System.out.println("Gamma");
}
}
static class AlphaClient {
void use(API api) {
api.doAlpha(100);
api.doBeta("100");
api.doGamma(this);
}
}
public static class MyACL implements ACL<AlphaClient, API> {
#Override
public boolean allowed(AlphaClient accessor, API target, Method method, Object[] args) {
final String callerName = accessor.getClass().getName().toLowerCase();
final String methodName = method.getName().toLowerCase().replace("do", "");
return callerName.contains(methodName);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final MyACL acl = new MyACL();
final API api = new MyAPI();
final AlphaClient client = new AlphaClient();
final API guardedAPI = acl.protect(client, api, API.class);
client.use(guardedAPI);
}
}
Notes:
The accessor does not have to be the client object itself, it can be a string key or token that helps ACL identify the client.
The ACL implementation here is rudimentary, more interesting ones could be One that reads ACL from some file or One that uses method and client annotations as rules.
If you don't want to define an interface for API class, consider a tool like javassist to directly proxy a class.
Consider other popular Aspect Oriented Programming solutions
You should create one super class with all the methods and then provide Client specific implementations in their corresponding sub classes extending from the super class defined earlier.
If there are methods which are common implementation for all clients, leave their implementations to the super class.
It seems like you are a bit confused about the purpose of Classes and Interfaces. As far as I know, an Interface is a contract defining which functionality a piece of software provides. This is from official java tutorial:
There are a number of situations in software engineering when it is
important for disparate groups of programmers to agree to a "contract"
that spells out how their software interacts. Each group should be
able to write their code without any knowledge of how the other
group's code is written. Generally speaking, interfaces are such
contracts.
Then you can write a Class which implements this Interface/contract, that is, provides the code that actually perform what was specified. The List interface and the ArrayList class are both an example of this.
Interfaces and Classes have access modifiers, but they aren't designed to specify permissions to specific clients. They specify what is visible for other piece of software depending the location where it is defined: Class, Package, Subclass, World. For example, a private method can be accessed only inside the class where it is defined.
From official Java tutorial again:
Access level modifiers determine whether other classes can use a
particular field or invoke a particular method. There are two levels
of access control:
At the top level—public, or package-private (no explicit modifier).
At the member level—public, private, protected, or package-private (no
explicit modifier).
Maybe you want something more powerful like Access Control List (ACL).
Your question is a little unclear, leading to different possible answers. I'll try to cover some of the possible areas:
Object encapsulation
If your goal is to provide interfaces to different clients that only provide certain functionality or a specific view there are several solutions. Which matches best depends on the purpose of your class:
Refactoring
The question somehow suggests that your class is responsible for different tasks. That might be an indicator, that you could tear it apart into distinct classes that provide the different interfaces.
Original
class AllInOne {
A m1() {}
B m2() {}
C m3() {}
}
client1.useClass(allInOneInstance);
client2.useClass(allInOneInstance);
client3.useClass(allInOneInstance);
Derived
class One {
A m1() {}
}
class Two {
B m2() {}
}
class Three {
C m3() {}
}
client1.useClass(oneInstance);
client2.useClass(twoInstance);
client3.useClass(threeInstance);
Interfaces
If you choose to keep the class together (there might be good reasons for it), you could have the class implement interfaces that model the view required by different clients. By passing instances of the appropriate interface to the clients they will not see the full class interface:
Example
class AllInOne implements I1, I2, I3 {
...
}
interface I1 {
A m1();
}
But be aware that clients will still be able to cast to the full class like ((AllInOne) i1Instance).m2().
Inheritance
This was already outline in other answers. I'll therefore skip this here. I don't think this is a good solution as it might easily break in a lot of scenarios.
Delegation
If casting is a risk to you, you can create classes that only offer the desired interface and delegate to the actual implementation:
Example
class Delegate1 {
private AllInOne allInOne;
public A m1() {
return allInOne.m1();
}
}
Implementing this can be done in various ways and depends on your environment like explicit classes, dynamic proxies , code generation, ...
Framework
If you are using an Application Framework like Spring you might be able to use functionality from this Framework.
Aspects
AOP allows you to intercept method calls and therefor apply some access control logic there.
Security
Please note that all of the above solutions will not give you actual security. Using casts, reflection or other techniques will still allow clients to obtain access to the full functionality.
If you require stronger access limitations there are techniques that I will just briefly outline as they might depend on your environment and are more complex.
Class Loader
Using different class loaders you can make sure that parts of your code have no access to class definitions outsider their scope (used e.g. in tomcat to isolate different deployments).
SecurityManager
Java offers possibilities to implement your own SecurityManager this offers ways to add some extra level of access checking.
Custom build Security
Of course you can add your own access checking logic. Yet I don't think this will be a viable solution for in JVM method access.
As we all know, the self-invokation of bean's method is not working in Spring without AspectJ.
See this question for example.
I think this is because the Spring-created proxy calls the target object's methods using delagate pattern. Like this:
class MyClass {
#Autowired
private MyClass self; // actually a MyProxy instance
#Transactional // or any other proxy magic
public void myMethod() {}
public void myOtherMethod() {
this.myMethod(); // or self.myMethod() to avoid self-invokation problem
}
}
class MyProxy extends MyClass { // or implements MyInterface if proxyMode is not TARGET_CLASS and MyClass also implements MyInterface
private final MyClass delegate;
#Override
public void myMethod() {
// some proxy magic: caching, transaction management etc
delegate.myMethod();
// some proxy magic: caching, transaction management etc
}
#Override
public void myOtherMethod() {
delegate.myOtherMethod();
}
}
Am I right?
With this code:
public void myOtherMethod() {
this.myMethod();
}
this.myMethod() will bypass the proxy (so all #Transactional or #Cacheable magic) because it is just internal delegate's call... So we should inject a MyClass bean (which is actually is MyProxy instance) inside MyClass and call self.myMethod() instead. It is understandable.
But why the proxy is implemented this way?
Why it is not just extends the target class, overriding all public methods and calling super instead of delegate?
Like this:
class MyProxy extends MyClass {
// private final MyClass delegate; // no delegate
#Override
public void myMethod() {
// some proxy magic: caching, transaction management etc
super.myMethod();
// some proxy magic: caching, transaction management etc
}
#Override
public void myOtherMethod() {
super.myOtherMethod();
}
}
It should solve the self-invokation problem, where this.myMethod() bypasses the proxy, because in this case this.myMethod(), invoked from MyClass.myOtherMethod() (we remember that MyClass bean actually is MyProxy instance), will invoke overriden child's method (MyProxy.myMethod()).
So, my main question is why it is not implemented this way?
Your assumption that Spring AOP uses delegation for its proxies is correct. This is also documented.
Using CGLIB, you can theoretically use proxy.invokeSuper() in order to achieve the effect you want, i.e. that self-invocation is registered by the aspect implemented by the proxy's method interceptor (I am using Spring's embedded version of CGLIB here, thus the package names):
package spring.aop;
import org.springframework.cglib.proxy.Enhancer;
import org.springframework.cglib.proxy.MethodInterceptor;
import org.springframework.cglib.proxy.MethodProxy;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
class SampleClass {
public void x() {
System.out.println("x");
y();
}
public void y() {
System.out.println("y");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Enhancer enhancer = new Enhancer();
enhancer.setSuperclass(SampleClass.class);
enhancer.setCallback(new MethodInterceptor() {
#Override
public Object intercept(Object obj, Method method, Object[] args, MethodProxy proxy)
throws Throwable {
if(method.getDeclaringClass() == Object.class)
return proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
System.out.println("Before proxy.invokeSuper " + method.getName());
Object result = proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
System.out.println("After proxy.invokeSuper " + method.getName());
return result;
}
});
SampleClass proxy = (SampleClass) enhancer.create();
proxy.x();
}
}
Console log:
Before proxy.invokeSuper x
x
Before proxy.invokeSuper y
y
After proxy.invokeSuper y
After proxy.invokeSuper x
This is exactly what you want. The problem starts, however, when you have several aspects: transactions, logging, whatever else. How do you make sure that they all work together?
Option 1: Each aspect gets its own proxy. This obviously will not work unless you nest the proxies into each other according to aspect precedence. But nesting them into each other means inheritance, i.e. one proxy would have to inherit from the other outside-in. Try proxying a CGLIB proxy, it does not work, you get exceptions. Furthermore, CGLIB proxies are quite expensive and use perm-gen memory, see descriptions in this CGLIB primer.
Option 2: Use composition instead of inheritance. Composition is more flexible. Having one proxy to which you can register aspects as needed solves the inheritance problem, but also means delegation: The proxy registers the aspects and calls their methods during runtime in the right order before/after the actual real object's code is executed (or not, if an #Around advice never calls proceed()). See this example from the Spring manual about manually registering aspects to a proxy:
// create a factory that can generate a proxy for the given target object
AspectJProxyFactory factory = new AspectJProxyFactory(targetObject);
// add an aspect, the class must be an #AspectJ aspect
// you can call this as many times as you need with different aspects
factory.addAspect(SecurityManager.class);
// you can also add existing aspect instances, the type of the object supplied must be an #AspectJ aspect
factory.addAspect(usageTracker);
// now get the proxy object...
MyInterfaceType proxy = factory.getProxy();
As to why the Spring developers chose this approach and whether it might have been possible to use the one-proxy approach but still make sure that self-invocation works like in my little CGLIB sample "logging aspect" above, I can only speculate. You can maybe ask them on the developers mailing list or look into the source code. Maybe the reason was that CGLIB proxies should behave similarly to the default Java dynamic proxies so as to make switching between the two for interface types seamless. Maybe the reason is another one.
I did not mean to be rude in my comments, only straightforward, because your question is really not suited to StackOverflow because it is not a technical problem to which someone can find a solution. It is a historical design question and rather philosophic in nature because with AspectJ a solution to your technical problem (self-invocation) beneath the actual question already exists. But maybe you still want to dive into the Spring source code, change the Spring AOP implementation from delegation to proxy.invokeSuper() and file a pull request. I am not sure such a breaking change would be accepted, though.
In addition, you will not able to use Inheritance + super in the following cases:
What about if the RealSubject is final, so the proxy will can NOT extends it
What about if the Proxy needs to extend something other than the RealSubject
What about if you need to hide some functionality (methods) inside the RealSubject
Prefer Composition over Inheritance (recommended by many developers)
So, basically, a there is some poor code that I cannot change that needs to be tested. Traditionally, you inject your mocked dependencies, but with this code, I cannot do so, because there are no setter methods. Worse, the function I need to test calls a bunch of static factory methods-I can't just use the MockUp strategy to swap out the implementation there, because there is no class instance to be injected at all.
In C/++, you can retrieve a pointer to a function and know it's type by it's signature. If you changed the pointer, then you could potentially change how the stack was constructed by the compiler and you could pass function's around and all that Jazz.
Is there a way to use the Deencapsulation API to replace a static method implementation? Using this, I could write my own class, descend from the traditional, but return mocked objects in order that dependency injection still be achieved?
public class TestedClass {
public static void testedMethod() {
UnMockableType instanceVariable =
UnInjectableFactory.staticFactoryConstructor();
instanceVariable.preventControlFlowInfluenceThroughMocking();
}
}
Easy enough:
#Test
public void exampleTestUsingAMockUp()
{
new MockUp<UnMockableType>() {
#Mock
void preventControlFlowInfluenceThroughMocking() {}
};
TestedClass.testedMethod();
}
Above, UnInjectableFactory isn't mocked because it doesn't need to be (assuming it simply instantiates/recovers an UnMockableType).
It could also be done with #Mocked and the Expectations API.
I have a class that has a method. The method may fail and I want to throw an exception. Is it bad to define the exception class within the namespace of the class whose function is throwing the exception? I haven't seen a lot of examples of this, but it seems like the "right" (i.e. OO) way to do it? Is there a reason I should avoid this pattern and define each custom exception in its own file?
public class Foo
{
void bar() {
// do something and throw BarException if something bad happens
}
public static class BarException extends Exception {
// rest of class definition
}
}
I think it depends on the possible scope of the Exception you're creating. If it will only have to do with Foo, and only Foo, forever, then creating it as a nested class would be good.
Just make sure it makes sense for something calling Bar to say:
catch (Foo.BarException e)
instead of
catch (BarException e)
Else, create it as its own standalone class.
As for the namespace, a Java class could be used for namespacing classes, but generally in Java packages are used for namespacing your classes. I would only use a nested class if there is a very high coupling between the main class and the other class.
I would not use this pattern.
You add more line to class.
This class has more than one concern
and you will get problems, if you want to use the same Exception in another class.
Why do you want to do this? Just, because you don't want to create a new file? ;)
In Java you should only ad one public class in one file. Sometimes I add public interfaces into classes, most for event handling.
class MyEvent {
public void registerHandler(MyEvent.Handler h){
//
}
public interface Handler(){
handle();
}
}
In this case I am absolute sure, there wont be any other class using this Interface.
I have a generated object that I want to:
Preserve existing functionality of without injecting into the constructor and rewriting every method to call injectedObject.sameMethod().
Add additional functionality to that generated object without modifying the generated object.
add additional functionality to.
For example:
public class GeneratedObject {
public String getThis() { ... }
public String getThat() { ... }
}
public interface ObjectWrapper {
String doThisWithThat();
}
public class ObjectWrapperImpl extends GeneratedObject implements ObjectWrapper {
String doThisWithThat() { ... }
}
However, downcasting is not allowed, what is the proper implementation without rewriting a bunch of redundant code just to wrap the object?
I think decorator pattern may help you: "The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object at run-time, independently of other instances of the same class"
Have you tried aspectj? http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/next/progguide/semantics-declare.html It's a bit complicated but so is your request.
If you can extract an interface from GeneratedObject, then it would be possible to do this using a dynamic proxy. You would make a proxy which implemented the extracted interface and ObjectWrapper, with an invocation handler which passed all calls to methods in the GeneratedObject interface through to the delegate, and sent the doThisWithThat() calls elsewhere.
Proxies aren't pretty, but the ugliness is at least well-localised.