Problem
I'm trying to use Java generics to replace classes with similar methods. All of the examples that I've found cover simple examples, but I'm not sure if Java Generics are intended to be used this way.
I have 2 parent classes, and 2 child classes that have almost identical methods. Both parent classes derive from different classes as well. Ultimately, I want to be able to use one block of code to create and manipulate one of the parent classes, then its child class without a lot of switch statements or other flow control with duplicate code.
This is what I had in mind, even though I haven't beeen able to get it to work this way yet, whether it be syntax, or just not a feature of Generics.
Parent Classes
public class FooParent
{
private FooChild fooChild;
public FooChild getChild()
{
return fooChild;
}
}
public class BarParent
{
private BarChild barChild;
public BarChild getChild()
{
return barChild;
}
}
Child Classes
public class FooChild
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("I'm a foo child");
}
}
public class BarChild
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("I'm a bar child");
}
}
Generic Classes
public class GenericParent<T>
{
private T self;
public GenericParent(T self)
{
this.self = self;
}
public GenericChild getChild()
{
return new GenericChild(self.getChild());
}
}
public class GenericChild<T>
{
private T self;
public GenericChild(T self)
{
this.self = self;
}
public void print()
{
self.print();
}
}
How I want to use them
public static void main(String args[])
{
GenericParent parent;
// Only the initialization of the parent variable needs specialized code
switch(args[0])
{
case "foo":
parent = new GenericParent(new FooParent());
break;
case "bar":
parent = new GenericParent(new BarParent());
break;
}
// From here on out, it's all generic
parent.getChild().print();
}
Usage and desired output
java genericExample foo
> I'm a foo child
java genericExample bar
> I'm a bar child
Final Questions
Maybe "child" and "parent" are misnomers, because I know they're not actually inherited, but the bottom line is, the one class returns its "child" with certain methods. So this is a lot of code for a problem that may not actually be solvable this way, but hopefully you can answer me this:
Is this something that Java Generics can accomplish?
If not, is there a solution to this problem in Java?
Thanks!
Edit
My "Foo" and "Bar" classes are uneditable by me. My ultimate question is: can I store one instance of either class in a single variable without using a common parent class?
I think you want polymorphism, not generics:
public class test {
public class FooParent implements hasPrintableChildren
{
private FooChild fooChild;
public FooChild getChild()
{
return fooChild;
}
}
public class BarParent implements hasPrintableChildren
{
private BarChild barChild;
public BarChild getChild()
{
return barChild;
}
}
public class FooChild implements canPrint
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("I'm a foo child");
}
}
public class BarChild implements canPrint
{
public void print()
{
System.out.println("I'm a bar child");
}
}
public interface hasPrintableChildren{
public canPrint getChild();
}
public interface canPrint{
public void print();
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
hasPrintableChildren parent;
// Only the initialization of the parent variable needs specialized code
switch(args[0])
{
case "foo":
parent = new FooParent();
break;
case "bar":
parent = new BarParent();
break;
}
// From here on out, it's all generic
parent.getChild().print();
}
}
OP clarified that he would be interested in the reflection option:
public static void main(String args[]) throws IllegalArgumentException, SecurityException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException, NoSuchMethodException
{
Object parent;
// Only the initialization of the parent variable needs specialized code
switch(args[0])
{
case "foo":
parent = new FooParent();
break;
case "bar":
parent = new BarParent();
break;
}
// From here on out, it's all generic
Object child = parent.getClass().getMethod("getChild").invoke(parent);
child.getClass().getMethod("print").invoke(child);
}
Note: I would not recommend this sort of hard coded reflection. Code like this generally stinks of a bigger design problem.
Your parent seems a wrapper, a wrapper is a container, so yes it may be something that can benefit from a type parameter.
But I can't see any type parameter except in the constructor signature (and what is self? No bounds, no hints, no anything...), so using a generic type doesn't buy anything to you here. It's no use to introduce a type parameter if the methods you are interested in return void and declare an empty parameter list.
Here's the guidance: if methods in your classes would benefit from having a type parameter, ie if a type parameter is useful in any method return type or in the signature, then genericize your class. Otherwise, stick with what you currently have.
No. This is not usually something you would use Generics for, this is something you would use an Interface or an Abstract class for, and in your example, probably anonymous inner classes.
Here is an example that pretty much shows all that:
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String args[])
{
AbstractParent parent;
// Only the initialization of the parent variable needs specialized code
switch(args[0])
{
case "foo":
parent = new FooParent();
break;
default:
parent = new BarParent();
break;
}
// From here on out, it's all generic
parent.getChild().print();
}
}
Child.java
public interface Child {
void print();
}
AbstractParent.java
public abstract class AbstractParent {
protected Child child;
public Child getChild() {
return child;
}
}
BarParent.java
public class BarParent extends AbstractParent {
public BarParent() {
child = new Child() {
#Override
public void print() {
System.out.println("I'm a bar child");
}
};
}
}
FooParent.java
public class FooParent extends AbstractParent {
public FooParent() {
child = new Child() {
#Override
public void print() {
System.out.println("I'm a foo child");
}
};
}
}
With some of the new language features in Java 8, you can do even cooler things. But let's leave that for another time.
Yes, generics together with polymorphism can help you:
public class Foo {} // declared elsewhere
public class Bar {} // declared elsewhere
public abstract class GenericParent<T> {
private T self;
public GenericParent(T self) {
this.self = self;
}
protected T getSelf() {
return self;
}
public abstract GenericChild<T> getChild();
}
public class FooChild extends GenericChild<Foo> {
public FooChild(Foo foo) {
super(foo);
}
}
public class BarChild extends GenericChild<Bar> {
public BarChild(Bar bar) {
super(bar);
}
}
public class FooParent extends GenericParent<Foo> {
public FooParent(Foo foo) {
super(foo);
}
public FooParent() {
this(new Foo());
}
#Override
public GenericChild<Foo> getChild() {
return new FooChild(getSelf());
}
}
public class BarParent extends GenericParent<Bar> {
public BarParent(Bar bar) {
super(bar);
}
public BarParent() {
this(new Bar());
}
#Override
public GenericChild<Bar> getChild() {
return new BarChild(getSelf());
}
}
You also have to change your main method slightly:
public static void main(String args[]) {
GenericParent<?> parent;
// Only the initialization of the parent variable needs specialized code
switch(args[0]) {
case "foo":
parent = new FooParent();
break;
case "bar":
parent = new BarParent();
break;
}
parent.getChild().print();
}
Related
I am writing a java (processing) library for unexperienced students, and am looking for the best architecture for implementing it.
Initialization of an object should be as close as possible to this:
myObject = new General("type1");
Such that myObject will become an instance of Type1 which extends General:
class General {
public General() {}
}
class Type1 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
class Type2 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
As far as I know, this isn't possible (choosing between extended classes during initialization), but I'm looking for the closest solution possible.
So far, my best solution is to make a static initializer inside General:
class General {
...
static General init (String type) {
General temp;
if (type.equals("type1") {
temp = new Type1();
}
...
return temp;
}
and the initialization is:
General myObject;
myObject = General.init("type1");
This is far from ideal...
thanks.
you can make a factory class that manages initialization.
instead of doing it inside the parent.
// Empty vocabulary of actual object
public interface IPerson
{
string GetName();
}
public class Villager : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "Village Person";
}
}
public class CityPerson : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "City Person";
}
}
public enum PersonType
{
Rural,
Urban
}
/// <summary>
/// Implementation of Factory - Used to create objects.
/// </summary>
public class Factory
{
public IPerson GetPerson(PersonType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case PersonType.Rural:
return new Villager();
case PersonType.Urban:
return new CityPerson();
default:
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
The State design pattern can be a solution here. Rather than the constructor argument changing the type of the object (which isn't possible) it can set a field of the object, to make it behave as if its type is different.
package stackoverflow.questions;
public class Main {
private interface MyInterface {
String foo();
int bar();
}
private static class Type1 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "lorem ipsum "; }
#Override public int bar() { return 6; }
}
private static class Type2 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "dolor sit amet"; }
#Override public int bar() { return 7; }
}
public static class General {
private final MyInterface type;
public General(String type) {
try {
this.type = (MyInterface) Class
.forName("stackoverflow.questions.Main$" + type)
.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid type: " + type);
}
}
public String method1() { return type.foo(); }
public int method2() { return type.bar(); }
}
public static void main(String... args) {
General one = new General("Type1");
General two = new General("Type2");
System.out.println(one.method1() + two.method1());
System.out.println(one.method2() * two.method2());
}
}
public abstract class CommonClass {
abstract void send(<what should i put here???>) {}
}
public class ClassA extends CommonClass {
void send(List<Comments> commentsList) {
// do stuff
}
}
public class ClassB extends CommonClass {
void send(List<Post> postList) {
// do stuff
}
}
I am new to OODP, I am trying to have a method that is able to take in any kind of List data so that I can abstract things out. How can i do this?
You could make it generic on some type T. Like,
public abstract class CommonClass<T> {
abstract void send(List<T> al);
}
And then, to implement it - use the generic. Like,
public class ClassA extends CommonClass<Comments> {
#Override
void send(List<Comments> commentsList) {
// do stuff
}
}
public class ClassB extends CommonClass<Post> {
#Override
void send(List<Post> postList) {
// do stuff
}
}
Also, as discussed in the comments, your class names could be improved to be more intuitive; something like,
public abstract class AbstractSender<T> {
abstract void send(List<T> al);
}
and then
public class CommentSender extends AbstractSender<Comment> {
#Override
void send(List<Comment> commentsList) {
// do stuff
}
}
public class PostSender extends AbstractSender<Post> {
#Override
void send(List<Post> postList) {
// do stuff
}
}
That has the advantage(s) of being more readable and easier to reason about (I can tell what a PostSender does by reading the name, ClassB not so much).
Finally, this looks like a case where an interface would work since your abstract class is purely virtual (and should be preferred since you can implement multiple interface, but can only extend from a single parent class);
public interface ISender<T> {
void send(List<T> al);
}
public class CommentSender implements ISender<Comment> {
#Override
void send(List<Comment> commentsList) {
// do stuff
}
}
public class PostSender implements ISender<Post> {
#Override
void send(List<Post> postList) {
// do stuff
}
}
In order to achieve this, you can take multiple approaches, I would suggest looking into Generics: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/generics/index.html
With that said, there is one approach that is the most elegant and simple: you can supply a List<T> where T is a generic type.
public abstract class CommonClass<T> {
abstract void send(List<T>) {}
}
public class ClassA extends CommonClass<Comment> {
void send(List<Comments> commentsList) {
// do stuff
}
}
public class ClassB extends CommonClass<Post> {
void send(List<Post> postList) {
// do stuff
}
}
You can do that with the help of generics. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_generics.htm
Example
The abstract class
public abstract class CommonClass {
public abstract <T> void send(List<T> data);
}
Its child
public class Child extends CommonClass {
public <T> void send(List<T> data) {
// code here
}
}
Retrieving the list's contents
Retrieving the generified list's contents is similar to retrieving any list's contents. In the scope of the method, "T" is a type of object contained in the list.
for (T t : data) {
// to check if t is a string
if (t instanceof String) {
// code
}
}
You can also use lambdas to retrieve every element in the list.
Code base is littered with code like this:
BaseRecord record = // some BaseRecord
switch(record.source()) {
case FOO:
return process((FooRecord)record);
case BAR:
return process((BarRecord)record);
case QUUX:
return process((QuuxRecord)record);
.
. // ~25 more cases
.
}
and then
private SomeClass process(BarRecord record) { }
private SomeClass process(FooRecord record) { }
private SomeClass process(QuuxRecord record) { }
It makes me terribly sad. Then, every time a new class is derived from BaseRecord, we have to chase all over our code base updating these case statements and adding new process methods. This kind of logic is repeated everywhere, I think too many to add a method for each and override in the classes. How can I improve this?
First solution: good old polymorphism.
Simply add an abstract process() method to the BaseRecord class, and override it in every subclass. The code will thus become:
BaseRecord record = ...;
record.process();
If you can't add the process() method into the BaseRecord class (and its subclasses), then implement the visitor pattern. It will leave the process method outside of the BaseRecord class, but each time you add a new subclass, you'll be forced to modify the Visitor interface, and all its implementations. The compiler will thus check for you that you haven't forgotten a case somwhere in a switch.
public interface RecordVisitor<T> {
T visitFoo(FooRecord foo);
T visitBar(BarRecord foo);
...
}
public abstract class BaseRecord {
public abstract <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor);
}
public class FooRecord extends BaseRecord {
#Override
public <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor) {
return visitor.visitFoo(this);
}
}
public class BarRecord extends BaseRecord {
#Override
public <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor) {
return visitor.visitBar(this);
}
}
Now you simply have to implement RecordVisitor for each block of logic described in the question:
RecordVisitor<Void> visitor = new ProcessRecordVisitor();
record.accept(visitor);
Both Visitor Pattern and Strategy pattern can be put in use here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern
I think this is instructive:
package classplay;
public class ClassPlay
{
public void say(String msg) { System.out.println(msg); }
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ClassPlay cp = new ClassPlay();
cp.go();
}
public void go()
{
A someClass = new C();
say("calling process with double dispatch");
someClass.dueProcess(this);
say("now calling process directly");
process(someClass);
}
public void process(A a)
{
say("processing A");
a.id();
}
public void process(B b)
{
say("processing B");
b.id();
}
public void process(C c)
{
say("processing C");
c.id();
}
abstract class A
{
abstract public void id(); // { System.out.println("Class A"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
class B extends A
{
public void id() { System.out.println("Class B"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
class C extends A
{
public void id() { System.out.println("class C"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
}
I'm trying to implement function objects in Java. I have a Unit class, with a default addition function that should be used in most initializations of a Unit object. However, for some issues, I need a different addition function. The code will look something like this:
public class Unit() {
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType == "specialType") {
additionFunc = defaultFunc } else {
additionFunc = specialFunc }
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc()
}
// definiion of regularFunc
// definition of specialFunc
}
Then, from the main file:
Unit fish = new Unit(regularTyoe);
Unit fatFish = new Unit(specialType);
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called
That's it.. does anyone know how this can be done?
You need to look up inheritance and method overriding. It would probably help to read up on proper Object Oriented Programming as well.
The proper way to do this is:
class Fish {
public void swim() {
// normal swim
}
}
class FatFish extends Fish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// special swim
}
}
Fish fish = new Fish()
Fish fatFish = new FatFish()
fish.swim() // normal swim
fatFish.swim() // slow swim
Make a new FatFish class which extends Unit and overrides swim().
Unit fish = new Unit();
Unit fatFish = new FatFish();
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called
There are many solutions for your problem, one of them is using inheritance, that you could have a default implementation of Unit, and extend it overriding the desired method with a new one.
Basically would be something like:
public class FatFish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// new behavior
}
}
Another approach would be to implement Strategy Design Pattern, which allows you to select algorithms on runtime. Therefore you could do something like:
public interface SwimStrategy {
void execute();
}
public class FatFishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// fat fish swim impl
}
}
public class FishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// normal fish swim impl
}
}
public class Fish {
private final SwimStrategy swimStrategy;
public Fish(SwimStrategy swimStrategy) {
this.swimStrategy = swimStrategy;
}
public void swim() {
swimStrategy.execute();
}
}
In order to instantiate an object you could do:
new Fish(new FatFishSwimStrategy());
or for the normal behavior:
new Fish(new FishSwimStrategy());
I think it can do by extends and factory method:
public class Unit {
public static Unit createUnit(UnitType type) {
if (UnitType.Special == type) {
return new Unit(type) {
#Override
public int swim() {
System.out.println("special swim");
return 0;
}
};
}
return new Unit(UnitType.Default);
}
private UnitType type;
private Unit(UnitType type) {
this.type = type;
System.out.println("create unit for " + type);
}
public int swim() {
System.out.println("default swim");
return 0;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Unit fish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Default);
Unit fatFish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Special);
fish.swim();
fatFish.swim();
}
}
This is a simple type enum:
public enum UnitType {
Default, Special
}
There are two ways to accomplish this polymorphic behavior in Java. The first is to use a inheritance and a hierarchical set of classes. For example, you could have an abstract base class which defines an abstract method called "swim". Then each concrete fish class would extend this base class and implement the swim method. Later when you have a set of fish objects, you can upcast them to the base class and invoke the swim method on each.
The second way is to use interfaces. You define an interface (e.g. ISwim) which declares the public method swim. Each fish class (whether part of a class hierarchy or no) would implement the ISwim interface, meaning they would define a swim method. Then if you have a set of fish class objects of different types, you can cast each to the ISwim interface and invoke the swim method on each object.
Java does not have function pointers, so the approach you are considering is inappropriate for the language. Even in languages with function pointers, the above two approaches would be most appropriate in my opinion.
One way to do this is with an enum for the types of Unit and with Unit subclasses:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType {
REGULAR {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new RegularUnit();
}
},
SPECIAL {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
};
abstract public Unit makeUnit();
}
protected Unit() {}
public abstract int swim();
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
RegularUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 0;
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
SpecialUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 1;
}
}
}
Unit fish = UnitType.REGULAR.makeUnit();
Unit fatFish = UnitType.SPECIAL.makeUnit();
Another way is with Callable objects:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType { REGULAR, SPECIAL }
private Callable<Integer> additionFunc;
public Unit(UnitType type) {
switch (type) {
case REGULAR:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 0;
}
};
break;
case SPECIAL:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 1;
}
};
break;
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc();
}
}
Using a simple if statement:
private String unitType;
public Unit(unitType) {
this.unitType = unitType;
}
public int swim() {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return specialFunc();
}
else {
return regularFunc();
}
}
Or using polymorphism and a factory method :
public abstract class Unit() {
protected Unit() {
}
protected abstract int addition();
public int swim() {
return addition();
}
public static Unit forType(String unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
else {
return new RegularUnit();
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// special addition
}
}
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// regular addition
}
}
}
Or using an Adder functional interface, defining an addition() method, and two concrete implementations of this interface:
private Adder adder;
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
this.adder = new SpecialAdder();
}
else {
this.adder = new RegularAdder();
}
}
public int swim() {
return adder.addition();
}
This last one is the closest to waht you asked in your question. function objects don't exist per se, but can be replaced by interfaces.
I'm testing out a different sort of pattern. I've already got the code working in a switch statement, but I'd like to try something a little more ecclectic... for research purposes.
Say I have 4 classes, Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 that all extend BaseClass. I want to put them into an enum, like so:
enum ClassFactories {
Class1(Class1.class),
Class2(Class2.class),
Class3(Class3.class),
Class4(Class4.class);
private final Class factory;
ClassFactories(Class factory) {
this.factory = factory;
}
public BaseClass generate() {
BaseClass b = null;
try {
b = (BaseClass)this.factory.newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
// handle any exceptions
}
return f;
}
}
In a factory method that is passed an int, I want to be able to do something like this:
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
BaseClass someClass = ClassFactories.values()[type].generate();
someClass.doStuff();
}
Is there a cleaner/easier way of doing this? I'm not so much concerned with readability (right now), I'm just curious if this is possible.
Yes, this is possible. Something like a 'Template Method' approach. So for example
public enum ClassFactory {
Class1() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 1.");
}
},
Class2() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 2.");
}
};
//template method
public abstract void generate();
private static final Map<Integer, ClassFactory > lookup
= new HashMap<Integer, ClassFactory >();
static {
for (ClassFactory s : EnumSet.allOf(ClassFactory.class))
lookup.put(s.getIntValue(), s);
}
public static ClassFactory getValue(int intValue) {
return lookup.get(intValue);
}
}
INVOCATION CODE
With the use of static imports, the client code calling this enumeration would look like:
Class1.generate();
Class2.generate();
//or better...
getClass().generate();
Or
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
ClassFactory.getValue(type).generate();
}