Develop Reference

FLINK CEP (Java 8) - persistent "identity" through matching pattern

I am trying to use FLINK-CEP for measuring the time a Bid in a market takes from having BidState.OPEN to BidState.Closed. I am recieving a DataStream of Bids with ID's and states, and as it stands I am matching all "OPENED" bids with all "CLOSED" bids.
I have a conditional in patternStream.process which only allows opening and closing bids with the same ID to be paired, as they should be. This feels wrong though, as the amount of matches grows incredibly fast this way, and I have a feeling that this could be done with patterns. So, is there a way to make sure that both "start" and "end" objects have the same ID?
AfterMatchSkipStrategy skipStrategy = AfterMatchSkipStrategy.noSkip();
//Is it possible to make sure that start.BidID == end.BidID in the pattern?
Pattern<BidEvent, ?> pattern = Pattern.<BidEvent>begin("start", skipStrategy).where(
new SimpleCondition<BidEvent>() {
#Override
public boolean filter(BidEvent value) {
return value.getState() == BidState.OPENED;
}
}).followedByAny("end").where(
new SimpleCondition<BidEvent>() {
#Override
public boolean filter(BidEvent value) throws Exception {
return value.getState() == BidState.CLOSED; // && value.getBidID == start.getBidID?
}
}).within(timeout);
PatternStream<BidEvent> patternStream = CEP.pattern(BidEventDataStream, pattern);
patternStream.process(new PatternProcessFunction<BidEvent, MatchingDuration>() {
#Override
public void processMatch(Map<String
, List<BidEvent>> map
, Context context
, Collector<MatchingDuration> collector) {
BidEvent start = map.get("start").get(0);
BidEvent end = map.get("end").get(0);
if (start.getBidId() == end.getBidId()){ // Make sure opening and closing bid is the same. Can this be done in the pattern?
collector.collect(new MatchingDuration(start.getBidId(), (end.getTimestamp() - start.getTimestamp())));
}
}
}).addSink(matchingDurationSinkFunction);

I figured out how to get the behaviour I wanted: the BidEventDataStream must be keyed in order to pattern match on objects with the same key. No changes are necessary to the code in the question, however BidEventDataStream must be edited to capture BidEvent.getBidId():
BidEventDataStream.keyBy(new KeySelector<BidEvent, Long>() {
#Override
public Long getKey(BidEventvalue) {
return value.getBidId();
}
})

Java convention in practice - return mutliple values from method

I have two questions about Java Convention. I try to make use od Robert C. Martin's "Clean Code".
Following case:
public void startProgressIfAllowed() {
try {
tryStartProgressIfAllowed();
} catch (Exception exception) {
// log error
}
}
private void tryStartProgressIfAllowed() {
if (isStartProgressAllowed()) {
stopProgressOnCurrentlyStartedTask();
startProgressOnThisTask();
}
}
private boolean isStartProgressAllowed() {
// Calls JOptionPane.showConfirmDialog with JOptionPane.YES_NO_OPTION.
// Created dialog contains checkbox indicating that saving currently started task is required.
// returns boolean depending on JOptionPane.YES_NO_OPTION clicked button
}
private void stopProgressOnCurrentlyStartedTask() {
// Saves currently started task depending on checkbox selecion property and stops currently started.
// What is the correct way to get checkbox selecion property?
}
Proposed solution:
public void tryStartProgressIfAllowed() {
if (tryToStopProgressOnStartedTaskIfNecessary()) {
startProgressOnThisTask();
}
}
private boolean tryToStopProgressOnStartedTaskIfNecessary() {
// Calls JOptionPane.showConfirmDialog with JOptionPane.YES_NO_OPTION.
// Created dialog contains checkbox indicating that saving currently started task is required.
// Depending on checkbox selecion property saves task.
// returns boolean depending on JOptionPane.YES_NO_OPTION clicked button
}
But this approach doesn't meet the "Command Query Separation" principle, because tryToStopProgressOnStartedTaskIfNecessary(...) method performs some logic and returns success/failure value.
I think this approach also doesn't meet the "One level of abstraction per function" principle, because I suppose "check" and "save" operations are on different levels of abstraction.
Is the method name correct to avoid disinformation? Maybe better name would be tryToStopProgressAndSaveStartedTaskIfNecessary(...)?
Is there any better solution for above problem?

What about the following:
public void tryStartProgressOnThisTaskIfAllowed() {
tryStopTaskInProgressIfAllowed()
if (!isTaskInProgress()) {
tryStartProgressOnThisTask();
}
}
private void tryStopTaskInProgressIfAllowed() {
if (!isTaskInProgress()) {
return;
}
TaskInProgressResult result = whatToDoWithTaskInProgress();
if (result == Result.KEEP) {
return;
} else if (result == Result.DROP)
tryDropTaskInProgress();
} else if (result == Result.SAVE) {
trySaveTaskInProgress();
}
}
About your points:
You now have two separate methods for C and Q
I think the two things whatToDoWithTaskInProgress and tryDropTaskInProgress are the same level of abstraction. If you'd inline the code of one or the other you were absolutely right of course.
I changed some of the method names according to my taste :) The only thing I still don't like is the part "OnThisTask" because this task is somewhat meaningless. Maybe it's only because the rest of the code is unknown maybe OnNextTask or OnNewTask are better.
The problem we were having is that we were thinking in UI terms YES/NO + checkbox value. But it is much better to think in business terms here. I identified three different outcomes that are of interest: KEEP, SAVE, DROP How the answer is obtained should not matter to the calling method.

This seems something to ask on CodeReview, see the drop down at the top left of the page.
An example of how such stateliness is realized in Java SE: the regex Matcher class.
String s = ...
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile("...");
Matcher m = pattern.matcher(s);
StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
while (m.find()) {
m.appendReplacement(sb, ... m.group(1) ...);
}
m.appendTail(sb);
with m.matches() and m.lookingAt as alternative circuits too.
In short state is held in a processing class on the actual data (String here).

Creating a simple String parser, Interactive Shell-like

I want to make a simple interative shell based on the console where I can write commands like login, help, et cetera.
I first thought of using Enums, but then I didn't know how to implement them neatly without a load of if-else statements, so I decided to go with an array-approach and came up with this:
public class Parser {
private static String[] opts = new String[] {"opt0", "opt1", "opt2", "opt3" ... }
public void parse(String text) {
for(int i = 0; i < opts.length; i++) {
if(text.matches(opts[i]) {
switch(i) {
case 0:
// Do something
case 1:
// Do something-something
case 2:
// Do something else
}
return;
}
}
}
}
But I ended up seeing that this was probably the most rudimentary way of doing something like this, and that there would be problems if I wanted to change the order of the options. How could I make a simpler parser? This way it would work, but it would also have said problems. The use of the program is purely educational, not intended for any serious thing.

A simple approach is to have a HashMap with the key equal to the command text and the value is an instance of class that handle this command. Assuming that the command handler class does not take arguments (but you can easily extend this) you can just use a Runnable instance.
Example code:
Runnable helpHandler = new Runnable() {
public void run(){
// handle the command
}
}
// Define all your command handlers
HashMap<String, Runnable> commandsMap = new HashMap<>(); // Java 7 syntax
commandsMap.put("help",helpHandler);
// Add all your command handlers instances
String cmd; // read the user input
Runnable handler;
if((handler = commandsMap.get(cmd)) != null) {
handler.run();
}
You can easily extend this approach to accept argument by implementing your own interface and subclass it. It is good to use variable arguments if you know the data type e.g. void execute(String ... args)

One solution that comes to mind is actually using Design patterns. You could use the input from the user, as the discriminator for a Factory class.
This factory class will generate an object, with an "execute" method, based on the input. This is called a Command object.
Then you can simply call the method of the object returned from the factory.
No need for a switch statement. If the object is null, then you know the user entered an invalid option, and it abstracts the decision logic away from your input parser.
Hopefully this will help :)

Java pattern for parameters of which only one needs to be non-null?

In the last time I often write long functions that have several parameters but use only one of them and the functionality is only different at a few keypoints that are scattered around the function. Thus splitting the function would create too many small functions without a purpose. Is this good style or is there a good general refactoring pattern for this? To be more clear, an example:
public performSearch(DataBase dataBase, List<List<String>> segments) {performSearch(dataBase,null,null,segments);}
public performSearch(DataBaseCache dataBaseCache,List<List<String>> segments) {performSearch(null,dataBaseCache,null,segments);}
public performSearch(DataBase dataBase, List<String> keywords {performSearch(dataBase,null,keywords,null);}
public performSearch(DataBaseCache dataBaseCache,List<String> keywords) {performSearch(null,dataBaseCache,keywords,null);}
/** either dataBase or dataBaseCache may be null, dataBaseCache is used if it is non-null, else dataBase is used (slower). */
private void performSearch(DataBase dataBase, DataBaseCache dataBaseCache, List<String> keywords, List<List<String>> segments)
{
SearchObject search = new SearchObject();
search.setFast(true);
...
search.setNumberOfResults(25);
if(dataBaseCache!=null) {search.setSource(dataBaseCache);}
else {search.setSource(dataBase);}
... do some stuff ...
if(segments==null)
{
// create segments from keywords
....
segments = ...
}
}
This style of code works but I don't like all those null parameters and the possibilities of calling methods like this wrong (both parameters null, what happens if both are non-null) but I don't want to write 4 seperate functions either... I know this may be too general but maybe someone has a general solution to this principle of problems :-)
P.S.: I don't like to split up a long function if there is no reason for it other than it being long (i.e. if the subfunctions are only ever called in that order and only by this one function) especially if they are tightly interwoven and would need a big amount of parameters transported around them.

I think it is very bad procedural style. Try to avoid such coding. Since you already have a bulk of such code it may be very hard to re-factor it because each method contains its own logic that is slightly different from other. BTW the fact that it is hard is an evidence that the style is bad.
I think you should use behavioral patterns like
Chain of responsibilities
Command
Strategy
Template method
that can help you to change your procedural code to object oriented.

Could you use something like this
public static <T> T firstNonNull(T...parameters) {
for (T parameter: parameters) {
if (parameter != null) {
return parameter;
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("At least one argument must be non null");
}
It does not check if more than one parameter is not null and they must be of the same type, but you could use it like this:
search.setSource(firstNonNull(dataBaseCache, database));

Expecting nulls is an anti-pattern because it litters your code with NullPointerExceptions waiting to happen. Use the builder pattern to construct the SearchObject. This is the signature you want, I'll let you figure out the implementation:
class SearchBuilder {
SearchObject search = new SearchObject();
List<String> keywords = new ArrayList<String>();
List<List<String>> segments = new ArrayList<List<String>>();
public SearchBuilder(DataBase dataBase) {}
public SearchBuilder(DataBaseCache dataBaseCache) {}
public void addKeyword(String keyword) {}
public void addSegment(String... segment) {}
public void performSearch();
}

I agree with what Alex said. Without knowing the problem I would recommend following structure based on what was in the example:
public interface SearchEngine {
public SearchEngineResult findByKeywords(List<String> keywords);
}
public class JDBCSearchEngine {
private DataSource dataSource;
public JDBCSearchEngine(DataSource dataSource) {
this.dataSource = dataSource;
}
public SearchEngineResult findByKeywords(List<String> keywords) {
// Find from JDBC datasource
// It might be useful to use a DAO instead of datasource, if you have database operations other that searching
}
}
public class CachingSearchEngine {
private SearchEngine searchEngine;
public CachingSearchEngine(SearchEngine searchEngine) {
this.searchEngine = searchEngine;
}
public SearchEngineResult findByKeywords(List<String> keywords) {
// First check from cache
...
// If not found, then fetch from real search engine
SearchEngineResult result = searchEngine.findByKeywords(keywords);
// Then add to cache
// Return the result
return result;
}
}

How to remove large if-else-if chain [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Long list of if statements in Java
I was tasked to work with some code, and there is a giant if-else-if chain (100+ else-ifs) that checks Strings.
What are some good techniques to update this code as to where the if-else-if chain can be shrunken down to something much more manageable.
The chain looks something like this:
if(name.equals("abc")){
do something
} else if(name.equals("xyz")){
do something different
} else if(name.equals("mno")){
do something different
} ......
.....
else{
error
}

You can extract the code in each branch to a separate method, then turn the methods into implementations of a common base interface (let's call it Handler). After that, you can fill a Map<String, Handler> and just look up and execute the right handler for given string.
Unfortunately the implementation of 100+ subclasses for the interface requires quite a lot of boilerplate code, but currently there is no simpler way in Java to achieve this. Implementing the cases as elements of an Enum may help somewhat - here is an example. The ideal solution would be using closures / lambdas, but alas we have to wait till Java 8 for that...

Some options / ideas:
Leave it as it is - it's not fundamentally broken, and is reasonably clear and simple to maintain
Use a switch statement (if you are using Java 7) - not sure if this gains you much though
Create a HashMap of String to FunctionObjects where the function objects implement the required behaviour as a method. Then your calling code is just: hashMap.get(name).doSomething();
Break it into a heirarchy of function calls by sub-grouping the strings. You could do this by taking each letter in turn, so one branch handles all the names starting with 'a' etc.
Refactor so that you don't pass the name as a String but instead pass a named object. Then you can just do namedObject.doSomething()

With Enums, you can have a method per instance.
public enum ActionEnum {
ABC {
#Override
void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Doing something for ABC");
}
},
XYZ {
#Override
void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Doing something for XYZ");
}
};
abstract void doSomething();
}
public class MyActionClass {
public void myMethod(String name) {
ActionEnum.valueOf("ABC").doSomething();
}
}
It is still kinda messy (big enum with 100+ entries, even it all it does is dispatching), but may avoid the HashMap initialization code (100+ puts is also messy in my opinion).
And yet another option (for documentation purposes) would be reflection:
public interface Action {
void doSomething();
}
public class ABCAction implements Action {
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Doing something for ABC");
}
}
public class MyActionClass {
void doSomethingWithReflection(String name) {
try {
Class<? extends Action> actionClass = Class.
forName("actpck."+ name + "Action").asSubclass(Action.class);
Action a = actionClass.newInstance();
a.doSomething();
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Catch exceptions individually and do something useful.
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Each approach has it's trade offs:
HashMap = Fast + Kinda messy ("set-up" code with hundred of puts)
Enum = Fast + Kinda messy 2 (huge file).
Reflection = Slower + runtime error prone, but provides clean separation without resorting to clunky big HashMap.

Like Matt Ball said in his comment, you can use a command pattern. Define a collection of Runnable classes:
Runnable task1 = new Runnable() {
public void run() { /* do something */ }
};
Runnable task2 = // etc.
Then you can use a map from your keys to runnables:
Map<String,Runnable> taskMap = new HashMap<String,Runnable>();
taskMap.put("abc", task1);
taskMap.put("xyz", task2);
// etc.
Finally, replace the if-else chain with:
Runnable task = taskMap.get(name);
if (task != null) {
task.run();
} else {
// default else action from your original chain
}

you can use the switch statement , but Switch statements with String cases have been implemented in Java SE 7
the best solution is to use the command pattern

This is a popular Arrow Anti-Pattern and Jeff discusses some approaches to handle this very nicely in his post here.