I use Hibernate for persistence.
Suppose I have an entity which contains information about the document and the necessary information for producing it (either printing or sending by email). Just like this:
The problem here is that DocumentInformation holds reference to abstract class DocumentProductionConfiguration not to the subclasses DocumentPrintConfiguration or DocumentEmailConfiguration.
So when I actually need to get appropriate configuration I have two choices: either use instanceof + casting or use visitor pattern to trick Java so that it would actually understand in the runtime which configuration it is dealing with.
Using casting:
public class XmlBuilder{
public XMLMessage buildXmlMessage(DocumentInformation documentInformation){
if(documentInformation.getDocumentProductionConfiguration() instanceOf DocumentPrintConfiguration){
DocumentPrintConfiguration printConfig = (DocumentPrintConfiguration) documentInformation.getDocumentProductionConfiguration();
XMLMessageConfig xmlConfig = handlePrintConfig(printConfig);
}
}
public XMLMessageConfig handlePrintConfig(DocumentPrintConfiguration printConfig){
....build that XMLMessageConfig....
}
}
Using visitor pattern:
I need to add a new interface for XmlBuilder to implement
public interface XmlBuilderVisitor<T> {
T handlePrintConfig(DocumentPrintConfiguration printConfig);
}
public class XmlBuilder implements XmlBuilderVisitor<XMLMessageConfig> {
#Override
public XMLMessageConfig handlePrintConfig(DocumentPrintConfiguration printConfig){
....build that XMLMessageConfig....
}
public XMLMessage buildXmlMessage(DocumentInformation documentInformation){
XMLMessageConfig xmlMessageConfig = documentInformation.getDocumentProductionConfiguration().buildConfiguration(this);
}
}
public abstract class DocumentProductionConfiguration{
public abstract <T> T buildConfiguration(XmlBuilderVisitor<T> visitor);
}
public class DocumentPrintConfiguration extends DocumentProductionConfiguration{
public <T> T buildConfiguration(XmlBuilderVisitor<T> visitor){
return visitor.handlePrintConfig(this);
}
}
Both of these solutions are kinda meh... The first one because it violates open-closed principle (I will need to always maintain these ifs...).
The second one in this sense is better: once you add new configuration, compiler will guide you through the process: first, you will need to implement appropriate method in the configuration itself, then in all the visitor classes. On the other hand, it is pretty awkward that I am basically passing service to the entity...
So I feel like I am treating symptoms rather than the problem. Maybe the design itself needs some changes? But I am not sure how it could be improved...
I would reccomend pushing the "handle" functionality into the DocumentProductionConfiguration and subclasses. So that the DocumentPrintConfiguration would contain a handle function that builds and returns a XMLMessageConfig. Then your XmlBuilder becomes:
public class XmlBuilder{
public XMLMessage buildXmlMessage(DocumentInformation documentInformation){
XMLMessageConfig xmlConfig = documentInformation.getDocumentProductionConfiguration().handle();
}
}
I have an object which has a few arrays as fields. It's class roughly looks like this:
public class Helper {
InsuranceInvoices[] insuranceInvoices;
InsuranceCollectiveInvoices[] insuranceCollectiveInvoices
BankInvoices[] bankInvoices;
BankCollectiveInvoices[] bankCollectiveInvoices;
}
All of the invoice types have a mutual marker interface Invoices.
I need to get all of the invoices to invoke another method on them.
Helper helperObject = new Helper();
// ...
for (InsuranceInvoices invoice : helperObject.getInsuranceInvoices()) {
Integer customerId = invoice.getCustomerId();
// ...
}
for (BankInvoices invoice : helperObject.getBankInvoices()) {
Integer customerId = invoice.getCustomerId();
// ...
}
// repeat with all array fields
The problem is that all invoices only have the marker interface in common. The method getCustomerID() is not defined by a mutual interface or class. This is a behaviour I cannot change due to a given specification.
The code repetition inside the for-each-loop is something that bugs me. I have to do the exact same thing on all invoice objects in the four different arrays. Hence four for-each-loops that unecessary bloat the code.
Is there a way that I can write a general (private) method? One idea was:
private void generalMethod(Invoice[] invoiceArray){
// ...
}
But this would require four instanceof checks because the class Invoice doesn't know the method getCusomterId(). Therefore I would gain nothing; the method would still contain repetitions.
I'm thankful for every possible solution to generalize this problem!
Possible solutions to generalize the problem (ordered from best to worst):
Using wrapper class
public class InvoiceWrapper {
private String customerID;
public String getCustomerID() {
return customerID;
}
public InvoiceWrapper(BankInvoices invoice) {
this.customerID = invoice.getCustomerID();
}
public InvoiceWrapper(InsuranceInvoices invoice) {
this.customerID = invoice.getCustomerID();
}
// other constructors
}
Upd If I understood correctly, you need to do something with IDs in all arrays. To use InvoiceWrapper, you also need to implement iterator in Helper class, that will walk through arrays and return a wrapper for each entry. So, you will have code that works with 4 arrays anyway.
Using instance of casts
public class CustomerIdHelper {
public static String getID(Invoice invoice) {
if (invoice instanceof InsuranceInvoices) {
return ((InsuranceInvoices) invoices).getCustomerID();
} else if ...
}
}
Calling methods by name via Reflection
public class CustomerIdHelper {
public static String getID(Invoice invoice) {
Method method = invoice.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("getCustomerId");
return (String) method.invoke(invoice);
}
}
It's not pretty, but you could use reflection to look up the getCustomerId Method and then invoke() it, cf. Class.getDeclaredMethod().
private void generalMethod(Invoice[] invoiceArray){
try {
for (Invoice invoice : invoiceArray) {
Method getCustomerId = invoice.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("getCustomerId");
getCustomerId.invoke(invoice);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// ...
}
}
Do note that this is untested.
If you are not allowed to change the classes you are handling by adding a custom interface to them. The best thing you can do is wrap them with a custom class that does have the desired properties.
This way you will have one class with all 'not so nice' code that converts the classes you can not touch to nice classes that match a proper and useful design.
For instance you could have a class WrappedInsuranceInvoice that extends WrappedInsurace and contains a member field InsuranceInvoice. If you don't need to keep the original class you would be off even better by copying the data. This way you could for instance lose the arrays and use lists instead.
There is a part in my java code where I am extending a class from a library which I haven't written.
#override
public Object getPropertyValue(Object id) {
if(id.equals(model.PROPERTY_RENAME))
model.setName((String)value);
else if(id.equals(model.PROPERTY_COLOUR))
model.setColor((Color)value);
}
Now in this case how should I modify this code to make it scalable. There would be many more properties like location, dimension, etc. Now this model is instance of an abstract class AbsModel.
So every class implementing the AbsModel would have different properties. So the class architecture should be there, so that this part of code remains unchanged, no matter how many more model classes I add.
It looks like you want to carry out some operation on the model when this method (getPropertyValue) is called. I would create a Map of id onto the interface ModelOperation defined as follows:
public interface ModelOperation {
void operate(Object value);
}
Then the map would be defines as follows:
map.put(model.PROPERTY_RENAME, new RenameOperation(model));
Your extension class would then look like this:
#Override
public Object getPropertyValue(Object id) {
map.get(id).operate(model);
// etc...
}
For example, RenameOperation would be defined like this:
public class RenameOperation implements ModelOperation {
public RenameOperation(Model model) {
// etc...
}
public void operate(Object value) {
model.setName((String)value);
}
}
This allows you to support as many model operations as you like and means you don't have to change the extension class you have to write. The above is just an outline. You could use generics on the ModelOperation implementations to avoid the cast of the value in each one.
I guess reflection is probably the answer here if you can rely on some naming to help direct you.
It's not going to be nice, but the idea would be that you'd have a method that would reflect on the type and look up the appropriate method. The code belwo
public Object setPropertyValue(Object id) {
String className = id.getClass().getSimpleName();
// Hope that the method is called set<CLASS> and takes a single parameter that is the class
Method method = model.class.getMethod("set" + className, id.getClass());
// Invoke the method (TODO deal with all of the exceptions)
method.invoke(model, id);
}
There are multiple ways of doing this -- though it depends on what do you mean by "scalable" (being able to cope with lots of requests per second or being able to cope with lots of properties?):
one way -- if you're going to go down the path you have outlined in your code is to have those properties that are used very often at the top of your if/then/else block -- so their execution path is very short. this would "scale up" well for lots of requests as not too much time is being spent in actually executing the method (in most cases at least!)
another way -- and this scales up well for lots of properties and easiness of maintaining the code but you will take a hit on execution time: have a Map that maps property names to setxxx() method names, then you can use reflection to invoke these methods on the target object (id in your case) on each call. Classes extended your class will only have to provide a getMap() method which will return the mapping name-to-setter method, which can be a static member and initialized on class load.
Store your properties in a Map -- in which case setName() is the same as map.put( PROPERTY_RENAME, value)
Since in Java functions are not first class citizens, the "nice" route would be very awkward: define an enum with one value per each constant above (i.e. for each property), and a virtual method e.g. update(Object value, then override the method in each enum to update the corresponding property. If you can, redefine the constants PROPERTY_RENAME etc. themselves as enums. This still results in code bloat.
The other way is to use reflection. If you can use the same ids as the property names you want to update, you only need to invoke the setter for the property (as illustrated in other answers). Otherwise you may need to introduce a mapping from ids to property names.
A version not using reflection, call the base class's implementation:
public Object getValue(Object id) {
Object ret = super.getValue(id);
if (ret == null) {
// Subclass specific properties
}
return ret;
}
A common way around this is to use reflection like
public Object getValue(IdType id) {
Method getter = model.getClass().getMethod("get" + id);
return getter.invoke(model); // throws Exceptions.
}
OR
public void setValue(IdType id, Object value) {
Method setter = model.getClass().getMethod("set" + id, value.getClass());
setter.invoke(model, value); // throws Exceptions.
}
I solved this issue by creating an interface. So the code is.
public interface IModel
{
public void setProperty(String propertyName);
}
Rest of the classes were
public class HelloModel implements IModel
{
public void setProperty(String propertyName)
{ code for handling the properties goes here ... }
}
So in this case every class has to handle it's own property setters.
Is this the best way to handle abstraction ? I think this model is very scalable ...
Introduction
As a disclaimer, I'v read Why can't static methods be abstract in Java and, even if I respectfully disagree with the accepted answer about a "logical contradiction", I don't want any answer about the usefulness of static abstract just an answer to my question ;)
I have a class hierarchy representing some tables from a database. Each class inherits the Entity class which contains a lot of utility methods for accessing the database, creating queries, escaping characters, etc.
Each instance of a class is a row from the database.
The problem
Now, in order to factorize as much code as possible, I want to add information about related columns and table name for each class. These informations must be accessible without a class instance and will be used in Entity to build queries among other things.
The obvious way to store these data are static fields returned by static methods in each class. Problem is you can't force the class to implement these static methods and you can't do dynamic linking on static methods call in Java.
My Solutions
Use a HashMap, or any similar data structure, to hold the informations. Problem : if informations are missing error will be at runtime not compile time.
Use a parallel class hierarchy for the utility function where each corresponding class can be instantiated and dynamic linking used. Problem : code heavy, runtime error if the class don't exist
The question
How will you cope with the absence of abstract static and dynamic linking on abstract method ?
In a perfect world, the given solution should generate a compile error if the informations for a class are missing and data should be easily accessible from withing the Entity class.
The answer doesn't need to be in Java, C# is also ok and any insight on how to do this without some specific code in any language will be welcomed.
Just to be clear, I don't have any requirement at all besides simplicity. Nothing have to be static. I only want to retrieve table and columns name from Entity to build a query.
Some code
class Entity {
public static function afunction(Class clazz) { // this parameter is an option
// here I need to have access to table name of any children of Entity
}
}
class A extends Entity {
static String table = "a";
}
class B extends Entity {
static String table = "b";
}
You should use the Java annotation coupled with the javac annotation processor, as it's the most efficient solution. It's however a bit more complicated than the usual annotation paradigm.
This link shows you how you can implement an annotation processor that will be used at the compile time.
If I reuse your example, I'd go this way:
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
#Retention(RetentionType.SOURCE)
#interface MetaData {
String table();
}
abstract class Entity {}
#MetaData(table="a")
class A extends Entity {}
#MetaData(table="b")
class B extends Entity {}
class EntityGetter {
public <E extends Entity> E getEntity(Class<E> type) {
MetaData metaData = type.getAnnotation(MetaData.class);
if (metaData == null) {
throw new Error("Should have been compiled with the preprocessor.");
// Yes, do throw an Error. It's a compile-time error, not a simple exceptional condition.
}
String table = metaData.table();
// do whatever you need.
}
}
In your annotation processing, you then should check whether the annotation is set, whether the values are correct, and make the compilation fail.
The complete documentation is available in the documentation for the package javax.annotation.processing.
Also, a few tutorials are available on the Internet if you search for "java annotation processing".
I will not go deeper in the subject as I never used the technology myself before.
I have run into the same problems as you, and am using the following approach now. Store Metadata about columns as annotations and parse them at runtime. Store this information in a map. If you really want compile time errors to appear, most IDEs (Eclipse e.g.) support custom builder types, that can validate the classes during build time.
You could also use the compile time annotation processing tool which comes with java, which can also be integrated into the IDE builds. Read into it and give it a try.
In Java the most similar approach to "static classes" are the static enums.
The enum elements are handed as static constants, so they can be accesed from any static context.
The enum can define one or more private constructors, accepting some intialization parameters (as it could be a table name, a set of columns, etc).
The enum class can define abstract methods, which must be implemented by the concrete elements, in order to compile.
public enum EntityMetadata {
TABLE_A("TableA", new String[]{"ID", "DESC"}) {
#Override
public void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive() {
Logger.getLogger(getTableName()).info("I'm positively TableA Metadata");
}
},
TABLE_B("TableB", new String[]{"ID", "AMOUNT", "CURRENCY"}) {
#Override
public void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive() {
Logger.getLogger(getTableName()).info("FOO BAR message, or whatever");
}
};
private String tableName;
private String[] columnNames;
private EntityMetadata(String aTableName, String[] someColumnNames) {
tableName=aTableName;
columnNames=someColumnNames;
}
public String getTableName() {
return tableName;
}
public String[] getColumnNames() {
return columnNames;
}
public abstract void doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive();
}
Then to access a concrete entity metadata this would be enough:
EntityMetadata.TABLE_B.doSomethingWeirdAndExclusive();
You could also reference them from an Entity implemetation, forcing each to refer an EntityMetadata element:
abstract class Entity {
public abstract EntityMetadata getMetadata();
}
class A extends Entity {
public EntityMetadata getMetadata() {
return EntityMetadata.TABLE_A;
}
}
class B extends Entity {
public EntityMetadata getMetadata() {
return EntityMetadata.TABLE_B;
}
}
IMO, this approach will be fast and light-weight.
The dark side of it is that if your enum type needs to be really complex, with lot of different params, or a few different complex overriden methods, the source code for the enum can become a little messy.
Mi idea, is to skip the tables stuff, and relate to the "There are not abstract static methods". Use "pseudo-abstract-static" methods.
First define an exception that will ocurr when an abstract static method is executed:
public class StaticAbstractCallException extends Exception {
StaticAbstractCallException (String strMessage){
super(strMessage);
}
public String toString(){
return "StaticAbstractCallException";
}
} // class
An "abstract" method means it will be overriden in subclasses, so you may want to define a base class, with static methods that are suppouse to be "abstract".
abstract class MyDynamicDevice {
public static void start() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.start()");
}
public static void doSomething() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.doSomething()");
}
public static void finish() {
throw new StaticAbstractCallException("MyDynamicDevice.finish()");
}
// other "abstract" static methods
} // class
...
And finally, define the subclasses that override the "pseudo-abstract" methods.
class myPrinterBrandDevice extends MyDynamicDevice {
public static void start() {
// override MyStaticLibrary.start()
}
/*
// ops, we forgot to override this method !!!
public static void doSomething() {
// ...
}
*/
public static void finish() {
// override MyStaticLibrary.finish()
}
// other abstract static methods
} // class
When the static myStringLibrary doSomething is called, an exception will be generated.
I do know of a solution providing all you want, but it's a huge hack I wouldn't want in my own code nowadays:
If Entity may be abstract, simply add your methods providing the meta data to that base class and declare them abstract.
Otherwise create an interface, with methods providing all your data like this
public interface EntityMetaData{
public String getTableName();
...
}
All subclasses of Entity would have to implement this interface though.
Now your problem is to call these methods from your static utility method, since you don't have an instance there. So you need to create an instance. Using Class.newInstance() is not feasable, since you'd need a nullary constructor, and there might be expensive initialization or initialization with side-effects happening in the constructor, you don't want to trigger.
The hack I propose is to use Objenesis to instantiate your Class. This library allows instatiating any class, without calling the constructor. There's no need for a nullary constructor either. They do this with some huge hacks internally, which are adapted for all major JVMs.
So your code would look like this:
public static function afunction(Class clazz) {
Objenesis objenesis = new ObjenesisStd();
ObjectInstantiator instantiator = objenesis.getInstantiatorOf(clazz);
Entity entity = (Entity)instantiator.newInstance();
// use it
String tableName = entity.getTableName();
...
}
Obviously you should cache your instances using a Map<Class,Entity>, which reduces the runtime cost to practically nothing (a single lookup in your caching map).
I am using Objenesis in one project of my own, where it enabled me to create a beautiful, fluent API. That was such a big win for me, that I put up with this hack. So I can tell you, that it really works. I used my library in many environments with many different JVM versions.
But this is not good design! I advise against using such a hack, even if it works for now, it might stop in the next JVM. And then you'll have to pray for an update of Objenesis...
If I were you, I'd rethink my design leading to the whole requirement. Or give up compile time checking and use annotations.
Your requirement to have static method doesn't leave much space for clean solution. One of the possible ways is to mix static and dynamic, and lose some CPU for a price of saving on RAM:
class Entity {
private static final ConcurrentMap<Class, EntityMetadata> metadataMap = new ...;
Entity(EntityMetadata entityMetadata) {
metadataMap.putIfAbsent(getClass(), entityMetadata);
}
public static EntityMetadata getMetadata(Class clazz) {
return metadataMap.get(clazz);
}
}
The way I would like more would be to waste a reference but have it dynamic:
class Entity {
protected final EntityMetadata entityMetadata;
public Entity(EntityMetadata entityMetadata) {
this.entityMetadata=entityMetadata;
}
}
class A extends Entity {
static {
MetadataFactory.setMetadataFor(A.class, ...);
}
public A() {
super(MetadataFactory.getMetadataFor(A.class));
}
}
class MetadataFactory {
public static EntityMetadata getMetadataFor(Class clazz) {
return ...;
}
public static void setMetadataFor(Class clazz, EntityMetadata metadata) {
...;
}
}
You could get even get rid of EntityMetadata in Entity completely and leave it factory only. Yes, it would not force to provide it for each class in compile-time, but you can easily enforce that in the runtime. Compile-time errors are great but they aren't holy cows after all as you'd always get an error immediately if a class hasn't provided a relevant metadata part.
I would have abstracted away all meta data for the entities (table names, column names) to a service not known by the entities them selfs. Would be much cleaner than having that information inside the entities
MetaData md = metadataProvider.GetMetaData<T>();
String tableName = md.getTableName();
First, let me tell you I agree with you I would like to have a way to enforce static method to be present in classes.
As a solution you can "extend" compile time by using a custom ANT task that checks for the presence of such methods, and get error in compilation time. Of course it won't help you inside you IDE, but you can use a customizable static code analyzer like PMD and create a custom rule to check for the same thing.
And there you java compile (well, almost compile) and edit time error checking.
The dynamic linking emulation...well, this is harder. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you write an example of what you expect to happen?
Say you have an API that is not accessible to change:
List<LegacyObject> getImportantThingFromDatabase(Criteria c);
Imaging Legacy Object has a ton of fields and you want to extend it to make getting at certain information easier:
class ImprovedLegacyObject extends LegacyObject {
String getSomeFieldThatUsuallyRequiresIteratorsAndAllSortsOfCrap() {
//cool code that makes things easier goes here
}
}
However, you can't just cast to your ImprovedLegacyObject, even though the fields are all the same and you haven't changed any of the underlying code, you've only added to it so that code that uses LegacyObject still works, but new code is easier to write.
Is it possible to have some easy way to convert LegacyObject to ImprovedLegacyObject without recreating all of the fields, or accessors? It should be a fast opperation too, I konw you could perform something by using reflections to copy all properties, but I don't think that would be fast enough when doing so to masses of LegacyObjects
EDIT: Is there anything you could do with static methods? To decorate an existing object?
You would have to perform the copying yourself. You can either have a constructor that does this (called a copy constructor):
public ImprovedLegacyObject(LegacyObject legacyObject) {
...
//copy stuff over
this.someField = legacyObject.getSomeField();
this.anotherField = legacyObject.getAnotherField();
...
}
or you can have a static factory method that returns an ImprovedLegacyObject
public static ImprovedLegacyObject create(LegacyObject legacyObject) {
...
//copy stuff over
...
return improvedLegacyObject;
}
If you're planning on extending this behavior to other legacy objects, then you should create an interface
public interface CoolNewCodeInterface {
public String getSomeFieldThatUsuallyRequiresIteratorsAndAllSortsOfCrap() {
}
public String getSomeFieldInAReallyCoolWay() {
}
}
Then your ImprovedLegacyObject would look like this:
public ImprovedLegacyObject extends LegacyObject implements CoolNewCodeInterface {
//implement methods from interface
}
How about making a copy constructor for your Improved Legacy Object that takes a Legacy Object as an argument. Then just create new objects from the old ones.