How do you initialize this:
class A {
final B b;
A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
class B {
final A a;
B(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
}
DI framework, reflection, better design?
Motivation and a use case (added):
My particular use case is simplifying field access in A's and B's sub-classes. So I'm injecting them to shortly reference them by fields in the derived classes without a need to declare explicitly in each sub-class.
There is also a recommendation on DI that objects should better be immutable: Guice best practices and anti-patterns.
You could use a factory method
class A {
final B b;
A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
abstract class B {
final A a;
B() {
this.a = constructA();
}
protected abstract A constructA();
}
public class C {
public static void main(String []args){
new B(){
protected A constructA(){
return new A(this);
}
};
}
}
Though it may look dirty, but I prefer to replace one of the final references with Supplier (like one in Guava or Java 8) like:
class A {
final Supplier<B> b;
A(Supplier<B> b) {
this.b = b;
}
// keeping this constructor just for usability's sake
A(B b) {
this.b = ofInstance(b); // using Guava's Suppliers.ofInstance here
}
}
class B {
final A a;
B(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// using MutableSupplier.create() static factory method
MutableSupplier<B> bRef = create();
A a = new A(bRef);
B b = bRef.set(new B(a));
}
where MutableSupplier looks somehow like the following:
import com.google.common.base.Supplier;
public class MutableSupplier<T> implements Supplier<T> {
private boolean valueWasSet;
private T value;
private MutableSupplier() {
}
#Override
public T get() {
if (!valueWasSet) {
throw new NullPointerException("Value has not been set yet");
}
return value;
}
public T set(final T value) {
if (valueWasSet) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Value has already been set and should not be reset");
}
this.value = value;
this.valueWasSet = true;
return value;
}
public static <T> MutableSupplier<T> create() {
return new MutableSupplier<T>();
}
}
I know that MutableSupplier's mutability looks super-ugly for immutability enthusiasts but I found that using it is more or less acceptable in such cases :)
What you are having is a circular dependency. The only way I can think of is to not declare the fields as final and have your dependency injected using setter injection instead of constructor injection.
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
a.setB(b);
b.setA(a);
Related
Let's say I have classA and classB:
public class A {
private B b;
public A(String id){
this.b = new B(id);
}
public void doSomethingA(String id){
// do somethingA
}
}
public class B{
public B(String id){
// call anotherThing (id)
}
public void doSomethingB(){
//somethingB
}
}
now I want to test methods inside classA (with it's instance) but wanna mock classB
Mockito allows me to mock classB, but when I instantiate classA, the constructor calls classB (which I want to avoid)
Is there a way to mock only the constructor (either classA or classB) but not the other methods?
You may mock any B object but you don't want to.
You want to mock the B b field of the A class.
Which is different.
You have to refactor your design and do B instantiation a dependency and not an internal processing.
A simple way is passing directly the B variable instead of the String as parameter :
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b){
this.b = b;
}
public void doSomethingA(String id){
// do somethingA
}
}
Now mocking is straight :
#Mock B b;
public void test(){
A a = new A(b);
}
An alternative way would be using a Function<String, B> .
public class A {
private B b;
public A(Function<String, B> bFunction, String id){
this.b = bFunction.apply(id);
}
public void doSomethingA(String id){
// do somethingA
}
}
Mocking becomes so :
#Mock B b;
public void test(){
A a = new A(s-> b, "anyValue");
}
And implementation code could instantiate A as :
A a = new A(B::new, "id");
I have the sama java object TestData in to packages (A & B). I have made a function that processes the object for a standard business functionality.
CommonFunc.java:
import A.TestData ;
class CommonFunc
{
/// .....
public static TestData processTestData(Date d1, String s1){
TestData testData = new TestData ();
/// set some testData porperties based on d1 and s1
/// e.g : testData.setInitialDate(d1);
return testData ;
}
}
The problem here is that the compiler has to load the object from one of the packages lets say package (A), so when I expect the data to be returned to a local variable from package (B) I get incompatible type error :
File using B TestData and needs to call the function processTestData:
import B.TestData;
// ...
TestData obj = CommonFunc.processTestData(new Date(), "test");
// ...
Is there a way to overcome this problem keeping a common function for both?
Is there a way to overcome this problem keeping a common function for both?
No and yes. On the general case, you cannot.
But you can, IFF you can make the two classes adopt the same interface, with the common methods declared in the same interface. See below, with apologies for the change in the class names:
interface C {
public Date getA();
public void setA(Date a);
}
interface C_Factory <X extends C> {
X createInstance();
}
class C1 implements C {
Date a;
int b;
public C1() {
super();
}
public Date getA() { return a; }
public void setA(Date a) { this.a = a; }
public int getB() { return b; }
public void setB(int b) { this.b = b; }
}
class C2 implements C {
Date a;
float b;
public C2() {
super();
}
public Date getA() { return a; }
public void setA(Date a) { this.a = a; }
public float getB() { return b; }
public void setB(float b) { this.b = b; }
}
public class CommonFunc {
// You need this extra param to create instances----
// V
static <X extends C> X doSomething(Date d, Class<X> clazz)
throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException
// You'll have to accept those exceptions as well
{
// the next statement uses clazz as a factory for new X instances
// As such, you can abstract the method further and use
// a custom Factory class instead.
X toret=clazz.newInstance();
toret.setA(d);
// something else
return toret;
}
// A custom factory variant of the above
static <X extends C> X doSomething(Date d, C_Factory<X> factory)
{
X toret=factory.createInstance();
toret.setA(d);
// something else
return toret;
}
static public void main(String[] args) {
try {
C1 c1=doSomething(new Date(), C1.class);
C2 c2=doSomething(new Date(), C2.class);
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
// Should not happen
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I do not see how it is possible in the above example you have posted, The best way out is to make the TestData an interface and have implementations in 2 packages. Then, to decide whether to return A TestDataImpl or B TestDataImpl, take another parameter in the processData, for simplicity, let us say a boolean. Based on true or false instantiate A TestDataImpl or B TestDataImpl and return the same. Where the return type of processData is the interface type
This is probably would be the most straightforward way of reusing the processData method.
class A {
B ob1 = new B();
}
class B {
A ob2 = new A();
}
class C {
A a = new A();
// I am getting a StackOverflowException here
}
I am getting a StackOverflowException on the line I commented on. How can I solve this?
Problem with your approach is that when you create instance of A, this instance have to create instance of B which also have to create instance of A which creates instance of B... and so on until stack will overflow.
Probably most intuitive way would to solve this problem with getters/setters like
class A{
private B b;
public void setB(B b) { this.b = b; }
public B getB() { return b; }
}
class B{
private A a;
public void setA(A a) { this.a = a; }
public A getA() { return a; }
}
class Demo {
public static void main(final String[] args) throws Exception {
A a = new A();
B b = new B();
//let them see each other
a.setB(b);
b.setA(a);
}
}
If you want the B object to hold a reference to the A object that created it, you want something like this:
class A {
B ob1 = new B(this);
}
class B {
A a;
public B(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
}
This will not result in a StackOverflow and B will know about A and A will know about B. What you were doing is creating an instance of A which created an instance of B which created an instance of A which created...
How do I programmatically set custom converter for dozer? The following code doesn't work:
Custom Converter implementation:
class ConverterImpl extends DozerConverter<A, B> {
ConverterImpl() {
super(A.class, B.class);
}
#Override
public B convertTo(A source, B destination) {
return destination;
}
#Override
public A convertFrom(B source, A destination) {
return destination;
}
}
Test code:
DozerBeanMapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper();
mapper.setCustomConverters(Collections.<CustomConverter>singletonList(new ConverterImpl()));
A a = new A();
B b = mapper.map(a, A.class);
After running the code above, custom converter doesn't get invoked. What is wrong?
Looks like you have to actually add a specific mapping, and unfortunately you can only specify field-level converters, not class-level converters, using the programmatic API. So if you wrap the A and B classes in container classes, you can specify a mapping for the A and B fields.
For example the following verbose code works as expected:
public class DozerMap {
public static class ContainerA {
private A a;
public A getA() { return a; }
public void setA(A a) { this.a = a; }
}
public static class ContainerB {
private B b;
public B getB() { return b; }
public void setB(B b) { this.b = b; }
}
private static class A { };
private static class B { };
static class ConverterImpl extends DozerConverter<A, B> {
ConverterImpl() {
super(A.class, B.class);
}
#Override
public B convertTo(A source, B destination) {
Logger.getAnonymousLogger().info("Invoked");
return destination;
}
#Override
public A convertFrom(B source, A destination) {
Logger.getAnonymousLogger().info("Invoked");
return destination;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
DozerBeanMapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper();
mapper.setCustomConverters(Collections.<CustomConverter> singletonList(new ConverterImpl()));
BeanMappingBuilder foo = new BeanMappingBuilder() {
#Override
protected void configure() {
mapping(ContainerA.class, ContainerB.class).fields("a", "b", FieldsMappingOptions.customConverter(ConverterImpl.class));
}
};
mapper.setMappings(Collections.singletonList(foo));
ContainerA containerA = new ContainerA();
containerA.a = new A();
ContainerB containerB = mapper.map(containerA, ContainerB.class);
}
}
Why do you want to set it programatically ? I mean do you have any specific needs ? Otherwise, Mapping via an xml file works fine.
In case you want to do it more in a programing way , rather through some xml configuration files, Check out Orika.
It has good API support.
Suppose I have a class A and a class B.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
public B getB() {
return this.b;
}
}
public class B {
public String getSome() {
return "Get some!";
}
}
I know I can get B through A, because A has (or owns) B: new A().getB().
But if I have B, can I get A?
Sure, just add routine getA() in you class B, and change the line in your constructor to
public A() {
this.b = new B(this);
}
This of course assumes your class B has a constructor which accepts an A, e.g.,
public B(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
B needs an explicit reference to its owner:
public class B {
private final A owner;
public B(A owner) {
this.owner = owner;
}
public A getOwner() {
return owner;
}
}
And in A:
public A() {
b = new B(this);
}
Nope. There is no such thing as an 'owner' in Java. Any object can be referenced by any number of other objects.
If you need B to always be bound to an instance of A, make B an inner class of A:
class A {
B b = new B();
class B {
String getSome() {
// this will refer to the enclosing A
return A.this.toString();
}
}
}
An inner (non-static) class always has an implicit reference to the enclosing instance and cannot exist without it. In order to instantiate B from outside, you need a nasty syntax: B b = new A().new B();
No you cannot. B has no reference to A.
No.
Class a has reference to class B, but class B has no reference to class A. References are one way only.
No, that's not possible. You're looking for backreferences, but we have to create them in the code if needed.
If you want to collect all referencers to B, you could do this with a constructor or with a factory (pattern) that creates B's. I'll show the factory:
public class B {
private static Set<? extends Object> referencers = new HashSet<? extends Object>();
private B(){} // no public constructor
public static create(Object parent) {
// cooperative approach, the caller should pass "this"
referencers.add(parent);
}
public static remove(Object parent) {
referencers.remove(parent);
}
}
you can also use inner classes
package test;
public class A {
B b = null;
public B getB()
{
return b;
}
public class B {
public A getA()
{
return A.this;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new A().new B();
}
}