Develop Reference

How to Duck type a Java object using Groovy or some other JVM language

My problem is that I am trying to interop with a Java app whose jar file contains obfuscated byte code. The app releases updates ever month or so, and when they do a release, most of the class and method names change.
Thus, the method proposed here:
http://rickyclarkson.blogspot.com/2006/07/duck-typing-in-java-and-no-reflection.html
or
Simulating duck typing in Java
won't work in my solution because because I would have to update the interfaces by hand each time.
What I do have however is an automatically generated (for the most part) mapping from deobfuscated class name <-> obfuscated class name by means of parsing the class files for calls to debug logging calls in the form of:
logger.log(severity, "ClassName", "MethodName() has some error")
What I generate is something like this:
public final static String MyRealName = "someObfuscatedName".
public final static String MyRealName_myCoolMethod = "someMethodName".
I have a fairly decent solution for interacting with objects of "myRealName" via the reflection API and simply proxy objects that implement a subset of functionality of the object it is proxying. Somewhat like this:
class MyRealName {
private Object backingObject;
public MyRealName(Object o) { backingObject = o;}
public void myCoolMethod() {
return getFieldValue(backingObject
, DeobNames.MyRealName_myCoolMethod);
}
}
However, the problem arises when I want to test my code in the absence of the obfuscated app from running - startup time and setup could take several minutes whereas I want test verification to be a couple of seconds.
What I am looking for is some way of easily adapting my tests to accommodate the frequently changing class names that my code depends upon.
I was intrigued by the power of tools like JMockit, etc in that they were able to automatically generate mock objects for me, I'm hoping to be able to have some thin layer that will enable to still have the majority of my mocks generated quite easily vs having to manually write everything, every update.

If you are running the code from Java, I don't think this is possible.
However if you are running the code with Groovy then you can use Groovy's methodMissing
See: http://groovy.codehaus.org/Using+methodMissing+and+propertyMissing

Framework to populate common field in unrelated classes

I'm attempting to write a framework to handle an interface with an external library and its API. As part of that, I need to populate a header field that exists with the same name and type in each of many (70ish) possible message classes. Unfortunately, instead of having each message class derive from a common base class that would contain the header field, each one is entirely separate.
As as toy example:
public class A
{
public Header header;
public Integer aData;
}
public class B
{
public Header header;
public Long bData;
}
If they had designed them sanely where A and B derived from some base class containing the header, I could just do:
public boolean sendMessage(BaseType b)
{
b.header = populateHeader();
stuffNecessaryToSendMessage();
}
But as it stands, Object is the only common class. The various options I've thought of would be:
A separate method for each type. This would work, and be fast, but the code duplication would be depressingly wasteful.
I could subclass each of the types and have them implement a common Interface. While this would work, creating 70+ subclasses and then modifying the code to use them instead of the original messaging classes is a bridge too far.
Reflection. Workable, but I'd expect it to be too slow (performance is a concern here)
Given these, the separate method for each seems like my best bet, but I'd love to have a better option.

I'd suggest you the following. Create a set of interfaces you'd like to have. For example
public interface HeaderHolder {
public void setHeader(Header header);
public Header getHeader();
}
I'd like your classes to implement them, i.e you's like that your class B is defined as
class B implements HeaderHolder {...}
Unfortunately it is not. Now problem!
Create facade:
public class InterfaceWrapper {
public <T> T wrap(Object obj, Class<T> api) {...}
}
You can implement it at this phase using dynamic proxy. Yes, dynamic proxy uses reflection, but forget about this right now.
Once you are done you can use your InterfaceWrapper as following:
B b = new B();
new IntefaceWrapper().wrap(b, HeaderHolder.class).setHeader("my header");
As you can see now you can set headers to any class you want (if it has appropriate property). Once you are done you can check your performance. If and only if usage of reflection in dynamic proxy is a bottleneck change the implementation to code generation (e.g. based on custom annotation, package name etc). There are a lot of tools that can help you to do this or alternatively you can implement such logic yourself. The point is that you can always change implementation of IntefaceWrapper without changing other code.
But avoid premature optimization. Reflection works very efficiently these days. Sun/Oracle worked hard to achieve this. They for example create classes on the fly and cache them to make reflection faster. So probably taking in consideration the full flow the reflective call does not take too much time.

How about dynamically generating those 70+ subclasses in the build time of your project ? That way you won't need to maintain 70+ source files while keeping the benefits of the approach from your second bullet.

The only library I know of that can do this Dozer. It does use reflection, but the good news is that it'll be easier to test if it's slow than to write your own reflection code to discover that it's slow.
By default, dozer will call the same getter/setters on two objects even if they are completely different. You can configure it in much more complex ways though. For example, you can also tell it to access the fields directly. You can give it a custom converter to convert a Map to a List, things like that.
You can just take one populated instance, or perhaps even your own BaseType and say, dozer.map(baseType, SubType.class);

What is the best way to work with many interfaces?

I have a situation where I have have a lot of model classes (~1000) which implement any number of 5 interfaces. So I have classes which implement one and others which implement four or five.
This means I can have any permutation of those five interfaces. In the classical model, I would have to implement 32-5 = 27 "meta interfaces" which "join" the interfaces in a bundle. Often, this is not a problem because IB usually extends IA, etc. but in my case, the five interfaces are orthogonal/independent.
In my framework code, I have methods which need instances that have any number of these interfaces implemented. So lets assume that we have the class X and the interfaces IA, IB, IC, ID and IE. X implements IA, ID and IE.
The situation gets worse because some of these interfaces have formal type parameters.
I now have two options:
I could define an interface IADE (or rather IPersistable_MasterSlaveCapable_XmlIdentifierProvider; underscores just for your reading pleasure)
I could define a generic type as <T extends IPersistable & IMasterSlaveCapable & IXmlIdentifierProvider> which would give me a handy way to mix & match interfaces as I need them.
I could use code like this: IA a = ...; ID d = (ID)a; IE e = (IE)e and then use the local variable with the correct type to call methods even though all three work on the same instance. Or use a cast in every second method call.
The first solution means that I get a lot of empty interfaces with very unreadable names.
The second uses a kind of "ad-hoc" typing. And Oracle's javac sometimes stumbles over them while Eclipse gets it right.
The last solution uses casts. Nuff said.
Questions:
Is there a better solution for mixing any number of interfaces?
Are there any reasons to avoid the temporary types which solution #2 offers me (except for shortcomings in Oracle's javac)?
Note: I'm aware that writing code which doesn't compile with Oracle's javac is a risk. We know that we can handle this risk.
[Edit] There seems to be some confusion what I try to attempt here. My model instances can have one of these traits:
They can be "master slave capable" (think cloning)
They can have an XML identifier
They might support tree operations (parent/child)
They might support revisions
etc. (yes, the model is even more complex than that)
Now I have support code which operates on trees. An extensions of trees are trees with revisions. But I also have revisions without trees.
When I'm in the code to add a child in the revision tree manager, I know that each instance must implement ITtree and IRevisionable but there is no common interface for both because these are completely independent concerns.
But in the implementation, I need to call methods on the nodes of the tree:
public void addChild( T parent, T child ) {
T newRev = parent.createNewRevision();
newRev.addChild( foo );
... possibly more method calls to other interfaces ...
}
If createNewRevision is in the interface IRevisionable and addChild is in the interface ITree, what are my options to define T?
Note: Assume that I have several other interfaces which work in a similar way: There are many places where they are independent but some code needs to see a mix of them. IRevisionableTree is not a solution but another problem.
I could cast the type for each call but that seems clumsy. Creating all permutations of interfaces would be boring and there seems no reasonable pattern to compress the huge interface names. Generics offer a nice way out:
public
<T extends IRevisionable & ITree>
void addChild( T parent, T child ) { ... }
This doesn't always work with Oracle's javac but it seems compact and useful. Any other options/comments?

Loosely coupled capabilities might be interesting. An example here.
It is an entirely different approach; decoupling things instead of typing.
Basically interfaces are hidden, implemented as delegating field.
IA ia = x.lookupCapability(IA.class);
if (ia != null) {
ia.a();
}
It fits here, as with many interfaces the wish to decouple rises, and you can more easily combine cases of interdepending interfaces (if (ia != null && ib != null) ...).

If you have a method (semicode)
void doSomething(IA & ID & IE thing);
then my main concern is: Couldn't doSomething be better tailored? Might it be better to split up the functionality? Or are the interfaces itself badly tailored?
I have stumbled over similar things several times and each time it proved to be better to take big step backward and rethink the complete partitioning of the logic - not only due to the stuff you mentioned but also due to other concerns.
Since you formulated your question very abstractly (i.e. without a sensible example) I cannot tell you if that's advisable in your case also.

I would avoid all "artificial" interfaces/types that attempt to represent combinations. It's just bad design... what happens if you add 5 more interfaces? The number of combinations explodes.
It seems you want to know if some instance implements some interface(s). Reasonable options are:
use instanceof - there is no shame
use reflection to discover the interfaces via object.getClass().getInterfaces() - you may be able to write some general code to process stuff
use reflection to discover the methods via object.getClass().getMethods() and just invoke those that match a known list of methods of your interfaces (this approach means you don't have to care what it implements - sounds simple and therefore sounds like a good idea)
You've given us no context as to exactly why you want to know, so it's hard to say what the "best" approach is.
Edited
OK. Since your extra info was added it's starting to make sense. The best approach here is to use the a callback: Instead of passing in a parent object, pass in an interface that accepts a "child".
It's a simplistic version of the visitor pattern. Your calling code knows what it is calling with and how it can handle a child, but the code that navigates around and/or decides to add a child doesn't have context of the caller.
Your code would look something like this (caveat: May not compile; I just typed it in):
public interface Parent<T> {
void accept(T child);
}
// Central code - I assume the parent is passed in somewhere earlier
public void process(Parent<T> parent) {
// some logic that decides to add a child
addChild(parent, child);
}
public void addChild(Parent<T> parent, T child ) {
parent.accept(child);
}
// Calling code
final IRevisionable revisionable = ...;
someServer.process(new Parent<T> {
void accept(T child) {
T newRev = revisionable.createNewRevision();
newRev.addChild(child);
}
}
You may have to juggle things around, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

Actually solution 1 is a good solution, but you should find a better naming.
What actually would you name a class that implements the IPersistable_MasterSlaveCapable_XmlIdentifierProvider interface? If you follow good naming convention, it should have a meaningful name originating from a model entity. You can give the interface the same name prefixed with I.
I don't find it a disadvantage to have many interfaces, because like that you can write mock implementations for testing purposes.

My situation is the opposite: I know that at certain point in code,
foo must implement IA, ID and IE (otherwise, it couldn't get that
far). Now I need to call methods in all three interfaces. What type
should foo get?
Are you able to bypass the problem entirely by passing (for example) three objects? So instead of:
doSomethingWithFoo(WhatGoesHere foo);
you do:
doSomethingWithFoo(IA foo, ID foo, IE foo);
Or, you could create a proxy that implements all interfaces, but allows you to disable certain interfaces (i.e. calling the 'wrong' interface causes an UnsupportedOperationException).
One final wild idea - it might be possible to create Dynamic Proxies for the appropriate interfaces, that delegate to your actual object.

Java static reflection on subclasses

I am implementing a sort of ORM in Java. I am trying to do a static find method that is only in the parent class. Let me get to the point:
public class DB {
public static Object find (int id) {
// i want to return anew instance of the calling subclass
}
}
public class Item extends DB {
// nothing here
}
public class Test {
public static void main () {
Item i = (Item) Item.find(2);
...
}
}
I don't know how to have the find method know which of its inherited class is calling it, so that i can return the right instance (and maybe call the right constructor, etc.) And the inherited class could be anything, no limit.
I've tried stacktrace, but it's only traced from Test to DB.
Any ideas?
Thank you everyone!

Static methods are not inherited, so you can't do this. A common approach to this problem (not including using one of tons of available ORM solutions) is to split your class hierarchy into two:
"Entity" (e.g. classes representing your actual data)
and "DAO" (Data Access Object) - classes that contain methods to manipulate data persistence.

A word to the wise: It's probably a bad idea to try and implement your own ORM. Projects like hibernate have covered this task in great detail, so if you roll your own you are likely to reinvent the wheel and possibly attempt to solve problems that have already been solved.
More on topic, ChssPly76 is correct in that you cannot accomplish this because of how static methods are handled in Java. When the VM loads the bytecode for the static method invocation, it will perform a lookup to find where the method actually is located. It won't find it on the Item class, so it will instead bind the call to DB.find.
However! It may be possible to achieve what you are trying to do with some bytecode wrangling. Viewing the bytecode (using javap -c) for the static method call in your example, we get the following:
invokestatic Method Item.find:(I)Ljava/lang/Object
Thus, once your call reaches DB.find, you could follow the stacktrace back to the callsite, and then inspect the bytecode at the callsite to retrive the actual target of the call. In theory, anyway, as I haven't seen this myself in practice. Also, beware of hacking bytecode like this, for here be dragons.
Kudos for identifying the active record pattern, and wanting to use it in Java. I do agree it's a design pattern that makes more sense than most DB access patterns found in Java, and it's one of the strengths of Ruby and PHP.

I think you may find the "Generic DAO" article at IBM developerworks useful.
Short: use Generics wisely.

Java mechanisms at use in lambdaj closures

Lamdbaj allows the definition of closures in the Java language, various examples can be found
here
My question is regarding the underlying Java mechanisms at use, for instance, to define the println closure, the following code is used:
Closure println = closure();
{ of(System.out).println(var(String.class)); }
This closure can be subsequently executed via:
println.apply("foobar");
I am curious as to what mechanisms in Java would allow the call to of(...).println(...) to become associated with the println instance itself.
Naturally, the lambdaj source code is available to read but I was hoping for a slightly higher level explanation if anyone has one. My reflection skills go as far as a bit of introspection and executing methods dynamically.

I am Mario Fusco and I am the main developer of the lambdaj library.
First of all I would like to clarify something: lambdaj is not intended to replace any functional language. As I said last week in my speech at the Jug of Zurich if you have a chance to use Scala, go for it and never look back. Here you can find a resume of my speech where it is clearly stated that:
http://ctpjava.blogspot.com/2009/10/lambdaj-new-trends-in-java.html
I am an happy Scala developer too. But sometimes you are just obliged to develop in Java (in my experience, in the real world, about the 80% of times you cannot choose in which language you have to write your code) and in this case some of the lambdaj features could be helpful (or I hope so). I just wanted to bring to Java some functional features that are totally missing. Of course the result is not completely satisfying mainly due to the limitation imposed by Java itself.
As for the internal lambdaj mechanism, yes it uses a ThreadLocal in order to achieve that result. If you have other questions, curiosities or even better suggestions and constructive critics about lambdaj maybe you could be interested to register yourself to the lambdaj mailing list here:
http://groups.google.com/group/lambdaj
Bye
Mario

Well, of is presumably a static method which is imported statically so it can be called without the enclosing class name. I expect that var is the same. Both methods must return some type which have the methods subsequently called:
public class Printable {
public void println(Var var);
}
public class Fac {
public static Printable of(Object o) {
return new Printable(o);
}
public static Var var(Class<?> clazz) {
return new Var(clazz);
}
}
All of a sudden:
Fac.of(System.out).println(Fac.var(String.class));
Is valid Java. Using static imports, hey presto:
import static Fac.*;
of(System.out).println(var(String.class));
The curly-braces are obviously valid Java as you can add these in any method to aid in defining a lexical sope. This API-design style is called fluent and is best showcased by the JMock testing library.
By the way, if this is supposed to introduce closures to Java, it's quite ridiculous - the syntax is unreadably awful. Their I/O example actually made me laugh out loud. Try Scala!
EDIT - the two println calls are associated I believe because the first sequence of calls allow the library to capture the variables which you have passed in as parameters. These are probably captured in some ThreadLocal structure. When you then call a (also presumably static) println method, the library is using this captured data to actually execute the behaviour at a later point. Also testing related, the EasyMock test framework uses a similar mechanism (which uses Java proxies in the background) to capture expected values.