Develop Reference

My System.out.println(); keeps printing null instead of the text it should print

I started Java a while ago and I am now busy with abstract classes. I've been busy with this code for two days now and I can't find out how to fix this. The methods names might not be in English, sorry for that but I think it wouldn't be too big of a problem.
I don't know why the output is as following:
null null null null
null null null null
null null null null
null null null null
I hope you guys can help me out. I would appreciate any help! Thanks in advance.
Main class, which is also abstract:
public abstract class Boek {
public String isbn;
public String auteur;
public String paginas;
public String titel;
public abstract void setIsbn(String isbn);
public abstract void getIsbn();
public abstract void setAuteur(String auteur);
public abstract void getAuteur();
public abstract void setPaginas(int paginas);
public abstract void getPaginas();
public abstract void setTitel(String titel);
public abstract void getTitel();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Studieboek sb = new Studieboek();
Roman ro = new Roman();
Dichtbundel db = new Dichtbundel();
sb.setAuteur("J.K. Rowling");
sb.setIsbn("547896587412");
sb.setPaginas(251);
sb.setTitel("Harry Potter");
sb.addNAuteur("R.K. Dale");
sb.addOndertitel("Exactly");
sb.printSB();
ro.setAuteur("Suzanne Vermeer");
ro.setIsbn("9632589632574");
ro.setPaginas(311);
ro.setTitel("De Zwarte Piste");
ro.printRO();
db.setAuteur("A.Y. Lmao");
db.setIsbn("5781236985478");
db.setPaginas(171);
db.setTitel("Rijmen kreng");
db.addGedicht("Rijmpje");
db.printDB();
}
}
First subclass:
public class Studieboek extends Boek {
private String ondertitel;
private String nAuteur;
#Override
public void setIsbn(String isbn) {
}
#Override
public void getIsbn() {
}
#Override
public void setAuteur(String auteur) {
}
#Override
public void getAuteur() {
}
#Override
public void setPaginas(int paginas) {
}
#Override
public void getPaginas() {
}
#Override
public void setTitel(String titel) {
}
#Override
public void getTitel() {
}
public void printSB() {
System.out.println(titel + " " + auteur + " " + paginas + " " + isbn + " " + ondertitel + " " + nAuteur);
}
public void addOndertitel(String ondertitel) {
}
public void addNAuteur(String nAuteur) {
}
I have two more subclasses after this but I don't think it is necessary for the code to work, because the code in both other subclasses are exactly the same and give the exact same output.
Again, any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Double

Your setters aren't doing anything.
A correct way to implement e.g. your setter for isbn would be:
#Override
public void setIsbn(String isbn) {
this.isbn = isbn;
}
Note the part where it actually sets something.
Your getters are equally wrong. A getter should return something, i.e. not be declared as void and have a return statement:
#Override
public String getIsbn() {
return this.isbn;
}
I know they should contain a return value, but the return value gives an error and whenever I leave it empty it seems fine.
(from the comments)
I'm guessing the error is something along "a void method cannot return anything" and yes, it will be fine - unless you try something like
System.out.println(sb.getIsbn()); // Will also print "null"
I'll leave the rest up to you.
Bonus 1: If you have an abstract parent class anyway, you can move the common getters and setters to Boek instead of just declaring them as abstract. This will save you from having to re-implement them in each of your subclasses again.
Bonus 2: public fields (as in public String isbn;) are usually discouraged. You already have the getters and setters, so make them protected (see also: encapsulation).
Bonus 3: As already pointed out by Mike 'Pomax' Kamermans in the comments: You don't want to have your main method in your Boek class. Create a separate "application" class with only the main method to start up your application.
Bonus 4: I believe the standard way of what you want to achieve with your printSB, printRO and printDB methods would be to override the toString() method. Although this might be different for your special use case.
Use it as following:
public class Studieboek extends Boek {
...
#Override
public String toString() {
return this.isbn + " " + this.auteur; // Plus the others
}
}
And
// No need to call an additional method, toString will be invoked automatically
System.out.println(db);

Your set and get methods are empty. You need to set a value in the setters and return the value in the getters.
Right now you are trying to print a variable that has not yet been set - so yes, it is going to print null.
public class FooClass{
private String foo;
public void setFoo(String foo) {
this.foo = foo;
}
public String getFoo() {
return foo;
}
}

You are printing the variable, whose values have not set. You have set the variable values in setter methods in order to print the values. Setter methods to set the values. And getter methods to return the values.
#Override
public void setTitel(String titel) {
this.titel=titel;
}
#Override
public String getTitel() {
return titel;
}

Get Object from Field

CLARIFICATION:
I do not know the objects name. That is where the problem comes in. I am creating an object like such:
`new Object(String attributes);
I am trying to run code in another class such as:
***.getStuff();
the trick to it is, there is no name for the Object. but i do know what String attributes is
The question: Is there any way to accomplish this without using the dreaded for loop?
This question is a bit tricky to word, but I will try my best. What I want to is get an object that matches a particular field without making a messy for loop. Something along the lines of:
Object A has the field String name.
String nameObj = "Tickle";
Object A has the name "Tickle"
if(nameObj.equals(Object A)){
//bla bla
}
Very confusing wording, yes. Sorry about that. I want to use Object A in my code without having to figure out which object it is, assuming all I have is its name. I am looking for a shortcut around using a for loop, I suppose.
Feel free to ask questions about what I am looking for. Sorry about the terribly worded question.
Poor coding, but this is what I am looking for...
nameObj.getName().getObjectA();

If you have a bunch of objects with names, and you want to grab an object by its name, I suggest you look up the class HashMap. HashMap lets you put in objects under keys, and when you give the hash map a key it returns the object associated with that key. So in your example, the keys would be string names.

Take at this implementation, that demonstrates what #Patashu said, create a map to the objects, in this case I just add an abstract class at the top of all.
import java.util.HashMap;
public class FindMeBaby {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Factory.add(new NiceGuy("first one"));
Factory.add(new FirstChild("ok im late"));
System.out.println(Factory.get("first one")
.getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows());
}
}
abstract class ParentOfAll {
protected String id;
public ParentOfAll(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getId(){
return id;
}
public abstract String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows();
}
class FirstChild extends ParentOfAll {
public FirstChild(String id) {
super(id);
}
public String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows() {
return "this is a secret";
}
}
class NiceGuy extends ParentOfAll {
public NiceGuy(String id) {
super(id);
}
public String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows() {
return "to say the true, i'm not that nice :)";
}
}
class Factory {
private static HashMap allTheObjects = new HashMap();
public static Object add(ParentOfAll object) {
allTheObjects.put(object.getId(), object);
return object;
}
public static ParentOfAll get(String key) {
return (ParentOfAll) allTheObjects.get(key);
}
}

This is another version, of the same implementation with a more transparent aproach, without the Factory class, the Parent itself will keep track of the instances and save in a list.
import java.util.HashMap;
public class FindMeBaby {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NiceGuy foo = new NiceGuy("first one");
FirstChild bar = new FirstChild("ok im late");
System.out.println(ParentOfAll.get("first one")
.getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows());
}
}
abstract class ParentOfAll {
protected String id;
public ParentOfAll(String id) {
this.id = id;
add(this);
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public abstract String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows();
private static HashMap allTheObjects = new HashMap();
private static Object add(ParentOfAll object) {
allTheObjects.put(object.getId(), object);
return object;
}
public static ParentOfAll get(String key) {
return (ParentOfAll) allTheObjects.get(key);
}
}
class FirstChild extends ParentOfAll {
public FirstChild(String id) {
super(id);
}
public String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows() {
return "this is a secret";
}
}
class NiceGuy extends ParentOfAll {
public NiceGuy(String id) {
super(id);
}
public String getVeryImportantInformationThatOnlyThisClassKnows() {
return "to say the true, i'm not that nice :)";
}
}

Read only classes/methods

In preparing for an interview, someone mentioned knowing how to make a class/method in java read-only. I've been doing a bit of searching, but haven't found anything really concrete.
Maybe this question is simpler to answer than I'm making it out to be, but what would be a way to make a class or method read-only in java?

The following code will ensure that your class is always READ ONLY, but if you find any loop hole, please post it here.
import java.io.Serializable;
final public class ImmutableClass implements Cloneable,Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 6488148163144293060L;
private static volatile ImmutableClass instance;
private ImmutableClass() {
// no-op
System.out.println("instance created : " + this.hashCode());
}
/**
* Lazy Instantiation
*
* #return
*/
public static ImmutableClass getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
synchronized (ImmutableClass.class) {
System.out.println("aquired lock");
if (instance == null) {
instance = new ImmutableClass() {
};
}
System.out.println("released lock");
}
}
return instance;
}
public Object readResolve() {
System.out.println("readResolve()");
return getInstance();
}
#Override
public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
throw new CloneNotSupportedException();
}
}

The Read-only class means, we are talking about "IMMUTABLE" concept.
The following example depicts the same:
public class ImmutableString {
static String upcase(String s) {
return s.toUpperCase(); // here local variable s vanishes
// it return the value to a new String object
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
String s = new String("abc");
System.out.println(s); //abc
String s1 = upcase(s);
System.out.println(s1); //ABC
System.out.println(s); //abc
}
}

Lets Say you want a read only version of an object,
case 1: if your class contains fields which are not pointers to any other objects eg:
public class Person{
private String name;
//Getters n Setters
}
in this case, you can return a copy of this class, write a constructor that accepts Person, any one who wants to get a Person object will have a copy of this object so any Setter operations wont effect the original object(Strings are immutable)
Case 2: in case your object contains a pointer to another object or list or map
in this case make classes implement an interface which has only read-only methods(Getters) and wherever you are returning the object, change it to return this interface, so client will have access to only read-only methods
eg:
class Person implements ReadOnly{
String name;
.. assume pointers also in here
// Getter n Setters
public PersonReadOnly(){
return this;
}
}
interface PersonReadOnly {
public String getName();
}

Simple rule: Don't have any public fields and No public setter methods.
For example, see class below:
final class AReadOnlyClass
{
private int anInt;
public int GetAnInt()
{
return anInt;
}
}

What is the best way to know if all the variables in a Class are null?

This would mean that the class was initialized, but the variables were not set.
A sample Class:
public class User {
String id = null;
String name = null;
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
The actual class is huge that I prefer not to check if(xyz == null) for each of the variables.

Another non-reflective solution for Java 8, in the line of paxdiabo's answer but without using a series of if's, would be to stream all fields and check for nullness:
return Stream.of(id, name)
.allMatch(Objects::isNull);
This remains quite easy to maintain while avoiding the reflection hammer.

Try something like this:
public boolean checkNull() throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field f : getClass().getDeclaredFields())
if (f.get(this) != null)
return false;
return true;
}
Although it would probably be better to check each variable if at all feasible.

This can be done fairly easily using a Lombok generated equals and a static EMPTY object:
import lombok.Data;
public class EmptyCheck {
public static void main(String[] args) {
User user1 = new User();
User user2 = new User();
user2.setName("name");
System.out.println(user1.isEmpty()); // prints true
System.out.println(user2.isEmpty()); // prints false
}
#Data
public static class User {
private static final User EMPTY = new User();
private String id;
private String name;
private int age;
public boolean isEmpty() {
return this.equals(EMPTY);
}
}
}
Prerequisites:
Default constructor should not be implemented with custom behavior as that is used to create the EMPTY object
All fields of the class should have an implemented equals (built-in Java types are usually not a problem, in case of custom types you can use Lombok)
Advantages:
No reflection involved
As new fields added to the class, this does not require any maintenance as due to Lombok they will be automatically checked in the equals implementation
Unlike some other answers this works not just for null checks but also for primitive types which have a non-null default value (e.g. if field is int it checks for 0, in case of boolean for false, etc.)

If you want this for unit testing I just use the hasNoNullFieldsOrProperties() method from assertj
assertThat(myObj).hasNoNullFieldsOrProperties();

How about streams?
public boolean checkFieldsIsNull(Object instance, List<String> fieldNames) {
return fieldNames.stream().allMatch(field -> {
try {
return Objects.isNull(instance.getClass().getDeclaredField(field).get(instance));
} catch (IllegalAccessException | NoSuchFieldException e) {
return true;//You can throw RuntimeException if need.
}
});
}

"Best" is such a subjective term :-)
I would just use the method of checking each individual variable. If your class already has a lot of these, the increase in size is not going to be that much if you do something like:
public Boolean anyUnset() {
if ( id == null) return true;
if (name == null) return true;
return false;
}
Provided you keep everything in the same order, code changes (and automated checking with a script if you're paranoid) will be relatively painless.
Alternatively (assuming they're all strings), you could basically put these values into a map of some sort (eg, HashMap) and just keep a list of the key names for that list. That way, you could iterate through the list of keys, checking that the values are set correctly.

I think this is a solution that solves your problem easily: (return true if any of the parameters is not null)
public boolean isUserEmpty(){
boolean isEmpty;
isEmpty = isEmpty = Stream.of(id,
name)
.anyMatch(userParameter -> userParameter != null);
return isEmpty;}
Another solution to the same task is:(you can change it to if(isEmpty==0) checks if all the parameters are null.
public boolean isUserEmpty(){
long isEmpty;
isEmpty = Stream.of(id,
name)
.filter(userParameter -> userParameter != null).count();
return isEmpty > 0
}

The best way in my opinion is Reflection as others have recommended. Here's a sample that evaluates each local field for null. If it finds one that is not null, method will return false.
public class User {
String id = null;
String name = null;
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public boolean isNull() {
Field fields[] = this.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
for (Field f : fields) {
try {
Object value = f.get(this);
if (value != null) {
return false;
}
}
catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println(new User().isNull());
}
}

Field[] field = model.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
for(int j=0 ; j<field.length ; j++){
String name = field[j].getName();
name = name.substring(0,1).toUpperCase()+name.substring(1);
String type = field[j].getGenericType().toString();
if(type.equals("class java.lang.String")){
Method m = model.getClass().getMethod("get"+name);
String value = (String) m.invoke(model);
if(value == null){
... something to do...
}
}

Best for me is
Stream.of(getClass().getDeclaredMethods()).allMatch(Objects::isNull);
It can be used in a custom annotation + annotation processor to automagically define a boolean isNull() method on the annotated classes.

Based on Irkwz's answer, but a different approach:
public class SomeClass{
private String field1;
private String field2;
private ComplexField field3;
private String field4;
private Integer field15;
public boolean isNullAllFields() {
return Stream.of(this.getClass().getDeclaredFields()).anyMatch(element -> (element != null));
}
}
And the end of the day u invoke isNullAllFields method to figure out wheter the object fields are empty.

If you want to do the opposite i.e check if some/all members of class are non-non, the check this answer.
In order to make sure that certain members of the class are always non-null, we can use lombok #NonNull annotation on the individual fields of the class.
import lombok.Data;
import lombok.NonNull;
#Data
public class DataClass {
#NonNull
private String data1;
private int data2;
#NonNull
private String data3;
#NonNull
private String data4;
#NonNull
private String data5;
private String data6;
DataClass(String data1,...) {
// constructor
}
}

Easiest way is to convert the class to a map and get its keys and with stream check if any or all key's values are null or not, you can take input from user as well whether they want to check for specific set of keys only!
Below is the code to check whether any of the key's value has null, you can change stream config to all match or any match as per your requirement
Just replace isNullOrEmpty method i have used with proper null or empty check condition for that particular collection
public boolean checkIfAnyFieldIsNull(Object instance, Set<String> fields){
try {
Map<String, Object> instanceMap = new Gson().fromJson(new GsonBuilder().serializeNulls().create().toJson(instance), Map.class);
if(!isNullorEmpty(instanceMap)) {
fields = isNullorEmpty(fields) ? instanceMap.keySet() : fields;
return fields.stream().anyMatch(curField -> isNull(instanceMap.get(curField)));
}else{
return false;
}
}catch (Exception e){
return false;
}
}
}

Try this method once, its works for me!!
private fun checkIfAnyDataIsNull(model: YourModelCass): Boolean {
return Stream.of<Any>(
model.date,
model.merchantName,
model.payment,
).allMatch(Objects::isNull)
}

You can use the simple solution:
if(user.equals(new User()){
//your processing goes here
}

What's good practice of creating input validation method in Java?

If I want to validate my input, should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class? Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
More Information
Let's say I have a class
import java.util.Vector;
public class Place {
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
private String address;
private String name;
private String types;
private String icon;
private String phoneNumber;
private String websiteUrl;
private int rating;
private Vector<Integer> challenges;
public static class Builder {
// required parameter
private final double longitude;
private final double latitude;
private final String id;
// optional parameter
private String address = "n/a";
private String name = "n/a";
private String icon = "n/a";
private String phoneNumber = "n/a";
private String websiteUrl = "n/a";
private String types = "n/a";
private Vector<Integer> challenges = new Vector<Integer>();
private int rating = 0;
public Builder(double longitude, double latitude, String id) {
assert(longitude >= -180.0 && longitude <= 180.0);
assert(latitude >= -90.0 && longitude <= 90.0);
this.longitude = longitude;
this.latitude = latitude;
this.id = id;
}
public Builder address(String address) {
this.address = address;
return this;
}
public Builder types(String types) {
this.types = types;
return this;
}
public Builder name(String name) {
this.name = name;
return this;
}
public Builder icon(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
return this;
}
public Builder phoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
return this;
}
public Builder websiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
return this;
}
public Builder builder(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
return this;
}
public Place build() {
return new Place(this);
}
}
public Place(Builder builder) {
// required parameters
longitude = builder.longitude;
latitude = builder.latitude;
id = builder.id;
// optional parameters
address = builder.address;
types = builder.types;
name = builder.name;
icon = builder.icon;
phoneNumber = builder.phoneNumber;
websiteUrl = builder.websiteUrl;
rating = builder.rating;
challenges = builder.challenges;
}
public double getLongitude() {
return longitude;
}
public double getLatitude() {
return latitude;
}
public String getId() {
return id;
}
public void setAddress(String address) {
this.address = address;
}
public String getAddress() {
return address;
}
public String getTypes() {
return types;
}
public void setTypes(String types) {
this.types = types;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setIconUrl(String icon) {
this.icon = icon;
}
public String getIcon() {
return icon;
}
public void setPhoneNumber(String phoneNumber) {
this.phoneNumber = phoneNumber;
}
public String getPhoneNumber() {
return phoneNumber;
}
public void setWebsiteUrl(String websiteUrl) {
this.websiteUrl = websiteUrl;
}
public String getWebsiteUrl() {
return websiteUrl;
}
public void setRating(int rating) {
this.rating = rating;
}
public int getRating() {
return rating;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "(" + Double.toString(longitude) + ", " + Double.toString(latitude) + ")";
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + ((id == null) ? 0 : id.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
Place other = (Place) obj;
if (id == null) {
if (other.id != null)
return false;
}
else if (!id.equals(other.id))
return false;
return true;
}
public Vector<Integer> getChallenges() {
return new Vector<Integer>(challenges);
}
public void addChallenges(Integer i) {
this.challenges.add(i);
}
public void showChallenges() {
for (Integer i : challenges) {
System.out.print(i + ", ");
}
}
}
If I have to validate address argument before setting it, where should I put the code for validating address in this case?

If you are talking just seeing if the entered String is formatted correctly or if the length is right, then you would use a private method. If you would on the other hand check if the address is correct (look it up on a map) or any more advanced stuff, it would make sense to create a AddressValidator interface and call it from that private method.
The reason for the private method being that you call this both from a constructor, setter or any other method that could suppy an address. The reason for the interface being that you might want to have e.g. an online / offline AddressValidator (MockAddressValidator, or one that calls a different class for each country etc).
As an AddressValidator could be reused in other classes, and to keep your code clean, I would create it as a top level interface + OnlineAddressValidator. This makes your class better readable as well. For full configurability, you might want to think about how you are going to supply the AddressValidator instance, e.g. through the constructor or one defined as a static final validator.
public interface AddressValidator {
static class AddressValidatorResult {
// some results, you might want to return some useful feedback (if not valid)
boolean isValid() {
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
public static class AddressValidationException extends Exception {
private AddressValidationException(AddressValidatorResult result) {
// add some implementation
}
}
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address);
// don't throw ValidateException here, invalid addresses are normal for
// validators, even if they aren't for the application that uses them
}
public class DefaultAddressValidator implements AddressValidator {
public static class Params {
// some parameters for this specific validator
}
private final Params params;
public DefaultAddressValidator(Params params) {
// creates this validator
this.params = params;
}
#Override
public AddressValidatorResult validateAddress(String address) {
// perform your code here
// I don't like "return null" as it may lead to bugs
throw new IllegalStateException("Method not implemented yet");
}
}
// and use it like this
private void validateAddress(String address) throws AddressValidationException {
// e.g. field AddressValidator set in constructor
AddressValidatorResult result = addressValidator.validateAddress(address);
if (!result.isValid()) {
throw new AddressValidationException(result);
}
}

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a separate static helper class?
This totally depends on your context. It's impossible to say what should be the best design, without knowing what you are trying to realise.
After you edit: IMO, it is still not easy to tell you. If you only have to validate the address in one single point of your application (id: the setter method), I would validate it inside the setter method. If the input was invalid, I whould throw an IllegalArgumentException.
Does the validation code increase the size of the object?
However, the answer to your second question is No. To understand why, you have to know what Object Oriented Programming is.
Some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_science)

Should I make validation code as private helper methods or create a
separate static helper class?
It depends if you think that you'll need to reuse the same method also in another class for the same purpose(input validation) it is better write the method in a separate static helper class so you can reuse the method and maintain it easily.
If you write the same private helper method in several class each time that you need to make a changes you have to edit each method in each class, with a static helper class you change the code in one place only ...

Read about PropertyChangeListener and Bean Validation.

I tend to validate within the get() and set() methods wherever possible - calling external static methods for common tasks such as checking dates or cleaning input (i.e. to avoid sql injection)
If you only use (and are only ever going to use) the validation within one class, keep it as a private helper method. If in doubt, I tend to pull the functionality out into a static helper class. It makes very little difference to the amount of code, is no more effort to implement, and is much more flexible.

The short answer is: you should implement your validation code the way that your framework tells you to. Typically, this is a public method or an annotation. An interface could work too. If you add code, your class size will increase.
Data validation should be automatically called by your software's infrastructure. This helps to prevent programmers from forgetting to call the appropriate code. So, the methods should be public (an interface would work too).
Frameworks like Struts, Spring, Hibernate and have their own validation systems. Java EE leverages bean validation.
I recommend bean validation, because it performs validation regardless of the input source. When most people think of input validation, they think of data coming from the user e.g. HTTP Request, command console, Swing text field. Spring and Struts validation is often fine for those situations. But in long lived programs developed for enterprises, other data feeds often get introduced e.g. SQL database updates from another programs, database restoration after a crash, enterprise service bus, JMS.
That is why I prefer bean validation. The downside is that "safe sources" (data that you know is untainted) are validated unnecessarily. But with today's processing power, that should rarely be a significant concern.
Java EE Tutorial