Develop Reference

Can Byte Buddy generalize usage of the #Super annotation so that it could be used to intercept any function?

My subclass has a property which is an instance of its parent class. I wanted to intercept most of the functions in this subclass using interceptors, so that way it would call the same function on the parent class with the args passed. However, I have two issues: I don't know how to access the property, and call the function by unpacking the args at the same time.
I'm trying to create a subclass for a class in Minecraft that I'm already injecting into using Mixins, which does the thing I said above. The only problem is that that class has over 100 functions, and I'm not sure which ones I need to override in order to get the functionality I need. I was curious if Byte Buddy was suitable for this task, or if I need to consider a different solution entirely.

Find all calls to interface implementers?

There are a large number of classes in this codebase which use a specific interface. However, picking a few at random, I've been unable to find one which is actually called anywhere; as such, I don't have a great idea of how to use it.
Is there a way in Eclipse to find every instance of any class which implements this interface?
In other words, suppose there exists an interface Interface, and classes ClassA, ClassB, ClassC, ..., ClassX, which all implement it. I want to see every point in the code where something like `ClassX obj = new ClassX(). Most of the classes I'm finding that implement this interface don't have any point where they're actually used; I assume they're for future use.

Open the interface class, hold Control and move your mouse to interface's name, select open implementation. That's the simplest and easiest way to do.

Yes, highlight the interface name and hit F4 or right click -> Open type hierarchy.
Update after OP's edit:
If you are using a framework that uses dependency injection like spring probably you don't find any reference because some of the implementations are defined in a xml file.
Also consider if some implementations are created and invoked via reflection.

Some classes might be loaded during runtime e.g. using reflection. To catch-them-all you can set a method entry breakpoint on the interface method. This is explained in this answer. That way all calls to implementation methods will suspend the JVM regardless of what is the object type.
Do note that unlike the line breakpoints the method breakpoints will really slow down the performance of the JVM.

How to prevent client from seeing internal private classes in Android library ?

I have a library with several packages-
lets say
package a;
package b;
inside package a I have public a_class
inside package b I have public b_class
a_class uses b_class.
I need to generate a library from this , but I do not want the Client to see b_class.
The only solution I know of is to flatten my beautifully understandable packages to single package and to use default package access for b_class.
Is there another way to do so ? maybe using interfaces or some form of design pattern ??

If you reject to move the code to an individual, controlled server, all you can do is to hinder the client programmer when trying to use your APIs. Let's begin applying good practices to your design:
Let your packages organized as they are now.
For every class you want to "hide":
Make it non-public.
Extract its public API to a new, public interface:
public interface MyInterface {...}
Create a public factory class to get an object of that interface type.
public class MyFactory
{
public MyInterface createObject();
}
So far, you have now your packages loosely coupled, and the implementation classes are now private (as good practices preach, and you already said). Still, they are yet available through the interfaces and factories.
So, how can you avoid that "stranger" clients execute your private APIs? What comes next is a creative, a little complicated, yet valid solution, based on hindering the client programmers:
Modify your factory classes: Add to every factory method a new parameter:
public class MyFactory
{
public MyInterface createObject(Macguffin parameter);
}
So, what is Macguffin? It is a new interface you must define in your application, with at least one method:
public interface Macguffin
{
public String dummyMethod();
}
But do not provide any usable implementation of this interface. In every place of your code you need to provide a Macguffin object, create it through an anonymous class:
MyFactory.getObject(new Macguffin(){
public String dummyMethod(){
return "x";
}
});
Or, even more advanced, through a dynamic proxy object, so no ".class" file of this implementation would be found even if the client programmer dares to decompile the code.
What do you get from this? Basically is to dissuade the programmer from using a factory which requires an unknown, undocumented, ununderstandable object. The factory classes should just care not to receive a null object, and to invoke the dummy method and check the return value it is not null either (or, if you want a higher security level, add an undocumented secret-key-rule).
So this solution relies upon a subtle obfuscation of your API, to discourage the client programmer to use it directly. The more obscure the names of the Macguffin interface and its methods, the better.

I need to generate a library from this , but I do not want the Client to see b_class. The only solution I know of is to flatten my beautifully understandable packages to single package and to use default package access for b_class. Is there another way to do so ?
Yes, make b_class package-private (default access) and instantiate it via reflection for use in a_class.
Since you know the full class name, reflectively load the class:
Class<?> clz = Class.forName("b.b_class")
Find the constructor you want to invoke:
Constructor<?> con = clz.getDeclaredConstructor();
Allow yourself to invoke the constructor by making it accessible:
con.setAccessible(true);
Invoke the constructor to obtain your b_class instance:
Object o = con.newInstance();
Hurrah, now you have an instance of b_class. However, you can't call b_class's methods on an instance of Object, so you have two options:
Use reflection to invoke b_class's methods (not much fun, but easy enough and may be ok if you only have a few methods with few parameters).
Have b_class implement an interface that you don't mind the client seeing and cast your instance of b_class to that interface (reading between the lines I suspect you may already have such an interface?).
You'll definitely want to go with option 2 to minimise your pain unless it gets you back to square one again (polluting the namespace with types you don't want to expose the client to).
For full disclosure, two notes:
1) There is a (small) overhead to using reflection vs direct instantiation and invocation. If you cast to an interface you'll only pay the cost of reflection on the instantiation. In any case it likely isn't a problem unless you make hundreds of thousands of invocations in a tight loop.
2) There is nothing to stop a determined client from finding out the class name and doing the same thing, but if I understand your motivation correctly you just want expose a clean API, so this isn't really a worry.

When using Kotlin, you can use the internal modifier for your library classes.

If I understand correctly you are asking about publishing your library for 3rd party usage without disclosing part of your source? If that's the case you can use proguard, which can obfuscate your library. By default everything will be excluded/obfuscated, unless you specify things you want to exclude from being obfuscated/excluded.

If you want to distribute [part of] your code without the client being able to access it at all, that means that the client won't be able to execute it either. :-O
Thus, you just have one option: Put the sensible part of your code into a public server and distribute a proxy to access it, so that your code would be kept and executed into your server and the client would still be able to execute it through the proxy but without accessing it directly.
You might use a servlet, a webservice, a RMI object, or a simple TCP server, depending on the complexity level of your code.
This is the safest approach I can think of, but it also deserves a price to pay: In addition to complexing your system, it would introduce a network delay for each remote operation, which might be big deal depending on the performance requirements. Also, you should securize the server itself, to avoid hacker intrussions. This could be a good solution if you already have a server that you could take advantage of.

A better way to call static methods in user-submitted code?

I have a large data set. I am creating a system which allows users to submit java source files, which will then be applied to the data set. To be more specific, each submitted java source file must contain a static method with a specific name, let's say toBeInvoked(). toBeInvoked will take a row of the data set as an array parameter. I want to call the toBeInvoked method of each submitted source file on each row in the data set. I also need to implement security measures (so toBeInvoked() can't do I/O, can't call exit, etc.).
Currently, my implementation is this: I have a list of the names of the java source files. For each file, I create an instance of the custom secure ClassLoader which I coded, which compiles the source file and returns the compiled class. I use reflection to extract the static method toBeInvoked() (e.g. method = c.getMethod("toBeInvoked", double[].class)). Then, I iterate over the rows of the data set, and invoke the method on each row.
There are at least two problems with my approach:
it appears to be painfully slow (I've heard reflection tends to be slow)
the code is more complicated than I would like
Is there a better way to accomplish what I am trying to do?

There is no significantly better approach given the constraints that you have set yourself.
For what it is worth, what makes this "painfully slow" is compiling the source files to class files and loading them. That is many orders of magnitude slower than the use of reflection to call the methods.
(Use of a common interface rather than static methods is not going to make a measurable difference to speed, and the reduction in complexity is relatively small.)
If you really want to simplify this and speed it up, change your architecture so that the code is provided as a JAR file containing all of the compiled classes.

Assuming your #toBeInvoked() could be defined in an interface rather than being static (it should be!), you could just load the class and cast it to the interface:
Class<? extends YourInterface> c = Class.forName("name", true, classLoader).asSubclass(YourInterface.class);
YourInterface i = c.newInstance();
Afterwards invoke #toBeInvoked() directly.
Also have a look into java.util.ServiceLoader, which could be helpful for finding the right class to load in case you have more than one source file.

Personally, I would use an interface. This will allow you to have multiple instance with their own state (useful for multi-threading) but more importantly you can use an interface, first to define which methods must be implemented but also to call the methods.
Reflection is slow but this is only relative to other options such as a direct method call. If you are scanning a large data set, the fact you have to pulling data from main memory is likely to be much more expensive.

I would suggest following steps for your problem.
To check if the method contains any unwanted code, you need to have a check script which can do these checks at upload time.
Create an Interface having a method toBeInvoked() (not a static method).
All the classes which are uploaded must implement this interface and add the logic inside this method.
you can have your custom class loader scan a particular folder for new classes being added and load them accordingly.
When a file is uploaded and successfully validated, you can compile and copy the class file to the folder which class loader scans.
You processor class can lookup for new files and then call toBeInvoked() method on loaded class when required.
Hope this help. (Note that i have used a similar mechanism to load dynamically workflow step classes in Workflow Engine tool which was developed).

Is it an ok practice to have a member ClientBundle in a containing ClientBundle?

In my app, I have MyAppResources, which will mainly contain custom styles for the app. I am thinking about what is a good way to go about applying custom styles to standard widgets, such as a CellTable, along with custom styles on the layout and custom widgets?
My question:
Since MyAppResources is a singleton (it doesn't have to be, as mentioned in other posts), but CellTableResources isn't, and CellTableResources is a member of this instance that is an interface also extending ClientBundle, will a proxy 'CellTableResources' be created on every MyAppResources.INSTANCE.cellTableResources().foo()?
If so, could I create a MyAppResources.CELLTABLE_RESOURCE_INSTANCE to get around this? Or would the creation of the proxy be negligible, even if there are plentiful calls to MyAppResources.INSTANCE.cellTableResources().#?
Secondly, more of a discussion question: what is best practice in regards to using multiple ClientBundles in this case? Should I instead use CellTableResources seperately (remove it from MyAppResources), using GWT.create(CellTableResources.class); in a widget that needs it (or using a singleton like I have for MyAppResources)?
MyAppResources:
public interface MyAppResources extends ClientBundle {
public static final MyAppResources INSTANCE = GWT.create(MyAppResources.class);
#Source("MyAppStyles.css")
public MyAppCssResource css();
public CellTableResources cellTableResources();
}
CellTableResources:
public interface CellTableResources extends CellTable.Resources {
interface CellTableStyle extends CellTable.Style {
}
#Override
#Source({ CellTable.Style.DEFAULT_CSS, "CellTableStyles.css" })
CellTableStyle cellTableStyle();
#Source("green_light.png")
ImageResource getGreenLight();
//...
}
Thank you for reading.

Multi-part question, so I'm going to try to hit this in several parts:
What is the cost of GWT.create()?
Most of the GWT class is 'magic', things that you cannot wrote for yourself in other ways, as they call on the compiler to fill in specific details for you. These are often different when running in dev mode vs compiled to JS.
In the case of GWT.create, it turns out that this is compiled out to new - it is used just to create new instances. So what is the cost of a new instance versus a singleton? This depends entirely on the object being created. If there are no fields in the object, then the cost is essentially free - in fact, the compiler may choose to actually remove the constructor call, and rewrite all later methods as static anyway!
This is what happens in most cases - GWT.create should be considered to be very cheap, unless you are doing something silly like calling it within a loop that is run many times.
What happens when I list a ClientBundle method inside another ClientBundle?
Well, what happens when you list anything inside a ClientBundle?
Anything that can be listed in a ClientBundle must be annotated with #ResourceGeneratorType, indicating how to generate that type. For example, here is ImageResource:
/**
* Provides access to image resources at runtime.
*/
#DefaultExtensions(value = {".png", ".jpg", ".gif", ".bmp"})
#ResourceGeneratorType(ImageResourceGenerator.class)
public interface ImageResource extends ResourcePrototype {
//...
It calls on ImageResourceGenerator to create images as needed. Any class described in that annotation must implement com.google.gwt.resources.ext.ResourceGenerator, which describes how to get ready to work, how to create necessary fields, how to initialize them, and how to finish up.
So what does this look like for ClientBundle itself? Check out com.google.gwt.resources.rg.BundleResourceGenerator - it is a very simple class that just calls GWT.create() on the type of the method given. So, predictable, this means that those 'child' ClientBundles are created via GWT.create, more or less the same as you might otherwise do.
Okay, what does that mean in this specific case?
It turns out that ClientBundles instances don't have fields where they track newly created objects from, but instead have static members that they use instead - effectively singletons. This means that once you have called a method once, the instance it returns will be the same instance created as the next time you call it. Two different ClientBundles with the same contents will of course then keep two different copies of the objects, but it doesn't matter how many times you create a ClientBundle - its internals will always be the same.
Anything else?
Yep! Remember that you are dealing with interfaces here, not classes, so you can actually extend more than once at once!
public interface MyAppResources extends
ClientBundle,
CellTable.Resources,
CellTree.Resources {//etc
//...
Now, if two interfaces describe the same methods you may have problems, but if not, this can provide an advantage when generated sprited images. Each individual ClientBundle will draw on its own pool of images when preparing them for use - if you have a ClientBundle within a ClientBundle, they won't work together to sprite images into bigger pieces. To get that, you need to make just one ClientBundle type. This may not matter in your particular case, but I figured it was also worth mentioning.