While following DDD concept I'm struggling on decision if I should make my domain localization aware? I came with two two solutions how to solve this. Both makes domain localization aware in different places. Should I even place localized text to domain? Share your solution for this problem or pros and cons of my two examples. Thanks.
Example 1
class Persion {
String name;
// other fields ommited
void rename(String newName) {
String oldName = this.name;
this.name = newName
// publish event with old name and new name
}
String name() {
return name;
}
}
class PersionRepository {
void store(Persion persion) {
Locale loc = LocaleContextHolder.get().getLocale();
// store object to DAO - create/update fields for context locale
}
// other methods ommited
}
Example 2
class Persion {
Map<Locale, String> name;
// other fields ommited
void rename(String newName) {
Locale locale = LocaleContextHolder.get().getLocale();
String oldName = this.name.put(locale, newName);
// publish event with old name and new name
}
String name() {
Locale locale = LocaleContextHolder.get().getLocale();
return this.name.get(locale);
}
}
class PersionRepository {
void store(Persion persion) {
// store object to DAO - create/update fields for all locales
}
// other methods ommited
}
In most of cases, the best option is to remove localization from the domain.
Domain classes should only contain data that are relevant to their invariants, since they are responsible for business rules. To retrieve localized descriptions, use projective DTOs and applicative services.
You could use something like this:
public final class VatCode {
private final String _code;
public VatCode(String code)
{
// VAT code validation here...
_code = code;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return _code;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
// ...
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
// ...
}
}
public class Person {
private final VatCode _identifier;
public Person(VatCode identifier)
{
_identifier = identifier;
}
// some command and some query here...
}
public class PersonDTO {
private final String _vatCode;
private final String _personalDescription;
public PersonDTO(String _vatCode, String _personalDescription) {
this._vatCode = _vatCode;
this._personalDescription = _personalDescription;
}
// other fields here...
public String getVatCode()
{
return _vatCode;
}
public String getPersonalDescription()
{
return _personalDescription;
}
// some more getter here
}
public interface LocalizedPersonalInformationService {
PersonDTO getInformationOf(VatCode person, Locale localization) throws ProperExceptionList;
}
That is:
something like a VatCode valueobject (that overrides equals, hashCode and toString) to identify the Person entity
a Person entity, holding the minimum amount of data required to ensure business invariants and exposing a set of command and queries
a PersonDTO that carries useful descriptions (some call this a read-model)
a LocalizedPersonalInformationService that is able to provide PersonDTOs.
and (obviously) all the needed exceptions... :-)
If at all possible put all your localization in the UI layer. Sometimes people find that difficult to do. For example, I worked on a project where the business logic would throw an exception and that exception would get displayed in the UI. To localize the exception we had to do something like the following (details omitted for brevity, also we had to have a LocalizedRuntimeException and a LocalizedException):
//====ArbitraryBusinessLogic.java====
if(badThing) {
throw new SubclassOfLocalizedException(LocalizedStrings.ERROR_FOO,param1,param2);
}
//====LocalizedException.java====
public class LocalizedException extends Exception {
private LocalizationKey localizationKey;
Object [] params;
public LocalizedException(LocalizationKey localizationKey, Object ... params) {
super();
localizationKey = localizationKey
params = params;
}
public String getLocalizedMessage(Locale locale) {
//message would be something like "The %s foo'd the %s"
//or of course "le %s foo'd le %s" (FYI: I don't speak French)
String message = getLocalizedMessageForKey(localizationKey);
return String.format(locale,message,params);
}
public String getLocalizedMessage() {
return getLocalizedMessage(getDefaultLocale());
}
public String getMessage() {
return getLocalizedMessage();
}
}
Related
I am in a situation, where I'm trying to implement a (relatively simple) abstract syntax tree. All of the nodes inherit from a type called SimpleNode containing some code to store line and column information and accepting a visitor.
Now, some of the nodes should also be nameable, while others should have a property "accessible" (eg. public or private). Some nodes should even support both interfaces.
I'd preferably implement this using virtual inheritance and write two classes NameableNode and AccessibleNode, but Java doesn't support MI.
Eg NameableNode might have field "name" and implement simple getters and setters for this field. Similarly, AccessibleNode might also have a field "accessibility" and getters/setters.
What is a good way to implement this and avoid introducing code duplication in a huge part of the code base?
Small code example:
public class SimpleNode {
private int line = 0;
private int column = 0;
/* Getters and setters for line/column. */
/* ... */
}
public class NameableNode extends SimpleNode {
private String name = "";
/* Getters and setters for name */
}
public class AccessibleNode extends SimpleNode {
private boolean isPublic = false;
/* Getters and setters for accessibility */
}
You're looking for composition. There are many flavors of this - I will propose one that, from my understanding of what you're trying to build, should suit your purpose.
First, let's create some interfaces for yours Nodes:
public interface Nameable {
/* Getters and setters for name */
}
public interface Accessible {
/* Getters and setters for accessibility */
}
Next, you probably don't want to repeat the same implementation for every Node, so let's create those implementations:
public class NameDelegate() {
private String name = "";
/* Getters and setters for name */
}
public class AccessDelegate() {
private boolean isPublic = false;
/* Getters and setters for accessibility */
}
Now, let's put everything together:
public class SomeNodeA extends SimpleNode implements Nameable {
private NameDelegate nameDelegate;
public SomeNodeA(NameDelegate nameDelegate) {
this.nameDelegate = nameDelegate;
}
#Override
public String getName() {
return nameDelegate.getName();
}
#Override
public String setName(String name) {
nameDelegate.setName(name);
}
}
You can also have both behaviours in a single class:
public class SomeNodeB extends SimpleNode implements Nameable, Accessible {
private NameDelegate nameDelegate;
private AccessDelegate accessDelegate;
public SomeNodeB(NameDelegate nameDelegate, AccessDelegate accessDelegate) {
this.nameDelegate = nameDelegate;
this.accessDelegate = accessDelegate;
}
#Override
public String getName() {
return nameDelegate.getName();
}
#Override
public String setName(String name) {
nameDelegate.setName(name);
}
#Override
public boolean getAccessibility() {
return accessDelegate.getAccessibility();
}
/* etc... */
}
The idea is, you can package the state and the functionality of the different "features" into individual delegates, and expose them as corresponding interfaces in your Nodes.
Also, when operating on the Nodes, if you need to know whether a given instance of a Node supports a specific feature, you can use instanceof - e.g.:
if (someNode instanceof Nameable) {
// do naming stuff
}
In this case I would use the composition approach over inheritance:
public class Node {
private int line = 0;
private int column = 0;
/* Getters and setters for line/column. */
/* ... */
private String name = null;
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this._name = name;
}
private Boolean _isPublic = null;
public String isPublic() {
return this.name;
}
public void setIsPublic(boolean isPublic) {
this._isPublic = isPublic;
}
public boolean hasAccessibility() {
return this._isPublic != null;
}
public boolean hasName() {
return this._name != null;
}
}
Another solution that I like a bit more is creating these attributes dynamically using a HashMap and an enum that indicates all the possible attributes of a node. This way is more generic, as it requires to write less code for supporting new attributes, But it is also less typesafe(ish), as the additional attributes need to be casted at runtime:
import java.util.HashMap;
enum NodeAttribute {
NAME,
ACCESSIBILTY
}
enum NodeAccessibility {
PUBLIC,
PRIVATE
}
public class Node {
private int line = 0;
private int column = 0;
// Notice that this Object usage might involve some boxing for attributes of premitive type
private HashMap<NodeAttribute, Object> additionalAttributes = new HashMap<NodeAttribute, Object>();
/* Getters and setters for line/column. */
/* ... */
public boolean hetAttribute(NodeAttribute attribute) {
return this.additionalAttributes.containsKey(attribute);
}
public <T> T getAttributeValue(NodeAttribute attribute, Class<T> attributeClass) {
Object attributeValue = this.additionalAttributes.get(attribute);
// You may want to wrap the ClassCastException that may be raisen here to a more specfic error
T castedAttributeValue = attributeClass.cast(attributeValue);
return castedAttributeValue;
}
public void setAttributeValue(NodeAttribute attribute, Object value) {
// Notice that this implemintation allows changing the type of an existing attribute,
// If this is invalid behavior in your case you can throw an exception instead
this.additionalAttributes.put(attribute, value);
}
}
// Example usage
public class Program {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Node nodeWithNameOnly = new Node();
nodeWithNameOnly.setAttributeValue(NodeAttribute.NAME, 'node1');
Node nodeWithBoth = new Node();
nodeWithBoth.setAttributeValue(NodeAttribute.NAME, 'node2');
nodeWithBoth.setAttributeValue(NodeAttribute.ACCESSIBILTY, NodeAccessibility.PRIVATE);
Program.doStuffWithNode(nodeWithNameOnly);
/* output:
Node name: node1
*/
Program.doStuffWithNode(nodeWithBoth);
/* output:
Node name: node2
Node is public: False
*/
}
public static void doStuffWithNode(Node node) {
if (nodeWithNameOnly.hetAttribute(NodeAttribute.NAME)) {
String nodeName = nodeWithNameOnly.getAttributeValue(NodeAttribute.NAME, String.class);
system.out.println("Node name: " + nodeName);
}
if (nodeWithNameOnly.hetAttribute(NodeAttribute.ACCESSIBILTY)) {
NodeAccessibility nodeAccessibilty =
nodeWithNameOnly.getAttributeValue(NodeAttribute.ACCESSIBILTY, NodeAccessibility.class);
boolean nodeIsPublic = nodeAccessibilty == NodeAccessibility.PUBLIC;
system.out.println("Node is public: " + String.valueOf(nodeIsPublic));
}
}
}
In any case, this is the main rule of thumb - Inheritance should be used for an "is a" relation, whereas composition should be used for an "has a" relation.
For instance:
Fish extends Animal because a Fish is an Animal.
Post holds comments because a Post has comments.
And in our case, a node has a name and an accessibility level so it should hold them.
We are currently attempting to implement an extension to SlingModels, to allow a slingmodel to be persisted to the JCR directly.
Our strategy has 2 considered starting conditions:
1. A new object that is to be persisted
2. An object that has been retrieved from the JCR, altered, and is then to be persisted again
For situation 1, we are using reflection to examine the object, create a new node for the model, insert properties for any of the primitive variables found, and recursively use the same persistence approach for any complex model objects found as variables, and collections.
My question on best approach relates to situation 2. If we pull out an object from the repository, we cannot be guaranteed that the node will not be synchronously changed in the meantime. Thus, we would like to implement a change watcher on the SlingModel that keeps a transaction journal on any changes made. The transactions can then be used to set the relevant properties when persisting the object back to the JCR again.
I have considered using an observer pattern, but this would mean that we would need to implement a function within the setter on each SlingModel, which is not ideal at all, as it requires a developer to remember to add the code and do it correctly.
Ideally, I would like to implement something like an interceptor directly on the variable, or if not possible, on the setter itself, and mandate that each model would then need to use a getter/setter for each variable. We can configure code scanning tools to enforce developers to implement getter/setters.
What would the be the best way to approach the change watcher here?
import java.util.List;
public class Teacher {
private String userName;
private String cource;
private List<Student> students;
public List<Student> getStudents() {
return students;
}
public void setStudents(List<Student> students) {
this.students = students;
}
public String getUserName() {
return userName;
}
public void setUserName(String userName) {
this.userName = userName;
}
public String getCource() {
return cource;
}
public void setCource(String cource) {
this.cource = cource;
}
}
public class Student {
private String name;
private int age;
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public int getAge() {
return age;
}
public void setAge(int age) {
this.age = age;
}
}
public class ClassFacadeCglib implements MethodInterceptor{
private Object target;
public Object getInstance(Object target) {
this.target = target;
Enhancer enhancer = new Enhancer();
enhancer.setSuperclass(this.target.getClass());
// callback method
enhancer.setCallback(this);
// create proxy object
return enhancer.create();
}
#Override
public Object intercept(Object obj, Method method, Object[] args,
MethodProxy proxy) throws Throwable {
if(method.getName().startsWith("set")){
System.out.println(method.getName()+" start");
proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
System.out.println(method.getName()+" end..");
}
if(method.getName().startsWith("get")){
System.out.println(method.getName()+" start");
proxy.invokeSuper(obj, args);
System.out.println(method.getName()+" end");
}
return null;
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ClassFacadeCglib cglib=new ClassFacadeCglib();
Teacher teacher=(Teacher)cglib.getInstance(new Teacher());
teacher.setCource("Math");
teacher.getUserName();
}
}
Note :
cglib-full-2.0.2.jar is required for running.
see https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/cglib/cglib-full/2.0.2/
I am using Tapestry 5.3.6 for a web application and I want the user to edit an instance of a Java class (a "bean", or POJO) using a web form (which immediately suggests the use of beaneditform) - however the Java class to be edited has a fairly complex structure. I am looking for the simplest way of doing this in Tapestry 5.
Firstly, lets define some utility classes e.g.
public class ModelObject {
private URI uri;
private boolean modified;
// the usual constructors, getters and setters ...
}
public class Literal<T> extends ModelObject {
private Class<?> valueClass;
private T value;
public Literal(Class<?> valueClass) {
this.valueClass = valueClass;
}
public Literal(Class<?> valueClass, T value) {
this.valueClass = valueClass;
this.value = value;
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
public class Link<T extends ModelObject> extends ModelObject {
private Class<?> targetClass;
private T target;
public Link(Class<?> targetClass) {
this.targetClass = targetClass;
}
public Link(Class<?> targetClass, T target) {
this.targetClass = targetClass;
this.target = target;
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
Now you can create some fairly complex data structures, for example:
public class HumanBeing extends ModelObject {
private Literal<String> name;
// ... other stuff
public HumanBeing() {
name = new Literal<String>(String.class);
}
// the usual getters and setters ...
}
public class Project extends ModelObject {
private Literal<String> projectName;
private Literal<Date> startDate;
private Literal<Date> endDate;
private Literal<Integer> someCounter;
private Link<HumanBeing> projectLeader;
private Link<HumanBeing> projectManager;
// ... other stuff, including lists of things, that may be Literals or
// Links ... e.g. (ModelObjectList is an enhanced ArrayList that remembers
// the type(s) of the objects it contains - to get around type erasure ...
private ModelObjectList<Link<HumanBeing>> projectMembers;
private ModelObjectList<Link<Project>> relatedProjects;
private ModelObjectList<Literal<String>> projectAliases;
// the usual constructors, getters and setters for all of the above ...
public Project() {
projectName = new Literal<String>(String.class);
startDate = new Literal<Date>(Date.class);
endDate = new Literal<Date>(Date.class);
someCounter = new Literal<Integer>(Integer.class);
projectLeader = new Link<HumanBeing>(HumanBeing.class);
projectManager = new Link<HumanBeing>(HumanBeing.class);
projectMembers = new ModelObjectList<Link<HumanBeing>>(Link.class, HumanBeing.class);
// ... more ...
}
}
If you point beaneditform at an instance of Project.class, you will not get very far before you have to supply a lot of custom coercers, translators, valueencoders, etc - and then you still run into the problem that you can't use generics when "contributing" said coercers, translators, valueencoders, etc.
I then started writing my own components to get around these problems (e.g. ModelObjectDisplay and ModelObjectEdit) but this would require me to understand a lot more of the guts of Tapestry than I have time to learn ... it feels like I might be able to do what I want using the standard components and liberal use of "delegate" etc. Can anyone see a simple path for me to take with this?
Thanks for reading this far.
PS: if you are wondering why I have done things like this, it is because the model represents linked data from an RDF graph database (aka triple-store) - I need to remember the URI of every bit of data and how it relates (links) to other bits of data (you are welcome to suggest better ways of doing this too :-)
EDIT:
#uklance suggested using display and edit blocks - here is what I had already tried:
Firstly, I had the following in AppPropertyDisplayBlocks.tml ...
<t:block id="literal">
<t:delegate to="literalType" t:value="literalValue" />
</t:block>
<t:block id="link">
<t:delegate to="linkType" t:value="linkValue" />
</t:block>
and in AppPropertyDisplayBlocks.java ...
public Block getLiteralType() {
Literal<?> literal = (Literal<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
Class<?> valueClass = literal.getValueClass();
if (!AppModule.modelTypes.containsKey(valueClass))
return null;
String blockId = AppModule.modelTypes.get(valueClass);
return resources.getBlock(blockId);
}
public Object getLiteralValue() {
Literal<?> literal = (Literal<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
return literal.getValue();
}
public Block getLinkType() {
Link<?> link = (Link<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
Class<?> targetClass = link.getTargetClass();
if (!AppModule.modelTypes.containsKey(targetClass))
return null;
String blockId = AppModule.modelTypes.get(targetClass);
return resources.getBlock(blockId);
}
public Object getLinkValue() {
Link<?> link = (Link<?>) context.getPropertyValue();
return link.getTarget();
}
AppModule.modelTypes is a map from java class to a String to be used by Tapestry e.g. Link.class -> "link" and Literal.class -> "literal" ... in AppModule I had the following code ...
public static void contributeDefaultDataTypeAnalyzer(
MappedConfiguration<Class<?>, String> configuration) {
for (Class<?> type : modelTypes.keySet()) {
String name = modelTypes.get(type);
configuration.add(type, name);
}
}
public static void contributeBeanBlockSource(
Configuration<BeanBlockContribution> configuration) {
// using HashSet removes duplicates ...
for (String name : new HashSet<String>(modelTypes.values())) {
configuration.add(new DisplayBlockContribution(name,
"blocks/AppPropertyDisplayBlocks", name));
configuration.add(new EditBlockContribution(name,
"blocks/AppPropertyEditBlocks", name));
}
}
I had similar code for the edit blocks ... however none of this seemed to work - I think because the original object was passed to the "delegate" rather than the de-referenced object which was either the value stored in the literal or the object the link pointed to (hmm... should be [Ll]inkTarget in the above, not [Ll]inkValue). I also kept running into errors where Tapestry couldn't find a suitable "translator", "valueencoder" or "coercer" ... I am under some time pressure so it is difficult to follow these twisty passages through in order to get out of the maze :-)
I would suggest to build a thin wrapper around the Objects you would like to edit though the BeanEditForm and pass those into it. So something like:
public class TapestryProject {
private Project project;
public TapestryProject(Project proj){
this.project = proj;
}
public String getName(){
this.project.getProjectName().getValue();
}
public void setName(String name){
this.project.getProjectName().setValue(name);
}
etc...
}
This way tapestry will deal with all the types it knows about leaving you free of having to create your own coersions (which is quite simple in itself by the way).
You can contribute blocks to display and edit your "link" and "literal" datatypes.
The beaneditform, beaneditor and beandisplay are backed by the BeanBlockSource service. BeanBlockSource is responsible for providing display and edit blocks for various datatypes.
If you download the tapestry source code and have a look at the following files:
tapestry-core\src\main\java\org\apache\tapestry5\corelib\pages\PropertyEditBlocks.java
tapestry-core\src\main\resources\org\apache\tapestry5\corelib\pages\PropertyEditBlocks.tml
tapestry-core\src\main\java\org\apache\tapestry5\services\TapestryModule.java
You will see how tapestry contributes EditBlockContribution and DisplayBlockContribution to provide default blocks (eg for a "date" datatype).
If you contribute to BeanBlockSource, you could provide display and edit blocks for your custom datatypes. This will require you reference blocks by id in a page. The page can be hidden from your users by annotating it with #WhitelistAccessOnly.
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/BeanBlockSource.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/DisplayBlockContribution.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/services/EditBlockContribution.html
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/annotations/WhitelistAccessOnly.html
Here's an example of using an interface and a proxy to hide the implementation details from your model. Note how the proxy takes care of updating the modified flag and is able to map URI's from the Literal array to properties in the HumanBeing interface.
package com.github.uklance.triplestore;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import org.junit.Test;
public class TripleStoreOrmTest {
public static class Literal<T> {
public String uri;
public boolean modified;
public Class<T> type;
public T value;
public Literal(String uri, Class<T> type, T value) {
super();
this.uri = uri;
this.type = type;
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Literal [uri=" + uri + ", type=" + type + ", value=" + value + ", modified=" + modified + "]";
}
}
public interface HumanBeing {
public String getName();
public void setName(String name);
public int getAge();
public void setAge();
}
public interface TripleStoreProxy {
public Map<String, Literal<?>> getLiteralMap();
}
#Test
public void testMockTripleStore() {
Literal<?>[] literals = {
new Literal<String>("http://humanBeing/1/Name", String.class, "Henry"),
new Literal<Integer>("http://humanBeing/1/Age", Integer.class, 21)
};
System.out.println("Before " + Arrays.asList(literals));
HumanBeing humanBeingProxy = createProxy(literals, HumanBeing.class);
System.out.println("Before Name: " + humanBeingProxy.getName());
System.out.println("Before Age: " + humanBeingProxy.getAge());
humanBeingProxy.setName("Adam");
System.out.println("After Name: " + humanBeingProxy.getName());
System.out.println("After Age: " + humanBeingProxy.getAge());
Map<String, Literal<?>> literalMap = ((TripleStoreProxy) humanBeingProxy).getLiteralMap();
System.out.println("After " + literalMap);
}
protected <T> T createProxy(Literal<?>[] literals, Class<T> type) {
Class<?>[] proxyInterfaces = { type, TripleStoreProxy.class };
final Map<String, Literal> literalMap = new HashMap<String, Literal>();
for (Literal<?> literal : literals) {
String name = literal.uri.substring(literal.uri.lastIndexOf("/") + 1);
literalMap.put(name, literal);
}
InvocationHandler handler = new InvocationHandler() {
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable {
if (method.getDeclaringClass().equals(TripleStoreProxy.class)) {
return literalMap;
}
if (method.getName().startsWith("get")) {
String name = method.getName().substring(3);
return literalMap.get(name).value;
} else if (method.getName().startsWith("set")) {
String name = method.getName().substring(3);
Literal<Object> literal = literalMap.get(name);
literal.value = args[0];
literal.modified = true;
}
return null;
}
};
return type.cast(Proxy.newProxyInstance(getClass().getClassLoader(), proxyInterfaces, handler));
}
}
enum generalInformation {
NAME {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Name";
}
},
EDUCATION {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Education";
}
},
EMAIL {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Email";
}
},
PROFESSION {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Profession";
}
},
PHONE {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "Phone";
}
}
}
I have that information are avaiable in enum.
How to print all enum values like: print.generalInformation?
That outputs:
Name
Education
Email
Phone
How to pass that enum generalInformation as an arg in another function?
System.out.println(java.util.Arrays.asList(generalInformation.values()));
Your second part... Just the same as an interface or a class
Firstly, I would refactor your enum to pass the string representation in a constructor parameter. That code is at the bottom.
Now, to print all enum values you'd just use something like:
// Note: enum name changed to comply with Java naming conventions
for (GeneralInformation info : EnumSet.allOf(GeneralInformation.class)) {
System.out.println(info);
}
An alternative to using EnumSet would be to use GeneralInformation.values(), but that means you have to create a new array each time you call it, which feels wasteful to me. Admittedly calling EnumSet.allOf requires a new object each time too... if you're doing this a lot and are concerned about the performance, you could always cache it somewhere.
You can use GeneralInformation just like any other type when it comes to parameters:
public void doSomething(GeneralInformation info) {
// Whatever
}
Called with a value, e.g.
doSomething(GeneralInformation.PHONE);
Refactoring using a constructor parameter
public enum GeneralInformation {
NAME("Name"),
EDUCATION("Education"),
EMAIL("Email"),
PROFESSION("Profession"),
PHONE("Phone");
private final String textRepresentation;
private GeneralInformation(String textRepresentation) {
this.textRepresentation = textRepresentation;
}
#Override public String toString() {
return textRepresentation;
}
}
With your current values, you could actually just convert the name to title case automatically - but that wouldn't be very flexible for the long term, and I think this explicit version is simpler.
Since Java 8 I would suggest the following solution:
public static String printAll() {
return Stream.of(GeneralInformation.values()).
map(GeneralInformation::name).
collect(Collectors.joining(", "));
}
In applications, it's good practice to separate data from presentation. It allows the data to be used in different user interfaces, it makes the data objects more lightweight, and it allows for the future possibility of internationalization.
With that in mind, it's good to avoid strongly coupling the display name to the enum constant. Fortunately, there is a class which makes this easy: EnumMap.
public class ApplicationUI {
private final Map<GeneralInformation, String> names;
public ApplicationUI() {
names = new EnumMap<>(GeneralInformation.class);
names.put(GeneralInformation.NAME, "Name");
names.put(GeneralInformation.EDUCATION, "Education");
names.put(GeneralInformation.EMAIL, "Email");
names.put(GeneralInformation.PROFESSION, "Profession");
names.put(GeneralInformation.PHONE, "Phone");
assert names.keySet().containsAll(
EnumSet.allOf(GeneralInformation.class)) :
"Forgot to add one or more GeneralInformation names";
}
public String getNameFor(GeneralInformation info) {
return names.get(info);
}
}
If you are still on Java 1.7 this is what worked for me:
String genInfoValues = "";
boolean firstRun = true;
for (generalInformation info : generalInformation.values()){
if (firstRun) {
firstRun = false;
genInfoValues += info.name();
} else {
genInfoValues += ", " + info.name();
}
}
values() on the enum returns an array. So, it would be simple to do the following to:
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(generalInformation.values()));
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