I have method that should at the end to the same process but the can get diffrent parameters
since the need to do that process in different way
my question is this is the best way to do that assuming that this is the APIs
void action(String a,String b){
functionA();
functionB();
functionC();
}
void action(String a){
functionA();
functionC();
}
void action(String a,String B,String C){
functionA();
functionC();
functionD();
}
the reason that I ask that is as you can see I always use functionA and functionC?
There is more elegant way to do that in java?
You can share code between overloaded functions, it is very logical for overloaded function to share code between them.
//this delegates what happens to 'a' to the lower link, passing the responsibility to it along the 'chain'
void action(String a,String b){
action(a);
functionB();
}
//this delegates what happens to 'a' to the lower link, passing the responsibility to it along the 'chain'
void action(String a,String B,String C){
action(a);
functionD();
}
//this is the lowest link in your chain of responsibility, it handles the one parameter case
void action(String a){
functionA();
functionC();
}
Your question is not very clear,
but have a look at the Command Pattern. You could actually build commands from different sub-commands.
Something like this?
public class CommandExample {
private final Map<String, Command> availableCommands;
CommandExample() {
availableCommands = new HashMap<>();
List<Command> cmds = Arrays.asList(new Command[]{new CommandA(), new CommandB(), new CommandC(), new CommandD()});
for (Command cmd:cmds)
availableCommands.put(cmd.getId(), cmd);
}
public interface Command {
public String getId();
public void action();
}
public class CommandA implements Command {
#Override
public String getId() {
return "A";
}
#Override
public void action() {
// do my action A
}
}
public class CommandB implements Command {
#Override
public String getId() {
return "B";
}
#Override
public void action() {
// do my action B
}
}
public class CommandC implements Command {
#Override
public String getId() {
return "B";
}
#Override
public void action() {
// do my action C
}
}
public class CommandD implements Command {
#Override
public String getId() {
return "C";
}
#Override
public void action() {
// do my action D
}
}
public void execute(String[] input) {
for (String in: input) {
availableCommands.get(in).action();
}
}
}
Related
I have some generated code (i.e. it cannot be changed) that looks something like this.
class Generated1 {
public String getA() {
return "1";
}
public void setB(String b) {
}
public void setC(String c) {
}
public void setD(String d) {
}
}
class Generated2 {
public String getA() {
return "2";
}
public void setB(String b) {
}
public void setC(String c) {
}
public void setD(String d) {
}
}
I am exploring these objects by reflection. None of them implement any common interface but there's many of them and I want to treat them as if they implement:
interface CommonInterface {
String getA();
void setB(String b);
void setC(String c);
void setD(String d);
}
It certainly should be possible. This is considered perfectly good code
class CommonInterface1 extends Generated1 implements CommonInterface {
// These are perfectly good classes.
}
class CommonInterface2 extends Generated2 implements CommonInterface {
// These are perfectly good classes.
}
I suppose what I'm looking for is something like:
private void doCommon(CommonInterface c) {
String a = c.getA();
c.setB(a);
c.setC(a);
c.setD(a);
}
private void test() {
// Simulate getting by reflection.
List<Object> objects = Arrays.asList(new Generated1(), new Generated2());
for (Object object : objects) {
// What is the simplest way to call `doCommon` with object here?
doCommon(object);
}
}
My question: How do I treat an object that doesn't implement an interface but actually has all the code to do so as if it does implement the interface.
I want to replace
private void doCommon(Generated1 c) {
String a = c.getA();
c.setB(a);
c.setC(a);
c.setD(a);
}
private void doCommon(Generated2 c) {
String a = c.getA();
c.setB(a);
c.setC(a);
c.setD(a);
}
...
with
private void doCommon(CommonInterface c) {
String a = c.getA();
c.setB(a);
c.setC(a);
c.setD(a);
}
I know I can use a Proxy like this but I'd really prefer to use something better.
private void test() {
// Simulate getting by reflection.
List<Object> objects = Arrays.asList(new Generated1(), new Generated2());
for (Object object : objects) {
// What is the simplest way to call `doCommon` with object here?
doCommon(adapt(object));
}
}
private CommonInterface adapt(Object o) {
return adapt(o, CommonInterface.class);
}
public static <T> T adapt(final Object adaptee,
final Class<T>... interfaceToImplement) {
return (T) Proxy.newProxyInstance(
adaptee.getClass().getClassLoader(),
interfaceToImplement,
// Call the equivalent method from the adaptee.
(proxy, method, args) -> adaptee.getClass()
.getMethod(method.getName(), method.getParameterTypes())
.invoke(adaptee, args));
}
If you're using reflection, you don't need the two CommonInterfaceX classes, you can use a proxy implementing CommonInterface:
public class Wrapper implements InvocationHandler {
private final Object delegate;
public static <T> T wrap(Object obj, Class<T> intf) {
ClassLoader cl = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader();
Object proxy = Proxy.newProxyInstance(cl, new Class<?>[] {intf},
new Wrapper(obj));
return intf.cast(proxy);
}
private Wrapper(Object delegate) {
this.delegate = delegate;
}
#Override
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
Method dmethod = delegate.getClass().getMethod(
method.getName(), method.getParameterTypes());
return dmethod.invoke(delegate, args);
}
}
You can use this class as follows:
List<Object> objects = Arrays.asList(new Generated1(), new Generated2());
for (Object object : objects) {
CommonInterface proxy = Wrapper.wrap(object, CommonInterface.class);
doCommon(proxy);
}
UPDATE: note that the same Wrapper class works with any interface.
There's no way to achieve a static type relationship between Generated1 and Generated2.
Even if you created CommonInterface1 and CommonInterface2, you still wouldn't be able to statically use a Generated1 object as a CommonInterface1 because new Generated1() is not a CommonInterface1 (and will never become one)
By far the simplest solution is to change your code generation to add the CommonInterface to Generated1 and Generated2.
If that's absolutely impossible, the only other way to avoid this code duplication is to go for reflection.
You can do it manuallly by reflection.
public class Generated {
public String getA() {
return "A";
}
public String sayHello(String name) {
return "hello " + name;
}
}
public class Helper {
private static final String METHOD_NAME = "getA";
private static final String METHOD_WITH_PARAM_NAME = "sayHello";
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Generated generated = new Generated();
accessMethod(generated);
accessMethodWithParameter(generated);
}
private static void accessMethod(Generated g) throws Exception {
Method[] methods = g.getClass().getDeclaredMethods();
for(Method method : methods) {
if(isCommonMethod(method)) {
String result = (String) method.invoke(g);
System.out.println(METHOD_NAME + "() = " + result);
}
}
}
private static boolean isCommonMethod(Method m) {
return m.getName().equals(METHOD_NAME) && m.getReturnType().equals(String.class);
}
private static void accessMethodWithParameter(Generated g) throws Exception {
Method[] methods = g.getClass().getDeclaredMethods();
for(Method method : methods) {
if(isCommonMethodWithParameter(method)) {
String result = (String) method.invoke(g, "Max");
System.out.println(METHOD_WITH_PARAM_NAME + "(\"Max\") = " + result);
}
}
}
private static boolean isCommonMethodWithParameter(Method m) {
return m.getName().equals(METHOD_WITH_PARAM_NAME) &&
m.getReturnType().equals(String.class) &&
m.getParameterTypes().length == 1 &&
m.getParameterTypes()[0].equals(String.class);
}
}
Output is
getA() = A
sayHello("Max") = hello Max
If you want to replace as your comment. I think you can do it easily
First, you create interface CommonInterface
interface CommonInterface {
String getA();
void setB(String b);
void setC(String c);
void setD(String d);
}
After that, you create 2 class Generated1 and Generated2 inherited CommonInterface
class Generated1 implements CommonInterface {
#overide
public String getA() {
return "1";
}
#overide
public void setB(String b) {
}
#overide
public void setC(String c) {
}
#overide
public void setD(String d) {
}
}
class Generated2 implements CommonInterface {
#overide
public String getA() {
return "2";
}
#overide
public void setB(String b) {
}
#overide
public void setC(String c) {
}
#overide
public void setD(String d) {
}
}
For example, if I wanted to do something like this to call a method:
myLights.addLight(new Fluorescent(lumens));
in order to create a new object in the Fluorescent class and pass down the lumens data. How would I then set up the method to receive this?
Assuming method is not returning anything.
void addlight(Fluorescent a){
// your logic
}
In your Lights class create a method that accepts a Fluorescent object as an argument.
public void addLight(Fluorescent fluorescent){
// do something
}
Here is a basic example:
public class HelloWorld
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Light light = new Light();
light.addLight(new Fluorescent("300 lm"));
System.out.print(light.getLumen());
}
}
public class Light {
private String lumen;
public Light() {
}
public void setLumens(String lumen){
this.lumen = lumen;
}
public String getLumen(){
return this.lumen;
}
public void addLight(Fluorescent fluorescent) {
if(fluorescent.getLumen() != null) {
this.lumen = fluorescent.getLumen();
}
}
}
public class Fluorescent {
private String lumen;
public Fluorescent(String lumen){
this.lumen = lumen;
}
public void setLumen(String lumen){
this.lumen = lumen;
}
public String getLumen(){
return this.lumen;
}
}
Seeing that a Fluorescent is a Light, you might want to look in to inheritance.
Look here for some explanation
Java 101: Inheritance in Java, Part 1
public class Fluorescent() {
public Fluorescent(String lumens) {
// do something
}
}
public class Lights() {
public void addLight(Fluorescent fluorescent) {
// do something
}
}
I'm using a multiplayer Game Client that's called AppWarp (http://appwarp.shephertz.com), where you can add event listeners to be called back when event's happen, let's assume we'll be talking about the Connection Listener, where you need to implement this interface:
public interface ConnectionRequestListener {
void onConnectDone(ConnectEvent var1);
void onDisconnectDone(ConnectEvent var1);
void onInitUDPDone(byte var1);
}
My goal here is to mainly create a Reactive version of this client to be used in my Apps Internally instead of using the Client itself directly (I'll also rely on interfaces later instead of just depending on the WarpClient itself as in the example, but that's not the important point, please read my question at the very end).
So what I did is as follows:
1) I introduced a new event, named it RxConnectionEvent (Which mainly groups Connection-Related events) as follows:
public class RxConnectionEvent {
// This is the original connection event from the source client
private final ConnectEvent connectEvent;
// this is to identify if it was Connection / Disconnection
private final int eventType;
public RxConnectionEvent(ConnectEvent connectEvent, int eventType) {
this.connectEvent = connectEvent;
this.eventType = eventType;
}
public ConnectEvent getConnectEvent() {
return connectEvent;
}
public int getEventType() {
return eventType;
}
}
2) Created some event types as follows:
public class RxEventType {
// Connection Events
public final static int CONNECTION_CONNECTED = 20;
public final static int CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED = 30;
}
3) Created the following observable which emits my new RxConnectionEvent
import com.shephertz.app42.gaming.multiplayer.client.WarpClient;
import com.shephertz.app42.gaming.multiplayer.client.events.ConnectEvent;
import rx.Observable;
import rx.Subscriber;
import rx.functions.Action0;
import rx.subscriptions.Subscriptions;
public class ConnectionObservable extends BaseObservable<RxConnectionEvent> {
private ConnectionRequestListener connectionListener;
// This is going to be called from my ReactiveWarpClient (Factory) Later.
public static Observable<RxConnectionEvent> createConnectionListener(WarpClient warpClient) {
return Observable.create(new ConnectionObservable(warpClient));
}
private ConnectionObservable(WarpClient warpClient) {
super(warpClient);
}
#Override
public void call(final Subscriber<? super RxConnectionEvent> subscriber) {
subscriber.onStart();
connectionListener = new ConnectionRequestListener() {
#Override
public void onConnectDone(ConnectEvent connectEvent) {
super.onConnectDone(connectEvent);
callback(new RxConnectionEvent(connectEvent, RxEventType.CONNECTION_CONNECTED));
}
#Override
public void onDisconnectDone(ConnectEvent connectEvent) {
super.onDisconnectDone(connectEvent);
callback(new RxConnectionEvent(connectEvent, RxEventType.CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED));
}
// not interested in this method (for now)
#Override
public void onInitUDPDone(byte var1) { }
private void callback(RxConnectionEvent rxConnectionEvent)
{
if (!subscriber.isUnsubscribed()) {
subscriber.onNext(rxConnectionEvent);
} else {
warpClient.removeConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
}
}
};
warpClient.addConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
subscriber.add(Subscriptions.create(new Action0() {
#Override
public void call() {
onUnsubscribed(warpClient);
}
}));
}
#Override
protected void onUnsubscribed(WarpClient warpClient) {
warpClient.removeConnectionRequestListener(connectionListener);
}
}
4) and finally my BaseObservable looks like the following:
public abstract class BaseObservable<T> implements Observable.OnSubscribe<T> {
protected WarpClient warpClient;
protected BaseObservable (WarpClient warpClient)
{
this.warpClient = warpClient;
}
#Override
public abstract void call(Subscriber<? super T> subscriber);
protected abstract void onUnsubscribed(WarpClient warpClient);
}
My question is mainly: is my implementation above correct or should I instead create separate observable for each event, but if so, this client has more than 40-50 events do I have to create separate observable for each event?
I also use the code above as follows (used it in a simple "non-final" integration test):
public void testConnectDisconnect() {
connectionSubscription = reactiveWarpClient.createOnConnectObservable(client)
.subscribe(new Action1<RxConnectionEvent>() {
#Override
public void call(RxConnectionEvent rxEvent) {
assertEquals(WarpResponseResultCode.SUCCESS, rxEvent.getConnectEvent().getResult());
if (rxEvent.getEventType() == RxEventType.CONNECTION_CONNECTED) {
connectionStatus = connectionStatus | 0b0001;
client.disconnect();
} else {
connectionStatus = connectionStatus | 0b0010;
connectionSubscription.unsubscribe();
haltExecution = true;
}
}
}, new Action1<Throwable>() {
#Override
public void call(Throwable throwable) {
fail("Unexpected error: " + throwable.getMessage());
haltExecution = true;
}
});
client.connectWithUserName("test user");
waitForSomeTime();
assertEquals(0b0011, connectionStatus);
assertEquals(true, connectionSubscription.isUnsubscribed());
}
I suggest you avoid extending the BaseObservable directly since it's very error prone. Instead, try using the tools Rx itself gives you to create your observable.
The easiest solution is using a PublishSubject, which is both an Observable and a Subscriber. The listener simply needs to invoke the subject's onNext, and the subject will emit the event. Here's a simplified working example:
public class PublishSubjectWarpperDemo {
public interface ConnectionRequestListener {
void onConnectDone();
void onDisconnectDone();
void onInitUDPDone();
}
public static class RxConnectionEvent {
private int type;
public RxConnectionEvent(int type) {
this.type = type;
}
public int getType() {
return type;
}
public String toString() {
return "Event of Type " + type;
}
}
public static class SimpleCallbackWrapper {
private final PublishSubject<RxConnectionEvent> subject = PublishSubject.create();
public ConnectionRequestListener getListener() {
return new ConnectionRequestListener() {
#Override
public void onConnectDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(1));
}
#Override
public void onDisconnectDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(2));
}
#Override
public void onInitUDPDone() {
subject.onNext(new RxConnectionEvent(3));
}
};
}
public Observable<RxConnectionEvent> getObservable() {
return subject;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
SimpleCallbackWrapper myWrapper = new SimpleCallbackWrapper();
ConnectionRequestListener listner = myWrapper.getListener();// Get the listener and attach it to the game here.
myWrapper.getObservable().observeOn(Schedulers.newThread()).subscribe(event -> System.out.println(event));
listner.onConnectDone(); // Call the listener a few times, the observable should print the event
listner.onDisconnectDone();
listner.onInitUDPDone();
System.in.read(); // Wait for enter
}
}
A more complex solution would be to use one of the onSubscribe implementations to create an observable using Observable.create(). For example AsyncOnSubscibe. This solution has the benefit of handling backperssure properly, so your event subscriber doesn't become overwhelmed with events. But in your case, that sounds like an unlikely scenario, so the added complexity is probably not worth it.
What is the best way of manipulating the order things are done based on some conditions (other than writing them again with the different order)?
Let's say there is a Person class and each object of Person represents a different human.
class Person{
int eatingPriority = 3;
int sleepingPriority = 2;
int recreationPriority = 1;
void eat() {/*eats*/}
void sleep() {/*sleeps*/}
void watchTv() {/*watches tv*/}
void satisfyNeeds() {
//HOW TO DO THIS
}
}
How can I make the satisfyNeeds() methods call the other three methods based on their priority?
Note: I want to make it clear that priorities can change from Person to Person.
You can do this with 1 class and 1 interface.
public class Person {
int eatingPriority = 3;
int sleepingPriority = 2;
int recreationPriority = 1;
PriorityQueue<Action> actions;
void eat() { }
void sleep() { }
void watchTv() { }
public Person() {
actions = new PriorityQueue<Action>(new Comparator<Action>() {
#Override
public int compare(Action o1, Action o2) {
return o2.getPriority() - o1.getPriority();
}
});
actions.add(new Action() {
#Override
public int getPriority() {
return eatingPriority;
}
#Override
public void execute() {
eat();
}
});
actions.add(new Action() {
#Override
public int getPriority() {
return sleepingPriority;
}
#Override
public void execute() {
sleep();
}
});
actions.add(new Action() {
#Override
public int getPriority() {
return recreationPriority;
}
#Override
public void execute() {
watchTv();
}
});
}
public void satisfyNeeds() {
for (Action action : actions) {
action.execute();
}
}
interface Action {
public int getPriority();
public void execute();
}
}
Here is another possible implementation :
abstract class Need {
abstract void satisfy();
}
class Eat extends Need {
#Override
public void satisfy() { /* eat ...*/}
}
class Sleep extends Need {
#Override
public void satisfy() { /* sleep ...*/}
}
class DrinkBeer extends Need {
#Override
public void satisfy() { /* drink beer ...*/}
}
class Person{
// TreeMap will sort the map in the key's natural order (a int here)
private Map<Integer, Need> needs = new TreeMap<>();
Person() {
add(new Eat(), 3);
add(new Sleep(), 2);
add(new DrinkBeer(), 1);
}
void add(Need need, int priority) {
needs.put(Integer.valueOf(priority), need);
}
void satisfyNeeds() {
for(Need need : needs.values())
need.satisfy();
}
}
This solution would require Java 8:
class Person {
void eat() {};
void sleep() {};
void watchTv() {};
// Being in a List you can easily reorder the needs when you want to
List<Runnable> needs = Arrays.asList(this::eat, this::sleep);
// Alternatively, you can use a Map<Runnable, Integer> where the value is your
// priority and sort it (see http://stackoverflow.com/q/109383/1296402)
void satisfyNeeds() {
needs.forEach(Runnable::run);
}
}
You can use this code
import java.util.Arrays; // must be imported
int[] priorities = {sleepPriority, eatPriority, recreationPriority};
Arrays.sort(priorities);
for (int i=priorities.length-1; 0<=i; i--) {
int priority = priorities[i];
if (priority == sleepingPriority) { sleep(); }
if (priority == eatingPriority) { eat(); }
if (priority == recreationPriority) { watchTv(); }
}
Basically, it puts the priorities in an array, sorts the array and runs a for loop on it to run the functions.
Finding the right order of three elements can be done simply like this:
void satisfyNeeds() {
boolean eatFirst = eatingPriority>Math.max(sleepingPriority,recreationPriority);
if(eatFirst) eat();
if(sleepingPriority>recreationPriority) {
sleep();
watchTv();
}
else {
watchTv();
sleep();
}
if(!eatFirst) eat();
}
Of course, it won’t scale if you raise the number of actions. For a higher number you might look at one of the other answers.
You should introduce a map property into Person class, where prioritize methods, for example:
class Person {
...
private Map<Integer, Method> methodsPriority = new HashMap<>();
...
public Person setEatingPriority(int priority) {
methodsPriority.put(priority, /* put 'eat' method reference here*/);
return this;
}
public Person setSleepingPriority(int priority) {
methodsPriority.put(priority, /* put 'sleep' method reference here*/);
return this;
}
public Person setWatchingTVPriority(int priority) {
methodsPriority.put(priority, /* put 'watch TV' method reference here*/);
return this;
}
public void satisfyNeeds() {
Collection<Integer> keys = methodsPriority.keySet();
Collections.sort(keys);
for(Integer key: keys)
methodsPriority.get(key).invoke(this);
}
...
}
And it can be used in next manner:
Person Anna = new Person()
.setEatingPriority(1)
.setSleepingPriority(2)
.setWatchingTVPriority(3);
Person Bob = new Person()
.setEatingPriority(3)
.setSleepingPriority(2)
.setWatchingTVPriority(1);
Anna.satisfyNeeds();
Bob.satisfyNeeds();
I have a requirement that is close to extending enums and since that is not possible, after doing some research online, I came up with this approach of using interfaces and making the enums extend them.
My problem is that I have a few basic types A,B and a flag for each type that says if that has to be checked. Similarly I have some extended types C... which do the same stuff after checking their flags.
Here is the code that does this
Type Interface:
public interface Type {
public String name();
}
Here is the class that uses the basic types
public class BasicChecker {
private static boolean checkA = false;
private static boolean checkB = false;
public enum BasicType implements Type {
A, B;
}
public static boolean isCheckA() {
return checkA;
}
public static void setCheckA(boolean checkA) {
BasicChecker.checkA = checkA;
}
public static boolean isCheckB() {
return checkB;
}
public static void setCheckB(boolean checkB) {
BasicChecker.checkB = checkB;
}
public static void doStuff(String message, Type type) {
if (type.name().equalsIgnoreCase(BasicType.A.name())) {
doStuff(message, isCheckA());
} else if (type.name().equalsIgnoreCase(BasicType.B.name())) {
doStuff(message, isCheckB());
}
}
protected static void doStuff(String message, boolean flag) {
if (someCheckMethod() && flag) {
doStuff(message, flag);
}
}
private static boolean someCheckMethod() {
return false;
}
}
And this is the class that uses extended types
public class ExtendedChecker extends BasicChecker {
private static boolean checkC = false;
public enum ExtendedType implements Type {
C;
}
public static boolean isCheckC() {
return checkC;
}
public static void setCheckC(boolean checkC) {
ExtendedChecker.checkC = checkC;
}
public static void doStuff(String message, Type type) {
BasicChecker.doStuff(message, type);
if (type.name().equalsIgnoreCase(ExtendedType.C.name())) {
doStuff(message, isCheckC());
}
}
}
What I am trying to solve now is to remove all the if else cases from log method. I am also trying to see if there is a better way to do this. Please ignore the statics. I do want them to be static fields and methods.
I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're trying to do from your description, but you may find abstract methods in enums to be useful.
For example, you could add an abstract method "foo" to your enums:
public enum BasicType implements Type {
A {
public void foo(String message) {
// Do special A stuff
}
}, B {
public void foo(String message) {
// Do special B stuff
}
};
public abstract void foo(String message);
}
And you could then use that method like this:
public static void doStuff(String message, Type type) {
type.foo(message);
}
Naturally, you could put any such abstract methods in an interface you extend, if that's useful.
public class BasicChecker {
private static final Set<Type> _doCheck = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<Type,Boolean>());
public enum BasicType implements Type {
A, B;
}
public static boolean isCheck(Type type) {
return return _doCheck.contains(type);
}
public static void setCheck(Type type, boolean check) {
if(check) {
_doCheck.add(type);
} else {
_doCheck.remove(type);
}
}
public static void doStuff(String message, Type type) {
doStuff(message, isCheck(type));
}
}