Develop Reference

How to avoid instanceof in Java

In my application I have a 2d array of entities to represent a grid. Each location in the grid can either be empty or occupied by an entity (in this case it's just a person or wall). Right now I use instanceof to check whether an entity is a person or a wall.
I was thinking of giving each entity a method which returns an enum stating their type so i.e. a wall entity would return EntityType.WALL. I was wondering if this is the best idea to remove the use of instanceof or is instanceof suitable in this scenario?

Use Tell, Don't Ask: instead of asking the objects what they are and then reacting on that, tell the object what to do and then walls or people do decide how they do what they need to do.
For example:
Instead of having something like this:
public class Wall {
// ...
}
public class Person {
// ...
}
// later
public class moveTo(Position pos) {
Object whatIsThere = pos.whatIsThere();
if (whatIsThere instanceof Wall) {
System.err.println("You cannot move into a wall");
}
else if (whatIsThere instanceof Person) {
System.err.println("You bump into " + person.getName());
}
// many more else branches...
}
do something like this:
public interface DungeonFeature {
void moveInto();
}
public class Wall implements DungeonFeature {
#Override
public void moveInto() {
System.err.println("You bump into a wall");
}
// ...
}
public class Person implements DungeonFeature {
private String name;
#Override
public void moveInto() {
System.err.println("You bump into " + name);
}
// ...
}
// and later
public void moveTo(Position pos) {
DungeonFeature df = currentPosition();
df.moveTo(pos);
}
This has some advantages.
First, you don't need to adjust a giant if then else tree each time you add a new dungeon feature.
Second, the code in the dungeon features is self-contained, the logic is all in the said object. You can easily test it and move it.

The theoretical solution to removing the instanceof in a refined way is the usage of the Visitor Pattern. How it works is that the object that needs to know whether the other element is a wall or person calls that object with itself as a parameter, and that particular object calls back thus providing information about its type.
Example,
public class Person {
void magic() {
if(grid.getAdjacent() instanceof Person) {
Person otherPerson = (Person)grid.getAdjacent();
doSomethingWith(otherPerson);
} else if(grid.getAdjacent() instanceof Wall) {
Wall wall = (Wall)grid.getAdjacent();
doOtherThingWith(wall);
}
}
}
Can become
public class Person extends Entity {
void magic() {
grid.getAdjacent().visit(this);
}
void onVisit(Wall wall) {
doOtherThingWith(wall);
}
void onVisit(Person person) {
doSomethingWith(person);
}
public void visit(Person person) {
person.onVisit(this);
}
}
public class Wall extends Entity {
public void visit(Person person) {
person.onVisit(this);
}
}

I would let person and wall inherit from a abstract superclass ( e.g. Tile ) which has a method getType() returning an enum or int and implement this method in Wall and Person returning the appropriate

If you follow the other answers here and implement a visitor pattern or use an enum you will not make a mistake.
However, it might also help to think about what exactly it is you want to do with that switching logic (be it instanceof or visitors), because sometimes there is a simpler way to do that.
For example, if all you want to do is check if an entity occupies a grid in a blocking way, then you can just add a method boolean isSolid() to each entity via interface. You can use this with default methods for extra beauty:
public interface GridPhysics {
default boolean isSolid() {
return true;
}
// other grid physics stuff
}
public class Wall implements GridPhysics {
// nothing to do here, it uses the default
}
// in your game logic
public boolean canMoveTo(GridPhysics gridCell) {
return !gridCell.isSolid() && otherChecks();
}
You might also want to have a look at entity component systems (e.g. Artemis), which basically take this idea of "composition over inheritance" to the extreme.

ligi's answer is right on the money. (Whoever downvoted it, I wonder what they were thinking.) As an alternative, consider this:
abstract class Tile
{
public final EntityType type;
protected Tile( EntityType type )
{
this.type = type;
}
}
abstract class Pedestrian extends Tile
{
public Pedestrian()
{
super( EntityType.PEDESTRIAN );
}
}
abstract class Wall extends Tile
{
public Wall()
{
super( EntityType.WALL );
}
}
The rationale behind this is that the "type" of the entity is a permanent characteristic of the entity, so it is suitable to be specified in the constructor and to be realized in a final member field. If it is returned by a virtual method (non-final method in java parlance) then descendants would be free to return one value at one point in time, and another value at another point in time, which would spell havoc.
Oh, and if you really cannot stand the public final member, go ahead and add a getter for it, but my advice would be that never mind the purists, public final members without getters are perfectly fine.

Answers are very good here nothing to say anything about that, but if I were in such situation and if it is allowed than i would have been gone for a 2d int array with possible value 0(for empty by default assignment) and 1,2 for person or wall.

As mentioned on this other question, modern Java compilers are very efficient at operations like instanceof. You should be fine using it.
In fact, one of the other provided answers tested instanceOf and string comparisons, and instanceOf was significantly faster. I recommend you stick with using it.

Design Patterns - One public class utilizing many hidden classes

I have gone through http://www.dofactory.com/net/design-patterns in trying to find out the most efficient to create a design pattern in which "one visible class utilizes many hidden classes" to create a fluent API. Below is the code I currently have:
public class VisibleClass {
Private OrderClass order;
private ReceiptClass receipt;
public VisibleClass makeOrder() {
if (!(order instanceof OrderClass))
order = new OrderClass();
order.make();
return this;
}
public VisibleClass printReceipt() {
if (!(receipt instanceof ReceiptClass))
receipt = new ReceiptClass();
receipt.print();
return this;
}
}
class OrderClass implements IOrder {
public void make() {}
}
class ReceiptClass implements IReceipt {
public void print() {}
}
interface IOrder { void make(); }
interface IReceipt { void print(); }
Here is how I am currently using the API:
public static void main(String[] args) {
VisibleClass x = new VisibleClass();
x.makeOrder().printReceipt();
}
It this a good approach? Can a better approach be used for it?
*EDIT: Also, I should add that the VisibleClass will implement all methods of the hidden classes.

Your approach is quite good. Here some recommendations:
1 Change class member types to their interfaces as for 'Program to an interface, not an implementation' principle:
public class VisibleClass {
private IOrder order;
private IReceipt receipt;
2 Do you really need to check class types in makeOrder and printReceipt methods ? Creating instances after null check seems enough:
public VisibleClass makeOrder() {
if (null == order)
order = new OrderClass();
order.make();
return this;
}
public VisibleClass printReceipt() {
if (null == receipt)
receipt = new ReceiptClass();
receipt.print();
return this;
}
3 This approach is valid until methods of VisibleClass will be called by a single thread. If you're going to place it in a multi-thread program, you should ensure that there are only one instances of OrderClass and ReceiptClass each. There are 3 ways you can follow:
a. Create instaces of OrderClass and ReceiptClass in constructor and make VisibleClass singleton.
b. Make OrderClass and ReceiptClass singleton and remove new lines.
c. Create instances surrounded with synchronized block in makeOrder and printReceipt methods.

one visible class utilizes many hidden classes
don't do that with business classes. Fluent syntax's is great for configuration etc, but not for plain business code.
The reason is that the class itself losses control over it's state which can put it in an inconsistent state (i.e generate faulty results).
There is even a principle called Law of Demeter which is about just that.
If you have a business requirement that a receipt should be printed on a new order you should just return it as a return value.
var receipt = visibleClass.makeOrder();
As for using interfaces for entity/business classes, why do you do that? why would you want to abstract away those? The usually do not have any other dependencies or different types of implementations.

You can try using the Facade Design pattern
Or may be try using a Decorator Pattern

Java: How do I write a generic method?

let's say that I have several Creature subclasses, and that they have each have some sort of getGroup() method that returns a List<Creature>.
What I mean by "some sort of" .getGroup() method is that the name of this function varies between subclasses. For instance, Wolfs travel in packs, so they have a getPack() member. Fish travel in schools, so they have a .getSchool() member, Humans have a getFamily() member, and so on.
.getGroup() doesn not exist in Creature, and it cannot be added to the interface. None of these clases can be edited.
I'm writing a method to print the number of Creatures in their group. How would I do this?
Essentially, I'm looking to condense these two functions into the same thing:
public void PrintSchoolSize(Fish dory) {
System.out.print(dory.getSchool().size());
}
public void PrintHiveSize(Bee bee) {
System.out.print(bee.getColony().size());
}
...into the following function:
public void printGroupSize( Class<? extends Creature> cree,
FunctionThatReturnsList getGroup() ) {
System.out.print(cree.getGroup().size();
}
I'd imagine I need to pass in a second argument (function pointer?) to void printGroupSize. Any help is very appreciated, thanks!
EDIT Thank you all for the help. This is just a simplification of the real problem I'm trying to solve. Long, overly complex problems are tougher to answer, so I posed this simpler scenario.
The only answer lies in using a generic function (if that exists). The classes I'm actually working with don't have a common interface, but they all have a function that returns a List.

What you describe in your question is not much related to Java's sense of "generic methods". You could implement it with reflection (see Class.getMethod()), but I promise you that you really don't want to go there.
It would be better for Creature to declare a possibly-abstract method getGroup() that each subclass would override. You may do that in addition to providing methods with subclass-specific names, if you wish. Code that wants to obtain the group (or its size) without knowing the specific type of creature would invoke that creature's getGroup() method. That's an application of polymorphism, which seems to be what you're actually after.

If getGroup cannot be added to the Creature interface why not add another interface to your creatures?
public interface HasGroup {
Group getGroup();
}
Would mean you can create the method:
public void printGroupSize(HasGroup cree) {
System.out.print(cree.getGroup().size();
}

The simplest way is to had a getGroup() method to the Creature interface and implement it in each subclass, but it seems you cannot do that.
If you can modify the subclasses, I would actually create a new interface CreatureGroupable with a getGroupSize() and/or getGroup(). Each subclass of Creature shall implement this interface, e.g.
public interface CreatureGroupable {
CreatureGroup getGroup();
}
public enum CreatureGroup {
WOLF_PACK("pack", 30),
GEES_FLOCK("flock", 20),
FISH_SCHOOL("school", 1000),
HUMAN_FAMILY("family", 4),
...
private final String name;
private final int size;
private CreatureGroup(String name, int size) {
this.name = name;
this.size = size;
}
public String getName() { return name; }
public int getSize() { return size; }
}
public class Wolf implements Creature, CreatureGroupable {
// methods from Creature, constructor, ...
public CreatureGroup getGroup() {
return CreatureGroup.WOLF_PACK;
}
This way, if you have a List<Creature> you can access the group of each one and do whatever you have to do, e.g.
public void printGroups(List<Creature> creatures) {
for (Creature c : creatures) {
CreatureGroup group = c.getGroup();
System.out.println("A " + group.getName() +
" has roughly " group.getSize() +
" individuals.");
}
}
If you want more flexibility, you may not use an enum and just a standard interface and class hierarchy for the groups.

Thanks to everyone for the help. Since I'm not allowed to edit any of the aforementioned classes/interfaces (I can only write external functions), I wrote the following function
public List<? extends Creature> getGroup(Object obj) {
if(obj.getClass() == Bee.class)
return ((Bee)obj).getColony();
if(obj.getClass() == Fish.class)
return ((Fish) obj).getSchool();
/* repeat for the other classes */
return null;
}
...and used it here, as so:
public void printGroupSize( Class<? extends Creature> cree ) {
System.out.print(getGroup(cree).size());
}
I have verified that this solution does indeed work, since all of the get*****() functions return a List<Creature>. This solution also shrinks my codebase significantly, and is easier to maintain than the current structure.

What is the Best Way to Extend Functionality?

I've run into a situation in which I was to extend the functionality of a given class, but I'm not sure of the best way to go about this. I started by invoking functionality "upwards" and have now switched to "downwards", but I see issues with both. Let me explain what I mean. First, the "upwards" approach:
public class ParentValidator
{
public void validate() {
// Some code
}
}
public class ChildValidator extends ParentValidator
{
#Override
public void validate() {
super.validate();
// Some code
}
}
public class GrandchildValidator extends ChildValidator
{
#Override
public void validate() {
super.validate();
// Some code
}
}
This functions perfectly well, but it requires that I always remember to place super.validate() in my method body or the logic in the parent class(es) won't be executed. In addition, extension in this manner can be considered "unsafe" due to the fact that a child class could actually replace/modify the code defined in the parent class. This is what I call invoking methods "upwards" because I'm invoking methods from higher level classes as I go.
To counter these shortfalls, I decided to make ParentValidator.validate() final and have it invoke a different method. Here's what my code was modified to:
public class ParentValidator
{
public final void validate() {
// Some code
subValidate();
}
protected void subValidate() {}
}
public class ChildValidator extends ParentValidator
{
#Override
public final void subValidate() {
// Some code
subSubValidate();
}
protected void subSubValidate() {}
}
public class GrandchildValidator extends ChildValidator
{
#Override
public void subSubBalidate() {
// Some code
subSubSubValidate();
}
protected void subSubSubValidate();
}
This is what I was referring to when I say that I'm calling downwards as each class invokes methods on classes "down" the inheritance chain.
Using this approach, I can be guaranteed that the logic in the parent class(es) will be executed, which I like. However, it doesn't scale well. The more layers of inheritance I have, the uglier it gets. At one level, I think this is very elegant. At two levels, it starts to look shoddy. At three or more, it's hideous.
In addition, just as I had to remember to invoke super.validate() as the first line of any of my children's validate methods, I now have to remember to invoke some "subValidate" method at the end of any of my parent's validate methods, so that didn't seem to get any better.
Is there a better way to do this type of extension that I haven't even touched on. Either of these approaches have some serious flaws and I'm wondering if there's a better design pattern I could be using.

In what you describe as your first approach you are using simple inheritance, your second approach is closer to what the Gang of Four [GoF] called a Template Method Pattern because your parent class is using the so-called Hollywood Principle: "don't call us, we'll call you".
However, you could benefit from declaring the subvalidate() method as abstract in the parent class, and by this, make sure all subclasses are forced to implement it. Then it would be a true template method.
public abstract class ParentValidator
{
public final void validate() {
//some code
subValidate();
}
protected abstract void subValidate() {}
}
Depending on what you are doing there are other patterns that could help you do this in a different manner. For instance, you could use a Strategy Pattern to peform the validations, and by this favoring composition over inheritance, as suggested before, but a consequence is that you will need more validation classes.
public abstract class ParentValidator
{
private final ValidatorStrategy validator;
protected ParentValidator(ValidatorStrategy validator){
this.validator = validator;
}
public final void validate() {
//some code
this.validator.validate();
}
}
Then you can provide specific validation strategies for every type of Validator that you have.
If you want to get the best of both worlds you might considering implementing the solution as a Decorator Pattern where subclasses can extend the functionality of a parent class and still stick to a common interface.
public abstract class ValidatorDecorator implements Validator
{
private final Validator validator;
protected ParentValidator(Validator validator){
this.validator = validator;
}
public final void validate() {
//some code
super.validate(); //still forced to invoke super
this.validator.validate();
}
}
All patterns have consequences and advantages and disadvantages that you must consider carefully.

I'd prefer to 1) program against interfaces, and 2) opt for composition over inheritance. This is how I have done. Some people like it, some do not. It works.
// java pseudocode below, you'll need to work the wrinkles out
/**
* Defines a rule or set of rules under which a instance of T
* is deemed valid or invalid
**/
public interface ValidationRule<T>
{
/**
* #return String describing invalidation condition, or null
* (indicating then that parameter t is valid */
**/
String apply(final T t);
}
/**
* Utility class for enforcing a logical conjunction
* of zero or more validatoin rules on an object.
**/
public final class ValidatorEvaluator
{
/**
* evaluates zero or more validation rules (as a logical
* 'AND') on an instance of type T.
**/
static <T> String apply(final T t, ValidationRule<T> ... rules)
{
for(final ValidationRules<T> v : rules)
{
String msg = v.apply(t);
if( msg != null )
{
return msg; // t is not valid
}
}
return null;
}
}
// arbitrary dummy class that we will test for
// i being a positive number greater than zero
public class MyFoo
{
int i;
public MyFoo(int n){ i = n; }
///
}
public class NonZeroValidatorRule implements ValidatorRule<MyFoo>
{
public String apply(final MyFoo foo)
{
return foo.i == 0 ? "foo.i is zero!" : null;
}
}
// test for being positive using NonZeroValidatorRule and an anonymous
// validator that tests for negatives
String msg = ValidatorEvaluator.apply( new MyFoo(1),
new NonZeroValidatorRule(),
new ValidatorRule<MyFoo>()
{
public String apply(final MyFoo foo)
{
return foo.i < 0 ? "foo.i is negative!" : null;
}
}
);
if( msg == null )
{
\\ yay!
...
}
else
{
\\ nay...
someLogThingie.log("error: myFoo now workie. reason=" + msg );
}
More complex, non-trivial evaluation rules can be implemented this way.
The key here is that you should not use inheritance unless there exists a is-a relationship. Do not use it just to recycle or encapsulate logic. If you still feel you need to use inheritance, then don't go overkill trying to make sure that every subclass executes the validation logic inherited from the superclass. Have implementations of each subclass do an explicit execution on super:
public class ParentValidator
{
public void validate() { // notice that I removed the final you originally had
// Some code
}
}
pubic class ChildValidator extends ParentValidator
{
#Override
public void validate() {
// Some code
super.validate(); // explicit call to inherited validate
// more validation code
}
}
Keep things simple, and don't try to make it impossible or fool-proof. There is a difference between coding defensively (a good practice) and coding against stupid (a futile effort.) Simply lay out coding rules on how to subclass your validators. That is, put the onus on the implementors. If they cannot follow the guidelines, no amount of defensive coding will protect your system against their stupidity. Ergo, keep things clear and simple.

I prefer to using composition over inheritance if your subSubSubValidate is related general functionality. You can extract new class and move it there than you can use it without inheritance in the other classes.
There is also
"Favor 'object composition' over
'class inheritance'." (Gang of Four
1995:20)

maybe a look at the visitor pattern may help you to develop your pattern.
Here are some information on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern

Java - Method name collision in interface implementation

If I have two interfaces , both quite different in their purposes , but with same method signature , how do I make a class implement both without being forced to write a single method that serves for the both the interfaces and writing some convoluted logic in the method implementation that checks for which type of object the call is being made and invoke proper code ?
In C# , this is overcome by what is called as explicit interface implementation. Is there any equivalent way in Java ?

No, there is no way to implement the same method in two different ways in one class in Java.
That can lead to many confusing situations, which is why Java has disallowed it.
interface ISomething {
void doSomething();
}
interface ISomething2 {
void doSomething();
}
class Impl implements ISomething, ISomething2 {
void doSomething() {} // There can only be one implementation of this method.
}
What you can do is compose a class out of two classes that each implement a different interface. Then that one class will have the behavior of both interfaces.
class CompositeClass {
ISomething class1;
ISomething2 class2;
void doSomething1(){class1.doSomething();}
void doSomething2(){class2.doSomething();}
}

There's no real way to solve this in Java. You could use inner classes as a workaround:
interface Alfa { void m(); }
interface Beta { void m(); }
class AlfaBeta implements Alfa {
private int value;
public void m() { ++value; } // Alfa.m()
public Beta asBeta() {
return new Beta(){
public void m() { --value; } // Beta.m()
};
}
}
Although it doesn't allow for casts from AlfaBeta to Beta, downcasts are generally evil, and if it can be expected that an Alfa instance often has a Beta aspect, too, and for some reason (usually optimization is the only valid reason) you want to be able to convert it to Beta, you could make a sub-interface of Alfa with Beta asBeta() in it.

If you are encountering this problem, it is most likely because you are using inheritance where you should be using delegation. If you need to provide two different, albeit similar, interfaces for the same underlying model of data, then you should use a view to cheaply provide access to the data using some other interface.
To give a concrete example for the latter case, suppose you want to implement both Collection and MyCollection (which does not inherit from Collection and has an incompatible interface). You could provide a Collection getCollectionView() and MyCollection getMyCollectionView() functions which provide a light-weight implementation of Collection and MyCollection, using the same underlying data.
For the former case... suppose you really want an array of integers and an array of strings. Instead of inheriting from both List<Integer> and List<String>, you should have one member of type List<Integer> and another member of type List<String>, and refer to those members, rather than try to inherit from both. Even if you only needed a list of integers, it is better to use composition/delegation over inheritance in this case.

The "classical" Java problem also affects my Android development...
The reason seems to be simple:
More frameworks/libraries you have to use, more easily things can be out of control...
In my case, I have a BootStrapperApp class inherited from android.app.Application,
whereas the same class should also implement a Platform interface of a MVVM framework in order to get integrated.
Method collision occurred on a getString() method, which is announced by both interfaces and should have differenet implementation in different contexts.
The workaround (ugly..IMO) is using an inner class to implement all Platform methods, just because of one minor method signature conflict...in some case, such borrowed method is even not used at all (but affected major design semantics).
I tend to agree C#-style explicit context/namespace indication is helpful.

The only solution that came in my mind is using referece objects to the one you want to implent muliple interfaceces.
eg: supposing you have 2 interfaces to implement
public interface Framework1Interface {
void method(Object o);
}
and
public interface Framework2Interface {
void method(Object o);
}
you can enclose them in to two Facador objects:
public class Facador1 implements Framework1Interface {
private final ObjectToUse reference;
public static Framework1Interface Create(ObjectToUse ref) {
return new Facador1(ref);
}
private Facador1(ObjectToUse refObject) {
this.reference = refObject;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof Framework1Interface) {
return this == obj;
} else if (obj instanceof ObjectToUse) {
return reference == obj;
}
return super.equals(obj);
}
#Override
public void method(Object o) {
reference.methodForFrameWork1(o);
}
}
and
public class Facador2 implements Framework2Interface {
private final ObjectToUse reference;
public static Framework2Interface Create(ObjectToUse ref) {
return new Facador2(ref);
}
private Facador2(ObjectToUse refObject) {
this.reference = refObject;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof Framework2Interface) {
return this == obj;
} else if (obj instanceof ObjectToUse) {
return reference == obj;
}
return super.equals(obj);
}
#Override
public void method(Object o) {
reference.methodForFrameWork2(o);
}
}
In the end the class you wanted should something like
public class ObjectToUse {
private Framework1Interface facFramework1Interface;
private Framework2Interface facFramework2Interface;
public ObjectToUse() {
}
public Framework1Interface getAsFramework1Interface() {
if (facFramework1Interface == null) {
facFramework1Interface = Facador1.Create(this);
}
return facFramework1Interface;
}
public Framework2Interface getAsFramework2Interface() {
if (facFramework2Interface == null) {
facFramework2Interface = Facador2.Create(this);
}
return facFramework2Interface;
}
public void methodForFrameWork1(Object o) {
}
public void methodForFrameWork2(Object o) {
}
}
you can now use the getAs* methods to "expose" your class

You can use an Adapter pattern in order to make these work. Create two adapter for each interface and use that. It should solve the problem.

All well and good when you have total control over all of the code in question and can implement this upfront.
Now imagine you have an existing public class used in many places with a method
public class MyClass{
private String name;
MyClass(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
Now you need to pass it into the off the shelf WizzBangProcessor which requires classes to implement the WBPInterface... which also has a getName() method, but instead of your concrete implementation, this interface expects the method to return the name of a type of Wizz Bang Processing.
In C# it would be a trvial
public class MyClass : WBPInterface{
private String name;
String WBPInterface.getName(){
return "MyWizzBangProcessor";
}
MyClass(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
In Java Tough you are going to have to identify every point in the existing deployed code base where you need to convert from one interface to the other. Sure the WizzBangProcessor company should have used getWizzBangProcessName(), but they are developers too. In their context getName was fine. Actually, outside of Java, most other OO based languages support this. Java is rare in forcing all interfaces to be implemented with the same method NAME.
Most other languages have a compiler that is more than happy to take an instruction to say "this method in this class which matches the signature of this method in this implemented interface is it's implementation". After all the whole point of defining interfaces is to allow the definition to be abstracted from the implementation. (Don't even get me started on having default methods in Interfaces in Java, let alone default overriding.... because sure, every component designed for a road car should be able to get slammed into a flying car and just work - hey they are both cars... I'm sure the the default functionality of say your sat nav will not be affected with default pitch and roll inputs, because cars only yaw!