Related
I am looking for a way to log a method call, store it in a database, and then at a later time execute it.
I was thinking to serialize the method call with all its arguments, store it, and then retrieve it back, deserialize it and execute it some how.
So, I am looking for a generic method that will allow me to store the method call with its arguments. Something like
public String myMethod(String arg1, String[] arg2) {
logMethodCall(thisMethodName, allMethodArgumentsSerialized)
}
and the logMethodCall would store the info in a database.
So
a) any code that will allow me to dynamically loop all arguments of a method and serialize them?
b) any code to get the current method name dynamically?
c) any other idea to accomplish something similar
This sounds like the Command pattern, where the actual command object is to be persisted (possibly serialized) before being executed:
command pattern is a behavioral design pattern in which an object is used to represent and encapsulate all the information needed to call a method at a later time. This information includes the method name, the object that owns the method and values for the method parameters
Well, dare I say it, a natural language for handling stuff like this is Lisp. "Code = data", as they say.
If there is a requirement to use Java (for example, if this is to be a small part of a larger system already in Java), consider using ABCL (a Lisp implementation which targets the JVM).
You can spend a lot of time trying to wedge a square peg into a round hole, or just do it the easy way; it's your choice. I really don't mean this in a negative way; it's just an observation.
I haven't seen this pattern before, where you save method calls to the database. I have seen delayed method calls and throttled method calls, but those are always in the running app, they don't survive persistently.
If you want to have persistent actions that can be executed in the future, I think the right way to do this is to create some sort of action or edit object, in the same way that javax.swing.undo.AbstractUndoableEdit works. Then you can log these from anywhere, and execute them from anywhere. The actions can work in a few ways, including:
Store an object type, method name and generic arguments, and execute those later
Provide specific arguments and call a predetermined method name
I would go with the second with a base class, as Swing does, so from your example you would have a myMethodAction class whose objects take the arguments as properties and that knows when told to execute that it should call myMethod.
I would also not have the myMethod implementation do both things. That is going to be a huge headache later. Rather have something like
public void myMethod()
{
if(condition) ... save it ...
else myMethodNow();
}
public void myMethodNow()
{
... do the work now ...
}
Hope that helps.
I'm making a command-line based tool in Java, and I was thinking I might be able to make it all a bit easier on my self if I could take user input and automatically find the needed functions based on the users input.
What I want to do, is, that if a user types:
User create newUser
The java code looks for a class called user, then looks for a function called create, and inputs newUser as the first argument of the function. Meaning typing the command "User create newUser" would make the java code trigger this line of code:
User.create("newUser");
And of cause, return errors if the class or function was not found, or so.
So far I've been playing with
Class.forName(cmdArg[0])
Where cmdArg[0] is the first word given by the Scanner, found by splitting where there's spaces.
Anyway, is it possible to achieve this in Java? Any help would be much appreciated.
My solution:
Okay, i got it working, my final solution was a combination of duffymo's and user978548's answer, my solution looks like this:
Class comArgs[] = new Class[1];
comArgs[0] = String.class;
String[] args = new String[1];
args[0] = commandArray[2];
Class.forName("code."+commandArray[0])
.getDeclaredMethod(commandArray[1], comArgs)
.invoke(null, args);
This is surrounded by a try/catch with allot of exceptions, but it works.
I also have a HashMap for which commands i want to receive.
The args variable can should be as long as the number of arguments needed for the called method.
You can use the features built into the java.lang.Class class:
Class.forName(args[0]).newInstance();
Have your users input the fully-resolved class name and you don't have to worry about all those shenanigans. You'll need them anyway, because the short name might not be unique.
Another approach is to put the Class instances that you want users to be able to create in a Map and have them input the key.
as duffymo said, Class.forName(args[0]).newInstance(); for the class, and as Chin Boon said, you have all that you want in reflections method. Like, to run your method:
Object.class.getMethods()[find your method here].invoke(obj, args)
What you are looking for is Java reflection.
duffymo is correct - reflection is what you are prob talking about.
However, I would maybe suggest looking at a combination of Builder/Factory design patterns to make this a little nicer rather than using reflection to attempt to find the class/methods you want (although obviously this depends on the context of the problem and I am making some assumptions here!).
This is a complicated question which i will find hard to explain so i appologise in advance.
Imagine an application that invokes another projects methods. I need a way of generating data to match the parameter list. Obviously if the parameter types are of some class that I have no way of generating then it should fail but if its an int[] and int[][] a List<String> a Map<Integer, String> then it should be possible.
What i am struggling with is a decent approach for solving this. I can get the types of parameters via method.getGenericParameterTypes(); example for the parameter HashMap would be java.util.HashMap<java.lang.String, java.lang.Integer> but there are quite a lot of different possibilities right!
I assume generics has some use here? The only issue with that being I have no control over the code that is being invoked. How can I use one of these types and then generate data for it?
I am sorry for the poor explanation, any help appreciated
Thanks
Here we see an example of a method i want to invoke, I want to record how long it takes to run (this is being done via reflection) however, i need to generate data for the parameters. I need a way of generating data to match
public void someMethod(Param a, Param b, Param c)
{
//some user code I have no control over
}
I think perhaps the question should be why you need to do this. Perhaps if you explained your use/business case, we can provide a cleaner (and easier) solution.
From your very last lines, you are talking about wanting to profile the method. Generally speaking, it is rare to want to profile just one small tiny method in the middle of chain of processing. That being said, I can imagine some convoluted cases where this might occur. However, even at that, it should be a handful of cases that you would be able to code yourself.
If it is a question of actual profiling, but you are not sure how to do it, and consequently feel that the only way is to call each method individually so you can "wrap" it with a start/stop timer, I would strongly recommend looking into AOP. Both Spring and AspectJ are great for AOP, with AspectJ able to do byte-weaving that Spring is unable to accomplish.
Consequently, with AspectJ you would be able to create your own profiling timer classes and weave them into the byte-code at compile time and then run your standard tests, but visualize all the profiling info that you want/need on a per-method basis.
And best of all, it would avoid you needing to come up with some convoluted scheme for producing random test data that isn't really relevant to the method being tested.
Sounds like a horrible problem.
If you have the class[] that represents the parameter types of the method then can't you create a new instance of each and pass that as the arguments list to the method? This is untested:
Class[] parameterTypes = method.getGenericParameterTypes();
Object[] args = new Object[parameterTypes.length];
for (int i=0; i < parameterTypes.length; i++) {
args[i] = parameterTypes[i].newInstance(); // assuming the classes can be instantiated without params
}
method.invoke(obj, args); // I assume you've instantiated the object already
One of my most common bugs is that I can never remember whether something is a method or a property, so I'm constantly adding or removing parentheses.
So I was wondering if there was good logic behind making the difference between calling on an object's properties and methods explicit.
Obviously, it allows you to have properties and methods that share the same name, but I don't think that comes up much.
The only big benefit I can come up with is readability. Sometimes you might want to know whether something is a method or a property while you're looking at code, but I'm having trouble coming up with specific examples when that would be really helpful. But I am a n00b, so I probably just haven't encountered such a situation yet. I'd appreciate examples of such a situation.
Also, are there other languages where the difference isn't explicit?
Anyways, if you could answer, it will help me be less annoyed every time I make this mistake ^-^.
UPDATE:
Thanks everyone for the awesome answers so far! I only have about a week's worth of js, and 1 day of python, so I had no idea you could reference functions without calling them. That's awesome. I have a little more experience with java, so that's where I was mostly coming from... can anyone come up with an equally compelling argument for that to be the case in java, where you can't reference functions? Aside from it being a very explicit language, with all the benefits that entails :).
All modern languages require this because referencing a function and calling a function are separate actions.
For example,
def func():
print "hello"
return 10
a = func
a()
Clearly, a = func and a = func() have very different meanings.
Ruby--the most likely language you're thinking of in contrast--doesn't require the parentheses; it can do this because it doesn't support taking references to functions.
In languages like Python and JavaScript, functions are first–class objects. This means that you can pass functions around, just like you can pass around any other value. The parentheses after the function name (the () in myfunc()) actually constitute an operator, just like + or *. Instead of meaning "add this number to another number" (in the case of +), () means "execute the preceding function". This is necessary because it is possible to use a function without executing it. For example, you may wish to compare it to another function using ==, or you may wish to pass it into another function, such as in this JavaScript example:
function alertSomething(message) {
alert(message);
}
function myOtherFunction(someFunction, someArg) {
someFunction(someArg);
}
// here we are using the alertSomething function without calling it directly
myOtherFunction(alertSomething, "Hello, araneae!");
In short: it is important to be able to refer to a function without calling it — this is why the distinction is necessary.
At least in JS, its because you can pass functions around.
var func = new Function();
you can then so something like
var f = func
f()
so 'f' and 'func' are references to the function, and f() or func() is the invocation of the function.
which is not the same as
var val = f();
which assigns the result of the invocation to a var.
For Java, you cannot pass functions around, at least like you can in JS, so there is no reason the language needs to require a () to invoke a method. But it is what it is.
I can't speak at all for python.
But the main point is different languages might have reasons why syntax may be necessary, and sometimes syntax is just syntax.
I think you answered it yourself:
One of my most common bugs is that I can never remember whether something is a method or a property, so I'm constantly adding or removing parentheses.
Consider the following:
if (colorOfTheSky == 'blue')
vs:
if (colorOfTheSky() == 'blue')
We can tell just by looking that the first checks for a variable called colorOfTheSky, and we want to know if its value is blue. In the second, we know that colorOfTheSky() calls a function (method) and we want to know if its return value is blue.
If we didn't have this distinction it would be extremely ambiguous in situations like this.
To answer your last question, I don't know of any languages that don't have this distinction.
Also, you probably have a design problem if you can't tell the difference between your methods and your properties; as another answer points out, methods and properties have different roles to play. Furthermore it is good practice for your method names to be actions, e.g. getPageTitle, getUserId, etc., and for your properties to be nouns, e.g., pageTitle, userId. These should be easily decipherable in your code for both you and anyone who comes along later and reads your code.
If you're having troubles, distinguishing between your properties and methods, you're probably not naming them very well.
In general, your methods should have a verb in them: i.e. write, print, echo, open, close, get, set, and property names should be nouns or adjectives: name, color, filled, loaded.
It's very important to use meaningful method and property names, without it, you'll find that you'll have difficulty reading your own code.
In Java, I can think of two reasons why the () is required:
1) Java had a specific design goal to have a "C/C++ like" syntax, to make it easy for C and C++ programmers to learn the language. Both C and C++ require the parentheses.
2) The Java syntax specifically requires the parentheses to disambiguate a reference to an attribute or local from a call to a method. This is because method names and attribute / local names are declared in different namespaces. So the following is legal Java:
public class SomeClass {
private int name;
private int name() { ... }
...
int norm = name; // this one
}
If the () was not required for a method call, the compiler would not be able to tell if the labeled statement ("this one") was assigning the value of the name attribute or the result of calling the name() method.
The difference isn't always explicit in VBA. This is a call to a Sub (i.e. a method with no return value) which takes no parameters (all examples are from Excel):
Worksheets("Sheet1").UsedRange.Columns.AutoFit
whereas this is accessing an attribute then passing it as a parameter:
MsgBox Application.Creator
As in the previous example, parentheses are also optional around parameters if there is no need to deal with the return value:
Application.Goto Worksheets("Sheet2").Range("A1")
but are needed if the return value is used:
iRows = Len("hello world")
Because referencing and calling a method are two different things. Consider X.method being the method of class X and x being an instance of X, so x.method == 'blue' would'nt ever be able to be true because methods are not strings.
You can try this: print a method of an object:
>>> class X(object):
... def a(self):
... print 'a'
...
>>> x=X()
>>> print x.a
<bound method X.a of <__main__.X object at 0x0235A910>>
Typically properties are accessors, and methods perform some sort of action. Going on this assumption, it's cheap to use a property, expensive to use a method.
Foo.Bar, for example, would indicate to me that it would return a value, like a string, without lots of overhead.
Foo.Bar() (or more likely, Foo.GetBar()), on the other hand, implies needing to retrieve the value for "Bar", perhaps from a database.
Properties and methods have different purposes and different implications, so they should be differentiated in code as well.
By the way, in all languages I know of the difference in syntax is explicit, but behind the scenes properties are often treated as simply special method calls.
Occasionally , we have to write methods that receive many many arguments , for example :
public void doSomething(Object objA , Object objectB ,Date date1 ,Date date2 ,String str1 ,String str2 )
{
}
When I encounter this kind of problem , I often encapsulate arguments into a map.
Map<Object,Object> params = new HashMap<Object,Object>();
params.put("objA",ObjA) ;
......
public void doSomething(Map<Object,Object> params)
{
// extracting params
Object objA = (Object)params.get("objA");
......
}
This is not a good practice , encapsulate params into a map is totally a waste of efficiency.
The good thing is , the clean signature , easy to add other params with fewest modification .
what's the best practice for this kind of problem ?
In Effective Java, Chapter 7 (Methods), Item 40 (Design method signatures carefully), Bloch writes:
There are three techniques for shortening overly long parameter lists:
break the method into multiple methods, each which require only a subset of the parameters
create helper classes to hold group of parameters (typically static member classes)
adapt the Builder pattern from object construction to method invocation.
For more details, I encourage you to buy the book, it's really worth it.
Using a map with magical String keys is a bad idea. You lose any compile time checking, and it's really unclear what the required parameters are. You'd need to write very complete documentation to make up for it. Will you remember in a few weeks what those Strings are without looking at the code? What if you made a typo? Use the wrong type? You won't find out until you run the code.
Instead use a model. Make a class which will be a container for all those parameters. That way you keep the type safety of Java. You can also pass that object around to other methods, put it in collections, etc.
Of course if the set of parameters isn't used elsewhere or passed around, a dedicated model may be overkill. There's a balance to be struck, so use common sense.
If you have many optional parameters you can create fluent API: replace single method with the chain of methods
exportWithParams().datesBetween(date1,date2)
.format("xml")
.columns("id","name","phone")
.table("angry_robots")
.invoke();
Using static import you can create inner fluent APIs:
... .datesBetween(from(date1).to(date2)) ...
It's called "Introduce Parameter Object". If you find yourself passing same parameter list on several places, just create a class which holds them all.
XXXParameter param = new XXXParameter(objA, objB, date1, date2, str1, str2);
// ...
doSomething(param);
Even if you don't find yourself passing same parameter list so often, that easy refactoring will still improve your code readability, which is always good. If you look at your code 3 months later, it will be easier to comprehend when you need to fix a bug or add a feature.
It's a general philosophy of course, and since you haven't provided any details, I cannot give you more detailed advice either. :-)
First, I'd try to refactor the method. If it's using that many parameters it may be too long any way. Breaking it down would both improve the code and potentially reduce the number of parameters to each method. You might also be able to refactor the entire operation to its own class. Second, I'd look for other instances where I'm using the same (or superset) of the same parameter list. If you have multiple instances, then it likely signals that these properties belong together. In that case, create a class to hold the parameters and use it. Lastly, I'd evaluate whether the number of parameters makes it worth creating a map object to improve code readability. I think this is a personal call -- there is pain each way with this solution and where the trade-off point is may differ. For six parameters I probably wouldn't do it. For 10 I probably would (if none of the other methods worked first).
This is often a problem when constructing objects.
In that case use builder object pattern, it works well if you have big list of parameters and not always need all of them.
You can also adapt it to method invocation.
It also increases readability a lot.
public class BigObject
{
// public getters
// private setters
public static class Buider
{
private A f1;
private B f2;
private C f3;
private D f4;
private E f5;
public Buider setField1(A f1) { this.f1 = f1; return this; }
public Buider setField2(B f2) { this.f2 = f2; return this; }
public Buider setField3(C f3) { this.f3 = f3; return this; }
public Buider setField4(D f4) { this.f4 = f4; return this; }
public Buider setField5(E f5) { this.f5 = f5; return this; }
public BigObject build()
{
BigObject result = new BigObject();
result.setField1(f1);
result.setField2(f2);
result.setField3(f3);
result.setField4(f4);
result.setField5(f5);
return result;
}
}
}
// Usage:
BigObject boo = new BigObject.Builder()
.setField1(/* whatever */)
.setField2(/* whatever */)
.setField3(/* whatever */)
.setField4(/* whatever */)
.setField5(/* whatever */)
.build();
You can also put verification logic into Builder set..() and build() methods.
There is a pattern called as Parameter object.
Idea is to use one object in place of all the parameters. Now even if you need to add parameters later, you just need to add it to the object. The method interface remains same.
You could create a class to hold that data. Needs to be meaningful enough though, but much better than using a map (OMG).
Code Complete* suggests a couple of things:
"Limit the number of a routine's parameters to about seven. Seven is a magic number for people's comprehension" (p 108).
"Put parameters in input-modify-output order ... If several routines use similar parameters, put the similar parameters in a consistent order" (p 105).
Put status or error variables last.
As tvanfosson mentioned, pass only the parts of a structured variables ( objects) that the routine needs. That said, if you're using most of the structured variable in the function, then just pass the whole structure, but be aware that this promotes coupling to some degree.
* First Edition, I know I should update. Also, it's likely that some of this advice may have changed since the second edition was written when OOP was beginning to become more popular.
Using a Map is a simple way to clean the call signature but then you have another problem. You need to look inside the method's body to see what the method expects in that Map, what are the key names or what types the values have.
A cleaner way would be to group all parameters in an object bean but that still does not fix the problem entirely.
What you have here is a design issue. With more than 7 parameters to a method you will start to have problems remembering what they represent and what order they have. From here you will get lots of bugs just by calling the method in wrong parameter order.
You need a better design of the app not a best practice to send lots of parameters.
Good practice would be to refactor. What about these objects means that they should be passed in to this method? Should they be encapsulated into a single object?
Create a bean class, and set the all parameters (setter method) and pass this bean object to the method.
Look at your code, and see why all those parameters are passed in. Sometimes it is possible to refactor the method itself.
Using a map leaves your method vulnerable. What if somebody using your method misspells a parameter name, or posts a string where your method expects a UDT?
Define a Transfer Object . It'll provide you with type-checking at the very least; it may even be possible for you to perform some validation at the point of use instead of within your method.
I would say stick with the way you did it before.
The number of parameters in your example is not a lot, but the alternatives are much more horrible.
Map - There's the efficiency thing that you mentioned, but the bigger problem here are:
Callers don't know what to send you without referring to something
else... Do you have javadocs which states exactly what keys and
values are used? If you do (which is great), then having lots of parameters
isn't a problem either.
It becomes very difficult to accept different argument types. You
can either restrict input parameters to a single type, or use
Map<String, Object> and cast all the values. Both options are
horrible most of the time.
Wrapper objects - this just moves the problem since you need to fill the wrapper object in the first place - instead of directly to your method, it will be to the constructor of the parameter object.
To determine whether moving the problem is appropriate or not depends on the reuse of said object. For instance:
Would not use it: It would only be used once on the first call, so a lot of additional code to deal with 1 line...?
{
AnObject h = obj.callMyMethod(a, b, c, d, e, f, g);
SomeObject i = obj2.callAnotherMethod(a, b, c, h);
FinalResult j = obj3.callAFinalMethod(c, e, f, h, i);
}
May use it: Here, it can do a bit more. First, it can factor the parameters for 3 method calls. it can also perform 2 other lines in itself... so it becomes a state variable in a sense...
{
AnObject h = obj.callMyMethod(a, b, c, d, e, f, g);
e = h.resultOfSomeTransformation();
SomeObject i = obj2.callAnotherMethod(a, b, c, d, e, f, g);
f = i.somethingElse();
FinalResult j = obj3.callAFinalMethod(a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i);
}
Builder pattern - this is an anti-pattern in my view. The most desirable error handling mechanism is to detect earlier, not later; but with the builder pattern, calls with missing (programmer did not think to include it) mandatory parameters are moved from compile time to run time. Of course if the programmer intentionally put null or such in the slot, that'll be runtime, but still catching some errors earlier is a much bigger advantage to catering for programmers who refuse to look at the parameter names of the method they are calling.
I find it only appropriate when dealing with large number of optional parameters, and even then, the benefit is marginal at best. I am very much against the builder "pattern".
The other thing people forget to consider is the role of the IDE in all this.
When methods have parameters, IDEs generate most of the code for you, and you have the red lines reminding you what you need to supply/set. When using option 3... you lose this completely. It's now up to the programmer to get it right, and there's no cues during coding and compile time... the programmer must test it to find out.
Furthermore, options 2 and 3, if adopted wide spread unnecessarily, have long term negative implications in terms of maintenance due to the large amount of duplicate code it generates. The more code there is, the more there is to maintain, the more time and money is spent to maintain it.
This is often an indication that your class holds more than one responsibility (i.e., your class does TOO much).
See The Single Responsibility Principle
for further details.
If you are passing too many parameters then try to refactor the method. Maybe it is doing a lot of things that it is not suppose to do. If that is not the case then try substituting the parameters with a single class. This way you can encapsulate everything in a single class instance and pass the instance around and not the parameters.
... and Bob's your uncle: No-hassle fancy-pants APIs for object creation!
https://projectlombok.org/features/Builder