I'm trying to implement function objects in Java. I have a Unit class, with a default addition function that should be used in most initializations of a Unit object. However, for some issues, I need a different addition function. The code will look something like this:
public class Unit() {
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType == "specialType") {
additionFunc = defaultFunc } else {
additionFunc = specialFunc }
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc()
}
// definiion of regularFunc
// definition of specialFunc
}
Then, from the main file:
Unit fish = new Unit(regularTyoe);
Unit fatFish = new Unit(specialType);
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called
That's it.. does anyone know how this can be done?
You need to look up inheritance and method overriding. It would probably help to read up on proper Object Oriented Programming as well.
The proper way to do this is:
class Fish {
public void swim() {
// normal swim
}
}
class FatFish extends Fish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// special swim
}
}
Fish fish = new Fish()
Fish fatFish = new FatFish()
fish.swim() // normal swim
fatFish.swim() // slow swim
Make a new FatFish class which extends Unit and overrides swim().
Unit fish = new Unit();
Unit fatFish = new FatFish();
fish.swim(); //regular function is called
fatFish.swim(); //special function is called
There are many solutions for your problem, one of them is using inheritance, that you could have a default implementation of Unit, and extend it overriding the desired method with a new one.
Basically would be something like:
public class FatFish {
#Override
public void swim() {
// new behavior
}
}
Another approach would be to implement Strategy Design Pattern, which allows you to select algorithms on runtime. Therefore you could do something like:
public interface SwimStrategy {
void execute();
}
public class FatFishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// fat fish swim impl
}
}
public class FishSwimStrategy implements SwimStrategy {
#Override
public void execute() {
// normal fish swim impl
}
}
public class Fish {
private final SwimStrategy swimStrategy;
public Fish(SwimStrategy swimStrategy) {
this.swimStrategy = swimStrategy;
}
public void swim() {
swimStrategy.execute();
}
}
In order to instantiate an object you could do:
new Fish(new FatFishSwimStrategy());
or for the normal behavior:
new Fish(new FishSwimStrategy());
I think it can do by extends and factory method:
public class Unit {
public static Unit createUnit(UnitType type) {
if (UnitType.Special == type) {
return new Unit(type) {
#Override
public int swim() {
System.out.println("special swim");
return 0;
}
};
}
return new Unit(UnitType.Default);
}
private UnitType type;
private Unit(UnitType type) {
this.type = type;
System.out.println("create unit for " + type);
}
public int swim() {
System.out.println("default swim");
return 0;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Unit fish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Default);
Unit fatFish = Unit.createUnit(UnitType.Special);
fish.swim();
fatFish.swim();
}
}
This is a simple type enum:
public enum UnitType {
Default, Special
}
There are two ways to accomplish this polymorphic behavior in Java. The first is to use a inheritance and a hierarchical set of classes. For example, you could have an abstract base class which defines an abstract method called "swim". Then each concrete fish class would extend this base class and implement the swim method. Later when you have a set of fish objects, you can upcast them to the base class and invoke the swim method on each.
The second way is to use interfaces. You define an interface (e.g. ISwim) which declares the public method swim. Each fish class (whether part of a class hierarchy or no) would implement the ISwim interface, meaning they would define a swim method. Then if you have a set of fish class objects of different types, you can cast each to the ISwim interface and invoke the swim method on each object.
Java does not have function pointers, so the approach you are considering is inappropriate for the language. Even in languages with function pointers, the above two approaches would be most appropriate in my opinion.
One way to do this is with an enum for the types of Unit and with Unit subclasses:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType {
REGULAR {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new RegularUnit();
}
},
SPECIAL {
public Unit makeUnit() {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
};
abstract public Unit makeUnit();
}
protected Unit() {}
public abstract int swim();
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
RegularUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 0;
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
SpecialUnit() {}
public int swim() {
return 1;
}
}
}
Unit fish = UnitType.REGULAR.makeUnit();
Unit fatFish = UnitType.SPECIAL.makeUnit();
Another way is with Callable objects:
public class Unit {
public enum UnitType { REGULAR, SPECIAL }
private Callable<Integer> additionFunc;
public Unit(UnitType type) {
switch (type) {
case REGULAR:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 0;
}
};
break;
case SPECIAL:
additionFunc = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() {
return 1;
}
};
break;
}
}
public int swim() {
return additionFunc();
}
}
Using a simple if statement:
private String unitType;
public Unit(unitType) {
this.unitType = unitType;
}
public int swim() {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return specialFunc();
}
else {
return regularFunc();
}
}
Or using polymorphism and a factory method :
public abstract class Unit() {
protected Unit() {
}
protected abstract int addition();
public int swim() {
return addition();
}
public static Unit forType(String unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
return new SpecialUnit();
}
else {
return new RegularUnit();
}
}
private static class SpecialUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// special addition
}
}
private static class RegularUnit extends Unit {
#Override
protected addition() {
// regular addition
}
}
}
Or using an Adder functional interface, defining an addition() method, and two concrete implementations of this interface:
private Adder adder;
public Unit(unitType) {
if (unitType.equals("specialType") {
this.adder = new SpecialAdder();
}
else {
this.adder = new RegularAdder();
}
}
public int swim() {
return adder.addition();
}
This last one is the closest to waht you asked in your question. function objects don't exist per se, but can be replaced by interfaces.
Related
I am writing a java (processing) library for unexperienced students, and am looking for the best architecture for implementing it.
Initialization of an object should be as close as possible to this:
myObject = new General("type1");
Such that myObject will become an instance of Type1 which extends General:
class General {
public General() {}
}
class Type1 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
class Type2 extends General {
public Type1() {}
}
As far as I know, this isn't possible (choosing between extended classes during initialization), but I'm looking for the closest solution possible.
So far, my best solution is to make a static initializer inside General:
class General {
...
static General init (String type) {
General temp;
if (type.equals("type1") {
temp = new Type1();
}
...
return temp;
}
and the initialization is:
General myObject;
myObject = General.init("type1");
This is far from ideal...
thanks.
you can make a factory class that manages initialization.
instead of doing it inside the parent.
// Empty vocabulary of actual object
public interface IPerson
{
string GetName();
}
public class Villager : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "Village Person";
}
}
public class CityPerson : IPerson
{
public string GetName()
{
return "City Person";
}
}
public enum PersonType
{
Rural,
Urban
}
/// <summary>
/// Implementation of Factory - Used to create objects.
/// </summary>
public class Factory
{
public IPerson GetPerson(PersonType type)
{
switch (type)
{
case PersonType.Rural:
return new Villager();
case PersonType.Urban:
return new CityPerson();
default:
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
The State design pattern can be a solution here. Rather than the constructor argument changing the type of the object (which isn't possible) it can set a field of the object, to make it behave as if its type is different.
package stackoverflow.questions;
public class Main {
private interface MyInterface {
String foo();
int bar();
}
private static class Type1 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "lorem ipsum "; }
#Override public int bar() { return 6; }
}
private static class Type2 implements MyInterface {
#Override public String foo() { return "dolor sit amet"; }
#Override public int bar() { return 7; }
}
public static class General {
private final MyInterface type;
public General(String type) {
try {
this.type = (MyInterface) Class
.forName("stackoverflow.questions.Main$" + type)
.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid type: " + type);
}
}
public String method1() { return type.foo(); }
public int method2() { return type.bar(); }
}
public static void main(String... args) {
General one = new General("Type1");
General two = new General("Type2");
System.out.println(one.method1() + two.method1());
System.out.println(one.method2() * two.method2());
}
}
I have a class hierarchy like below
Vehicle
|_ TransaportationVehicle has method getLoadCapacity
|_ PassengerVehicle has method getPassengerCapacity
and I have one more class Booking it have a reference to Vehicle.
Now whenever I have to call getPassengerCapacity or getLoadCapacity on vehicle reference I need to type cast vehicle to its concrete implementation like ((PassengerVehicle)vehicle).getPassengerCapacity() and this type of calls spans over multiple parts in the project. So is there any way with which I can avoid these type of casts and my code will look beautiful and clean?
Note: These are not actual classes I have taken these as an example to demonstrate current problem.
Obviously, when booking a Vehicle you need to distinguish at some point whether it’s a TransportationVehicle or a PassengerVehicle as both have different properties.
The easiest way would be to initiate two different Booking processes: one for vehicles that can transport goods, and one for vehicles that can transport passengers. As for how to differentiate between these two types of vehicles: you could add canTransportPassengers() and canTransportGoods() methods to Vehicle, the subclasses would then override these methods to return true where appropriate. Also, this way a vehicle that can transport both is possible, like a train.
If You want to use different method names then You must cast to concrete class.
But if You can make this methods return same type value and have same names You can use polymorphism for it. Create abstract method in Vehicle class and override it in each child.
A quick way I would accomplish this is to create a Generified Booking parent class.
public abstract class Booking<V extends Vehicle> {
protected abstract V getVehicle();
}
public class TransportationVehicleBooking extends Booking<TransaportationVehicle> {
#Override
protected TransaportationVehicle getVehicle() {
return new TransaportationVehicle();
}
}
public class PassengerVehicleBooking extends Booking<PassengerVehicle> {
#Override
protected PassengerVehicle getVehicle() {
return new PassengerVehicle();
}
}
Your Booking class will have all the logic that spans all the booking subclasses and some abstract method each subclasses will need to do effective calculations.
Then all you have to do is have reference to a Booking class and calling the relevant method required without having to worry about the "logistics" (get it) of the booking itself.
I hope this helps.
You method overriding concepts. You need to have all these method in the Parent class and same can be overriden in the child clasees.
You can then access all the methods from super class using Runtime polymorphism
Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public int getCapacity();
}
TransaportationVehicle
public class TransaportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getLoadCapacity();
}
private int getLoadCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
PassengerVehicle
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
#Override
public int getCapacity() {
return getPassengerCapacity();
}
private int getPassengerCapacity() {
return 0;
}
}
USAGE
Vehicle passenger = new PassengerVehicle();
passenger.getCapacity();
Vehicle transaportation = new TransaportationVehicle();
transaportation.getCapacity()
First try to extract an abstract method suitable for all vehicles. If you can't do this you can also use an often forgotten pattern - the visitor pattern. E.g.
Introduce a visitor interface
public interface VehicleVisitor {
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle);
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle);
}
add an accept method to the Vehicle
public interface Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor);
}
implement the accept method in the sub classes
public class PassengerVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int passengerCapacity;
public static PassengerVehicle withPassengerCapacity(int passengerCapacity) {
return new PassengerVehicle(passengerCapacity);
}
private PassengerVehicle(int passengerCapacity) {
this.passengerCapacity = passengerCapacity;
}
public int getPassengerCapacity() {
return passengerCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
public class TransportationVehicle implements Vehicle {
private int loadCapacity;
public static TransportationVehicle withLoadCapacity(int loadCapacity) {
return new TransportationVehicle(loadCapacity);
}
private TransportationVehicle(int loadCapacity) {
this.loadCapacity = loadCapacity;
}
public int getLoadCapacity() {
return loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
implement a visitor...
public class LoadSupported implements VehicleVisitor {
private boolean supported;
private int load;
public LoadSupported(int load) {
this.load = load;
}
public boolean isSupported() {
return supported;
}
#Override
public void visit(TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle) {
int loadCapacity = transportationVehicle.getLoadCapacity();
supported = load <= loadCapacity;
}
#Override
public void visit(PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle) {
supported = false;
}
}
...and use it
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle1 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(5);
TransportationVehicle transportationVehicle2 = TransportationVehicle
.withLoadCapacity(10);
PassengerVehicle passengerVehicle = PassengerVehicle
.withPassengerCapacity(5);
LoadSupported loadSupported = new LoadSupported(7);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle1, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(transportationVehicle2, loadSupported);
supportsLoad(passengerVehicle, loadSupported);
}
private static void supportsLoad(Vehicle vehicle,
LoadSupported loadSupported) {
vehicle.accept(loadSupported);
System.out.println(vehicle.getClass().getSimpleName() + "[" + System.identityHashCode(vehicle) + "]" + " does"
+ (loadSupported.isSupported() ? " " : " not ")
+ "support load capacity");
}
}
The output will be something like this
TransportationVehicle[778966024] does not support load capacity
TransportationVehicle[1021653256] does support load capacity
PassengerVehicle[1794515827] does not support load capacity
Assuming that passenger capacity is always an integer and load capacity could very well a big number depending on what is the unit for load. I would go ahead and create Vehicle class as follow:
class Vehicle {
Number capacity;
public Number getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
The reason I am using Number is so that I then use Integer in PassengerVehicle class and Double in TransporatationVehicle and that is because Integer and Double are subtype of Number and you can get away with a cast.
class TransportationVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Double getCapacity() {
//all I have to do is cast Number to Double
return (Double) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
Similarly the PassengerVehicle class as follow:
class PassengerVehicle extends Vehicle {
#Override
public Integer getCapacity() {
//Cast to Integer and works because Integer is subtype of Number
return (Integer) capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(Number capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
You can then use above classes to create vehicle object as follow:
public class Booking {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//
Vehicle transportationVehicle = new TransportationVehicle();
//assigning Double to setCapacity
transportationVehicle.setCapacity(new Double(225.12));
Vehicle passengerVehicle = new PassengerVehicle();
//assigning Integer to setCapacity
passengerVehicle.setCapacity(5);
System.out.println(transportationVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 225.12
System.out.println(passengerVehicle.getCapacity());
// output: 5
}
}
On the side notes if you try to pass TransportationVehicle anything but Number or Double then you will get Exception and similarly if you pass PassengerVehicle anything but Number or Integer you will get exception.
I know that I am deviating from the scope of your question but, I really want to show how you can make your methods generics. This allow you to decide to return type of getCapacity() during coding which is very flexible. See below:
class Vehicle<T> {
//generic type T
T capacity;
//generic method getCapacity
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
//generic method setCapacity
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class TransportationVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
class PassengerVehicle<T> extends Vehicle<T> {
#Override
public T getCapacity() {
return capacity;
}
#Override
public void setCapacity(T capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
}
As you can see above the generic methods and you can use them as follow:
Vehicle<String> vehicleString = new TransportationVehicle<String>();
vehicleString.setCapacity("Seriously!"); //no problem
Vehicle<Integer> vehicleInteger = new PassengerVehicle<Integer>();
vehicleInteger.setCapacity(3); //boxing done automatically
Vehicle<Double> vehicleDouble = new PassengerVehicle<Double>();
vehicleDouble.setCapacity(2.2); //boxing done automatically
You can decide the type while coding and if you supply a Vehicle<String> with capacity as Integer then you will get compile time error, so you won't be allowed.
System.out.println(vehicleString.getCapacity());
//output: Seriously!
System.out.println(vehicleInteger.getCapacity());
//output: 3
System.out.println(vehicleDouble.getCapacity());
//output: 2.2
I don't understand the example. How do you realize that you are dealing with a concrete type in the first place? Are you instanceOf-ing? Are you type matching?
If so your problem is way past casting...
Anyways when you have objects that must belong to the same family and algorithms which are not abstract and change according to the object being handled you typically use some sort of behavioral pattern like visitor, or the Bridge pattern.
Code base is littered with code like this:
BaseRecord record = // some BaseRecord
switch(record.source()) {
case FOO:
return process((FooRecord)record);
case BAR:
return process((BarRecord)record);
case QUUX:
return process((QuuxRecord)record);
.
. // ~25 more cases
.
}
and then
private SomeClass process(BarRecord record) { }
private SomeClass process(FooRecord record) { }
private SomeClass process(QuuxRecord record) { }
It makes me terribly sad. Then, every time a new class is derived from BaseRecord, we have to chase all over our code base updating these case statements and adding new process methods. This kind of logic is repeated everywhere, I think too many to add a method for each and override in the classes. How can I improve this?
First solution: good old polymorphism.
Simply add an abstract process() method to the BaseRecord class, and override it in every subclass. The code will thus become:
BaseRecord record = ...;
record.process();
If you can't add the process() method into the BaseRecord class (and its subclasses), then implement the visitor pattern. It will leave the process method outside of the BaseRecord class, but each time you add a new subclass, you'll be forced to modify the Visitor interface, and all its implementations. The compiler will thus check for you that you haven't forgotten a case somwhere in a switch.
public interface RecordVisitor<T> {
T visitFoo(FooRecord foo);
T visitBar(BarRecord foo);
...
}
public abstract class BaseRecord {
public abstract <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor);
}
public class FooRecord extends BaseRecord {
#Override
public <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor) {
return visitor.visitFoo(this);
}
}
public class BarRecord extends BaseRecord {
#Override
public <T> T accept(RecordVisitor<T> visitor) {
return visitor.visitBar(this);
}
}
Now you simply have to implement RecordVisitor for each block of logic described in the question:
RecordVisitor<Void> visitor = new ProcessRecordVisitor();
record.accept(visitor);
Both Visitor Pattern and Strategy pattern can be put in use here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern
I think this is instructive:
package classplay;
public class ClassPlay
{
public void say(String msg) { System.out.println(msg); }
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ClassPlay cp = new ClassPlay();
cp.go();
}
public void go()
{
A someClass = new C();
say("calling process with double dispatch");
someClass.dueProcess(this);
say("now calling process directly");
process(someClass);
}
public void process(A a)
{
say("processing A");
a.id();
}
public void process(B b)
{
say("processing B");
b.id();
}
public void process(C c)
{
say("processing C");
c.id();
}
abstract class A
{
abstract public void id(); // { System.out.println("Class A"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
class B extends A
{
public void id() { System.out.println("Class B"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
class C extends A
{
public void id() { System.out.println("class C"); }
public void dueProcess(ClassPlay cp) { cp.process(this); }
}
}
I have to handle two classes with identical methods but they don't implement the same interface, nor do they extend the same superclass. I'm not able / not allowed to change this classes and I don't construct instances of this classes I only get objects of this.
What is the best way to avoid lots of code duplication?
One of the class:
package faa;
public class SomethingA {
private String valueOne = null;
private String valueTwo = null;
public String getValueOne() { return valueOne; }
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) { this.valueOne = valueOne; }
public String getValueTwo() { return valueTwo; }
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) { this.valueTwo = valueTwo; }
}
And the other...
package foo;
public class SomethingB {
private String valueOne;
private String valueTwo;
public String getValueOne() { return valueOne; }
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) { this.valueOne = valueOne; }
public String getValueTwo() { return valueTwo; }
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) { this.valueTwo = valueTwo; }
}
(In reality these classes are larger)
My only idea is now to create a wrapper class in this was:
public class SomethingWrapper {
private SomethingA someA;
private SomethingB someB;
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingA someA) {
//null check..
this.someA = someA;
}
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingB someB) {
//null check..
this.someB = someB;
}
public String getValueOne() {
if (this.someA != null) {
return this.someA.getValueOne();
} else {
return this.someB.getValueOne();
}
}
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) {
if (this.someA != null) {
this.someA.setValueOne(valueOne);
} else {
this.someB.setValueOne(valueOne);
}
}
public String getValueTwo() {
if (this.someA != null) {
return this.someA.getValueTwo();
} else {
return this.someB.getValueTwo();
}
}
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) {
if (this.someA != null) {
this.someA.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
} else {
this.someB.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
}
}
}
But I'm not realy satisfied with this solution. Is there any better / more elegant way to solve this problem?
A better solution would be to create an interface to represent the unified interface to both classes, then to write two classes implementing the interface, one that wraps an A, and another that wraps a B:
public interface SomethingWrapper {
public String getValueOne();
public void setValueOne(String valueOne);
public String getValueTwo();
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo);
};
public class SomethingAWrapper implements SomethingWrapper {
private SomethingA someA;
public SomethingWrapper(SomethingA someA) {
this.someA = someA;
}
public String getValueOne() {
return this.someA.getValueOne();
}
public void setValueOne(String valueOne) {
this.someA.setValueOne(valueOne);
}
public String getValueTwo() {
return this.someA.getValueTwo();
}
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo) {
this.someA.setValueTwo(valueTwo);
}
};
and then another class just like it for SomethingBWrapper.
There, a duck-typed solution. This will accept any object with valueOne, valueTwo properties and is trivially extensible to further props.
public class Wrapper
{
private final Object wrapped;
private final Map<String, Method> methods = new HashMap<String, Method>();
public Wrapper(Object w) {
wrapped = w;
try {
final Class<?> c = w.getClass();
for (String propName : new String[] { "ValueOne", "ValueTwo" }) {
final String getter = "get" + propName, setter = "set" + propName;
methods.put(getter, c.getMethod(getter));
methods.put(setter, c.getMethod(setter, String.class));
}
} catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public String getValueOne() {
try { return (String)methods.get("getValueOne").invoke(wrapped); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public void setValueOne(String v) {
try { methods.get("setValueOne").invoke(wrapped, v); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public String getValueTwo() {
try { return (String)methods.get("getValueTwo").invoke(wrapped); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
public void setValueTwo(String v) {
try { methods.get("setValueTwo").invoke(wrapped, v); }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
}
You can use a dynamic proxy to create a "bridge" between an interface you define and the classes that conform but do not implement your interface.
It all starts with an interface:
interface Something {
public String getValueOne();
public void setValueOne(String valueOne);
public String getValueTwo();
public void setValueTwo(String valueTwo);
}
Now you need an InvocationHandler, that will just forward calls to the method that matches the interface method called:
class ForwardInvocationHandler implements InvocationHandler {
private final Object wrapped;
public ForwardInvocationHandler(Object wrapped) {
this.wrapped = wrapped;
}
#Override
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
Method match = wrapped.getClass().getMethod(method.getName(), method.getParameterTypes());
return match.invoke(wrapped, args);
}
}
Then you can create your proxy (put it in a factory for easier usage):
SomethingA a = new SomethingA();
a.setValueOne("Um");
Something s = (Something)Proxy.newProxyInstance(
Something.class.getClassLoader(),
new Class[] { Something.class },
new ForwardInvocationHandler(a));
System.out.println(s.getValueOne()); // prints: Um
Another option is simpler but requires you to subclass each class and implement the created interface, simply like this:
class SomethingAImpl extends SomethingA implements Something {}
class SomethingBImpl extends SomethingB implements Something {}
(Note: you also need to create any non-default constructors)
Now use the subclasses instead of the superclasses, and refer to them through the interface:
Something o = new SomethingAImpl(); // o can also refer to a SomethingBImpl
o.setValueOne("Uno");
System.out.println(o.getValueOne()); // prints: Uno
i think your original wrapper class is the most viable option...however it can be done using reflection, your real problem is that the application is a mess...and reflection is might not be the method you are looking for
i've another proposal, which might be help: create a wrapper class which has specific functions for every type of classes...it mostly copypaste, but it forces you to use the typed thing as a parameter
class X{
public int asd() {return 0;}
}
class Y{
public int asd() {return 1;}
}
class H{
public int asd(X a){
return a.asd();
}
public int asd(Y a){
return a.asd();
}
}
usage:
System.out.println("asd"+h.asd(x));
System.out.println("asd"+h.asd(y));
i would like to note that an interface can be implemented by the ancestor too, if you are creating these classes - but just can't modify it's source, then you can still overload them from outside:
public interface II{
public int asd();
}
class XI extends X implements II{
}
class YI extends Y implements II{
}
usage:
II a=new XI();
System.out.println("asd"+a.asd());
You probably can exploit a facade along with the reflection - In my opinion it streamlines the way you access the legacy and is scalable too !
class facade{
public static getSomething(Object AorB){
Class c = AorB.getClass();
Method m = c.getMethod("getValueOne");
m.invoke(AorB);
}
...
}
I wrote a class to encapsulate the logging framework API's. Unfortunately, it's too long to put in this box.
The program is part of the project at http://www.github.com/bradleyross/tutorials with the documentation at http://bradleyross.github.io/tutorials. The code for the class bradleyross.library.helpers.ExceptionHelper in the module tutorials-common is at https://github.com/BradleyRoss/tutorials/blob/master/tutorials-common/src/main/java/bradleyross/library/helpers/ExceptionHelper.java.
The idea is that I can have the additional code that I want to make the exception statements more useful and I won't have to repeat them for each logging framework. The wrapper isn't where you eliminate code duplication. The elimination of code duplication is in not having to write multiple versions of the code that calls the wrapper and the underlying classes. See https://bradleyaross.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/java-logging-frameworks/
The class bradleyross.helpers.GenericPrinter is another wrapper that enables you to write code that works with both the PrintStream, PrintWriter, and StringWriter classes and interfaces.
I'm testing out a different sort of pattern. I've already got the code working in a switch statement, but I'd like to try something a little more ecclectic... for research purposes.
Say I have 4 classes, Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 that all extend BaseClass. I want to put them into an enum, like so:
enum ClassFactories {
Class1(Class1.class),
Class2(Class2.class),
Class3(Class3.class),
Class4(Class4.class);
private final Class factory;
ClassFactories(Class factory) {
this.factory = factory;
}
public BaseClass generate() {
BaseClass b = null;
try {
b = (BaseClass)this.factory.newInstance();
} catch (Exception e) {
// handle any exceptions
}
return f;
}
}
In a factory method that is passed an int, I want to be able to do something like this:
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
BaseClass someClass = ClassFactories.values()[type].generate();
someClass.doStuff();
}
Is there a cleaner/easier way of doing this? I'm not so much concerned with readability (right now), I'm just curious if this is possible.
Yes, this is possible. Something like a 'Template Method' approach. So for example
public enum ClassFactory {
Class1() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 1.");
}
},
Class2() {
#Override public void generate() {
System.out.println("I'm in Class 2.");
}
};
//template method
public abstract void generate();
private static final Map<Integer, ClassFactory > lookup
= new HashMap<Integer, ClassFactory >();
static {
for (ClassFactory s : EnumSet.allOf(ClassFactory.class))
lookup.put(s.getIntValue(), s);
}
public static ClassFactory getValue(int intValue) {
return lookup.get(intValue);
}
}
INVOCATION CODE
With the use of static imports, the client code calling this enumeration would look like:
Class1.generate();
Class2.generate();
//or better...
getClass().generate();
Or
public void fakeMethod(int type) {
ClassFactory.getValue(type).generate();
}