Please be patient with the newbie question as I'm trying to learn MyBatis and java at the same time. I have an application in which I need to use threadsafe variables. Based on some research and my ideas of how the application will be used, I've settled on a CopyOnWriteArrayList over a Vector.
When I call a selectList from the mybatis sql session, is there any way to tell it to create an CopyOnWriteArrayList as its return rather than an ArrayList? Admittedly, my code to configure this is two lines instead of one, but something in me says that there's got to be a better way and/or I'm not the first one to have encountered this.
List<Team> teams = session.selectList("getTeamsByGameID", gameID);
List<Team> arrayListReturn = new CopyOnWriteArrayList<Team>(teams);
return arrayListReturn;
Thanks in advance,
I know of two ways to handle this.
Option 1: Use a Mapper class and specify the type of List to return there.
Define a Mapper interface:
public interface TeamMapper {
CopyOnWriteArrayList<Team> getTeamsByGameID();
}
Your mapper xml file stays the same. The code to do the query changes to:
TeamMapper m = session.getMapper(TeamMapper.class);
List<Team> lt = m.getTeamsByGameID();
System.out.println(lt.getClass());
//=> prints out "class java.util.concurrent.CopyOnWriteArrayList"
Option 2: Create a ResultHandler and pass that into the session.select() method.
Here you use the ResultHandler interface. That interface requires you to override one method, handleResult, which is given each result that comes back from the database as the query is in progress.
In your case, your ResultHandler would look something like this:
public class TeamResultHandler implements ResultHandler {
private List<Team> teams = new CopyOnWriteArrayList<Team>();
#Override
public void handleResult(ResultContext rc) {
countries.add((Team) rc.getResultObject());
}
// provide a getter so you can retrieve it when finished
public List<Team> getTeamList() {
return teams;
}
}
Instead of using selectList as you do above, you would now use the session.select(String, ResultHandler), like so:
TeamResultHandler rh = new TeamResultHandler();
session.select("getTeamsByGameID", rh);
List<Team> lt = rh.getTeamList();
return lt;
This solution is more verbose than your solution (requires an extra class and three lines in your query code, rather than 2), but it only creates one List, rather than two, so you'll have to decide which fits your needs best.
In addition, ResultHandlers can be useful for additional things - making sure results are sorted in a certain way or filtered or something else, in case you need that.
Related
In my application, I have to instantiate many different types of objects. Each type contains some fields and needs to be added to a containing type. How can I do this in an elegant way?
My current initialization step looks something like this:
public void testRequest() {
//All these below used classes are generated classes from xsd schema file.
CheckRequest checkRequest = new CheckRequest();
Offers offers = new Offers();
Offer offer = new Offer();
HotelOnly hotelOnly = new HotelOnly();
Hotel hotel = new Hotel();
Hotels hotels = new Hotels();
Touroperator touroperator = new Touroperator();
Provider provider = new Provider();
Rooms rooms = new Rooms();
Room room = new Room();
PersonAssignments personAssignments = new PersonAssignments();
PersonAssignment personAssignment = new PersonAssignment();
Persons persons = new Persons();
Person person = new Person();
Amounts amounts = new Amounts();
offers.getOffer().add(offer);
offer.setHotelOnly(hotelOnly);
room.setRoomCode("roomcode");
rooms.getRoom().add(room);
hotels.getHotel().add(hotel);
hotel.setRooms(rooms);
hotelOnly.setHotels(hotels);
checkRequest.setOffers(offers);
// ...and so on and so on
}
I really want to avoid writing code like this, because it's a little messy having to instantiate each object separately and then initialize each field across multiple lines of code (e.g. having to call new Offer() and then setHotelOnly(hotelOnly) and then add(offer)).
What elegant methods can I use instead of what I have? Are there any "Factories" that can be used? Do you have any references/examples to avoid writing code like this?
I'm really interested in implementing clean code.
Context:
I'm developing a RestClient Application for sending post requests to a Webservice.
The API is represented as a xsd schema file and I created all the Objects with JAXB
Before sending a request I have to instantiate many Objects because they have dependencies with each other.
(An Offer has Hotels, a Hotel has Rooms, a Room has Persons... And these Classes are the generated ones)
Thanks for your help.
You can either use a constructor or a builder pattern or a variation of the builder pattern to fix the problem of having too many fields in your initialization step.
I'm going to extend your example a bit to prove my point of why these options are useful.
Understanding your example:
Lets say an Offer is simply a container class for 4 fields:
public class Offer {
private int price;
private Date dateOfOffer;
private double duration;
private HotelOnly hotelOnly;
// etc. for as many or as few fields as you need
public int getPrice() {
return price;
}
public Date getDateOfOffer() {
return dateOfOffer;
}
// etc.
}
As it stands in your example, to set values to these fields, you use setters:
public void setHotelOnly(HotelOnly hotelOnly) {
this.hotelOnly = hotelOnly;
}
Unfortunately, this means if you need an offer with values in all of the fields, you have to do what you have:
Offers offers = new Offers();
Offer offer = new Offer();
offer.setPrice(price);
offer.setDateOfOffer(date);
offer.setDuration(duration);
offer.setHotelOnly(hotelOnly);
offers.add(offer);
Now let's look at improving this.
Option 1: Constructors!
A constructor other than the default constructor (the default constructor is currently Offer() ) is useful for initializing the values of the fields in your class.
A version of Offer using constructors would look like this:
public class Offer {
private int price;
private Date dateOfOffer;
//etc.
// CONSTRUCTOR
public Offer(int price, Date dateOfOffer, double duration, HotelOnly hotelOnly) {
this.price = price;
this.dateOfOffer = dateOfOffer;
//etc.
}
// Your getters and/or setters
}
Now, we can initialize it in one line!
Offers offers = new Offers();
Offer offer = new Offer(price, date, duration, hotelOnly);
offers.add(offer);
Even better, if you never use offer other than that single line: offers.add(offer); you don't even need to save it in a variable!
Offers offers = new Offers();
offers.add( new Offer(price, date, duration, hotelOnly) ); // Works the same as above
Option 2: Builder Pattern
A builder pattern is useful if you want the option of having default values for any of your fields.
The problem a builder pattern solves is the following messy code:
public class Offer {
private int price;
private Date dateOfOffer;
// etc.
// The original constructor. Sets all the fields to the specified values
public Offer(int price, Date dateOfOffer, double duration, HotelOnly hotelOnly) {
this.price = price;
this.dateOfOffer = dateOfOffer;
// etc.
}
// A constructor that uses default values for all of the fields
public Offer() {
// Calls the top constructor with default values
this(100, new Date("10-13-2015"), 14.5, new HotelOnly());
}
// A constructor that uses default values for all of the fields except price
public Offer(int price) {
// Calls the top constructor with default values, except price
this(price, new Date("10-13-2015"), 14.5, new HotelOnly());
}
// A constructor that uses default values for all of the fields except Date and HotelOnly
public Offer(Date date, HotelOnly hotelOnly) {
this(100, date, 14.5, hotelOnly);
}
// A bunch more constructors of different combinations of default and specified values
}
See how messy that can get?
The builder pattern is another class that you put inside your class.
public class Offer {
private int price;
// etc.
public Offer(int price, ...) {
// Same from above
}
public static class OfferBuilder {
private int buildPrice = 100;
private Date buildDate = new Date("10-13-2015");
// etc. Initialize all these new "build" fields with default values
public OfferBuilder setPrice(int price) {
// Overrides the default value
this.buildPrice = price;
// Why this is here will become evident later
return this;
}
public OfferBuilder setDateOfOffer(Date date) {
this.buildDate = date;
return this;
}
// etc. for each field
public Offer build() {
// Builds an offer with whatever values are stored
return new Offer(price, date, duration, hotelOnly);
}
}
}
Now, you can not have to have so many constructors, but still are able to choose which values you want to leave default, and which you want to initialize.
Offers offers = new Offers();
offers.add(new OfferBuilder().setPrice(20).setHotelOnly(hotelOnly).build());
offers.add(new OfferBuilder().setDuration(14.5).setDate(new Date("10-14-2015")).setPrice(200).build());
offers.add(new OfferBuilder().build());
That last offer is simply one with all default values. The others are default values except the ones that I set.
See how that makes things easier?
Option 3: Variation of Builder Pattern
You can also use the builder pattern by simply making your current setters return the same Offer object. It's exactly the same, except without the extra OfferBuilder class.
Warning: As user WW states below, this option breaks JavaBeans - a standard programming convention for container classes such as Offer. So, you shouldn't use this for professional purposes, and should limit your use in your own practices.
public class Offer {
private int price = 100;
private Date date = new Date("10-13-2015");
// etc. Initialize with default values
// Don't make any constructors
// Have a getter for each field
public int getPrice() {
return price;
}
// Make your setters return the same object
public Offer setPrice(int price) {
// The same structure as in the builder class
this.price = price;
return this;
}
// etc. for each field
// No need for OfferBuilder class or build() method
}
And your new initialization code is
Offers offers = new Offers();
offers.add(new Offer().setPrice(20).setHotelOnly(hotelOnly));
offers.add(new Offer().setDuration(14.5).setDate(new Date("10-14-2015")).setPrice(200));
offers.add(new Offer());
That last offer is simply one with all default values. The others are default values except the ones that I set.
So, while it's a lot of work, if you want to clean up your initialization step, you need to use one of these options for each of your classes that have fields in them. Then use the initialization methods that I included with each method.
Good luck! Does any of this need further explanation?
I've always preferred using builder-pattern-with-a-twist because it provides much more than the basic approach of the builder pattern.
But what happens when you want to tell the user that she must call one builder method or the other, since it is crucial for the class you’re trying to build.
Think about a builder for a URL component. How would one think about the builder methods for encapsulating access to URL attributes, are they equally important, do they interact with each other, etc? While the query parameters or fragment are optional the hostname is not; you could say that protocol is also required but for that you can have a meaningful default, like http right?
Anyway, I don't know if this makes sense to your particular problem but I thought it would be worth mentioning for others to have a look at it.
Some nice answeres are already given here!
What came to my mind as an addition is Domain Driven Design. Specific the Building blocks part, with Entity, Value Object, Aggregate, Factory etc.
A nice introduction is given in Domain Driven Design - Quickly (pdf).
I just provide this answer because it was mentioned in a comment and I think it should also be a part of this enumeration of Design Patterns.
Null Object Design Pattern
Intent
The intent of a Null Object is to encapsulate the absence of an object by providing a substitutable alternative that offers suitable default do nothing behavior. In short, a design where "nothing will come of nothing"
Use the Null Object pattern when
an object requires a collaborator. The Null Object pattern does not introduce this collaboration--it makes use of a collaboration that already exists
some collaborator instances should do nothing
you want to abstract the handling of null away from the client
Here you find the full part of "Null Object" Design Pattern
Ideally, an object should not be concerned about instantiating its dependencies. It should only worry about things that it is supposed to do with them.
Have you considered any dependency injection framework? Spring or Google's Juice are quite versatile and have a small footprint.
The idea is simple, you declare the dependencies and let the framework decide when/how/where to create them and 'inject' it into your classes.
If you don't want to use any framework, you can take design notes from them and try to emulate their design patterns and tweak it for your use-case.
Also, you can simplify things to a certain extent by making proper use of Collections. For example, what additional feature does Offers have other than storing a collection of Offer? I'm not sure what your constraints there are but, if you can make that part a bit more cleaner you would have massive gains in all places where you are instantiating the objects.
Dozer framework provides nice way to do copy values from ws object to your dto. Here is another example. Additionally if the getter/setter names are the same of both class you dont need custom converter
Using JDBC, I have managed to run a query on a database and receive a result set (rs). Using this information, I hope to generate a nested array list.
// Created Array List
public static ArrayList<ArrayList<SessionRecord>> tempSessionOrg = new ArrayList<ArrayList<SessionRecord>>();
The inner list needs to be grouped by the information returned from the first column. And this is all I've got thus far:
while(rs.next()) {
SessionRecord temp = new SessionRecord(rs.getString("SessionID"),rs.getString("NetworkAddress"),rs.getString("EventType"),rs.getString("Time"),rs.getString("Name"),rs.getString("SessionType"),rs.getString("ProcessType"));
}
I've already written a very similar program, with the exception that it places the result set into a single ArrayList without nesting. Unfortunatley, this analagous piece of code hasn't really helped me come up with a solution.
while(rs.next()) {
dbSession.add(new SessionRecord(rs.getString("name"),rs.getString("ParticipantName"),rs.getString("GuestLoggedOnUsername"),rs.getString("GuestMachineName"),rs.getString("inicio"),rs.getString("diferencia")));
}
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
At this point, I have the following two blocks one code.
One:
public static ArrayList<SessionRecord> singleSessionRecords = new ArrayList<SessionRecord>();
public static ArrayList<ArrayList<SessionRecord>> tempSessionOrg = new ArrayList<ArrayList<SessionRecord>>();
Two:
while(rs.next()) {
singleSessionRecords.add(new SessionRecord(rs.getString("SessionID"),rs.getString("NetworkAddress"),rs.getString("EventType"),rs.getString("Time"),rs.getString("Name"),rs.getString("SessionType"),rs.getString("ProcessType")));
}
Map<String, List<SessionRecord>> byID = singleSessionRecords.stream().collect(Collectors.groupingBy(SessionRecord::SessionID));
tempSessionOrg.add((ArrayList<SessionRecord>) Map.values());
I'm receiving a type mismatch error for the Map line and that I can't make a static reference to a non-static method in the final line. The later of the two is easy enough of a fix for me, but I'm not sure how to implement the Map properly.
Are you using Java 8?
If so this could easily be achieved by this code :
Map<String, List<SessionRecord>> byName
= temp.stream()
.collect(Collectors.groupingBy(SessionRecord::name));
In this example I'm grouping the sessionRecords by name, you can easily change this to fit your grouping needs.
So I have three important factors, filenames which there are many, there will also be duplicates, violation types which there are 6 of, and the data relating to them.
I was thinking of using a Map for this but it only accepts two types, so I want to sort the data by the filename and for every entry under that filename, i want to retrieve the violation type, from what i want it to retrieve all the matches from the data, so say it's a map I could of said map.get(filename, violation) and it will retrieve all the results that match that.
Is there a data structure that can allow me to do this? or am I being lazy and should just sort the data myself when it comes to outputting it.
One other way to approach this would be to use a custom Class for holding the needed data. Essentially 'building' your own node that you can iterate over.
For example! you could create the following class object: (Node.java)
import java.util.*;
public class Node
{
private String violationType;
private String dataInside;
public Node()
{
this("", "");
}
public Node(String violationType)
{
this(violationType, "");
}
public Node(String violationType, String dataInside)
{
this.violationType = violationType;
this.dataInside = dataInside;
}
public void setViolationType(String violationType)
{
this.violationType = violationType;
}
public void setDataInside(String dataInside)
{
this.dataInside = dataInside;
}
public String getViolationType()
{
return violationType;
}
public String getDataInside()
{
return dataInside;
}
}
ok, great, so we have this 'node' thing with some setters, some getters, and some constructors for ease of use. Cool. Now lets see how to use it:
import java.util.*;
public class main{
public static void main(String[] args){
Map<String, Node> customMap = new HashMap<String, Node>();
customMap.put("MyFilename", new Node("Violation 1", "Some Data"));
System.out.println("This is a test of the custom Node: " + customMap.get("MyFilename").getViolationType());
}
}
Now we have a map that relates all of the data you need it to. Now, you'll get a lot of people saying 'Don't reinvent the wheel" when it comes to things like this, because built in libraries are far more optimized. That is true! If you can find a data structure that is built into java that suits your needs, USE IT. That's always a good policy to follow. That being said, if you have a pretty custom situation, sometimes it calls for a custom approach. Don't be afraid to make your own objects like this, it's easy to do in Java, and it could save you a lot of time and headache!
EDIT
So, after re-reading the OP's question, I realize you want an entire list of associated data for the given violation of a given filename. In which case, you would switch the private String dataInside to something like private ArrayList<String> dataInside; which would allow you to associate as much data as you wanted, still inside that node, just inside of an arraylist. Also note, you'd have to switch up the getters/setters a little to accomodate a list, but that's not too bad.
You could use a custom class for a mapkey which contains the two fields filename and violation type. When doing so you need to implement equals() and hashCode() methods do ensure instances of that class can be used as key for map.
You can use TreeMap. TreeMap is sorted according to the natural ordering of its keys.
TreeMap<String, List<String>> map = new TreeMap<String, List<String>>();
I've a class -
public class Data implements Identifiable{
private Integer id;
public Integer getId(){
return id;
}
}
now I've two collections-
List<Data> data1 = // few hundred Objects
Set<Integer> dataIds = // few object ids
I would like to extract the List<Data> from data1 which has ids in dataIds
How should be my approach? I'va guava in my classpath so can go with guava's Functional approach if comparable in performance/efficiency .
Unless all you want to do is iterate through the result once or you need a reusable live filtered view, you probably want a non-view list containing the matches. Creating a List or Set to store the result and then iterating through the data list and adding matches is a perfectly good approach and easy to understand!
List<Data> result = Lists.newArrayList();
for (Data data : data1) {
if (dataIds.contains(data.getId()))
result.add(data);
}
I see your Data class implements an Identifiable interface. Given that, you could create a Function<Identifiable, Integer> that gets the ID... Identifiables.getIdFunction() or something. This is nice because it'd likely be useful in various other places (I talk about that approach in a blog post here). With that in place, doing this with Guava would be fairly simple as well:
Predicate<Identifiable> predicate = Predicates.compose(
Predicates.in(dataIds), Identifiables.getIdFunction());
List<Data> filtered = Lists.newArrayList(Iterables.filter(data1, predicate));
This is basically functionally equivalent to the first example, but seems like it'd be harder to understand. Since there isn't any clear benefit to doing this (unlike in a situation where you want to just use the live view), my recommendation would be to just go with the first.
How about
Collections2.filter(
data1,
new Predicate<Data>() {
public boolean apply(Data d) {
return dataIds.contains(d.getId());
}
}
)
p.s. remember not to overcomplicate things, unless truly necessary.
With LambdaJ you could write:
List<Data> result = extract(data1, on(Data.class).getId());
I have a data model that looks something like this:
public class Item {
private List<ItemAttribute> attributes;
// other stuff
}
public class ItemAttribute {
private String name;
private String value;
}
(this obviously simplifies away a lot of the extraneous stuff)
What I want to do is create a query to ask for all Items with one OR MORE particular attributes, ideally joined with arbitrary ANDs and ORs. Right now I'm keeping it simple and just trying to implement the AND case. In pseudo-SQL (or pseudo-HQL if you would), it would be something like:
select all items
where attributes contains(ItemAttribute(name="foo1", value="bar1"))
AND attributes contains(ItemAttribute(name="foo2", value="bar2"))
The examples in the Hibernate docs didn't seem to address this particular use case, but it seems like a fairly common one. The disjunction case would also be useful, especially so I could specify a list of possible values, i.e.
where attributes contains(ItemAttribute(name="foo", value="bar1"))
OR attributes contains(ItemAttribute(name="foo", value="bar2"))
-- etc.
Here's an example that works OK for a single attribute:
return getSession().createCriteria(Item.class)
.createAlias("itemAttributes", "ia")
.add(Restrictions.conjunction()
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.name", "foo"))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.attributeValue", "bar")))
.list();
Learning how to do this would go a long ways towards expanding my understanding of Hibernate's potential. :)
Could you use aliasing to do this?
Criteria itemCriteria = session.createCriteria(Item.class);
itemCriteria.createAlias("itemAttributes", "ia1")
.createAlias("itemAttributes", "ia2")
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia1.name", "foo1"))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia1.attributeValue", "bar1")))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia2.name", "foo2"))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia2.attributeValue", "bar2")))
Not sure how hibernate handles joining on the same property twice explicitly like that, maybe worth trying?
SELECT item FROM Item item JOIN item.attributes attr
WHERE attr IN (:attrList) GROUP BY item
and then in the Java code:
List<ItemAttribute> attrList = new ArrayList<ItemAttribute>();
attrList.add(..); // add as many attributes as needed
...// create a Query with the above string
query.setParameter("attrList", attrList);
Why wouldn't the following work?
return getSession().createCriteria(Item.class)
.createAlias("itemAttributes", "ia")
.add(Restrictions.or()
.add(Restrictions.conjunction()
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.name", "foo1"))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.attributeValue", "bar1")))
.add(Restrictions.conjunction()
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.name", "foo2"))
.add(Restrictions.eq("ia.attributeValue", "bar2"))))
.list();
That would be (name=foo1 && attributeValue=bar1) OR (name=foo2 && attributeValue=bar2)
I didn't test it, but this is how I should try to solve your problem if I would have to:
Map<String,String> map1 = new TreeMap<String,String>();
map1.put("ia.name","foo1");
map1.put("ia.value","bar1");
Map<String,String> map2 = new TreeMap<String,String>();
map2.put("ia.name","foo2");
map2.put("ia.value","bar2");
return getSession().createCriteria(Item.class)
.createAlias("itemAttributes", "ia")
.add(Restrictions.and()
.add(Restrictions.allEq(map1))
.add(Restrictions.allEq(map2))
)
.list();
Please, let me know if it worked. I think the same should work with or()...
Use LEFT_OUTER_JOIN to prevent "WHERE x = 1 AND x = 2" kind of issue
CreateAlias("itemAttributes", "ia", JoinType.LEFT_OUTER_JOIN)