We are working in a project with multiple developers and currently the retrieval of values from a configuration file is somewhat "wild west":
Everybody uses some string to retrieve a value from the Config object
Those keys are spread across multiple classes and packages
Sometimes the are not even declared as constants
Naming of the keys is inconsistent and the config file (.properties) looks messy
I would like to sort that out and force everyone to explicitly define their configuration keys. Ideally in one place to streamline how config keys actually look.
I was thingking of using an Enum as a key and turning my retrieval method into:
getConfigValue(String key)
into something like
getConfigValue(ConfigKey)
NOTE: I am using this approach since the Preferences API seems a bit overkill to me plus I would actually like to have the configuration in a simple file.
What are the cons of this approach?
First off, FWIW, I think it's a good idea. But you did specifically ask what the "cons" are, so:
The biggest "con" is that it ties any class that needs to use configuration data to the ConfigKey class. Adding a config key used to mean adding a string to the code you were working on; now it means adding to the enum and to the code you were working on. This is (marginally) more work.
You're probably not markedly increasing inter-dependence otherwise, since I assume the class that getConfigValue is part of is the one on which you'd define the enum.
The other downside to consolidation is if you have multiple projects on different parts of the same code base. When you develop, you have to deal with delivery dependencies, which can be a PITA.
Say Project A and Project B are scheduled to get released in that order. Suddenly political forces change in the 9th hour and you have to deliver B before A. Do you repackage the config to deal with it? Can your QA cycles deal with repackaging or does it force a reset in their timeline.
Typical release issues, but just one more thing you have to manage.
From your question, it is clear that you intend to write a wrapper class for the raw Java Properties API, with the intention that your wrapper class provides a better API. I think that is a good approach, but I'd like to suggest some things that I think will improve your wrapper API.
My first suggested improvement is that an operation that retrieves a configuration value should take two parameters rather than one, and be implemented as shown in the following pseudocode:
class Configuration {
public String getString(String namespace, String localName) {
return properties.getProperty(namespace + "." + localName);
}
}
You can then encourage each developer to define a string constant value to denote the namespace for whatever class/module/component they are developing. As long as each developer (somehow) chooses a different string constant for their namespace, you will avoid accidental name clashes and promote a somewhat organised collection of property names.
My second suggested improvement is that your wrapper class should provide type-safe access to property values. For example, provide getString(), but also provide methods with names such as getInt(), getBoolean(), getDouble() and getStringList(). The int/boolean/double variants should retrieve the property value as a string, attempt to parse it into the appropriate type, and throw a descriptive error message if that fails. The getStringList() method should retrieve the property value as a string and then split it into a list of strings based on using, say, a comma as a separator. Doing this will provide a consistent way for developers to get a list value.
My third suggested improvement is that your wrapper class should provide some additional methods such as:
int getDurationMilliseconds(String namespace, String localName);
int getDurationSeconds(String namespace, String localName);
int getMemorySizeBytes(String namespace, String localName);
int getMemorySizeKB(String namespace, String localName);
int getMemorySizeMB(String namespace, String localName);
Here are some examples of their intended use:
cacheSize = cfg.getMemorySizeBytes(MY_NAMSPACE, "cache_size");
timeout = cfg.getDurationMilliseconds(MY_NAMSPACE, "cache_timeout");
The getMemorySizeBytes() method should convert string values such as "2048 bytes" or "32MB" into the appropriate number of bytes, and getMemorySizeKB() does something similar but returns the specified size in terms of KB rather than bytes. Likewise, the getDuration<units>() methods should be able to handle string values like "500 milliseconds", "2.5 minutes", "3 hours" and "infinite" (which is converted into, say, -1).
Some people may think that the above suggestions have nothing to do with the question that was asked. Actually, they do, but in a sneaky sort of way. The above suggestions will result in a configuration API that developers will find to be much easier to use than the "raw" Java Properties API. They will use it to obtain that ease-of-use benefit. But using the API will have the side effect of forcing the developers to adopt a namespace convention, which will help to solve the problem that you are interested in addressing.
Or to look at it another way, the main con of the approach described in the question is that it offers a win-lose situation: you win (by imposing a property-naming convention on developers), but developers lose because they swap the familiar Java Properties API for another API that doesn't offer them any benefits. In contrast, the improvements I have suggested are intended to provide a win-win situation.
Related
I cannot understand why the Java compiler does not shorten names of variables, parameters, method names, by replacing them with some unique IDs.
For instance, given the class
public class VeryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongClass {
private int veryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongInt = 3;
public void veryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongMethod(int veryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongParamName) {
this.veryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongInt = veryVeryVeryVeryVeryLongParamName;
}
}
the compiled file contains all these very long names:
Wouldn't simple unique IDs speed the parsing, and also provide a first obfuscation?
You assume that obfuscation is always desired, but it isn't:
Reflection would break, and with it JavaBeans and many frameworks reliant on it
Stack traces would become completely unreadable
If you tried to code against a compiled JAR, you'd end up with code like String name = p.a1() instead of String name = p.getName()
Obfuscation is normally the very last step taken, when you're delivering the finished app, and even then it's not used particularly often except when the target platform has severe memory constraints.
When you use a class, you refer to its methods by their name. Therefore, the compiler needs to preserve those names.
In any event, I don't see why the compiler should aim to obfuscate anything. Rather, it should aim to do exactly the opposite: be as transparent as possible.
The JVM does use numeric IDs internally.
Class files cannot be obfuscated like that because Java is dynamically linked: names of members must be publicly readable or other classes cannot use your code.
Wouldn't simple unique IDs speed the parsing?
No. It would add a mapping that would probably slow it down.
and also provide a first obfuscation
Yes, but who wants the compiler to do obfuscation buy default? Not me.
Your suggestion has no merit.
I overheard two of my colleagues arguing about whether or not to create a new data model class which only contains one string field and a setter and a getter for it. A program will then create a few objects of the class and put them in an array list. The guy who is storing them argue that there should be a new type while the guy who is getting the data said there is not point going through all this trouble while you can simple store string.
Personally I prefer creating a new type so we know what's being stored in the array list, but I don't have strong arguments to persuade the 'getting' data guy. Do you?
Sarah
... a new data model class which only contains one string field and a setter and a getter for it.
If it was just a getter, then it is not possible to say in general whether a String or a custom class is better. It depends on things like:
consistency with the rest of your data model,
anticipating whether you might want to change the representation,
anticipating whether you might want to implement validation when creating an instance, add helper methods, etc,
implications for memory usage or persistence (if they are even relevant).
(Personally, I would be inclined to use a plain String by default, and only use a custom class if for example, I knew that it was likely that a future representation change / refinement would be needed. In most situations, it is not a huge problem to change a String into custom class later ... if the need arises.)
However, the fact that there is proposed to be a setter for the field changes things significantly. Instances of the class will be mutable, where instances of String are not. On the one hand this could possibly be useful; e.g. where you actually need mutability. On the other hand, mutability would make the class somewhat risky for use in certain contexts; e.g. in sets and as keys in maps. And in other contexts you may need to copy the instances. (This would be unnecessary for an immutable wrapper class or a bare String.)
(The simple answer is to get rid of the setter, unless you really need it.)
There is also the issue that the semantics of equals will be different for a String and a custom wrapper. You may therefore need to override equals and hashCode to get a more intuitive semantic in the custom wrapper case. (And that relates back to the issue of a setter, and use of the class in collections.)
Wrap it in a class, if it matches the rest of your data model's design.
It gives you a label for the string so that you can tell what it represents at run time.
It makes it easier to take your entity and add additional fields, and behavior. (Which can be a likely occurrence>)
That said, the key is if it matches the rest of your data model's design... be consistent with what you already have.
Counterpoint to mschaef's answer:
Keep it as a string, if it matches the rest of your data model's design. (See how the opening sounds so important, even if I temper it with a sentence that basically says we don't know the answer?)
If you need a label saying what it is, add a comment. Cost = one line, total. Heck, for that matter, you need a line (or three) to comment your new class, anyway, so what's the class declaration for?
If you need to add additional fields later, you can refactor it then. You can't design for everything, and if you tried, you'd end up with a horrible mess.
As Yegge says, "the worst thing that can happen to a code base is size". Add a class declaration, a getter, a setter, now call those from everywhere that touches it, and you've added size to your code without an actual (i.e., non-hypothetical) purpose.
I disagree with the other answers:
It depends whether there's any real possibility of adding behavior to the type later [Matthew Flaschen]
No, it doesn’t. …
Never hurts to future-proof the design [Alex]
True, but not relevant here …
Personally, I would be inclined to use a plain String by default [Stephen C]
But this isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of design decisions:
Is the entity you store logically a string, a piece of text? If yes, then store a string (ignoring the setter issue).
If not – then do not store a string. That data may be stored as a string is an implementation detail, it should not be reflected in your code.
For the second point it’s irrelevant whether you might want to add behaviour later on. All that matters is that in a strongly typed language, the data type should describe the logical entity. If you handle things that are not text (but may be represented by text, may contain text …) then use a class that internally stores said text. Do not store the text directly.
This is the whole point of abstraction and strong typing: let the types represent the semantics of your code.
And finally:
As Yegge says, "the worst thing that can happen to a code base is size". [Ken]
Well, this is so ironic. Have you read any of Steve Yegge’s blog posts? I haven’t, they’re just too damn long.
It depends whether there's any real possibility of adding behavior to the type later. Even if the getters and setters are trivial now, a type makes sense if there is a real chance they could do something later. Otherwise, clear variable names should be sufficient.
In the time spent discussing whether to wrap it in a class, it could be wrapped and done with. Never hurts to future-proof the design, especially when it only takes minimal effort.
I see no reason why the String should be wrapped in a class. The basic perception behind the discussion is, the need of time is a String object. If it gets augmented later, get it refactored then. Why add unnecessary code in the name of future proofing.
Wrapping it in a class provides you with more type safety - in your model you can then only use instances of the wrapper class, and you can't easily make a mistake where you put a string that contains something different into the model.
However, it does add overhead, extra complexity and verbosity to your code.
I'm looking at some Java code that are maintained by other parts of the company, incidentally some former C and C++ devs. One thing that is ubiquitous is the use of static integer constants, such as
class Engine {
private static int ENGINE_IDLE = 0;
private static int ENGINE_COLLECTING = 1;
...
}
Besides a lacking 'final' qualifier, I'm a bit bothered by this kind of code. What I would have liked to see, being trained primarily in Java from school, would be something more like
class Engine {
private enum State { Idle, Collecting };
...
}
However, the arguments fail me. Why, if at all, is the latter better than the former?
Why, if at all, is the latter better
than the former?
It is much better because it gives you type safety and is self-documenting. With integer constants, you have to look at the API doc to find out what values are valid, and nothing prevents you from using invalid values (or, perhaps worse, integer constants that are completely unrelated). With Enums, the method signature tells you directly what values are valid (IDE autocompletion will work) and it's impossible to use an invalid value.
The "integer constant enums" pattern is unfortunately very common, even in the Java Standard API (and widely copied from there) because Java did not have Enums prior to Java 5.
An excerpt from the official docs, http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/enums.html:
This pattern has many problems, such as:
Not typesafe - Since a season is just an int you can pass in any other int value where a season is required, or add two seasons together (which makes no sense).
No namespace - You must prefix constants of an int enum with a string (in this case SEASON_) to avoid collisions with other int enum types.
Brittleness - Because int enums are compile-time constants, they are compiled into clients that use them. If a new constant is added between two existing constants or the order is changed, clients must be recompiled. If they are not, they will still run, but their behavior will be undefined.
Printed values are uninformative - Because they are just ints, if you print one out all you get is a number, which tells you nothing about what it represents, or even what type it is.
And this just about covers it. A one word argument would be that enums are just more readable and informative.
One more thing is that enums, like classes. can have fields and methods. This gives you the option to encompass some additional information about each type of state in the enum itself.
Because enums provide type safety. In the first case, you can pass any integer and if you use enum you are restricted to Idle and Collecting.
FYI : http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=1.
By using an int to refer to a constant, you're not forcing someone to actually use that constant. So, for example, you might have a method which takes an engine state, to which someone might happy invoke with:
engine.updateState(1);
Using an enum forces the user to stick with the explanatory label, so it is more legible.
There is one situation when static constance is preferred (rather that the code is legacy with tonne of dependency) and that is when the member of that value are not/may later not be finite.
Imagine if you may later add new state like Collected. The only way to do it with enum is to edit the original code which can be problem if the modification is done when there are already a lot of code manipulating it. Other than this, I personally see no reason why enum is not used.
Just my thought.
Readabiliy - When you use enums and do State.Idle, the reader immediately knows that you are talking about an idle state. Compare this with 4 or 5.
Type Safety - When use enum, even by mistake the user cannot pass a wrong value, as compiler will force him to use one of the pre-declared values in the enum. In case of simple integers, he could even pass -3274.
Maintainability - If you wanted to add a new state Waiting, then it would be very easy to add new state by adding a constant Waiting in your enum State without casuing any confusion.
The reasons from the spec, which Lajcik quotes, are explained in more detail in Josh Bloch's Effective Java, Item 30. If you have access to that book, I'd recommend perusing it. Java Enums are full-fledged classes which is why you get compile-time type safety. You can also give them behavior, giving you better encapsulation.
The former is common in code that started pre-1.5. Actually, another common idiom was to define your constants in an interface, because they didn't have any code.
Enums also give you a great deal of flexibility. Since Enums are essentially classes, you can augment them with useful methods (such as providing an internationalized resource string corresponding to a certain value in the enumeration, converting back and forth between instances of the enum type and other representations that may be required, etc.)
I know that in Java, it is common practice to use "get" as a prefix to an accessor method. I was wondering what the reason for this is. Is it purely to be able to predict what it is returning?
To clarify: In some java classes (eg String) a variable like length can be accessed by calling "length()" rather than "size()". Why are these methods written like this, but others like "getSomeVariable()"?
Thank you for your time.
Edit: Good to see I'm not alone about the confusion & such about the size and length variables
'get' prefix (or 'is' for methods returning booleans) is a part of JavaBean specification which is used throughout the java but mostly in views in web UI.
length() and size() are historical artefacts from pre-javabean times; many a UI developer had lamented the fact that Collection has a size() method instead of getSize()
Because properties are nouns and methods are verbs. It is part of the bean pattern that is well-established and therefore expected by anyone using your class.
It might make sense to say:
String txt="I have " + car.GetFuelLevel() + " liters of petrol.";
or ...
String txt="I have " + car.FuelLevel + " liters of petrol.";
but not ...
String txt="I have " + car.FuelLevel() + " liters of petrol.";
I mean, it doesn't make sense to say "Hey, car. Go FuelLevel for me." But to say "Hey, car. Go GetFuelLevel for me." That's more natural.
Now, why did they break rank with String.length() and others? That's always bothered me, too.
The get prefix is particularly useful if you also have set, add, remove, etc., methods. Of course, it's generally better to have an interface full of gets or full of sets. If almost every method has get then it just becomes noise. So, I'd drop the get for immutables and the set for builders. For "fundamental" types, such as collections and strings, these little words are also noisy, IMO.
The get/set conventions stem from the java Bean specification. So people strongly tend to use that.
And the .size(), .length(), and even .length attribute of arrays are all examples of Java's failures to follow its own conventions. There are many more, it's "fun" to discover them!
They may be failures to the specification, however they improve readability. size and length allow you to read the following line of code:
for (int i=0; i<thing.size(); ++i){
As...
While i is less than the thing's size...
There's no real convention behind this, but it does make it easier to translate into a sentence directly.
The historical reason was that the JavaBean specification stated that accessors to class properties should be done with getPropertyName/setPropertyName. The benefit was that you could then use Introspection APIs to dynamically list the properties of an object, even one that you hadn't previously compiled into your program. An example of where this would be useful is in building a plug-in architecture that needs to load objects and provide the user access to the properties of the object.
You have different names to retrieve size in different classes simply because they were written by different people and there probably wasn't at the time a design guideline for naming class methods in a consistent manner. Once millions of lines of code had been written using these inconsistent names, it was too late to change.
It is possible to add and remove elements from an enum in Java at runtime?
For example, could I read in the labels and constructor arguments of an enum from a file?
#saua, it's just a question of whether it can be done out of interest really. I was hoping there'd be some neat way of altering the running bytecode, maybe using BCEL or something. I've also followed up with this question because I realised I wasn't totally sure when an enum should be used.
I'm pretty convinced that the right answer would be to use a collection that ensured uniqueness instead of an enum if I want to be able to alter the contents safely at runtime.
No, enums are supposed to be a complete static enumeration.
At compile time, you might want to generate your enum .java file from another source file of some sort. You could even create a .class file like this.
In some cases you might want a set of standard values but allow extension. The usual way to do this is have an interface for the interface and an enum that implements that interface for the standard values. Of course, you lose the ability to switch when you only have a reference to the interface.
Behind the curtain, enums are POJOs with a private constructor and a bunch of public static final values of the enum's type (see here for an example). In fact, up until Java5, it was considered best-practice to build your own enumeration this way, and Java5 introduced the enum keyword as a shorthand. See the source for Enum<T> to learn more.
So it should be no problem to write your own 'TypeSafeEnum' with a public static final array of constants, that are read by the constructor or passed to it.
Also, do yourself a favor and override equals, hashCode and toString, and if possible create a values method
The question is how to use such a dynamic enumeration... you can't read the value "PI=3.14" from a file to create enum MathConstants and then go ahead and use MathConstants.PI wherever you want...
I needed to do something like this (for unit testing purposes), and I came across this - the EnumBuster:
http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue161.html
It allows enum values to be added, removed and restored.
Edit: I've only just started using this, and found that there's some slight changes needed for java 1.5, which I'm currently stuck with:
Add array copyOf static helper methods (e.g. take these 1.6 versions: http://www.docjar.com/html/api/java/util/Arrays.java.html)
Change EnumBuster.undoStack to a Stack<Memento>
In undo(), change undoStack.poll() to undoStack.isEmpty() ? null : undoStack.pop();
The string VALUES_FIELD needs to be "ENUM$VALUES" for the java 1.5 enums I've tried so far
I faced this problem on the formative project of my young career.
The approach I took was to save the values and the names of the enumeration externally, and the end goal was to be able to write code that looked as close to a language enum as possible.
I wanted my solution to look like this:
enum HatType
{
BASEBALL,
BRIMLESS,
INDIANA_JONES
}
HatType mine = HatType.BASEBALL;
// prints "BASEBALL"
System.out.println(mine.toString());
// prints true
System.out.println(mine.equals(HatType.BASEBALL));
And I ended up with something like this:
// in a file somewhere:
// 1 --> BASEBALL
// 2 --> BRIMLESS
// 3 --> INDIANA_JONES
HatDynamicEnum hats = HatEnumRepository.retrieve();
HatEnumValue mine = hats.valueOf("BASEBALL");
// prints "BASEBALL"
System.out.println(mine.toString());
// prints true
System.out.println(mine.equals(hats.valueOf("BASEBALL"));
Since my requirements were that it had to be possible to add members to the enum at run-time, I also implemented that functionality:
hats.addEnum("BATTING_PRACTICE");
HatEnumRepository.storeEnum(hats);
hats = HatEnumRepository.retrieve();
HatEnumValue justArrived = hats.valueOf("BATTING_PRACTICE");
// file now reads:
// 1 --> BASEBALL
// 2 --> BRIMLESS
// 3 --> INDIANA_JONES
// 4 --> BATTING_PRACTICE
I dubbed it the Dynamic Enumeration "pattern", and you read about the original design and its revised edition.
The difference between the two is that the revised edition was designed after I really started to grok OO and DDD. The first one I designed when I was still writing nominally procedural DDD, under time pressure no less.
You can load a Java class from source at runtime. (Using JCI, BeanShell or JavaCompiler)
This would allow you to change the Enum values as you wish.
Note: this wouldn't change any classes which referred to these enums so this might not be very useful in reality.
A working example in widespread use is in modded Minecraft. See EnumHelper.addEnum() methods on Github
However, note that in rare situations practical experience has shown that adding Enum members can lead to some issues with the JVM optimiser. The exact issues may vary with different JVMs. But broadly it seems the optimiser may assume that some internal fields of an Enum, specifically the size of the Enum's .values() array, will not change. See issue discussion. The recommended solution there is not to make .values() a hotspot for the optimiser. So if adding to an Enum's members at runtime, it should be done once and once only when the application is initialised, and then the result of .values() should be cached to avoid making it a hotspot.
The way the optimiser works and the way it detects hotspots is obscure and may vary between different JVMs and different builds of the JVM. If you don't want to take the risk of this type of issue in production code, then don't change Enums at runtime.
You could try to assign properties to the ENUM you're trying to create and statically contruct it by using a loaded properties file. Big hack, but it works :)