Develop Reference

How can I use functional programming to do string manipulation?

I'm writing a function where I'm essentially doing the same thing over and over. I have the function listed below
public String buildGarmentsString(List<Garment> garments)
{
StringBuilder garmentString = new StringBuilder(10000);
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentProductId(i,garments.get(i).getProductId()));
garmentString.append(this.garmentColor(i,garments.get(i).getColor()));
for(int j=0;j<garments.get(i).getSizes().size();j++)
{
//check xxsml
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxsml() >0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i, Size.xxsml(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxsml()));
}
//check xsml
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXsml() > 0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.xsml(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXsml()));
}
//check sml
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getSml() > 0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.sml(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getSml()));
}
//check med
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getMed() > 0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.med(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getMed()));
}
//check lrg
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getLrg() > 0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.lrg(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getLrg()));
}
//check xlrg
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXlg() > 0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.xlg(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXlg()));
}
//check xxlrg
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxl() >0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.xxlg(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxl()));
}
//check xxxlrg
if(garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxxl() >0)
{
garmentString.append(this.garmentSizes(i,Size.xxxlg(),garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).getXxxl()));
}
}
}
}
This is my garmentSizes function:
public String garmentSizes(int garmentNumber, String size,int numberToSend)
{
String garmentSizes = "&garment["+garmentNumber+"][sizes]["+size+"]="+numberToSend;
return garmentSizes;
}
I'm trying to figure out how I can get this done with a lot less code. I've read that with functional programming you can do things like pass in functions to parameters to other functions. After doing some reading online, I think I want to do something like this but I'm not sure how or what the best approach would be.
I have done some reading here on stack overflow and I've seen people mention using either the Command pattern or FunctionalJava or LambdaJ for trying to approximate this feature in Java. I've read over the documentation for the two libraries and read the Wikipedia Article on the Command Pattern, but I'm still not sure how I would use any of those to solve my particular problem. Can somebody explain this to me? As somebody that has never done any functional programming this is a bit confusing.

You could use local variables to decrease the amount of repetition. Say bySize = garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j) for example.
instead of size.getXxsml(), size.getXsml() etc. you could use an enum for sizes and loop on sizes.
The whole thing would then look like:
for(int j=0;j<garments.get(i).getSizes().size();j++) {
bySize = garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j);
for (Size s : Size.values()) {
if (bySize.get(s) > 0) {
garmentString.append(garmentSizes(i, s, bySize.get(s)));
}
}
}
The bySize.get(s) method could be implemented either with a switch that directs to the right method or directly in the enum and you could get rid of the getXsml etc. methods.

The only thing which differs between all your checks is this:
getXxsml/xxsml, getXsml/xsml, getSml/sml, etc.
If you could pass these values (as strings) to some upper-level method, and if
that upper-level method could eval i.e. execute these strings, then you can just
have an array of these values and pass that array to that upper-level method.
In Java, you can do something similar with reflection.
All these checks could indeed be simplified to much less
code through the use of reflection.
Look at:
java.lang.Class
java.lang.reflect.Method
java.lang.reflect.Field
java.lang.reflect.Constructor
and you will see what I mean.

From your code it appears that some Class has the following methods:
xxsml(), xsml(), sml(), med(), ..., xxxlg()
to get the amounts (?) available for each size.
You can design your data better, like this:
Have a "Size" type, that enumerates all sizes (could be Enum or some class with attribute String key)
Have a method that returns a List of all known sizes.
replace the above methods with amountFor(Size) This could be backed by a Map<Size, Integer>
For backward compatibility, you could rewrite the old methods along the lines:
int xxsml() {
return amountFor(Size.XXSML); // assuming you have a singleton instance
// for each well known size
}
Of course, in getGarmentString, you would then loop through the List of all known sizes:
for (Size sz : Size.getAllKnownSizes()) {
if (garments.get(i).getSizes().get(j).amountFor(sz) > 0) {
... do whatever must be done here
}
}

eclipse autogenerates !=null recursive calls

given a java code such as:
Something v = a.getB().getC().getD().getE();
Is there a way in Eclipse (templates or external plugins) to generate a safe chain call as:
if(a!=null &&
a.getB()!=null &&
a.getB().getC()!=null &&
a.getB().getC().getD()!=null &&
a.getB().getC().getD().getE()!=null){
Something v = a.getB().getC().getD().getE();
}

Have you given any thought to a try{} catch(NullPointerException e){} block? It might feel less elegant, but it will stop your code if any of the method calls fails because the previous one returned null, and it will give you the chance to give the default value if it is null.
Another option would be something like this:
Something v = /*Default Value*/ // Will be overwritten if subsequent methods succeed.
Object temp = a.getB(); // Use whatever Object type getB() returns.
if(temp != null){
temp = temp.getC();
/* If getC() returns a different type of object,
* either use a different variable or make the temp variable even broader
* (such as the generic Object type) */
if(temp != null){
temp = temp.getD();
if(temp != null){
temp = temp.getE();
if(temp != null)
v = temp;
/* If all previous calls returned something substantial,
* v will be something useful */
}//if(getE() != null)
}//if(getD() != null)
}//if(getC() != null)
}//if(getB() != null)
If you want, you could use a slightly less CPU efficient, but easier to read, version by not nesting the if statements. If all of the if statements are executed after eachother, a single null will prevent all of the next statements from executing, although its value will still be checked every time.
As far as generating these statements, I'm not really sure. That will really depend on how far in advance you can predict what new methods will be available from the Object returned by previous method calls. If you're aiming for auto-generation of code, you might be better off with my first suggestion: try-catch

Do this only if no one will read your code. Try to avoid generated code especially the one you're asking for.
getB() method is called 4 extra times, etc.
By checking for null manually you'll learn coding faster and make less bugs not relying on automatic code correction ;)

How to refactor to avoid passing "special values" into a Java method?

I'm sure there must be a standard way to do this, but my attempts to search Stackoverflow have failed.
I have a method like:
public void processSomeWidgetsForUser(int userItemId) {
Iterator<Widgets> iter = allWidgets.values().iterator();
while(iter.hasNext()) {
Widget thisWidget = iter.next();
if (userItemId == -1 || thisWidget.getUsersItemId() == userItemId) {
widget.process();
}
}
}
As you can see -1 is a "special value" meaning process all. Doing this saves repeating the loop code in another method called processSomeWidgetsForAllUsers.
But I dislike special values like this because they are easy to misuse or misunderstand, which is exactly the situation what I'm having to fix now (where someone thought -1 meant something else).
I can only think of two ways to improve this.
have a constant, containing -1 called something like
Widget.ALLWIDGETS which at least is self-documenting, but doesn't
stop code from using a -1 (if someone integrates old code in, for
example)
change the method to take a list of all user ids to
process, which can be empty, but that doesn't seem great
performance-wise (would need to retrieve all user ids first and then loop through
removing. Also what happens if the number of widgets in the list changes between
retreiving the ids and removing
Is there a better way? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
The above code has been changed slightly, so may not compile, but you should get the gist.

Although somewhat redundant, a fairly neat self-documenting approach could be to have 3 methods rather than one;
Make your original method private, and make one small change which would be to add your static final int EXECUTE_ALL = -1 and use that in your original method, then add the two new methods;
public void processWidget(int wID) throws IllegalArgumentException {
if(wID == EXECUTE_ALL) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
originalMethod(wID);
}
public void processAllWidgets() {
originalMethod(EXECUTE_ALL);
}
It makes your class a little more cluttered, but as far as the exposed methods go, it is clearer and hopefully foolproof. You could alter it not to throw an exception and just ignore any invalid ids, that just depends on your situation.
This approach of course has the major downside that it changes how the class appears to other classes, breaking everything that currently uses the, now private, originalMethod().

Number 1 would work very nicely. Be sure to document what the variable is though, so future coders (possibly yourself) know what it means.
/**This is the explanation for the below variable*/
public final static int ALL_WIDGETS = -1;

Have an external method like so:
static boolean idRepresentsAll(int id) {
return id == -1;
}
In this case, if you decide to replace it with a different mechanism, you only replace your magic number one place in your code.
At the very least, you would want to do something like this:
public static final int ID_REPRESENTING_ALL = -1;

You can change the method signature to accept a boolean for when you want to process them all.
public void processSomeWidgets(boolean doAll, int userItemId) {
Iterator<Widgets> iter = allWidgets.values().iterator();
while(iter.hasNext()) {
Widget thisWidget = iter.next();
if (doAll || thisWidget.getUsersItemId() == userItemId) {
widget.process();
}
}
}
This makes it more explicit, and easier to read in my opinion as there are no special values.

Chaining order in Guava

I'm a bit new to Guava and it's style. I'm definitely digging it, but one thing I keep tripping over is the order of chained methods. Where I seem to have this problem the most is when using compound Orderings. I have to keep asking myself questions like:
Where does the natural go?
Where does the nullFirst (or last) go?
Which nullsFirst does what? (In the example below, one for host, one for last name, one for first name?)
Here's an example of one that I was just working on. It looks cumbersome, and I'm just not sure if I put it all together right. I have some JUnits to test it, and it seems okay, but there are always those quirky boundary cases.
Ordering<Host> lastNameThenFirstNameOrdering = Ordering.natural().nullsFirst().onResultOf(new Function<Host, String>() {
public String apply(Host host) {
return host.getLastName();
}}).compound(Ordering.natural().nullsFirst().onResultOf(new Function<Host, String>() {
public String apply(Host host) {
return host.getFirstName();
}})).nullsFirst();
As for an actual question: Is there a well-defined rule for how these things get executed? It seems to be last-to-first, but I'm having trouble telling that.
edit: Just wanted to point out the large, ugly code I was trying to replace:
Ordering<Host> ordering2 = new Ordering<Host>() {
public int compare(Host host1, Host host2) {
if (host1 == null || host2 == null) {
return host1 == host2 ? 0 : ((host1 == null) ? -1 : 1);
}
if(host1.getLastName() != null || host2.getLastName() != null){
if (host1.getLastName() == null) {
return -1;
} else if (host2.getLastName() == null) {
return 1;
}
if (host1.getLastName().compareTo(host2.getLastName()) != 0) {
return host1.getLastName().compareTo(host2.getLastName());
}
}
if (host1.getFirstName() == null) {
return -1;
} else if (host2.getFirstName() == null) {
return 1;
}
return host1.getFirstName().compareTo(host2.getFirstName());
}};

I think what you do is correct, but awfully ugly. Try this for readability:
Use an Enum
Move the functions to an enum that implements Function<Host, String>. Each of the enum items can provide it's own implementation.
enum HostFunctions implements Function<Host, String>{
GETFIRSTNAME{
#Override
public String apply(final Host host){
return host.getFirstName();
}
},
GETLASTNAME{
#Override
public String apply(final Host host){
return host.getLastName();
}
}
}
Indent your Code
Now reference those enum functions and indent your code properly. This is what it will look like:
final Ordering<Host> orderingByLastAndFirstName =
Ordering
.natural()
.nullsFirst()
.onResultOf(HostFunctions.GETLASTNAME)
.compound(
Ordering
.natural()
.nullsFirst()
.onResultOf(HostFunctions.GETFIRSTNAME))
.nullsFirst();
I'd say that makes everything much more understandable.
IDE Configuration
Regarding proper indentation (at least if you use Eclipse), see this question:
How to indent the fluent interface
pattern “correctly” with eclipse?
Enums as Functions
Regarding the enum: this is called the enum singleton pattern. The Guava guys use it all over their code base. Read about it on wikipedia or in Effective Java, Item 3. Although those sources both talk about single-item enums, the approach is almost the same here.

Each chaining call is "wrapping" the previous ordering into a new one, so you're right, the execution order can be thought of as "backwards".
I wrote and reviewed the Ordering class and I still regularly have to stop and scratch my head over the correct interleaving of nullsFirst(), and onResultOf() and reverse()!

The following would be my preference for doing this, assuming you must be able to handle null hosts, first names and last names. To me, it seems like a non-null first name and last name ought to be a requirement of the Host class. And you should generally try to avoid allowing collections to contain null objects.
Ordering<Host> lastNameFirstNameOrdering = new Ordering<Host>() {
#Override public int compare(Host left, Host right) {
return ComparisonChain.start()
.compare(left.getLastName(), right.getLastName(), Ordering.natural().nullsFirst())
.compare(left.getFirstName(), right.getFirstName(), Ordering.natural().nullsFirst())
.result();
}
}.nullsFirst();
Alternatively, I'd take an approach similar to Sean's but break things down for readability.
Ordering<Host> lastNameOrder = Ordering.natural().nullsFirst()
.onResultOf(Host.LAST_NAME);
Ordering<Host> firstNameOrder = Ordering.natural().nullsFirst()
.onResultOf(Host.FIRST_NAME);
Ordering<Host> orderingByLastAndFirstName =
lastNameOrder.compound(firstNameOrder).nullsFirst();
Keep in mind that you could also make these individual orderings static final fields of the class, allowing you to easily use them anywhere when sorting like Host.LAST_NAME_ORDER.

Extract Method with continue

We're refactoring a long method; it contains a long for loop with many continue statements. I'd like to just use the Extract Method refactoring, but Eclipse's automated one doesn't know how to handle the conditional branching. I don't, either.
Our current strategy is to introduce a keepGoing flag (an instance variable since we're going to want to extract method), set it to false at the top of the loop, and replace every continue with setting the flag to true, then wrapping all the following stuff (at different nesting levels) inside an if (keepGoing) clause. Then perform the various extractions, then replace the keepGoing assignments with early returns from the extracted methods, then get rid of the flag.
Is there a better way?
Update: In response to comments - I can't share the code, but here's an anonymized excerpt:
private static void foo(C1 a, C2 b, C3 c, List<C2> list, boolean flag1) throws Exception {
for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++) {
C4 d = null;
Integer e = null;
boolean flag2 = false;
boolean flag3 = findFlag3(a, c);
blahblahblah();
if (e == null) {
if (flag1) {
if (test1(c)) {
if (test2(a, c)) {
Integer f = getF1(b, c);
if (f != null)
e = getE1(a, f);
if (e == null) {
if (d == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
e = findE(d);
}
} else {
Integer f = getF2(b, c);
if (f != null)
e = getE2(a, f);
if (e == null) {
if (d == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
e = findE(d);
}
flag2 = true;
}
} else {
if (test3(a, c)) {
Integer f = getF2(b, c);
if (f != null)
e = getE2(a, f);
if (e == null) {
if (d == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
e = findE(d);
}
flag2 = true;
} else {
if (d == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
e = findE(d);
flag2 = true;
}
}
}
if (!flag1) {
if (d == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
e = findE(d);
}
}
if (e == null) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
List<C2> list2 = blahblahblah(b, list, flag1);
if (list2.size() != 0 && flag1) {
blahblahblah();
if (!otherTest()) {
if (yetAnotherTest()) {
list.add(b);
continue;
}
blahblahblah();
}
}
}
}

This is one of those fun ones where no single pattern will get you there.
I would work at it iteratively.
First I'd try to see if I couldn't use an early continue to remove one of those levels of ifs. It's much clearer code to check for a condition and return early (or in your case continue) than to have deeply nested ifs.
Next I think I'd take some of the inner chunks and see if they couldn't be extracted into a separate method. It looks like the first two big blocks (within the "if (test2(a, c)) {" and its else statement) are very similar. There is cut and paste logic that should be the same.
Finally after that stuff is cleared up, you can start looking at your actual problem--you need more classes. This entire statement is probably a three line polymorphic method in 3-5 sibling classes.
It's very close to throw-away and rewrite code, once you identify your actual classes, this entire method will vanish and be replaced with something so simple it hurts. Just the fact that it's a static utility method should be telling you something--you don't want one of those in this type of code.
Edit (After looking a little more):
There is so much here it would be really fun to go through. Remember that when you are done you want no code duplication--and I'm pretty sure this entire thing could be written without a single if--I think all your ifs are cases that could/should easily be handled by polymorphism.
Oh, and as an answer to your question of eclipse not wanting to do it--don't even TRY automatic refactoring with this one, just do it by hand. The stuff inside that first if() needs to be pulled out into a method because it's virtually identical to the clause in its else()!
When I do something like this, I usually create a new method, move the code from the if into the new method (leaving just a call to the new method inside the if), then run a test and make sure you didn't break anything.
then go line by line and check to ensure there is no difference between the if and its else code. If there is, compensate for it by passing the difference as a new variable to the method. After you're sure everything is identical, replace the else clause with a call. Test again. Chances are at this point a few additional optimizations will become obvious, you'll most likely lose the entire if by combining it's logic with the variable you passed to differentiate the two calls.
Just keep doing stuff like that and iterating. The trick with refactoring is to use Very Small Steps and test between each step to ensure nothing changed.

continue is basically an analogue of an early return, right?
for (...) {
doSomething(...);
}
private void doSomething(...) {
...
if (...)
return; // was "continue;"
...
if (!doSomethingElse(...))
return;
...
}
private boolean doSomethingElse(...) {
...
if (...)
return false; // was a continue from a nested operation
...
return true;
}
Now I must admit that I didn't quite follow your current strategy, so I might have just repeated what you said. If so, then my answer is that I can't think of a better way.

If I were faced with your situation I would look at using other refactoring techniques such as "replace conditional with polymorphism". That said you should always do one thing at a time, so if you first want to extract method you have two options:
Add the "keepGoing" flag
Throw an exception from the method
Of these two options, I think the keepGoing flag is better. I wouldn't stop refactoring after you extract the method. I am sure once you have a smaller method you will find a way to remove this flag and have cleaner logic.

I'm going to summarize the answers here, while accepting Bill K's answer as the most complete. But everyone had something good to offer, and I might use any of these approaches next time I'm faced with this sort of situation.
mmyers: Cut out the loop body, paste it into a new method and replace all the continues with returns. This worked very nicely, although it would have trouble if there were other control flow statements, like break and return, inside the loop.
Bill K: Tease it apart iteratively; look for duplication and eliminate it. Take advantage of polymorphic classes to replace the conditional behavior. Use Very Small Steps. Yes; this is all good advice, with broader applicability than just this specific case.
Aaron: Either use the keepGoing flag to replace the continue or throw an Exception. I didn't try this, but I think the Exception option is a very nice alternative, and one I hadn't considered.