Develop Reference

Sending object from python to java

In Python i have a class with some string attributes and a function that returns an object of this class with atttributes set (sometimes can return an array of objects).
Theres any way to get this return in Java? Where i can see the strings of the object?
I Tried Jython but couldnt make it work!

Use json.dump function in Python to serialize your object into json format. Then use something like json.org library in Java to parse this object into Java object, some example over here.
Mind that not every object might be serializable, in general data structures like dictionaries or lists are easily serializable, from your description it seems like you want to move an instance of an object from one program into another, which is not possible to be done automatically and requires human work in rewriting the code as instances of classes contain not only data but also functions (methods).
Good luck!

ATG JavaBean over RepositoryItem

I doesn't understand how to use repositoryItem in ATG. How do I need construct customized logic on it.
Do I need to create usual JavaBean over repositoryItem or I need to use it as is?
I will try to explain:
Logic on repositoryItem:
RepositoryItem store = getRepository().getItem(..);
String address = store.getPropertyValue(..);
Logic on JavaBean:
class StoreBean {
String address;
StoreBean(RepositoryItem store) {
address = store.getPropertyValue(..);
}
}
Then I can use StoreBean how I want, to get it fields(lazy load for them, for example).
What will be best practices in ATG?

It is a matter of preference.
What you do not get with RepositoryItem objects is strong type checking. You must either make assumptions about the type of RepositoryItem you are working with or you have to do manual checks in your code (see example below). Additionally, since the RepositoryItem properties are stored as a metadata, you have to know 1) the actual names of the properties from the XML repository descriptor and 2) you need to know the types, which requires type casting (Example: String firstName = (String) item.getProperty("firstName");) Here is an example of a validation to ensure the RepositoryItem object is of type "sku":
RepositoryItemDescriptor skuItemDescriptor = getCatalogTools().getCatalog().getItemDescriptor(getCatalogTools().getBaseSKUItemType());
if (!RepositoryUtils.isTypeOfItemDesc(itemDescriptor, skuItemDescriptor)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("RepositoryItem must be of type " + getCatalogTools().getBaseSKUItemType());
}
If you take the approach of not using "JavaBeans", then you are increasing the risk of having runtime errors in your application. My suggestion is that you have a healthy balance between using RepistoryItem objects and wrapper objects. For critical items you plan to use in a large amount of your code base, I suggest using a wrapper object.
I suggest that if you create wrapper objects, that for consistency, you follow the same design pattern that Oracle Commerce uses. For example, the "order" item is wrapped by OrderImpl and implements the ChangedProperties interface.
public class OrderImpl
extends CommerceIdentifierImpl
implements Order, ChangedProperties
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E52191_03/Platform.11-1/apidoc/atg/commerce/order/OrderImpl.html

ATG out of box repository implementations do not use JavaBeans for the most part. One big disadvantage of using JavaBeans and lazy loading them into memory will be to lose many repository caching features and will increase your memory footprint. For instance you will not be able to monitor your cache statistic or invalidate cache periodically. You will also have overheads of instantiations when you have huge repotiroyitem result set from a query.
Instead you can also use DynamicBean which lets you refer to repository properties similar to java beans for instance Profile.city.
If you only want to wrap them so that developers don't accidentally parse them incorrectly, you can write a util class per repository for various types of ready write operations and centralize your type safety.

What is the best practice to return dynamic type from a REST API in SpringMVC

I have implemented some REST API with springMVC+Jackson+hibernate.
All I needed to do is retrieve objects from database, return it as a list, the conversion to JSON is implicit.
But there is one problem. If I want to add some more information to those object before return/response. For example I am returning a list of "store" object, but I want to add a name of the person who is attending right now.
JAVA does not have dynamic type (how I solve this problem in C#). So, how do we solve this problem in JAVA?
I thought about this, and have come up with a few not so elegant solution.
1. use factory pattern, define another class which contain the name of that person.
2. covert store object to JSON objects (ObjectNode from jackson), put a new attribute into json objects, return json objects.
3. use reflection to inject a new property to store object, return objects, maybe SpringMVC conversion will generate JSON correctly?
option 1 looks bad, will end up with a lot of boiler plate class which doesn't really useful. option 2 looks ok, but is this the best we could do with springMVC?

option 1
Actually your JSON domain is different from your core domain. I would decouple them and create a seperate domain for your JSON objects, as this is a seperate concern and you don't want to mix it. This however might require a lot of 1-to-1 mapping. This is your option 1, with boilerplate. There are frameworks that help you with the boilerplate (such as dozer, MapStruct), but you will always have a performance penalty with frameworks that use generic reflection.
option 2, 3
If you really insist on hacking it in because it's only a few exceptions and not a common pattern, I would certainly not alter the JSON nodes or use reflection (your option 2 and 3). This is certainly not the way to do it in Java.
option 4 [hack]
What you could do is extend your core domain with new types that contain the extra information and in a post-processing step replace the old objects with the new domain objects:
UnaryOperator<String> toJsonStores = domainStore -> toJsonStore(domainStore);
list.replaceAll(toJsonStores);
where the JSONStore extends the domain Store and toJsonStore maps the domain Store to the JSONStore object by adding the person name.
That way you preserve type safety and keep the codebase comprehensive. But if you have to do it more then in a few exceptional cases, you should change strategy.

Are you looking for a rest service that return list of objects that contain not just one type, but many type of objects? If so, Have you tried making the return type of that service method to List<Object>?
I recommend to create a abstract class BaseRestResponse that will be extended by all the items in the list which you want return by your rest service method.
Then make return type as List<BaseRestResponse>.
BaseRestResponse should have all the common properties and the customized object can have the property name as you said

Java classes with dynamic fields

I'm looking for clever ways to build dynamic Java classes, that is classes where you can add/remove fields at runtime. Usage scenario: I have an editor where users should be able to add fields to the model at runtime or maybe even create the whole model at runtime.
Some design goals:
Type safe without casts if possible for custom code that works on the dynamic fields (that code would come from plugins which extend the model in unforeseen ways).
Good performance (can you beat HashMap? Maybe use an array and assign indexes to the fields during setup?)
Field "reuse" (i.e. if you use the same type of field in several places, it should be possible to define it once and then reuse it).
Calculated fields which depend on the value of other fields
Signals should be sent when fields change value (no necessarily via the Beans API)
"Automatic" parent child relations (when you add a child to a parent, then the parent pointer in the child should be set for "free").
Easy to understand
Easy to use
Note that this is a "think outside the circle" question. I'll post an example below to get you in the mood :-)

Type safe without casts if possible for custom code that works on the dynamic fields (that code would come from plugins which extend the model in unforeseen ways)
AFAIK, this is not possible. You can only get type-safety without type casts if you use static typing. Static typing means method signatures (in classes or interfaces) that are known at compile time.
The best you can do is have an interface with a bunch of methods like String getStringValue(String field), int getIntValue(String field) and so on. And of course you can only do that for a predetermined set of types. Any field whose type is not in that set will require a typecast.

The obvious answer is to use a HashMap (or a LinkedHashMap if you care for the order of fields). Then, you can add dynamic fields via a get(String name) and a set(String name, Object value) method.
This code can be implemented in a common base class. Since there are only a few methods, it's also simple to use delegation if you need to extend something else.
To avoid the casting issue, you can use a type-safe object map:
TypedMap map = new TypedMap();
String expected = "Hallo";
map.set( KEY1, expected );
String value = map.get( KEY1 ); // Look Ma, no cast!
assertEquals( expected, value );
List<String> list = new ArrayList<String> ();
map.set( KEY2, list );
List<String> valueList = map.get( KEY2 ); // Even with generics
assertEquals( list, valueList );
The trick here is the key which contains the type information:
TypedMapKey<String> KEY1 = new TypedMapKey<String>( "key1" );
TypedMapKey<List<String>> KEY2 = new TypedMapKey<List<String>>( "key2" );
The performance will be OK.
Field reuse is by using the same value type or by extending the key class of the type-safe object map with additional functionality.
Calculated fields could be implemented with a second map that stores Future instances which do the calculation.
Since all the manipulation happens in just two (or at least a few) methods, sending signals is simple and can be done any way you like.
To implement automatic parent/child handling, install a signal listener on the "set parent" signal of the child and then add the child to the new parent (and remove it from the old one if necessary).
Since no framework is used and no tricks are necessary, the resulting code should be pretty clean and easy to understand. Not using String as keys has the additional benefit that people won't litter the code with string literals.

So basically you're trying to create a new kind of object model with more dynamic properties, a bit like a dynamic language?
Might be worth looking at the source code for Rhino (i.e. Javascript implemented in Java), which faces a similar challenge of implementing a dynamic type system in Java.
Off the top of my head, I suspect you will find that internal HashMaps ultimately work best for your purposes.
I wrote a little game (Tyrant - GPL source available) using a similar sort of dynamic object model featuring HashMaps, it worked great and performance was not an issue. I used a few tricks in the get and set methods to allow dynamic property modifiers, I'm sure you could do the same kind of thing to implement your signals and parent/child relations etc.
[EDIT] See the source of BaseObject how it is implemented.

You can use the bytecode manipulation libraries for it. Shortcoming of this approach is that you need to do create own classloader to load changes in classes dynamically.

I do almost the same, it's pure Java solution:
Users generate their own models, which are stored as JAXB schema.
Schema is compiled in Java classes on the fly and stored in
user jars
All classes are forced to extend one "root" class, where you could put every extra functionality you want.
Appropriate classloaders are implemented with "model change"
listeners.
Speaking of performance (which is important in my case), you can hardly beat this solution. Reusability is the same of XML document.

Accepted practice for converting an Object to and from a String in Java?

What is the commonly accepted method for converting arbitrary objects to and from their String representations, assuming that the exact class of the object is known ? In other words, I need to implement some methods similar to the following:
public interface Converter {
/**
* Convert this object to its String representation.
*/
public String asString(Object obj);
/**
* Take the String representation of an object produced by asString,
* and convert it back to an object of the appropriate class.
*/
public Object asObject(String stringRepresentation, Class clazz);
}
Ideally, the solution should:
Use the object's built-in toString() functionality, if possible. Thus, converter.asString(new Integer(5)) should return "5", and converter.asObject("5", Integer.class) should return an Integer with the value of 5.
Produce output that is human-readable whenever possible.
Deal with all common Java data types, including java.util.Date .
Allow me to plug in conversion functionality for my own, custom classes.
Be reasonably light-weight and efficient.
I understand that there are any number of ready-made solutions that do this (such as Google's protocol buffers, for example), and that I could easily implement a one-off solution myself. My question is not, "how do I solve this problem", but rather, "which one of the many ready-made solutions is the current industry standard ?".

My question is not, "how do I solve this problem", but rather, "which one of the many ready-made solutions is the current industry standard ?".
None of them have emerged as defacto standard.
The closest you can get it "default" XML serialization mechanism which BTW sucks if you pretend to write them by hand ( and It is good enough when you use them automatically )
The next thing closest to an standard and that would be for daily usage, would be JSON to Java, but, well, you know, it is not Java Java

I would vote for Json as well and then particularly Gson. It handles generic/parameterized objects very well.
Alternatively, you can also write a generic object converter which does all of the needed conversions with a little help of reflection, such as this example. But if your "API" require that this converter is to be published as an interface to the enduser, then I would only suggest to replace
public Object asObject(String stringRepresentation, Class clazz);
by for example
public <T extends Object> T asObject(String stringRepresentation, Class<T> clazz);
so that one doesn't need to cast it afterwards.

You can look at the svenson library, it converts java objects to json. Its pretty quick and uses annotations to introduce custom converters.
http://code.google.com/p/svenson/
Not long ago I would have proposed an xml serializer, but after playing with couchdb for a couple of days, I serve a new master... json.

Although it is tempting to use or attempt to implement "toString()" as a reversible operation, the purpose of "toString()" is to generate a user-friendly and easily understandable representation of an object, and this goal is often at odds with including enough state information to truly restore the original object.
If you are looking to persist an object, using XML, JSON, or binary serialization is probably the best way to go. The "toString()" function should report a human-friendly representation of an object (e.g. "5", "(3,0,2)", "5+6i", "{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}", "{x => y, z => 3}", etc.). Even in cases where it is possible to completely restore the object from the generated string, the time to write a function to parse each type of (potentially unstructured) text is best conserved via automated XML persistence in favor of time to write the actual application.

I agree with Oscar that XML might be the preferable form here, if you can tolerate large uncompressed file sizes. To elaborate on his answer, in my experience if you write a fairly straightforward utility class you can serialize your objects into XML with not too much work. To read them back, I would recommend Apache Digester which does a great job of rule-based interpretation.
I would only opt for other file formats if I cared about performance or file sizes, though I eprsonally in most cases prefer the flexibility of XML.