Develop Reference

Java generic builder

Suppose I need some DerivedBuilder to extend some BaseBuilder. Base builder has some method like foo (which returns BaseBuilder). Derived builder has method bar. Method bar should be invoked after method foo. In order to do it I can override foo method in DerivedBuilder like this:
#Override
public DerivedBuilder foo() {
super.foo();
return this;
}
The problem is that BaseBuilder has a lot of methods like foo and I have to override each one of them. I don't want to do that so I tried to use generics:
public class BaseBuilder<T extends BaseBuilder> {
...
public T foo() {
...
return (T)this;
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder<T extends DerivedBuilder> extends BaseBuilder<T> {
public T bar() {
...
return (T)this;
}
}
But the problem is that I still can not write
new DerivedBuilder<DerivedBuilder>()
.foo()
.bar()
Even though T here is DerivedBuilder. What can I do in order to not to override a lot of functions?

Your problem is the definition of DerivedBuilder:
class DerivedBuilder<T extends DerivedBuilder>;
And then instantiating it with a type erased argument new DerivedBuilder<DerivedBuilder<...what?...>>().
You'll need a fully defined derived type, like this:
public class BaseBuilder<T extends BaseBuilder<T>> {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public T foo() {
return (T)this;
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder extends BaseBuilder<DerivedBuilder> {
public DerivedBuilder bar() {
return this;
}
}
Check ideone.com.

In addition to BeyelerStudios's answer, if you want to nest further, you can just use this:
class Base<T extends Base<?>> {
public T alpha() { return (T) this; }
public T bravo() { return (T) this; }
public T foxtrot() { return (T) this; }
}
class Derived<T extends Derived<?>> extends Base<T> {
public T charlie() { return (T) this; }
public T golf() { return (T) this; }
}
class FurtherDerived<T extends FurtherDerived<?>> extends Derived<T> {
public T delta() { return (T) this; }
public T hotel() { return (T) this; }
}
class MuchFurtherDerived<T extends MuchFurtherDerived<?>> extends FurtherDerived<T> {
public T echo() { return (T) this; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new MuchFurtherDerived<MuchFurtherDerived<?>>()
.alpha().bravo().charlie().delta().echo().foxtrot().golf().hotel()
.bravo().golf().delta().delta().delta().hotel().alpha().echo()
.echo().alpha().hotel().foxtrot();
}

Instead of casting return (T) this; I here did a Class.cast(this).
To realize:
BaseBuilder.build(ExtendedBuilder.class).foo().bar().foo().bar();
Every class in the hierarch needs to know the actual final child class, hence I chose to make a factory method build in the base class.
The cast of this to the actual child is done in a final method of the base class too, providing return me();.
class BaseBuilder<B extends BaseBuilder<B>> {
protected Class<B> type;
public static <T extends BaseBuilder<T>> T build(Class<T> type) {
try {
T b = type.newInstance();
b.type = type;
return b;
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
protected final B me() {
return type.cast(this);
}
B foo() {
System.out.println("foo");
return me();
}
}
class ExtendedBuilder extends BaseBuilder<ExtendedBuilder> {
ExtendedBuilder bar() {
System.out.println("bar");
return me();
}
}

What I understand from your question is that the method foo() should be executed before method bar().
If that is correct, you can apply the Template Design Pattern.
Create a abstract method bar in the BaseBuilder.
And a new method say 'template'. The method template will define the sequence- first foo() is executed followed by bar().
DerivedBuilder will provide the implementation for the method bar.
public abstract class BaseBuilder {
public void foo(){
System.out.println("foo");
}
public abstract void bar();
public void template(){
foo();
bar();
}
}
public class DerivedBuilder extends BaseBuilder{
#Override
public void bar() {
System.out.println("bar");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
BaseBuilder builder = new DerivedBuilder();
builder.template();
}
}
Hope this helps.

How to implement factory pattern with generics in Java?

I have a generic interface Handler
public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
I can have n implementations of this interface. Let's say I have following 2 implementations for now. One which handles String objects and another handles Date
public class StringHandler implements Handler<String> {
#Override
public void handle(String str) {
System.out.println(str);
}
}
public class DateHandler implements Handler<Date> {
#Override
public void handle(Date date) {
System.out.println(date);
}
}
I want to write a factory which will return handler instances based on the class type. Something like this :
class HandlerFactory {
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) return new StringHandler();
if (clazz == Date.class) return new DateHandler();
}
}
I get following error in this factory :
Type mismatch: cannot convert from StringHandler to Handler<T>
How to fix this?

SIMPLE SOLUTION
You could save your mappings Class<T> -> Handler<T> in a Map. Something like:
Map<Class<T>, Handler<T>> registry = new HashMap<>();
public void registerHandler(Class<T> dataType, Class<? extends Handler> handlerType) {
registry.put(dataType, handlerType);
}
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
return registry.get(clazz).newInstance();
}
In some place, initialize handlers (could be in the factory itself):
factory.registerHandler(String.class, StringHandler.class);
factory.registerHandler(Date.class, DateHandler.class);
And in another place, you create and use them:
Handler<String> stringhandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
MORE COMPLEX SOLUTION
You can "scan" classes using reflection and, instead of register manually the mappings Class<T> -> Handler<T>, do it using reflection.
for (Class<? extends Handler> handlerType : getHandlerClasses()) {
Type[] implementedInterfaces = handlerType.getGenericInterfaces();
ParameterizedType eventHandlerInterface = (ParameterizedType) implementedInterfaces[0];
Type[] types = eventHandlerInterface.getActualTypeArguments();
Class dataType = (Class) types[0]; // <--String or Date, in your case
factory.registerHandler(dataType, handlerType);
}
Then, you create and use them like above:
Handler<String> stringhandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
To implement getHandlerClasses(), look at this to scan all classes in your jar. For each class, you have to check if it is a Handler:
if (Handler.class.isAssignableFrom(scanningClazz) //implements Handler
&& scanningClazz.getName() != Handler.class.getName()) //it is not Handler.class itself
{
//is a handler!
}
Hope it helps!

Your problem is that the compiler cannot make the leap to the fact thet the type of the result is correct.
To help the compiler you can make the factory delegate the construction. Although this looks strange and unwieldly it does manage to properly maintain type safety without sacrifices such as casting or using ? or raw types.
public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
public static class StringHandler implements Handler<String> {
#Override
public void handle(String str) {
System.out.println(str);
}
}
public static class DateHandler implements Handler<Date> {
#Override
public void handle(Date date) {
System.out.println(date);
}
}
static class HandlerFactory {
enum ValidHandler {
String {
#Override
Handler<String> make() {
return new StringHandler();
}
},
Date {
#Override
Handler<Date> make() {
return new DateHandler();
}
};
abstract <T> Handler<T> make();
}
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) {
return ValidHandler.String.make();
}
if (clazz == Date.class) {
return ValidHandler.Date.make();
}
return null;
}
}
public void test() {
HandlerFactory factory = new HandlerFactory();
Handler<String> stringHandler = factory.getHandler(String.class);
Handler<Date> dateHandler = factory.getHandler(Date.class);
}

The whole point of using a generic type is to share the implementation. If the n implementation of your Handler interface are so different that they can't be shared, then I don't think there is any reason to use define that generic interface at the first place. You'd rather just have StringHandler and DateHandler as top level classes.
On the other hand, if the implementation can be shared, as is the case of your example, then the factory works naturally:
public class Main {
static public interface Handler<T> {
void handle(T obj);
}
static public class PrintHandler<T> implements Handler<T> {
#Override
public void handle(T obj) {
System.out.println(obj);
}
}
static class HandlerFactory {
public static <T> Handler<T> getHandler() {
return new PrintHandler<T>();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Handler<String> stringHandler = HandlerFactory.getHandler();
Handler<Date> dateHandler = HandlerFactory.getHandler();
stringHandler.handle("TEST");
dateHandler.handle(new Date());
}
}

You can use something like:
class HandlerFactory {
public <T> Handler<T> getHandler(Class<T> clazz) {
if (clazz.equals(String.class)) return (Handler<T>) new StringHandler();
if (clazz.equals(Date.class)) return (Handler<T>) new DateHandler();
return null;
}
}
T is generic and the compiler can't map that at compile time. Also it is safer to use .equals instead of ==.

Define an interface for creating an object, but let subclasses decide which class to instantiate.
Factory method lets a class defer instantiation to subclasses.
Define generic abstract class
public abstract class Factory<T> {
public abstract T instantiate(Supplier<? extends T> supplier);
}
And a generic supplier
public class SupplierFactory<T> extends Factory<T> {
#Override
public T instantiate(Supplier<? extends T> supplier) {
return supplier.get();
}
}
Then an implementation needs to have concrete classes to implement the base interface and a main class to show class defer instantiation . i.e
The base interface (desired interface of the requirement)
public interface BaseInterface {
void doAction();
}
The first concrete class
public class Alpha implements BaseInterface {
#Override
public void doAction() {
System.out.println("The Alpha executed");
}
}
And the second one
public class Beta implements BaseInterface {
#Override
public void doAction() {
System.out.println("The Beta executed");
}
}
The main
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Factory<BaseInterface> secondFactory = new SupplierFactory<>();
secondFactory.instantiate(Beta::new).doAction();
secondFactory.instantiate(Alpha::new).doAction();
}
}

Basically you can do:
public Handler getHandler( Class clazz ){
if( clazz == String.class ) return new StringHandler();
if( clazz == Date.class ) return new DateHandler();
return null;
}
public static void main( String[] args ){
HandlerFactory handlerFactory = new HandlerFactory();
StringHandler handler = ( StringHandler )handlerFactory.getHandler( String.class );
handler.handle( "TEST" );
DateHandler handler2 = ( DateHandler )handlerFactory.getHandler( Date.class );
handler2.handle( new Date() );
}
Output:
TEST
Tue Dec 15 15:31:00 CET 2015
But instead writing two different methods to get handlers separately always is a better way.

I edited your code and allowed Eclipse to "fix" the errors and it came up with this.
public Handler<?> getHandler(Class<?> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class)
return new StringHandler();
if (clazz == Date.class)
return new DateHandler();
return null;
}

Yout HandlerFactory don't know about T. Use your factory like below-
public class HandlerFactory {
public Handler<?> getHandler(Class<?> clazz) {
if (clazz == String.class) {
return new StringHandler();
}
if (clazz == Date.class) {
return new DateHandler();
}
return null;
}
}

Implementing a generic factory

I am trying to design a factory for a pluggable interface. The idea is that once you have your factory instance, the factory will return the appropriate subclasses for that particular implementation.
In this case, I am wrapping a third party library that uses a String to represent an ID code, rather than subclasses. Therefore, in the implementation that wraps their library, every implementation class has a method getCode() that is not explicitly required by the interface API. I am using an enum to store this mapping between codes and interface classes.
In nearly all cases, the getCode() method is not needed. However, in just a few situations in the implementation package, I need access to that method. Therefore, my problem is that I would like to have the Factory implementation's signature tell callers that the getCode method exists if they have a reference to the specific Factory implementation.
What follows is a lot of code in my best-effort attempt to digest the situation into an sscce. I know it's very long, but it's simpler than it seems, and one of the words in sscce is "complete".
Public API:
public interface Factory {
public <T extends IFoo> T makeIFoo(Class<T> klass);
}
public interface IFoo {
void doSomething();
}
public interface IFooBar extends IFoo {
void doBarTask();
}
public interface IFooBaz extends IFoo {
void doBazTask();
}
Sample use case:
public class SomeClass {
private Factory myFactory;
public void doSomething() {
IFooBar ifb = myFactory.create(IFooBar.class);
}
}
SSCCE version of implementation:
interface ICode {
String getCode();
}
abstract class BaseCode implements IFoo, ICode {
private String code;
BaseCode(String code) {
this.code = code;
}
#Override
public String getCode() {
return code;
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Something");
}
}
class FooBarImpl extends BaseCode implements ICode, IFooBar {
FooBarImpl(String code) {
super(code);
}
#Override
public void doBarTask() {
System.out.println("BarTask");
}
}
class FooBazImpl extends BaseCode implements ICode, IFooBaz {
FooBazImpl(String code) {
super(code);
}
#Override
public void doBazTask() {
System.out.println("BarTask");
}
}
Enum codemapper:
static enum CodeMap {
FOOBAR ("A", IFooBar.class) {
FooBarImpl create() { return new FooBarImpl(getCode()); }
},
FOOBAZ ("B", IFooBaz.class) {
FooBazImpl create() { return new FooBazImpl(getCode()); }
};
private static Map<Class<? extends IFoo>, CodeMap> classMap;
static {
classMap = new HashMap<Class<? extends IFoo>, CodeMap>();
for(CodeMap cm : CodeMap.values()) {
classMap.put(cm.getFooClass(), cm);
}
}
private String code;
private Class<? extends IFoo> klass;
private CodeMap(String code, Class<? extends IFoo> klass) {
this.code = code;
this.klass = klass;
}
String getCode() {
return code;
}
Class<? extends IFoo> getFooClass() {
return klass;
}
static CodeMap getFromClass(Class<? extends IFoo> klass) {
return classMap.get(klass);
}
abstract BaseCode create();
}
Sample use case within implementation package:
public class InternalClass {
CodeFactory factory;
public void doSomething() {
FooBarImpl fb = factory.makeIFoo(IFooBar.class);
}
}
Attempt at factory:
This does not specify that the return will always implement ICode. But the passed-in interface class DOESN'T implement ICode, that's the whole point.
class CodeFactory implements Factory {
#Override
public <T extends IFoo> T makeIFoo(Class<T> klass) {
CodeMap map = CodeMap.getFromClass(klass);
if (map == null) return null; // Or throw an exception, whatever, SSCCE
return (T) map.create();
}
}
What should I do?

I realized I was making this too complicated. If I'm going to implement a factory method for each enum instance, I may as well just have separate factory methods for each interface.
public interface Factory {
IFooBar createFooBar();
IFooBaz createFooBaz();
}
class CodeFactory implements Factory {
public FooBarImpl createFooBar() {
// etc.
}
}
Of course now I have to change the Factory API if there are ever new interfaces, but I expect that will be rare.

A possible solution would be defining a wrapper that implements IFoo and the getCode() method, and your method would return the intended class in one of such wrappers.
If the wrapped instance has a getCode implemented, the wrapper would return its value, return it, otherwise return null.

How to implement a generic wrapper for a ResultSet-like API?

I have an third-party RPC-API that provides an interface similar to that of java.sql.ResultSet (for reading values) and java.sql.PreparedStatement (for writing values). Assume it looks something like this:
public interface RemoteDeviceProxy {
public void setBoolean(Boolean value);
public void setInteger(Integer value);
// ...
public Boolean getBoolean();
public Integer getInteger();
// ...
}
I want to write a wrapper for this API that uses generics to create instances of specific types:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
}
public T get() {
// should call wrappedDevice.getBoolean() if T is Boolean, etc.
// how to implement?
}
public void set(T newValue) {
// should call wrappedDevice.setBoolean(newValue) if T is Boolean, etc.
// implement using instanceof
}
}
How can I implement the getter in my generic wrapper? I have found this answer which explains a similar scenario in depth, but I am not able to transfer this to my problem. Specifically, when I write this:
public T get() {
Type[] actualTypeArguments = ((ParameterizedType) getClass())
.getActualTypeArguments();
}
I get a compiler error saying I cannot cast to ParameterizedType, and I do not understand why. Can anyone explain how to achieve this?

Here is one way:
public class <T> RemoteVariable {
private final RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice;
private final Class<T> clazz;
public RemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedDevice, Class<T> clazz) {
this.wrappedDevice = wrappedDevice;
this.clazz = clazz;
}
public T get() {
if(clazz == Boolean.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getBoolean());}
else if(clazz == Integer.class){return clazz.cast(wrappedDevice.getInteger());}
// ...
}
// ...
}

I thought over this quite a while and finally came up with a different approach:
First I added a getter to you RemoteVariable class:
protected RemoteDeviceProxy getWrappedProxy() {
return wrappedProxy;
}
Second I created a builder interface that will be used by a factory later:
public interface RemoteVariableBuilder {
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy);
}
Then I created non generic sub classes for Boolean...
public class RemoteBooleanVariable extends RemoteVariable<Boolean> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteBooleanVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteBooleanVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Boolean get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getBoolean();
}
#Override
public void set(Boolean value) {
getWrappedProxy().setBoolean(value);
}
}
... and Integer ...
public class RemoteIntegerBuilder extends RemoteVariable<Integer> implements RemoteVariableBuilder {
public RemoteIntegerBuilder(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
super(wrappedProxy);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public <T> RemoteVariable<T> buildNewVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy) {
return (RemoteVariable<T>) new RemoteIntegerBuilder(wrappedProxy);
}
#Override
public Integer get() {
return getWrappedProxy().getInteger();
}
#Override
public void set(Integer value) {
getWrappedProxy().setInteger(value);
}
}
actually eclipse created most of the code once it knew base class and interface.
The final step was to create a factory
public class RemoteVariableFactory {
private static final Map<String, RemoteVariableBuilder> BUILDERS = new HashMap<>();
static {
BUILDERS.put(Boolean.class.getName(), new RemoteBooleanVariable(null));
BUILDERS.put(Integer.class.getName(), new RemoteIntegerBuilder(null));
// add more builders here
}
public static <T> RemoteVariable<T> getRemoteVariable(RemoteDeviceProxy wrappedProxy, Class<T> typeClass) {
RemoteVariableBuilder remoteVariableBuilder = BUILDERS.get(typeClass.getName());
if (remoteVariableBuilder == null) {
return null; // or throw an exception whichever is better in your case
}
return remoteVariableBuilder.buildNewVariable(wrappedProxy);
}
}
Now we are ready to create new RemoteVariables...
RemoteVariable<Boolean> var1 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Boolean.class);
RemoteVariable<Integer> var2 = RemoteVariableFactory.getRemoteVariable(new RemoteDevice(), Integer.class);
To conclude this let's do a quick comparison to the answer of Eng.Fouad:
Disadvantage:
you need to create a new class for every datatype you provide
Advantage:
you only have to add one line to the static block of the factory and not two new if blocks to the getter and setter in RemoteVariable
get and set do not have to work through the if-else-blocks every time

How would I overload method in an interface?

if I have this interface
public interface someInterface {
// method 1
public String getValue(String arg1);
// method 2
public String getValue(String arg1, String arg2);
}
I want to be able to pass in 1 or 2 string to the getValue method without having to override both in each implementing class.
public class SomeClass1 impelments someInterface
{
#Override
public String getValue(String arg1);
}
public class SomeClass2 implements someInterface
{
#Override
public String getValue(String arg1, String arg2);
}
this won't work because SomeClass1 needs to implement method 2 and SomeClass2 needs to implement method 1.
Am I stuck doing this?
public interface someInterface2 {
public String getValue(String... args);
}
public class SomeClass3 implements someInterface2
{
#Override
public String getValue(String... args) {
if (args.length != 1) {
throw IllegalArgumentException();
}
// code
}
}
public class SomeClass4 implements someInterface2
{
#Override
public String getValue(String... args) {
if (args.length != 2) {
throw IllegalArgumentException();
}
// code
}
}
someInterface2 someClass3 = new SomeClass3();
someInterface2 someClass4 = new SomeClass4();
String test1 = someClass3.getValue("String 1");
String test2 = someClass4.getValue("String 1, "String 2");
Is there a better way of doing this?

An interface serves as a contract for the users of that interface: you specify what methods are available (in all implementations) and how they are called. If two implementations of an interface need a different method, then that method should not be part of the interface:
public interface Lookup {
}
public class MapLookup implements Lookup {
public String getValue(String key) {
//...
}
}
public class GuavaLookup implements Lookup {
public String getValue(String row, String column) {
// ...
}
}
In your program, you will know which implementation you use, so you can simply call the right function:
public class Program {
private Lookup lookup = new MapLookup();
public void printLookup(String key) {
// I hardcoded lookup to be of type MapLookup, so I can cast:
System.out.println(((MapLookup)lookup).getValue(key));
}
}
Alternative approach
If your class Program is more generic and uses dependency injections, you may not know which implementation you have. Then, I would make a new interface Key, which can be either type of key:
public interface Lookup {
// ...
public String getValue(Key key);
}
public interface Key {
}
public MapKey implements Key {
private String key;
// ...
}
public GuavaKey implements Key {
private String row, column;
// ...
}
The dependency injection in your program might come from some factory implementation. Since you cannot know which type of lookup you use, you need a single contract for getValue.
public interface Factory {
public Lookup getLookup();
public Key getKey();
}
public class Program {
private Lookup lookup;
public Program(Factory factory) {
lookup = factory.getLookup();
}
public void printLookup(Factory factory) {
System.out.println((lookup.getValue(factory.getKey()));
}
}

As of Java 8, you can have an interface provide an implementation of a method, through the use of the default keyword. Therefore a new solution would be to provide a default implementation of both methods which maybe throws an exception, then derive the actual implementation from the default interface.
Anyways here is how you can do this:
public interface SomeInterface {
// method 1
default String getValue(String arg1) {
// you decide what happens with this default implementation
}
// method 2
default String getValue(String arg1, String arg2) {
// you decide what happens with this default implementation
}
}
Finally, make the classes override the correct methods
public class SomeClass1 implements SomeInterface {
#Override
public String getValue(String arg1) {
return arg1;
}
}
public class SomeClass2 implements SomeInterface {
#Override
public String getValue(String arg1, String arg2) {
return arg1 + " " + arg2;
}
}

A solution (not very elegant) might look loke this:
public abstract class SomeClass {
public String getValue(String arg1) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
public String getValue(String arg1, String arg2) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
}
public class SomeClass1 extends SomeClass {
public String getValue(String arg1) {
// return sth
}
}
public class SomeClass2 extends SomeClass {
public String getValue(String arg1, String arg2) {
// return sth
}
}
However there's a drawback - SomeClass1 and SomeClass2 can't inherit directly other class.

If the second value can be considered optional in a sense and you always have the 2 arguments when calling you could create a wrapper class which implements the 2 parameter interface passing the 1 parameter implementation as a constructor parameter and calling that in the method, e.g. something like this:
interface A{
method1(P1)
}
interface B{
method2(P1, P2)
}
class Wrap implements B{
Wrap(A impl)
override method2(P1, P2){
call impl.method1(P1)
}
}

public interface SomeInterface {
default void print(String s) {
System.out.println(s);
}
}
public class SomeClass implements SomeInterface {
/**
* Note the this overloads {#link SomeInterface#print(String)},
* not overrides it!
*/
public void print(int i) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}