Develop Reference

Factory of generic type interfaces

I am looking for some help in designing the factory of concrete implementations of a generic interface. Java version 7, can not use 8+
Given such interface and abstract class:
public interface ValidationStrategy<T> {
String getNativeQuery();
ValidationStrategy<T> withValue(T value);
}
public abstract class AbstractValidationStrategy<T> implements ValidationStrategy<T> {
protected T value;
public void setValue(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
}
I want to have multiple implementations of such interface like:
public class DocumentValidationStrategy extends AbstractValidationStrategy<String> {
#Override
public String getNativeQuery() {
// here goes customer native query
return null;
}
#Override
public ValidationStrategy<String> withValue(String value) {
setValue(value);
return this;
}
}
The ValidationStrategy would be decided upon predefined enum (interface, has to be cross-platform unified) by the, ideally, a factory. The problems are generics and I can not really go around them with nor I haven't crossed any question that would address my problem
public class ValidationStrategyFactory {
private static final Map<CustomerValueValidationEnum, Class<? extends ValidationStrategy<?>>> validationStrategiesMap = new HashMap<>();
{
validationStrategiesMap.put(CustomerValueValidationEnum.VALIDATE_DOCUMENT, DocumentValidationStrategy.class);
}
private static Class<? extends ValidationStrategy<?>> getInstance(CustomerValueValidationEnum validationEnum) {
return validationStrategiesMap.get(validationEnum);
}
public static ValidationStrategy<?> createInstance(CustomerValueValidationEnum validationEnum)
throws IllegalAccessException, InstantiationException {
return getInstance(validationEnum).newInstance();
}
}
This obviously leads to problems where I can not create the proper implemntation of the ValidationStrategy interface due to my bad usage of java generics where I try to:
public boolean isValueUnique(CustomerValueValidationEnum type, Object value) {
try {
ValidationStrategyFactory.createInstance(type).withValue(value);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | InstantiationException e) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
return false;
}
which obviously does not work as I can not feed value the way I want (value can be everything, a String, Integer or a List). I know that I am trying to combine factory and strategy patterns and I tried my best to combine both of them, I guess it is a bad pattern but now I do not really know how else can I create easily extensible validation mechanism that would only require me to create a single class.
EDIT: as requested, simple enum class that is shared between multiple services and it should not contain any business logic.
public enum CustomerValueValidationEnum {
VALIDATE_DOCUMENT("validateDocumentNumber")
;
private final String name;
private CustomerValueValidationEnum(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
#ValueMapKey
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
}

It is impossible to type dynamically any generic type as it's checked during compilation. I suggest you to make your factory switch on your enum (using/or not a Map).
Implementation without Map :
enum CustomerValueValidationEnum { // Not provided by OP
VALIDATE_DOCUMENT,
VALIDATE_NUMBER
}
interface ValidationStrategy<T> {
String getNativeQuery();
ValidationStrategy<T> withValue(T value);
}
abstract class AbstractValidationStrategy<T> implements ValidationStrategy<T> {
protected T value;
public void setValue(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public String getNativeQuery() {
return null;
}
#Override
public ValidationStrategy<T> withValue(T value) {
setValue(value);
return this;
}
}
class DocumentValidationStrategy<T> extends AbstractValidationStrategy<T> {
#Override
public String getNativeQuery() {
return "Customer Query";
}
}
class ValidationStrategyFactory {
// Generic types are checked during compilation time, can't type it dynamically
public static ValidationStrategy<?> createInstance(CustomerValueValidationEnum validationEnum) {
ValidationStrategy valStrat = null;
switch(validationEnum) {
case VALIDATE_DOCUMENT:
valStrat = new DocumentValidationStrategy<String>();
case VALIDATE_NUMBER:
valStrat = new DocumentValidationStrategy<Integer>();
}
return valStrat;
}
}
Implementation with Map :
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
enum CustomerValueValidationEnum { // Not provided by OP
VALIDATE_DOCUMENT(String.class),
VALIDATE_NUMBER(Integer.class);
private Class validationType;
CustomerValueValidationEnum(Class cls) {
validationType = cls;
}
public Class getValidationType() {
return validationType;
}
}
interface ValidationStrategy<T> {
String getNativeQuery();
ValidationStrategy<T> withValue(T value);
}
abstract class AbstractValidationStrategy<T> implements ValidationStrategy<T> {
protected T value;
public void setValue(T value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public String getNativeQuery() {
return null;
}
#Override
public ValidationStrategy<T> withValue(T value) {
setValue(value);
return this;
}
}
class DocumentValidationStrategy<T> extends AbstractValidationStrategy<T> {
#Override
public String getNativeQuery() {
return "Customer Query";
}
}
class ValidationStrategyFactory {
private static final Map<Class, ValidationStrategy> validationStrategiesMap = new HashMap<>();
{
validationStrategiesMap.put(String.class, new DocumentValidationStrategy<String>());
validationStrategiesMap.put(Integer.class, new DocumentValidationStrategy<Integer>());
}
private static ValidationStrategy<?> getInstance(CustomerValueValidationEnum validationEnum) {
return validationStrategiesMap.get(validationEnum.getValidationType());
}
}
You can't use generic type through enum (without implementing an interface) : Post
You can't type dynamically any generic type : Post

One workaround is using a way to get each generic type strategy with a separate method getting from a separate map.
The lower number of various strategy generic types, the more appropriate this way is.
public class StrategyFactory {
static final Map<CustomerValueValidationEnum, ValidationStrategy<String>> validationStringStrategiesMap = new HashMap<>() {{
validationStringStrategiesMap.put(CustomerValueValidationEnum.VALIDATE_DOCUMENT_STRING, new DocumentStringValidationStrategy());
}};
static final Map<CustomerValueValidationEnum, ValidationStrategy<Integer>> validationIntegerStrategiesMap = new HashMap<>() {{
validationIntegerStrategiesMap.put(CustomerValueValidationEnum.VALIDATE_DOCUMENT_INTEGER, new DocumentIntegerValidationStrategy());
}};
public static ValidationStrategy<String> stringStrategy(CustomerValueValidationEnum e) {
return validationStringStrategiesMap.get(e);
}
public static ValidationStrategy<Integer> integerStrategy(CustomerValueValidationEnum e) {
return validationIntegerStrategiesMap.get(e);
}
}
public class DocumentStringValidationStrategy extends AbstractValidationStrategy<String> { ... }
public class DocumentIntegerValidationStrategy extends AbstractValidationStrategy<Integer> { ... }
Advantages:
The generic type will be always inferred: StrategyFactory.integerStrategy(null).withValue(1); which means the user-call is very comfortable.
Scales with a low number of generic types: 2 generic type of strategies -> 2 maps -> 2 methods.
Disadvantage:
The user must know if the String-type or Integer-type is to be requested.
Doesn't scale with a high number of generic types: if each strategy has a custom type, then this solution will not help you at all.
Characteristics:
Not null-safe, the map can return null (I'd use null-object pattern for safe behavior). This would be issue even in any of your solutions

Avoid cast in a generics hierarchy

I have some difficulty to simplify more the problem. Sorry if they are too many code here.
I try to improve the architecture of the code above because I hate warning and cast and I feel something wrong.
Now, the code.
I have a util class with these two parametrized methods (same signature as OpenJPA's CriteriaBuilder...)
public class MyUtil {
public void equal(List<?> l, Object value) {
// do something (see CriteriaBuilder.equal method)
}
public <Y extends Comparable<? super Y>> void greaterThan(List<? extends Y> l, Y value) {
// do something (see CriteriaBuilder.greaterThan method)
}
}
Then, I want to be able to abstract them to call it via an interface.
public interface IOperation<T> {
// maybe make this method generic ? but how ?
public abstract void doOp(List<T> l, T value);
}
public abstract class AbstractOperation<T> implements IOperation<T> {
protected MyUtil myUtil;
}
public class EqualOp extends AbstractOperation<Object> {
#Override
public void doOp(List<Object> path, Object value) {
myUtil.equal(path, value);
}
}
public class GreaterThanOp<T extends Comparable<? super T>> extends AbstractOperation<T> {
#Override
public void doOp(List<T> path, T value) {
myUtil.greaterThan(path, value);
}
}
I create a factory
public class OperationFactory {
private static OperationFactory instance;
public static OperationFactory getInstance() {...}
public IOperation<?> get(String op) {
if ("=".equals(op)) {
return new EqualOp();
} else if (">".equals(op)) {
return new GreaterThanOp<Comparable<? super Object>>();
}
throw new InvalidParameterException();
}
}
Then I use it :
public class Client {
public void needOp(String op) {
IOperation<String> operation = (IOperation<String>) OperationFactory.getInstance().get(op); // How to avoid this cast ?
List<String> l = null;
operation.doOp(l, "a string");
}
}
My question is : is it possible to avoid this cast in the Client class ? How ? Is there a way to have a better architecture ?
Thanks for reading

I'm assuming you can require your type to be Comparable.
Parameterize EqualOp like GreaterThanOp:
public class EqualOp<T extends Comparable<T>> extends AbstractOperation<T> {
#Override public void doOp(List<T> path, T value) ...
And define get() like this:
public <T extends Comparable<T>> IOperation<T> get(String op) {
if ("=".equals(op)) {
return new EqualOp<T>();
} else if (">".equals(op)) {
return new GreaterThanOp<T>();
}
...

defining a method using inherited methods

I'm trying to define void add(T thing) method by using the inherited push method of a stack but Eclipse says the return type is incompatible with Vector<T>.add(T) and wants me to change the return type of add(T) to boolean which doesn't make sense.
Below is my code
public class ListStack<T> extends Stack<T> implements SomeList<T>{
Stack<T> stack1=new Stack<T>();
public ListStack(){//constructor
super();
stack1=new Stack<T>();
}
//add method
public void add(T something){
this.push(something);}
}
Here's my SomeList interface
public interface SomeList<T>{
public void add(T something);
public void take(T idx);
.
.
.
}

Well since you're holding an instance of Stack<T> as member you don't need to inherit from the very same class.
Remove the inheritance and use your member instead:
public void add(T something){
stack1.push(something);
}
If you no longer subclass Stack<T> your compiler shouldn't complain about the different return types of add(T) anymore.
I think you should have a look into the adapter pattern.
Here's how I would do it:
Interface
interface MyList<T> {
public void addFront(T thing);
public void remove(int pos);
public void removeEnd();
public T get(int pos);
public int length();
public boolean isEmpty();
}
Implementation
class MyListImpl<T> implements MyList {
Stack<T> mStack;
public MyListImpl() {
mStack = new Stack<T>();
}
public void addFront(T thing) {
mStack.push(thing);
}
public void remove(int pos) {
//mStack...
}
public void removeEnd() {
//mStack...
}
public T get(int pos) {
// return mStack...
}
public int length() {
// return mStack...
}
public boolean isEmpty() {
// return mStack...
}
}

Your Stack Class must be having the method add() with a return type of boolean

Stack class extends Vector class, which contains boolean add(E e). I think Eclipse confuses between the add method in Vector, and the add method in your SomeList interface.

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

Java generics passing parameters

Hope somebody can help me out of this confussion.
I made this method:
public static <T> void myMethod(Map<Class<T>, MyInterface<T>> map) {
}
Used paramter T in order to make sure that the class used as key is the same as the class used as parameter in MyInterface.
Now I want to pass a map which different classes as keys, of course, and corresponding implementations of MyInterface.
But it doesn't work, getting syntax errors because of type parameters. Here is the code, I hope is self explanatory.
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Map<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>> map = new HashMap<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>>();
// Map<Class<Object>, MyInterface<Object>> map = new HashMap<Class<Object>, MyInterface<Object>>();
map.put(Object.class, new MyObjectImpl());
//if I use Map<Class<Object>, MyInterface<Object>> I get a compiler error here
//because map<String> is not map<Object> basically
map.put(String.class, new MyStringImpl());
//this would be possible using <?>, which is exactly what I don't want
// map.put(String.class, new MyIntegerImpl());
//<?> generates anyways a compiler error
myMethod(map);
}
//use T to make sure the class used as key is the same as the class of the parameter "object" in doSomething
public static <T> void myMethod(Map<Class<T>, MyInterface<T>> map) {
}
interface MyInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T object);
}
static class MyObjectImpl implements MyInterface<Object> {
#Override
public void doSomething(Object object) {
System.out.println("MyObjectImpl doSomething");
}
}
static class MyStringImpl implements MyInterface<String> {
#Override
public void doSomething(String object) {
System.out.println("MyStringImpl doSomething");
}
}
static class MyIntegerImpl implements MyInterface<Integer> {
#Override
public void doSomething(Integer object) {
System.out.println("MyIntegerImpl doSomething");
}
}
}

You can't do that, because there is no constraint defined in Map's put() method between the key and the value. If you want to assure that your map is populated properly (i.e. create such constraint), hide the map behind some API that will check the correctness, for example:
public <T> void registerInterface(Class<T> clazz, MyInterface<T> intf) {
map.put(clazz, intf);
}
Then, just call the registerInterface instead of manually populating the map.

As far as I know, you cannot declare a Map like you describe in Java. All you can do is performing type checking and/or add constraints.
Guava offers something that approaches your problem with ClassToInstanceMap. So one way to do this would be to use MapConstraints.constrainedMap (like the example below)
import java.text.ParseException;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import com.google.common.collect.MapConstraint;
import com.google.common.collect.MapConstraints;
public class Main {
interface MyInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T object);
Class<T> getType();
}
static class MyObjectImpl implements MyInterface<Object> {
#Override
public void doSomething(Object object) {
System.out.println("MyObjectImpl doSomething");
}
#Override
public Class<Object> getType() {
return Object.class;
}
}
static class MyStringImpl implements MyInterface<String> {
#Override
public void doSomething(String object) {
System.out.println("MyStringImpl doSomething");
}
#Override
public Class<String> getType() {
return String.class;
}
}
static class MyIntegerImpl implements MyInterface<Integer> {
#Override
public void doSomething(Integer object) {
System.out.println("MyIntegerImpl doSomething");
}
#Override
public Class<Integer> getType() {
return Integer.class;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws ParseException {
Map<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>> map = MapConstraints.constrainedMap(new HashMap<Class<?>, Main.MyInterface<?>>(),
new MapConstraint<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>>() {
#Override
public void checkKeyValue(Class<?> key, MyInterface<?> value) {
if (value == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("value cannot be null");
}
if (value.getType() != key) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Value is not of the correct type");
}
}
});
map.put(Integer.class, new MyIntegerImpl());
map.put(String.class, new MyStringImpl());
map.put(Object.class, new MyObjectImpl());
map.put(Float.class, new MyIntegerImpl()); //<-- Here you will get an exception
}
}

I do not think this is possible :
Class<T> only ever accepts T.class as value. Class<Object> will not accept String.class, even though Object is a superclass of String.
For this reason any map with Class<T> as key can have only one element, with T.class as key value, whatever the value of T.
The compiler will only ever accept a map with a definite value of T as parameter. You cannot write Map<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>> because each ? is assumed to be different : it does not match Map<Class<T>, MyInterface<T>> which requires T to have the same value.
That said, myMethod will only ever accept single-entry maps, which does not seem useful.

Change your method signature to
public static <T> void myMethod(Map<Class<? extends T>, MyInterface<? extends T>> map) {
}
now your declaration and invocation should work..
Map<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>> map = new HashMap<Class<?>, MyInterface<?>>();
map.put(Integer.class, new MyIntegerImpl());
map.put(String.class, new MyStringImpl());
map.put(Object.class, new MyObjectImpl());
myMethod(map);