I have a string (which is a message) that I get as input and I need to do one of 4 possible things depending on the string
I know that there is eunm.valueOf() option, but I have 4 different enums, each with few possible messages.
looks something like:
public enum first{ONE,TWO,THREE};
public enum second{FOUR,FIVE,SIX};
public enum third{SEVEN,EIGHT,NINE};
public void work(String message){
//Here I want to compare message string to one of the 3 enums
}
is it possible to do this in one method of the enum?
or should I just try to create one, and if I get an exception try the other and so on?
As others have commented, it may be better to think through whether you really need 4 distinct enums.
But if you do, you could have them implement a common interface. Then you can map the input strings to the appropriate enum member, and call its method to accomplish what you want. Something like
public interface SomeInterface {
void doSomething();
};
public enum First implements SomeInterface {
ONE,TWO,THREE;
#Override
public void doSomething() { ... }
};
...
Map<String, SomeInterface> myMap = new HashMap<String, SomeInterface>();
for (First item : First.values()) {
myMap.put(item.toString(), item);
}
...
public void work(String message){
SomeInterface obj = myMap.get(message);
if (obj != null) {
obj.doSomething();
}
}
This assumes that the 4 possible things you want to do correspond to the 4 enums. If not, you can override the method separately for each and any enum member too, e.g.
public enum First implements SomeInterface {
ONE,
TWO {
#Override
public void doSomething() { // do something specific to TWO }
},
THREE;
#Override
public void doSomething() { // general solution for all values of First }
};
Enumerations in Java are full blown classes. Individual values can even override the behavior to meet their needs. It's pretty cool. You can use this to your advantage:
public enum Value implements Worker
{
ONE,
TWO,
THREE
{
#Override
public void doWork(String message)
{
// overrides behavior of base enum
}
},
FOUR,
/* ... */,
NINE;
private final String message;
Value() { this(""); }
Value(String message) { this.message = message; }
public void doWork(String message)
{
if (this.message.equals(message))
{
/* ... */
}
}
}
public interface Worker
{
void doWork(String message);
}
You can create a Map of them all
static final Map<String, Enum> enumMap = new LinkedHashMap<String, Enum>(){{
for(First e: First.values()) put(e.name(), e);
for(Second e: Second.values()) put(e.name(), e);
for(Third e: Third.values()) put(e.name(), e);
}};
Enum e = enumMap.get(name);
What you're really looking for is a aggregation of the other enums. The easiest way to get that is to make a new enum that puts all of those choices in a new enum. Something to this effect:
public enum Combination {
NEWONE(first.ONE), NEWTWO(first.TWO), NEWTHREE(first.THREE),
NEWFOUR(second.FOUR), NEWFIVE(second.FIVE), NEWSIX(second.SIX),
NEWSEVEN(third.SEVEN), NEWEIGHT(third.EIGHT), NEWNINE(third.NINE);
private String contents;
public Combination(first f) {
contents = f.toString();
}
public Combination(second s) {
contents = s.toString();
}
public Combination(third t) {
contents = t.toString();
}
public String toString() {
return contents;
}
}
This will more correctly aggregate the previous enums into a single data structure.
Even given your odd/even example in the comments, I don't feel multiple enums are the way to go here. I would use something like (warning, untested):
public enum Numbers {
ONE("first"), TWO("first"), THREE("first"), FOUR("second"), FIVE("second"), SIX("second"), SEVEN("third"), EIGHT("third"), NINE("third")
private String type;
Numbers(String t) { this.type = t; }
String getType { return this.type; }
}
Then you can use valueOf() to look up the enum element, and getType() to find out which of your three categories it belongs to.
It isn't entirely clear what you are asking, but perhaps you want to define a mapping between strings and constants, like this:
enum Type { FIRST, SECOND, THIRD };
Map<String, Type> mapping = new HashSet<String, Type>(){{
put("ONE", Type.FIRST);
put("TWO", Type.FIRST);
//...
put("NINE", Type.THIRD);
}};
public Type getTypeFromString(String s) {
return mapping.get(s);
}
Related
In my program, the user needs to input what type of players the game will have. The players are "human", "good" (for a good AI), "bad" (for a bad AI) and "random" (for a random AI). Each of these players have their own class that extend one abstract class called PlayerType.
My struggle is mapping a String to the object so I can A) create a new object using the String as sort of a key and B) get the related String from an object of its subclass
Ultimately, I just want the implicit String to only appear once in the code so I can change it later if needed without refactoring.
I've tried using just a plain HashMap, but that seems clunky with searching the keys via the values. Also, I'm guessing that I'll have to use the getInstance() method of Class, which is a little less clunky, which is okay if it's the only way.
What I would do is create an enum which essentially functions as a factory for the given type.
public enum PlayerTypes {
GOOD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new GoodPlayer();
}
},
BAD {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new BadPlayer();
}
},
RANDOM {
#Override
protected PlayerType newPlayer() {
return new RandomPlayer();
}
};
protected abstract PlayerType newPlayer();
public static PlayerType create(String input) {
for(PlayerTypes player : PlayerTypes.values()) {
if(player.name().equalsIgnoreCase(input)) {
return player.newPlayer();
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid player type [" + input + "]");
}
)
Because then you can just call it like so:
String input = getInput();
PlayerTypes.create(input);
Of course, you'll get an IllegalArgumentException which you should probably handle by trying to get the input again.
EDIT: Apparently in this particular case, you can replace that loop with just merely
return PlayerTypes.valueOf(input).newPlayer();
And it'll do the same thing. I tend to match for additional constructor parameters in the enum, so I didn't think of using valueOf(), but it's definitely cleaner.
EDIT2: Only way to get that information back is to define an abstract method in your PlayerType class that returns the PlayerTypes enum for that given type.
public class PlayerType {
public abstract PlayerTypes getType();
}
public class GoodPlayer extends PlayerType {
#Override
public PlayerTypes getType() {
return PlayerTypes.GOOD;
}
}
I like the answer provided by Epic but I don't find maps to be clunky. So it's possible to keep a map and get the constructor call directly.
Map<String, Supplier<PlayerType> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("human", Human::new);
Human h = map.get("human").get();
The two main options I can think of:
Using Class.newInstance(), as you mentioned (not sure if you had this exact way in mind):
// Set up your map
Map<String, Class> classes = new HashMap<String, Class>();
classes.put("int", Integer.class);
classes.put("string", String.class);
// Get your data
Object s = classes.get("string").newInstance();
You could use Class.getDeclaredConstructor.newInstance if you want to use a constructor with arguments (example).
Another option is using switch:
Object getObject(String identifier) {
switch (identifier) {
case "string": return new String();
case "int": return new Integer(4);
}
return null; // or throw an exception or return a default object
}
One potential solution:
public class ForFunFactory {
private ForFunFactory() {
}
public static AThing getTheAppropriateThing(final String thingIdentifier) {
switch (thingIdentifier) {
case ThingImplApple.id:
return new ThingImplApple();
case ThingImplBanana.id:
return new ThingImplBanana();
default:
throw new RuntimeException("AThing with identifier "
+ thingIdentifier + " not found.");
}
}
}
public interface AThing {
void doStuff();
}
class ThingImplApple implements AThing {
static final String id = "Apple";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm an Apple.");
}
}
class ThingImplBanana implements AThing {
static final String id = "Banana";
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println("I'm a Banana.");
}
}
Given these classes:
public class VersionVOV1 extends BaseVO {
private String fieldOne = null;
public String getFieldOne() {
return fieldOne;
}
public void setFieldOne(String fieldOne) {
this.fieldOne = fieldOne;
}
public class VersionVOV2 extends BaseVO {
private String fieldFour = null;
public String getFieldFour() {
return fieldFour;
}
public void setFieldFour(String fieldFour) {
this.fieldFour = fieldFour;
}
}
public class BaseVO {
// common code here
}
I have a calling method doSomething which returns a specific child class based upon an input string:
public BaseVO doSomething(String version) {
BaseVO versionVO = doSomethingVersioned(createVersionVO(version));
return versionVO;
}
The remaining methods are:
private BaseVO createVersionVO(String version) {
BaseVO versionVO = null;
if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V1")) {
versionVO = new VersionVOV1();
} else if (version.equalsIgnoreCase("V2"))
versionVO = new VersionVOV2();
return versionVO;
}
protected VersionVOV1 doSomethingVersioned(VersionVOV1 versionVO) throws Exception {
versionVO.setFieldOne("The versionVO is of type: " + versionVO.getClass());
versionVO.setFieldTwo("Field two");
versionVO.setFieldThree("Field three");
return versionVO;
}
protected VersionVOV2 doSomethingVersioned(VersionVOV2 versionVO) throws Exception {
versionVO.setFieldOne("The versionVO is of type: " + versionVO.getClass());
versionVO.setFieldThree("Field three");
versionVO.setFieldFour("Field four");
return versionVO;
}
As you can see I've overridden doSomethingVersioned to take in a specific child class. My problem however lies with the compilation error that looks like this on doSomethingVersioned: The method doSomethingVersioned(VersionVOV1) in the type VersionExample is not applicable for the arguments (BaseVO).
I've tried returning a type of <T extends BaseVO> from createVersionVO but then I get other compilation errors in that method stating Type mismatch: cannot convert from VersionVOV1 to T.
I feel like this should be easier than I'm making it. How can I keep this overall pattern but allow this to compile?
Thanks to everyone who helps!
What you want is the pattern Factory Method. Note: there really is no benefit from genericity here. You are merely creating something then the presumption is it will go on its way. Generics tend to yield the greatest benefit when you are wanting to leverage code that is orthogonal to the domain objects, e.g. collections.
While reading online, I came across the following:
public interface UnaryFunction<T>
{
T apply(T arg);
}
.......
private static UnaryFuntion<Object> ID_FUNC = new UnaryFunction<Object>
{
Object apply(Object arg)
{
return arg;
}
};
public static <T> UnaryFunction<T> idFunction()
{
return (UnaryFunction<T>) ID_FUNC;
}
In main:
public static void main(String[] args)
{
String[] strings = {"Peter", "Paul", "Mary"};
UnaryFunction<String> names = idFunction();
for(String s : strings)
{
System.out.println(names.apply(s));
}
Number[] numbers = {1, 2.0, 3L};
UnaryFunction<Number> nums = idFunction();
for(Number n : numbers)
{
System.out.println(nums.apply(n));
}
}
My question is, why do we need a generic interface here?
Would simply the following suffice:
public interface UnaryFunction
{
Object apply(Object arg); //Object as return type and argument type, instead.
}
? What is the need here to use generics?
And, what is actually a generic singleton factory? What is it good for?
Thanks.
The generic singleton factory is the idFunction in your example. Without it you would have a choice between two ugly alternatives, either require a cast wherever you use it, like this:
public class ExampleWithoutGenericSingletonFactory {
static UnaryFunction<Object> ID_FUNC = new UnaryFunction<Object>() {
public Object apply(Object arg) {
return arg;
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
BigDecimal b = new BigDecimal("1234.1241234");
BigDecimal b1 = (BigDecimal)(ID_FUNC.apply(b)); // have to cast here >_<
System.out.println("engineeringstring val of b1 = "
+ b1.toEngineeringString());
}
}
or make separate implementations for every type you want to support:
public static UnaryFunction<String> ID_FUNC_STRING = new UnaryFunction<String>() {
public String apply(String arg) {
return arg;
}
};
public static UnaryFunction<Number> ID_FUNC_NUM = new UnaryFunction<Number>() {
public Number apply(Number arg) {
return arg;
}
};
public static UnaryFunction<BigDecimal> ID_FUNC_DECIMAL = new UnaryFunction<BigDecimal>() {
public Number apply(BigDecimal arg) {
return arg;
}
};
giving you some ugly verbose cut-n-pasted code with a different name for every type that you have to keep straight. But since you know it's a pure function and the types get erased, you can have only one implementation (ID_FUNC) and have the singleton factory idFunction return it.
You would use this for cases where you have one function implementation that you want to be able to specify different types on, where the implementation is stateless.
The example could be better, since it only calls toString on the objects returned from the function call there's no demonstrated benefit from the factory. If the example showed using type-specific methods on the objects returned then the benefit might be more apparent.
An unchecked cast warning comes up when you do this, but it's safe to suppress it (which is what Joshua Bloch advises).
Just playing and came up with a sweet way to add functionality to enums in Java Enum toString() method with this.
Some further tinkering allowed me to nearly also add a tidy (i.e. not throwing an exception) reverse look-up but there's a problem. It's reporting:
error: valueOf(String) in X cannot implement valueOf(String) in HasValue
public enum X implements PoliteEnum, ReverseLookup {
overriding method is static
Is there a way?
The aim here is to silently add (via an interface implementation with a default method like I added politeName in the linked answer) a lookup method that does the valueOf function without throwing an exception. Is it possible? It is clearly now possible to extend enum - one of my major problems with Java until now.
Here's my failed attempt:
public interface HasName {
public String name();
}
public interface PoliteEnum extends HasName {
default String politeName() {
return name().replace("_", " ");
}
}
public interface Lookup<P, Q> {
public Q lookup(P p);
}
public interface HasValue {
HasValue valueOf(String name);
}
public interface ReverseLookup extends HasValue, Lookup<String, HasValue> {
#Override
default HasValue lookup(String from) {
try {
return valueOf(from);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
return null;
}
}
}
public enum X implements PoliteEnum/* NOT ALLOWED :( , ReverseLookup*/ {
A_For_Ism, B_For_Mutton, C_Forth_Highlanders;
}
public void test() {
// Test the politeName
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.politeName());
}
// ToDo: Test lookup
}
You are over-complicating your design. If you are willing to accept that you can invoke a default method on an instance only, there entire code may look like this:
interface ReverseLookupSupport<E extends Enum<E>> {
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
default E lookup(String name) {
try {
return Enum.valueOf(getDeclaringClass(), name);
} catch(IllegalArgumentException ex) { return null; }
}
}
enum Test implements ReverseLookupSupport<Test> {
FOO, BAR
}
You can test it with:
Test foo=Test.FOO;
Test bar=foo.lookup("BAR"), baz=foo.lookup("BAZ");
System.out.println(bar+" "+baz);
An non-throwing/catching alternative would be:
interface ReverseLookupSupport<E extends Enum<E>> {
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
default Optional<E> lookup(String name) {
return Stream.of(getDeclaringClass().getEnumConstants())
.filter(e->e.name().equals(name)).findFirst();
}
to use like:
Test foo=Test.FOO;
Test bar=foo.lookup("BAR").orElse(null), baz=foo.lookup("BAZ").orElse(null);
System.out.println(bar+" "+baz);
Here, there's basically two points. Specifically the reason it doesn't compile is 8.4.8.1:
It is a compile-time error if an instance method overrides a static method.
In other words, an enum can't implement HasValue because of the name clash.
Then there's the more general issue we have which is that static methods just cannot be 'overridden'. Since valueOf is a static method inserted by the compiler on the Enum-derived class itself, there's no way to change it. We also can't use interfaces to solve it since they do not have static methods.
In this specific case it's a place where composition can make this kind of thing less repetetive, for example:
public class ValueOfHelper<E extends Enum<E>> {
private final Map<String, E> map = new HashMap<String, E>();
public ValueOfHelper(Class<E> cls) {
for(E e : EnumSet.allOf(cls))
map.put(e.name(), e);
}
public E valueOfOrNull(String name) {
return map.get(name);
}
}
public enum Composed {
A, B, C;
private static final ValueOfHelper<Composed> HELPER = (
new ValueOfHelper<Composed>(Composed.class)
);
public static Composed valueOfOrNull(String name) {
return HELPER.valueOfOrNull(name);
}
}
(Plus, I'd recommend that over catching the exception anyway.)
I realize "you can't do it" is not really a desirable answer but I don't see a way around it due to the static aspect.
The case is the same as you can not create default toString() in interface. The enum already contains signature for static valueOf(String) method therefore you can not override it.
The enum are compile time constant and because of that it really doubtful that they will be extensible someday.
If you want to get the constant via name you can use this:
public static <E extends Enum<E>> Optional<E> valueFor(Class<E> type, String name) {
return Arrays.stream(type.getEnumConstants()).filter( x -> x.name().equals(name)).findFirst();
}
I think I have an answer - it's hacky and uses reflection but seems to fit the brief - i.e. reverse lookup without methods in the enum and without throwing exception.
public interface HasName {
public String name();
}
public interface PoliteEnum extends HasName {
default String politeName() {
return name().replace("_", " ");
}
}
public interface Lookup<P, Q> {
public Q lookup(P p);
}
public interface ReverseLookup<T extends Enum<T>> extends Lookup<String, T> {
#Override
default T lookup(String s) {
return (T) useMap(this, s);
}
}
// Probably do somethiong better than this in the final version.
static final Map<String, Enum> theMap = new HashMap<>();
static Enum useMap(Object o, String s) {
if (theMap.isEmpty()) {
try {
// Yukk!!
Enum it = (Enum)o;
Class c = it.getDeclaringClass();
// Reflect to call the static method.
Method method = c.getMethod("values");
// Yukk!!
Enum[] enums = (Enum[])method.invoke(null);
// Walk the enums.
for ( Enum e : enums) {
theMap.put(e.name(), e);
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
// Ewwww
}
}
return theMap.get(s);
}
public enum X implements PoliteEnum, ReverseLookup<X> {
A_For_Ism,
B_For_Mutton,
C_Forth_Highlanders;
}
public void test() {
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.politeName());
}
for (X x : X.values()) {
System.out.println(x.lookup(x.name()));
}
}
prints
A For Ism
B For Mutton
C Forth Highlanders
A_For_Ism
B_For_Mutton
C_Forth_Highlanders
Added
Inspired by #Holger - this is what I feel is most like what I was looking for:
public interface ReverseLookup<E extends Enum<E>> extends Lookup<String, E> {
// Map of all classes that have lookups.
Map<Class, Map<String, Enum>> lookups = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
// What I need from the Enum.
Class<E> getDeclaringClass();
#Override
default E lookup(String name) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
// What class.
Class<E> c = getDeclaringClass();
// Get the map.
final Map<String, Enum> lookup = lookups.computeIfAbsent(c,
k -> Stream.of(c.getEnumConstants())
// Roll each enum into the lookup.
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Enum::name, Function.identity())));
// Look it up.
return c.cast(lookup.get(name));
}
}
// Use the above interfaces to add to the enum.
public enum X implements PoliteName, ReverseLookup<X> {
A_For_Ism,
B_For_Mutton,
C_Forth_Highlanders;
}
I'm trying to define a class (or set of classes which implement the same interface) that will behave as a loosely typed object (like JavaScript). They can hold any sort of data and operations on them depend on the underlying type.
I have it working in three different ways but none seem ideal. These test versions only allow strings and integers and the only operation is add. Adding integers results in the sum of the integer values, adding strings concatenates the strings and adding an integer to a string converts the integer to a string and concatenates it with the string. The final version will have more types (Doubles, Arrays, JavaScript-like objects where new properties can be added dynamically) and more operations.
Way 1:
public interface DynObject1 {
#Override public String toString();
public DynObject1 add(DynObject1 d);
public DynObject1 addTo(DynInteger1 d);
public DynObject1 addTo(DynString1 d);
}
public class DynInteger1 implements DynObject1 {
private int value;
public DynInteger1(int v) {
value = v;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return Integer.toString(value);
}
public DynObject1 add(DynObject1 d) {
return d.addTo(this);
}
public DynObject1 addTo(DynInteger1 d) {
return new DynInteger1(d.value + value);
}
public DynObject1 addTo(DynString1 d)
{
return new DynString1(d.toString()+Integer.toString(value));
}
}
...and similar for DynString1
Way 2:
public interface DynObject2 {
#Override public String toString();
public DynObject2 add(DynObject2 d);
}
public class DynInteger2 implements DynObject2 {
private int value;
public DynInteger2(int v) {
value = v;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return Integer.toString(value);
}
public DynObject2 add(DynObject2 d) {
Class c = d.getClass();
if(c==DynInteger2.class)
{
return new DynInteger2(value + ((DynInteger2)d).value);
}
else
{
return new DynString2(toString() + d.toString());
}
}
}
...and similar for DynString2
Way 3:
public class DynObject3 {
private enum ObjectType {
Integer,
String
};
Object value;
ObjectType type;
public DynObject3(Integer v) {
value = v;
type = ObjectType.Integer;
}
public DynObject3(String v) {
value = v;
type = ObjectType.String;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return value.toString();
}
public DynObject3 add(DynObject3 d)
{
if(type==ObjectType.Integer && d.type==ObjectType.Integer)
{
return new DynObject3(Integer.valueOf(((Integer)value).intValue()+((Integer)value).intValue()));
}
else
{
return new DynObject3(value.toString()+d.value.toString());
}
}
}
With the if-else logic I could use value.getClass()==Integer.class instead of storing the type but with more types I'd change this to use a switch statement and Java doesn't allow switch to use Classes.
Anyway... My question is what is the best way to go about something thike this?
What you are trying to do is called double dispatch. You want the method called to depend both on the runtime type of the object it's called on, and on the runtime type of its argument.
Java and other C derivatives support single dispatch only, which is why you need a kludge like the visitor pattern you used in option 1. This is the common way of implementing it. I would prefer this method because it uses no reflection. Furthermore, it allows you to keep each case in its own method, without needing a big "switchboard" method to do the dispatching.
I'd choose the second option, with the third, I'd better be using generics so you don't rely on that Enum. And with the first option you could be implementing methods for the rest of your life. Anyways you could use "instanceof" operator for Class matching.