I have 3 classes:
Error
ShellError
WebError
where
ShellError extends Error
and
WebError extends Error
In ShellError there are fields some of which are optional and others are required. I am building the object in the following manner:
shellError = new ShellError.Builder().setFile(filePattern)
.setHost(host).setPath(path).setSource(file.isSource())
.setJobName(p.getJobName()).build();
Since ShellError extends Error, I further:
shellError.setDescription(msg.toString());
shellError.setExceptionClass("MyEvilException");
shellError.setExceptionMessage("Some clever error message");
shellError.setStacktrace(stack);
So ... why bother with Builder? I like the fact that my build() amongst other things conveniently validates that all fields are set appropriately etc.
I would love it if I could .. build() ShellError and add to it the fields from the Error class.
What i did works.
The question is:
Is there a better way, or does it make sense what I did?
-- EDIT
I updated Builder() to accept some of the parameters which were in Error class before. Now I have
shellError = new ShellError.Builder(exception, "Some description").setFile(filePattern).setHost(host)
.setPath(path).setSource(file.isSource()).
setJobName(p.getJobName()).build();
What do you say? Better? Worse?
The builder pattern, popularized by Josh Bloch, has several benefits, but it doesn't work so elegantly on parent/subclasses, as explained in this discussion by our colleagues in the C# world. The best solution I have seen so far is this one (or a slight variant of it).
Based on the functions you've referenced, this is clearly not the standard java.lang.Error class. Typically builders are used to allow for an immutable object to be easily constructed or to provide functionality similar to "named parameters" in cases where there are lots of configuration / construction parameters.
For this particular case, it would be more sensible if the Error class were immutable after construction, and if these additional setter functions were on the builder instead of on the error class. I don't know how much control you have over any of these classes, but if you can modify them, I would suggest first making the builder support the same setters, so you can do all the configuration at the builder. Then, if it is feasible to do so, you could try removing these setter methods and instead allowing these to be configured from the constructor. If you don't have any control at all over those, you can could potentially extend the builder class with another one which supports these additional methods.
What you did makes sense. It seems like the design of the builder and error classes don't necessarily make a whole lot of sense, forcing you to write code that feels inelegant or inconsistent.
As it was already said, the builder pattern is not something that could organically fit into the existing Java object initialization politics. There are several approaches to achieve the required result. Though, of course, it is always better to avoid any ambiguous practices, it's not always possible. My hack is based on Java reflection API with generics:
abstract public class AbstractClass {
public static class Builder {
public <T extends AbstractClass> T build(Class<T> implementingClass) {
try {
Constructor<T> constructor = implementingClass
.getConstructor(new Class[]{Builder.class});
return constructor.newInstance(this);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// TODO handle the exception
} catch (InvocationTargetException | InstantiationException |
IllegalAccessException e) {
// TODO handle the exception
}
}
}
protected AbstractClass(Builder builder) {
}
}
public class ImplementingClass extends AbstractClass {
public ImplementingClass (Builder builder) {
super(builder);
}
}
The initialization:
ImplementingClass instance = new AbstractClass.Builder()
.build(ImplementingClass.class);
Related
Let's say I have 1 complete class with around 20 methods which provide different functionalities.
Now we have multiple clients using this class, but we want them to have restricted access.
For e.g. -
Client 1 - Gets access to method1/m3/m5/m7/m9/m11
Client 2 - Gets access to method2/m4/m6/m8/m10/m12
Is there any way I can restrict this access?
One solution which I thought:
Create 2 new classes extending Parent class and override methods which are not accessible and throw Exception from them.
But then if 3rd client with different requirement, we have to create new subclass for them.
Is there any other way to do this?
Create 2 new classes extending Parent class and override methods which
are not accessible and throw Exception from them. But then if 3rd
client with different requirement, we have to create new subclass for
them.
It is a bad solution because it violates Polymorphism and the Liskov Substitution Principle. This way will make your code less clear.
At first, you should think about your class, are you sure that it isn't overloaded by methods? Are you sure that all of those methods relate to one abstraction? Perhaps, there is a sense to separate methods to different abstractions and classes?
If there is a point in the existence of those methods in the class then you should use different interfaces to different clients. For example, you can make two interfaces for each client
interface InterfaceForClient1 {
public void m1();
public void m3();
public void m5();
public void m7();
public void m9();
public void m11();
}
interface InterfaceForClient2 {
public void m2();
public void m4();
public void m6();
public void m8();
public void m10();
public void m12();
}
And implement them in your class
class MyClass implements InterfaceForClient1, InterfaceForClient2 {
}
After it, clients must use those interfaces instead of the concrete implementation of the class to implement own logic.
You can create an Interface1 which defines methods only for Client1, and an Interface2 which defines methods only for Client2. Then, your class implements Interface1 and Interface2.
When you declare Client1 you can do something like: Interface1 client1.
With this approach, client1 can accesses only methods of this interface.
I hope this will help you.
The other answers already present the idiomatic approach. Another idea is a dynamic proxy decorating the API with an access check.
In essence, you generate a proxy API that has additional checks on method calls to implement a form of Access Control.
Example Implementation:
package com.example;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
#FunctionalInterface
public interface ACL<P, Q> {
boolean allowed(P accessor, Q target, Method method, Object[] args);
class ACLException extends RuntimeException {
ACLException(String message) {
super(message);
}
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
default Q protect(P accessor, Q delegate, Class<Q> dType) {
if (!dType.isInterface()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Delegate type must be an Interface type");
}
final InvocationHandler handler = (proxy, method, args) -> {
if (allowed(accessor, delegate, method, args)) {
try {
return method.invoke(delegate, args);
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
throw e.getCause();
}
} else {
throw new ACLException("Access denies as per ACL");
}
};
return (Q) Proxy.newProxyInstance(dType.getClassLoader(), new Class[]{dType}, handler);
}
}
Example Usage:
package com.example;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class Main {
interface API {
void doAlpha(int arg);
void doBeta(String arg);
void doGamma(Object arg);
}
static class MyAPI implements API {
#Override
public void doAlpha(int arg) {
System.out.println("Alpha");
}
#Override
public void doBeta(String arg) {
System.out.println("Beta");
}
#Override
public void doGamma(Object arg) {
System.out.println("Gamma");
}
}
static class AlphaClient {
void use(API api) {
api.doAlpha(100);
api.doBeta("100");
api.doGamma(this);
}
}
public static class MyACL implements ACL<AlphaClient, API> {
#Override
public boolean allowed(AlphaClient accessor, API target, Method method, Object[] args) {
final String callerName = accessor.getClass().getName().toLowerCase();
final String methodName = method.getName().toLowerCase().replace("do", "");
return callerName.contains(methodName);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final MyACL acl = new MyACL();
final API api = new MyAPI();
final AlphaClient client = new AlphaClient();
final API guardedAPI = acl.protect(client, api, API.class);
client.use(guardedAPI);
}
}
Notes:
The accessor does not have to be the client object itself, it can be a string key or token that helps ACL identify the client.
The ACL implementation here is rudimentary, more interesting ones could be One that reads ACL from some file or One that uses method and client annotations as rules.
If you don't want to define an interface for API class, consider a tool like javassist to directly proxy a class.
Consider other popular Aspect Oriented Programming solutions
You should create one super class with all the methods and then provide Client specific implementations in their corresponding sub classes extending from the super class defined earlier.
If there are methods which are common implementation for all clients, leave their implementations to the super class.
It seems like you are a bit confused about the purpose of Classes and Interfaces. As far as I know, an Interface is a contract defining which functionality a piece of software provides. This is from official java tutorial:
There are a number of situations in software engineering when it is
important for disparate groups of programmers to agree to a "contract"
that spells out how their software interacts. Each group should be
able to write their code without any knowledge of how the other
group's code is written. Generally speaking, interfaces are such
contracts.
Then you can write a Class which implements this Interface/contract, that is, provides the code that actually perform what was specified. The List interface and the ArrayList class are both an example of this.
Interfaces and Classes have access modifiers, but they aren't designed to specify permissions to specific clients. They specify what is visible for other piece of software depending the location where it is defined: Class, Package, Subclass, World. For example, a private method can be accessed only inside the class where it is defined.
From official Java tutorial again:
Access level modifiers determine whether other classes can use a
particular field or invoke a particular method. There are two levels
of access control:
At the top level—public, or package-private (no explicit modifier).
At the member level—public, private, protected, or package-private (no
explicit modifier).
Maybe you want something more powerful like Access Control List (ACL).
Your question is a little unclear, leading to different possible answers. I'll try to cover some of the possible areas:
Object encapsulation
If your goal is to provide interfaces to different clients that only provide certain functionality or a specific view there are several solutions. Which matches best depends on the purpose of your class:
Refactoring
The question somehow suggests that your class is responsible for different tasks. That might be an indicator, that you could tear it apart into distinct classes that provide the different interfaces.
Original
class AllInOne {
A m1() {}
B m2() {}
C m3() {}
}
client1.useClass(allInOneInstance);
client2.useClass(allInOneInstance);
client3.useClass(allInOneInstance);
Derived
class One {
A m1() {}
}
class Two {
B m2() {}
}
class Three {
C m3() {}
}
client1.useClass(oneInstance);
client2.useClass(twoInstance);
client3.useClass(threeInstance);
Interfaces
If you choose to keep the class together (there might be good reasons for it), you could have the class implement interfaces that model the view required by different clients. By passing instances of the appropriate interface to the clients they will not see the full class interface:
Example
class AllInOne implements I1, I2, I3 {
...
}
interface I1 {
A m1();
}
But be aware that clients will still be able to cast to the full class like ((AllInOne) i1Instance).m2().
Inheritance
This was already outline in other answers. I'll therefore skip this here. I don't think this is a good solution as it might easily break in a lot of scenarios.
Delegation
If casting is a risk to you, you can create classes that only offer the desired interface and delegate to the actual implementation:
Example
class Delegate1 {
private AllInOne allInOne;
public A m1() {
return allInOne.m1();
}
}
Implementing this can be done in various ways and depends on your environment like explicit classes, dynamic proxies , code generation, ...
Framework
If you are using an Application Framework like Spring you might be able to use functionality from this Framework.
Aspects
AOP allows you to intercept method calls and therefor apply some access control logic there.
Security
Please note that all of the above solutions will not give you actual security. Using casts, reflection or other techniques will still allow clients to obtain access to the full functionality.
If you require stronger access limitations there are techniques that I will just briefly outline as they might depend on your environment and are more complex.
Class Loader
Using different class loaders you can make sure that parts of your code have no access to class definitions outsider their scope (used e.g. in tomcat to isolate different deployments).
SecurityManager
Java offers possibilities to implement your own SecurityManager this offers ways to add some extra level of access checking.
Custom build Security
Of course you can add your own access checking logic. Yet I don't think this will be a viable solution for in JVM method access.
Currently, I try to design some things with OO principles in mind. So let's say, before processing user input, I need to validate it. According to OO, a separate Validator class would be the correct way. This would look as follows:
public class Validator{
public void validate(String input) throws ValidationException{
if (input.equals("")) throw new ValidationException("Input was empty");
}
}
Then, my processing class, which got the validator object before via dependency injection would call validator.validate(input)
A good point about this design is, that
My processing class can get a mock for the validator via DI which makes testing easier
The Validator class can be tested independently
However, my doubts are in the design of the Validator. According to OO, it misses some kind of state. With this design, it is as util class and the validate method could be static. And I read a lot of times that (static) Util classes are bad OO design. So, how can this be done with more OO while keeping the two advantages I mentioned?
PS.: Maybe, OO is simply a bad solution for this kind of problem. However, I would like to see how the OO solution would look like and form my own opinion.
The validator in your example doesn't have a state (and doesn't need any), but another validator could require one (say with a format):
Example:
public class RegExValidator {
private Pattern pattern;
public RegExValidator(String re) {
pattern = Pattern.compile(re);
}
public void validate(String input) throws ValidationException {
if (!pattern.matcher(input).matches()) {
throw new ValidationException("Invalid syntax [" + input + "]");
}
}
}
Concentrating on the OOP aspect of your question (rather than the question if an Exception is the correct way to handle your validation):
Why have a single validator?
interface Validator<T> {
void validate(T toValidate) throws ValidationException;
}
would enable you to write classes that can validate any class T and be very testable. Your validator would look like this:
class EmptyStringValidator implements Validator<String> {
public void validate(String toValidate) {
if(toValidate == null || toValidate.isEmpty()) throw new ValidationException("empty!!!");
}
}
and you could test it very easily.
In fact, if you're using Java 8, this would be a functional interface, so a single utility class could host several validators:
class ValidationUtil {
public static void emptyString(String val) // same code as above
}
and ValidationUtil::emptyString would implement Validator<String>.
You would combine several validators with a composite pattern.
You could also have a validator with a state if that's what you need...
class ListIsSortedValidator implements Validator<Integer> {
private int lastInt = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
public void validate(Integer val) throw ValidationException {
if (val < lastInt) throw new ValidationException("not sorted");
lastInt = val;
}
}
That you could use to for instance validate a list:
List<Integer> list = createList();
Validator<Integer> validator = new ListIsSortedValidator();
list.forEach(validator::validate);
It depends on the circumstances of course, but I think your instinct is correct. This design could be more Object-Oriented.
It is not just that Validator has no state, which is a purely mechanical indicator that it is likely not a correct abstraction, but the name itself tells us something. Usually Validator (or even EmptyStringValidator) is not part of the problem domain. It is always a bad sign when you have to create something purely technical (although sometimes it is the less of two evils).
I assume you are not writing a web-framework, you are trying to write an application that has some domain. For example it has user registration. Then, RegistrationForm is part of the problem domain. Users know about the "registration form", you can talk about it and they will know what you mean.
In this case, an Object-Oriented solution for validation would be that this object is responsible for the validation of itself during the "submitting" of itself.
public final class RegistrationForm extends Form {
...
#Override
public void submit() {
// Do validation here
// Set input fields to error if there are problems
// If everything ok do logic
}
}
I know this is not the solution normally seen or even supported by web-frameworks. But it is how an Object-Oriented solution would look like.
The two important points to always keep in mind are:
Don't "get" data from objects, ask them to do something instead. This is as applicable to UI code as anything else.
OO makes sense when the objects focus on meaningful things, i.e. the problem domain. Avoid over-representing technical (unimportant) objects, like Validator (if that's not your application's domain).
I am creating a class that overrides a method signature whose erasure is identical between 2 implemented interfaces, but with a minor difference in regards of the generic type (one is a method-inferred type, the other an inferred-class type). I am looking for a neat solution. I CAN ONLY edit the inherited class, not the original legacy interfaces.
To show the case, I made up an abstract sample, to understand the problem:
I got a Developer legacy parent class:
public class Developer<C>{
Rate<C> getRate(Taxes<C> tax){ /*...*/ }
}
I also got a Rentable legacy interface, with an almost identical signature
public interface Rentable {
<C> Rate<C> getRate(Taxes<C> taxes);
}
As a developer is not rentable, in my model, I create an special
developer which is both a Developer, and Rentable material.
public class OutsourcableDeveloper<C>
extends Developer<C>
implements Rentable{
#Override
public Rate<C> getRate(Taxes<C> taxes){ /*...*/}
}
and then I got the infamous
Name clash: The method getRate(Developer.Taxes) of type
OutsourcableDeveloper has the same erasure as
getRate(Developer.Taxes) of type Rentable but does not override it
How can I get rid of it, so OutsourcableDeveloper.getRate() hides
both Developer and Rentable. getRate()?
It seems a bit illogical to fail a common override but then disallowing extending both signatures as the erasures are equal.
Does it really matters so much the fact that one of the supertypes infers type from de method and the other from the class specially when I'm not going to call any super in my implementation? Is there perhaps a trick to overcome the issue given this simplification?
EDIT: I opened a more abstract, less solution-oriented to my actual problem, question to discuss the inheritance design problem which I believe is the correlated essence of the actual issue I am having: Why can't I extend an interface "generic method" and narrow its type to my inherited interface "class generic"?
EDIT2: Previous question lead me to the answer posted here
Well they are actually not equal. Because any Rentable-Instance allows any typeparameter T to be given, while the OutsourcableDeveloper restricts it.
Of course you can assume that in your case it is easy to use the
<C> Rate<C> getRate(Taxes<C> taxes);
Version of the interface. But expect how confused a developer could be, if he wants to subclass OutsourceableDeveloper. From the definition of Developer he can assume that the Method getRate is fixed to C but actually it can suddenly take any value. -> allowing this would lead to confusion.
What i can offer you is the following code-example, which may be suitable for your case. Although it definitely will be inconvenient to use it. But as you forward all methods to the OursourcableDeveloperRentable it is possible. The comments should explain how it works.
//This class itself can be added to any Developer-lists
public class OutsourcableDeveloper<C> extends Developer<C> {
public final OutSourcableDeveloperRentable RENTABLE_INSTANCE = new OutSourcableDeveloperRentable();
#Override
public Rate<C> getRate(final Taxes<C> taxes) {
// Simply forward to the more general getRate instance.
return this.RENTABLE_INSTANCE.getRate(taxes);
}
public void exampleBehaviourA() {
//Example for how you can make both objects behave equally.
}
// This class can be added to the lists requiring a Rentable
// And the original value can be retrieved by both classes.
public class OutSourcableDeveloperRentable implements Rentable {
public final OutsourcableDeveloper<C> PARENT_INSTANCE = OutsourcableDeveloper.this;
//This method is the one to implement because it is more general than
//the version of OutsourcableDeveloper.
#Override
public <T> Rate<T> getRate(final Taxes<T> taxes) {
// Do your work.
return null;
}
public void exampleBehaviourA() {
//Just an example - Maybe for you it makes for sence to
//forward the method of Oursoursable-Developer to here.
//Then all Behaviour would be found in this class.
OutsourcableDeveloper.this.exampleBehaviourA();
}
}
}
Ok, I found a way to solve it. It's clumpsy, but it's the easier one if the architecture is not very complex, inspired by my Why can't I extend an interface "generic method" and narrow its type to my inherited interface "class generic"? own answer:
public class OutsourcableDeveloper<C>
extends Developer<C>
implements Rentable{
/* This might not be needed if we don't need to extract C from taxes parameter */
final Class<C> currencyClass;
public OutsourcableDeveloper(Class<C> currencyClass){ this.currencyClass = currencyClass;}
#Override
public Rate<C> getRate(#SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") Taxes taxes){
try{
C taxesCurrency = (C) currencyClass.cast(taxes.getCurrency()); //IF actually needed getting the typed instance
return new Rate<C>(taxesCurrency); //Or whatever processing
} catch (ClassCastException e){
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("OutsourcableDeveloper does not accept taxes in a currency that its not hims");
}
}
}
It is also possible to play with "extends Developer" without the generic type, so it is implictly raw. but we loose typing for the non-conflicting methods as well
I have an implementation class which catches all the declared exceptions of a method of an Interface. As I inject and use the Interface instance variable inside a class and hope to call the implementation method - I am naturally getting a compiler error pointing that I either need to throw/catch the exceptions declared in parent.
Few options that come to my mind are these, but I don't like them. Just want to know the best way to go about this.
Cast the interface instance to impl
Create child interface with a method with no exceptions
May be just not declare exceptions in Interface. Just catch all of the possible exceptions in impl.
EDIT 1: Attached some example code
public interface ServiceUtilInterface {
public abstract String getMessage(String ID) throws CustomException;
}
#Component(value="MyServiceUtil")
public class MyServiceUtil implements ServiceUtilInterface {
#Override
public String getMessage(String ID) {
try{
//do something
}catch(CustomException e){
}
return "";
}
#Component
public class Usage {
#Autowired
ServiceUtilInterface serviceUtil;
public void someMethod(){
serviceUtil.getMessage("123");
//This where compiler expects me to throw /catch the exception defined in interface
}
}
UPDATE
Cast the interface instance to impl - never ever do that. If you use Spring then you never know what the implementation of an interface could be. This should be configuration dependent.
If you start do write jUnits you will probably need to use mock (fake) components for testing. Then if you try to cast your mock to a concrete implementation your code will fail. In other words you will never be able to write proper unit tests. The other thing is that if you add some Aspects or make a service #Transactional or #Validated then you wont be able to cast because instead of your implementation you may receive a proxy object.
and 3 that strongly depends on your code design. Try to find some materials about good practices for throwing and handling exceptions. There are some general rules about that. Probably no one can help you with this because this is service specific.
I have a generated object that I want to:
Preserve existing functionality of without injecting into the constructor and rewriting every method to call injectedObject.sameMethod().
Add additional functionality to that generated object without modifying the generated object.
add additional functionality to.
For example:
public class GeneratedObject {
public String getThis() { ... }
public String getThat() { ... }
}
public interface ObjectWrapper {
String doThisWithThat();
}
public class ObjectWrapperImpl extends GeneratedObject implements ObjectWrapper {
String doThisWithThat() { ... }
}
However, downcasting is not allowed, what is the proper implementation without rewriting a bunch of redundant code just to wrap the object?
I think decorator pattern may help you: "The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object at run-time, independently of other instances of the same class"
Have you tried aspectj? http://www.eclipse.org/aspectj/doc/next/progguide/semantics-declare.html It's a bit complicated but so is your request.
If you can extract an interface from GeneratedObject, then it would be possible to do this using a dynamic proxy. You would make a proxy which implemented the extracted interface and ObjectWrapper, with an invocation handler which passed all calls to methods in the GeneratedObject interface through to the delegate, and sent the doThisWithThat() calls elsewhere.
Proxies aren't pretty, but the ugliness is at least well-localised.