Develop Reference

Interface or Class for a list of static finals? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am maintaining some Java code that utilizes an interface (let's call it BunchOfConstants) to simply store an abundance of public static final Strings. Occasionally these string names change or string names are added / removed. (which causes a bit of a headache for maintanance)
The only current use for this interface is to compare to input later in a big ugly if/then construct like this:
if(BunchOfConstants.CONSTANT1.equals(whatImLookingFor)){
doSomeStuff(whatImLookingFor)
}else if(BunchOfConstants.CONSTANT2.equals(whatImLookingFor)){
doSomeStuff(whatImLookingFor)
}else if(BunchOfConstants.CONSTANT3.equals(whatImLookingFor)){
doSomeStuff(whatImLookingFor)
}
...
I thought it would be more elegant to create a class that implements Iterable or even a class that stores this data in a hashMap.
I can not figure out why the original developers decided to use an interface for this design as the interface is never actually implemented anywhere. Does anyone have any input?
Would you agree that an iterable class with these members as constants would be more appropriate?

Use enums. Then get myenum.values() and then apply a for-each loop over the values.

I would consider using enums instead as constants are not type safe (e.g., they are just ints, or strings, etc.).

This (having dedicated interface for storing constants) was a fairly common way of storing constants before the era of enums. (Pre Java 5 times.) It saved you the hassle of prefixing your constants with the containing class name. I personally never really liked this practice, but this is the reason people did it.
As for what it can be replaced with:
An enum and a switch/case construct. This requires the least modification but only has modest benefits in readability. It does give you type and value safety, plus you can get warnings out of your IDE if you forget to handle a possible value (no case for it and no default block either).
A properties file. This obviously only works if you don't want to branch based on your constant values. (I.e. if your constants don't have to appear in your source code.) This is important, otherwise you'd end up with a secondary set of constants and a properties file, which is as bad as it gets.
A doSomeStuff() factory. For this you have to wrap your doSomeStuff() implementations in separate operation classes and you can configure your factory either statically or from a properties file. (via a constant value->operation class mapping). This is the most "enterprisey" solution, which means that although it looks nice and is very flexible, a lot of the time it is an overkill.

I think this is a good candidate for enum

Well, this looks like the Constant Interface antipattern and maybe should not be used. Using an enum might be a way as suggested, or at least using a final class with private constructor.
If you want to have different implementations for doSomeStuff based on the input string, you might also consider using the strategy pattern, i.e. have a Map<String, Strategy> and then lookup the strategy for whatImLookingFor. If you found the strategy, execute its doSomeStuff, otherwise handle the "not found" case.

I would suggest you to use a property file to store all your constants. This way you can load your properties into a HashMap as you suggest in your question.
Note that property support is brought natively with java: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/Properties.html

Well, enums are the way to go ... but if the 'dosomestuff' is semantically dependent upon the specific value then why not add a 'dosomestuff' method to the enum itself. That is one that this is really great about Java enums - they are not merely data but as all good objects they have semantics. Then you just loop over the enums invoking dosomestuff(whatIamLookingFor) and whatever happens happens.

Hard to say.
Yes, I agree, that it will be more elegant - at least for you. But think, what the next programmer will think about it. It will be even more complicated.
Previously mentioned strategy pattern and java's enum are definitely better solution, but since you are maintaining this code, I'm not sure if your boss will be happy with time consuming refactoring. My advice would be to use enums - not so big code change.

Using a function in two unrelated Java classes

I have two classes in my Java project that are not 'related' to each other (one inherits from Thread, and one is a custom object. However, they both need to use the same function, which takes two String arguments and does soem file writing stuff. Where do I best put this function? Code duplication is ugly, but I also wouldn't want to create a whole new class just for this one function.
I have the feeling I am missing a very obvious way to do this here, but I can't think of an easy way.

[a function], which takes two String arguments and does soem file writing stuff
As others have suggested, you can place that function in a separate class, which both your existing classes could then access. Others have suggested calling the class Utility or something similar. I recommend not naming the class in that manner. My objections are twofold.
One would expect that all the code in your program was useful. That is, it had utility, so such a name conveys no information about the class.
It might be argued that Utility is a suitable name because the class is utilized by others. But in that case the name describes how the class is used, not what it does. Classes should be named by what they do, rather than how they are used, because how they are used can change without what they do changing. Consider that Java has a string class, which can be used to hold a name, a description or a text fragment. The class does things with a "string of characters"; it might or might not be used for a name, so string was a good name for it, but name was not.
So I'd suggest a different name for that class. Something that describes the kind of manipulation it does to the file, or describes the format of the file.

Create a Utility class and put all common utility methods in it.

Sounds like an ideal candidate for a FileUtils class that only has static functions. Take a look at SwingUtilities to see what I'm talking about.

You could make the function static in just one of the classes and then reference the static method in the other, assuming there aren't variables being used that require the object to have been instantiated already.
Alternatively, create another class to store all your static methods like that.

To answer the first part of your question - To the best of my knowledge it is impossible to have a function standalone in java; ergo - the function must go into a class.
The second part is more fun - A utility class is a good idea. A better idea may be to expand on what KitsuneYMG wrote; Let your class take responsibility for it's own reading/writing. Then delegate the read/write operation to the utility class. This allows your read/write to be manipulated independently of the rest of the file operations.
Just my 2c (+:

Declare java enum with a String array

I'm trying to declare an enum type based on data that I'm retrieving from a database. I have a method that returns a string array of all the rows in the table that I want to make into an enumerated type. Is there any way to construct an enum with an array?
This is what I tried, but from the way it looked in eclipse, it seemed like this just created a method by that name:
public enum ConditionCodes{
Condition.getDescriptions();
}
Thank you in advance!

You can't.
The values of an enum must be known at compile time. If you have anything else, then it's not an enum.
You could come rather close via an implementation that's similar to the old typesafe enums that were used before the Java language introduced support for this technique via the enum keyword. You could use those techniques but simply replace the static final fields with values read from the DB.

For your enum to be useful it has to be nailed down at compile time. Generating the enum from the database query would imply you expect to see new enum values at runtime. Even if you created a code generator to create your enum class on the fly using the database query, you wouldn't be able to reference those enum values in your code, which is the point of having them.

It's difficult to see how any compiler could support this.
The whole point of an enum is supposed to be that you get compile-time checking of the validity of your values. If, say, you declare an enum "enum MyStatusCode {FOO, BAR, PLUGH}", then in your code if you write "MyStatusCode.FOO" everything is good, but if you write "MyStatusCode.ZORK" you get a compile-time error. This protects you from mis-spelling values or getting confused about the values for one enum versus another. (I just had a problem recently where a programmer accidentally assigned a delivery method to a transaction type, thus magically changing a sale into an inventory adjustment when he meant to change a home delivery into a customer pick-up.)
But if your values are defined dynamically at run-time, how could the compiler do this? If you wrote MyStatusCode.ZORK in the above example, there is no way the compiler could know if this value will or will not be in the database at runtime. Even if you imagined a compiler smart enough to figure out how the enum was being populated and checking the database to see if that value is present in the appropriate table NOW, it would have no way of knowing if it will be there when you actually run.
In short, what you want is something very different from an enum.

If you want to get really crazy, I think annotation processing can do this. Annotation processing lets you hook the compiler and have it magically modify things when your #annotation is present.
Naturally, the values in the enum will be whatever values were available at compile time.

No, that's not possible because the enum type must be defined at compile time and what you're looking for is to dynamically create it.
Perhaps you'll be better if use a class instead.

I think here you are going to need a List or Set along with some utility methods for searching and comparison.
So here's your List
List<String> conditionCodes = new ArrayList<String>();
//Somehow get Rows or POJO Beans from database with your favorite framework
Collection<Row> dbRows = getConditionCodes();
for(Row curRow : dbRows)
conditionCodes.add(curRow.getName());
And to search
public boolean conditionExists(String name) {
return conditonCodes.contains(name);
}
public String getCondition(String name) {
return conditionCodes.get(name);
}
(of course you would probably want to use List's own methods instead of making your own)

More than you can't, you don't want to. Every enum, even Java's fairly cool enums, is code oriented.
It's exactly the same as a collection, but with an enum you tend to write duplicate code whenever you encounter it--with a collection you are more likely to write a loop.
I suggest you create a class with a private constructor and have it create the instances of itself, then provide a getInstance(String) to retrieve an instance. This is like the old typesafe enum pattern.
In the long run, however, it's better if you can manage to get enough intelligence into that class where you aren't ever differentiating on a specific instance--going from the "Enum" way of doing it:
if(myEnum.stringValue.equals("EnumTarget"))
executeCode();
To the OO way of doing it:
myEnumLikeObject.executeCode();
Moving the code you wish into the "enum"--preferably delegating directly to a contained object that is instantiated and set into the "enum" at creation time.

trying to use only one method name

When I was programming a Form Validator in PHP, when creating new methods, I needed to increase the number of arguments in old methods.
When I was learning Java, when I read that extends is to not touch previously tested, working code, I thought I shouldn't have increased the number of arguments in the old methods, but overridden the old methods with the new methods.
Imagine if you are to verify if a field is empty in one part of the form, in an other and in yet an other.
If the arguments are different, you'll overload isEmpty, but, if the arguments are equal, is it right to use isEmpty, isEmpty2, isEmpty3, three classes and one isEmpty per class or, if both are wrong, what should I have done?

So the question is:
If I need different behaviors for a method isEmpty which receives the same number arguments, what should I do?
Use different names? ( isEmpty, isEmpty2, isEmpty3 )
Have three classes with a single isEmpty method?
Other?
If that's the question then I think you should use:
When they belong to the same logical unit ( they are of the same sort of validation ) but don't use numbers as version, better is to name them after what they do: isEmptyUser, isEmptyAddress, isEmptyWhatever
When the validator object could be computed in one place and passed around during the program lifecycle. Let's say: Validator v = Validator.getInstance( ... ); and then use it as : validator.isEmpty() and let polymorphism to it's job.
Alternatively you could pack the arguments in one class and pass it to the isEmpty method, although you'll end up with pretty much the same problem of the name. Still it's easier to refactor from there and have the new class doing the validation for you.
isEmpty( new Arguments(a,b,c ) ); => arguments.isEmpty();

The Open/Closed Principle [usually attributed to Bertrand Meyer] says that "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". This might be the principle that you came across in your Java days. In real life this applies to completed code where the cost of modification, re-testing and re-certification outweighs the benefit of the simplicity gained by making a direct change.
If you are changing a method because it needs an additional argument, you might choose to use the following steps:
Copy the old method.
Remove the implementation from the copy.
Change the signature of the original method to add the new argument.
Update the implementation of the original method to use the new argument.
Implement the copy in terms of the new method with a default value for the argument.
If your implementation language doesn't support method overloading then the principle is the same but you need to find a new name for the new method signature.
The advantage of this approach is that you have added the new argument to the method, and your existing client code will continue to compile and run.
This works well if there is an obvious default for the new argument, and less well if there isn't.

Since java 5 you can use variable list of arguments as in void foo(Object ... params)
You will need to come up with creative names for your methods since you can't overload methods that have same type and number of arguments (or based on return type). I actually personally prefer this to overloading anyway. So you can have isEmpty and isEmptyWhenFoo and isEmptyWhenIHaveTheseArguments (well meybe not the last one :)

Not sure if this actually answers your question, but the best way to think about OO in "real life" is to think of the Nygaard Classification:
ObjectOrientedProgramming. A program execution is regarded as a physical model, simulating the behavior of either a real or imaginary part of the world.
So how would you build a physical device to do what you are trying to do in code? You'd probably have some kind of "Form" object, and the form object would have little tabs or bits connected to it to represent the different Form variables, and then you would build a Validator object that would take the Form object in a slot and then flash one light if the form was valid and another if it was invalid. Or your Validator could take a Form object in one slot and return a Form object out (possibly the same one), but modified in various ways (that only the Validator understood) to make it "valid". Or maybe a Validator is part of a Form, and so the Form has this Validator thingy sticking out of it...
My point is, try to imagine what such a machine would look like and how it would work. Then think of all of the parts of that machine, and make each one an object. That's how "object-oriented" things work in "real life", right?
With that said, what is meant by "extending" a class? Well, a class is a "template" for objects -- each object instance is made by building it from a class. A subclass is simply a class that "inherits" from a parent class. In Java at least, there are two kinds of inheritance: interface inheritance and implementation inheritance. In Java, you are allowed to inherit implementation (actual method code) from at most one class at a time, but you can inherit many interfaces -- which are basically just collections of attributes that someone can see from outside your class.
Additionally, a common way of thinking about OO programming is to think about "messages" instead of "method calls" (in fact, this is the original term invented by Alan Kay for Smalltalk, which was the first language to actually be called "object-oriented"). So when you send an isEmpty message to the object, how do you want it to respond? Do you want to be able to send different arguments with the isEmpty message and have it respond differently? Or do you want to send the isEmpty message to different objects and have them respond differently? Either are appropriate answers, depending on the design of your code.

Instead having one class providing multiple versions of isEmpty with differing names, try breaking down your model into a finer grained pieces the could be put together in more flexible ways.
Create an interface called Empty with
one method isEmpty(String value);
Create implemntations of this
interface like EmptyIgnoreWhiteSpace
and EmptyIgnoreZero
Create FormField
class that have validation methods
which delegate to implementations of
Empty.
Your Form object will have
instances of FormField which will
know how to validate themselves.
Now you have a lot of flexibility, you can combine your Empty implemenation classes to make new classes like EmptyIgnoreWhiteSpaceAndZero. You can use them in other places that have nothing to do with form field validation.
You don't have have have multple similarly named methods polluting your object model.

Static String constants VS enum in Java 5+

I've read that question & answers:
What is the best way to implement constants in Java?
And came up with a decision that enum is better way to implement a set of constants.
Also, I've read an example on Sun web site how to add the behaviour to enum (see the link in the previously mentioned post).
So there's no problem in adding the constructor with a String key to the enum to hold a bunch of String values.
The single problem here is that we need to add ".nameOfProperty" to get access to the String value.
So everywhere in the code we need to address to the constant value not only by it's name (EnumName.MY_CONSTANT), but like that (Enum.MY_CONSTANT.propertyName).
Am I right here? What do you think of it?

Yes, the naming may seem a bit longer. But not as much as one could imagine...
Because the enum class already give some context ("What is the set of constants that this belong to?"), the instance name is usually shorter that the constant name (strong typing already discriminated from similar named instances in other enums).
Also, you can use static imports to further reduce the length. You shouldn't use it everywhere, to avoid confusions, but I feel that a code that is strongly linked to the enum can be fine with it.
In switches on the enum, you don't use the class name. (Switches are not even possible on Strings pre Java 7.)
In the enum class itself, you use the short names.
Because enums have methods, many low-level codes that would make heavy use of the constants could migrate from a business code to the enum class itself (either dynamic or static method). As we saw, migrating code to the enum reduces the long names uses even further.
Constants are often treated in groups, such as an if that test for equality with one of six constants, or four others etc. Enums are equipped with EnumSets with a contains method (or similarly a dynamic method that returns the appropriate group), that allow you to treat a group as a group (as a secondary advantage, note that these two implementations of the grouping are extraordinarily fast - O(1) - and low on memory!).
With all these points, I found out that the actual codes are much much shorter !

With regard to the question about constants - enums should represent constants that are all the same type. If you are doing arbitrary constants this is the wrong way to go, for reasons all described in that other question.
If all you want are String constants, with regard to verbose code you are right. However, you could override the toString() method return the name of the property. If all you want to do is concatenate the String to other Strings then this will save you some extra verbosity in your code.
However, have you considered using Properties files or some other means of internationalisation? Often when defining dets of Strings it is for user interface messages, and extracting these to a separate file might save you a lot of future work, and makes translation much easier.