my system is both jibx and a legacy xml app and i want to build a constructor that can take a string of xml and unmarshal it into its own class. like this:
public ActiveBankTO(String xmlIn)
{
try
{
ByteArrayInputStream bin = new ByteArrayInputStream(xmlIn.getBytes());
IBindingFactory bfact;
bfact = BindingDirectory.getFactory(ActiveBankTO.class);
IUnmarshallingContext uctx = bfact.createUnmarshallingContext();
this = (ActiveBankTO) uctx.unmarshalDocument(bin, null);
} catch (JiBXException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
but obviously i cant assign "this" as a variable. is there a way to make this work? i realize i can put this into a static method that can be used, or a few other tricks to make it work, but this is something that has come up on several projects in various forms and i was wondering if this particular method is possible.
No, it's not possible. The static method solution is the best idea.
public static ActiveBankTO parseActiveBankTO(String xmlIn) {
ActiveBankTO newTO = null;
try {
ByteArrayInputStream bin = new ByteArrayInputStream(xmlIn.getBytes());
IBindingFactory bfact;
bfact = BindingDirectory.getFactory(ActiveBankTO.class);
IUnmarshallingContext uctx = bfact.createUnmarshallingContext();
newTO = (ActiveBankTO) uctx.unmarshalDocument(bin, null);
} catch (JiBXException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return newTO;
}
No. ti's not possible in the constructor. A static factory method is the only real way (you can't even cheat like this in bytecode).
Related
I am trying to override some class of vertx web project, since I have to change some of the features. So the tricky part comes here.
#Override
public void reroute(HttpMethod method, String path) {
int split = path.indexOf('?');
if (split == -1) {
split = path.indexOf('#');
}
if (split != -1) {
log.warn("Non path segment is not considered: " + path.substring(split));
// reroute is path based so we trim out the non url path parts
path = path.substring(0, split);
}
/*((HttpServerRequestWrapper) request).setMethod(method);
((HttpServerRequestWrapper) request).setPath(path);*/
((HttpServerRequestWrapper) request).setMethod(method);
((HttpServerRequestWrapper) request).setPath(path);
request.params().clear();
// we need to reset the normalized path
normalisedPath = null;
// we also need to reset any previous status
statusCode = -1;
// we need to reset any response headers
response().headers().clear();
// special header case cookies are parsed and cached
if (cookies != null) {
cookies.clear();
}
// reset the end handlers
if (headersEndHandlers != null) {
headersEndHandlers.clear();
}
if (bodyEndHandlers != null) {
bodyEndHandlers.clear();
}
failure = null;
restart();
}
This code throws me a compilation error saying:
'HttpServerRequestWrapper cannot be accessed from outside package'
I know for a fact that we can use reflection to create objects of a class that cannot be accessed. Can reflection be used in this case? How can I fix such an issue.
Any help will be much appreciated.
In java 8 and/or without modules it is possible to just place class like that in same package as original one to get access to all package-default classes.
Otherwise you need to use reflections like in other response, but I would add that it is good idea to cache that Class and Method instance, as using Class.forName and clazz.getDeclaredMethod each time will slowdown code.
What about getting the Class object and then calling the methods on your specific (uncasted) object?
I assume request is a class attribute of type HttpServerRequestWrapper. Then, this is what I suggest:
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
...
private final Method setMethod;
private final Method setPath;
public MyConstructor() {
Method tmp1 = null, tmp2 = null;
try {
final Class<?> clazz = Class.forName("io.vertx.ext.web.impl.HttpServerRequestWrapper");
tmp1 = clazz.getMethod("setMethod", HttpMethod.class);
tmp1.setAccessible(true);
tmp2 = clazz.getMethod("setPath", String.class);
tmp2.setAccessible(true);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
// do something
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// do something
} catch (SecurityException e) {
// do something
}
this.setMethod = tmp1;
this.setPath = tmp2;
}
...
#Override
public void reroute(HttpMethod method, String path) {
...
try {
this.setMethod.invoke(request, method);
this.setPath.invoke(request, path);
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// do something
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
// do something
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
// do something
}
...
}
EDIT: I updated this answer based on #GotoFinal's suggestion.
It looks like HttpServerRequestWrapper implements HttpServerRequest. So, you can change "HttpServerRequestWrapper" to "HttpServerRequest" in your code. But remember that by doing so, you'll only be able to call methods specified in the interface.
You can see those methods in https://vertx.io/docs/apidocs/io/vertx/rxjava/core/http/HttpServerRequest.html.
I followed in the code in the Android tutorial https://developer.android.com/training/basics/data-storage/files.html
public File getTempFile(Context context, String url) {
File file;
try {
String fileName = Uri.parse(url).getLastPathSegment();
file = File.createTempFile(fileName, null, context.getCacheDir());
} catch (IOException e) {
// Error while creating file
}
return file;
}
When I add this method to my class, there was an error on this code:
return file;
That says "File may not have been initialized"
What I did is I transferred the initialization code
File file;
To the class variable as a class field instead of a local method variable and the error disappeared. Is this the correct way to resolve the issue? Is there no workaround that would keep the variable local in the method and not global in the class?
I would prefer to limit visibility. Fields have a default null initialization. So the equivalent in the method is
File file = null;
The other answers are fine ; especially the one about avoiding the variable completely, but let's answer your question, too:
You put variables where you need them, preferably on the "smallest" scope possible. Meaning that you prefer local variables over class wide fields. In other words: you only use fields when two or more methods need to use the same information!
How about getting rid of it completely
public File getTempFile(Context context, String url) {
try {
String fileName = Uri.parse(url).getLastPathSegment();
return File.createTempFile(fileName, null, context.getCacheDir());
} catch (IOException e) {
// Error while creating file
// well lets say so then
System.err.println ("Error while creating file ");
e.printStackTrace ();
return null;
}
}
public File getTempFile(Context context, String url) {
File file = null;
try {
String fileName = Uri.parse(url).getLastPathSegment();
file = File.createTempFile(fileName, null, context.getCacheDir());
} catch (IOException e) {
// Error while creating file
}
return file;
}
You can get rid of local variable file, or just initialize it with null.
I'm really newbie to groovy scripting but following some tutorial I tried to dynamically load some groovy class within my java code using parseClass() method of GroovyClassLoader.
I wrote some snippet and it worked fine for me. The problem is that I don't clearly understand what groovy engine is doing beyond my view and how those scripts are compiled?
Does a new class gets creted and loaded into jvm? Or does my application uses some cached sources?
Here is the class I'm trying to parse:
private static class MyScript {
#Override
public String toString()
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.append("public class SomeClass\n");
builder.append("{\n");
builder.append("Some code...").append("\n");
builder.append("}\n");
return builder.toString();
}
The I load it with build() as below:
private Class MyGroovyBuilder {
private Script script = new Script();
public String build() throws TemplateCompilationException
//
String groovyText = script.toString();
//
CompilerConfiguration config = new CompilerConfiguration();
//
byte[] bytes;
try
{
bytes = groovyText.getBytes(config.getSourceEncoding());
}
catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e)
{
throw new TemplateCompilationException(e, groovyText);
}
//
InputStream in = new ByteArrayInputStream(bytes);
GroovyCodeSource gcs = new GroovyCodeSource(in, "SomeName", "/groovy/shell");
GroovyClassLoader loader = new
GroovyClassLoader(Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader(), config);
Class<?> scriptClass;
try
{
scriptClass = loader.parseClass(gcs, false);
}
catch (CompilationFailedException e)
{
throw new GroovyCompilationException(e, "SomeName", groovyText);
}
catch (ClassFormatError e)
{
throw new GroovyCompilationException(e, "SomeName", groovyText);
}
return scriptClass.getName();
}
Any clarification is greatelly appreciated.
BR.
After loading class it appears in your class loader, and can be accessed like any other class.
There is a simple tutorial [here], that show how to load class from string.
In simplest case, you can load class, and hold it's Class object, using it to create objects dynamically. For field access or method invokation you can rely on Groovy dynamic nature.
There is no "cached source" or smth like that behind the scene and you can forget, from where your class is loaded. You can also cache classes, that are already compiled, and save them somewhere, as described [here]. It will drastically improve performance, if you need to load same class often.
But it will be better, to dig down in topic, because dynamic class loading is advanced Java/Groovy technique, it's whole infrastructure of chained classloaders, so it's better to refer documentation about them.
Links below may be helpful.
http://javarevisited.blogspot.ru/2012/12/how-classloader-works-in-java.html
How to use URLClassLoader to load a *.class file?
Something I've always been curious of
public class FileDataValidator {
private String[] lineData;
public FileDataValidator(String[] lineData){
this.lineData = lineData;
removeLeadingAndTrailingQuotes();
try
{
validateName();
validateAge();
validateTown();
}
catch(InvalidFormatException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//validation methods below all throwing InvalidFormatException
Is is not advisable to include the try/catch block within my Constructor?
I know I could have the Constructor throw the Exception back to the caller. What do you guys prefer in calling methods like I have done in Constructor? In the calling class would you prefer creating an instance of FileDataValidator and calling the methods there on that instance? Just interested to hear some feedback!
In the code you show, the validation problems don't communicate back to the code that is creating this object instance. That's probably not a GOOD THING.
Variation 1:
If you catch the exception inside the method/constructor, be sure to pass something back to the caller. You could put a field isValid that gets set to true if all works. That would look like this:
private boolean isValid = false;
public FileDataValidator(String[] lineData){
this.lineData = lineData;
removeLeadingAndTrailingQuotes();
try
{
validateName();
validateAge();
validateTown();
isValid = true;
}
catch(InvalidFormatException e)
{
isValid = false;
}
}
public boolean isValid() {
return isValid;
}
Variation 2:
Or you could let the exception or some other exception propagate to the caller. I have shown it as a non-checked exception but do whatever works according to your exception handling religion:
public FileDataValidator(String[] lineData){
this.lineData = lineData;
removeLeadingAndTrailingQuotes();
try
{
validateName();
validateAge();
validateTown();
}
catch(InvalidFormatException e)
{
throw new com.myco.myapp.errors.InvalidDataException(e.getMessage());
}
}
Variation 3:
The third method I want to mention has code like this. In the calling code you have to call the constructor and then call the build() function which will either work or not.
String[] lineData = readLineData();
FileDataValidator onePerson = new FileDataValidator();
try {
onePerson.build(lineData);
} catch (InvalidDataException e) {
// What to do it its bad?
}
Here is the class code:
public FileDataValidator() {
// maybe you need some code in here, maybe not
}
public void build(String[] lineData){
this.lineData = lineData;
removeLeadingAndTrailingQuotes();
try
{
validateName();
validateAge();
validateTown();
}
catch(InvalidFormatException e)
{
throw new com.myco.myapp.errors.InvalidDataException(e.getMessage());
}
}
Of course, the build() function could use a isValid() method that you call to see if its right but an exception seems the right way to me for the build function.
Variation 4:
The fourth method I want to mention is what I like best. It has code like this. In the calling code you have to call the constructor and then call the build() function which will either work or not.
This sort of follows the way JaxB and JaxRS work, which is a similar situation to what you have.
An external source of data - you have a file, they have an incoming message in XML or JSON format.
Code to build the objects - you have your code, they have their libraries of code working according the specifications in the various JSRs.
Validation is not tied to the building of the objects.
The calling code:
String[] lineData = readLineData();
Person onePerson = new Person();
FileDataUtilities util = new FileDataUtilities();
try {
util.build(onePerson, lineData);
util.validate(onePerson);
} catch (InvalidDataException e) {
// What to do it its bad?
}
Here is the class code where the data lives:
public class Person {
private Name name;
private Age age;
private Town town;
... lots more stuff here ...
}
And the utility code to build and validate:
public FileDataValidator() {
// maybe you need some code in here, maybe not
}
public void build(Person person, String[] lineData){
this.lineData = lineData;
removeLeadingAndTrailingQuotes();
setNameFromData(person);
setAgeFromData(person);
setTownFromData(person);
}
public boolean validate(Person person) {
try
{
validateName(person);
validateAge(person);
validateTown(person);
return true;
}
catch(InvalidFormatException e)
{
throw new com.myco.myapp.errors.InvalidDataException(e.getMessage());
}
}
You should consider the static factory pattern. Make your all-arguments constructor private. Provide a static FileDataValidator(args...) method. This accepts and validates all the arguments. If everything is fine, it can call the private constructor and return the newly created object. If anything fails, throw an Exception to inform the caller that it provided bad values.
I must also mention that this:
catch (Exception e) {
printSomeThing(e);
}
Is the deadliest antipattern you could do with Exceptions. Yes, you can read some error values on the command line, and then? The caller (who provided the bad values) doesn't get informed of the bad values, the program execution will continue.
My preference is for exceptions to be dealt with by the bit of code that knows how to deal with them. In this case I would assume that the bit of code creating a FileDataValidator knows what should happen if the file data is not valid, and the exceptions should be dealt with there (I am advocating propagating to the caller).
Whilst discussing best practice - the class name FileDataValidator smells to me. If the object you're creating stores file data then I would call it FileData - perhaps with a validate method? If you only want to validate your file data then a static method would suffice.
I have an ArrayList and wish to be able to call an index and use the returned string for a method call.
e.g.
stringList.get(2)();
Is there any way I could go about this?
So you want the returned String to be used as the name of the method to call?
You can do that using reflection, but I'd strongly discourage this.
Instead you will want to look into implementing a strategy pattern for example.
Yes, there is a way to use the returned string from the list for a method call.
As others users already pointed out, you need to use Reflection API. Can be complicated deal with that, depends on the particular scenario you are facing.
Just to show you the basic approach in a concrete but simplified example, I create this code. Copy it and play changing the index, and creating new methods with parameters after learn the basics of the API.
import java.lang.reflect.*;
import java.util.*;
public class DemoReflection {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<String> myStringList = new ArrayList<String>();
myStringList.add(0, "foo");
myStringList.add(1, "printStr");
myStringList.add(2, "otherMethod");
myStringList.add(3, "stackoverflow");
int index = 3;
String methodName = myStringList.get(index);
try {
Class<?> c = Class.forName("DemoReflection");
Object obj = c.newInstance();
Method method = c.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, null);
method.invoke(obj, null);
} catch (SecurityException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (InstantiationException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void stackoverflow() {
System.out.println("Stackoverflow rules!");
}
public void printStr() {
System.out.println("Method printStr invoked...");
}
}
First of call you can't call a method in java without an object to call it on. Is that in the list also.
It would be better to have a list of Runnable...
List<Runnable> runnables = ...
runnables.get(2).call();
If you have the object you need to call, and you want to use reflection (can be slow) then commons-beans can help make it simple. See http://commons.apache.org/beanutils
import org.apache.commons.beanutils.MethodUtils;
Object target = ...
List<String> methodNames = ...
MethodUtils.invokeMethod(target, methodNames.get(2), /*args*/ null);
To give better I'd advice I'd need to know more about the problem you are trying to solve.
One would have to use reflection. See http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-reflection/methods.html.
Does the ArrayList have to contain Strings?
Otherwise you could populate it with java.lang.reflect.Method instances, and call Method.invoke() on the returned instance.
If I understand your needs, here is an example based on an interface; the list then contains implementations of the interface rather than method names:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
List<Action> actions = new ArrayList<Action>();
actions.add(new Action(){
public void execute() {
System.out.println("Action 0");
}});
actions.add(new Action(){
public void execute() {
System.out.println("Action 1");
}});
actions.get(0).execute();
actions.get(1).execute();
}
static interface Action{
void execute();
}
}
Or maybe polymorphism and a factory method would be a better idea. You'd have to circumscribe the methods you'll be able to call, but that wouldn't be a bad idea.
If you want the full Monty, and you're using Java 6, maybe you can create a JavaScript function object and invoke it with Rhino.
Or if you insist on making the idea work regardless of any obstacles, you could call out to a dynamic language like JRuby or Clojure, both of which are willing to eval() a String.
Or Jython or Groovy or...
In Java - no way. That's not a Java language feature. Your're hoping for something like
// NOT VALID JAVA
String myColoring = paintBlackOrWhite() ? "black" : "white";
myColoring(myBathroomWall);
// NOT VALID JAVA
Like others suggested, a pure technical solution would be using reflections: take the result string, find the corresponding method and invoke it. A technical solution could even be a map like
Map<String, java.lang.reflect.Method> myMethods;
and do something like
get("black").invoke(myObject, myParams);
but all of that is nice to know and you shouldn't use it unless forced or you have a concrete problem where even SO doesn't have a solution ;)