Develop Reference

Call method of unknown object

I have two ArrayLists - ArrayList1 and ArrayList2. Each of them is filled with objects - Object1 and Object2, respectively.
Both of these objects have method 'getText'.
Object1:
public String getText() { return "1";}
Object2:
public String getText() { return "2";}
At certain point I would like to loop through each of these lists using the same method (just with different parameter).
loopThroughList(1)
loopThroughList(2)
What is the syntax if I want to call a method, but I don't know which object it is going to be? This is the code I have so far:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getText());
}
It says Cannot resolve method getText. I googled around and found another solution:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getMethod("getText"));
}
But this gives me NoSuchMethodException error. Even though the 'getText' method is public.
EDIT: To get the correct list, I am calling the method 'getList' of a different object (lists) that returns either ArrayList1 or ArrayList2 (depending on the provided parameter).
class Lists
public getList(list) {
if (list == 1) {
return ArrayList1;
}
else if (list == 2) {
return ArrayList2;
}
}

Define an interface for the getText method
public interface YourInterface {
String getText();
}
Implement the interface on the respective classes
public class Object1 implements YourInterface {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "1";
}
}
public class Object2 implements YourInterface {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "2";
}
}
Modify your getList method to return List<YourInterface>
public static List<YourInterface> getList(int list){
List<YourInterface> result = new ArrayList<>();
if(list == 1){
// your initial type
List<Object1> firstList = new ArrayList<>();
result.addAll(firstList);
} else {
// your initial type
List<Object2> secondList = new ArrayList<>();
result.addAll(secondList);
}
return result;
}
Declaration for loopThroughList
public static void loopThroughList(List<YourInterface> list){
list.forEach(yourInterface -> System.out.println(yourInterface.getText()));
}
Sample usage.
public static void main(String[] args) {
loopThroughList(getList(1));
loopThroughList(getList(2));
}

Interfaces work great here, but there a couple of other options if you're dealing with legacy code and cannot use interfaces.
First would be to cast the list items into their respective types:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
if(o instanceof Object1) {
Object1 o1 = (Object1)o;
System.out.println(o1.getText());
}
else if(o instanceof Object2) {
Object1 o2 = (Object2)o;
System.out.println(o2.getText());
}
else {
System.out.println("Unknown class");
}
}
You can also use reflection to see if the object has a getText method and then invoke it:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
try {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("getName").invoke(o));
}
catch(Exception e) {
System.out.println("Object doesn't have getText method");
}
}

This is awful. Can you elaborate on what specifically you are trying to do? Java is strong typed by design, and you are trying to get around it. Why? Instead of Object, use the specific class, or interface as previously suggested. If that's not possible, and you must use lists of Objects, use instanceof and casting eg:
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
if (o instanceof Object1) {
Object1 o1 = (Object1) o;
System.out.println(o1.getText());
} else if (o instanceof Object2) {
Object2 o2 = (Object2) o;
System.out.println(o2.getText());
}
}

This is where interfaces come in.
interface HasText {
public String getText();
}
class Object1 implements HasText {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "1";
}
}
class Object2 implements HasText {
#Override
public String getText() {
return "2";
}
}
private void test() {
List<HasText> list = Arrays.asList(new Object1(), new Object2());
for (HasText ht : list) {
System.out.println(ht);
}
}
If one of your objects is not in your control you can use a Wrapper class.
class Object3DoesNotImplementHasText {
public String getText() {
return "3";
}
}
class Object3Wrapper implements HasText{
final Object3DoesNotImplementHasText it;
public Object3Wrapper(Object3DoesNotImplementHasText it) {
this.it = it;
}
#Override
public String getText() {
return it.getText();
}
}
private void test() {
List<HasText> list = Arrays.asList(new Object1(), new Object2(), new Object3Wrapper(new Object3DoesNotImplementHasText()));
for (HasText ht : list) {
System.out.println(ht);
}
}

Just to add more to this answer and give you some more to think on this (Will try to do it in a simple, non-formal way). Using interfaces is the proper way of doing such operation. However, I want to stand on the "bad idea":
for (Object o : lists.getList(listNumber)) {
System.out.println(o.getClass().getMethod("getText"));
}
What you are doing here, is using a mechanism called Reflection:
Reflection is a feature in the Java programming language. It allows an
executing Java program to examine or "introspect" upon itself, and
manipulate internal properties of the program. For example, it's
possible for a Java class to obtain the names of all its members and
display them.
What you actually attempted, is using that mechanism, to retrieve the method through a Class reflection object instance of your Class (sounds weird, isn't it?).
From that perspective, you need to think that, if you want to invoke your method, you now have, in a sense, a meta-Class instance to manipulate your objects. Think of it like an Object that is one step above your Objects (Similarly to a dream inside a dream, in Inception). In that sense, you need to retrieve the method, and then invoke it in a different (meta-like) way:
java.lang.reflect.Method m = o.getClass().getMethod("getText");
m.invoke(o);
Using that logic, you could possibly iterate through the object list, check if method exists, then invoke your method.
This is though a bad, BAD idea.
Why? Well, the answer relies on reflection itself: reflection is directly associated with runtime - i.e. when the program executes, practically doing all things at runtime, bypassing the compilation world.
In other words, by doing this, you are bypassing the compilation error mechanism of Java, allowing such errors happen in runtime. This can lead to unstable behavior of the program while executing - apart from the performance overhead using Reflection, which will not analyze here.
Side note: While using reflection will require the usage of Checked Exception handling, it still is not a good idea of doing this - as you practically try to duck tape a bad solution.
On the other hand, you can follow the Inheritance mechanism of Java through Classes and Interfaces - define an interface with your method (let's call it Textable), make sure that your classes implement it, and then use it as your base object in your list declaration (#alexrolea has implemented this in his answer, as also #OldCurmudgeon has).
This way, your program will still make the method call decision making at Runtime (via a mechanism called late binding), but you will not bypass the compilation error mechanism of Java. Think about it: what would happen if you define a Textable implementation without providing the class - a compile error! And what if you set a non-Textable object into the list of Textables? Guess what! A compile error again. And the list goes on....
In general, avoid using Reflection when you are able to do so. Reflection is useful in some cases that you need to handle your program in such a meta-way and there is no other way of making such things. This is not the case though.
UPDATE: As suggested by some answers, you can use instanceof to check if you have a specific Class object instance that contains your method, then invoke respectively. While this seems a simple solution, it is bad in terms of scaling: what if you have 1000 different classes that implement the same method you want to call?

your objects have to implement a common interface.
interface GetTextable {
String getText();
}
class One implements GetTextable {
private final String text;
public One(final String text) {
this.text = text;
}
public String getText() {
return this.text;
}
}
class Two implements GetTextable {
private final String text;
public Two(final String text) {
this.text = text;
}
public String getText() {
return this.text;
}
}
#Test
public void shouldIterate() throws Exception {
List<GetTextable> toIterate = Arrays.asList(new One("oneText"), new Two("twoText"));
for(GetTextable obj: toIterate) {
System.out.println(obj.getText());
}
}

Is there a way to instantiate a child class with parent object in java?

I have a base class say
class A {
private String name;
private String age;
//setters and getters for same
}
and a child class say
class B extends A {
private String phone;
private String address;
//setters and getters for same
}
now I've an instance of A and besides this I have to set the fields in B as well, so code would be like,
A instanceOfA = gotAFromSomewhere();
B instanceOfB = constructBFrom(instanceOfA);
instanceOfB.setPhone(getPhoneFromSomewhere());
instanceOfB.setAddress(getAddressFromSomewhere());
can I instantiate B with given A, but I don't want to do this way,
B constructBFrom(A instanceOfA) {
final B instanceOfB = new B();
instanceOfB.setName(instanceOfA.getName());
instanceOfB.setPhone(instanceOfA.getAge());
return B;
}
rather what I'd love to have some utility with function which is generic enough to construct object as in,
public class SomeUtility {
public static <T1, T2> T2 constructFrom(T1 instanceOfT1, Class<T2> className) {
T2 instatnceOfT2 = null;
try {
instatnceOfT2 = className.newInstance();
/*
* Identifies the fields in instanceOfT1 which has same name in T2
* and sets only these fields and leaves the other fields as it is.
*/
} catch (InstantiationException | IllegalAccessException e) {
// handle exception
}
return instatnceOfT2;
}
}
so that I can use it as,
B constructBFrom(A instanceOfA) {
return SomeUtility.constructFrom(instanceOfA, B.class);
}
Moreover, use case will not be only limited to parent-child classes, rather this utility function can be used for adapter use cases.
PS- A and B are third party classes I've to use these classes only so I can't do any modifications
in A and B.

The good practice is to have a factory class which "produces" the instances of B.
public class BFactory {
public B createBFromA(A a) { ... }
}
You have to write the code of the factory method as there is no standard way of creating a child class based on its parent class. It's always specific and depends on the logic of your classes.
However, consider if it is really what you need. There are not many smart use cases for instantiating a class based on the instance of its parent. One good example is ArrayList(Collection c) - constructs a specific list ("child") containing the elements of the generic collection ("base").
Actually, for many situation there is a pattern to avoid such strange constructs. I am aware it's probably not applicable to your specific case as you wrote that your Base and Child are 3rd party classes. However your question title was generic enough so I think you may find the following useful.
Create an interface IBase
Let the class Base implement the interface
Use composition instead of inheritance - let Child use Base instead of inheriting it
Let Child implement IBase and delegate all the methods from IBase to the instance of Base
Your code will look like this:
public interface IBase {
String getName();
int getAge();
}
public class Base implements IBase {
private String name;
private int age;
// getters implementing IBase
}
public class Child implements IBase {
// composition:
final private IBase base;
public Child(IBase base) {
this.base = base;
}
// delegation:
public String getName() {
return base.getName();
}
public int getAge() {
return base.getAge();
}
}
After you edited your question, I doubt even stronger that what you want is good. Your question looks more like an attempt of a hack, of violating (or not understanding) the principles of class-based object oriented concept. Sounds to me like someone coming from the JavaScript word and trying to keep the JavaScript programming style and just use a different syntax of Java, instead of adopting a different language philosophy.
Fun-fact: Instantiating a child object with parent object is possible in prototype-based languages, see the example in JavaScript 1.8.5:
var base = {one: 1, two: 2};
var child = Object.create(base);
child.three = 3;
child.one; // 1
child.two; // 2
child.three; // 3

In my opinion the way you want to avoid is very appropriate. There must be a piece of such code somewhere.
If you can't put that method in the target class just put it somewhere else (some factory). You should additionaly make your method static.
Take a look at Factory method pattern.
2nd option would be extending B and place this method as factory static method in that new class. But this solution seems to be more complicated for me. Then you could call NewB.fromA(A). You should be able then use your NewB instead of B then.

You could do it via reflection:
public static void copyFields(Object source, Object target) {
Field[] fieldsSource = source.getClass().getFields();
Field[] fieldsTarget = target.getClass().getFields();
for (Field fieldTarget : fieldsTarget)
{
for (Field fieldSource : fieldsSource)
{
if (fieldTarget.getName().equals(fieldSource.getName()))
{
try
{
fieldTarget.set(target, fieldSource.get(source));
}
catch (SecurityException e)
{
}
catch (IllegalArgumentException e)
{
}
catch (IllegalAccessException e)
{
}
break;
}
}
}
}
*Above code copied from online tutorial

Implementation of Friend concept in Java [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is there a way to simulate the C++ 'friend' concept in Java?
(18 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
How does one implement the friend concept in Java (like C++)?

Java does not have the friend keyword from C++. There is, however, a way to emulate that; a way that actually gives a lot more precise control. Suppose that you have classes A and B. B needs access to some private method or field in A.
public class A {
private int privateInt = 31415;
public class SomePrivateMethods {
public int getSomethingPrivate() { return privateInt; }
private SomePrivateMethods() { } // no public constructor
}
public void giveKeyTo(B other) {
other.receiveKey(new SomePrivateMethods());
}
}
public class B {
private A.SomePrivateMethods key;
public void receiveKey(A.SomePrivateMethods key) {
this.key = key;
}
public void usageExample() {
A anA = new A();
// int foo = anA.privateInt; // doesn't work, not accessible
anA.giveKeyTo(this);
int fii = key.getSomethingPrivate();
System.out.println(fii);
}
}
The usageExample() shows how this works. The instance of B doesn't have access to the private fields or methods of an instance of A. But by calling the giveKeyTo(), class B can get access. No other class can get access to that method, since it a requires a valid B as an argument. The constructor is private.
The class B can then use any of the methods that are handed to it in the key. This, while clumsier to set up than the C++ friend keyword, is much more fine-grained. The class A can chose exactly which methods to expose to exactly which classes.
Now, in the above case A is granting access to all instances of B and instances of subclasses of B. If the latter is not desired, then the giveKeyTo() method can internally check the exact type of other with getClass(), and throw an exception if it is not precisely B.

Suppose A.foo() should only be called by B. This can be arranged by a token that can only be generated by B.
public class B
{
public static class ToA { private ToA(){} }
private static final ToA b2a = new ToA();
void test()
{
new A().foo(b2a);
}
}
public class A
{
public void foo(B.ToA b2a)
{
if(b2a==null)
throw new Error("you ain't B");
// ...
}
}
Only B can generate a non-null B.ToA token. If both A and B do not leak this token to the 3rd party,
nobody else can invoke A.foo()
If A2 wants to friend B too, it needs a different token type. If it's the same token type, since A got a token of the type from B, A can pretend to be B to A2.
The check is done at runtime, not compile time, that is not perfect. Not a big deal though, since any 3rd party can only invoke A.foo() with a null, it can't be an innocent mistake which we want to check at compile time; it's probably malicious so we don't care to warn the caller at compile time.

In Java you can put both (or more) classes into the same package. All methods and fields with the protected qualifier can directly be accessed by all classes in that package.

I figured out another way to achieve the same. Basically you check the fully qualified name of the invoking class name. If it matches your "friend" function, then you give access, else you return null.
public class A {
private static int privateInt = 31415;
public static int getPrivateInt() {
if(Throwable().getStackTrace()[1].getClassName().equals(new String("example.java.testing.B")))
{
return privateInt;
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
}
package example.java.testing;
public class B {
public void usageExample() {
int foo = A.getPrivateInt; // works only for B
System.out.println(foo);
}
}

Anything wrong with instanceof checks here?

With the introduction of generics, I am reluctant to perform instanceof or casting as much as possible. But I don't see a way around it in this scenario:
for (CacheableObject<ICacheable> cacheableObject : cacheableObjects) {
ICacheable iCacheable = cacheableObject.getObject();
if (iCacheable instanceof MyObject) {
MyObject myObject = (MyObject) iCacheable;
myObjects.put(myObject.getKey(), myObject);
} else if (iCacheable instanceof OtherObject) {
OtherObject otherObject = (OtherObject) iCacheable;
otherObjects.put(otherObject.getKey(), otherObject);
}
}
In the above code, I know that my ICacheables should only ever be instances of MyObject, or OtherObject, and depending on this I want to put them into 2 separate maps and then perform some processing further down.
I'd be interested if there is another way to do this without my instanceof check.
Thanks

You could use double invocation. No promises it's a better solution, but it's an alternative.
Code Example
import java.util.HashMap;
public class Example {
public static void main(String[] argv) {
Example ex = new Example();
ICacheable[] cacheableObjects = new ICacheable[]{new MyObject(), new OtherObject()};
for (ICacheable iCacheable : cacheableObjects) {
// depending on whether the object is a MyObject or an OtherObject,
// the .put(Example) method will double dispatch to either
// the put(MyObject) or put(OtherObject) method, below
iCacheable.put(ex);
}
System.out.println("myObjects: "+ex.myObjects.size());
System.out.println("otherObjects: "+ex.otherObjects.size());
}
private HashMap<String, MyObject> myObjects = new HashMap<String, MyObject>();
private HashMap<String, OtherObject> otherObjects = new HashMap<String, OtherObject>();
public Example() {
}
public void put(MyObject myObject) {
myObjects.put(myObject.getKey(), myObject);
}
public void put(OtherObject otherObject) {
otherObjects.put(otherObject.getKey(), otherObject);
}
}
interface ICacheable {
public String getKey();
public void put(Example ex);
}
class MyObject implements ICacheable {
public String getKey() {
return "MyObject"+this.hashCode();
}
public void put(Example ex) {
ex.put(this);
}
}
class OtherObject implements ICacheable {
public String getKey() {
return "OtherObject"+this.hashCode();
}
public void put(Example ex) {
ex.put(this);
}
}
The idea here is that - instead of casting or using instanceof - you call the iCacheable object's .put(...) method which passes itself back to the Example object's overloaded methods. Which method is called depends on the type of that object.
See also the Visitor pattern. My code example smells because the ICacheable.put(...) method is incohesive - but using the interfaces defined in the Visitor pattern can clean up that smell.
Why can't I just call this.put(iCacheable) from the Example class?
In Java, overriding is always bound at runtime, but overloading is a little more complicated: dynamic dispatching means that the implementation of a method will be chosen at runtime, but the method's signature is nonetheless determined at compile time. (Check out the Java Language Specification, Chapter 8.4.9 for more info, and also check out the puzzler "Making a Hash of It" on page 137 of the book Java Puzzlers.)

Is there no way to combine the cached objects in each map into one map? Their keys could keep them separated so you could store them in one map. If you can't do that then you could have a
Map<Class,Map<Key,ICacheable>>
then do this:
Map<Class,Map<Key,ICacheable>> cache = ...;
public void cache( ICacheable cacheable ) {
if( cache.containsKey( cacheable.getClass() ) {
cache.put( cacheable.getClass(), new Map<Key,ICacheable>() );
}
cache.get(cacheable.getClass()).put( cacheable.getKey(), cacheable );
}

You can do the following:
Add a method to your ICachableInterface interface that will handle placing the object into one of two Maps, given as arguments to the method.
Implement this method in each of your two implementing classes, having each class decide which Map to put itself in.
Remove the instanceof checks in your for loop, and replace the put method with a call to the new method defined in step 1.
This is not a good design, however, because if you ever have another class that implements this interface, and a third map, then you'll need to pass another Map to your new method.

Anonymous or real class definition when using visitor pattern?

When you use the Visitor pattern and you need to get a variable inside visitor method, how to you proceed ?
I see two approaches. The first one uses anonymous class :
// need a wrapper to get the result (which is just a String)
final StringBuild result = new StringBuilder();
final String concat = "Hello ";
myObject.accept(new MyVisitor() {
#Override
public void visit(ClassA o)
{
// this concatenation is expected here because I've simplified the example
// normally, the concat var is a complex object (like hashtable)
// used to create the result variable
// (I know that concatenation using StringBuilder is ugly, but this is an example !)
result.append(concat + "A");
}
#Override
public void visit(ClassB o)
{
result.append(concat + "B");
}
});
System.out.println(result.toString());
Pros & Cons :
Pros : you do not need to create a class file for this little behavior
Cons : I don't like the "final" keyword in this case : the anonymous class is less readable because it calls external variables and you need to use a wrapper to get the requested value (because with the keyword final, you can't reassign the variable)
Another way to do it is to do an external visitor class :
public class MyVisitor
{
private String result;
private String concat;
public MyVisitor(String concat)
{
this.concat = concat;
}
#Override
public void visit(ClassA o)
{
result = concat + "A";
}
#Override
public void visit(ClassB o)
{
result = concat + "B";
}
public String getResult()
{
return result;
}
}
MyVisitor visitor = new MyVisitor("Hello ");
myObject.accept(visitor);
System.out.println(visitor.getResult());
Pros & Cons :
Pros : all variables are defined in a clean scope, you don't need a wrapper to encapsulate the requested variable
Cons : need an external file, the getResult() method must be call after the accept method, this is quite ugly because you need to know the function call order to correctly use the visitor
You, what's your approach in this case ? Preferred method ? another idea ?

Well, both approaches are valid and imo, it really depends on whether you would like to reuse the code or not. By the way, your last 'Con' point is not totally valid since you do not need an 'external file' to declare a class. It might very well be an inner class...
That said, the way I use Visitors is like this:
public interface IVisitor<T extends Object> {
public T visit(ClassA element) throws VisitorException;
public T visit(ClassB element) throws VisitorException;
}
public interface IVisitable {
public <T extends Object> T accept(final IVisitor<T> visitor) throws VisitorException;
}
public class MyVisitor implements IVisitor<String> {
private String concat;
public MyVisitor(String concat) {
this.concat = concat;
}
public String visit(ClassA classA) throws VisitorException {
return this.concat + "A";
}
public String visit(ClassB classB) throws VisitorException {
return this.concat + "B";
}
}
public class ClassA implements IVisitable {
public <T> T accept(final IVisitor<T> visitor) throws VisitorException {
return visitor.visit(this);
}
}
public class ClassB implements IVisitable {
public <T> T accept(final IVisitor<T> visitor) throws VisitorException {
return visitor.visit(this);
}
}
// no return value needed?
public class MyOtherVisitor implements IVisitor<Void> {
public Void visit(ClassA classA) throws VisitorException {
return null;
}
public Void visit(ClassB classB) throws VisitorException {
return null;
}
}
That way, the visited objects are ignorant of what the visitor wants to do with them, yet they do return whatever the visitor wants to return. Your visitor can even 'fail' by throwing an exception.
I wrote the first version of this a few years ago and so far, it has worked for me in every case.
Disclaimer: I just hacked this together, quality (or even compilation) not guaranteed. But you get the idea... :)

I do not see an interface being implemented in your second example, but I believe it is there. I would add to your interface (or make a sub interface) that has a getResult() method on it.
That would help both example 1 and 2. You would not need a wrapper in 1, because you can define the getResult() method to return the result you want. In example 2, because getResult() is a part of your interface, there is no function that you 'need to know'.
My preference would be to create a new class, unless each variation of the class is only going to be used once. In which case I would inline it anonymously.

From the perspective of a cleaner design, the second approach is preferrable for the same exact reasons you've already stated.
In a normal TDD cycle I would start off with an anonymous class and refactored it out a bit later. However, if the visitor would only be needed in that one place and its complexity would match that of what you've provided in the example (i.e. not complex), I would have left it hanging and refactor to a separate class later if needed (e.g. another use case appeared, complexity of the visitor/surrounding class increased).

I would recommend using the second approach. Having the visitor in its full fledged class also serves the purpose of documentation and clean code. I do not agree with the cons that you have mentioned with the approach. Say you have an arraylist, and you don't add any element to it and do a get, surely you will get a null but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong.

One of the points of the visitor pattern is to allow for multiple visitor types. If you create an anonymous class, you are kind of breaking the pattern.
You should change your accept method to be
public void accept(Visitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
Since you pass this into the visitor, this being the object that is visited, the visitor can access the object's property according to the standard access rules.