I have a queue of uniform message objects with multiple producers and a single consumer. The consumer is publishing the information and needs to be able to grant access based on the data's origin, so I want the producer send a suitable identifier along with the message. The producers themselves can't be responsible for the far side access restrictions.
The id should relate to the role of the producer in my application. I want to enforce that all producers have to define one and that a subclassed producer may choose to inherit or redefine it. The producer's class name would be a good approximation, but the property I want to identify is not really inherent in the class structure, it's rather something I define.
I could use reflection to find out the class name or maybe an interface name, but this smells of too much overhead. Also, I'm unsure what the appropriate property would be to look for.
As all producers subclass the same abstract parent class, I thought a good way would be to put a constant in there (or in an interface), but then I realised that in Java, a "constant" is really a "static final", which means I can't override it, so it doesn't work that way.
How would a more experienced Java programmer do this?
If there's a "type" that you need to identify, define an interface that forces a class to give you that type, then implement that interface everywhere.
Example:
public interface IHasType {
public String getTypeId();
}
However, if the list of types is fixed, I would go one step further and make the type an Enum:
public enum MyType {
TYPE_A, TYPE_B;
}
And then return this enum instead of a String.
Can the producer classes encapsulate the restrictions and "other things" in a method in themselves? That way each different producer could implement the appropriate method accordingly. Or just have that method return some sort of capability identifier, like an Enum of some sort.
If that won't work, like say if you want other consumers to do different things, then the obvious solution is to have a bunch of "if (object instanceof ....)" statements.
I've done it both ways, I can't say either is particularly "better" in all cases.
First I think you need to be clear about what you are trying to protect against. Are you protecting against malicious code? If not, then just use the queued object.
If you want to protect against malicious code, then the obvious route would be to distribute a enqueueing object for each producer. No other producer should be able to get hold of another enqueuer, so you can trust anything added to the queue.
Have your message object extend java.util.EventObject, and have the message producer set itself as the message source. Then, the message consumer can just call getSource() on the message and find out who sent it. Of course, this assumes that you trust the message producers to properly populate this field.
Related
I'm kind of new to Java and have a rather simple question:
I have an interface, with a method:
public interface Interface_Updatable {
public void updateViewModel();
}
I implement this interface in several classes. Each class then of course has that method updateViewModel.
Edit: I instantiate these classes in a main function. Here I need code that calls updateViewModel for all objects that implement the interface.
Is there an easy way to do it combined? I don't want to call every method from every object instance separately and keep that updated. Keeping it updated might lead to errors in the long run.
The short form is: no, there's no simple way to "call this method on all instances of classes that implement this interface".
At least not in a way that's sane and maintainable.
So what should you do instead?
In reality you almost never want to just "call it on all instances", but you have some kind of relation between the thing that should trigger the update and the instances for which it should be triggered.
For example, the naming of the method suggests that instances of Interface_Updatable are related to the view model. So if they "care" about changes to the view model, they could register themselves as interested parties by doing something like theViewModel.registerForUpdates(this), the view model could hold on to a list of all objects that registered like this and then loop over all the instances and calls updateViewModel on each one (of course one would need to make sure that unregistration also happens, where appropriate).
This is the classical listener pattern at work.
But the high-level answer is: you almost never want to call something on "all instances", instead the instances you want to call it on have some relation to each other and you would need to make that relation explicit (via some registration mechanism like the one described above).
There is no easy way to call this method on all classes that implement this interface. The problem is that you need to somehow keep track of all the classes that implement this interface.
A possible object-oriented way to do this would be passing a list containing objects that are instances of classes that implement the Interface_Updateable interface to a function, and then calling updateViewModel on each object in that list:
public void updateViewModels(List<Interface_Updateable> instances) {
for(var instance : instances) {
instance.updateViewModel();
}
}
I have the following class hierarchy
Promotion - abstract
- Coupon
- Sales
- Deals
(Coupons, Sales and Deals are all subclasses of Promotion).
and would like to determine the type of the object when exchanging data between the REST APIs (JSON) and the Client (Angular). Users can submit a Coupon or a Deal or a Sale. For instance when a coupon is sent from the client, I want to be able to know that this is coupon so that i can call the correct method.
To solve this problem I have declared a variable and an abstract method in Promotion.
protected String promotionType = getPromotionType();
protected abstract String getPromotionType();
In the subclasses for instance in Coupon I have something like this
protected String getPromotionType() {
return "coupon"
// OR return this.getClass().getSimpleName().toLowerCase();
}
This will automatically initialize the promotionType variable so that in the Controllers I can check if the object is Coupon or Sales or Deal. Remember that JSON send data in String formats so I must I have a way to determine the type of object coming.
In this case I will have a single controller to handle all my CRUD operations. In my controller method I will do something like::
#PostMapping public void create(#RequestBody Promotion){
// And inside here I will check the type of **promotionType**
}
Here am using Promotion as argument instead of any of the subclasses in the create() method.
My question is, is it the best way to solve this?
Or do I have to create a separate Controller for each of the subclass? I am looking for the best way to do it in the real world.
I am using Hibernate for my mappings.
My question is, is it the best way to solve this?
Answers to this question will always be opinion-based, especially, as we don't know about your entire application, not only technically but business-wise, and how the client-code consumes and displays the code.
Or do i have to create a separate Controller for each of the subclass?
No, not necessarily. If the code is and would probably stay simple - sometime you can anticipate this - it doesn't make sense to inflate the code. Having three Controllers instead of a single PromotionController will very likely increase redundant code. Otherwise, if the subclasseses are rather heterogeneous, three Controllers could be more advisable.
Another thought, you might have a (human) client that manages only the Deals and that client has special requirements leading to a bunch of customized rest interfaces only for the Deal, you'd probably like to have a separate Controller.
I am looking for the best way to do it in the real world.
There is no best way. Five developers have probably five opinions on how to solve this. And even if one is more reasonable for the time being, it may change on the next day due to or changed new business requirements.
The best way is to discuss this in the team, create a common sense and if unsure, let the lead architect decide which way to go. Imo, your approach seems quite ok. That's my 2 cents.
I have a library with several packages-
lets say
package a;
package b;
inside package a I have public a_class
inside package b I have public b_class
a_class uses b_class.
I need to generate a library from this , but I do not want the Client to see b_class.
The only solution I know of is to flatten my beautifully understandable packages to single package and to use default package access for b_class.
Is there another way to do so ? maybe using interfaces or some form of design pattern ??
If you reject to move the code to an individual, controlled server, all you can do is to hinder the client programmer when trying to use your APIs. Let's begin applying good practices to your design:
Let your packages organized as they are now.
For every class you want to "hide":
Make it non-public.
Extract its public API to a new, public interface:
public interface MyInterface {...}
Create a public factory class to get an object of that interface type.
public class MyFactory
{
public MyInterface createObject();
}
So far, you have now your packages loosely coupled, and the implementation classes are now private (as good practices preach, and you already said). Still, they are yet available through the interfaces and factories.
So, how can you avoid that "stranger" clients execute your private APIs? What comes next is a creative, a little complicated, yet valid solution, based on hindering the client programmers:
Modify your factory classes: Add to every factory method a new parameter:
public class MyFactory
{
public MyInterface createObject(Macguffin parameter);
}
So, what is Macguffin? It is a new interface you must define in your application, with at least one method:
public interface Macguffin
{
public String dummyMethod();
}
But do not provide any usable implementation of this interface. In every place of your code you need to provide a Macguffin object, create it through an anonymous class:
MyFactory.getObject(new Macguffin(){
public String dummyMethod(){
return "x";
}
});
Or, even more advanced, through a dynamic proxy object, so no ".class" file of this implementation would be found even if the client programmer dares to decompile the code.
What do you get from this? Basically is to dissuade the programmer from using a factory which requires an unknown, undocumented, ununderstandable object. The factory classes should just care not to receive a null object, and to invoke the dummy method and check the return value it is not null either (or, if you want a higher security level, add an undocumented secret-key-rule).
So this solution relies upon a subtle obfuscation of your API, to discourage the client programmer to use it directly. The more obscure the names of the Macguffin interface and its methods, the better.
I need to generate a library from this , but I do not want the Client to see b_class. The only solution I know of is to flatten my beautifully understandable packages to single package and to use default package access for b_class. Is there another way to do so ?
Yes, make b_class package-private (default access) and instantiate it via reflection for use in a_class.
Since you know the full class name, reflectively load the class:
Class<?> clz = Class.forName("b.b_class")
Find the constructor you want to invoke:
Constructor<?> con = clz.getDeclaredConstructor();
Allow yourself to invoke the constructor by making it accessible:
con.setAccessible(true);
Invoke the constructor to obtain your b_class instance:
Object o = con.newInstance();
Hurrah, now you have an instance of b_class. However, you can't call b_class's methods on an instance of Object, so you have two options:
Use reflection to invoke b_class's methods (not much fun, but easy enough and may be ok if you only have a few methods with few parameters).
Have b_class implement an interface that you don't mind the client seeing and cast your instance of b_class to that interface (reading between the lines I suspect you may already have such an interface?).
You'll definitely want to go with option 2 to minimise your pain unless it gets you back to square one again (polluting the namespace with types you don't want to expose the client to).
For full disclosure, two notes:
1) There is a (small) overhead to using reflection vs direct instantiation and invocation. If you cast to an interface you'll only pay the cost of reflection on the instantiation. In any case it likely isn't a problem unless you make hundreds of thousands of invocations in a tight loop.
2) There is nothing to stop a determined client from finding out the class name and doing the same thing, but if I understand your motivation correctly you just want expose a clean API, so this isn't really a worry.
When using Kotlin, you can use the internal modifier for your library classes.
If I understand correctly you are asking about publishing your library for 3rd party usage without disclosing part of your source? If that's the case you can use proguard, which can obfuscate your library. By default everything will be excluded/obfuscated, unless you specify things you want to exclude from being obfuscated/excluded.
If you want to distribute [part of] your code without the client being able to access it at all, that means that the client won't be able to execute it either. :-O
Thus, you just have one option: Put the sensible part of your code into a public server and distribute a proxy to access it, so that your code would be kept and executed into your server and the client would still be able to execute it through the proxy but without accessing it directly.
You might use a servlet, a webservice, a RMI object, or a simple TCP server, depending on the complexity level of your code.
This is the safest approach I can think of, but it also deserves a price to pay: In addition to complexing your system, it would introduce a network delay for each remote operation, which might be big deal depending on the performance requirements. Also, you should securize the server itself, to avoid hacker intrussions. This could be a good solution if you already have a server that you could take advantage of.
So I am working on this project, and I am having trouble on how to structure this. Basically, this is what I have:
Main Class instansiates Listener Class.
Listener class listens for packets.
When I packet is recieved, the Listener class creates a new instance of the Handler class (which is a runnable). The Handler class then reads the packet data and determines the packet type (reboot, shutdown, etc) and does what it needs with it.
What I want to do, is have a parent class Packet, and then have subclasses with all the different packet types RebootPacket, ShutdownPacket, etc.
I was going to just use tons of IF statements in the Handler class to create instances of the packet classes (if packetType = "reboot", RebootPacket packet = new RebootPacket) however, I feel that there should be a better way to do this. Could I some how use polymorphism to do this? Any suggestions are appreciated.
Here is my understanding of your problem, please correct me if I am wrong:
You are being fed data in "packets" which are really just Strings. These packets can have multiple types, and each type of packet has a different action associated with it. Each time a packet is read in, a new instance of the Handler class is created, which does what it needs to with the packet, depending on type. I am going to assume that the type of packet is inherent to the input.
In this case, I would suggest using polymorphism. I would create one method to do each of the 'actions' associated with individual types of packets. Each of these methods would have identical method signatures, except the parameter would be of a different type. For example:
public void doSomething(RebootPacket p)
and
public void doSomething(ShutDownPacket p)
This could be done for every packet type you will use. What this allows you to do is simply call doSomething(packet) and have it handle the packet in the correct way, regardless of type.
I suggest not using inheritance in this situation. When you have a subclass and a superclass, you want the subclass to have all or most of the same methods as the superclass, plus some of its own that the superclass cannot have. It seems to me like there aren't many methods which all of the packets would have in common, but rather a different way of handling each. If this is a correct assumption, polymorphism makes the most sense. If not, please comment with more information.
I'm looking for something similar to the Proxy pattern or the Dynamic Proxy Classes, only that I don't want to intercept method calls before they are invoked on the real object, but rather I'd like to intercept properties that are being changed. I'd like the proxy to be able to represent multiple objects with different sets of properties. Something like the Proxy class in Action Script 3 would be fine.
Here's what I want to achieve in general:
I have a thread running with an object that manages a list of values (numbers, strings, objects) which were handed over by other threads in the program, so the class can take care of creating regular persistent snapshots on disk for the purpose of checkpointing the application. This persistor object manages a "dirty" flag that signifies whether the list of values has changed since the last checkpoint and needs to lock the list while it's busy writing it to disk.
The persistor and the other components identify a particular item via a common name, so that when recovering from a crash, the other components can first check if the persistor has their latest copy saved and continue working where they left off.
During normal operation, in order to work with the objects they handed over to the persistor, I want them to receive a reference to a proxy object that looks as if it were the original one, but whenever they change some value on it, the persistor notices and acts accordingly, for example by marking the item or the list as dirty before actually setting the real value.
Edit: Alternatively, are there generic setters (like in PHP 5) in Java, that is, a method that gets called if a property doesn't exist? Or is there a type of object that I can add properties to at runtime?
If with "properties" you mean JavaBean properties, i.e. represented bay a getter and/or a setter method, then you can use a dynamic proxy to intercept the set method.
If you mean instance variables, then no can do - not on the Java level. Perhaps something could be done by manipulations on the byte code level though.
Actually, the easiest way to do it is probably by using AspectJ and defining a set() pointcut (which will intercept the field access on the byte code level).
The design pattern you are looking for is: Differential Execution. I do believe.
How does differential execution work?
Is a question I answered that deals with this.
However, may I suggest that you use a callback instead? You will have to read about this, but the general idea is that you can implement interfaces (often called listeners) that active upon "something interesting" happening. Such as having a data structure be changed.
Obligitory links:
Wiki Differential execution
Wiki Callback
Alright, here is the answer as I see it. Differential Execution is O(N) time. This is really reasonable, but if that doesn't work for ya Callbacks will. Callbacks basically work by passing a method by parameter to your class that is changing the array. This method will take the value changed and the location of the item, pass it back by parameter to the "storage class" and change the value approipriately. So, yes, you have to back each change with a method call.
I realize now this is not what you want. What it appears that you want is a way that you can supply some kind of listener on each variable in an array that would be called when that item is changed. The listener would then change the corresponding array in your "backup" to refect this change.
Natively I can't think of a way to do this. You can, of course, create your own listeners and events, using an interface. This is basically the same idea as the callbacks, though nicer to look at.
Then there is reflection... Java has reflection, and I am positive you can write something using it to do this. However, reflection is notoriously slow. Not to mention a pain to code (in my opinion).
Hope that helps...
I don't want to intercept method calls before they are invoked on the real object, but
rather I'd like to intercept properties that are being changed
So in fact, the objects you want to monitor are no convenient beans but a resurgence of C structs. The only way that comes to my mind to do that is with the Field Access call in JVMTI.
I wanted to do the same thing myself. My solution was to use dynamic proxy wrappers using Javassist. I would generate a class that implements the same interface as the class of my target object, wrap my proxy class around original class, and delegate all method calls on proxy to the original, except setters which would also fire the PropertyChangeEvent.
Anyway I posted the full explanation and the code on my blog here:
http://clockwork-fig.blogspot.com/2010/11/javabean-property-change-listener-with.html