Develop Reference

Refactor polymorphism using Java 8

I have an old code base that I need to refactor using Java 8, so I have an interface, which tells whether my current site supports the platform.
public interface PlatformSupportHandler {
public abstract boolean isPaltformSupported(String platform);
}
and I have multiple classes implementing it and each class supports a different platform.
A few of the implementing classes are:
#Component("bsafePlatformSupportHandler")
public class BsafePlatoformSupportHandler implements PlatformSupportHandler {
String[] supportedPlatform = {"iPad", "Android", "iPhone"};
Set<String> supportedPlatformSet = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(supportedPlatform));
#Override
public boolean isPaltformSupported(String platform) {
return supportedPlatformSet.contains(platform);
}
}
Another implementation:
#Component("discountPlatformSupportHandler")
public class DiscountPlatoformSupportHandler implements PlatformSupportHandler{
String[] supportedPlatform = {"Android", "iPhone"};
Set<String> supportedPlatformSet = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(supportedPlatform));
#Override
public boolean isPaltformSupported(String platform) {
return supportedPlatformSet.contains(platform);
}
}
At runtime in my filter, I get the required bean which I want:
platformSupportHandler = (PlatformSupportHandler) ApplicationContextUtil
.getBean(subProductType + Constants.PLATFORM_SUPPORT_HANDLER_APPEND);
and call isPlatformSupported to get whether my current site supports the following platform or not.
I am new to Java 8, so is there any way I can refactor this code without creating multiple classes? As the interface only contains one method, can I somehow use lambda to refactor it?

If you want to stick to the current design, you could do something like this:
public class MyGeneralPurposeSupportHandler implements PlatformSupportHandler {
private final Set<String> supportedPlatforms;
public MyGeneralPurposeSupportHandler(Set<String> supportedPlatforms) {
this.supportedPlatforms = supportedPlatforms;
}
public boolean isPlatformSupported(String platform) {
return supportedPlatforms.contains(platform);
}
}
// now in configuration:
#Configuration
class MySpringConfig {
#Bean
#Qualifier("discountPlatformSupportHandler")
public PlatformSupportHandler discountPlatformSupportHandler() {
return new MyGeneralPurposeSupportHandler(new HashSefOf({"Android", "iPhone"})); // yeah its not a java syntax, but you get the idea
}
#Bean
#Qualifier("bsafePlatformSupportHandler")
public PlatformSupportHandler bsafePlatformSupportHandler() {
return new MyGeneralPurposeSupportHandler(new HashSefOf({"Android", "iPhone", "iPad"}));
}
}
This method has an advantage of not creating class per type (discount, bsafe, etc), so this answers the question.
Going step further, what happens if there no type that was requested, currently it will fail because the bean does not exist in the application context - not a really good approach.
So you could create a map of type to the set of supported platforms, maintain the map in the configuration or something an let spring do its magic.
You'll end up with something like this:
public class SupportHandler {
private final Map<String, Set<String>> platformTypeToSuportedPlatforms;
public SupportHandler(Map<String, Set<String>> map) {
this.platformTypeToSupportedPlatforms = map;
}
public boolean isPaltformSupported(String type) {
Set<String> supportedPlatforms = platformTypeToSupportedPlatforms.get(type);
if(supportedPlatforms == null) {
return false; // or maybe throw an exception, the point is that you don't deal with spring here which is good since spring shouldn't interfere with your business code
}
return supportedPlatforms.contains(type);
}
}
#Configuration
public class MyConfiguration {
// Configuration conf is supposed to be your own way to read configurations in the project - so you'll have to implement it somehow
#Bean
public SupportHandler supportHandler(Configuration conf) {
return new SupportHandler(conf.getRequiredMap());
}
}
Now if you follow this approach, adding a new supported types becomes codeless at all, you only add a configuration, by far its the best method I can offer.
Both methods however lack the java 8 features though ;)

You can use the following in your config class where you can create beans:
#Configuration
public class AppConfiguration {
#Bean(name = "discountPlatformSupportHandler")
public PlatformSupportHandler discountPlatformSupportHandler() {
String[] supportedPlatforms = {"Android", "iPhone"};
return getPlatformSupportHandler(supportedPlatforms);
}
#Bean(name = "bsafePlatformSupportHandler")
public PlatformSupportHandler bsafePlatformSupportHandler() {
String[] supportedPlatforms = {"iPad", "Android", "iPhone"};
return getPlatformSupportHandler(supportedPlatforms);
}
private PlatformSupportHandler getPlatformSupportHandler(String[] supportedPlatforms) {
return platform -> Arrays.asList(supportedPlatforms).contains(platform);
}
}
Also, when you want to use the bean, it is again very easy:
#Component
class PlatformSupport {
// map of bean name vs bean, automatically created by Spring for you
private final Map<String, PlatformSupportHandler> platformSupportHandlers;
#Autowired // Constructor injection
public PlatformSupport(Map<String, PlatformSupportHandler> platformSupportHandlers) {
this.platformSupportHandlers = platformSupportHandlers;
}
public void method1(String subProductType) {
PlatformSupportHandler platformSupportHandler = platformSupportHandlers.get(subProductType + Constants.PLATFORM_SUPPORT_HANDLER_APPEND);
}
}

As it was written in Mark Bramnik's answer you can move this to configuration.
Suppose that it would be in yaml in that way:
platforms:
bsafePlatformSupportHandler: ["iPad", "Android", "iPhone"]
discountPlatformSupportHandler: ["Android", "iPhone"]
Then you can create config class to read this:
#Configuration
#EnableConfigurationProperties
#ConfigurationProperties
public class Config {
private Map<String, List<String>> platforms = new HashMap<String, List<String>>();
// getters and setters
You can than create handler with checking code.
Or place it in your filter like below:
#Autowired
private Config config;
...
public boolean isPlatformSupported(String subProductType, String platform) {
String key = subProductType + Constants.PLATFORM_SUPPORT_HANDLER_APPEND;
return config.getPlatforms()
.getOrDefault(key, Collections.emptyList())
.contains(platform);
}

Best way for imlement Strategy design pattern in Spring

I want implement strategy design pattern in spring boot application. I create BeanPostProcessor for construct strategy resolver:
#Component
public class HandlerInAnnotationBeanPostProcessor implements BeanPostProcessor {
private final UnpHandlersResolver unpHandlersResolver;
public HandlerInAnnotationBeanPostProcessor(UnpHandlersResolver unpHandlersResolver) {
this.unpHandlersResolver = unpHandlersResolver;
}
#Override
public Object postProcessBeforeInitialization(Object bean, String beanName) throws BeansException {
Annotation[] annotations = bean.getClass().getAnnotations();
for (Annotation annotation : annotations) {
if (annotation instanceof HandlerIn) {
if (bean.getClass() != UnpHandler.class)
throw new RuntimeException("Not UnpHandler bean annotated by HandlerIn");
SmevMessageType[] type = ((HandlerIn) annotation).type();
for (SmevMessageType smevMessageType : type) {
unpHandlersResolver.setHandler(smevMessageType, (UnpHandler) bean);
}
}
}
return bean;
}
}
And I create resolver:
#Slf4j
#Component
public class UnpHandlersResolverImpl implements UnpHandlersResolver {
private Map<SmevMessageType, UnpHandler> map = new HashMap<>();
#Override
public void setHandler(SmevMessageType messageType, UnpHandler unpHandler) {
map.put(messageType, unpHandler);
}
#Override
public UnpHandler getUnpHandler(SmevMessageType type) {
UnpHandler sendRequestHandler = map.get(type);
if (sendRequestHandler == null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid SendRequestHandler type: " + type);
return sendRequestHandler;
}
}
My BeanPostProcessor scan all beans with annotation HandlerIn and add to resolver's mup. I think it's wrong to do that:
unpHandlersResolver.setHandler(smevMessageType, (UnpHandler) bean);
But I not understand how can I add find beans to resolver. Before this implementation I faind beans in #Postconstruct method of resolver like:
context.getBeansWithAnnotation(HandlerIn.class);
But in this solution I have context in resolver and I think is bad.
Tell me how to properly implement what I want? In short, I want to have a set of classes that implement different behaviors. And the class that controls them. Give the class a parameter so that he chooses the right strategy and gives it to me. Like this:
Handler handler = handlersResolver.getHandler(messageType);
Result result = handler.somthing(param);

I'm going to try to make a simple example.
Interface Greeting {
void sayHello();
String getSupportedLanguage();
}
Then you have X number of implementations and you can loop through them in your "resolver"'s constructor to build the map. (I've seen this called a Proxy or a Decorator in code though, i.e. GreetingProxy or GreetingDecorator)
#Service
public GreetingResolver {
private Map<String, Greeting> languageToGreetingMap = new HashMap<>();
#Autowired
public GreetingResolver(List<Greeting> greetings) {
for (Greeting greeting : greetings) {
languageToGreetingMap.put(greeting.getSupportedLanguage(), greeting);
}
}
public void sayGreetingForLanguage(String language) {
languageToGreetingMap.get(language).sayHello();
}
}
This is a basic example of how one can do the strategy pattern in Spring. Every interface implementation of "Greeting" only knows about itself and what it can support. We then autowire all implementations in a list and loop through to create the map once and then during runtime only the relevant entry from the map in retrieved and used.
Note: this was typed "free hand" directly in the web page so please forgive any typos in the code.

Implementing shared logic for multiple KafkaListeners in spring-kafka

My Spring Boot application contains several #KafkaListeners, and each listener performs the same steps before and after actually processing the payload: Validate the payload, check whether the event has been processed already, check whether it's a tombstone (null) message, decide whether processing should be retried in case of failure, emit metrics, etc.
These steps are currently implemented in a base class, but because the topics passed to #KafkaListener must be constant at runtime, the method annotated with #KafkaListener is defined in the subclass, and does nothing but pass its parameters to a method in the base class.
This works just fine, but I wonder if there's a more elegant solution. I assume my base class would have to create a listener container programmatically, but after a quick look at KafkaListenerAnnotationBeanPostProcessor, it seems to be quite involved.
Does anyone have any recommendadtions?

Having stumbled upon this question while looking to implement something similar, I first started with Artem Bilan's answer. However this did not work because annotations by default are not inherited in child classes unless they are themselves annotated with #Inherited. Despite this there may yet be a way to make an annotation approach work and I will update this answer if and when I get it to work. Thankfully though I have achieved the desired behavour using programtic registration of the Kafka listeners.
My code is something like the following:
Interface:
public interface GenericKafkaListener {
String METHOD = "handleMessage";
void handleMessage(ConsumerRecord<String, String> record);
}
Abstract Class:
public abstract class AbstractGenericKafkaListener implements GenericKafkaListener {
private final String kafkaTopic;
public AbstractGenericKafkaListener(final String kafkaTopic) {
this.kafakTopic = kafkaTopic;
}
#Override
public void handleMessage(final ConsumerRecord<String, String> record) {
//do common logic here
specificLogic(record);
}
protected abstract specificLogic(ConsumerRecord<String, String> record);
public String getKafkaTopic() {
return kafkaTopic;
}
}
We can then programtically register all beans of type AbstractGenericKafkaListener in a KafkaListenerConfigurer:
#Configuration
public class KafkaListenerConfigurataion implements KafkaListenerConfigurer {
#Autowired
private final List<AbstractGenericKafkaListener> listeners;
#Autowired
private final BeanFactory beanFactory;
#Autowired
private final MessageHandlerMethodFactory messageHandlerMethodFactory;
#Autowired
private final KafkaListenerContainerFactory kafkaListenerContainerFactory;
#Value("${your.kafka.consumer.group-id}")
private String consumerGroup;
#Value("${your.application.name}")
private String service;
#Override
public void configureKafkaListeners(
final KafkaListenerEndpointRegistrar registrar) {
final Method listenerMethod = lookUpMethod();
listeners.forEach(listener -> {
registerListenerEndpoint(listener, listenerMethod, registrar);
});
}
private void registerListenerEndpoint(final AbstractGenericKafkaListener listener,
final Method listenerMethod,
final KafkaListenerEndpointRegistrar registrar) {
log.info("Registering {} endpoint on topic {}", listener.getClass(),
listener.getKafkaTopic());
final MethodKafkaListenerEndpoint<String, String> endpoint =
createListenerEndpoint(listener, listenerMethod);
registrar.registerEndpoint(endpoint);
}
private MethodKafkaListenerEndpoint<String, String> createListenerEndpoint(
final AbstractGenericKafkaListener listener, final Method listenerMethod) {
final MethodKafkaListenerEndpoint<String, String> endpoint = new MethodKafkaListenerEndpoint<>();
endpoint.setBeanFactory(beanFactory);
endpoint.setBean(listener);
endpoint.setMethod(listenerMethod);
endpoint.setId(service + "-" + listener.getKafkaTopic());
endpoint.setGroup(consumerGroup);
endpoint.setTopics(listener.getKafkaTopic());
endpoint.setMessageHandlerMethodFactory(messageHandlerMethodFactory);
return endpoint;
}
private Method lookUpMethod() {
return Arrays.stream(GenericKafkaListener.class.getMethods())
.filter(m -> m.getName().equals(GenericKafkaListener.METHOD))
.findAny()
.orElseThrow(() ->
new IllegalStateException("Could not find method " + GenericKafkaListener.METHOD));
}
}

How about this:
public abstract class BaseKafkaProcessingLogic {
#KafkaHandler
public void handle(Object payload) {
}
}
#KafkaListener(topics = "topic1")
public class Topic1Handler extends BaseKafkaProcessingLogic {
}
#KafkaListener(topics = "topic2")
public class Topic2Handler extends BaseKafkaProcessingLogic {
}
?

I needed the same functionality and came up with solution close to Artem Bilan answer. Yes, #KafkaHandler annotation is not inherited by the child classes but defined in interface it is. Here is the solution:
interface AbstractKafkaListener<T> {
default Class<T> getCommandType() {
TypeToken<T> type = new TypeToken<>(getClass()) {};
return (Class<T>) type.getRawType();
}
#KafkaHandler
default void handle(String message) throws JsonProcessingException {
ObjectMapper objectMapper = new ObjectMapper();
T value = objectMapper.readValue(message, getCommandType());
handle(value);
}
void handle(T message);
}
The class should implement the handle method only:
#Component
#KafkaListener(topics = "my_topic")
public class KafkaListenerForMyCustomMessage implements AbstractKafkaListener<MyCustomMessage> {
#Override
public void handle(MyCustomMessage message) {
System.out.println(message);
}
}
The 2 implemented methods in the interface should be private/protected but because they are in interface this cannot be done. default methods are always public. Actually, all methods defined in interface are always public.
I use this solution to dynamically parse the message from kafka (received in String) to the custom class.
getCommandType method returns the class of the T generic param. TypeToken is from Google Guava package.

Evaluating ${my.property} as a SpEL expression within a #Value annotation

Long story short:
Is there a way to interpret the string resulting from ${my.property} as a SpEL expression within a #Value annotation without using converters, e.g. something like #Value("#{${my.property}})?
I have an abstract factory (simplified) that lets me build some common objects that are part of the configuration of my system.
#Component
public class Factory {
public Product makeVal(int x) { return new Product(5); }
}
In order to be more flexible, I'd like to let users write SpEL expressions in the app.properties file, so that the factory can directly be accessed:
my.property = #Factory.makeVal(12)
Now, in the class needing this property, to achieve my goal I wrote the following code.
#Value("#{${my.property}}")
private Product obj;
I thought that ${my.property} would be be macro-expanded and then evaluated by #{} as the corresponding SpEL expression, #Factory.makeVal(12) in the example above. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case, and loading the Spring context resulted in an error saying that it could not convert a string (the property's value ${my.property}) to the destination type Product.
Now, I solved this by writing a class implementing Converter<String, Product>, but it's very convoluted as I need there to programmatically evaluate the string as a SpEL expression by instantiating the ExpressionParser and so on.
But is there a simpler solution? Is there a single SpEL expression to be put in #Value annotations that lets me simply evaluate ${my.property} as a SpEL expression by itself, please?

Maybe it just a matter of replacing #Factory with factory in the property value. This test passes for me:
#RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
#ContextConfiguration(classes = { SpelTest.Config.class })
public class SpelTest
{
#Value("#{${my.property}}")
Product _product;
#Test
public void evaluating_spel_from_property_value() throws Exception
{
Assert.assertEquals(1234, _product.value);
}
#Component
public static class Factory
{
public Product makeVal(int x) { return new Product(x); }
}
public static class Product
{
public final int value;
public Product(final int value) { this.value = value; }
}
#Configuration
#ComponentScan(basePackageClasses = SpelTest.class)
public static class Config
{
#Bean
public Factory factory() { return new Factory(); }
#Bean
public static PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer propertyPlaceholderConfigurer() {
final PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer psc = new PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer();
final MutablePropertySources sources = new MutablePropertySources();
sources.addFirst(new MockPropertySource()
.withProperty("my.property",
"factory.makeVal(1234)"));
psc.setPropertySources(sources);
return psc;
}
}
}

More readable Spring #Value parameter

I'm aware of that this topic might be considered as offtopic or convention/opinion based, but I have not found any other place that I could find solution for my problem.
I'm writing and Spring application, fully configured with annotations in Java. I'm loading the properties file with #PropertySource annotation:
#Configuration
#ComponentScan("myapp.app")
#PropertySource("app.properties")
public class ApplicationConfig {
#Bean
public static PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer getPropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer() {
return new PropertySourcesPlaceholderConfigurer();
}
}
Let's assume, that I have app.properties file of following content:
property1=someProperty1Value
property2=someProperty2Value
I'm loading this value with following code:
#Service
public class MyServiceImpl implements MyService {
#Value("${property1}")
private String property1Value;
#Value("${property2}")
private String property2Value;
#Override
public void doStuff() {
System.out.println(property1Value);
System.out.println(property2Value);
}
}
This is working perfectly fine. On the other hand, I find it hard to maintain - if some will think that "property1" is not the best name for a property and would like to rename it, then it will be needed to find all strings "${property1}" and rename it. I tought that I could extract it to the constant class:
public final class Properties {
public static final String PROPERTY_1 = "${property1}";
public static final String PROPERTY_2 = "${property2}";
private Properties() {
}
}
This requires refactoring of the existing bindings to new constant values:
#Value(Properties.PROPERTY_1)
private String property1Value;
Looks nice, but I do not like the mess in the Properties class, I think it will be better to the constant values without bracelets:
public static final String PROPERTY_1 = "property1";
Which leads to another refactoring in the MyServiceImpl class:
#Value("${" + Properties.PROPERTY_1 + "}")
private String property1Value;
But boy, that's really ugly. I thought about extracting constant values to the Enum:
public enum Properties {
PROPERTY_1("property1"),
PROPERTY_2("property2");
private final String key;
private Properties(String key) {
this.key = key;
}
public String getKey() {
return key;
}
public String getSpringKey() {
return "${" + getKey() + "}";
}
}
and use it like
#Value(Properties.PROPERTY_1.getSpringKey())
private String property1Value;
but then IDE reminded me, that annotation value has to be a constant.
After creating this enum, I thought that I might be over-thinking it, and it should be kept as simple as possible. Currently I came back to the solution with constants in format of
public static final String PROPERTY_1 = "${property1}";
Finally, I would like to ask you to provide another, nice-looking solution, or some reference links where I could read about some common solution.