I have ContactDTO class,
private ContactType contacttype;(this is enum, EMAIL, PHONENUMBEr)
private String contactvalue;
private Long studentId;
i want to write method while creating new contact if person uses PHONENUMBER enum String contactvalue must be numbers only and if person uses EMAIL enum it can be characters too
You could write a method that takes the enum and value and which checks the value based on the enum.
It could be as simple as this:
public void setContact(ContactType type, String value) {
//check the value first
switch(type) {
case PHONENUMBER: {
if( !StringUtils.isNumeric(value) ) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("phone number must be numeric");
}
break;
}
case EMAIL: {
//note: emails contain more than just numbers and alphabetic chars
if( !StringUtils.isAlphanumeric(value) ) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("email must be alphanumeric");
}
break;
}
}
this.value = value;
}
However, you might need more types or more complex ones, so you could try to use regular expressions instead ("manually" crafted rules are faster for many simple cases but require a yet more complex design):
enum ContactType {
PHONENUMBER("\\d+"),
EMAIL(/*pattern for email*/);
Pattern pattern;
private ContactType(String regex) {
pattern = Pattern.compile(regex);
}
public void validateInput(String input) {
if(!pattern.matcher(input).matches()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("input invalid");
}
}
}
And setting the value:
public void setContact(ContactType type, String value) {
type.validateInput(value);
this.value = value;
}
ContactType should be a class with fields email, phoneNumber etc. And than you can validate every field you want.
Really not much details in the questions. Since you tagged the question with "spring-boot", I suppose we're talking (javax|jakarta).validation. stuff? In this case you could use class-level validation.
Some snippets:
#Target(ElementType.TYPE)
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
#Constraint(validatedBy = ContactTypeValidator.class)
public #interface ContactTypeValid {
String message() default "contact value invalid for specified type";
Class<?>[] groups() default {};
Class<? extends Payload>[] payload() default {};
}
public class ContactTypeValidator implements ConstraintValidator<ContactTypeValid, ContactDTO> {
#Override
public void initialize(ContactTypeValid constraint) {
}
#Override
public boolean isValid(ContactDTO contactDTO, ConstraintValidatorContext context) {
// put your logic here. e.g.
// deal with possible nulls
if(PHONENUMBER == contactDTO.getContacttype()) {
return contactDTO.getContactvalue().chars().allMatch(Character::isDigit);
}
return true;
}
}
#RestController
class MyController {
#PostMapping("/api/contact")
void postContact(#Valid ContactDTO contactDTO) {
...
}
}
Annotate your ContactDTO:
#ContactTypeValid
public class ContactDTO {
...
}
You will also need validation implementation in your dependencies, like spring-boot-starter-validation.
Spring documentation for more: https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/reference/html/core.html#validation-beanvalidation
And good point from #Игорь-Ходыко. Use separate fields.
If you just need a digit validator:
enum ContactEnum {EMAIL, PHONENUMBER}
private boolean validatePhoneNumber(ContactEnum type, String contactString) {
if (type == ContactEnum.PHONENUMBER) {
return contactString.chars().filter(Character::isDigit).count() == contactString.length();
}
return false;
}
Related
I need to get the enum name based on value. I am given with enum class and value and need to pick the corresponding name during run time .
I have a class called Information as below.
class Information {
private String value;
private String type;
private String cValue;
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String getType() {
return type;
}
public void setType(String type) {
this.type = type;
}
public String getcValue() {
return cValue;
}
public void setcValue(String cValue) {
this.cValue = cValue;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Information inf = new Information();
inf.setType("com.abc.SignalsEnum");
inf.setValue("1");
}
}
class SignalEnum {
RED("1"), GREEN("2"), ORANGE("3");
private String sign;
SignalEnum(String pattern) {
this.sign = pattern;
}
}
class MobileEnum {
SAMSUNG("1"), NOKIA("2"), APPLE("3");
private String mobile;
MobileEnum(String mobile) {
this.mobile = mobile;
}
}
In run time i will come to know the enum name using the attribute type from the Information class and also i am getting the value. I need to figure out the corresponding enum to set the value for cValue attribute of Information class.
Just for example i have provided two enums like SignalEnum and MobileEnum but in my actual case i will get one among 100 enum types. Hence i dont want to check type cast. I am looking for some solution using reflection to se the cValue.
Here is a simple resolver for any enum class.
Since reflection operations are expensive, it's better to prepare all required data once and then just query for it.
class EnumResolver {
private Map<String, Enum> map = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public EnumResolver(String className) {
try {
Class enumClass = Class.forName(className);
// look for backing property field, e.g. "sign" in SignalEnum
Field accessor = Arrays.stream(enumClass.getDeclaredFields())
.filter(f -> f.getType().equals(String.class))
.findFirst()
.orElseThrow(() -> new NoSuchFieldException("Not found field to access enum backing value"));
accessor.setAccessible(true);
// populate map with pairs like ["1" => SignalEnum.RED, "2" => SignalEnum.GREEN, etc]
for (Enum e : getEnumValues(enumClass)) {
map.put((String) accessor.get(e), e);
}
accessor.setAccessible(false);
} catch (ReflectiveOperationException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public Enum resolve(String backingValue) {
return map.get(backingValue);
}
private <E extends Enum> E[] getEnumValues(Class<E> enumClass) throws ReflectiveOperationException {
Field f = enumClass.getDeclaredField("$VALUES");
f.setAccessible(true);
Object o = f.get(null);
f.setAccessible(false);
return (E[]) o;
}
}
And here is simple JUnit test
public class EnumResolverTest {
#Test
public void testSignalEnum() {
EnumResolver signalResolver = new EnumResolver("com.abc.SignalEnum");
assertEquals(SignalEnum.RED, signalResolver.resolve("1"));
assertEquals(SignalEnum.GREEN, signalResolver.resolve("2"));
assertEquals(SignalEnum.ORANGE, signalResolver.resolve("3"));
}
#Test
public void testMobileEnum() {
EnumResolver mobileResolver = new EnumResolver("com.abc.MobileEnum");
assertEquals(MobileEnum.SAMSUNG, mobileResolver.resolve("1"));
assertEquals(MobileEnum.NOKIA, mobileResolver.resolve("2"));
assertEquals(MobileEnum.APPLE, mobileResolver.resolve("3"));
}
}
And again for performance sake you can also instantiate these various resolvers once and put them into a separate Map
Map<String, EnumResolver> resolverMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
resolverMap.put("com.abc.MobileEnum", new EnumResolver("com.abc.MobileEnum"));
resolverMap.put("com.abc.SignalEnum", new EnumResolver("com.abc.SignalEnum"));
// etc
Information inf = new Information();
inf.setType("com.abc.SignalsEnum");
inf.setValue("1");
SignalEnum red = (SignalEnum) resolverMap.get(inf.getType()).resolve(inf.getValue());
Is it possible to allow multiple #QueryParam keys for a single object/variable in Jersey?
Actual:
#POST
public Something getThings(#QueryParam("customer-number") Integer n) {
...
}
so, if I add ?customer-number=3 after the URL it works.
Expected:
I want to get the behavior above if I add any of the following values:
?customer-number=3
?customerNumber=3
?customerNo=3
Obs:
The QueryParam annotation looks like:
...
public #interface QueryParam {
String value();
}
so, it cannot accept multiple String values (like #Produces).
The approach below allows the user to use multiple keys having the same meaning at the same time (and I want to have an "OR" condition between them):
#POST
public Something getThings(#QueryParam("customer-number") Integer n1,
#QueryParam("customerNumber") Integer n2,
#QueryParam("customerNo") Integer n3) {
...
}
Something like this doesn't work:
#POST
public Something getThings(#QueryParam("customer-number|customerNumber|customerNo") Integer n) {
...
}
How can I do this?
Details:
Jersey 2.22.1
Java 8
To be honest: this is not how webservices are supposed to be designed. You lay down a strict contract that both client and server follow; you define one parameter and that's it.
But of course it would be a perfect world where you have the freedom to dictate what is going to happen. So if you must allow three parameters in, then you'll have to make that the contract. This is one way following approach #2 which I have to provide without being able to test it for goofs:
public Something getThings(#QueryParam("customer-number") Integer n1,
#QueryParam("customerNumber") Integer n2,
#QueryParam("customerNo") Integer n3) throws YourFailureException {
Integer customerNumber = getNonNullValue("Customer number", n1, n2, n3);
// things with stuff
}
private static Integer getNonNullValue(String label, Integer... params) throws YourFailureException {
Integer value = null;
for(Integer choice : params){
if(choice != null){
if(value != null){
// this means there are at least two query parameters passed with a value
throw new YourFailureException("Ambiguous " + label + " parameters");
}
value = choice;
}
}
if(value == null){
throw new YourFailureException("Missing " + label + " parameter");
}
return value;
}
So basically reject any call that does not pass specifically one of the parameters, and let an exception mapper translate the exception you throw into a HTTP response code in the 4xx range of course.
(I made the getNonNullValue() method static is it strikes me as a reusable utility function).
Maybe the simplest and easiest way would be to use a custom #BeanParam:
First define the custom bean merging all the query parameters as:
class MergedIntegerValue {
private final Integer value;
public MergedIntegerValue(
#QueryParam("n1") Integer n1,
#QueryParam("n2") Integer n2,
#QueryParam("n3") Integer n3) {
this.value = n1 != null ? n1
: n2 != null ? n2
: n3 != null ? n3
: null;
// Throw an exception if value == null ?
}
public Integer getValue() {
return value;
}
}
and then use it with #BeanParam in your resource method:
public Something getThings(
#BeanParam MergedIntegerValue n) {
// Use n.getValue() ...
}
Reference: https://jersey.java.net/documentation/latest/user-guide.html#d0e2403
You can create a custom annotation. I won't go in too much about how to do it, you can see this post, or this post. Basically it relies on a different infrastructure than the usual dependency injection with Jersey. You can see this package from the Jersey project. This is where all the injection providers live that handle the #XxxParam injections. If you examine the source code, you will see the the implementations are fairly the same. The two links I provided above follow the same pattern, as well as the code below.
What I did was created a custom annotation
#Target({ElementType.FIELD, ElementType.PARAMETER})
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public #interface VaryingParam {
String value();
#SuppressWarnings("AnnotationAsSuperInterface")
public static class Factory
extends AnnotationLiteral<VaryingParam> implements VaryingParam {
private final String value;
public static VaryingParam create(final String newValue) {
return new Factory(newValue);
}
public Factory(String newValue) {
this.value = newValue;
}
#Override
public String value() {
return this.value;
}
}
}
It may seem odd that I have a factory to create it, but this was required for the implementation of the below code, where I split the value of the String, and end up creating a new annotation instance for each split value.
Here is the ValueFactoryProvider (which, if you've read either of the above articles, you will see that is required for custom method parameter injection). It a large class, only because I put all the required classes into a single class, following the pattern you see in the Jersey project.
public class VaryingParamValueFactoryProvider extends AbstractValueFactoryProvider {
#Inject
public VaryingParamValueFactoryProvider(
final MultivaluedParameterExtractorProvider mpep,
final ServiceLocator locator) {
super(mpep, locator, Parameter.Source.UNKNOWN);
}
#Override
protected Factory<?> createValueFactory(final Parameter parameter) {
VaryingParam annotation = parameter.getAnnotation(VaryingParam.class);
if (annotation == null) {
return null;
}
String value = annotation.value();
if (value == null || value.length() == 0) {
return null;
}
String[] variations = value.split("\\s*\\|\\s*");
return new VaryingParamFactory(variations, parameter);
}
private static Parameter cloneParameter(final Parameter original, final String value) {
Annotation[] annotations = changeVaryingParam(original.getAnnotations(), value);
Parameter clone = Parameter.create(
original.getRawType(),
original.getRawType(),
true,
original.getRawType(),
original.getRawType(),
annotations);
return clone;
}
private static Annotation[] changeVaryingParam(final Annotation[] annos, final String value) {
for (int i = 0; i < annos.length; i++) {
if (annos[i] instanceof VaryingParam) {
annos[i] = VaryingParam.Factory.create(value);
break;
}
}
return annos;
}
private class VaryingParamFactory extends AbstractContainerRequestValueFactory<Object> {
private final String[] variations;
private final Parameter parameter;
private final boolean decode;
private final Class<?> paramType;
private final boolean isList;
private final boolean isSet;
VaryingParamFactory(final String[] variations, final Parameter parameter) {
this.variations = variations;
this.parameter = parameter;
this.decode = !parameter.isEncoded();
this.paramType = parameter.getRawType();
this.isList = paramType == List.class;
this.isSet = paramType == Set.class;
}
#Override
public Object provide() {
MultivaluedParameterExtractor<?> e = null;
try {
Object value = null;
MultivaluedMap<String, String> params
= getContainerRequest().getUriInfo().getQueryParameters(decode);
for (String variant : variations) {
e = get(cloneParameter(parameter, variant));
if (e == null) {
return null;
}
if (isList) {
List list = (List<?>) e.extract(params);
if (value == null) {
value = new ArrayList();
}
((List<?>) value).addAll(list);
} else if (isSet) {
Set set = (Set<?>) e.extract(params);
if (value == null) {
value = new HashSet();
}
((Set<?>) value).addAll(set);
} else {
value = e.extract(params);
if (value != null) {
return value;
}
}
}
return value;
} catch (ExtractorException ex) {
if (e == null) {
throw new ParamException.QueryParamException(ex.getCause(),
parameter.getSourceName(), parameter.getDefaultValue());
} else {
throw new ParamException.QueryParamException(ex.getCause(),
e.getName(), e.getDefaultValueString());
}
}
}
}
private static class Resolver extends ParamInjectionResolver<VaryingParam> {
public Resolver() {
super(VaryingParamValueFactoryProvider.class);
}
}
public static class Binder extends AbstractBinder {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bind(VaryingParamValueFactoryProvider.class)
.to(ValueFactoryProvider.class)
.in(Singleton.class);
bind(VaryingParamValueFactoryProvider.Resolver.class)
.to(new TypeLiteral<InjectionResolver<VaryingParam>>() {
})
.in(Singleton.class);
}
}
}
You will need to register this class' Binder (bottom of class) with Jersey to use it.
What differentiates this class from Jersey QueryParamValueFactoryProvider is that instead of just processing a single String value of the annotation, it splits the value, and tries to extract the values from the query param map. The first value found will be returned. If the parameter is a List or Set, it just continues to keep looking up all the options, and adding them to the list.
For the most part this keeps all the functionality you would expect from an #XxxParam annotation. The only thing that was difficult to implement (so I left out supporting this use case), is multiple parameters, e.g.
#GET
#Path("multiple")
public String getMultipleVariants(#VaryingParam("param-1|param-2|param-3") String value1,
#VaryingParam("param-1|param-2|param-3") String value2) {
return value1 + ":" + value2;
}
I actually don't think it should be that hard to implement, if you really need it, it's just a matter of creating a new MultivaluedMap, removing a value if it is found. This would be implemented in the provide() method of the VaryingParamFactory above. If you need this use case, you could just use a List or Set instead.
See this GitHub Gist (it's rather long) for a complete test case, using Jersey Test Framework. You can see all the use cases I tested in the QueryTestResource, and where I register the Binder with the ResourceConfig in the test configure() method.
I have a requirement, where I need to convert String into double or long.
the field on which I have applied #TypeConvertor can also contains String sometimes.
As it can be seen in below snippet, isNumber property is true when I get a number.
is there anyway I can pass isNumber to Struts2 type convertor? or any other workaround for this ?
Class XYZ{
private boolean isNumber;
private String value;
#TypeConvertor
public void setValue(){
}
}
Struts2 implicitly performs a basic type conversion to a known types, double and long are these types. So, you don't need a convertor to convert these types. But if you need a custom implementation of the type converter you may try
The action:
private Double doubleValue;
public Double getDoubleValue() {
return doubleValue;
}
#TypeConversion(converter = "com.struts.conversion.DoubleConverter")
public void setDoubleValue(Double doubleValue) {
this.doubleValue = doubleValue;
}
DoubleConverter.java:
public class DoubleConverter extends StrutsTypeConverter {
#Override
public Object convertFromString(Map context, String[] values, Class toClass) {
Object o = null;
try {
o = Double.valueOf(values[0]);
} catch (NumberFormatException e){}
return o;
}
#Override
public String convertToString(Map context, Object o) {
return o==null?"":o.toString();
}
}
The #TypeConversion annotation is to a property which type is converted. I have applied it on property of type Double, but you may try to apply your converter on property of type XYZ like
#TypeConversion(converter = "com.struts.conversion.YourNumberConverter")
public void setValue(XYZ value) {
this.value = value;
}
When converter is invoked you should get all values as String[] including isNumber and value.
Problem
I don't know the best way to model my data. I'm worried my current approach has gotten overly complex, and I want to correct it now before I base any more code off it.
Data to be Modeled
I have data sets that consist of 50+ different data items. Each item consists of:
a unique identifier int
a label String.
validation criteria (min, max, legal characters, etc...).
a value Float, Long, Integer, String, or Date.
The label and validation criteria for each item is the same in every data set. Only the values are dynamic. Order is not important.
Needed Usage Examples
Add data to the data set
dataSet.put(itemIdentifier, value);
Traverse and validate all non-null values in the data set
for (DataItem item : dataSet.values()) {
boolean valid = item.validate();
if (valid) {...}
}
Show the specified items in the given data sets
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
Implementation Attempt
My current implementation has an abstract Key class as the "key" to a map. Each type subclasses for its own validation needs. Then, inside the DataSet class, I have public static keys for each item.
abstract public class Key {
public int mId;
public String mLabel;
public Key(int id, String label) {...}
abstract public boolean validate(Object Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key {
private int mMin, mMax;
public Key(int id, String label, int min, int max) {...}
public boolean validate(Object Value) {...}
}
// one for each type
...
public class DataSet {
public static Key ITEM_A = new FloatKey(1, "item A", 0, 100);
public static Key ITEM_B = new DateKey(2, "item B", "January 1, 1990");
// ~50 more of these
private Map<Key, Object> mMap;
public void put(int itemId, Object value) {...}
public Set<Object> values() {...};
...
}
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat). I also find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set because I need to call subclass-only methods in some situations.
Edits for further clarification
Data items and their validation criteria will require occasional changes and so maintenance should be relatively easy / painless.
Although I could use the Key objects themselves as keys into the map, I will sometimes need to put these keys in a Bundle (part of the android API). I would rather use the label or id (in case labels are the same) to avoid making my Key class Parcelable.
What about this approach:
Create this interface:
interface Validable {
boolean isValid();
}
Then, all data items inherit the following class and implicitly the interface ::
abstract class DataItem implements Validable {
public DataItem(int id, String label, int min, int max) {
}
}
Configure each specific instance of DataItem via constructor parameters, passing the common and the distinct values:
class FloatItem extends DataItem {
public FloatItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Float value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
// set the Float value here
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
class DateItem extends DataItem {
public DateItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Date value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
The client code would assemble the objects like this::
List<Validable> items = Lists.<Validable>newArrayList(new FloatItem(0, "", 0, 0, Float.NaN),
new DateItem(0, "", 0, 0, new Date()));
(note the usage of Google Guava)
Calling code only needs to do this::
for (Validable validable : items) {
System.out.println(validable.isValid());
}
Please note that this approach requires you to first create 'target' objects, and then ask the question if they are valid. In other words, you are passing the valid-able parameters via constructor and then, you ask the object if it is valid. The object itself will answer the question using the validation criteria inside it...
I hope I understood your problem correctly.
I don't quite understand your goals with the design, so maybe not all of this is correct or directly useful to you, but it's some ideas to play with.
First I'd point out that there are lots of fields in the code you've shown that should be marked final. For example, Key.mId, Key.mLabel, FloatKey.mMin, FloatKey.mMax, all the DataSet.ITEM_X, and DataSet.mMap. Marking them final (1) conveys the intended behavior better, (2) prevents accidents where something like a Key's mId changes, and (3) might have marginal performance benefits.
I wonder why you need the numeric ID for each key/field? If they're required for interfacing with some external application or storage format which already defines those IDs, that makes sense, but if it's only for internal things like this method:
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
then that could be more meaningfully implemented using a list of String labels or Key objects, instead of the numeric IDs. Likewise, DataSet.put could possibly use the Key or label instead of the ID.
I find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set
Making Key generic can eliminate some casts. (Well, they will still be present in the bytecode, but not in the source because the compiler will take care of it.) E.g.,
abstract public class Key<T> {
...
abstract public boolean validate(T Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key<Float> {
...
public boolean validate(Float value) { ... }
}
In the validate method, you thus avoid the need to cast value.
Also, I'm guessing you currently have a method on class DataSet like this:
public Object get(int itemId) { ... }
If you use the Key instead of numeric ID to retrieve values, and make the method generic, you'll often be able to avoid the need for callers to cast the return value (though the cast is still present inside the get method):
public <T> T get(Key<T> key) { ... }
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat).
You could make a class for the value instead of the key. E.g.,
abstract public class Value<T> {
public final int id;
public final String label;
protected Value(int id, String label) {
this.id = id;
this.label = label;
}
abstract public T get();
abstract public void set(T value);
}
public class FloatValue extends Value<Float> {
private final float min, max;
private float value;
public FloatValue(int id, String label, float min, float max, float value) {
super(id, label);
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
set(value);
}
public Float get() { return value; }
public void set(Float value) {
if (value < min | value > max) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
this.value = value;
}
}
public class DataSet {
public final FloatValue itemA = new FloatValue(1, "item A", 0, 100, 0);
...
}
That solves the stated problem, and also eliminates the map lookup previously required on every get/set of a value. However it has the side effect of duplicating the storage for the labels and numeric IDs, as the Value classes are not static fields any more.
In this scenario, to access DataSet values by label (or ID?), you can use reflection to build a map. In class DataSet:
private final Map<String, Value<?>> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (Value.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
Value<?> v;
try {
v = (Value<?>)f.get(this);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | IllegalArgumentException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
labelMap.put(v.label, v);
}
}
}
There's a subtlety here: if you subclass DataSet to represent different types of data, then the Value fields of the subclasses will not have been initialized yet at the time DataSet's initializer builds the map. So if you create subclasses of DataSet, you might need a protected init() method to be called from subclass constructors, to tell it to (re)build the map, which is a bit ugly but it would work.
You can re-use this map to provide convenient iteration of a DataSet's values:
public Collection<Value<?>> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
A final idea: if you're using reflection anyway, it might be possible to use ordinary fields for the values, with annotation interfaces to implement their behavior.
import java.lang.annotation.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
public class DataSet {
#Label("item A") #ValidateFloat(min=0, max=100) public float itemA;
#Label("item B") public String itemB;
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface Label {
String value();
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface ValidateFloat {
float min();
float max();
}
public final class Value {
public final String label;
private final Field field;
protected Value(String label, Field field) {
this.label = label;
this.field = field;
}
public Object get() {
try {
return field.get(DataSet.this);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void set(Object value) {
try {
field.set(DataSet.this, value);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void validate() {
Object value = get();
// Test for presence of each validation rule and implement its logic.
// Ugly but not sure how best to improve this...
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ValidateFloat.class)) {
float floatValue = (float)value;
ValidateFloat rule = field.getAnnotation(ValidateFloat.class);
if (floatValue < rule.min() || floatValue > rule.max()) {
//throw new Whatever();
}
}
//if (field.isAnnotationPresent(...)) {
// ...
//}
}
}
private final Map<String, Value> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (f.isAnnotationPresent(Label.class)) {
Value value = new Value(f.getAnnotation(Label.class).value(), f);
labelMap.put(value.label, value);
}
}
}
public Collection<Value> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
}
This approach has different tradeoffs. Code that knows exactly what field it wants can access it directly. E.g., dataSet.itemA instead of dataSet.get(DataSet.ITEM_A). Code that needs to iterate multiple fields does so via the Value wrapper (would Property be a better class name? Or Item?), which encapsulates the ugliness of the field reflection code.
I also put the validation logic into the annotations. If there are lots of fields with very simple numeric limits, that works well. If it's too complex for that you'd be better off with a DataSet.validate method that accesses the fields directly. E.g,
public void validate() {
if (itemC < 10 || itemC > itemD) ...
}
Okay, one more idea:
public class DataSet {
public float itemA;
public String itemB;
public static abstract class Value<T> {
public final String label;
protected Value(String label) {
this.label = label;
}
public abstract T get();
public abstract void set(T value);
}
public Value<?>[] values() {
return new Value[] {
new Value<Float>("itemA") {
public Float get() {
return itemA;
}
public void set(Float value) {
itemA = value;
}
},
new Value<String>("itemB") {
public String get() {
return itemB;
}
public void set(String value) {
itemB = value;
}
},
};
}
}
This is simple (no annotations or reflection) but it's repetitive. Since you have "50+" fields, the repetitiveness is probably not ideal as it's easy when copy-pasting to slip up at some point, forgetting to replace itemX = value with itemY = value, but if you only need to write it once it might be acceptable. Validation code could go either on the Value class or the DataSet class.
Some Message class is able to return a tag name based on tag number
Since this class is instanciated many times, I am a bit reluctant to create a HashMap for each instance:
public class Message {
private HashMap<Integer,String> tagMap;
public Message() {
this.tagMap = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
this.tagMap.put( 1, "tag1Name");
this.tagMap.put( 2, "tag2Name");
this.tagMap.put( 3, "tag3Name");
}
public String getTagName( int tagNumber) {
return this.tagMap.get( tagNumber);
}
}
In favor of hardcoding:
public class Message {
public Message() {
}
public String getTagName( int tagNumber) {
switch( tagNumber) {
case 1: return "tag1Name";
case 2: return "tag2Name";
case 3: return "tag3Name";
default return null;
}
}
}
When you put everything in the mix ( Memory, Performance, GC, ...)
Is there any reason to stick to HashMap?
Initialize MAP in a static block.
And since you will be creating many objects of Message.you should write code like this
public class Message {
private static HashMap tagMap;
static {
tagMap = new HashMap();
tagMap.put( 1, "tag1Name");
tagMap.put( 2, "tag2Name");
tagMap.put( 3, "tag3Name");
}
public Message() {
}
public String getTagName( int tagNumber) {
return tagMap.get( tagNumber);
}
}
Map can be used as command pattern in which key represents condition and value represents command to be executed the only drawback is object gets created before used so if you have large number of such conditions then you can opt for map else switch is always elegant approach if your conditions are few.
Depends on what you need. For example if you ever needed to get all the tag names for display using a Map would pay off. Additionally if you replaced with a TreeMap you could get them sorted.
If you don't have such a need, then using a Map would be an overhead and your approach or an Enum would be much more efficient (you will have less readability though than you option of 5-10-20 case options)
Why not make the getTagName method static and lazy load it from a properties file?
public static String getTagName(int tagNumber) {
if tagsByID == null) {
// load tags from properties
}
return tagsByID.get(tagNumber);
}
Easy to test and configurable without a recompile.
If all your tag values are consecutive in the interval [1..n] then you can use an array or maybe an ArrayList and have direct access to the values.
public class Message {
private ArrayList<String> tags;
public Message() {
this.tags = = new ArrayList<String>();
this.tags.add("Unknown");
this.tags.add("tag1Name");
this.tags.add("tag2Name");
this.tags.add("tag3Name");
}
public String getTagName(int tagNumber) {
return this.tags.get(tagNumber);
}
}
Alternative with an array.
public class Message {
private static final String[] tags = {
"N/A",
"tag1Name",
"tag2Name",
"tag3Name",
null,
null,
"tag6Name",
};
public Message() {
}
public String getTagName(int tagNumber) {
if (tagNumber < 0 || tagNumber > tags.length) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
return tags[tagNumber];
}
}