We Keep Coding

How to avoid duplication on similar classes and similar methods?

Context
I am working with very similar classes like RechargeResponse or ConsultResponse. All of them (around 80) are generated from WSDL scheme has the same structure. (This scheme comes from 3PP company, so I can't change this logic.)
Each of them contains inner classes: RechargeResult and ConsultResult.
I have a bunch of methods with same functionality. The only difference is that I need to call (for example) response.get_ClassName_Result().getAny() to check data. 
Question
How can I escape from using in every method same code with only ClassNameMethod changed?
Is any solution like Generics, Reflections or some else could be used? (I think parsing classname like string is not a solution).
Code examples below:
Similar classes:
public class ConsultResponse {
protected ConsultResult consultResult;
public ConsultResult getConsultResult() {
return consultResult;
}
public static class ConsultResult {
protected Object any;
public Object getAny() {
return any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
}
public class RechargeResponse {
protected RechargeResult rechargeResult;
public RechargeResult getRechargeResult() {
return rechargeResult;
}
public static class RechargeResult {
protected Object any;
public Object getAny() {
return any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
}
Similar (duplicated) method for each class:
private void validateConsult(ConsultResponse response) {
if (response == null ||
response.getConsultResult() == null || // need solution here
response.getConsultResult().getAny() == null) { // need solution or change here
throw new Exception();
}
}
 

One of the problems is that your get«classname»Result method names include the class names. That makes it impossible to make it generic without using reflection. Why don't you just rename both to getResult? You could then use generics to make the class generic.
First, we define an interface which defines both getAny and setAny.
public interface Result {
Object getAny();
void setAny(Object value);
}
Then we could create an implementation of Result, which is, for example, ConsultResult. You could do the same with RechargeResult.
public class ConsultResult implements Result {
protected Object any; // You already have a getter, so this can also be private
public Object getAny() {
return this.any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
Then we could create a base class Response, which defines the getResult method. The class accepts a type argument T which must implement Result.
public abstract class Response<T extends Result> {
protected T result; // You already have a getter, so this can also be private
public T getResult() {
return this.result;
}
}
At last, we also create our ConsultResponse class. We extend it from Response, and we provide as type argument ConsultResult.
public class ConsultResponse extends Response<ConsultResult> {
// The field 'result' is already present within the Response class,
// so there is no need to include it here.
}
Also, as GhostCat already said in the comments: what is the point of having two different inner classes in the first place? They're both the same in your example as it is currently written. You could replace them with a single base class; however, it could be that there's more members within those classes which are not shown in your example, so I left them as they were in my example.
For the validation you could do roughly the same.

There are several ways around it, for example by creating a superclass from which ConsultResponse and RechargeResponse would be extending. The superclass would have the shared method defined, so you don't have to define it in the extended classes, unless you'd want to override it.
Another approach would be to separate the validation completely into a separate class, for example a ResponseValidator which would handle the validation on its own and would be included and used in the ConsultResponse and RechargeResponse classes.
It's hard to pinpoint an exact solution to this because it depends on your specific situation which we are not aware of completely.

Which contract is satisfied [duplicate]

If I have two interfaces , both quite different in their purposes , but with same method signature , how do I make a class implement both without being forced to write a single method that serves for the both the interfaces and writing some convoluted logic in the method implementation that checks for which type of object the call is being made and invoke proper code ?
In C# , this is overcome by what is called as explicit interface implementation. Is there any equivalent way in Java ?

No, there is no way to implement the same method in two different ways in one class in Java.
That can lead to many confusing situations, which is why Java has disallowed it.
interface ISomething {
void doSomething();
}
interface ISomething2 {
void doSomething();
}
class Impl implements ISomething, ISomething2 {
void doSomething() {} // There can only be one implementation of this method.
}
What you can do is compose a class out of two classes that each implement a different interface. Then that one class will have the behavior of both interfaces.
class CompositeClass {
ISomething class1;
ISomething2 class2;
void doSomething1(){class1.doSomething();}
void doSomething2(){class2.doSomething();}
}

There's no real way to solve this in Java. You could use inner classes as a workaround:
interface Alfa { void m(); }
interface Beta { void m(); }
class AlfaBeta implements Alfa {
private int value;
public void m() { ++value; } // Alfa.m()
public Beta asBeta() {
return new Beta(){
public void m() { --value; } // Beta.m()
};
}
}
Although it doesn't allow for casts from AlfaBeta to Beta, downcasts are generally evil, and if it can be expected that an Alfa instance often has a Beta aspect, too, and for some reason (usually optimization is the only valid reason) you want to be able to convert it to Beta, you could make a sub-interface of Alfa with Beta asBeta() in it.

If you are encountering this problem, it is most likely because you are using inheritance where you should be using delegation. If you need to provide two different, albeit similar, interfaces for the same underlying model of data, then you should use a view to cheaply provide access to the data using some other interface.
To give a concrete example for the latter case, suppose you want to implement both Collection and MyCollection (which does not inherit from Collection and has an incompatible interface). You could provide a Collection getCollectionView() and MyCollection getMyCollectionView() functions which provide a light-weight implementation of Collection and MyCollection, using the same underlying data.
For the former case... suppose you really want an array of integers and an array of strings. Instead of inheriting from both List<Integer> and List<String>, you should have one member of type List<Integer> and another member of type List<String>, and refer to those members, rather than try to inherit from both. Even if you only needed a list of integers, it is better to use composition/delegation over inheritance in this case.

The "classical" Java problem also affects my Android development...
The reason seems to be simple:
More frameworks/libraries you have to use, more easily things can be out of control...
In my case, I have a BootStrapperApp class inherited from android.app.Application,
whereas the same class should also implement a Platform interface of a MVVM framework in order to get integrated.
Method collision occurred on a getString() method, which is announced by both interfaces and should have differenet implementation in different contexts.
The workaround (ugly..IMO) is using an inner class to implement all Platform methods, just because of one minor method signature conflict...in some case, such borrowed method is even not used at all (but affected major design semantics).
I tend to agree C#-style explicit context/namespace indication is helpful.

The only solution that came in my mind is using referece objects to the one you want to implent muliple interfaceces.
eg: supposing you have 2 interfaces to implement
public interface Framework1Interface {
void method(Object o);
}
and
public interface Framework2Interface {
void method(Object o);
}
you can enclose them in to two Facador objects:
public class Facador1 implements Framework1Interface {
private final ObjectToUse reference;
public static Framework1Interface Create(ObjectToUse ref) {
return new Facador1(ref);
}
private Facador1(ObjectToUse refObject) {
this.reference = refObject;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof Framework1Interface) {
return this == obj;
} else if (obj instanceof ObjectToUse) {
return reference == obj;
}
return super.equals(obj);
}
#Override
public void method(Object o) {
reference.methodForFrameWork1(o);
}
}
and
public class Facador2 implements Framework2Interface {
private final ObjectToUse reference;
public static Framework2Interface Create(ObjectToUse ref) {
return new Facador2(ref);
}
private Facador2(ObjectToUse refObject) {
this.reference = refObject;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof Framework2Interface) {
return this == obj;
} else if (obj instanceof ObjectToUse) {
return reference == obj;
}
return super.equals(obj);
}
#Override
public void method(Object o) {
reference.methodForFrameWork2(o);
}
}
In the end the class you wanted should something like
public class ObjectToUse {
private Framework1Interface facFramework1Interface;
private Framework2Interface facFramework2Interface;
public ObjectToUse() {
}
public Framework1Interface getAsFramework1Interface() {
if (facFramework1Interface == null) {
facFramework1Interface = Facador1.Create(this);
}
return facFramework1Interface;
}
public Framework2Interface getAsFramework2Interface() {
if (facFramework2Interface == null) {
facFramework2Interface = Facador2.Create(this);
}
return facFramework2Interface;
}
public void methodForFrameWork1(Object o) {
}
public void methodForFrameWork2(Object o) {
}
}
you can now use the getAs* methods to "expose" your class

You can use an Adapter pattern in order to make these work. Create two adapter for each interface and use that. It should solve the problem.

All well and good when you have total control over all of the code in question and can implement this upfront.
Now imagine you have an existing public class used in many places with a method
public class MyClass{
private String name;
MyClass(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
Now you need to pass it into the off the shelf WizzBangProcessor which requires classes to implement the WBPInterface... which also has a getName() method, but instead of your concrete implementation, this interface expects the method to return the name of a type of Wizz Bang Processing.
In C# it would be a trvial
public class MyClass : WBPInterface{
private String name;
String WBPInterface.getName(){
return "MyWizzBangProcessor";
}
MyClass(String name){
this.name = name;
}
public String getName(){
return name;
}
}
In Java Tough you are going to have to identify every point in the existing deployed code base where you need to convert from one interface to the other. Sure the WizzBangProcessor company should have used getWizzBangProcessName(), but they are developers too. In their context getName was fine. Actually, outside of Java, most other OO based languages support this. Java is rare in forcing all interfaces to be implemented with the same method NAME.
Most other languages have a compiler that is more than happy to take an instruction to say "this method in this class which matches the signature of this method in this implemented interface is it's implementation". After all the whole point of defining interfaces is to allow the definition to be abstracted from the implementation. (Don't even get me started on having default methods in Interfaces in Java, let alone default overriding.... because sure, every component designed for a road car should be able to get slammed into a flying car and just work - hey they are both cars... I'm sure the the default functionality of say your sat nav will not be affected with default pitch and roll inputs, because cars only yaw!

Efficient duplicates checking for multiple types of objects in Java

I'm working on a project where I've got multiple classes to hold data loaded from an xml file. The problem I would like to solve is that almost all of the classes have these methods:
addSingle[objectName]
addMultiple[objectName]
However, there may be more types of objects in a class that need to be added this way. For example:
class Airspace {
private List airports;
private List waypoints;
...
public void addSingleAirport(Airport a) {...}
public void addMultipleAirports(Airport[] a {...}
public void addSingleWaypoint(Waypoint w) {...}
public void addMultipleWaypoints(Waypoint w) {...}
}
I was thinking of putting those addSingle and addMultiple methods into an interface and then decide, when implementing the methods, according to the objects type to which list it should be added, but wouldn't that be stupid?
Is there any more efficient way to do this? I want to avoid writing these methods into every class that needs them with the specific objects because they all do exactly the same.

I don't think you approach is stupid but it is true this type checking can affect performance.
Nevertheless, expanding your approach, I would keep a map of lists indexed by Class:
class Airspace {
private Map<Class, List<Object>> lists = new HashMap();
public void addSingle(Object o)
{
List<Object> list = lists.get(o.getClass());
if(list == null)
{
list = new ArrayList();
lists.put(o.getClass(), list);
}
list.add(o);
}
...
...

public void addAirports(Airport... a ){...}
should be able to handle all cases - or did I miss something?
A very general
public void addThings( Object... o )
can be written, but do you want to lose readability and type checking? Runtime errors if there's no matching Foo-list in an object? Shudder.

You can use an Abstract class with generics then extends it from you class. Something like this:
public abstract class AbstractSomeclass<E>{
public void addObject(E... obj, List<E>){
//yourcode here
}
}
Then in your class:
public class MyClass extends AbstractSomeclass<Airport>{
public List<Airport> list;
//.....
public void someMethod(){
super.addObject( airportObject, list );
}
}
Maybe there is some minor errors (on this code), but hold on with the idea.

Avoiding instanceof in Java

Having a chain of "instanceof" operations is considered a "code smell". The standard answer is "use polymorphism". How would I do it in this case?
There are a number of subclasses of a base class; none of them are under my control. An analogous situation would be with the Java classes Integer, Double, BigDecimal etc.
if (obj instanceof Integer) {NumberStuff.handle((Integer)obj);}
else if (obj instanceof BigDecimal) {BigDecimalStuff.handle((BigDecimal)obj);}
else if (obj instanceof Double) {DoubleStuff.handle((Double)obj);}
I do have control over NumberStuff and so on.
I don't want to use many lines of code where a few lines would do. (Sometimes I make a HashMap mapping Integer.class to an instance of IntegerStuff, BigDecimal.class to an instance of BigDecimalStuff etc. But today I want something simpler.)
I'd like something as simple as this:
public static handle(Integer num) { ... }
public static handle(BigDecimal num) { ... }
But Java just doesn't work that way.
I'd like to use static methods when formatting. The things I'm formatting are composite, where a Thing1 can contain an array Thing2s and a Thing2 can contain an array of Thing1s. I had a problem when I implemented my formatters like this:
class Thing1Formatter {
private static Thing2Formatter thing2Formatter = new Thing2Formatter();
public format(Thing thing) {
thing2Formatter.format(thing.innerThing2);
}
}
class Thing2Formatter {
private static Thing1Formatter thing1Formatter = new Thing1Formatter();
public format(Thing2 thing) {
thing1Formatter.format(thing.innerThing1);
}
}
Yes, I know the HashMap and a bit more code can fix that too. But the "instanceof" seems so readable and maintainable by comparison. Is there anything simple but not smelly?
Note added 5/10/2010:
It turns out that new subclasses will probably be added in the future, and my existing code will have to handle them gracefully. The HashMap on Class won't work in that case because the Class won't be found. A chain of if statements, starting with the most specific and ending with the most general, is probably the best after all:
if (obj instanceof SubClass1) {
// Handle all the methods and properties of SubClass1
} else if (obj instanceof SubClass2) {
// Handle all the methods and properties of SubClass2
} else if (obj instanceof Interface3) {
// Unknown class but it implements Interface3
// so handle those methods and properties
} else if (obj instanceof Interface4) {
// likewise. May want to also handle case of
// object that implements both interfaces.
} else {
// New (unknown) subclass; do what I can with the base class
}

You might be interested in this entry from Steve Yegge's Amazon blog: "when polymorphism fails". Essentially he's addressing cases like this, when polymorphism causes more trouble than it solves.
The issue is that to use polymorphism you have to make the logic of "handle" part of each 'switching' class - i.e. Integer etc. in this case. Clearly this is not practical. Sometimes it isn't even logically the right place to put the code. He recommends the 'instanceof' approach as being the lesser of several evils.
As with all cases where you are forced to write smelly code, keep it buttoned up in one method (or at most one class) so that the smell doesn't leak out.

As highlighted in the comments, the visitor pattern would be a good choice. But without direct control over the target/acceptor/visitee you can't implement that pattern. Here's one way the visitor pattern could possibly still be used here even though you have no direct control over the subclasses by using wrappers (taking Integer as an example):
public class IntegerWrapper {
private Integer integer;
public IntegerWrapper(Integer anInteger){
integer = anInteger;
}
//Access the integer directly such as
public Integer getInteger() { return integer; }
//or method passthrough...
public int intValue() { return integer.intValue(); }
//then implement your visitor:
public void accept(NumericVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
Of course, wrapping a final class might be considered a smell of its own but maybe it's a good fit with your subclasses. Personally, I don't think instanceof is that bad a smell here, especially if it is confined to one method and I would happily use it (probably over my own suggestion above). As you say, its quite readable, typesafe and maintainable. As always, keep it simple.

Instead of a huge if, you can put the instances you handle in a map (key: class, value: handler).
If the lookup by key returns null, call a special handler method which tries to find a matching handler (for example by calling isInstance() on every key in the map).
When a handler is found, register it under the new key.
This makes the general case fast and simple and allows you to handle inheritance.

You can use reflection:
public final class Handler {
public static void handle(Object o) {
try {
Method handler = Handler.class.getMethod("handle", o.getClass());
handler.invoke(null, o);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public static void handle(Integer num) { /* ... */ }
public static void handle(BigDecimal num) { /* ... */ }
// to handle new types, just add more handle methods...
}
You can expand on the idea to generically handle subclasses and classes that implement certain interfaces.

I think that the best solution is HashMap with Class as key and Handler as value. Note that HashMap based solution runs in constant algorithmic complexity θ(1), while the smelling chain of if-instanceof-else runs in linear algorithmic complexity O(N), where N is the number of links in the if-instanceof-else chain (i.e. the number of different classes to be handled). So the performance of HashMap based solution is asymptotically higher N times than the performance of if-instanceof-else chain solution.
Consider that you need to handle different descendants of Message class differently: Message1, Message2, etc. . Below is the code snippet for HashMap based handling.
public class YourClass {
private class Handler {
public void go(Message message) {
// the default implementation just notifies that it doesn't handle the message
System.out.println(
"Possibly due to a typo, empty handler is set to handle message of type %s : %s",
message.getClass().toString(), message.toString());
}
}
private Map<Class<? extends Message>, Handler> messageHandling =
new HashMap<Class<? extends Message>, Handler>();
// Constructor of your class is a place to initialize the message handling mechanism
public YourClass() {
messageHandling.put(Message1.class, new Handler() { public void go(Message message) {
//TODO: IMPLEMENT HERE SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR Message1
} });
messageHandling.put(Message2.class, new Handler() { public void go(Message message) {
//TODO: IMPLEMENT HERE SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR Message2
} });
// etc. for Message3, etc.
}
// The method in which you receive a variable of base class Message, but you need to
// handle it in accordance to of what derived type that instance is
public handleMessage(Message message) {
Handler handler = messageHandling.get(message.getClass());
if (handler == null) {
System.out.println(
"Don't know how to handle message of type %s : %s",
message.getClass().toString(), message.toString());
} else {
handler.go(message);
}
}
}
More info on usage of variables of type Class in Java: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/class/classNew.html

You could consider the Chain of Responsibility pattern. For your first example, something like:
public abstract class StuffHandler {
private StuffHandler next;
public final boolean handle(Object o) {
boolean handled = doHandle(o);
if (handled) { return true; }
else if (next == null) { return false; }
else { return next.handle(o); }
}
public void setNext(StuffHandler next) { this.next = next; }
protected abstract boolean doHandle(Object o);
}
public class IntegerHandler extends StuffHandler {
#Override
protected boolean doHandle(Object o) {
if (!o instanceof Integer) {
return false;
}
NumberHandler.handle((Integer) o);
return true;
}
}
and then similarly for your other handlers. Then it's a case of stringing together the StuffHandlers in order (most specific to least specific, with a final 'fallback' handler), and your despatcher code is just firstHandler.handle(o);.
(An alternative is to, rather than using a chain, just have a List<StuffHandler> in your dispatcher class, and have it loop through the list until handle() returns true).

Just go with the instanceof. All the workarounds seem more complicated. Here is a blog post that talks about it: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t302491-instanceof-not-always-bad-the-instanceof-myth.html

I have solved this problem using reflection (around 15 years back in pre Generics era).
GenericClass object = (GenericClass) Class.forName(specificClassName).newInstance();
I have defined one Generic Class ( abstract Base class). I have defined many concrete implementations of base class. Each concrete class will be loaded with className as parameter. This class name is defined as part of configuration.
Base class defines common state across all concrete classes and concrete classes will modify the state by overriding abstract rules defined in base class.
At that time, I don't know the name of this mechanism, which has been known as reflection.
Few more alternatives are listed in this article : Map and enum apart from reflection.

Add a method in BaseClass which returns name of the class. And override the methods with the specific class name
public class BaseClass{
// properties and methods
public String classType(){
return BaseClass.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
public class SubClass1 extends BaseClass{
// properties and methods
#Override
public String classType(){
return SubClass1.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
public class SubClass2 extends BaseClass{
// properties and methods
#Override
public String classType(){
return SubClass1.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
Now use the switch case in following way-
switch(obj.classType()){
case SubClass1:
// do subclass1 task
break;
case SubClass2:
// do subclass2 task
break;
}

What I use for Java 8:
void checkClass(Object object) {
if (object.getClass().toString().equals("class MyClass")) {
//your logic
}
}

Simple/elegant way to do object to object transformation in Java?

I have to take over and improve/finish some code that transforms Java objects from a third party library into internal objects. Currently this is done through a big if-else statement along the lines of:
if (obj instanceOf X)
{
//code to initialize internal object
}
else if (obj instanceOf Y)
{
//code to initialize different object
}
else if (obj instanceOf Z)
{
//more init code
}
...
Personally I don't find this solution satisfactory; it's long and messy and to make matters worse many of the if-else blocks contain more if-else blocks dealing with subclasses and edge cases. Is there a better solution to this problem?

Create an interface like this
public interface Converter<S,T> {
public T convert(S source);
}
and implement it for each object of X,Y,Z. Then put all known converters into a Map and get happy!

While it doesn't work for edge cases, building a Map between Classes and Converters
X.getClass() -> X Converter
Y.getClass() -> Y Converter
would get you a lot closer. You'd want to also check superclasses if the leaf class is not found.

Code like this, with all of its instanceof conditions, screams for an interface!
You may want to create a public interface Initializable, with a method public void initialize().
Then all if your if-else's simply resolve into a single obj.initialize() call.

If these internal objects present an interface to the application, rather than being used directly, adapt them rather than converting them.
That is, if you have something like this:
public class ThirdPartyClass { ... }
public interface InternalInterface { ... }
public class InternalClass { ... }
Internal foo(ThirdPartyClass thirdParty) {
InternalClass internal = new InternalClass();
// convert thirdPaty -> internal
return internal;
}
Then instead do something like this:
public class ThirdPartyClass { ... }
public interface InternalInterface { ... }
public class InternalClass { ... }
public class ThirdPartyInternalAdapter implements InternalInterface {
private final ThirdPartyClass thirdParty;
public ThirdPartyInternalAdapter(ThirdPartyClass thirdParty) {
this.thirdParty = thirdParty;
}
// implement interface in terms of thirdParty
}
It's not clear from your question if this applies, but if it does this may be easier and more efficient than direct object-to-object conversion.