We Keep Coding

Varying enums in Java being accessed by common method

Essentially what I'm trying to do is create a generic method that can take many different kinds of enums. I'm looking for a way to do it how I'm going to describe, or any other way a person might think of.
I've got a base class, and many other classes extend off that. In each of those classes, I want to have an enum called Includes like this:
public enum Includes {
VENDOR ("Vendor"),
OFFERS_CODES ("OffersCodes"),
REMAINING_REDEMPTIONS ("RemainingRedemptions");
private String urlParam;
Includes(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
public String getUrlParam() {
return urlParam;
}
}
I've got a method that takes in a generic class that extends from BaseClass, and I want to be able to also pass any of the includes on that class to the method, and be able to access the methods on the enum, like this:
ApiHelper.Response<Offer> offer = apiHelper.post(new Offer(), Offer.Includes.VENDOR);
public <T extends BaseClass> Response<T> post(T inputObject, Includes... includes) {
ArrayList<String> urlParams = new ArrayList<String>();
for (Include include : includes){
urlParams.add(include.getUrlParam());
}
return null;
}
Is there a way to be able to pass in all the different kinds of enums, or is there a better way to do this?
---EDIT---
I've added an interface to my enum, but how can I generify my method? I've got this:
public <T extends BaseClass> Response<T> post(Offer inputObject, BaseClass.Includes includes) {
for (Enum include : includes){
if (include instanceof Offer.Includes){
((Offer.Includes) include).getUrlParam();
}
}
return null;
}
But I get an error on apiHelper.post(new Offer(), Offer.Includes.VENDOR); saying the second param must be BaseClass.Includes.

Enums can implement interfaces, so you can create an interface with these methods that you'd like to be able to call:
interface SomeBaseClass {
String getUrlParam();
void setUrlParam(String urlParam);
}
and then your enum can implement this interface:
public enum Includes implements SomeBaseClass {
VENDOR ("Vendor"),
OFFERS_CODES ("OffersCodes"),
REMAINING_REDEMPTIONS ("RemainingRedemptions");
private String urlParam;
Includes(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
#Override
public String getUrlParam() {
return urlParam;
}
#Override
public void setUrlParam(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
}
If you want to get really fancy, it's possible to restrict subtypes of the interface to enums, but the generic type declaration will be pretty ugly (thus hard to understand and maintain) and probably won't provide any "real" benefits.
Unrelated note regarding this design: it's a pretty strong code smell that the enum instances are mutable. Reconsider why you need that setUrlParam() method in the first place.

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!

Enum static Method being called from Generic class

I want to make a refactoring and want to create a generic class for avoiding duplicate code. We have many XXXCriteriaValidator in our project and we want to make one only unique class to substitute them all.
The problem is one line where this class calls for a static method from an Enum. Here you will see. This is more or less what I'mtrying to achieve:
public class GenericCriteriaValidator<T extends ¿SomeKindOfEnumInterface?>
implements CriterionVisitor {
protected Errors errors;
public Errors getErrors() {
return this.errors;
}
/*
* Some code around here
*/
protected void doVisit(final PropertyCriterion criterion) {
if (criterion == null) {
this.errors.reject("error.criterion.null");
} else {
if (criterion.getOperator() == null) {
this.errors.reject("error.operator.null");
}
// Validates property (exception thrown if not exists)
T.fromString(criterion.getName()); // The problem is this call here!!
// Not saying this compiles, just looking
// how to do something equivalent
}
}
}
T is always a differente Enum. The typical enum is like this:
public enum ContactCriteria implements CriteriaInterface<ContactCriteria> {
// ^ This interface is added by me
// for the enum being called in the previous class
CONTACT_ID("this.id"),
CONTACT_COMPANY_ID("this.companyId"),
CONTACT_NAME("this.name"),
CONTACT_EMAIL("this.email"),
CONTACT_PHONE_NUMBER("this.phoneNumber"),
CONTACT_ORDER("this.order"),
private final String alias;
ContactCriteria(final String alias) {
this.alias = alias;
}
public String getAlias() {
return this.alias;
}
public static ContactCriteria fromString(final String name) {
ContactCriteria result = null;
if (name != null) {
result = Enum.valueOf(ContactCriteria.class, name);
}
return result;
}
public ContactCriteria returnThis() {
return this;
}
}
Finally, I'm looking for making an interface for the first class to accept the fromString method of T. I suppose it should be similar to:
public interface CriteriaInterface<T> {
static T fromString(String name);
// ^ This static is important
}
I haven't found none post or strategy for making something similar with an Enum. I know the Enum can implement an interface, but don't know how to get it.
Please help. Thanks in advance

You should start with that a static method is not allowed in Java interface.
The concept behind interfaces strongly disagree with static elements as they belong to class not to object.
So if you have a static method in a enum is just a container that is assigned to but you should not connect it by any other relations.
What is bad here is the design, you try to use enum to something that the are not dedicated on in the way you should not that why you struggle so much.
The question is if a enum instance is an CriteriaInterface then why is should provide it self by name.
Enum contains definition of "constants" that can represent an interface but can not be generic. That why enum can implement interface.
To express that you can define a interface
interface Messanger {
String getMessage();
}
And try to apply it to enum
enum Messages {
INFO
WARNING;
}
You have two options,
First, create a field that will be
enum Messages implements Messanger {
INFO,
WARNING;
private String message;
#Override
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
}
Then you have to add the constructor to set the field
enum Messages implements Messanger {
INFO("Info"), //We create an instance of class as we call the constructor
WARNING("Warnig") //We create an instance of class as we call the constructor
;
private final String message;
public Message(String message) {
this.messsage = message;
}
#Override
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
}
As we declare the instances inside the body of the enum you must provide all information required to create it. Assuming that enum would allow generic this is the place where you should declare it.

If the static method is on your CriteriaInterface, shouldn't you do
CriteriaIntervace.fromString("")
since static methods belong to a class (in this case CriteriaIntervace) instead of to an object?

You can't put static methods in an interface, the generics etc have no direct bearing on this. Interfaces define the methods of an instance of an object, static methods are not part of the interface of an instance, they are part of the interface of the class.
The easiest work around will be to provide a factory object to the GenericCriteriaValidator or make it abstract and provide an:
abstract T getEnum(String name);
Each implementation can then implement getEnum for the enum it is using.

Well, generally speaking, the generic type is erased and you have no other chance than explicitly telling the GenericCriteriaValidator what kind of validation logic it should apply. You might want to abstract the receiving of some type away and use a factory pattern for that what would allow you to define an interface for the fromString method.
This would result in something like this:
public interface CriteriaInterface<T> {
static class Factory<U> {
U fromString(String name);
}
}
However, I do not quite see the benefit of that in your example. Simply require an instance of CriteriaInterface<T> as a constructor argument to your GenericCriteriaValidator and define some sort of validate method in this interface.
However, if you really, really want to avoid this, there is a solution. It is possible to read the generic type of the super class of some other class (this is rather hacky, requires reflection and I would not recommend it, but some libraries love this approach). This requires you to always declare an anonymous subclass when using your generic class:
class GenericCriteriaValidator<T extends Enum<?>> implements CriterionVisitor {
private final Method criteria;
public GenericCriteriaValidator() {
ParameterizedType parameterizedType = (ParameterizedType) getClass()
.getGenericSuperclass();
try {
criteria = ((Class<?>) parameterizedType.getActualTypeArguments()[0])
.getMethod("fromString", String.class);
criteria.setAccessible(true);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}
#SuppressWarning("unchecked")
private CriteriaInterface<?> invokeFromString(String value) {
try {
return (CriteriaInterface<?>) criteria.invoke(null, value);
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
} catch (InvocationTargetException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}
// Your other code goes here.
}
Be aware that you need to instantiate your GenericCriteriaValidator as an anonymous subclass:
new GenericCriteriaValidator<ContactCriteria>() { }; // mind the braces!
As I said. I do not find this intuitive and it is most certainly not the "Java way", but you might still want to consider it.

Extending class in Java and constructing using an instance of the extended class

I would like to extend a class and then copy the value from an instance of the class which has been extended, so I get all its parameters in my new class. In case this doesn't make sense, a simple example of what I'm trying to do:
public class MyTableModel extends DefaultTableModel {
public MyTableModel(DefaultTableModel model){
this = (MyTableModel) model; /* I realise this is invalid */
}
public newMethod(){
// Some additional code
}
}
Is this possible to achieve?

It looks like you want composition instead of inheritance. In particular, it looks like you're trying to use the decorator pattern. That is, you want to take an existing instance of DefaultTableModel, and create another DefaultTableModel that forwards most of the methods to the underlying delegate, but perhaps adding/modifying/decorating some functionalities.
You can never set this = somethingElse;, but you can have a DefaultTableModel delegate, and forward most/all requests to delegate, perhaps adding/decorating some methods as necessary.
See also
Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 16: Favor composition over inheritance
Guava Example: ForwardingCollection
An example of this pattern is ForwardingCollection from Guava:
A java.util.Collection which forwards all its method calls to another collection. Subclasses should override one or more methods to modify the behavior of the backing collection as desired per the decorator pattern.
You can see the source code to see how this pattern is typically implemented:
#Override protected abstract Collection<E> delegate();
public int size() {
return delegate().size();
}
public boolean isEmpty() {
return delegate().isEmpty();
}
public boolean removeAll(Collection<?> collection) {
return delegate().removeAll(collection);
}
// many more interface Collection methods implemented like above...
As you can see, all the ForwardingCollection does is it implements Collection simply by forwarding all methods to its delegate(), another Collection. Understandably this is rather repetitive and mundane code to write, but now subclasses can simply extends ForwardingCollection and only decorate what they want to decorate.

You can't not set this in Java to anything, it is just used for expressions like (this == someObject) or accessing some property of the object being currently used like (this.someProperty) or inside a constructor to initialize the current object. See here for more info about the this keyword
This code will likely throw a java.lang.ClassCastException
That is MyTableModel is a DefaultTableModel but DefaultTableModel is not a MyTableModel. See http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/conversions.html for more details about type conversion in java
If there is some state and/or behavior that you want to reuse from your parent class in your subclass you should consider marking those members as protected, or consider other form of composition.

A better way to do this would be to make the fields of the superclass protected instead of private - this will give you access to them in your subclass.
Note that when you defined the subclass constructor, you will need to call a constructor from the superclass as well, so in that respect you'll still be able to pass in all the required variables.
And don't forget that all public methods in the superclass can be called as-is by any code that has an instance of your subclass.
EDIT: A little example might help:
public class DefaultTableModel
{
protected String modelName;
protected int numberOfTables;
private numTimesReinited = 0;
public DefaultTableModel(String name, int numTabs)
{
modelName = name;
numberOfTables = numTabs;
}
public void reinit()
{
numTimesReinited++;
// Other stuff
}
protected int getNumberOfReinits()
{
return numTimesReinited;
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
}
public class MyTableModel extends DefaultTableModel
{
private String modelType;
public MyTableModel(String name, int numTables, String modelType)
{
super(name, numTables); // sets up the fields in the superclass
this.modelType = modelType;
}
// purely "local" code
public void getModelType()
{
return modelType;
}
// Accesses several protected data to provide new (public) functionality
public void addTable()
{
if (getNumberOfReinits() < 10)
{
numberOfTables++;
reinit();
}
}
}
Let me know if I've misunderstood your requirements, but it sounds like you want to access fields and behaviour of the superclass - which you'll have automatic access to in your subclass so long as they're not private.

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
}
}