We Keep Coding

Is there a specific way to give a certain subclass some functions of the superclass?

The Problem
I'm trying to create an application where an object class can implement some
operations from the total pool of available operations. The end goal is to not have any code duplication and to abide by the laws of OOP as much as possible.
In more detail, I'm trying to make a search engine using Lucene. Lucene
uses many indices. I've already implemented a simple structure where different index-objects inherit the methods of a parent class. The problem is that, whatever method is implemented in that parent class, it automatically becomes available for all subclasses to use. I want to give the option to the user to determine if he wants to do a phrase search, a term search or whatever else there is available for that specific index. The catch is, some indices shouldn't have the option to conduct phrase search, for example.
First Thoughts
I've thought of implementing something close to the Composite pattern,
as described by the GoF. I would implement the search operations (e.g. term search, phrase search) as primitive operations implementing some Component class and add these primitive objects later on to a Composite object. The Composite object will be implementing the same Component class as the primitives.
public abstract class Index {
public Index(String indexPath) {
// Constructor using the information provided by the subclass
}
public void phraseSearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
public void termSearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
public void categorySearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
}
public class ReviewIndex extends Index {
public ReviewIndex() {
super("./review_index/");
}
}
public class TipIndex extends Index {
public TipIndex() {
super("./tip_index/");
}
}
Expected Outcome
The class ReviewIndex shouldn't be able to perform a categorySearch but be
able to execute phraseSearch and termSearch. Respectively, the TipIndex class
should be able to execute some of the parent class methods.
Final Thoughts
I know that in my solution there is no code duplication but there
are useless methods being generated each time a new index object is created.
Thank you all in advance!
P.S. If you think the Composite pattern is the way to go, in which way would you actually add the primitive objects to the composite class and in which way would you invoke them when need to?

All methods defined in a superclass are available at deriving classes but with Java 8 you might be able to get something like this by using default-methods in interfaces. So instead of one abstract class containing all possible methods you might implement four interfaces
public interface Searchable {
public String getIndexPath();
}
public interface PhraseSearchable extends Searchable {
public default void phraseSearch() {
String indexPath = getIndexPath();
// do the search
}
}
public interface TermSearchable extends Searchable {
public default void termSearch() {
String indexPath = getIndexPath();
// do the search
}
}
public interface CategorySearchable extends Searchable {
public default void categorySearch() {
String indexPath = getIndexPath();
// do the search
}
}
To avoid duplicate code you can create an abstract class
public abstract class AbstractSearchable implements Searchable {
private String indexPath;
public AbstractSearchable(String indexPath) {
this.indexPath = indexPath;
}
// other methods that might be useful
}
Your actual classes can then implement the corresponding interfaces
public class ReviewIndex extends AbstractSearchable implements CategorySearchable {
public ReviewIndex() {
super("./review_index/");
}
}
public class TipIndex extends AbstractSearchable implements PhraseSearchable, TermSearchable {
public ReviewIndex() {
super("./review_index/");
}
}
If this is possible depends heavily on the actual implementation of the search methods. Interfaces can't contain any members, etc. so these methods must be able to run for themselves (like a static method without using any static members of the class). You might to overcome this problem by adding more methods to the Searchable interface that provide the data and do the implementation in the abstract class but that might expose internal stuff to the public because all the declared methods in an interface are public.

If you don't want to use categorySearch(...) for ReviewIndex class then create one more hierarchy where you keep the categorySearch(...) method.
Example:
public abstract class Index {
public Index(String indexPath) {
// Constructor using the information provided by the subclass
}
public void phraseSearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
}
// Give a meaningful Name
public abstract class IndexChild1 extends Index {
public void categorySearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
}
// Give a meaningful Name
public abstract class IndexChild2 extends Index {
public void termSearch(...) {
// Do the operation
}
}
public class ReviewIndex extends IndexChild1 {
public ReviewIndex() {
super("./review_index/");
}
}
public class TipIndex extends IndexChild2 {
public TipIndex() {
super("./review_index/");
}
}

You can use Composite pattern if you need to have the same objects and use them as you wish in your ReviewIndex and TipIndex classes. you can use a list which implies aggregation and you can use one instantiation of each object(PhraseSeach, TermSearch, CategorySearch) in any order you want.
here is the code:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Main{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main m = new Main();
m.run();
}
public void run() {
ReviewIndex ri = new ReviewIndex();
}
public interface ISearch {
public void search();
}
public class SearchComposite implements ISearch{
private List<ISearch> l = new ArrayList<ISearch>();
public SearchComposite(String index) {
System.out.println(index);
}
public int addSearch(ISearch search) {
l.add(search);
return this.l.size() - 1;
}
public List<ISearch> getSearch(){
return this.l;
}
public void search() {
System.out.println("search");
}
}
public class CategorySearch implements ISearch{
#Override
public void search() {
System.out.println("category search");
}
}
public class PhraseSearch implements ISearch{
#Override
public void search() {
System.out.println("phrase search");
}
}
public class TermSearch implements ISearch{
#Override
public void search() {
System.out.println("term search");
}
}
CategorySearch cs = new CategorySearch();
TermSearch ts = new TermSearch();
PhraseSearch ps = new PhraseSearch();
public class ReviewIndex {
SearchComposite sc = new SearchComposite("./review_index/");
public ReviewIndex() {
int p = sc.addSearch(ps);
int t = sc.addSearch(ts);
sc.search();
List<ISearch> s = sc.getSearch();
s.get(p).search();
s.get(t).search();
}
}
public class TipIndex {
SearchComposite sc = new SearchComposite("./tip_index/");
public TipIndex() {
int p = sc.addSearch(ps);
int t = sc.addSearch(ts);
int c = sc.addSearch(cs);
sc.search();
List<ISearch> s = sc.getSearch();
s.get(p).search();
s.get(t).search();
s.get(c).search();
}
}
}
the output of the code above is:
./review_index/
search
phrase search
term search
and we have used the same CategorySearch, TermSearch and PhraseSearch for ReviewIndex and TipIndex classes.

Java: share object reference without passing as parameter

I have an ObjectFactory and a specialized case of implementation of that factory. I can't change the interface, that has 0 argument.
In one of the implementation I have to read a file and load some data. To pass the filename I can use the system properties because all I need to share is a string.
But in the other implementation I must start not from a file but from a memory structure. How can I do to pass the object (then I think the object reference) to the factory? Other methods? No way I serialize the object on a file and after I read it again because what I want to avoid is right the I/O footprint.
Thanks
OK, more informations:
This is the interface and the abstract factory I have to implement
public abstract interface A
{
public abstract Set<Foo> getFoo();
public abstract Set<Bar> getBar();
}
//this is otherpackage.AFactory
public abstract class AFactory
{
public static AccessFactory newInstance()
{
return a new built instance of the factory
}
public abstract A newA();
}
This is my implementation with my problem:
public class AFactory extends otherpackage.AFactory
{
#Override
public Access newA()
{
return new AA();
}
}
public class AA implements A
{
protected AA()
{
this.objectReferenceIWantToSaveHere = I retrieve from the shared memory zone;
use the object
}
}
Now I'd like to do something like this:
B b = something I built before
save b in a shared memory zone or something like that
otherpackage.AFactory f = mypackage.AccessFactory.newInstance();
A a = f.newA();
And inside the f.newA() call I'd like to access to the b object

Can't you simply use a constructor?
interface ObjectFactory { Object create(); }
class SpecialFactory implements ObjectFactory {
private final Object data;
public SpecialFactory(Object data) { this.data = data; }
#Override public Object create() { return somethingThatUsesData; }
}

Ass assylias proposes, you can pass the reference to the constructor. Or if you know where to find the reference, you could just ask for it before you use it? E.g. data = dataBank.giveMeTheData()

Agree it would help to get some more context around what you are doing... but could you use a shared static class in which your calling code places info into the static class, and your interface implementation references this same static class to obtain either the object and/or instructions?
So here's a client class. It has the entry point..and wants to pass an object to the interface implementer but it can't pass it directly...So it set's object it wants to pass in the MyStaticHelper.SetSharedObject method.
public class Client {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
String mySharedObject = "Couldbeanyobject, not just string";
// Set your shared object in static class
MyStaticHelper.SetSharedObject(mySharedObject);
InterferfaceImplementer myInterfaceImplementer = new InterferfaceImplementer();
//
myInterfaceImplementer.RunMyMethod();
}
Here is the code for the static helper...
public class MyStaticHelper {
private static Object _insructionsObject;
public static void SetSharedObject(Object anObject)
{
_insructionsObject = anObject;
}
public static Object GetSharedObject()
{
return _insructionsObject;
}
}
and finally the the class that you call that uses the static helper to get the same object.
public class InterferfaceImplementer {
// no objects
public void RunMyMethod()
{
System.out.println(MyStaticHelper.GetSharedObject());
}
}
Again this works in a very simple scenario and wouldn't stand up if more than one implementer needs to be called simultaneously as this solution would only allow one obj to be in the static helper class.

Calling methods from objects which implement an interface

I am trying to wrap my head around interfaces, and I was hoping they were the answer to my question.
I have made plugins and mods for different games, and sometimes classes have onUpdate or onTick or other methods that are overridable.
If I make an interface with a method, and I make other classes which implement the method, and I make instances of the classes, then how can I call that method from all the objects at once?

You'll be looking at the Observer pattern or something similar. The gist of it is this: somewhere you have to keep a list (ArrayList suffices) of type "your interface". Each time a new object is created, add it to this list. Afterwards you can perform a loop on the list and call the method on every object in it.
I'll edit in a moment with a code example.
public interface IMyInterface {
void DoSomething();
}
public class MyClass : IMyInterface {
public void DoSomething() {
Console.WriteLine("I'm inside MyClass");
}
}
public class AnotherClass : IMyInterface {
public void DoSomething() {
Console.WriteLine("I'm inside AnotherClass");
}
}
public class StartUp {
private ICollection<IMyInterface> _interfaces = new Collection<IMyInterface>();
private static void Main(string[] args) {
new StartUp();
}
public StartUp() {
AddToWatchlist(new AnotherClass());
AddToWatchlist(new MyClass());
AddToWatchlist(new MyClass());
AddToWatchlist(new AnotherClass());
Notify();
Console.ReadKey();
}
private void AddToWatchlist(IMyInterface obj) {
_interfaces.Add(obj);
}
private void Notify() {
foreach (var myInterface in _interfaces) {
myInterface.DoSomething();
}
}
}
Output:
I'm inside AnotherClass
I'm inside MyClass
I'm inside MyClass
I'm inside AnotherClass
Edit: I just realized you tagged it as Java. This is written in C#, but there is no real difference other than the use of ArrayList instead of Collection.

An interface defines a service contract. In simple terms, it defines what can you do with a class.
For example, let's use a simple interface called ICount. It defines a count method, so every class implementing it will have to provide an implementation.
public interface ICount {
public int count();
}
Any class implementing ICount, should override the method and give it a behaviour:
public class Counter1 implements ICount {
//Fields, Getters, Setters
#Overide
public int count() {
//I don't wanna count, so I return 4.
return 4;
}
}
On the other hand, Counter2 has a different oppinion of what should count do:
public class Counter2 implements ICount {
int counter; //Default initialization to 0
//Fields, Getters, Setters
#Overide
public int count() {
return ++count;
}
}
Now, you have two classes implementing the same interface, so, how do you treat them equally? Simple, by using the first common class/interface they share: ICount.
ICount count1 = new Counter1();
ICount count2 = new Counter2();
List<ICount> counterList = new ArrayList<ICount>();
counterList.add(count1);
counterList.add(count2);
Or, if you want to save some lines of code:
List<ICount> counterList = new ArrayList<ICount>();
counterList.add(new Counter1());
counterList.add(new Counter2());
Now, counterList contains two objects of different type but with the same interface in common(ICounter) in a list containing objects that implement that interface. You can iterave over them and invoke the method count. Counter1 will return 0 while Counter2 will return a result based on how many times did you invoke count:
for(ICount current : counterList)
System.out.println(current.count());

You can't call a method from all the objects that happen to implement a certain interface at once. You wouldn't want that anyways. You can, however, use polymorphism to refer to all these objects by the interface name. For example, with
interface A { }
class B implements A { }
class C implements A { }
You can write
A b = new B();
A c = new C();

Interfaces don't work that way. They act like some kind of mask that several classes can use. For instance:
public interface Data {
public void doSomething();
}
public class SomeDataStructure implements Data {
public void doSomething()
{
// do something
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Data mydataobject = new SomeDataStructure();
}
This uses the Data 'mask' that several classes can use and have certain functionality, but you can use different classes to actually implement that very functionality.

The crux would be to have a list that stores every time a class that implements the interface is instantiated. This list would have to be available at a level different that the interface and the class that implements it. In other words, the class that orchestrates or controls would have the list.
An interface is a contract that leaves the implementation to the classes that implements the interface. Classes implement the interface abide by that contract and implement the methods and not override them.
Taking the interface to be
public interface Model {
public void onUpdate();
public void onClick();
}
public class plugin implements Model {
#Override
public void onUpdate() {
System.out.println("Pluging updating");
}
#Override
public void onClick() {
System.out.println("Pluging doing click action");
}
}
Your controller class would be the one to instantiate and control the action
public class Controller {
public static void orchestrate(){
List<Model> modelList = new ArrayList<Model>();
Model pluginOne = new plugin();
Model plugTwo = new plugin();
modelList.add(pluginOne);
modelList.add(plugTwo);
for(Model model:modelList){
model.onUpdate();
model.onClick();
}
}
}
You can have another implementation called pluginTwo, instantiate it, add it to the list and call the methods specified by the interface on it.

Restrict Constructor to Sibling use - Java

This might not be possible but I am trying to create a constructor that only classes that share a super class can access, almost a reverse logic of the protected modifier. I assume there is no modifier to accomplish this directly, but knowing what I am trying to accomplish, any suggestions?
public Account extends SomeEntity {
//default public
public Account() {
}
// I am wanting this constructor to be only available to sibling classes.
// (those that share the same super class )
<modifier> Account(Element accountElement) {
}
}
public Accounts extends SomeEntity {
private List<Account> accountList;
//default public
public Accounts() {
Account newAcct = new Account(element);
//looped loading up Generic list of Account
this.accountList.add(newAcct);
}
I am working with RESTful web services and building the Objects out of XML responses, the problem is if I GET a listing of accounts, to build that into a list of Account Objects I would have to query the web service for each individual account even though I already have the information, and that seems entirely inefficient.
BUT
I don't want to give a general user, of the API I'm building, to be able to instantiate an Account Object this way. (With an Element)

There is no language construct like this. Package (=default) access is the only Java mechanism in town, as of 1.6.
I'm sure you could do nasty things with the stack, but I wouldn't recommend them.

I'd take a look at the factory pattern. You can probably play games with the access modifiers of the factory method(s) to get something close to what you want. You might also be able to play with reflection inside the factory method to get something closer to what you want than what package access gets you.

Sorry but I still don't get the point of this design. If a method is added to a class, its implementation will probably use private data to this class only, and therefore no guarantee can be made to 'sibling' classes that this data is also available for them. In other words, if your wish was granted, how would you guarantee that constructor Account(Object arg0) implementation won't use private data to Account class? (and therefore invisible to Accounts class)
It seems to me like you desire your code to provide the same interface for a single account and a list of accounts - extending SomeEntity class. That can be accomplished more elegantly with a composite pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_pattern
if your intent however is to provide a custom constructor that only subclasses will use, why not declare the custom constructor in SomeEntity and making this class abstract?
also, remember you can do this:
public Account() {
this(new arg0());
}
Account(Object arg0) {
}
Not sure if this helps, though.

There is a way to emulate the C++'s friend feature, and thus achieve the result you want.
Warning: This is a contrived technique that should be used only if you have no other solution!
Since no modifier does what you want in this case, the trick is to move the access restriction to another place, where modifiers apply. To do that, add a key parameter to the constructor. That key is of a class that can only be instantiated by the allowed "sibling" classes, i.e. by the subclasses of a given class.
The restriction is thus moved to the common superclass, where restraining the creation of the key is possible with the usual modifiers.
Here is an example:
public class CommonSuperClass {
public static final class Key {
private Key() {}
}
// This is the only way to create a key, and it's protected
protected final Key createKey() {
return new Key();
}
}
public class Account {
// The restricted constructor can even be public
public Account(Key key) {
// Everybody can try with null, but we're not that stupid
// Of course any RuntimeException can be thrown instead
if (key == null) throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
public class AllowedSibling extends CommonSuperClass {
public void foo() {
// I'm allowed
new Account(this.createKey());
}
}
public class DeniedClass {
public void foo() {
// This doesn't compile
new Account(new Key());
// This will throw an exception
new Account(null);
}
}

This is a very strange requisite, and I think no access modifier can do what you want. Anyway, I recommend that you just make the constructors public and document them as "for internal use only".
If you really need to limit access you can use this wordy solution:
public class Base {
protected interface Factory {
Base getInstance(Element e);
}
private static Map<Class<?>, Factory> registry = new HashMap<Class<?>, Factory>();
protected static void register(Class<?> c, Factory f) { registry.put(c, f); }
protected static <T extends Base> T create(Class<T> c, Element e) {
return (T) registry.get(c).getInstance(e);
}
}
public class Derived1 extends Base {
protected Derived1(Element e) { }
private static class Derived1Factory implements Factory {
public Derived1 getInstance(Element e) {
return new Derived1(e);
}
}
static {
register(Derived1.class, new Derived1Factory());
}
}
public class Derived2 extends Base {
protected Derived2(Element e) { }
private static class Derived2Factory implements Factory {
public Derived2 getInstance(Element e) {
return new Derived2(e);
}
}
static {
register(Derived2.class, new Derived2Factory());
}
public void method() {
Element e = null;
...
// Put some element in e
...
// This is what you were trying to do
Derived1 d1 = create(Derived1.class, e);
}
}

public class SomeEntity
protected void init(Element accountElement) {}
public class Account extends SomeEntity
public Account()
....
protected void init(Element accountElement)
....
public class Accounts extends SomeEntity
Account newAcct = new Account();
newAcct.init(element);

Here's what I would try (I have not tested this method):
<modifier> Account(Object arg) {
if (!super.getClass().isAssignableFrom(this.getClass())) {
throw new AssertionError("This constructor is only available to super classes.");
} else {
// Continue...
}
}

Generate java class and call its method dynamically

package reflection;
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
class class0
{
public void writeout0()
{
System.out.println("class0");
}
}
class class1
{
public void writeout1()
{
System.out.println("class1");
}
}
class class2
{
public void writeout2()
{
System.out.println("class2");
}
}
class class3
{
public void run()
{
try
{
BufferedReader reader= new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader
(System.in));
String line=reader.readLine();
Class cls=Class.forName(line);
//define method here
}
catch(Exception ee)
{
System.out.println("here "+ee);
}
}
public void writeout3()
{
System.out.println("class3");
}
}
class class4
{
public void writeout4()
{
System.out.println("class4");
}
}
class class5
{
public void writeout5()
{
System.out.println("class5");
}
}
class class6
{
public void writeout6()
{
System.out.println("class6");
}
}
class class7
{
public void writeout7()
{
System.out.println("class7");
}
}
class class8
{
public void writeout8()
{
System.out.println("class8");
}
}
class class9
{
public void writeout9()
{
System.out.println("class9");
}
}
class testclass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Write class name : ");
class3 example=new class3();
example.run();
}
}
Question is ;
third class will read the name of the class as String from console. Upon reading the name of the class, it will automatically and dynamically generate that class and call its writeout method.If that class is not read from input, it will not be initialized.
but I can't continue any more ; I need to more something for 3.class, what can I do?

Up to this point you have a Class object. You need to instantiate the class to have an object to call a method on. Once you have the instance you need, you can find the method you want with a call to getMethod(String name, Class... parameterTypes) on the Class object. It's helpful if all of the classes have the same method name for the "writeout()" method, otherwise you have to figure out what the method is named inside of the class. Here is the code you're missing to make the call to "writeout()":
Method m = cls.getMethod("writeout", null);
Object writerInstance = cls.newInstance();
m.invoke(writerInstance, null);
With the class and method naming scheme you have in your example, you could figure out the method name by parsing the class name and extracting the number. It's much easier if all the classes share the method name, though.

You need to load the class dynamically via the classloader. A trivial way to do this is to use:
Class.forName(yourClassName);
to get the class object, and then newInstance() to create a new instance of that class. That particular method will only work for classes with a default constructor. See the Class javadoc for more options re. calling constructors.

For generating Java class files dynamically, there is a library, called Byte Code Engeneering Library (BCEL), which will wrap generated byte code instructions around a class file and load it into the runtime.
You will have to learn something about the Java Virtual Machine, though.
I suggest creating an interface, which contains the "writeOut" method. The generated class needs to implement this interface. When you load the class, you don't need (much) reflection for calling the method. The only reflection you'll need is creating an instance of the generated class.

Continue with something like:
//define method here
Method writeout = null;
for( Method m : cls.getDeclaredMethods() ) {
if( m.getName().startsWith("writeout")) {
writeout = m;
break;
}
}
Object o = cls.newInstance();
writeout.invoke( o );
Basically, once you've found the class, you have to find the method you want to invoke and create an instance of that class to finally invoke that method on that new instance.
To understand more ( and better ) all this concepts you should read the java tutorial on the subject: The Reflection API
BTW you are not generating a class here, but rather instantiating it dynamically.

Simple example for your reference:
Class<?> cls_obj = Class.forName("MyClass.java");
Method method = cls_obj.getMethod("show");
Object obj = cls_obj.newInstance();
method.invoke(obj);