I study the strategy design pattern and from what I see, there is a very similar way to implement the "behaviors" of an object.
one way is the strategy design pattern. in this way the object 'has-a' strategy that represent the behavior.
the other way is to make this object 'implements' the behavior (interface).
for example, in a game, I have 'Enemy' object and one Enemy is flying and one is driving. so until now, I would think about:
first 'Enemy' object implements Flyable and the second 'Enemy' implements Drivable.
but another solution can be first Enemy 'has-a' FlyingStrategy and the second 'has-a' DrivingStrategy.
I'm trying to find the better solution in terms of good design.
Thanks.
They are not interchangeable . A good example is Comparable vs Comparator in the JDK.
In your case, Comparable represents the implementing-an-interface design. Comparator is an example of the strategy pattern. With the two signatures of Collections.sort, you can do this
Collections.sort(listOfComparables);
or this
Collections.sort(anyList, comparator);
Imagine you have a list of Cars. You might want to sort the list by colour, by number of seats, by horsepower. In this case, it makes no sense to implement Comparable. Cars have no natural ordering; it makes no sense to give preference to one ordering over another by implementing the interface. In this case, all orderings are created equal. If you were to declare a car as Comparable then it would likely not be very intuitive for users of your class. They would probably have to check the implementation or the documentation to work out what order you had intended. You should sort these using Comparators.
Now imagine you have a list of Coins. Coins have a fairly obvious natural ordering: their face value. You could sort your coins by size, or by weight, but their primary reason for existing is to represent different denominations. In this case, not all orderings are created equal. It would make sense here to implement Comparable, and if other orderings are required, you can use Comparators for that.
In a more general sense, the strategy pattern is often best applied when there is no one "preferred" approach. A class can only implement an interface once, but it may be able to make use of many different strategies. It is a kind of inversion of control.
Related
For a Java assignment I have to sort by length an ArrayList<String> using the Comparable interface.
What I have done, and it works, is to create a custom object in a class that implements Comparableand set the CompareTo() to use length.
It's ok and it works.
I was just wondering if there is an easier way.
I know that String in Java already implements Comparable interface.
But the natural order is lexicographic or alphabetic, not by length.
I have no idea how I can implement a different CompareTo() for instances of the class String without having to create my object.
Is there a way?
Or am I missing the logic?
(I cannot use Comparator, I have to use the Comparable interface.)
I'm getting frustrated with institutions that shoehorn their curriculum into ridiculous and entirely unrealistic constraints.
In practice, you are going to be using a Comparator<String> which allows you the flexibility to use lambdas to sort the results. It's also incredibly terse, too.
On principle, what you've described is the only other logical approach. The only way you could practically solve this is to create your own class that encapsulates the String instance that you want, and sort that.
It sounds like your wrapper object is the simplest way to meet the silly requirement. Just write a method that compares the lengths of the contained strings.
It is usually admitted that extending implementations of an interface through inheritance is not best practice, and that composition (eg. implementing the interface again from scratch) is more maintenable.
This works because the interface contract forces the user to implement all the desired functionality. However in java 8, default methods provide some default behavior which can be "manually" overriden. Consider the following example : I want to design a user database, which must have the functionalities of a List. I choose, for efficiency purposes, to back it by an ArrayList.
public class UserDatabase extends ArrayList<User>{}
This would not usually be considered great practice, and one would prefer, if actually desiring the full capabilities of a List and following the usual "composition over inheritance" motto :
public class UserDatabase implements List<User>{
//implementation here, using an ArrayList type field, or decorator pattern, etc.
}
However, if not paying attention, some methods, such as spliterator() will not be required to be overridden, as they are default methods of the List interface. The catch is, that the spliterator() method of List performs far worse than the spliterator() method of ArrayList, which has been optimised for the particular structure of an ArrayList.
This forces the developer to
be aware that ArrayList has its own, more efficient implementation of spliterator(), and manually override the spliterator() method of his own implementation of List or
lose a huge deal of performance by using the default method.
So the question is : is it still "as true" that one should prefer composition over inheritance in such situations ?
Before start thinking about performance, we always should think about correctness, i.e. in your question we should consider what using inheritance instead of delegation implies. This is already illustrated by this EclipseLink/ JPA issue. Due to the inheritance, sorting (same applies to stream operation) don’t work if the lazily populated list hasn’t populated yet.
So we have to trade off between the possibility that the specializations, overriding the new default methods, break completely in the inheritance case and the possibility that the default methods don’t work with the maximum performance in the delegation case. I think, the answer should be obvious.
Since your question is about whether the new default methods change the situation, it should be emphasized that you are talking about a performance degradation compared to something which did not even exist before. Let’s stay at the sort example. If you use delegation and don’t override the default sorting method, the default method might have lesser performance than the optimized ArrayList.sort method, but before Java 8 the latter did not exist and an algorithm not optimized for ArrayList was the standard behavior.
So you are not loosing performance with the delegation under Java 8, you are simply not gaining more, when you don’t override the default method. Due to other improvements, I suppose, that the performance will still be better than under Java 7 (without default methods).
The Stream API is not easily comparable as the API didn’t exist before Java 8. However, it’s clear that similar operations, e.g. if you implement a reduction by hand, had no other choice than going through the Iterator of your delegation list which had to be guarded against remove() attempts, hence wrap the ArrayList Iterator, or to use size() and get(int) which delegate to the backing List. So there is no scenario where a pre- default method API could exhibit better performance than the default methods of the Java 8 API, as there was no ArrayList-specific optimization in the past anyway.
That said, your API design could be improved by using composition in a different way: by not letting UserDatabase implement List<User> at all. Just offer the List via an accessor method. Then, other code won’t try to stream over the UserDatabase instance but over the list returned by the accessor method. The returned list may be a read only wrapper which provides optimal performance as it is provided by the JRE itself and takes care to override the default methods where feasible.
I don't really understand the big issue here. You can still back your UserDatabase with an ArrayList even if not extending it, and get the performance by delegation. You do not need to extend it to get the performance.
public class UserDatabase implements List<User>{
private ArrayList<User> list = new ArrayList<User>();
// implementation ...
// delegate
public Spliterator() spliterator() { return list.spliterator(); }
}
Your two points are not changing this. If you know "ArrayList has its own, more efficient implementation of spliterator()", then you can delegate it to your backing instance, and if you do not know, then the default method takes care of it.
I am still unsure whether it really makes any sense to implement the List interface, unless you are explicitly making a reusable Collection library. Better create your own API for such one-offs that does not come with future problems through the inheritance (or interface) chain.
I cannot provide an advice for every situation, but for this particular case I'd suggest not to implement the List at all. What would be the purpose of UserDatabase.set(int, User)? Do you really want to replace the i-th entry in the backing database with the completely new user? What about add(int, User)? It seems for me that you should either implement it as read-only list (throwing UnsupportedOperationException on every modification request) or support only some modification methods (like add(User) is supported, but add(int, User) is not). But the latter case would be confusing for the users. It's better to provide your own modification API which is more suitable for your task. As for read requests, probably it would be better to return a stream of users:
I'd suggest to create a method which returns the Stream:
public class UserDatabase {
List<User> list = new ArrayList<>();
public Stream<User> users() {
return list.stream();
}
}
Note that in this case you are completely free to change the implementation in future. For example, replace ArrayList with TreeSet or ConcurrentLinkedDeque or whatever.
The selection is simple based on your requirement.
Note - The below is just a use case . to illustrate the difference.
If you want a list that is not going to keep duplicates and going to do a whole bunch of things very much different from ArrayList then there is no use of extending ArrayList because you are writing everything from scratch.
In the above you should Implement List. But if you are just optimizing an implementation of ArrayList then you should copy paste the whole implementation of ArrayList and follow optimization instead of extending ArrayList. Why because multiple level of implementation makes it difficult for someone tries to sort out things.
Eg: A computer with 4GB Ram as parent and Child is having 8 GB ram. It is bad if parent has 4 GB and new Child has 4 GB to make an 8 GB. Instead of a child with 8 GB RAM implementation.
I would suggest composition in this case. But it will change based on the scenario.
It is usually admitted that extending implementations of an interface through inheritance is not best practice, and that composition (e.g. implementing the interface again from scratch) is more maintainable.
I don't think that this is accurate at all. For sure there are lots of situations where composition is preferred over inheritance, but there are lots of situations where inheritance is preferred over composition!
Its especially important to realise that the inheritance structure of your implementation classes need not look anything like the inheritance structure of your API.
Does anyone really believe, for example, that when writing a graphical library like Java swing every implementation class should reimplement the paintComponent() method? In fact a whole principal of the design is that when writing paint methods for new classes you can call super.paint() and that insures that all elements in the hierarchy are drawn, as well as handling the complications involving interfacing with the native interface further up the tree.
What is generally accepted is that extending classes not within your control that were not designed to support inheritance is dangerous and potentially a source of irritating bugs when the implementation changes. (So mark your classes as final if you reserve the right to change your implementation!). I doubt Oracle would introduce breaking changes into ArrayList implementation though! Provided you respect its documentation you should be fine....
Thats the elegance of the design. If they decide that there is a problem with the ArrayList, they will write a new implementation class, similar to when they replaced Vector back in the day, and there will be no need to introduce breaking changes.
===============
In your current example, the operative question is: why does this class exist at all?
If you are writing a class which extends the interface of list, which other methods does it implement? If it implements no new methods, what is wrong with using ArrayList?
When you know the answer that you will know what to do. If the answer "I want an object which is basically a list, but has some extra convenience methods to operate on that list", then I should use composition.
If the answer is "I want to fundamentally change the functionality of a list" then you should use inheritance, or implement from scratch. An example might be implementing an unmodifiable list by overriding ArrayList's add method to throw an exception. If you are uncomfortable with this approach you might consider implementing from scratch by extending AbstractList, which exists precisely to be inherited from to minimise the effort of reimplementation.
Possible Duplicate of
When should a class be Comparable and/or Comparator?
I understand the difference that is given in this link.
And also in the book that i am referring it is given that we can not use comparable when we need to sort the objects on the basis of more than one fields.
My Question:
I just want an example where we could not possibly use comparable and have to go for comparator in order to compare and please also show that with comparable why can't we compare on two different fields of object.
If you find this question as duplicate please provide link,, i have searched many questions but none has the example that i wanted.
If a class implements Comparable, this defines what is usually considered the natural ordering of it elements. In some cases this is the only ordering that may make sense, in other cases it might be the most widely used ordering. If you look for example at numbers, there is probably only one (total) ordering that makes sense (except maybe for taking the reverse). As others already have pointed out, their are other objects that have other useful orderings. What makes the primary ordering (or if there is even one) depends on your application. If you manage persons with adresses in you application, phonebook sort order could be considered the natural order if this is the most widely used one and sorting by age could be a secondary. Slightly OT: Beware of cases where non equal objects are considered equal wrt to the ordering, this may yield problems with containers like OrderedList etc.
Comparing apples with each other will result in classes of equal apples, like red ones, green ones, old and fresh ones. That's OK as long as you only interested in a rather broad equality. But if you you are going to receive a paycheck you are very happy that you are identifiable within you equality class.
So compareto is good for sorting and clustering and equals/hashcode is got for identification.
Comparable is mostly used when there is a 'known' default sort order and the object or class that we are ordering is editable or owned by the developer making the change.
Comparator is suitable where the class or object being ordered is not owned by the developer making the change like a web service response. It is also preferred when the natural ordering doesn't fit the objective that needs to be accomplished.
I wish to know when we can use an interface extending another interface. I wish to know a practical example and when we use it.
You extend an interface when a subinterface provides everything the superinterface provides, and does something else of importance. For example, SortedMap<K,V> implements Map<K,V>, because sorted map is a map that supports all operations of a map, plus some operations applicable only to sorted maps.
This is similar to inheriting among classes, but it allows for multiple implementations. For example, one could implement a SortedMap as a sorted list of keys plus a parallel array of values, rather than a tree. This would let users swap in a faster or otherwise superior implementation without changing the rest of the code. In other words, inheritance among interfaces lets you preserve the benefits of programming to interfaces.
Have a look at interfaces like java.util.Collection, java.util.Set to see how this is done, and how contracts can be tightened.
When we want to use multiple inheritance in our application then one interface should extends other interface.
To make the parallel development of your application it is very necessary to write your code in such a way that you can incorporate newly discovered requirements into the existing code as painlessly as possible. So, if we implements the interface then concrete class names locks you into specific implementations, making down-the-line changes unnecessarily difficult. Therefore, we extends interface.
As by design an enum constant in java is a singleton, and for sake of concurrent usage I normally create stateless enum instances and use method parameters to inject the data as needed.
Example:
Currently I am creating a REST service which has Operations (implemented as an enum using a variant of the strategy pattern).
public enum Operation {
DO_THIS() {
public Result doSomething(Object theData) {
}
} ,
// Other Operations go here
;
public abstract Result doSomething(Object theData);
}
Now I want to collect data about how often an operation has been called and how often it succeeded and the like.
I could save the state externally when using the enum instance but it rather seems that the state should be saved in the Operation as the operation should contain it's own state.
Now my general question is:
Is a stateful enum instance (besides from concurrency issues) a bad design?
I think it violates the Principle of Least Astonishment.
People expect the common usage of enums as they were originally designed - as constants or tokens, and not as general purpose classes with state.
Yes. And by 'yes' I mean 'Always'.
If you want to collate stats on the number of operations called, implement some observability.
Any form of mutable static is a sin. (Well, you might get away with non-leaky caches, some lazy initialisation and forms of logging.)
A stateful enumeration is an oxymoron, even an anti-pattern!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumeration
An enumeration is a collection of items that is a complete, ordered listing of all of the items in that collection. The term is commonly used in mathematics and theoretical computer science to refer to a listing of all of the elements of a set. In statistics the term categorical variable is used rather than enumeration. The precise requirements for an enumeration (for example, whether the set must be finite, or whether the list is allowed to contain repetitions) depend on the branch of mathematics and the context in which one is working.
Enumerations have a finite number of values, which are supposed to be constant, which they are.
However, the fact that they are "first class" Java Objects totally goes against the grain of the intention or spirit of an enumeration.
If any kind of state is required, the enum (as mentioned earlier) should hold state in an Aspect or the offending enum, should at the very practical least, hold a reference to a delegate class holding state. Understanding "separation of concerns" will help.
This seems like a bad use for enums - why not just go with a base abstract class with a new subclass for each operation?
I entirely agree with mparaz that it violates the Principle of Least Astonishment. People expect enums to be constants.
You can almost certainly work round the logging thing, by something like:
DO_THIS() {
public Result doSomething(Object theData) {
MyUtilClass.doSomething(Object theData);
}
}
and put your logging in the other class.
HOWEVER if you can't work round this, the Principle of Least Astonishment is a guideline; you can violate it PROVIDED you give users of the class enough warnings about what is going on. Make sure the Enum declaration contains a BIG notice saying that it is mutable, and describing exactly what the mutability is. The Enum should still work; it's doing reference comparison against to single instance to test enum values.
There is a case which would probably justify it.
An enum can implement an interface, usually with the particular use case in mind which lets you create
on runtime/openly "some other types of the enum class" in a dynamic fashion, to name it someway.
That means that enum "singleton" instances can be forced to implement some mutable-intended method signatures (as setters), which of course, you still can hide with an empty code or a NotSupportedException.
Luckily, final methods in an interface don't allow any possibility to change state. That would have been the sole "understandable" case I could come up with.