I'm very new to Java so it makes it hard for me to explain what I'm trying to do.
I have an abstract class that invokes several object constants like this:
public abstract class Enchantment implements Keyed {
/**
* Provides protection against environmental damage
*/
public static final Enchantment PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL = new EnchantmentWrapper("protection");
In a different file I can access this perfectly fine with Enchantment value = Enchantment.PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL;
However, I'm trying to use a string variable for this instead. Something like this:
String str = "PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL";
Enchantment value = Enchantment.str;
Obviously that won't work. So I did a bunch of research and learned I need to use reflection for this. Using this source code's docs I figured I was looking for field data. So I tried both:
Field fld = Enchantment.class.getField("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL");
Field fld = Enchantment.class.getDeclaredField("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL");
But these returned me a NoSuchFieldException. As I was on it, I've tried both getMethod() and getDeclaredMethod() just as well equally with no luck.
I'm now at the point that these are probably "object constants"? I'm not sure how to call them. But I'm definitely at a loss on how to get this to work now and after everything I've tried myself, I figured it was time to ask for some help here.
That one comment is spot on: you absolutely do not use reflection here.
There are only two valid reasons to use reflection:
you are creating a framework that has to deal with classes it doesn't know about
you have for some other reason to deal with classes you don't know about at compile time
But your code perfectly knows about that Enchantment class, its capabilities, and so on. Therefore reflection is the wrong approach. You figured it yourself: it is damn hard to get right, and damn right to get it wrong in some subtle ways. And when you get it wrong, it always blows up at runtime. Reflection code compiling means nothing. It always waits for you to run it to throw up in your face.
So to answer your question by not answering it: use a Map. Like:
Map<String, Enchantment> enchantmentsByConstantName = new HashMap<>();
enchantmentsByConstantName.put("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL", PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL);
Alternatively, these constants could go into an enum, as outlined in the other answer, but in a sightly different way:
enum EnchantmentHolder {
PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL(new EnchantmentWrapper("protection")),
ANOTHER_ENCHANTMENT(...)
A_THIRD_ENCHANTMENT(...)
...;
private Enchantment enchantment;
private EnchantmentHolder(Enchantment enchantment) {
this.entchantment = entchantment;
}
public Enchantment getEntchantment() { return entchantment; }
You may want to look into enumerations if you know they're going to be constant values;
public enum Enchantment {
PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL {
public void cast() {
// do enum-specific stuff here
}
},
ANOTHER_ENCHANTMENT {
public void cast() {
// do enum-specific stuff here
}
},
A_THIRD_ENCHANTMENT{
public void cast() {
// do enum-specific stuff here
}
};
public abstract void cast();
}
enums can be treated like classes and have methods and properties. You can also convert to and from strings Enchantment.valueOf("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL") but that's generally if you are reading from a configuration file - in code you'd reference the value directly.
Once you have the Field, you need to call Field.get(Object) with an instance (in this case the class). Something like,
Class<?> cls = Enchantment.class;
try {
Field f = cls.getField("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL");
System.out.println(f.get(cls));
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Since you want the Enchantment, you could then test that the instance you get is assignable to Enchantment. Something like,
Class<? extends Enchantment> cls = Enchantment.class;
try {
Field f = cls.getField("PROTECTION_ENVIRONMENTAL");
Object obj = f.get(cls);
if (cls.isAssignableFrom(obj.getClass())) {
Enchantment e = cls.cast(obj);
System.out.println(e);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
But the enum approach is better.
Related
how are you? I'm trying to do some dynamic method calls to get sql strings on various objects in Java (Android), but i'm stuck with some questions about performance and stability.
Context Example: Repository class onCreate method get all entity objects (tables) and call a method (getCreateTable for example) to get a sql string to execute.
Sure i can explicit call class by class caling each method, but i have other calls like "dropTables", "truncateTables" and etc, and i do not want to be repeating the same structure all the time.
public void CreateTables() {
execute(Entity1.getCreateTable());
execute(Entity2.getCreateTable());
execute(Entity3.getCreateTable());
[..]
execute(Entity50.getCreateTable());
}
public void DropTables() {
execute(Entity1.getDropTable());
execute(Entity2.getDropTable());
execute(Entity3.getDropTable());
[..]
execute(Entity50.getDropTable());
}
Until now i know i can do that in 3 diferent ways.
1) Using reflection (currently in use): Basicaly, i store all the objects class in a list, and then use the reflection to call the desired static method.But i know that reflection not always should be the first choice.
private final List<Class> entityList = new ArrayList<Class>() {
{
add(Entity1.class);
add(Entity2.class);
add(Entity3.class);
}
};
public void createTables() {
/* get all query strings */
List<String> queryList = getQueryList("createTable");
try {
for (String query : queryList) {
execute(query);
}
} catch (SQLException e) {
[...]
}
}
private List<String> getQueryList(String methodName) {
List<String> queryList = new ArrayList<>();
for (Class<?> objectClass : entityList) {
try {
Method[] ms = objectClass.getMethods();
for (Method me : ms) {
if (me.getName().equals(methodName)) {
String query = (String) me.invoke(null);
if (query != null && query.length() > 0) {
queryList.add((String) me.invoke(null));
}
break;
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
[...]
}
}
return queryList;
}
2) Storing object instance in list: I can have a list with the objects instanced and then cast then into abstract parent class (or interface) and call the methods to get the sql string. In this case, i don't know if is a good practice to keep an list of instanced objects in memory, maybe this could be worst than use reflection depending on list size.
private final List<BaseEntity> entityList = new ArrayList<BaseEntity>() {
{
add(new Entity1(context));
add(new Entity2(context));
add(new Entity3(context));
}
};
public void createTables() {
for (BaseEntity entity : entityList) {
try {
execute(entity.getCreateTable());
} catch (Exception e) {
[...]
}
}
}
3) Storing all the strings into JSON object: I don't tested that one yet, but i'm sure with should work. I can call an "init" method to iterate over all objects and create that JSON object/array with all the sql strings (drop, create, truncate and etc).
I really appreciate if you share with me what you think about these approaches (pros and cons) or another better solution.
As pointed out in the comments, it was a clarly a bad design (it's an old project that i'm refactoring). So i decided to get away from reflection and spend some time to redesign the code itself.
I created an base super class to handle all similiar methods and let the entities/models implement only the required individual rules, so DB access is stored in only one class as a Singleton. It's far better to use interface polymorphism.
In this way, the db class handle the dinamic SQL generation to avoid repeating the same code everywhere and re-use/recycle the list of instances to improve performance.
Obs. 1: Reflection throw down performance and usually let debbuging harder. Sure it can save some time as it is fast to implement, but will disable most of the IDE features, which makes it worthless in most cases.
Obs. 2: Keeping a list of DB instances active should never be done either. It's never a good idea to have many instances access database simultaneously, it can cause DB to lock and reproduce unexpectad issues.
Obs. 3: That JSON thing... forget about it. I'm sorry to suggest something so ugly.
This question already has answers here:
Can we call a static method with a null object in Java? If so, how?
(4 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have the following class, which is used for controlling some debugging and beta testing options in various places in my Android app. It just contains some flags and some logic to (de)serialize it to/from JSON.
public class DevConfiguration {
public boolean dontSendSMS;
public static String toJsonString(DevConfiguration devConfiguration) {
JSONObject json = new JSONObject();
if( devConfiguration != null ) {
try {
json.put("dontSendSMS", devConfiguration.dontSendSMS);
} catch (JSONException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return json.toString();
}
public static DevConfiguration fromJsonString(String jsonString) {
if( jsonString.isEmpty() )
return null;
DevConfiguration result = new DevConfiguration();
try {
JSONObject jsonObj = new JSONObject(jsonString);
result.dontSendSMS = jsonObj.optBoolean("dontSendSMS", false);
} catch (JSONException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return result;
}
}
Now, in one of my services I receive a serialized DevConfiguration object in an Intent, and might later pass it on to another service:
serviceIntent.putExtra("dev_conf", DevConfiguration.toJsonString(mDevConfiguration));
I choose to make the toJsonString() method static, so that I don't risk invoking it on a null instance. However, it's still possible to make a mistake somewhere and invoking the static method on an instance - potentially a null instance!
mDevConfiguration.toJsonString(mDevConfiguration);
There is a Lint warning in Android Studio, but still it's a potential NullPointerException bug waiting to happen. I thought it might be possible to hide it by defining a similar private method but with a different signature
/** Hide instance implementation **/
private String toJsonString(Object o){ return ""; }
but of course calling it with a DevConfiguration parameter will invoke the static method anyway, and the IDE doesn't give any more warnings than before either.
Is there any way to "hide" the static method from instance variables?
EDIT
Comments make it clear that invoking a static method on a null instance is perfectly legal. However, the question is not "How do I prevent a NullPointerException when invoking a static method on a null instance?", but the more general "How can I prevent invoking a static method on an instance of my class?".
In other words - is there any way to prevent the compiler from compiling if one accidentally tries to invoke a static method on an instance?
Calling a static method on a variable with null value will not raise NullPointerException. Following code will print 42 even though variable i is null.
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
Integer i = null;
System.out.println(i.parseInt("42"));
}
}
When calling static methods by variable, what really matters is the declared type of the variable and not the referenced type of its value. This is related to the fact that static methods in java are not polymorphic.
„How can I prevent invoking a static method on an instance of my class?"
Calling static methods by variable is just a regular language feature defined in the Java spec. I’d be surprised if there were any method to suppress it in general.
If I had to do it for a selected class, I would probably migrate static methods to a separate „companion” utility (as described in another answer).
But having such static (factory) methods in your class is a perfectly fine idiom (see for example: Joshua Bloch, „Effective Java”, Item 1: Consider static factory methods instead of constructors). I wouldn’t easily give up on it.
I see a few ways you could do this:
Use a Utils class:
public class Utils {
public static String toJsonString(DevConfiguration devConfiguration) {
JSONObject json = new JSONObject();
if( devConfiguration != null ) {
try {
json.put("dontSendSMS", devConfiguration.dontSendSMS);
} catch (JSONException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
return json.toString();
}
public static DevConfiguration fromJsonString(String jsonString) {
if( jsonString.isEmpty() )
return null;
DevConfiguration result = new DevConfiguration();
try {
JSONObject jsonObj = new JSONObject(jsonString);
result.dontSendSMS = jsonObj.optBoolean("dontSendSMS", false);
} catch (JSONException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return result;
}
}
Now you can just makes calls to Utils.method() and avoid confusion.
Use Kotlin
Kotlin actually makes it really hard (if not impossible) to call a static method on a dynamic receiver. It won't show in the method suggestions, and will underline in red if you type it manually. It might not even compile, although I haven't gotten that far.
Kotlin also has built-in null protection: instance?.method(). The ? means method() just won't execute if instance is null.
Just don't call a static method on a dynamic receiver. If you do it by accident, go back and fix it. You shouldn't be relying on Java to work around your syntax errors for you.
Finally, why even do this? I highly doubt mDevConfiguration is ever null, unless you initialize it in a really weird spot. If it is, you may want to look at reorganizing your code. Because, again, you shouldn't be relying on Java to work around your syntax errors for you. Also, if it is null, it won't throw an NPE, at least in Java, since it doesn't need a dynamic receiver to run (this is probably different in Kotlin).
It's up to you to make code that works as it should, and implement the proper null checks, error handling, etc. If you miss something, it's no big deal; that's why you test your code and fix the crashes and bugs you catch before you release it. Anything you don't catch will be reported by the Google Play Console (if you publish there) or Firebase (if you implement that) or your users.
Sorry if the above sounds harsh, but I'm really having trouble seeing why you'd want to do this instead of just checking your code.
If you really want to keep this structure, at least make the constructor for DevConfiguration private:
public class DevConfiguration {
//...
private DevConfiguration() {}
//...
}
That way, only the static methods inside it can create an instance.
The Application
I am writing an application that executes certain functions depending on user input.
E.g. if the user input were to be
"1 2 add" the output would be "3".
I aim to implement many such methods (div, modulo, etc.). As my Scanner recognizes a function name like "add" the function "add()" should be called.
My Way
My way to do this is to let a FunctionHandler class evaluate the input.
Main:
String inputCommand = sc.nextCommand();
functionHandler.handle(inputCommand);
Function Handler:
public class FunctionHandler {
public void handle (String functionName) {
if (functionName.equals("add")) {
add();
} else if (functionName.equals("div") {
div();
}
}
private void add() {
.......
}
....
}
The Problem with that
As I am adding more and more functions the if statement gets very large, and of course the FunctionHandler class too. Also, whenever I add a new function, I have to change code in two places: I have to define the function, and then add the else if clause in handle() to call the function. Which means two pieces of information that should be encapsulated are "stored" completely independent from each other.
I was wondering what the best practice was to solve this kind of situation?
My Ideas
I was thinking about using enums, but they don't seem to fit well in this case.
Another idea I had was creating an interface Function, and then a class for each function that implements Function. The interface would have two methods:
getName()
execute()
Then I could create an array (manually) of Functions in the FunctionHandler, through which I could loop to see if the command the user enters matches getName().
However, having a different class for each function is not very clean either, and it also does not get rid of the problem that for each function I am adding I have to do it in two places: the class and the array.
This question is only about finding out how to solve this problem cleanly. A pointer in the right direction would be appreciated!
Thanks a lot!
Another option would be to keep a Map of handlers. If you're using Java 8, they can even be method references.
// InputType and ResultType are types you define
Map<String, Function<InputType, ResultType>> operations = new HashMap<>();
operations.put("add", MathClass::add);
// ...
ResultType result = operations.get(userInput).apply(inputObject);
One downside to doing it this way is that your input and output types must be the same for all operations.
You could create a custom annotation for the various functions. Then you could employ your array idea, but have it use reflection to discover which functions have your new annotation and what their names are.
As background, take a look at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/hunter-meta-2-098036.html and http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/hunter-meta-3-092019.html. They're a bit old, but seem to address the necessary ideas.
You can always use reflection if you want a short solution.
In your handle method you could do something like this:
Method m = this.getClass().getMethod(functionName, new Class[]{});
m.invoke(this, new Object[]{});
Assuming you do not have a lot of functions that you want to do this way, and do not want to expose yourself to the security risks caused by reflection, you could use a string switch, like this:
void handleFunction(String function) {
switch (function) {
case "foo":
foo();
break;
case "bar":
bar();
break;
default:
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unknown function " + function);
break;
}
}
Starting Java 7, you can use Strings in a switch statement and the compiler will make something reasonable out of it
I would do something like this:
public class FunctionTest {
private static final Map<String, Runnable> FUNCTIONS = new HashMap<String, Runnable>() {{
put("add", () -> System.out.println("I'm adding something!"));
put("div", () -> System.out.println("I'm dividing something!"));
}};
public void handle(String functionName) {
if (!FUNCTIONS.containsKey(functionName)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("No function with this name: " + functionName);
}
FUNCTIONS.get(functionName).run();
}
}
You basically can use any functional interface in place of Runnable, I used it, because it matches your add() method. You can map the names of the functions to their actual executable instance, get them by name from the Map and execute them.
You could also create an enum with the desired executable blocks:
public class FunctionsAsEnumsTest {
private static enum MyFunction {
ADD {
#Override public void execute() {
System.out.println("I'm adding something");
}
},
DIV {
#Override public void execute() {
System.out.println("I'm dividing something");
}
};
public abstract void execute();
}
public void handle(String functionName) {
// #toUpperCase() might not be the best idea,
// you could name your enums as you would the methods.
MyFunction fn = MyFunction.valueOf(functionName.toUpperCase());
fn.execute();
}
}
I have the following java code
public class QuestionBuilder {
private QuestionBuilder(){}
static HashMap<Long,Class<? extends Question>> questionIdMap;
static{
questionIdMap = new HashMap();
questionIdMap.put(1L, LicenseNumberQuestion.class);
questionIdMap.put(2L, USPQuestion.class);
}
static Question getQuestion(long questionId)
{
if(!questionIdMap.containsKey(questionId))
{
throw new BusinessProfileInputException("Add an id to question class map entry");
}
return questionIdMap.get(questionId).newInstance();
}
}
and I would like my getQuestion method to return me a new instance of the class that was specified as a value in the map as is intended via my code. Howerver the last line of code does not compile :
return questionIdMap.get(questionId).newInstance();
Am I thinking of this wrongly? i.e. is there a better way to approach this?
You just need to catch an exception:
try {
return questionIdMap.get(questionId).newInstance();
} catch(InstantiationException e) {
System.out.println("Constructor failed: );
e.printStackTrace();
return null;
}
This should compile fine.
I would do it like this:
public final class QuestionBuilder {
private QuestionBuilder(){}
public enum Type {
LICENSE_NUMBER {
#Override
Question getQuestion() { return new LicenseNumberQuestion(); }
},
USP {
#Override
Question getQuestion() { return new USPQuestion(); }
};
abstract Question getQuestion();
}
public static Question getQuestion(Type type) {
return type.getQuestion();
}
}
With your solution the user of the class has to write
Question question = QuestionBuilder.getQuestion(1);
This isn't great because it's not clear what "1" here means, and she is going to have to learn the meaning of a load of numbers. Also, if you pass in a number that doesn't mean anything, there's a problem (hence the need for a BusinessProfileInputException).
With the enum approach, the user of the class would write
Question question = QuestionBuilder.getQuestion(QuestionBuilder.Type.LICENSE_NUMBER);
Now this is obviously longer, but there are 3 major advantages. (1) The user of the class doesn't need to remember any abstract code numbers. In fact if the user is using a decent IDE, she should actually be presented with a meaningful list of choices as she types. (2) There is no longer the need for the BusinessProfileInputException because it is now impossible to pass something that doesn't mean anything (except null, but in this case a NullPointerException would be thrown anyway). (3) You no longer need reflection to create the new Question, so there is no need for the irritating try block.
But it's even better than this. You'll notice that since we've got rid of the Map, the class QuestionBuilder doesn't actually do anything at all. You could improve things further by getting rid of the class completely, and making the enum a top-level class with a simple name like TypeOfQuestion. Then all the user would have to type is
Question question = TypeOfQuestion.LICENSE_NUMBER.getQuestion();
enums in Java are absolutely brilliant. They are far superior to the counterparts in other languages. I strongly recommend learning about them.
This is the second time I found myself writing this kind of code, and decided that there must be a more readable way to accomplish this:
My code tries to figure something out, that's not exactly well defined, or there are many ways to accomplish it. I want my code to try out several ways to figure it out, until it succeeds, or it runs out of strategies. But I haven't found a way to make this neat and readable.
My particular case: I need to find a particular type of method from an interface. It can be annotated for explicitness, but it can also be the only suitable method around (per its arguments).
So, my code currently reads like so:
Method candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
}
if (candidateMethod == null) {
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
There must be a better way…
Edit: The methods return a method if found, null otherwise. I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Edit2: Unfortunately, I can accept only one answer :(
To me it is readable and understandable. I'd simply extract the ugly part of the code to a separate method (following some basic principles from "Robert C.Martin: Clean Code") and add some javadoc (and apologies, if necessary) like that:
//...
try {
Method method = MethodFinder.findMethodIn(clazz);
catch (NoSuitableMethodException oops) {
// handle exception
}
and later on in MethodFinder.java
/**
* Will find the most suitable method in the given class or throw an exception if
* no such method exists (...)
*/
public static Method findMethodIn(Class<?> clazz) throws NoSuitableMethodException {
// all your effort to get a method is hidden here,
// protected with unit tests and no need for anyone to read it
// in order to understand the 'main' part of the algorithm.
}
I think for a small set of methods what you're doing is fine.
For a larger set, I might be inclined to build a Chain of Responsibility, which captures the base concept of trying a sequence of things until one works.
I don't think that this is such a bad way of doing it. It is a bit verbose, but it clearly conveys what you are doing, and is easy to change.
Still, if you want to make it more concise, you can wrap the methods getMethod* into a class which implements an interface ("IMethodFinder") or similar:
public interface IMethodFinder{
public Method findMethod(...);
}
Then you can create instances of you class, put them into a collection and loop over it:
...
Method candidateMethod;
findLoop:
for (IMethodFinder mf: myMethodFinders){
candidateMethod = mf.findMethod(clazz);
if (candidateMethod!=null){
break findLoop;
}
}
if (candidateMethod!=null){
// method found
} else {
// not found :-(
}
While arguably somewhat more complicated, this will be easier to handle if you e.g. need to do more work between calling the findMethods* methods (such as more verification that the method is appropriate), or if the list of ways to find methods is configurable at runtime...
Still, your approach is probably OK as well.
I'm sorry to say, but the method you use seems to be the widely accepted one. I see a lot of code like that in the code base of large libraries like Spring, Maven etc.
However, an alternative would be to introduce a helper interface that can convert from a given input to a given output. Something like this:
public interface Converter<I, O> {
boolean canConvert(I input);
O convert(I input);
}
and a helper method
public static <I, O> O getDataFromConverters(
final I input,
final Converter<I, O>... converters
){
O result = null;
for(final Converter<I, O> converter : converters){
if(converter.canConvert(input)){
result = converter.convert(input);
break;
}
}
return result;
}
So then you could write reusable converters that implement your logic. Each of the converters would have to implement the canConvert(input) method to decide whether it's conversion routines will be used.
Actually: what your request reminds me of is the Try.these(a,b,c) method in Prototype (Javascript).
Usage example for your case:
Let's say you have some beans that have validation methods. There are several strategies to find these validation methods. First we'll check whether this annotation is present on the type:
// retention, target etc. stripped
public #interface ValidationMethod {
String value();
}
Then we'll check whether there's a method called "validate". To make things easier I assume, that all methods define a single parameter of type Object. You may choose a different pattern. Anyway, here's sample code:
// converter using the annotation
public static final class ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return input.isAnnotationPresent(ValidationMethod.class);
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
final String methodName =
input.getAnnotation(ValidationMethod.class).value();
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(methodName, Object.class);
} catch(final Exception e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
}
}
// converter using the method name convention
public static class MethodNameConventionConverter implements
Converter<Class<?>, Method>{
private static final String METHOD_NAME = "validate";
#Override
public boolean canConvert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input) != null;
}
private Method findMethod(final Class<?> input){
try{
return input.getDeclaredMethod(METHOD_NAME, Object.class);
} catch(final SecurityException e){
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
} catch(final NoSuchMethodException e){
return null;
}
}
#Override
public Method convert(final Class<?> input){
return findMethod(input);
}
}
// find the validation method on a class using the two above converters
public static Method findValidationMethod(final Class<?> beanClass){
return getDataFromConverters(beanClass,
new ValidationMethodAnnotationConverter(),
new MethodNameConventionConverter()
);
}
// example bean class with validation method found by annotation
#ValidationMethod("doValidate")
public class BeanA{
public void doValidate(final Object input){
}
}
// example bean class with validation method found by convention
public class BeanB{
public void validate(final Object input){
}
}
You may use Decorator Design Pattern to accomplish different ways of finding out how to find something.
public interface FindMethod
{
public Method get(Class clazz);
}
public class FindMethodByAnnotation implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByAnnotation(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByAnnotation(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByAnnotation(clazz) : r;
}
}
public class FindMethodByOnlyMethod implements FindMethod
{
private final FindMethod findMethod;
public FindMethodByOnlyMethod(FindMethod findMethod)
{
this.findMethod = findMethod;
}
private Method findByOnlyMethod(Class clazz)
{
return getMethodOnlyMethod(clazz);
}
public Method get(Class clazz)
{
Method r = null == findMethod ? null : findMethod.get(clazz);
return r == null ? findByOnlyMethod(clazz) : r;
}
}
Usage is quite simple
FindMethod finder = new FindMethodByOnlyMethod(new FindMethodByAnnotation(null));
finder.get(clazz);
... I could switch that to try/catch logic, but that hardly makes it more readable.
Changing the signature of the get... methods so you can use try / catch would be a really bad idea. Exceptions are expensive and should only be used for "exceptional" conditions. And as you say, the code would be less readable.
What is bothering you is the repeating pattern used for flow control--and it should bother you--but there isn't too much to be done about it in Java.
I get really annoyed at repeated code & patterns like this, so for me it would probably be worth it to extract the repeated copy & paste control code and put it in it's own method:
public Method findMethod(Class clazz)
int i=0;
Method candidateMethod = null;
while(candidateMethod == null) {
switch(i++) {
case 0:
candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz);
break;
case 1:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz);
break;
case 2:
candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz);
break;
default:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
}
return clazz;
}
Which has the disadvantage of being unconventional and possibly more verbose, but the advantage of not having as much repeated code (less typos) and reads easier because of there being a little less clutter in the "Meat".
Besides, once the logic has been extracted into it's own class, verbose doesn't matter at all, it's clarity for reading/editing and for me this gives that (once you understand what the while loop is doing)
I do have this nasty desire to do this:
case 0: candidateMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz); break;
case 1: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz); break;
case 2: candidateMethod = getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz); break;
default: throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz);
To highlight what's actually being done (in order), but in Java this is completely unacceptable--you'd actually find it common or preferred in some other languages.
PS. This would be downright elegant (damn I hate that word) in groovy:
actualMethod = getMethodByAnnotation(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlyMethod(clazz) ?:
getMethodByBeingOnlySuitableMethod(clazz) ?:
throw new NoSuitableMethodFoundException(clazz) ;
The elvis operator rules. Note, the last line may not actually work, but it would be a trivial patch if it doesn't.