I am asking myself if (and how) it would be possible to convert specific pre-defined types with Jackson.
Given an example structure like:
{
"dataValues": {"x": <anything>[, ...]}
}
Basically it's a map that can have anything as
simple type values (like String, int...)
another map like anything
list of anything
a custom type (! here comes the problem)
As you can already see, there are a few options and at runtime unknown cascades/wraps.
The only thing I know for sure is Map<String, Object> dataValues.
Inspired by the idea around the type info (first solution approach), my rough idea is to have the custom type defined as:
{"type": "MyCustomType", "a":"Value1", "b":"Value2"}
I already tried to work my way into this using #JsonTypeInfo (and subtypes, also activateDefaultTypeMapping...) but it seems that they only work in combination with type definition in the object model.
Next on my way through the possible solutions, I accepted the truth and created a deserializer for Object because that's the only type, I am pretty sure about ;)
What I was missing then was an option to defer parsing for "not my type" back to the mapper.
Otherwise I would have to write Jackson's mapping for simple types, list, maps... again but bad.
Yes, I could create another mapper in there but it wouldn't know the configuration of the "original" mapper.
The only way, I got this working somehow was to define the target map like this:
public class DataValues {
#JsonCreator
public DataValues(Map<String, Object> targetMap) {
this.targetMap = targetMap.entrySet().stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(
Map.Entry::getKey,
map -> {
Object newValue = map.getValue();
newValue = optionalConversion(newValue);
return newValue;
}));
}
}
and decide on the provided map if I want to convert it or if it's a nested map with plain values (or a list, or another map).
I think we can agree that this approach is not the optimal solution, to describe it positively.
My current mood is that maybe I am just missing a bit on the JsonTypeInfo or there is a way to delegate the mapping in an Object based deserializer that I haven't found yet.
Or an (to me) unknown third option that is so simple that I never thought about it.
My solution now is pretty straight-forward and simple as it (might) could be.
I think the missing bit for me was jsonParser.getCodec() to delegate the "known unknown" types.
Also a benefit of a deserializer in my case is, that I can filter Jackson-mappable types upfront and only allow the simple types I want to support.
private static class ParameterDeserializer extends JsonObjectDeserializer<Object> {
#Override
protected Object deserializeObject(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext context, ObjectCodec codec, JsonNode tree) throws IOException {
if (tree.isValueNode()) {
if (tree.isTextual()) {
return tree.asText();
}
if (tree.isFloatingPointNumber()) {
return tree.asDouble();
}
if (tree.isBoolean()) {
return tree.asBoolean();
}
if (tree.isInt()) {
return tree.asInt();
}
if (tree.isNumber()) {
return tree.asLong();
}
}
if (tree.isContainerNode()) {
if (tree.getNodeType().equals(JsonNodeType.ARRAY)) {
return jsonParser.getCodec().treeToValue(tree, List.class);
}
if (tree.getNodeType().equals(JsonNodeType.OBJECT)) {
JsonNode customType = tree.get("type");
if (customType != null) {
// do custom conversion
}
return jsonParser.getCodec().treeToValue(tree, Map.class);
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Cannot parse %s as a valid parameter type".formatted(tree));
}
}
I'm working on a configuration system. I'd like to be able to load config values from a JSON file and have them "automagically" convert to the Java type I need. I'm using Jackson for the JSON parsing. For primitive types like floats and strings, it's no big deal, but I'm running into a snag with enums.
Let's say I have the following enum:
public enum SystemMode
{
#JsonProperty("Mode1")
MODE1("Mode1"),
#JsonProperty("Mode2")
MODE2("Mode2"),
#JsonProperty("Mode3")
MODE3("Mode3");
private final String name;
private SystemMode(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
#Override
#JsonValue
public String toString()
{
return this.name;
}
}
Now, let's say I want to represent a list of values of this enum for a given config variable using the following JSON representation:
{
"Project" : "TEST",
"System" : {
"ValidModes" : ["Mode1", "Mode2"]
}
}
And I'd like to be able to do something like the following:
ArrayList<SystemMode> validModes = (ArrayList<SystemMode>) configurator.getConfigValue("/System/ValidModes");
For reference, my configurator class's getConfigValue method is essentially a thin wrapper over the Jackson JSON parsing:
public Object getConfigValue(String JSON_String)
{
JsonNode node = JsonNodeFactory.instance.objectNode().at(JSON_String);
return objectMapper.convertValue(node, Object.class);
}
(The real method has some exception checking that has been omitted for clarity).
Now, when I call the above, Jackson correctly deduces that I want an ArrayList and fills it. However, instead of getting an ArrayList of SystemMode enums, I get an ArrayList of Strings and immediately throw an exception when I attempt to use the list. I have tried several different ways of representing the data to no avail. It seems no matter what I try, Jackson wants to return a list of strings instead of a list of enums.
So my question is this:
How can I make Jackson (version 2.9.4) JSON properly deserialize a list of enum values in a way that is compatible with my single "Object getConfigValue()" method?
The following will provide the correct binding for your enum.
public List<SystemMode> getConfigValue(String path)
{
JsonNode node = JsonNodeFactory.instance.objectNode().at(path);
return objectMapper.convertValue(node, new TypeReference<List<SystemMode>>(){});
}
The second option is to convert the list of String yourself, for example:
List<SystemMode> result = jsonResult.stream().map(SystemMode::valueOf).collect(Collectors.toList());
Third option:
public <T>List<T> getConfigValue(String path, Class<T> type)
{
JsonNode node = JsonNodeFactory.instance.objectNode().at(path);
CollectionType toType =
objectMapper.getTypeFactory().constructCollectionType(List.class, type);
return objectMapper.convertValue(node, toType);
}
I am developing a REST webservice using the Play Framework 2.5 (Java) and the form data binding (from Spring Framework).
I am quite experienced with this API and like the way it formalizes validation constraints (e.g. Required), so I would like to avoid using the BodyParser API.
I need to parse a JSON request such as this :
{
"elements": [
{
"val": "1"
},
{
"val": ["1","2","3"]
}
]
}
The problem is that "val" accepts two different types : a string (java.lang.String in Java) and an array of strings (java.util.List in my code).
How could I "typesafely" model such a JSON form in my Java code ?
I have already tried to use an abstract (and generic) class implemented by two different subclasses with different types for the "val" attribute, but Spring fails to instantiate the object (BeanInstantiationException).
Here is the current data model :
public class Foo {
#Constraints.Required
public List<Fii> elements;
}
public class Fii {
#Constraints.Required
// Which type ? Object ?
public ? val;
}
public class Response
{
List<ResponseEntry> response;
/*getters + setters */
public static class ResponseEntry
{
private List<Value> elements;
/*setters + getters*/
public static class Value
{
private List<Object> val;
}
}
}
Unfortunately, with the structure of the JSON you are handling, the only way to deserialize it is to have the value attribute be type Object. However, once the JSON is deserialized, you can easily figure out whether value is an object or a single value.
Notice that JSON only supports five data types: objects (Map in java), arrays, strings, numeric and boolean. It looks like in your case, value would most likely be either a number or a map of numbers; then you have two possibilities to check for. Using a quick instanceof comparison, you should be able to figure out what type of value it is.
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
Response r = mapper.readValues(json, Response.class);
Value val = r.response.get(0).values.get(0);
if (val.value instanceof Map)
; // multiple
else
; // single
I'm trying to write an DSL for doing typesafe conversions from one object to another.
src classA
dst classB
map valueA to valueB with ConverterX
map valueC to valueD with ConverterY
the result should be something like:
class Converter
{
public void convert(ClassA a, ClassB b)
{
a.setValueA(ConverterX.convert(b.getValueB))
b.setValueC(ConverterY.convert(b.getValueD))
}
}
I simply want to generate the code for that, but i'm not able to access the classes I already defined. The reason for that is to be able to use default converters. Only in case I am able to get the type of the parameters, i will be able to choose the implementation for the default converter.
You can stick with JvmTypeReference as Xtext documentation suggests. You can get JvmType from jvmTypeRef.getType() where relevant types are castable to JvmDeclaredType. Here is my helper method to get list of all bean properties (class members) using JvmTypeReference:
public List<String> getFieldNamesForClass(JvmTypeReference jvmTypeRef) {
List<String> result = new ArrayList<String>();
if (jvmTypeRef.getType() instanceof JvmDeclaredType) {
JvmDeclaredType declaredType = (JvmDeclaredType)jvmTypeRef.getType();
for (JvmField field : declaredType.getDeclaredFields()) {
result.add(field.getSimpleName());
}
}
return result;
}
The output is List of Strings, the filed names, but it can be easily changed to return JvmField/JvmMember instances.
Check my DeepCloneDSL on bitbucket.org/espinosa/deepclonedsl
I solved the problem by Using JvmDeclaredType instad of JvmTypeReference. JvmTypeReference doesn't offer access to fields and methods, but JvmDeclaredType does. It is also possible to generate a JvmTypeReference by knowing the QualifiedName that is present in the JvmDeclaredType.
I would like to do dynamic casting for a Java variable, the casting type is stored in a different variable.
This is the regular casting:
String a = (String) 5;
This is what I want:
String theType = 'String';
String a = (theType) 5;
Is this possible, and if so how? Thanks!
Update
I'm trying to populate a class with a HashMap that I received.
This is the constructor:
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> obj) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : obj.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
The problem here is that some of the class' variables are of type Double, and if the number 3 is received it sees it as Integer and I have type problem.
Yes it is possible using Reflection
Object something = "something";
String theType = "java.lang.String";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Object obj = theClass.cast(something);
but that doesn't make much sense since the resulting object must be saved in a variable of Object type. If you need the variable be of a given class, you can just cast to that class.
If you want to obtain a given class, Number for example:
Object something = new Integer(123);
String theType = "java.lang.Number";
Class<? extends Number> theClass = Class.forName(theType).asSubclass(Number.class);
Number obj = theClass.cast(something);
but there is still no point doing it so, you could just cast to Number.
Casting of an object does NOT change anything; it is just the way the compiler treats it.
The only reason to do something like that is to check if the object is an instance of the given class or of any subclass of it, but that would be better done using instanceof or Class.isInstance().
Update
according your last update the real problem is that you have an Integer in your HashMap that should be assigned to a Double. What you can do in this case, is check the type of the field and use the xxxValue() methods of Number
...
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
Object value = entry.getValue();
if (Integer.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Integer.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).intValue());
} else if (Double.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Double.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).doubleValue());
} // other cases as needed (Long, Float, ...)
f.set(this, value);
...
(not sure if I like the idea of having the wrong type in the Map)
You'll need to write sort of ObjectConverter for this. This is doable if you have both the object which you want to convert and you know the target class to which you'd like to convert to. In this particular case you can get the target class by Field#getDeclaringClass().
You can find here an example of such an ObjectConverter. It should give you the base idea. If you want more conversion possibilities, just add more methods to it with the desired argument and return type.
Regarding your update, the only way to solve this in Java is to write code that covers all cases with lots of if and else and instanceof expressions. What you attempt to do looks as if are used to program with dynamic languages. In static languages, what you attempt to do is almost impossible and one would probably choose a totally different approach for what you attempt to do. Static languages are just not as flexible as dynamic ones :)
Good examples of Java best practice are the answer by BalusC (ie ObjectConverter) and the answer by Andreas_D (ie Adapter) below.
That does not make sense, in
String a = (theType) 5;
the type of a is statically bound to be String so it does not make any sense to have a dynamic cast to this static type.
PS: The first line of your example could be written as Class<String> stringClass = String.class; but still, you cannot use stringClass to cast variables.
You can do this using the Class.cast() method, which dynamically casts the supplied parameter to the type of the class instance you have. To get the class instance of a particular field, you use the getType() method on the field in question. I've given an example below, but note that it omits all error handling and shouldn't be used unmodified.
public class Test {
public String var1;
public Integer var2;
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Map<String, Object> map = new HashMap<String, Object>();
map.put("var1", "test");
map.put("var2", 1);
Test t = new Test();
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : map.entrySet()) {
Field f = Test.class.getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(t, f.getType().cast(entry.getValue()));
}
System.out.println(t.var1);
System.out.println(t.var2);
}
}
You can write a simple castMethod like the one below.
private <T> T castObject(Class<T> clazz, Object object) {
return (T) object;
}
In your method you should be using it like
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> object) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : object.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, castObject(entry.getValue().getClass(), entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
It works and there's even a common pattern for your approach: the Adapter pattern. But of course, (1) it does not work for casting java primitives to objects and (2) the class has to be adaptable (usually by implementing a custom interface).
With this pattern you could do something like:
Wolf bigBadWolf = new Wolf();
Sheep sheep = (Sheep) bigBadWolf.getAdapter(Sheep.class);
and the getAdapter method in Wolf class:
public Object getAdapter(Class clazz) {
if (clazz.equals(Sheep.class)) {
// return a Sheep implementation
return getWolfDressedAsSheep(this);
}
if (clazz.equals(String.class)) {
// return a String
return this.getName();
}
return null; // not adaptable
}
For you special idea - that is impossible. You can't use a String value for casting.
Your problem is not the lack of "dynamic casting". Casting Integer to Double isn't possible at all. You seem to want to give Java an object of one type, a field of a possibly incompatible type, and have it somehow automatically figure out how to convert between the types.
This kind of thing is anathema to a strongly typed language like Java, and IMO for very good reasons.
What are you actually trying to do? All that use of reflection looks pretty fishy.
Don't do this. Just have a properly parameterized constructor instead. The set and types of the connection parameters are fixed anyway, so there is no point in doing this all dynamically.
For what it is worth, most scripting languages (like Perl) and non-static compile-time languages (like Pick) support automatic run-time dynamic String to (relatively arbitrary) object conversions. This CAN be accomplished in Java as well without losing type-safety and the good stuff statically-typed languages provide WITHOUT the nasty side-effects of some of the other languages that do evil things with dynamic casting. A Perl example that does some questionable math:
print ++($foo = '99'); # prints '100'
print ++($foo = 'a0'); # prints 'a1'
In Java, this is better accomplished (IMHO) by using a method I call "cross-casting".
With cross-casting, reflection is used in a lazy-loaded cache of constructors and methods that are dynamically discovered via the following static method:
Object fromString (String value, Class targetClass)
Unfortunately, no built-in Java methods such as Class.cast() will do this for String to BigDecimal or String to Integer or any other conversion where there is no supporting class hierarchy. For my part, the point is to provide a fully dynamic way to achieve this - for which I don't think the prior reference is the right approach - having to code every conversion. Simply put, the implementation is just to cast-from-string if it is legal/possible.
So the solution is simple reflection looking for public Members of either:
STRING_CLASS_ARRAY = (new Class[] {String.class});
a) Member member = targetClass.getMethod(method.getName(),STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
b) Member member = targetClass.getConstructor(STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
You will find that all of the primitives (Integer, Long, etc) and all of the basics (BigInteger, BigDecimal, etc) and even java.regex.Pattern are all covered via this approach. I have used this with significant success on production projects where there are a huge amount of arbitrary String value inputs where some more strict checking was needed. In this approach, if there is no method or when the method is invoked an exception is thrown (because it is an illegal value such as a non-numeric input to a BigDecimal or illegal RegEx for a Pattern), that provides the checking specific to the target class inherent logic.
There are some downsides to this:
1) You need to understand reflection well (this is a little complicated and not for novices).
2) Some of the Java classes and indeed 3rd-party libraries are (surprise) not coded properly. That is, there are methods that take a single string argument as input and return an instance of the target class but it isn't what you think... Consider the Integer class:
static Integer getInteger(String nm)
Determines the integer value of the system property with the specified name.
The above method really has nothing to do with Integers as objects wrapping primitives ints.
Reflection will find this as a possible candidate for creating an Integer from a String incorrectly versus the decode, valueof and constructor Members - which are all suitable for most arbitrary String conversions where you really don't have control over your input data but just want to know if it is possible an Integer.
To remedy the above, looking for methods that throw Exceptions is a good start because invalid input values that create instances of such objects should throw an Exception. Unfortunately, implementations vary as to whether the Exceptions are declared as checked or not. Integer.valueOf(String) throws a checked NumberFormatException for example, but Pattern.compile() exceptions are not found during reflection lookups. Again, not a failing of this dynamic "cross-casting" approach I think so much as a very non-standard implementation for exception declarations in object creation methods.
If anyone would like more details on how the above was implemented, let me know but I think this solution is much more flexible/extensible and with less code without losing the good parts of type-safety. Of course it is always best to "know thy data" but as many of us find, we are sometimes only recipients of unmanaged content and have to do the best we can to use it properly.
Cheers.
So, this is an old post, however I think I can contribute something to it.
You can always do something like this:
package com.dyna.test;
import java.io.File;
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
public class DynamicClass{
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public Object castDynamicClass(String className, String value){
Class<?> dynamicClass;
try
{
//We get the actual .class object associated with the specified name
dynamicClass = Class.forName(className);
/* We get the constructor that received only
a String as a parameter, since the value to be used is a String, but we could
easily change this to be "dynamic" as well, getting the Constructor signature from
the same datasource we get the values from */
Constructor<?> cons =
(Constructor<?>) dynamicClass.getConstructor(new Class<?>[]{String.class});
/*We generate our object, without knowing until runtime
what type it will be, and we place it in an Object as
any Java object extends the Object class) */
Object object = (Object) cons.newInstance(new Object[]{value});
return object;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
DynamicClass dynaClass = new DynamicClass();
/*
We specify the type of class that should be used to represent
the value "3.0", in this case a Double. Both these parameters
you can get from a file, or a network stream for example. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.lang.Double", "3.0"));
/*
We specify a different value and type, and it will work as
expected, printing 3.0 in the above case and the test path in the one below, as the Double.toString() and
File.toString() would do. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.io.File", "C:\\testpath"));
}
Of course, this is not really dynamic casting, as in other languages (Python for example), because java is a statically typed lang. However, this can solve some fringe cases where you actually need to load some data in different ways, depending on some identifier. Also, the part where you get a constructor with a String parameter could be probably made more flexible, by having that parameter passed from the same data source. I.e. from a file, you get the constructor signature you want to use, and the list of values to be used, that way you pair up, say, the first parameter is a String, with the first object, casting it as a String, next object is an Integer, etc, but somehwere along the execution of your program, you get now a File object first, then a Double, etc.
In this way, you can account for those cases, and make a somewhat "dynamic" casting on-the-fly.
Hope this helps anyone as this keeps turning up in Google searches.
Try this for Dynamic Casting. It will work!!!
String something = "1234";
String theType = "java.lang.Integer";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Constructor<?> cons = theClass.getConstructor(String.class);
Object ob = cons.newInstance(something);
System.out.println(ob.equals(1234));
I recently felt like I had to do this too, but then found another way which possibly makes my code look neater, and uses better OOP.
I have many sibling classes that each implement a certain method doSomething(). In order to access that method, I would have to have an instance of that class first, but I created a superclass for all my sibling classes and now I can access the method from the superclass.
Below I show two ways alternative ways to "dynamic casting".
// Method 1.
mFragment = getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
switch (mUnitNum) {
case 0:
((MyFragment0) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 1:
((MyFragment1) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 2:
((MyFragment2) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
}
and my currently used method,
// Method 2.
mSuperFragment = (MySuperFragment) getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
mSuperFragment.sortNames(sortOptionNum);
Just thought I would post something that I found quite useful and could be possible for someone who experiences similar needs.
The following method was a method I wrote for my JavaFX application to avoid having to cast and also avoid writing if object x instance of object b statements every time the controller was returned.
public <U> Optional<U> getController(Class<U> castKlazz){
try {
return Optional.of(fxmlLoader.<U>getController());
}catch (Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
return Optional.empty();
}
The method declaration for obtaining the controller was
public <T> T getController()
By using type U passed into my method via the class object, it could be forwarded to the method get controller to tell it what type of object to return. An optional object is returned in case the wrong class is supplied and an exception occurs in which case an empty optional will be returned which we can check for.
This is what the final call to the method looked like (if present of the optional object returned takes a Consumer
getController(LoadController.class).ifPresent(controller->controller.onNotifyComplete());