We Keep Coding

private class ArrayList (set)

I have a class named "classroom" and i want send one arraylist with classroom.setMaterias(Arraylist). Is this code:
Class Clasroom
public class Aula implements java.io.Serializable {
private String nombre;
private String grupo;
private int tutor;
ArrayList<String> materias = new ArrayList<String>(); // ¿How create arraylist?
public Aula() {
// Constructor
}
public String getNombre() {
return nombre;
}
public void setNombre(String nombre) {
this.nombre = nombre;
}
I would like to know if I could, for example, send an "arraylist" through a SET and then make the "arraylist" that I created previously in my class "classroom" be exactly the same
I would not know how to create the arraylist, or the set or get methods. Can you help me please?
PD: This is the JSON ARRAY i talking about:
if (obj.has("materias")) {
JSONArray materias = obj.getJSONArray("materias");
datos.setArrayList(materias);
// System.out.println(materias); // ["DWES","DWEC","IW","DAW","IE"]

Class Clasroom
public class Aula implements java.io.Serializable {
private String nombre;
private String grupo;
private int tutor;
ArrayList<String> materias; // ¿How create arraylist?
public Aula() {
// Constructor
this.setArrayList(new ArrayList<>()); //Here you initialize the arraylist when you create an instance of this class.
}
public String getNombre() {
return nombre;
}
public void setNombre(String nombre) {
this.nombre = nombre;
}
//Here are the getters and setters.
public ArrayList<String> getList(){
return this.materias;
}
private void setArrayList(ArrayList<String> list){
this.materias = list;
}

The proper way of doing it is using getters and setters and using List interface rather than ArrayList<> directly.
List<String> materias = Collections.emptyList();
public Aula() {
// Constructor
}
public List<String> getMaterias() {
return materias;
}
public void setMaterias(List<String> materias ) {
this.materias = materias ;
}
public void addMaterias(String materia) {
materias.add(materia);
}
You can have additional addMaterias() method to add entries to your List.

public class Aula implements java.io.Serializable {
private List<String> materia = new ArrayList<>();
...
public void setMateria1(final List<String> aMateria) {
this.materia = aMateria;
}
public void setMateria2(final List<String> aMateria) {
this.materia.clean();
this.materia.addAll(aMateria);
}
}
setMateria1() replaces the list with the given argument, thus any changes (EG deletion of items,) made later to the one, is reflected in the other.
While setMateria2() copies the argument's items, thus deletion or insertion to any of them does not change the other one.
Also ArrayList is a concrete implementation of the interface List. It is preferable to declare variables as the base class or interface, instead of a concrete implementation.

public class Aula implements java.io.Serializable {
ArrayList<String> materias = new ArrayList<String>();
...
public ArrayList<String> getMaterias(){
return materias;
}
public void setMaterias(JSONList materias) throws JSONException {
materias.clear();
for(int i=0;i<materias.length();i++)
this.materias.add(materias.getString(i));
}
}
And put the exact same code into the classroom class.
Second way is to set the Lists in the constructor:
public class Aula implements java.io.Serializable {
ArrayList<String> materias = new ArrayLis<>();
...
public Aula(JSONList materias) throws JSONException {
for(int i=0;i<materias.length();i++)
this.materias.add(materias.getString(i));
}
public ArrayList<String> getMaterias(){
return materias;
}
}
Again same for classroom. And than you create them eg.
Aula aula = new Aula(materias);
Classroom classroom = new Classroom(materias);
This is assuming you have Strings in your list. Otherwise it depends on your data in the list.
If it contains other Lists it they need to be merged or skipped and so on...
If the json is not all Strings(e.g. has Sublists and Objects) and it should match the actual structure of your json I'd need that structure too and most probably an Arraylist of Strings might be the wrong Container for such a json - tree.
btw. better change classroom to Classroom(capital C for the classname) ...

Is it correct to have static factory method to get a new instance with one field updated?

I think the title is self-descriptive but I will give an example to elaborate on my question. I have a DTO class with few fields (a CarDataTransferObj class in my example). In another class (let's call it class A) I need to create a new instance of that object few times, but with only one field updated (length field in my example). Given DTO must be immutable in class A. As there is "many" fields in the class CarDataTransferObj, I thought about following approach (to avoid repeating code in class A):
#Builder
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private String manufacturer;
private String model;
private String uniqueIdNr;
private Integer nrOfDoors;
private EngineType engineType;
private Integer length;
private Integer safetyLevel;
public static CarDataTransferObj newInstanceWithUpdatedLength(final CarDataTransferObj car, final Integer newLength) {
return CarDataTransferObj.builder()
.id(car.getId())
.color(car.getColor())
.manufacturer(car.getManufacturer())
.model(car.getModel())
.uniqueIdNr(car.getUniqueIdNr())
.nrOfDoors(car.getNrOfDoors())
.engineType(car.getEngineType())
.length(newLength)
.safetyLevel(car.getSafetyLevel())
.build();
}
}
For me it smells like a little anti-pattern usage of static factory methods. I am not sure whether it's acceptable or not, hence the question.
Is using static factory method in the presented way an anti-pattern, and should be avoided ?

In my searching, I didn't come across anyone calling this1 an anti-pattern.
However, it is clear that if you try to do this using a classic builder that is not specifically implemented to support this mode of operation .... it won't work. For instance, the example CarBuilderImpl in the Wikipedia article on the Builder design pattern puts the state into an eagerly created Car instance. The build() method simply returns that object. If you tried to reuse that builder in the way that you propose, you would end up modifying a Car that has already been built.
There is another problem you would need to worry about. In we modified the Wikipedia CarBuilder example to add actual wheels (rather than a number of wheels) to the Car being built, we have to worry about creating cars that share the same wheels.
You could address these things in a builder implementation, but it is unclear whether the benefits out-weigh the costs.
If you then transfer this thinking to doing this using a factory method, you come to a slightly different conclusion.
If you are doing this as a "one-off", that's probably OK. You have a specific need, the code is clunky ... but so is the problem.
If you needed to do this for lots of different parameters, or combinations of parameters, this is not going to scale.
If the objects that are created are mutable, then this approach is could be problematic in a multi-threaded environment depending on how you control access to the objects you are using as templates.
1 - There are no clear measurable criteria for whether something is an anti-pattern or not. It is a matter of opinion. Admittedly, for many anti-patterns, there will be wide-scale agreement on that opinion.

It seems a little inefficient to construct an entirely new instance via a builder every time you want to make a new copy with a small modification. More significantly, it sounds like the places where you need the class to be immutable are isolated to places like class A. Why not try something like this:
public interface ICarDataTransferObject {
public Integer GetId();
public String GetColor();
public String GetManufacturer();
public String GetModel();
public String GetUUID();
public Integer GetDoorCount();
public EngineType GetEngineType();
public Integer GetLength();
public Integer GetSafteyLevel();
}
public class CarDataTransferObject Implements ICarDataTransferObject {
private Integer _id;
private String _color;
private String _manufacturer;
private String _model;
private String _uniqueIdNr;
private Integer _nrOfDoors;
private EngineType _engineType;
private Integer _length;
private Integer _safetyLevel;
public Integer GetId() { return _id; }
public void SetId(Integer id) { _id = id; }
public String GetColor() { return _color; }
public void SetColor(String color) { _color = color; }
public String GetManufacturer() { return _manufacturer; }
public void SetManufacturer(String manufacturer) { _manufacturer = manufacturer; }
public String GetModel() { return _model; }
public void SetModel(String model) { _model = model; }
public String GetUUID() { return _uniqueIdNr; }
public void SetUUID(String uuid) { _uniqueIdNr = uuid; }
public Integer GetDoorCount() { return _nrOfDoors; }
public void SetDoorCount(Integer count) { _nrOfDoors = count; }
public EngineType GetEngineType() { return _engineType; }
public void SetEngineType(EngineType et) { _engineType = et; }
public Integer GetLength() { return _length; }
public void SetLength(Integer length) { _length = length; }
public Integer GetSafteyLevel() { return _safetyLevel; }
public void SetSafteyLevel(Integer level) { _safteyLevel = level; }
public CarDataTransferObject() {}
public CarDataTransferObject(ICarDataTransferObject other) { ... }
public ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject AsReadOnly() {
return ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject (this);
}
}
}
public class ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject Implements ICarDataTransferObject {
private ICarDataTransferObject _dto = null;
public Integer GetId() { return _dto.GetId(); }
public String GetColor() { return _dto.GetColor(); }
public String GetManufacturer() { return _dto.GetManufacturer(); }
public String GetModel() { return _dto.GetModel(); }
public String GetUUID() { return _dto.GetUUID(); }
public Integer GetDoorCount() { return _dto.GetDoorCount(); }
public EngineType GetEngineType() { return _dto.GetEngineType(); }
public Integer GetLength() { return _dto.GetLength(); }
public Integer GetSafteyLevel() { return _dto.GetSafteyLevel; }
public ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject (ICarDataTransferObject other) {
_dto = other;
}
}
Now when you want class A to have a copy no one can modify, just use the copy constructor and only expose a ReadOnly version of that copy.
public class A {
ICarDataTransferObject _dto;
ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject _readOnlyDTO;
public ICarDataTransferObject GetDTO() { return _readOnlyDTO; }
public A(ICarDataTransferObject dto) {
_dto = new CarDataTransferObject(dto);
_readOnlyDTO = new ReadOnlyCarDataTransferObject(_dto);
}
}
You commonly see this approach in .NET applications.

While it is debatable whether your static method is an anti-pattern or not, it surely won't scale for combinations of different attributes. Nonetheless, even if it's not an anti-pattern, I think there is a better way to accomplish what you need.
There's a variant of the traditional builder pattern that, instead of creating a new empty builder, accepts an already built object and creates an already initialized builder. Once you create the builder this way, you simply change the length attribute in the builder. Finally, build the object. In plain code (no Lombok, sorry) it could be like this:
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
// other attributes omitted for brevity
private Integer length;
// Private constructor for builder
private CarDataTransferObj(Builder builder) {
this.id = builder.id;
this.color = builder.color;
this.length = builder.length;
}
// Traditional factory method to create and return builder
public static Builder builder() {
return new Builder();
}
// Factory method to create and return builder initialized from an instance
public static Builder builder(CarDataTransferObj car) {
Builder builder = builder();
builder.id = car.id;
builder.color = car.color;
builder.length = car.length;
return builder;
}
// getters
public static class Builder {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private Integer length;
private Builder() { }
public Builder withId(Integer id) { this.id = id; return this; }
public Builder withColor(String color) { this.color = color; return this; }
public Builder withLength(Integer length) { this.length = length; return this; }
public CarDataTransferObj build() {
return new CarDataTransferObj(this);
}
}
}
Now with all this infrastructure in place, you can do what you want as easy as:
CarDataTransferObj originalCar = ... // get the original car from somewhere
CarDataTransferObj newCar = CarDataTransferObj.builder(originalCar)
.withLength(newLength)
.build();
This approach has the advantage that it scales well (it can be used to change any combination of parameters). Maybe all this builder's code seems boilerplate, but I use an IntelliJ plugin to create the builder with two keystrokes (including the variant factory method that accepts a built instance to create an initialized builder).

I'm still new to java but..
I guess making a copy method which takes the CarDataTransferObj object variables and sets their values to another CarDataTransferObj object variables and changing the the length using it's setter method would be better idea
Example:
public class CarDataTransferObj {
private Integer id;
private String color;
private String manufacturer;
private String model;
private String uniqueIdNr;
private Integer nrOfDoors;
private EngineType engineType;
private Integer length;
private Integer safetyLevel;
public void Copy(CarDataTransferObj copy) { //Could add another parameter here to be the new length
copy.setId(id);
copy.set(color);
copy.setManufacturer(manufacturer);
copy.setModel(model);
copy.setUniqueIdNr(uniqueIdNr));
copy.setNrOfDoors(nrOfDoors));
copy.setEngineType(engineType));
copy.setLength(length);
copy.setSafetyLevel(safetyLevel));
}
}
public class SomeOtherClass {
CarDataTransferObj car1 = new CarDataTransferObj(); //Using this way made you able to use the constructor for a more useful thing
//You set the variables you want for car1 here
CarDataTransferObj car2 = new CarDataTransferObj();
car1.Copy(car2)
car2.setLength(newLength) //Set the new length here
}

Object to string delimited format

I have set of objects of different types.
Ex : Employee emp, adress adr
These two classes have list of properties
public class Employee{
private Stringname;
private int age;
}
public class Adress {
private String HouseNo;
private string Street;
private string pin;
}
Each attribute is assigned with some 2 character value
Name (NA), age (AG), HouseNo(HN),Street(ST), pin(PN)
I need to construct a string with these data and delimit with a %
Output:
NA%Vidhya%AG%30%HN%80%ST%1st cross%PN%100100

Each class knows it own data best so I would let each class be responsible for generating the string. As I understand it the two char codes for each field are unique for each class and member and only used when generating the string so only the class would need them.
interface AttributeDescription {
String generateDescription();
}
public class Employee implements AttributeDescription {
//members...
public String generateDescription() {
return String.format(“NA%%%s%%AG%%%d”, name, age)
}
Then simply call this method for all objects implementing the interface.
AttributeDescription object = ...
String attr = object.generateDescription();
I don't think it can be generalized more than this given the requirements.
Update
It might be better to have a builder class for building the string to get a more unified behavior between classes. Here is an example
public class AttributeBuilder {
private builder = new StringBuilder();
public String getAttribute() {
return builder.toString();
}
public void add(String code, String value) {
if (value == null) {
return;
}
builder.append(code);
builder.append(‘%’);
builder.append(value);
builder.append(‘%’);
}
}
And then you would also have to implement add(...) methods for other data types in a similar fashion. The builder could then be used like
public String generateDescription() {
AttributeBuilder builder = new AttributeBuilder();
builder.add(“NA”, name);
builder.add(“AG”, age);
return builder.getAttribute();
}

Esper: Grammatically defining a type with sub types?

I have to define the class below in ESPER so I'm able to reference the sub-types and internal arrays. I have to do it pragmatically. I don't care how:
UPDATE: The complete class:
public class IoTEntityEvent implements java.io.Serializable {
private IoTProperty[] Properties;
private String About;
IoTEntityEvent (){
this.About = null;
this.Properties = null;
}
public String getAbout() {
return About;
}
public void setAbout( String value){
this.About = value;
}
public void setProperties(int index, IoTProperty value) {
Properties[index] = value;
}
public IoTProperty getProperties(int index) {
return Properties[index];
}
public void setProperties( IoTProperty[] value) {
Properties = value;
}
public IoTProperty[] getProperties() {
return Properties;
}
}
This is the sub-class:
public class IoTProperty implements java.io.Serializable {
private Map<String,String>[] IoTStateObservation =null;
private String About = null;
IoTProperty (){
this.About = null;
this.IoTStateObservation = null;
}
public String getAbout() {
return About;
}
public void setAbout(String value) {
About = value;
}
public Map<String,String>[] getIoTStateObservation() {
return IoTStateObservation;
}
public void setIoTStateObservation( Map<String,String>[] value) {
IoTStateObservation = value;
}
public Map<String,String> getIoTStateObservation(int index) {
return IoTStateObservation[index];
}
public void setIoTStateObservation(int index, Map<String,String> value) {
IoTStateObservation[0] = value;
}
}
I tried like this :
eventNames[0] = "About";
eventType[0] = String.class;
eventNames[1] = "Properties";
eventType[1] = IoTProperty[].class;
epService.getEPAdministrator().getConfiguration().addEventType("type", eventNames, eventType);
This works but I can't access the sub-types. I also tried to define the sub type in similar manner. Can someone can explain how I suppose to do it?

What do you mean with "This works but I can't access the sub-types."
Tried like "select Properties[0].whatever" from type?

According to the Esper documentation:
Plain-old Java object events are object instances that expose event properties through JavaBeans-style getter methods. Events classes or interfaces do not have to be fully compliant to the JavaBean specification; however for the Esper engine to obtain event properties, the required JavaBean getter methods must be present or an accessor-style and accessor-methods may be defined via configuration.
In short, you need to create the JavaBean getters and setters in order to access your private members.

Thank you for the help. I found out how and is as following:
epService.getEPAdministrator().getConfiguration().addEventType("type",IoTEntityEvent.class);
Then the event should be send like this without any casting:
IoTValue[] va= {new IoTValue("0.62","2014-06-09T18:08:40.968Z","2014-06-09T18:08:40.968Z")};
IoTProperty[] pr = {new IoTProperty(va,"property")};
IoTEntityEvent event = new IoTEntityEvent(pr,"Entity");
epService.getEPRuntime().sendEvent(event);

UML class diagram implementation Address-Addressbook

I have 2 class diagrams, class Address
+forename
+surename
+street
+houseno
+code
+state
+toString
second Addressbook
insert(address: Address)
toString()
searchSurename (surename: string): Address[*]
+searchForename(forename: string): Address[*]
i implemented address:
public class Address {
public static String forename;
public static String surename;
public static String street;
public static int houseno;
public static int code;
public static String state;
public String toString(){
return this.forename + this.surename + this.street + this.houseno + this.code + this.state;
}
How can I implement Addressbook as easy as possible?
EDIT:
public class addressbook{
private static ArrayList<Address> book;
public addressbook(){
book = new ArrayList<Address>();
}
}
EDIT QUESTION:
Am I allowed to add new methods or attributes in a implementation outside the ones that we use in our class diagrams?
EDIT 2:
First try implementing method searchSurename with an ArrayList:
public static String searchSurename(String surename){
boolean exist = false;
if(this.addresses.isEmpty()){
return null;
}
for(int i=0;i<this.addresses.size();i++) {
if(this.addresses.get(i).getSurename() == surename) {
exist=true;
break;
}
if(exist) {
return this.addresses.get(surename);
} else {
return this.addresses.get(surename);
}
}
// return ?!?
}
The Program give me Errors at "this" at any line, maybe a mistake but I cant tell! It Looks a Little bit too difficult, I don't find any implementations where searching through a list is simple.

You could implement it in a way like this. Look at the api for arrayList for using its methods.
public class Adressbook {
List<Adress> adresses = new ArrayList<Adress>();
public Adressbook(){
adresses = new arraylist<Adress>();
}
public insert (Adress adress){
adresses.add(adress)
}
public searchSurename(String Surename){
}
public searchForename(String forename){
}
public String toString(){
}
ArrayList api:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/ArrayList.html

To have unique address use set collection interface
public class Adressbook {
....
private Set<Adress> adresses = null;
public Adressbook(){
adresses = new HashSet<Adress>();
}
public void add(Adress adress){
adresses.add(adress)
}
...
}