In an Android app. I have a requirement where I have my HomeActivity(Having 18000 lines of code) and if my device supports ARCore, I want HomeActivity to extend with ARBaseACtivity and if device doesn't supports ARCore then i need it to extend with NonARBaseActivity.
I am checking this condition in splash screen.
Now, there is a way that first comes is that i make two activities ,same a copy of HomeActivity but i need to know is there any better way to do that. Because i don't want to copy every time i do any change in one of the HomeActivity.
Downvoters please comment below so that i can improve where i am wrong . Thanks!!
The technical answer is: not possible.
In Java, your inheritance structure is fixed. It is simply not possible to have one class C extend class A in one context, and class B in another context. When you want to do that, you would end up having two classes, C1 and C2.
The real answer of course is: you have to step back and clearly architect your whole solution. Alone the 18K lines in one whatever is an indication that something is seriously wrong here. One could mention the good old FCoI principle, but then: 18K lines of code means a lot of code and features. It is simply impossible to give you proper guidance in a single answer on stackoverflow.
So, opinionated: you should step back, and identify some (architecture) experts to talk to. Then sit down with them (probably for hours, even days), and look at what you have got, and where you want to get to. Then work together on path there. Anything else is nothing but putting band-aids on symptoms. Sure, nothing will break when you don't do that. But each step forward will simply add mess to mess, making each step more expensive. Sooner or later, changing your monolith will become close to impossible, and everybody will ask to "throw it away, and start from scratch".
As complement to the excellent answer of GhostCat, I will give you a very important hint in OOP : to enhance at runtime the behavior of an object, the decorator pattern is often a way to consider.
Here HomeActivity appears as the element to decorate and ARBaseACtivity and NonARBaseActivity appears as decorator for that.
You should define a MyActivity interface that is the base class for both decorated and decorator objects.
So things are not simple because you will have to refactor many code lines but it will make your design more flexible and with classes that have consistent responsibilities instead of having a god object as activity !
Finally in the splash screen you could define a method that returns an activity decorating the HomeActivity according to the client material detected :
public MyActivity computeHomeActivity(){
HomeActivity activity = new HomeActivity();
if (isSupportARCore()){
return new ARBaseACtivity(activity);
}
return new NonARBaseActivity(activity);
}
Related
How to describe a class is my question? When you start a class in bluej there's always a documentation comment for the description of the class. What is to be written in that description?
For example I have a class called Economy that extends an abstract class Structure and the abstract class Structure implements an interface Basic. So what should I write in the description of the class Economy?
The very first thing to understand is ... one should actually write as few comments as possible. Instead: write code that can be read and understood and used without having (a lot) of additional comments around them.
Example: the names you choose "Structure" and "Basic" are very much ... meaningless. Those names do not tell anything about the intended behavior that one can expect from the corresponding class and the interface.
Thing is: comments lie. They add an extra quality to your source code; but a quality that can't be checked automatically. Thus it is very easy for that information to get out of sync with the things the code really does.
In other words: it can be perfectly OK to put an empty or very short description on a class. Besides: there is SRP that gives you guidance on "putting only a single responsibility" into each class. So, the core point of a "class description" would be to name/describe that one responsibility of the corresponding class.
Think about what someone would need to know if they wanted to use your class, or a basic description of the class you would give to someone if they didn't know what it did. Why would someone use your class? What does it do?
#Jägermeister mentioned how fallible code comments can be, so make sure that whatever you write, you keep it updated with what your code does. If you change the class, make sure you change your description of the class as well. And keep your description fairly short, you should most likely only need a few lines or less.
If you find yourself writing several lines of description, it might be a good idea to look at your class, and ask yourself if it's trying to do too much. In this case, it might be a good idea to make another class to accept some of its responsibilities.
I'm trying to learn more about proper architecture so I'm going to try to refactor some of my working code. I have an android app that swaps in a few different Fragments for the main view. Right now, the different fragments exist as properties in MainActivity. When the user picks a menu item I have to check what kind of Fragment is currently being shown (via instanceof) and perform some different tasks depending on what kind of fragment it is. It's pretty ugly and I feel like it should be better abstracted. In the future, the case statement will grow even more and need to be maintained. Also, most of the code is duplicated since I only really need to do something special for one fragment in particular. How can I abstract away these details out of MainActivity? I tried to make a base class for all my fragments but it didn't quite work out because some of the fragments extend MapFragment and some just extend Fragment. So I'm guessing an interface is the way to go but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Do I need to create an abstract factory to get these objects in MainActivity? What is the proper way to do this? After reading up a little bit on architecture, it seems to me that my MainActivity should only know about some abstractions for my Fragments and not the concrete classes themselves, is that correct? Thanks for any help you can provide.
This is a bit of a general question, but I will give a specific example for you.
I have a bunch of activities in an App. In all of the activities, there is a Facebook button. When you click the button it takes you to a specific Facebook page. I wish for the button to behave exactly the same way on every page.
Right now, in every single Activity, I create an onClickListener() for the Facebook button and make the intent and start the activity. It's the same code in every single Activity.
What is the best way to write this code once and include it in multiple activities? Is there anyway to include other .java files?
One solution that I know would work, is to make a base CustomActivity class that extends Activity and then have all activities extend CustomActivity. Then put my onClickListener() code in CustomActivity. I'm new to Java though and I wasn't sure if that was the best approach or not. Some of my Activities already extend other custom activity classes as is, so extending things that extend more things might get kinda messy, I dunno.
UPDATE
Playing the devil's advocate here: Lets say I went with the inheritance route and I create some CustomActivity that I want my Activities to extend. CustomActivity would contain a bunch of general code that I need to use for all Activities, including but not limited to the Facebook button functionality. What happens when there is an Activity that I need to use generic code from the CustomActivity but there is no Facebook button in that specific Activity?
A common base class is perhaps the best approach. (It doesn't work quite so well if some of your activities extend Activity and some extend Activity subclasses (such as ListActivity).
An alternate approach is to create a separate class that implements the logic of your click listener. This doesn't eliminate all duplicate code — each activity still needs to instantiate and register a listener — but the logic for what to do will only need to be written once in the listener class.
In either alternative, you might consider assigning the android:onClick attribute to the button. That way you don't need to register a click listener; you just need to implement the target method in each activity. This is particularly useful with the base class approach.
UPDATE
Suppose you go the inheritance route and you want an activity with no Facebook button. If you are using the android:onClick technique, then you don't have to do anything different in your code — since no button will invoke your onClick method, the method will just sit there doing nothing. If you are installing an OnClickListener in code, then you just need to test that the button exists (i.e., that findViewById() did not return null) before registering the listener.
Generally a common base class is NOT the best approach (although it's certainly valid).
This took me (and every OO programmer who "gets" OO that I know of) a while to really grok, but you should use inheritance as sparingly as you possibly can. Every time you do it you should ask yourself if there is REALLY no other way to do this.
One way to find out is to be very strict with the "is-a" test--if you call your base activity a "Facebook Activity", could you really say that each child "is" a Facebook activity? Probably not. Also if you decided to add in Twitter to some of the pages (but not others), how do you do this?
Not that inheritance is completely out! A great solution might be to extend a control to launch your facebook activity and call it a facebook button--have it encapsulate all the stuff you need to do to connect to facebook. Now you can add this to any page you want by simply dragging it on (I'm pretty sure android tools let you add new components to the pallet). It's not "Free" like extending your activity class, but in the long run it will cost you a lot less stress.
You probably won't believe me now, we all need to learn from our own experience, just keep this in mind and use it to evaluate your code as you evolve it over time.
--edit, comment response--
You can encapsulate any facebook activity you think you will use a lot in it's own class--get it to a bare minimum so you can just add it to any class in a one-liner.
At some point, however, you may decide that it's STILL too much boilerplate, I totally understand. At that point you COULD use an abstract base activity like you suggest, but I wouldn't hard-code it to handle facebook explicitly, instead I'd have it support behaviors such as facebook (and maybe others), and turn-on these behaviors as desired. You could then tell it NOT to add the facebook behavior to a given screen if you like, or add in Twitter to some of them.
You can make this boilerplate minimum, for instance if you want "Standard" functionality, you shouldn't have to do anything special, if you wish to disable facebook you might start your constructor with:
super(DISABLE_FACEBOOK_BEHAVIOR);
and if you want one that also enables Twitter you could use:
super(DISABLE_FACEBOOK_BEHAVIOR, ENABLE_TWITTER_BEHAVIOR);
with a constructor like AbstractAction(BehaviorEnum... behaviors).
This is more flexible and you actually can say that each if your activities IS-A "behavior supporting activity" with a clear conscience.
It is, of course, a perfectly good approach to be less flexible at first and refactor into a pattern like this later when you need to, just be on the look-out for your inheritance model causing problems so you don't let it mess you up for too long before you fix it.
Well, extending things is the principle of OOP, so I don't think this is a problem to have more than one level of subclasses. The solution you thought about is in my opinion the best.
Absolutely. Use inheritance to gain some reusability as you should with OOP. You'll find, as you progress, that there are gonna be more and more things you'd like to reuse in your activities -- things more complex than an onClickListener for a FB button -- so it's a great idea to start building a nice, reusable "super" activity that you can inherit from.
I have the following problem:
I have an abstract Activity class, lets call it MyAbstractActivity, that contains some code I'd like to reuse (for example: a standard service binder, common menu items, common initialization code, etc. etc.). Normally I would just use it to subclass my concrete activities and be done with it.
However, I occasionally need to use another supertype, such as a ListActivity or a MapActivity.
So the question is: how do I avoid duplicating that support code within an Activity, if I have to use another base class?
I have thought up of a solution based on the decorator pattern, like this one:
.
However, I see a problem with this approach:
What to do with protected methods (like onCreate())? Should I introduce an additional "bridge" class that makes them public for the purpose of the decorator, similarly to the way presented below (starting to look a bit byzantine...)?
Any other way?
I hope I made myself relatively clear. Thanks in advance for any feedback!
PS. Using static utility classes is not a good solution in my opinion, since it introduces a possibility of hard-to-identify programming bugs.
If I understand correctly, neither Fragments nor the Decorator Pattern are clean or appropriate solutions for what you want to accomplish. They were designed to solve other problems.
I find myself moving "support" code, or "framework" code, or "all that verbose, repetitive, boilerplate crap" to static utility methods. This isn't necessarily the approach I'd take on a non-Android project, but in my Android projects, it works pretty darn well.
Also, know that you don't need to subclass ListActivity to have a ListView.
I am newbie to Java. I have some design questions.
Say I have a crawler application, that does the following:
1. Crawls a url and gets its content
2. Parses the contents
3. Displays the contents
How do you decide between implementing a function or a class?
-- Should the parser be a function of the crawler class, or should it be a class in itself, so it can be used by other applications as well?
-- If it should be a class, should it be protected or public class?
How do you decide between implementing a public or protected class?
-- If I had to create a class to generate stats from the parsed contents for eg, should that class be protected (so only the crawler class can access it) or should it be public?
Thanks
Ron
I think Andy's answer is very good. I have a few additions:
If you believe that a class will be extended in the future, you can set all your private methods (if any) to protected. In this way, any future extending classes can also access these.
I like the rule that a method shouldn't be longer than that you can see its opening and closing brackets ({ }) without scrolling. If a method is longer than that, try to split it up into several methods (private, protected or public by your preference). This makes code more readable, and could also save on lines of code.
So let's say a method is getting big and you split it up into several private methods. If these new methods are only used within the first "mother"-method, it makes sense to move all of that into a class of its own. In this way you will make the original class smaller and more readable. In addition, you will make the functionality of the new class easier to understand, as it is not mixed up with that of the original class.
The best guidance I've seen for these types of questions is the "SOLID Principles of OO Design."
http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.PrinciplesOfOod
The most basic of these principles, and the one that sort of answers your first question is the "Single Responsibility Principle." This states that, "a class should have one, and only one, reason to change." In other words, your classes should each do exactly one thing. If you end up needing to change how that one thing works, you only have one class to change, and hopefully just one place to make the change within that class. In your case, you would probably want a class to retrieve the content from the URL, another class to parse it into some sort of in-memory data structure, another class to process the data (if needed), and yet another class (or classes) to display the content in whatever format you need. Obviously, you can get carried away with classes, but it's typically easier to test a lot of small, single-operation classes, as opposed to one or two large, all-encompassing classes.
The question on public vs. protected depends on how you plan to use this code. If your class could be used independently outside your library, you could think about making it public, but if it accomplishes some task which is specific or tied to your other classes, it could probably be protected. For example, a class to retrieve content from a URL is a good general-purpose class, so you could make it public, but a class that does some specific type of manipulation of data might not be useful outside your library, so it can be protected. Overall, it's not always black and white, but ultimately, it's usually not a huge deal either way.
I like to think of classes as "guys" who can do specific stuff "methods".
In your case, theres a guy who can fetch the content of an url if you tell him which url that is.
Then there is this another guy, that is really good at parsing content. I think he does that with a tool called rome, but i'm not sure. he keeps that private (hint ;) )
Then we have that third guy, who displays stuff. He's a bit retarded and only understands stuff that "another guy" produces, but hey thats fine.
Finally the project needs a boss guy, who gives orders to the other 3 guys and passes messages between them.
ps: I never really though about making classes protected or not. Usually they are simply public without any specific reason. As long as it don't hurt, why bother?