We Keep Coding

Is there a way to convert a String to a Java type using Jackson and/or one of its associated libraries (csv, json, etc.)

Is there a mechanism to apply a standard set of checks to detect and then transform a String to the detected type, using one of Jackson's standard text related libs (csv, json, or even jackson-core)? I can imagine using it along with a label associated with that value (CSV header, for example) to do something sorta like the following:
JavaTypeAndValue typeAndValue = StringToJavaType.fromValue(Object x, String label);
typeAndValue.type() // FQN of Java type, maybe
typeAndValue.label() // where label might be a column header value, for example
typeAndValue.value() // returns Object of typeAndValue.type()
A set of 'extractors' would be required to apply the transform, and the consumer of the class would have to be aware of the 'ambiguity' of the 'Object' return type, but still capable of consuming and using the information, given its purpose.
The example I'm currently thinking about involves constructing SQL DDL or DML, like a CREATE Table statement using the information from a List derived from evaluating a row from a csv file.
After more digging, hoping to find something out there, I wrote the start of what I had in mind.
Please keep in mind that my intention here isn't to present something 'complete', as I'm sure there are several things missing here, edge cases not addressed, etc.
The pasrse(List<Map<String, String>> rows, List<String> headers comes from the idea that this could be a sample of rows from a CSV file read in from Jackson, for example.
Again, this isn't complete, so I'm not looking to pick at everything that's wrong with the following. The question isn't 'how would we write this?', it's 'is anyone familiar with something that exists that does something like the following?'.
import gms.labs.cassandra.sandbox.extractors.Extractor;
import gms.labs.cassandra.sandbox.extractors.Extractors;
import lombok.Builder;
import lombok.Getter;
import lombok.Setter;
import lombok.experimental.Accessors;
#Accessors(fluent=true, chain=true)
public class TypeAndValue
{
#Builder
TypeAndValue(Class<?> type, String rawValue){
this.type = type;
this.rawValue = rawValue;
label = "NONE";
}
#Getter
final Class<?> type;
#Getter
final String rawValue;
#Setter
#Getter
String label;
public Object value(){
return Extractors.extractorFor(this).value(rawValue);
}
static final String DEFAULT_LABEL = "NONE";
}
A simple parser, where the parse came from a context where I have a List<Map<String,String>> from a CSVReader.
import org.apache.commons.lang3.ObjectUtils;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.math.NumberUtils;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.function.BiFunction;
public class JavaTypeParser
{
public static final List<TypeAndValue> parse(List<Map<String, String>> rows, List<String> headers)
{
List<TypeAndValue> typesAndVals = new ArrayList<TypeAndValue>();
for (Map<String, String> row : rows) {
for (String header : headers) {
String val = row.get(header);
TypeAndValue typeAndValue =
// isNull, isBoolean, isNumber
isNull(val).orElse(isBoolean(val).orElse(isNumber(val).orElse(_typeAndValue.apply(String.class, val).get())));
typesAndVals.add(typeAndValue.label(header));
}
}
}
public static Optional<TypeAndValue> isNumber(String val)
{
if (!NumberUtils.isCreatable(val)) {
return Optional.empty();
} else {
return _typeAndValue.apply(NumberUtils.createNumber(val).getClass(), val);
}
}
public static Optional<TypeAndValue> isBoolean(String val)
{
boolean bool = (val.equalsIgnoreCase("true") || val.equalsIgnoreCase("false"));
if (bool) {
return _typeAndValue.apply(Boolean.class, val);
} else {
return Optional.empty();
}
}
public static Optional<TypeAndValue> isNull(String val){
if(Objects.isNull(val) || val.equals("null")){
return _typeAndValue.apply(ObjectUtils.Null.class,val);
}
else{
return Optional.empty();
}
}
static final BiFunction<Class<?>, String, Optional<TypeAndValue>> _typeAndValue = (type, value) -> Optional.of(
TypeAndValue.builder().type(type).rawValue(value).build());
}
Extractors. Just an example of how the 'extractors' for the values (contained in strings) might be registered somewhere for lookup. They could be referenced any number of other ways, too.
import gms.labs.cassandra.sandbox.TypeAndValue;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.ObjectUtils;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.math.NumberUtils;
import java.math.BigDecimal;
import java.math.BigInteger;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
public class Extractors
{
private static final List<Class> NUMS = Arrays.asList(
BigInteger.class,
BigDecimal.class,
Long.class,
Integer.class,
Double.class,
Float.class);
public static final Extractor<?> extractorFor(TypeAndValue typeAndValue)
{
if (NUMS.contains(typeAndValue.type())) {
return (Extractor<Number>) value -> NumberUtils.createNumber(value);
} else if(typeAndValue.type().equals(Boolean.class)) {
return (Extractor<Boolean>) value -> Boolean.valueOf(value);
} else if(typeAndValue.type().equals(ObjectUtils.Null.class)) {
return (Extractor<ObjectUtils.Null>) value -> null; // should we just return the raw value. some frameworks coerce to null.
} else if(typeAndValue.type().equals(String.class)) {
return (Extractor<String>) value -> typeAndValue.rawValue(); // just return the raw value. some frameworks coerce to null.
}
else{
throw new RuntimeException("unsupported");
}
}
}
I ran this from within the JavaTypeParser class, for reference.
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Optional<TypeAndValue> num = isNumber("-1230980980980980980980980980980988009808989080989809890808098292");
num.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass()); // BigInteger
});
num = isNumber("-123098098097987");
num.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass()); // Long
});
num = isNumber("-123098.098097987"); // Double
num.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass());
});
num = isNumber("-123009809890898.0980979098098908080987"); // BigDecimal
num.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass());
});
Optional<TypeAndValue> bool = isBoolean("FaLse");
bool.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass()); // Boolean
});
Optional<TypeAndValue> nulll = isNull("null");
nulll.ifPresent(typeAndVal -> {
System.out.println(typeAndVal.value());
//System.out.println(typeAndVal.value().getClass()); would throw null pointer exception
System.out.println(typeAndVal.type()); // ObjectUtils.Null (from apache commons lang3)
});
}

I don't know of any library to do this, and never seen anything working in this way on an open set of possible types.
For closed set of types (you know all the possible output types) the easier way would be to have the class FQN written in the string (from your description I didn't get if you are in control of the written string).
The complete FQN, or an alias to it.
Otherwise I think there is no escape to not write all the checks.
Furthermore it will be very delicate as I'm thinking of edge use case.
Suppose you use json as serialization format in the string, how would you differentiate between a String value like Hello World and a Date written in some ISO format (eg. 2020-09-22). To do it you would need to introduce some priority in the checks you do (first try to check if it is a date using some regex, if not go with the next and the simple string one be the last one)
What if you have two objects:
String name;
String surname;
}
class Employee {
String name;
String surname;
Integer salary
}
And you receive a serialization value of the second type, but with a null salary (null or the property missing completely).
How can you tell the difference between a set or a list?
I don't know if what you intended is so dynamic, or you already know all the possible deserializable types, maybe some more details in the question can help.
UPDATE
Just saw the code, now it seems more clear.
If you know all the possible output, that is the way.
The only changes I would do, would be to ease the increase of types you want to manage abstracting the extraction process.
To do this I think a small change should be done, like:
interface Extractor {
Boolean match(String value);
Object extract(String value);
}
Then you can define an extractor per type:
class NumberExtractor implements Extractor<T> {
public Boolean match(String val) {
return NumberUtils.isCreatable(val);
}
public Object extract(String value) {
return NumberUtils.createNumber(value);
}
}
class StringExtractor implements Extractor {
public Boolean match(String s) {
return true; //<-- catch all
}
public Object extract(String value) {
return value;
}
}
And then register and automatize the checks:
public class JavaTypeParser {
private static final List<Extractor> EXTRACTORS = List.of(
new NullExtractor(),
new BooleanExtractor(),
new NumberExtractor(),
new StringExtractor()
)
public static final List<TypeAndValue> parse(List<Map<String, String>> rows, List<String> headers) {
List<TypeAndValue> typesAndVals = new ArrayList<TypeAndValue>();
for (Map<String, String> row : rows) {
for (String header : headers) {
String val = row.get(header);
typesAndVals.add(extract(header, val));
}
}
}
public static final TypeAndValue extract(String header, String value) {
for (Extractor<?> e : EXTRACTOR) {
if (e.match(value) {
Object v = extractor.extract(value);
return TypeAndValue.builder()
.label(header)
.value(v) //<-- you can put the real value here, and remove the type field
.build()
}
}
throw new IllegalStateException("Can't find an extractor for: " + header + " | " + value);
}
To parse CSV I would suggest https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-csv as CSV parsing can incur in nasty issues.

What you actually trying to do is to write a parser. You translate a fragment into a parse tree. The parse tree captures the type as well as the value. For hierarchical types like arrays and objects, each tree node contains child nodes.
One of the most commonly used parsers (albeit a bit overkill for your use case) is Antlr. Antlr brings out-of-the-box support for Json.
I recommend to take the time to ingest all the involved concepts. Even though it might seem overkill initially, it quickly pays off when you do any kind of extension. Changing a grammar is relatively easy; the generated code is quite complex. Additionally, all parser generator verify your grammars to show logic errors.
Of course, if you are limiting yourself to just parsing CSV or JSON (and not both at the same time), you should rather take the parser of an existing library. For example, jackson has ObjectMapper.readTree to get the parse tree. You could also use ObjectMapper.readValue(<fragment>, Object.class) to simply get the canonical java classes.

Try this :
import com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonFactory;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.JsonNode;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper;
String j = // json string;
JsonFactory jsonFactory = new JsonFactory();
ObjectMapper jsonMapper = new ObjectMapper(jsonFactory);
JsonNode jsonRootNode = jsonMapper.readTree(j);
Iterator<Map.Entry<String,JsonNode>> jsonIterator = jsonRootNode.fields();
while (jsonIterator.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry<String,JsonNode> jsonField = jsonIterator.next();
String k = jsonField.getKey();
String v = jsonField.getValue().toString();
...
}

Calling setter from Top Level of Modelclass hierarchy

Imagine you have a model class hierarchy, like
public class TopLevel {
private MiddleLevel middleLevel = null;
public TopLevel() {
middleLevel = new MiddleLevel();
}
public MiddleLevel getMiddleLevel() { return middleLevel; }
}
public class MiddleLevel {
private LowLevel lowLevel = null;
public MiddleLevel () {
lowLevel = new LowLevel();
}
public LowLevel getLowLevel() { return lowLevel; }
}
public class LowLevel {
private Value value = null;
public LowLevel() {
value = new Value();
}
public Value getValue() { return value; }
}
public class Value {
private String stringValue = "ItsAValue";
private String doubleValue = 1.0d;
private String integerValue = 4321;
public void setStringValue(String value) {
stringValue = value;
}
}
And of course further classes with different attributes. E.g. this hierarchy was created and instantiated by Jaxb.
Now, i want to set a value in the Value-class. Of course i can execute something like:
TopLevel topLevel = new TopLevel();
topLevel.getMiddleLevel().getLowLevel().getValue().setStringValue("NewValue");
Is there a way to simplify or to generalize this, e.g. to be able to call the "path" through all these class-objects to set a value deep inside? Here is some pseudocode, what i mean:
public class Anotherclass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TopLevel topLevel = new TopLevel();
setStringValueByPath("topLevel/middleLevel/lowLevel/value/stringValue", "newValue");
setDoubleValueByPath("topLevel/middleLevel/lowLevel/value/doubleValue", 5.0d);
setIntegerValueByPath("topLevel/middleLevel/lowLevel/value/integerValue", 1234);
}
}
Thanks a lot
Alex

Ok, if anyone is interested, i think i found a solution, that i was looking for:
A recursive approach based on Java.reflection :
public class ReflectionSetter {
private static List<Field> getFields(Object object) {
List<Field> fields = new ArrayList<>();
fields.addAll(Arrays.asList(object.getClass().getDeclaredFields()));
return fields;
}
private static Field hasField(Object object, String fieldName) {
for (Field f : getFields(object)) {
if (f.getName().equalsIgnoreCase(fieldName)) return f;
}
return null;
}
public static void setValue(Object object, String path, String newValue) throws IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException {
if (path.contains("/")) {
int pos = path.indexOf('/');
String first = path.substring(0, pos);
String rest = path.substring(pos+1);
Field f = ReflectionSetter.hasField(object, first);
if (null == f) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Path not found: " + path);
f.setAccessible(true);
Object obj = f.get(object);
setValue(obj, rest, newValue);
} else {
Field f = ReflectionSetter.hasField(object, path);
if (f == null) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Field not found: " + path);
// if found -> set value
f.setAccessible(true);
f.set(object, newValue);
}
}
}
Now, you can set a value via a path. Usage:
TopLevel topLevel = new TopLevel();
ReflectionSetter.setValue(topLevel, "middleLevel/lowLevel/value/myValue", "NewValue");

An ideal efficient way to do this and by focussing more on reducing code complexity and at the same time improving code readability, you should look at design patterns, may be something like visitor pattern.
One of the most common use cases of visitor pattern is and as a result of separating algorithm and the data structure, comes with ability to add new operations to existing object structures without modifying said structures.
Moving on to a phase where "No, I want to look at string based approached as pointed in question". Apache commons library provides something called JxPath.
Unsure if you tried looking at JxPath ref.apache.jx.path
It offers simple interpreter of an expression language called XPath. JXPath applies XPath expressions to graphs of objects of all kinds
Picking an example from your question :
TopLevel topLevel = new TopLevel();
JXPathContext context = JXPathContext.newContext(topLevel);
context.setValue("middleLevel/lowLevel/value/stringValue", "newStringValue");

Determining Class from String representation of an Object

Consider I am given an array of Classes and string representation of an Object. How can I get which Class this Object belongs to?
I thought of this approach but I don't know how to achieve it:
Iterating over Class array and then getting all instances of that
class.Then convert each instance to its String representation and then
check if it equals given String.
The problem I'm having is how do I get all Instances of that Class?
We can use getInstance() if all are Singleton class but what if not?
Please clarify my if I have any misunderstanding.
import java.util.*;
public class Class_instance {
public static void main(String args[]){
List<Class> class_list = new ArrayList<Class>();
Test_class x = new Test_class();
Test y = new Test();
class_list.add(x.getClass());
class_list.add(y.getClass());
String ex = x.toString();
}
}
How to know what class ex represents here?

Short answer - no, this won't work.
The toString() method returns a textual representation of the object, but there is no guarantee this will include the class name. For example, for Strings, toString() returns the value of the string. In particular any textual representation could come from a string.
If you have a specific list of classes you want to look for (and they have identifiable values), you could write regexes which would identify their toString values.
Using the Class object directly is more likely to be what you're after here:
public static void main(String [] args){
Class[] possibleClasses= {String.class, Integer.class};
System.out.println(identifyClass("string", possibleClasses));
System.out.println(identifyClass(4, possibleClasses));
}
#SuppressWarnings("raw")
public static Class identifyClass(Object o, Class[] possibleClasses){
// Ignore null inputs
if (o==null){
return null;
}
// Find the first entry which matches o
for (Class c : possibleClasses){
if (c.isInstance(o)){
return c;
}
}
// If no matches are found, return null.
return null;
}
Although that said, maybe this would be enough?
System.out.println(ex.getClass().getName());

As mentioned we need to know what string representation means.
In most application (AFAIK) instanceof should suffice to check if object belong to a certain class or not . Another way is to define a overwrite the toString method
public class House {
public String address;
public String type;
public House(String add){
this.address = add;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return (address + "-" + type) ;
}
}
If given a String sample = "Hogwart-Castle"; You can use the following :
houseObj.toString().equals(sample);

If you own the classes you want to search, you can keep the track of their instances by creating a new class (I called it MyObject) with a static field that you fill when a new object of that class is created, and then extending the classes you want to keep track with this new class.
public class MyObject {
private static Map<Class<?>, List<WeakReference<?>>> instances = new HashMap<>();
public MyObject() {
if (!instances.containsKey(getClass())) {
instances.put(getClass(), new ArrayList<>());
}
instances.get(getClass()).add(new WeakReference<>(this));
}
public static List<Object> getInstances(List<Class<?>> classes) {
List<Object> result = new ArrayList<>();
for (Class<?> clazz : classes) {
if (instances.containsKey(clazz)) {
Iterator<WeakReference<?>> iterator = instances.get(clazz).iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext()) {
WeakReference<?> ref = iterator.next();
if (ref.get() == null) {
iterator.remove();
} else {
result.add(ref.get());
}
}
}
}
return result;
}
}
Then you can use it like this:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dog d1 = new Dog("I'm a dog");
Dog d2 = new Dog("I'm an animal");
Cat c1 = new Cat("I'm an animal");
List<Class<?>> classList = new ArrayList<>();
classList.add(Dog.class);
find("I'm an animal", classList); // Found a Dog
classList.add(Cat.class);
find("I'm an animal", classList); // Found a Dog and a Cat
find("I'm a dog", classList); // Found a Dog
}
private static void find(String str, List<Class<?>> classes) {
for (Object o : MyObject.getInstances(classes)) {
if (o.toString().equals(str)) {
System.out.println("Found a " + o.getClass().getSimpleName());
}
}
}
}
My Dog class (and similarly the Cat class) looks like this:
public class Dog extends MyObject {
String description;
public Dog(String description) {
this.description = description;
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return description;
}
}
Beware that toString() doesn't return a unique representation of an object (as shown in my example), unless you have full control over the toString() of that objects and you ensure it yourself.

Design for translation layer

I try to design one translation server.
There have one POJO class (RootClass)in my local systems. and there also have remote system to sent Remote object(RemoteClass) to my system.
The responsibility of this service is translate Remote class to Root class.
The issue is that: There so many types. e.g. more than 200 types. I need write huge if-else to do this translation:
I list some pseudocode code to describe this question.
public class RootClass {
public String type;
public String attr1;
public String attr2;
public String attr3;
public String attr4;
}
public class RemoteClass {
public String type;
public String attr1;
public String attr2;
public String attr3;
}
public class Translator{
public RootClass translate(RemoteClass remote) {
RootClass root = new RootClass();
if ("a".equals(remote.type )) {
root.type = "veryGood";
if ("one".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr2 = "true";
}
if ("two".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr3 = "true";
}
if ("1".equals(remote.attr1) && "2".equals(remote.attr2) ) {
root.attr4 ="good";
}
} else if ("b".equals(remote.type)) {
root.type = "good";
if ("one".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr2 = "1";
} else if ("two".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr2 ="2";
}
} else if ("c".equals(remote.type)) {
root.type = "good";
if (remote.attr2.indexOf(":") > 0 ) {
String[] strArray = remote.attr2.split(":");
root.attr2=strArray[0];
root.attr3=strArray[1];
}
}
}
}
The 2 object describe 1 thing with totally difference structure.
Root class is kernel of our system and impossible to strut and we also think this Root class is very suitable for local system. and for Remote class is come from 3-rd party systems which we have no permission to change. So this translation is become very hard.
What I plan to remove is create more than 200 adopter for translation:
e.g:
public class adopterA implements RootAdoper {
public RootClass translate(RemoteClass remote) {
RootClass root = new RootClass();
root.type="veryGood";
if ("one".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr2 = "true";
}
if ("two".equals(remote.attr1)) {
root.attr3 = "true";
}
if ("1".equals(remote.attr1) && "2".equals(remote.attr2) ) {
root.attr4 ="good";
}
}
}
And put all of those into HasMap
Map<String, RootAdoper> map = new HashMap<String, RootAdoper>();
But still have 200 small class to wrap if/else, Is any good pattern or design to solve this complex issue? Thanks in advance.

What is the key in your map? if the key is the Remote.type then you can just do
rootClass = map.get(remote.type).translate(remote);
Which does get rid of the if/else if blocks. Just be sure to handle unknown/ untranslated regions or have a NullObject that doesn't translate or performs a default translation.
The technical name for this from the book Refactoring to Patterns is called "Replace Conditional Dispatcher with Command"
You still have to populate the map though. Perhaps one way to do this is to make all the RootAdoper interface an enum and all implementations the types in the enum. You can also add a new method to the enum to get the Remote.Type that each value can translate.
enum RootAdoper{
A{
#Overide
public RootClass translate(RemoteClass remote){
//...
}
#Override
public String getTypeToTranslate(){
return "A";
}
},
... // other types listed here similarly
;
abstract RootClass translate(RemoteClass remote);
abstract String getTypeToTranslate();
}
Then you can populate the Map like this
Map<String, RootAdoper> map = new HashMap<String, RootAdoper>();
for(RootAdoper adoper : RootAdoper.values(){
map.put(adoper.getTypeToTranslate(), adoper);
}

What is the best way to compare several javabean properties?

I need to compare dozens of fields in two objects (instances of the same class), and do some logging and updating in case there are differences. Meta code could look something like this:
if (a.getfield1 != b.getfield1)
log(a.getfield1 is different than b.getfield1)
b.field1 = a.field1
if (a.getfield2!= b.getfield2)
log(a.getfield2 is different than b.getfield2)
b.field2 = a.field2
...
if (a.getfieldn!= b.getfieldn)
log(a.getfieldn is different than b.getfieldn)
b.fieldn = a.fieldn
The code with all the comparisons is very terse, and I would like to somehow make it more compact. It would be nice if I could have a method which would take as a parameter method calls to setter and getter, and call this for all fields, but unfortunately this is not possible with java.
I have come up with three options, each which their own drawbacks.
1. Use reflection API to find out getters and setters
Ugly and could cause run time errors in case names of fields change
2. Change fields to public and manipulate them directly without using getters and setters
Ugly as well and would expose implementation of the class to external world
3. Have the containing class (entity) do the comparison, update changed fields and return log message
Entity should not take part in business logic
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
EDIT: There are some fields in the class which must not be compared.

Use Annotations.
If you mark the fields that you need to compare (no matter if they are private, you still don't lose the encapsulation, and then get those fields and compare them. It could be as follows:
In the Class that need to be compared:
#ComparableField
private String field1;
#ComparableField
private String field2;
private String field_nocomparable;
And in the external class:
public <T> void compare(T t, T t2) throws IllegalArgumentException,
IllegalAccessException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
if (fields != null) {
for (Field field : fields) {
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ComparableField.class)) {
field.setAccessible(true);
if ( (field.get(t)).equals(field.get(t2)) )
System.out.println("equals");
field.setAccessible(false);
}
}
}
}
The code is not tested, but let me know if helps.

The JavaBeans API is intended to help with introspection. It has been around in one form or another since Java version 1.2 and has been pretty usable since version 1.4.
Demo code that compares a list of properties in two beans:
public static void compareBeans(PrintStream log,
Object bean1, Object bean2, String... propertyNames)
throws IntrospectionException,
IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
Set<String> names = new HashSet<String>(Arrays
.asList(propertyNames));
BeanInfo beanInfo = Introspector.getBeanInfo(bean1
.getClass());
for (PropertyDescriptor prop : beanInfo
.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
if (names.remove(prop.getName())) {
Method getter = prop.getReadMethod();
Object value1 = getter.invoke(bean1);
Object value2 = getter.invoke(bean2);
if (value1 == value2
|| (value1 != null && value1.equals(value2))) {
continue;
}
log.format("%s: %s is different than %s%n", prop
.getName(), "" + value1, "" + value2);
Method setter = prop.getWriteMethod();
setter.invoke(bean2, value2);
}
}
if (names.size() > 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("" + names);
}
}
Sample invocation:
compareBeans(System.out, bean1, bean2, "foo", "bar");
If you go the annotations route, consider dumping reflection and generating the comparison code with a compile-time annotation processor or some other code generator.

I would go for option 1, but I would use getClass().getDeclaredFields() to access the fields instead of using the names.
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass other) throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field field : getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() == String.class) {
Object thisValue = field.get(this);
Object otherValue = field.get(other);
// if necessary check for null
if (!thisValue.equals(otherValue)) {
log(field.getName() + ": " + thisValue + " <> " + otherValue);
field.set(other, thisValue);
}
}
}
}
There are some restrictions here (if I'm right):
The compare method has to be implemented in the same class (in my opinion it should - regardless of its implementation) not in an external one.
Just the fields from this class are used, not the one's from a superclass.
Handling of IllegalAccessException necessary (I just throw it in the example above).

This is probably not too nice either, but it's far less evil (IMHO) than either of the two alternatives you've proposed.
How about providing a single getter/setter pair that takes a numeric index field and then have getter/setter dereference the index field to the relevant member variable?
i.e.:
public class MyClass {
public void setMember(int index, String value) {
switch (index) {
...
}
}
public String getMember(int index) {
...
}
static public String getMemberName(int index) {
...
}
}
And then in your external class:
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass a, MyClass b) {
for (int i = 0; i < a.getMemberCount(); ++i) {
String sa = a.getMember();
String sb = b.getMember();
if (!sa.equals(sb)) {
Log.v("compare", a.getMemberName(i));
b.setMember(i, sa);
}
}
}
This at least allows you to keep all of the important logic in the class that's being examined.

While option 1 may be ugly, it will get the job done. Option 2 is even uglier, and opens your code to vulnerabilities you can't imagine. Even if you eventually rule out option 1, I pray you keep your existing code and not go for option 2.
Having said this, you can use reflection to get a list of the field names of the class, if you don't want to pass this as a static list to the method. Assuming you want to compare all fields, you can then dynamically create the comparisons, in a loop.
If this isn't the case, and the strings you compare are only some of the fields, you can examine the fields further and isolate only those that are of type String, and then proceed to compare.
Hope this helps,
Yuval =8-)

since
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
you could try this class:
public class BigEntity {
private final Map<String, String> data;
public LongEntity() {
data = new HashMap<String, String>();
}
public String getFIELD1() {
return data.get(FIELD1);
}
public String getFIELD2() {
return data.get(FIELD2);
}
/* blah blah */
public void cloneAndLogDiffs(BigEntity other) {
for (String field : fields) {
String a = this.get(field);
String b = other.get(field);
if (!a.equals(b)) {
System.out.println("diff " + field);
other.set(field, this.get(field));
}
}
}
private String get(String field) {
String value = data.get(field);
if (value == null) {
value = "";
}
return value;
}
private void set(String field, String value) {
data.put(field, value);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return data.toString();
}
magic code:
private static final String FIELD1 = "field1";
private static final String FIELD2 = "field2";
private static final String FIELD3 = "field3";
private static final String FIELD4 = "field4";
private static final String FIELDN = "fieldN";
private static final List<String> fields;
static {
fields = new LinkedList<String>();
for (Field field : LongEntity.class.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() != String.class) {
continue;
}
if (!Modifier.isStatic(field.getModifiers())) {
continue;
}
fields.add(field.getName().toLowerCase());
}
}
this class has several advantages:
reflects once, at class loading
it is very simply adding new fields, just add new static field (a better solution here
is using Annotations: in the case you care using reflection works also java 1.4)
you could refactor this class in an abstract class, all derived class just get both
data and cloneAndLogDiffs()
the external interface is typesafe (you could also easily impose immutability)
no setAccessible calls: this method is problematic sometimes

A broad thought:
Create a new class whose object takes the following parameters: the first class to compare, the second class to compare, and a lists of getter & setter method names for the objects, where only methods of interest are included.
You can query with reflection the object's class, and from that its available methods. Assuming each getter method in the parameter list is included in the available methods for the class, you should be able to call the method to get the value for comparison.
Roughly sketched out something like (apologies if it isn't super-perfect... not my primary language):
public class MyComparator
{
//NOTE: Class a is the one that will get the value if different
//NOTE: getters and setters arrays must correspond exactly in this example
public static void CompareMyStuff(Object a, Object b, String[] getters, String[] setters)
{
Class a_class = a.getClass();
Class b_class = b.getClass();
//the GetNamesFrom... static methods are defined elsewhere in this class
String[] a_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(a_class.getMethods());
String[] b_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(b_class.getMethods());
String[] a_field_names = GetNamesFromFields(a_class.getFields());
//for relative brevity...
Class[] empty_class_arr = new Class[] {};
Object[] empty_obj_arr = new Object[] {};
for (int i = 0; i < getters.length; i++)
{
String getter_name = getter[i];
String setter_name = setter[i];
//NOTE: the ArrayContainsString static method defined elsewhere...
//ensure all matches up well...
if (ArrayContainsString(a_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(b_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(a_field_names, setter_name)
{
//get the values from the getter methods
String val_a = a_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(a, empty_obj_arr);
String val_b = b_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(b, empty_obj_arr);
if (val_a != val_b)
{
//LOG HERE
//set the value
a_class.getField(setter_name).set(a, val_b);
}
}
else
{
//do something here - bad names for getters and/or setters
}
}
}
}

You say you presently have getters and setters for all these fields? Okay, then change the underlying data from a bunch of individual fields to an array. Change all the getters and setters to access the array. I'd create constant tags for the indexes rather than using numbers for long-term maintainability. Also create a parallel array of flags indicating which fields should be processed. Then create a generic getter/setter pair that use an index, as well as a getter for the compare flag. Something like this:
public class SomeClass
{
final static int NUM_VALUES=3;
final static int FOO=0, BAR=1, PLUGH=2;
String[] values=new String[NUM_VALUES];
static boolean[] wantCompared={true, false, true};
public String getFoo()
{
return values[FOO];
}
public void setFoo(String foo)
{
values[FOO]=foo;
}
... etc ...
public int getValueCount()
{
return NUM_VALUES;
}
public String getValue(int x)
{
return values[x];
}
public void setValue(int x, String value)
{
values[x]=value;
}
public boolean getWantCompared(int x)
{
return wantCompared[x];
}
}
public class CompareClass
{
public void compare(SomeClass sc1, SomeClass sc2)
{
int z=sc1.getValueCount();
for (int x=0;x<z;++x)
{
if (!sc1.getWantCompared[x])
continue;
String sc1Value=sc1.getValue(x);
String sc2Value=sc2.getValue(x);
if (!sc1Value.equals(sc2Value)
{
writeLog(x, sc1Value, sc2Value);
sc2.setValue(x, sc1Value);
}
}
}
}
I just wrote this off the top of my head, I haven't tested it, so their may be bugs in the code, but I think the concept should work.
As you already have getters and setters, any other code using this class should continue to work unchanged. If there is no other code using this class, then throw away the existing getters and setters and just do everything with the array.

I would also propose a similar solution to the one by Alnitak.
If the fields need to be iterated when comparing, why not dispense with the separate fields, and put the data into an array, a HashMap or something similar that is appropriate.
Then you can access them programmatically, compare them etc. If different fields need to be treated & compared in different ways, you could create approriate helper classes for the values, which implement an interface.
Then you could just do
valueMap.get("myobject").compareAndChange(valueMap.get("myotherobject")
or something along those lines...