When making a game for example I have a lot of constants I would like to store. I would also like a lot of classes to be able to access these constants. What would be the best way to store and access all these values. Currently, I just store final values in a separate class and then create an instance of the class storing the constants. And to access the values I would do "objectName.nameOfConstant". So my question is, is their a formal way to store all these constants or a better way.
One possible solution is to have a class with static properties, so you don't need to create the instance. e.g.:
public class Status {
public static final String ACTIVE = "ACTIVE";
public static final String INACTIVE = "INACTIVE";}
It can be called directly: Status.ACTIVE or Status.INACTIVE
Second possible solution is using Enum.
public enum Status {
ACTIVE, INACTIVE;
}
Using static String is easy, but there is no type check. For example when you want to put the constant as method input parameter:
public void process(String input, String status)
When using enum
public void process(String input, Status status)
Enum will make sure your input is from the enum list. While static String can't check it, so the user of the method can put any value in the "status", and you need to make sure the method will not break if the value is something unexpected.
You may consider using an Interface to store constance values in it.
At first it may seems strange, but the interface provide many useful default settings to store const variables, such as
final value by default
static and public access by default
does not need class instance
see below code example
public interface OlympicMedal
{
String GOLD = "Gold";
String SILVER = "Silver";
String BRONZE = "Bronze";
}
//some other file
import static xx.OlympicMedal;
public class OlympicAthlete
{
...
public static boolean isWinner(String medal) {
return OlympicMedal.GOLD.equals(medal);
}
}
** Important note : you should NOT use Const interface in an inheritance way (see code below), which is known as the interface pattern and is consider a poor practice
public class OlympicAthlete implements OlympicMedal // NOT recommended
{
...
}
Related
I fell over a class which looks like this:
public final class DatabaseType{
public static final DatabaseType TYPE_LIMITED_TEXT = new DatabaseType();
public static final DatabaseType TYPE_UNLIMITED_TEXT = new DatabaseType();
public static final DatabaseType TYPE_DATE = new DatabaseType();
public static final DatabaseType TYPE_DECIMAL = new DatabaseType();
private DatabaseType(){
}
public String toString(){
return "DatabaseType";
}
}
I need to set the type but I want to understand what's happening here and I have no clue how this class works.
Whatever variable I use it will always return an empty DatabaseType, with no information. So I wonder how you can get use of such a class. Maybe there is a name for this type of class?
Basically, the class lists four enumerable constants, which you can use like this in method signatures
public DatabaseType getTypeOfDB();
In client code, you'll have a type-safe way to compare the constants:
if (getTypeOfDB() == DatabaseType.TYPE_LIMITED_TEXT) {
doSomething();
}
Even though the implementation seems a bit clumsy, it quite closely emulates a Java 5 enum, as Gimby pointed out in the comments. The good ideas in the design are the following:
The constructor is private, meaning only the public static final DatabaseType instances declared within the class can exist
The class is final so you cannot work around the above restriction by adding more constants in a subclass
The constant fields in the class have strong typing, i.e. they are not ints, but instead DatabaseTypes, which helps to eliminate bugs caused by typos or "magic numbers" in client code
The modern way to do the same would be using an enum instead:
public enum DatabaseType {
TYPE_LIMITED_TEXT, TYPE_UNLIMITED_TEXT, TYPE_DATE, TYPE_DECIMAL;
}
If you use call the function toString() you will always get the String : DatabaseType.
As i can understand you want to return the name of the variable you created that are DatabaseType.
Create a variable private String name; and modify the constructor like this:
private DatabaseType(String name){
this.name = name;
}
Also create a function
public String getName(){
return this.name;
}
Finally, when you create a databaseType object create it like this:
public static final DatabaseType TYPE_LIMITED_TEXT = new DatabaseType("TYPE_LIMITED_TEXT");
Since I have a terrible memory, I like to put all the detnd I ails of data objects into enumerations, so I can use code completion in the IDE adon't have to keep referring back to get the name of a table or the name of a field. Usually I use some type of class containing only Enums for the purpose.
Lets say I have table of "Domains" (database source) "Tables" and "Fields" that look something like this:
public class DataObjectNames {
public enum Domains {
Domain1,
Domain2;
}
public enum Domain1Tables {
Customers,
Orders;
}
public enum Domain2Tables {
OrderItems,
Shipments;
}
public enum CustomerFields {
id,
email;
}
public enum OrderFields {
id,
customerId;
}
//fields for OrderItems and Shipments . . .
}
But suppose I wanted to be able to do something like:
Domain1.tables().Customers.fields(). //code completion supplies choices?
What I would like ot happen after I type the period is for autocomplete to provide a choice between .id and .email, much the same as it would if "fields" returned an object with two methods, or if I just typed
CustomerFields.
in the IDE.
In order for that to happen, it seems to me I somehow need to return not a specific instance of an enumeration, but the enumeration itself. I've tried various approaches like this:
public enum Domains {
Domain1 {
#Override
public Enum<?> tables() {
return Domain1Tables.foo();
} //Is there a method that will return the enum itself?
},
Domain2 {
#Override
public Enum<?> tables() {
return Domain2Tables.foo();
};
public abstract Enum<?> tables();
}
But of course I haven't been able to find a funciton foo() that returns the enum class itself.
Any thoughts?
You can't do this with enums because Java's class model doesn't work the way you would need in order for this style to work.
I haven't been able to find a function foo() that returns the enum class itself.
Returning the enum class itself is easy, you just do Domain1Tables.class, but that won't give you the completion you want because what it gives you is a Class<Domain1Tables> object, and that object doesn't have fields named Customers and Orders.
You want to be able to treat the "Domain1Tables" class as if it's an object and refer to the enum constants (which are effectively static final fields) as if they were members of that object, but Java simply doesn't do that.
If you give up on using enums for it, then you can simply have:
public class DataObjectNames {
public class Domains {
class Domain1 {
class Tables {
class Customers {
public static final String id = "id";
public static final String email = "email";
}
}
}
}
}
but in that case DataObjectNames.Domains.Domain1 wouldn't be a valid expression anymore (because it reference to a class scope, but not to an object.
There's probably a solution to what you're trying to do, but without more context I can provide anything more details than what's above.
I am creating a store for user preferences, and there are a fixed number of preferences that users can set values for. The names of the preferences (settings) are stored as an Enum:
public enum UserSettingName {
FOO,
BAR,
ETC
}
What I would like to be able to do is store a value type with the name so that the service will store the user's value with the correct Java type. For example, FOO might be a Long, and BAR might be a String. Up until now, we were storing all values as Strings, and then manually casting the values into the appropriate Java type. This has lead to try/catch blocks everywhere, when it makes more sense to have only one try/catch in the service. I understand that Enums cannot have generic types, so I have been playing around with:
public enum UserSettingName {
FOO(Long.class),
BAR(String.class),
ETC(Baz.class)
private Class type;
private UserSettingName(Class type) {
this.type = type;
}
public Class getType() {
return this.type;
}
}
I have a generic UserSetting object that has public T getSettingValue() and public void setSettingValue(T value) methods that should return and set the value with the correct type. My problem comes from trying to specify that generic type T when I create or retrieve a setting because I can't do something like:
new UserSetting<UserSettingName.FOO.getType()>(UserSettingName.FOO, 123L)
Sorry if this isn't exactly clear, I can try to clarify if it's not understood.
Thanks!
UPDATE
Both the setting name and value are coming in from a Spring MVC REST call:
public ResponseEntity<String> save(#PathVariable Long userId, #PathVariable UserSettingName settingName, #RequestBody String settingValue)
So I used the Enum because Spring casts the incoming data automatically.
Firstly you have to step back and think about what you're trying to achieve, and use a standard pattern or language construct to achieve it.
It's not entirely clear what you're going after here but from your approach it almost certainly looks like you're reinventing something which could be done in a much more straightforward manner in Java. For example, if you really need to know and work with the runtime classes of objects, consider using the reflection API.
On a more practical level - what you're trying to do here isn't possible with generics. Generics are a compile-time language feature - they are useful for avoiding casting everything explicitly from Object and give you type-checking at compilation time. You simply cannot use generics in this way, i.e. setting T as some value UserSettingName.Foo.getType() which is only known at runtime.
Look how it done by netty:
http://netty.io/wiki/new-and-noteworthy.html#type-safe-channeloption
They done it by using typed constants:
http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/io.netty/netty-all/4.0.0.Beta1/io/netty/channel/ChannelOption.java#ChannelOption
EDIT:
public interface ChannelConfig {
...
<T> boolean setOption(ChannelOption<T> option, T value);
...
}
public class ChannelOption<T> ...
public static final ChannelOption<Integer> SO_TIMEOUT =
new ChannelOption<Integer>("SO_TIMEOUT");
...
}
EDIT2: you can transform it like:
class Baz {}
class UserSettingName<T> {
public static final UserSettingName<Baz> ETC = new UserSettingName<Baz>();
}
class UserSetting {
public <T> UserSetting(UserSettingName<T> name, T param) {
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new UserSetting(UserSettingName.ETC, new Baz());
}
}
Enums are not the answer here. If you find yourself repeating code everywhere you could just create a utility class and encapsulate all the try/catch logic there. That would cut down on your code redundancy without majorly impacting your current code.
public class Util
{
public static MyObject getObjectFromString(String s)
{
try
{
return (MyObject)s;
}
catch(Exception e)
{
return null;
}
}
}
Then use as follows:
MyObject myObj = Util.getObjectFromString(string);
It is more complex than it sounds, but I think I am obliged to try something like it. I want to make an abstract parent class with a prototyping of an enum (I want to declare the enum with only one value probably that will be the default unitialized one and also declaring a couple of methods that I will be using from the subclass), then I want to class that will extend the abstract parent to actually intialize the very same enum (I know that this practically hides the parent enum) so that the kid class will define a set of items inside the enum, but keep the methods probably.
I do not know much about this level of abstraction so I will now describe the nature of my problem, in case there is a more practical solution:
I have a bunch of files that contain classes that implement a lot of commands based on enums. (e.g. class1 implements Observer has an update method that uses an enum-based switch to decide what command was picked, same applies for the other classes) I now want to abstract this whole thing in a way that I have an enum variable with the exact same name in all classes (e.g. CommandSet) so that I can have a generic method inside the parent that will be able to print a help list to my system using the inside methods of the enum. Now I know I can rewrite the exact same method in every class, but I want to abstract it so that others can keep on extending the library I am making!
Hopefully I am not too confusing or too confused and somone can help me! :)
Edit: Here is an idea of the code (Probably not right):
public abstract class Commands{
enum CommandSet{
// empty command, placeholder
null_command ("command name", "command description");
// the Strings used for name and description
private final String name;
private final String description;
// constructor
CommandSet(String name, String description){
this.name=name;
this.description=description;
}
// get parameters
public String getName(){
return name;
}
public String getDescription(){
return description;
}
}
public void showHelp(){
for (CommandSet i : CommandSet.values()) {
printf(i.getName(),":",i.getDescription());
}
}
}
public class StandardCommads extends Commands implements Observer{
// I want to change the enum here, just changing the values so that null_command ("command name", "command description") will get removed and I will add a dozen other values, but keep the methods that the parent had
// update inherited from Observer
#Override
public void update(Observable observable, Object object) {
// I want the commands inside the switch cases defined inside this class's enum
switch(CommandSet.valueOf(String.valueOf(object)){
case command1: doStuff1();break;
case command2: doStuff2();break;
...
case commandN: doStuffN();break;
}
// other methods
void doStuff1(){
...
}
...
void doStuffN(){
...
}
}
public class NonStandardCommads extends Commands implements Observer{
// Another set of commands here for the enum keeping the same methods it had in the parent
// update inherited from Observer
#Override
public void update(Observable observable, Object object) {
// Other set of commands inside this class used in the switch statement
switch(CommandSet.valueOf(String.valueOf(object)){
case Zcommand1: doStuffz1();break;
case Zcommand2: doStuffz2();break;
...
case ZcommandN: doStuffzN();break;
}
// other methods
void doStuffz1(){
...
}
...
void doStuffzN(){
...
}
}
Impossible: Java enums can neither extend another class nor be extended themselves.
They can however implement interfaces. Perhaps you can use that to your advantage.
There is something else about enums that may help you: enums are not immutable. You could change field values of the enums, however that would change them for the whole JVM.
Another approach maybe to pass your subclass instances into a method of the enum and have the enum use your subclass as a call back to get different functionality out of an enum for a different user of the enum.
Nope, you can't do that.
Java Enums run out of gas very quickly & definitely, when you want to add/extend more definitions or instantiate the enum instances, at a later time. (eg load them from database, configure them in an instance method, not just statically.)
Behaviour/ or logic in Java enums is kinda limited too -- you can define & set properties, but only what's statically initializable, and logic seems basic (you end up mainly just comparing references or ordinals, with the other defined enum constants).
What you can do:
You can implement an ancestor Command or AbstractCommand class, with a integer Code, and then subclass it to define concrete values/ additional codes/ load or configure instances, etc.
For further benefit, you get efficient switch & despatch (by Code) plus the ability to define further details/properties, instantiate commands as-needed, etc.
Essentially, this is how you used to define an Enum before Java supported them. Though you may be using them as value objects, rather than strictly static.
My expertise:
I've done extensive compiler & type-system work, tried enums for file-types and associated data/behaviour.. explored the outer limits, and reached the definite boundaries.
I also like being able to instantiate & return a new UnknownFileType("") as an answer, too. Enums can't do that.
Example:
(We'll despatch by String, not int -- since your code appears to be using Java 7. This makes command resolution easier, than requiring both a syntactical "name" and an internal integer "code".)
public static class Command {
protected String code;
protected String desc;
public String getCode() {return code;}
public String getDesc() {return desc;}
public Command (String code, String desc) {
this.code = code;
this.desc = desc;
}
public String toString() {return code;}
}
public class StandardCommands {
public static Command READ = new Command("READ", "read a record");
public static Command CREATE = new Command("WRITE", "create a record");
public static Command EDIT = new Command("WRITE", "modify a record");
}
public class FurtherCommands extends StandardCommands {
public static Command LIST = new Command("LIST", "list all records");
}
public class QueryCommands extends FurtherCommands {
public static class QueryCmd extends Command {
protected String search;
public String getSearch() {return search;}
// constructor..
}
public static QueryCmd QUERY_EXAMPLE = new QueryCmd("QUERY", "example", "query for specified string");
public static QueryCmd createQuery (String search) {
return new QueryCmd( "QUERY", search, "query for specified string");
}
}
First of all I should probably say that the term 'constant object' is probably not quite right and might already mean something completely different from what I am thinking of, but it is the best term I can think of to describe what I am talking about.
So basically I am designing an application and I have come across something that seems like there is probably an existing design pattern for but I don't know what it is or what to search for, so I am going to describe what it is I am trying to do and I am looking for suggestions as to the best way to implement it.
Lets say you have a class:
public class MyClass {
private String name;
private String description;
private int value;
public MyClass(String name, String description, int value) {
this.name = name;
this.description = description;
this.value = value;
}
// And I guess some getters and setters here.
}
Now lets say that you know in advance that there will only ever be say 3 instances of this class, and the data is also known in advance (or at least will be read from a file at runtime, and the exact filename is known in advance). Basically what I am getting at is that the data is not going to be changed during runtime (once it has been set).
At first I thought that I should declare some static constants somewhere, e.g.
public static final String INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE = "path/to/instance1/file";
public static final String INSTANCE_2_DATA_FILE = "path/to/instance2/file";
public static final String INSTANCE_3_DATA_FILE = "path/to/instance3/file";
public static final MyClass INSTANCE_1 = new MyClass(getNameFromFile(INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE), getDescriptionFromFile(INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE), getValueFromFile(INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE));
public static final MyClass INSTANCE_2 = new MyClass(getNameFromFile(INSTANCE_2_DATA_FILE), getDescriptionFromFile(INSTANCE_2_DATA_FILE), getValueFromFile(INSTANCE_2_DATA_FILE));
public static final MyClass INSTANCE_3 = new MyClass(getNameFromFile(INSTANCE_3_DATA_FILE), getDescriptionFromFile(INSTANCE_3_DATA_FILE), getValueFromFile(INSTANCE_3_DATA_FILE));
Obvisouly now, whenever I want to use one of the 3 instances I can just refer directly to the constants.
But I started thinking that there might be a cleaner way to handle this and the next thing I thought about was doing something like:
public MyClassInstance1 extends MyClass {
private static final String FILE_NAME = "path/to/instance1/file";
public String getName() {
if (name == null) {
name = getNameFromFile(FILE_NAME);
}
return name;
}
// etc.
}
Now whenever I want to use the instances of MyClass I can just use the one I want e.g.
private MyClass myInstance = new MyClassInstance2();
Or probably even better would be to make them singletons and just do:
private MyClass myInstance = MyClassInstance3.getInstance();
But I can't help but think that this is also not the right way to handle this situation. Am I overthinking the problem? Should I just have a switch statement somewhere e.g.
public class MyClass {
public enum Instance { ONE, TWO, THREE }
public static String getName(Instance instance) {
switch(instance) {
case ONE:
return getNameFromFile(INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE);
break;
case TWO:
etc.
}
}
}
Can anyone tell me the best way to implement this? Note that I have written the sample code in Java because that is my strongest language, but I will probably be implementing the application in C++, so at the moment I am more looking for language independent design patterns (or just for someone to tell me to go with one of the simple solutions I have already mentioned).
If you want the values to be constant, then you will not need setters, otherwise code can simply change the values in your constants, making them not very constant. In C++, you can just declare the instances const, although I'd still get rid of the setters, since someone could always cast away the const.
The pattern looks ok, although the fact that you are creating a new instance each time one is requested, is not usual for constants.
In java, you can create enums that are "smart" e.g.
public enum MyClass {
ONE(INSTANCE_1_DATA_FILE),
TWO(INSTANCE_2_DATA_FILE),
//etc...
private MyClass(String dataFile)
{
this(getNameFromDataFile(dataFile), other values...)
}
private MyClass(String name, String data, etc...)
{
this.name = name;
// etc..
}
public String getName()
{
return name;
}
}
In C++, you would create your MyClass, with a private constructor that takes the filename and whatever else it needs to initialize, and create static const members in MyClass for each instance, with the values assigned a new instance of MyClass created using the private constructor.
EDIT: But now I see the scenario I don't think this is a good idea having static values. If the types of ActivityLevel are fundamental to your application, then you can enumerate the different type of activity level as constants, e.g. a java or string enum, but they are just placeholders. The actual ActivityDescription instances should come from a data access layer or provider of some kind.
e.g.
enum ActivityLevel { LOW, MED, HIGH }
class ActivityDescription
{
String name;
String otherDetails;
String description; // etc..
// perhaps also
// ActivityLevel activityLevel;
// constructor and getters
// this is an immutable value object
}
interface ActivityDescriptionProvider
{
ActivityDescription getDescription(ActivityLevel activityLevel);
}
You can implement the provider using statics if you want, or an enum of ActivityDescription instnaces, or better still a Map of ActivityLevel to ActivityDescription that you load from a file, fetch from spring config etc. The main point is that using an interface to fetch the actual description for a given ActivityLevel decouples your application code from the mechanics of how those descriptions are produced in the system. It also makes it possible to mock the implementation of the interface when testing the UI. You can stress the UI with a mock implementation in ways that is not possible with a fixed static data set.
Now lets say that you know in advance that there will only ever be say 3 instances of this class, and the data is also known in advance (or at least will be read from a file at runtime, and the exact filename is known in advance). Basically what I am getting at is that the data is not going to be changed during runtime (once it has been set).
I'd use an enum. And then rather in this flavor:
public enum MyEnum {
ONE("path/to/instance1/file"),
TWO("path/to/instance2/file"),
THREE("path/to/instance3/file");
private String name;
private MyEnum(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
}
Which can be used as follows:
MyEnum one = MyEnum.ONE;
String name = one.getName();
(I'm too slow once again, you already accepted an answer, but here it is anyway...)
You want to (a) prevent changes to the data held in objects of MyClass, and (b) allow only a fixed set of MyClass objects to exist, implying that runtime code should not be able to create new instances of MyClass.
Your initial example has a public constructor, which violates (b)
I'd use a Factory approach so the Factory is the only thing that can create instances, and the class doesn't provide any setters so it's immutable.
Depending on how much flexibility you want for the future, you could put the factory and the class in the same package and limit scope that way, or you could make MyClass an inner class within the factory. You may also consider making MyClass an interface separate from its implementation.
A properties file could be used to configure the factory itself.
The properties file (e.g. "foo.properties") could look something like
one=/path/to/datafile1
two=/another/path/to/datafile2
three=/path/to/datafile3
I use "Foo" instead of "MyClass" in the (Java) examples below.
public class FooFactory
{
/** A place to hold the only existing instances of the class */
private final Map<String, Foo> instances = new HashMap<String, Foo>();
/** Creates a factory to manufacture Foo objects */
// I'm using 'configFile' as the name of a properties file,
// but this could use a Properties object, or a File object.
public FooFactory(String configfile)
{
Properties p = new Properties();
InputStream in = this.getClass().getResourceAsStream();
p.load(in); // ignoring the fact that IOExceptions can be thrown
// Create all the objects as specified in the factory properties
for (String key : p.keys())
{
String datafile = p.getProperty(key);
Foo obj = new Foo(datafile);
instances.put(key, obj);
}
}
public Foo getFoo(String which)
{
return instances.get(which);
}
/** The objects handed out by the factory - your "MyClass" */
public class Foo
{
private String name;
private String description;
private int value;
private Foo(String datafile)
{
// read the datafile to set name, description, and value
}
}
}
You're set to allow only your predefined instances, which can't be changed at runtime, but you can set it all up differently for another run at a later time.
Your first method seems to me like the best and the least prone to code rot. I'm not impressed by the idea of subclassing an object just to change the file name that contains the data that will be used to build it.
Of course, you could maybe improve on your original idea by wrapping these all in an outer class that provides some sort of enumeration access. A collection of MyClass's in other words. But I think you should discard this subclassing idea.
First, you really should be limiting where you use these instances in the code. Use them in as few places as possible. Given these are file names, I expect you want three class instances which accesses the files. How many classes are required depends on what your want to do with them? Look at the Singleton pattern for these classes.
Now you don't need the constants, but could have a helper class which will read the file containing the file names and supply them to the reader class. The code to find then name could also be a method called by the static initializer of the Singleton.
The common approach is to use a map:
private static final Map<String, YouClass> mapIt =
new HashMap<String, YouClass>(){{
put("one", new YourClass("/name", "desc", 1 )),
put("two", new YourClass("/name/two", "desc2", 2 )),
put("three", new YourClass("/name/three", "desc", 3 ))
}}
public static YourClass getInstance( String named ) {
return mapIt.get( named );
}
Next time you need it:
YouClass toUse = YourClass.getInstance("one");
Probably using strings as keys is not the best option but you get the idea.