We Keep Coding

Java: Use reflection or store instance objects in list?

how are you? I'm trying to do some dynamic method calls to get sql strings on various objects in Java (Android), but i'm stuck with some questions about performance and stability.
Context Example: Repository class onCreate method get all entity objects (tables) and call a method (getCreateTable for example) to get a sql string to execute.
Sure i can explicit call class by class caling each method, but i have other calls like "dropTables", "truncateTables" and etc, and i do not want to be repeating the same structure all the time.
public void CreateTables() {
execute(Entity1.getCreateTable());
execute(Entity2.getCreateTable());
execute(Entity3.getCreateTable());
[..]
execute(Entity50.getCreateTable());
}
public void DropTables() {
execute(Entity1.getDropTable());
execute(Entity2.getDropTable());
execute(Entity3.getDropTable());
[..]
execute(Entity50.getDropTable());
}
Until now i know i can do that in 3 diferent ways.
1) Using reflection (currently in use): Basicaly, i store all the objects class in a list, and then use the reflection to call the desired static method.But i know that reflection not always should be the first choice.
private final List<Class> entityList = new ArrayList<Class>() {
{
add(Entity1.class);
add(Entity2.class);
add(Entity3.class);
}
};
public void createTables() {
/* get all query strings */
List<String> queryList = getQueryList("createTable");
try {
for (String query : queryList) {
execute(query);
}
} catch (SQLException e) {
[...]
}
}
private List<String> getQueryList(String methodName) {
List<String> queryList = new ArrayList<>();
for (Class<?> objectClass : entityList) {
try {
Method[] ms = objectClass.getMethods();
for (Method me : ms) {
if (me.getName().equals(methodName)) {
String query = (String) me.invoke(null);
if (query != null && query.length() > 0) {
queryList.add((String) me.invoke(null));
}
break;
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
[...]
}
}
return queryList;
}
2) Storing object instance in list: I can have a list with the objects instanced and then cast then into abstract parent class (or interface) and call the methods to get the sql string. In this case, i don't know if is a good practice to keep an list of instanced objects in memory, maybe this could be worst than use reflection depending on list size.
private final List<BaseEntity> entityList = new ArrayList<BaseEntity>() {
{
add(new Entity1(context));
add(new Entity2(context));
add(new Entity3(context));
}
};
public void createTables() {
for (BaseEntity entity : entityList) {
try {
execute(entity.getCreateTable());
} catch (Exception e) {
[...]
}
}
}
3) Storing all the strings into JSON object: I don't tested that one yet, but i'm sure with should work. I can call an "init" method to iterate over all objects and create that JSON object/array with all the sql strings (drop, create, truncate and etc).
I really appreciate if you share with me what you think about these approaches (pros and cons) or another better solution.

As pointed out in the comments, it was a clarly a bad design (it's an old project that i'm refactoring). So i decided to get away from reflection and spend some time to redesign the code itself.
I created an base super class to handle all similiar methods and let the entities/models implement only the required individual rules, so DB access is stored in only one class as a Singleton. It's far better to use interface polymorphism.
In this way, the db class handle the dinamic SQL generation to avoid repeating the same code everywhere and re-use/recycle the list of instances to improve performance.
Obs. 1: Reflection throw down performance and usually let debbuging harder. Sure it can save some time as it is fast to implement, but will disable most of the IDE features, which makes it worthless in most cases.
Obs. 2: Keeping a list of DB instances active should never be done either. It's never a good idea to have many instances access database simultaneously, it can cause DB to lock and reproduce unexpectad issues.
Obs. 3: That JSON thing... forget about it. I'm sorry to suggest something so ugly.

alternative to instanceof operator when specifying mocks for multiple web services

I am writing endpoint unit tests and for most of those there is an external web service that should be mocked, or a couple of them.
At first, i was creating mocks within tests which was okay when an endpoint test used only one external service, the mock creation was basically one liner.
As use cases became more complex, i needed to mock couple of services and exceptions for a single endpoint test.
I have put these mocks creation behind factories that all extend single factory and used builder pattern.
Within that base factory there is an inner class which i used as a builder for MockWebServiceServer.
protected class MultiStepMockBuilder {
private List<Object> mockActions = new ArrayList<Object>();
private WebServiceGatewaySupport gatewaySupport;
protected MultiStepMockBuilder(WebServiceGatewaySupport gatewaySupport) {
this.gatewaySupport = gatewaySupport;
}
protected MultiStepMockBuilder exception(RuntimeException exception) {
mockActions.add(exception);
return this;
}
protected MultiStepMockBuilder resource(Resource resource) {
mockActions.add(resource);
return this;
}
protected MockWebServiceServer build() {
MockWebServiceServer server = MockWebServiceServer.createServer(gatewaySupport);
for(Object mock: mockActions) {
if (mock instanceof RuntimeException) {
server.expect(anything()).andRespond(withException((RuntimeException)mock));
}
else if (mock instanceof Resource)
{
try
{
server.expect(anything()).andRespond(withSoapEnvelope((Resource) mock));
} catch (IOException e) {e.printStackTrace();}
}
else
throw new RuntimeException("unusuported mock action");
}
return server;
}
}
}
So i can now do something like this to create mock:
return new MultiStepMockBuilder(gatewaySupport).resource(success).exception(new WebServiceIOException("reserve timeout"))
.resource(invalidMsisdn)
.build();
The issue i have with this implementation is dependence on instanceof operator which i never use outside of equals.
Is there an alternative way to instanceof operator in this scenario ? From the questions on topic of instanceof everybody argues it should only be used within equals and therefore i have feeling that this is 'dirty' solution.
Is there an alternative to instanceof operator, within Spring or as a different design, while keeping fluent interface for mocks creation ?

I don't know Spring well enough to comment specifically on this particular area, but to me, this just seems like a design thing. Generally, when you are faced with using instanceof, it means that you need to know the type, but you don't have the type. It is generally the case that we might need to refactor in order to achieve a more cohesive design that avoids this kind of problem.
The root of where the type information is being lost, is in the List of mock actions, which are currently just being stored as a List of Objects. One way to help with this then, is to look at the type of the List and consider if there is a better type that could be stored in the List that might help us later. So we might end up with a refactoring something like this.
private List<MockAction> mockActions = new ArrayList<MockAction>();
Of course, then we have to decide what a MockAction actually is, as we've just made it up. Maybe something like this:
interface MockAction {
void performAction(MockWebServiceServer server);
}
So, we've just created this MockAction interface, and we've decided that instead of the caller performing the action - we're going to pass the server into it and ask the MockAction to perform itself. If we do this, then there will be no need for instanceof - because particular types of MockActions will know what they contain.
So, what types of MockActions do we need?
class ExceptionAction implements MockAction {
private final Exception exception;
private ExceptionAction(final Exception exception) {
this.exception = exception;
}
public void performAction(final MockWebServiceServer server) {
server.expect(anything()).andRespond(withException(exception);
}
}
class ResourceAction implements MockAction {
private final Resource resource;
private ResourceAction(final Resource resource) {
this.resource = resource;
}
public void performAction(final MockWebServiceServer server) {
/* I've left out the exception handling */
server.expect(anything()).andRespond(withSoapEnvelope(resource));
}
}
Ok, so now we've gotten to this point, there are a couple of loose ends.
We're still adding exceptions to the list of MockActions - but we need to change the add methods to make sure we put the right thing in the list. The new versions of these methods might look something like this:
protected MultiStepMockBuilder exception(RuntimeException exception) {
mockActions.add(new ExceptionAction(exception));
return this;
}
protected MultiStepMockBuilder resource(Resource resource) {
mockActions.add(new ResourceAction(resource));
return this;
}
So, now we've left our interface the same, but we're wrapping the resource or exception as they're added to the list so that we have the type specificity we need later on.
And then finally, we need to refactor our method that actually makes the calls, which now looks something like this - which is much simpler and cleaner.
protected MockWebServiceServer build() {
MockWebServiceServer server = MockWebServiceServer.createServer(gatewaySupport);
for(MockAction action: mockActions) {
action.performAction(server);
}
return server;
}

Best design pattern/approach for a long list of if/else/execute branches of code

I have a "legacy" code that I want to refactor.
The code basically does a remote call to a server and gets back a reply. Then according to the reply executes accordingly.
Example of skeleton of the code:
public Object processResponse(String responseType, Object response) {
if(responseType.equals(CLIENT_REGISTERED)) {
//code
//code ...
}
else if (responseType.equals(CLIENT_ABORTED)) {
//code
//code....
}
else if (responseType.equals(DATA_SPLIT)) {
//code
//code...
}
etc
The problem is that there are many-many if/else branches and the code inside each if is not trivial.
So it becomes hard to maintain.
I was wondering what is that best pattern for this?
One thought I had was to create a single object with method names the same as the responseType and then inside processResponse just using reflection call the method with the same name as the responseType.
This would clean up processResponse but it moves the code to a single object with many/many methods and I think reflection would cause performance issues.
Is there a nice design approach/pattern to clean this up?

Two approaches:
Strategy pattern http://www.dofactory.com/javascript/strategy-design-pattern
Create dictionary, where key is metadata (in your case metadata is responseType) and value is a function.
For example:
Put this in constructor
responses = new HashMap<string, SomeAbstraction>();
responses.Put(CLIENT_REGISTERED, new ImplementationForRegisteredClient());
responses.Put(CLIENT_ABORTED, new ImplementationForAbortedClient());
where ImplementationForRegisteredClient and ImplementationForAbortedClient implement SomeAbstraction
and call this dictionary via
responses.get(responseType).MethodOfYourAbstraction(SomeParams);
If you want to follow the principle of DI, you can inject this Dictionary in your client class.

My first cut would be to replace the if/else if structures with switch/case:
public Object processResponse(String responseType, Object response) {
switch(responseType) {
case CLIENT_REGISTERED: {
//code ...
}
case CLIENT_ABORTED: {
//code....
}
case DATA_SPLIT: {
//code...
}
From there I'd probably extract each block as a method, and from there apply the Strategy pattern. Stop at whatever point feels right.

The case you've describe seems to fit perfectly to the application of Strategy pattern. In particular, you've many variants of an algorithm, i.e. the code executed accordingly to the response of the remote server call.
Implementing the Stategy pattern means that you have to define a class hierachy, such the following:
public interface ResponseProcessor {
public void execute(Context ctx);
}
class ClientRegistered implements ResponseProcessor {
public void execute(Context ctx) {
// Actions corresponding to a client that is registered
// ...
}
}
class ClientAborted implements ResponseProcessor {
public void execute(Context ctx) {
// Actions corresponding to a client aborted
// ...
}
}
// and so on...
The Context type should contain all the information that are needed to execute each 'strategy'. Note that if different strategies share some algorithm pieces, you could also use Templeate Method pattern among them.
You need a factory to create a particular Strategy at runtime. The factory will build a strategy starting from the response received. A possibile implementation should be the one suggested by #Sattar Imamov. The factory will contain the if .. else code.
If strategy classes are not to heavy to build and they don't need any external information at build time, you can also map each strategy to an Enumeration's value.
public enum ResponseType {
CLIENT_REGISTERED(new ClientRegistered()),
CLIENT_ABORTED(new ClientAborted()),
DATA_SPLIT(new DataSplit());
// Processor associated to a response
private ResponseProcessor processor;
private ResponseType(ResponseProcessor processor) {
this.processor = processor;
}
public ResponseProcessor getProcessor() {
return this.processor;
}
}

Improving legibility on conditional statement

I am building a HTTP server for my android device.
I am using a lot of IF-ELSE statements to handle differnt requests.
As I will be sharing my code with other people for later use, I will have to make it as legible as possible. Right now, I can't even read my code with ease.
I think the problem comes from using a lot of IF-ELSE statements in one class.
For example.
if(purpose.equals("readProfile"){
.....
}
else if(purpose.equals("writeProfile"){
.....
}
....
I tried classifying them in category and ordered the conditions according to their category. But not a lot of legebility was improved.
Then I tried writing short comments infront of each conditions. But this made even more mess.
What can be done to increase legibility for conditional statements?

As Luiggi Mendoza stated, this is a follow up of a previous question...
If you are using Java 7, you can use a switch-case statement for strings
//month is a String
switch (month.toLowerCase()) {
case "january":
monthNumber = 1;
break;
//partsleft out for sake of brevity ..
default:
monthNumber = 0;
break;
}
(excerpt from the Oracle Java Tutorials, referenced above.)
Refactoring
However, this huge if-else is just part of the problem. As this seems to be a structure growing over time, I'd recommend a thorough refactoring, and using what seems to me is a Strategy pattern. You should:
Formulate an interface which covers the boundaries for all the use cases:
interface MyStrategy {
void execute(MyInputContext input, MyOutputContext output);
}
(using a void method with MyInputContext and MyOutputContext are just one approach, this is just an example, but to handle requests that have responses, this makes sense, just like how Servlets work)
Refactor the content of the big IF-ELSE statement into instances of this interface (these will be the strategies):
//VERY simplified...
class ReadProfileStrategy implements MyStrategy {
void execute(MyInputContext input, MyOutputContext output) {
//do the stuff that was in the if-else block in the "readProfile" part
}
}
//... at the branching part:
MyInputContext input; //build this here
MyOutputContext output; //build this here
switch (purpose) {
case "readProfile":
// no need to always instantiate this, it should be stateless...
new ReadProfileStrategy().execute();
break;
//... left out for sake of brevity
}
Refactoring step 2
If this is done, you can add the string IDs to the interface, and the instances themselves, and get rid of the if-else or switch statement altogether, you could create a Map populated even through an IOC container (like), to be up to date, and completely flexible.
class ReadProfileStrategy implements MyStrategy {
String getID() {
return "readProfile";
}
void execute(MyInputContext input, MyOutputContext output) {
//do the stuff that was in the if-else block in the "readProfile" part
}
}
In the class when requests are processed
private final Map<String, MyStrategy> strategyMap; //fill the map using your favorite approach, like using Spring application context, using the getCode() to provide the key of the map
In the processing logic:
MyStrategy strategy = strategyMap.get(purpose);
if(strategy!=null) {
strategy.execute();
}
else {
//handle error here
}

This may be out of scope, but just an observation
try using
if("readProfile".equals(purpose){} instead of
if(purpose.equals("readProfile"){}.
It will help to avoid null pinter exception

Enums can help - you can also add functionality to them.
public void test(String purpose) {
if (purpose.equals("readProfile")) {
// Read.
} else if (purpose.equals("writeProfile")) {
// Write.
}
}
enum Purpose {
readProfile {
#Override
void doIt() {
// Read.
}
},
writeProfile {
#Override
void doIt() {
// Write.
}
};
abstract void doIt();
}
public void test2(String purpose) {
Purpose.valueOf(purpose).doIt();
}

You can try using some kind of Action-Interface with implementations for each block and preload a map with concrete Implementations of this action.
interface Action {
void execute();
}
Map<String, Action> actions = new HashMap<>();
actions.put("readProfile", new Action() { ... });
actions.put("writeProfile", new Action() { ... });
actionMap.get(purpose).execute();
That will lower your cyclomatic complexity as well. Of course you should preload the map only once.

Well, If it makes sense to separate code inside if-else condition to another class, perhaps use Factory pattern. Also make all separated classes implement common interface (eg: MyActivity.class) with a method such as execute().
Factory decides what object (ReadProfile.class, WriteProfile.class etc.) has to be created based on the string you pass and then call execute() method.
MyActivity obj = MyFactory.createMyActivity(String)
obj.execute(...);

"if" statement vs OO Design

I have enum say ErrorCodes that
public enum ErrorCodes {
INVALID_LOGIN(100),
INVALID_PASSWORD(101),
SESSION_EXPIRED(102) ...;
private int errorCode;
private ErrorCodes(int error){
this.errorCode = error;
} //setter and getter and other codes
}
now I check my exception error codes with this error codes. I don't want to write if this do this, if this do this. How I can solve this problem (writing 10+ if blocks)
Is there any design patter to that situation ?
Thanks

Either you do it with a if-statement or a switch, or you just implement the logic in question into the ErrorCode somehow.
In an OO fashion it all depends on how you want the application or system react to the error code. Lets say you just want it to output somekind of dialog:
public doSomethingWithError() {
ErrorCodes e = getError();
// the source of error, or originator, returns the enum
switch(e) {
case ErrorCodes.INVALID_LOGIN:
prompt('Invalid Login');
case ErrorCodes.INVALID_PASSWORD:
prompt('Invalid password');
// and so on
}
}
We could instead create an ErrorHandler class that does this instead:
// We'll implement this using OO instead
public doSomethingWithError() {
ErrorHandler e = getError();
// the originator now returns an ErrorHandler object instead
e.handleMessage();
}
// We will need the following abstract class:
public abstract class ErrorHandler {
// Lets say we have a prompter class that prompts the message
private Prompter prompter = new Prompter();
public final void handleMessage() {
String message = this.getMessage();
prompter.prompt(message);
}
// This needs to be implemented in subclasses because
// handleMessage() method is using it.
public abstract String getMessage();
}
// And you'll have the following implementations, e.g.
// for invalid logins:
public final class InvalidLoginHandler() {
public final String getMessage() {
return "Invalid login";
}
}
// E.g. for invalid password:
public final class InvalidPasswordHandler() {
public final String getMessage() {
return "Invalid password";
}
}
The former solution is easy to implement, but becomes difficult to maintain as the code grows larger. The latter solution is more complex, (aka. Template Method pattern following the Open-Closed Principle) but enables you to add more methods into the ErrorHandler when you need it (such as restoring resources or whatever). You can also implement this with the Strategy pattern.
You won't get away completely with the conditional statements, but in the latter the conditional is pushed to the part of the code where the error is originated. That way you won't have double maintenance on conditional statements both at the originator and the error handling code.
EDIT:
See this answer by Michael Borgwardt and this answer by oksayt for how to implement methods on Java Enums if you want to do that instead.

Java enums are very powerful and allow per-instance method implementations:
public enum ErrorCode {
INVALID_LOGIN {
public void handleError() {
// do something
}
},
INVALID_PASSWORD {
public void handleError() {
// do something else
}
},
SESSION_EXPIRED {
public void handleError() {
// do something else again
}
};
public abstract void handleError();
}
Then you can simply call errorCode.handleError();. However, it is questionable whether an ErrorCode enum is really the right place for that logic.

As pointed out by Spoike, using polymorphism to pick the right error handling method is an option. This approach basically defers the 10+ if blocks to the JVM's virtual method lookup, by defining a class hierarchy.
But before going for a full-blown class hierarchy, also consider using enum methods. This option works well if what you plan to do in each case is fairly similar.
For example, if you want to return a different error message for each ErrorCode, you can simply do this:
// Note singular name for enum
public enum ErrorCode {
INVALID_LOGIN(100, "Your login is invalid"),
INVALID_PASSWORD(101, "Your password is invalid"),
SESSION_EXPIRED(102, "Your session has expired");
private final int code;
private final String
private ErrorCode(int code, String message){
this.code = code;
this.message = message;
}
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
}
Then your error handling code becomes just:
ErrorCode errorCode = getErrorCode();
prompt(errorCode.getMessage());
One drawback of this approach is that if you want to add additional cases, you'll need to modify the enum itself, whereas with a class hierarchy you can add new cases without modifying existing code.

I believe the best you can do is implementing the strategy pattern. This way you won't have to change existing classes when adding new enums but will still be able to extend them. (Open-Closed-Principle).
Search for Strategy Pattern and Open Closed Principle.

You can create a map of error codes(Integer) against enum types
Edit
In this solution, once the map is prepared, you can look up an error code in the map and thus will not require if..else look ups.
E.g.
Map<Integer, ErrorCodes> errorMap = new HashMap<Integer, ErrorCodes>();
for (ErrorCodes error : ErrorCodes.values()) {
errorMap.put(error.getCode(), error);
}
Now when you want to check an error code coming from your aplpication, all you need to do is,
ErrorCodes error = errorMap.get(erro_code_from_application);
Thus removing the need for all the if..else.
You just need to set up the map in a way that adding error codes doesn't require changes in other code. Preparation of the map is one time activity and can be linked to a database, property file etc during the initialization of your application

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with ErrorCodes as enums and a switch statement to dispatch error handling. Enums and switch fit together really well.
However, maybe you find the following insteresting (kind of over-design), see an Example
or "Double dispatching" on Wikipedia.
Assumed requirements:
Error-handling should be encapsulated in an own class
Error-handling should be replacable
Type safety: Whenever an error is added, you are forced to add error handling at each error-handler implementation. It is not possible to "forget" an error in one (of maybe many) switch statments.
The code:
//Inteface for type-safe error handler
interface ErrorHandler {
void handleInvalidLoginError(InvalidLoginError error);
void handleInvalidPasswordError(InvalidLoginError error);
//One method must be added for each kind error. No chance to "forget" one.
}
//The error hierachy
public class AbstractError(Exception) {
private int code;
abstract public void handle(ErrorHandler);
}
public class InvalidLoginError(AbstractError) {
private String additionalStuff;
public void handle(ErrorHandler handler) {
handler.handleInvalidLoginError(this);
}
public String getAdditionalStuff();
}
public class InvalidPasswordError(AbstractError) {
private int code;
public void handle(ErrorHandler handler) {
handler.handleInvalidPasswordError(this);
}
}
//Test class
public class Test {
public void test() {
//Create an error handler instance.
ErrorHandler handler = new LoggingErrorHandler();
try {
doSomething();//throws AbstractError
}
catch (AbstractError e) {
e.handle(handler);
}
}
}