I have found a repository that contains java code
but the files don't have the normal .java suffix,
but .java.in
Please what is that?
I have found it in the Kody repository ob Github
https://github.com/xbmc/xbmc/tree/master/tools/android/packaging/xbmc/src/org/xbmc/kodi
As far as I remember it means integration test. I think it is used by the Maven Failsafe Plugin https://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
This is just a possibility. It may be something else
These .in files are processed by the GNU autoconf system. The placeholders in the files of the form #APP_NAME_LC# will be replaced with the values of the variables with the respective name and the result is then written to a normal file without the .in extension.
The use for Java is somewhat uncommon.
The autoconf system is common in the *NIX world to cope with differences in system libraries for C and C++ as well as build tools.
Related
Today I started learning Java.
I saw that package automatic gets included in .Java file.
I was wondering if it always need to be included?
Consider specify a common package for all the types within a same project.
In Java is common to start a project with a specific package setting. A package creates a namespace to disambiguate the types that it includes, to play nicelly with other projects that may or may not be in the same classpath. Normally, the package is bound to a URL of the project.
Think of Java packages like C++ namespaces.
A huge project/product written in Java can depend on lots and lots of projects, each described in a different package.
Organizations like Apache have lots of projects, organized under a common package pattern: org.apache.<<name_of_the_project>>.
Consider starting your project with a package named: com.user3552670; or something like your personal site, so persons that will consume your project can relate to the creator.
Yes and no.
It's used to specify the package of the class, read more here.
You could create a class without a package, but your code will look bad..
They exists to avoid conflicts, example between your code and default java package.
If packages doesn't exists, you can't create a class named ArrayList because already exists in Java.
Some IDEs force the fact that, if your .java file is in com/a/b/c folder his package should be com/a/b/c (If i don't remember wrong, IntellIJ IDEA do that)
Yes and no.
It must be there, but the IDE takes care of it (I don't use Netbeans, but I'd bet that it can do it, too). When moving files between packages, it has to be updated, but again, the IDE does it all.
Our project has started newly and wanted to know some of the best practices followed in industry. We have generated lot of DTOs(getters and setters) code for webservices using JaxB. we keep all the DTO classes along with regular pojos(logic written), its looks like large project due to this auto-generated code, also for code coverage it considers these classes also.
I am keen to know that these classes should be as a jar file in classpath or it should be as classes in project.
Thanks in Advance,
Madhavi
If your project uses Maven (or something similar) I would advise having the code generation and the generated code in a separate module of a multi module project.
This way the generated stuff is out of the way of the hand crafted code. You can also set up your Maven build process to then build this module first and the rest of the code can rely on the resulting artefact, be it a jar or something else.
You could also regenerate the generated code on each new build this way. Although this can be a lengthy process, depending on the service.
Generated files should not be mixed with your written files.
A common approach is to generate them to the target folder, e.g. target/generated-sources or something similiar. Of course, if they are rarely changed, you could also put them in a jar file that you import into your project.
I think its better to keep them in jar. As its auto generated code and no one is supposed to change. Whenever regenerated include new jar.
When I used to write libraries in C/C++ I got into the habit of having a method to return the compile date/time. This was always a compiled into the library so would differentiate builds of the library. I got this by returning a #define in the code:
C++:
#ifdef _BuildDateTime_
char* SomeClass::getBuildDateTime() {
return _BuildDateTime_;
}
#else
char* SomeClass::getBuildDateTime() {
return "Undefined";
}
#endif
Then on the compile I had a '-D_BuildDateTime_=Date' in the build script.
Is there any way to achieve this or similar in Java without needing to remember to edit any files manually or distributing any seperate files.
One suggestion I got from a co-worker was to get the ant file to create a file on the classpath and to package that into the JAR and have it read by the method.
Something like (assuming the file created was called 'DateTime.dat'):
// I know Exceptions and proper open/closing
// of the file are not done. This is just
// to explain the point!
String getBuildDateTime() {
return new BufferedReader(getClass()
.getResourceAsStream("DateTime.dat")).readLine();
}
To my mind that's a hack and could be circumvented/broken by someone having a similarly named file outside the JAR, but on the classpath.
Anyway, my question is whether there is any way to inject a constant into a class at compile time
EDIT
The reason I consider using an externally generated file in the JAR a hack is because this is) a library and will be embedded in client apps. These client apps may define their own classloaders meaning I can't rely on the standard JVM class loading rules.
My personal preference would be to go with using the date from the JAR file as suggested by serg10.
I would favour the standards based approach. Put your version information (along with other useful publisher stuff such as build number, subversion revision number, author, company details, etc) in the jar's Manifest File.
This is a well documented and understood Java specification. Strong tool support exists for creating manifest files (a core Ant task for example, or the maven jar plugin). These can help with setting some of the attributes automatically - I have maven configured to put the jar's maven version number, Subversion revision and timestamp into the manifest for me at build time.
You can read the contents of the manifest at runtime with standard java api calls - something like:
import java.util.jar.*;
...
JarFile myJar = new JarFile("nameOfJar.jar"); // various constructors available
Manifest manifest = myJar.getManifest();
Map<String,Attributes> manifestContents = manifest.getAttributes();
To me, that feels like a more Java standard approach, so will probably prove more easy for subsequent code maintainers to follow.
I remember seeing something similar in an open source project:
class Version... {
public static String tstamp() {
return "#BUILDTIME#";
}
}
in a template file. With Ant's filtering copy you can give this macro a value:
<copy src="templatefile" dst="Version.java" filtering="true">
<filter token="BUILDTIME" value="${build.tstamp}" />
</copy>
use this to create a Version.java source file in your build process, before the compilation step.
AFAIK there is not a way to do this with javac. This can easily be done with Ant -- I would create a first class object called BuildTimestamp.java and generate that file at compile time via an Ant target.
Here's an Ant type that will be helpful.
Unless you want to run your Java source through a C/C++ Preprocessor (which is a BIG NO-NO), use the jar method. There are other ways to get the correct resources out of a jar to make sure someone didn't put a duplicate resource on the classpath. You could also consider using the Jar manifest for this. My project does exactly what you're trying to do (with build dates, revisions, author, etc) using the manifest.
You'll want to use this:
Enumeration<URL> resources = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResources("META-INF/MANIFEST.MF");
This will get you ALL of the manifests on the classpath. You can figure out which jar they can from by parsing the URL.
Personally I'd go for a separate properties file in your jar that you'd load at runtime... The classloader has a defined order for searching for files - I can't remember how it works exactly off hand, but I don't think another file with the same name somewhere on the classpath would be likely to cause issues.
But another way you could do it would be to use Ant to copy your .java files into a different directory before compiling them, filtering in String constants as appropriate. You could use something like:
public String getBuildDateTime() {
return "#BUILD_DATE_TIME#";
}
and write a filter in your Ant file to replace that with a build property.
Perhaps a more Java-style way of indicating your library's version would be to add a version number to the JAR's manifest, as described in the manifest documentation.
One suggestion I got from a co-worker
was to get the ant file to create a
file on the classpath and to package
that into the JAR and have it read by
the method. ... To my mind that's a
hack and could be circumvented/broken
by someone having a similarly named
file outside the JAR, but on the
classpath.
I'm not sure that getting Ant to generate a file is a terribly egregious hack, if it's a hack at all. Why not generate a properties file and use java.util.Properties to handle it?
In Eclipse 3.5, say I have a package structure like this:
tom.package1
tom.package1.packageA
tom.package1.packageB
if I right click on an the tom.package1 package and go to Refactor->Rename, an option "Rename subpackages" appears as a checkbox. If I select it, and then rename tom.package1 to tom.red my package structure ends up like this:
tom.red
tom.red.packageA
tom.red.packageB
Yet I hear that Java's packages are not hierarchical. The Java Tutorials back that up (see the section on Apparent Hierarchies of Packages). It certainly seems like Eclipse is treating packages as hierarchical in this case.
I was curious why access specifiers couldn't allow/restrict access to "sub-packages" in a previous question because I KNEW I had seen "sub-packages" referenced somewhere before.
So are Eclipse's refactoring tools intentionally misleading impressionable young minds by furthering the "sub-package" myth? Or am I misinterpreting something here?
Eclipse can't possibly violate the JLS in this case, because it has nothing to do with compiling or running Java source or bytecode.
The refactoring tools behave as they do because that behaviour is useful to developers. The behaviour is useful to developers because, for many intents and purposes, we do treat packages as hierarchal (a.b.c has some kind of relationship with a.b, even if that relationship is not consistent from project to project). That doesn't mean Java treats them as hierarchal intrinsically.
One example where people treat packages as very hierarchal is in configuring a logging framework such as log4j. Again, it's not intrinsic to log4j, but that's how people use it in practice.
Java packages are not hierarchical in the sense that importing everything from package A does not import everything from package A.B.
However, Java packages do correspond directly to the directory structure on the file system, and directories are hierarchical. So Eclipse is doing the correct thing - it is renaming the directory, which automatically changes the name of the parent directory of the renamed directory's children (to state the very obvious).
even java itself has the concept of subpackage:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/tooldocs/windows/java.html
java -ea[:<package name>"..." | :<class name> ]
Enable assertions. Assertions are disabled by default.
With no arguments, enableassertions or -ea enables assertions. With one argument ending in "...", the switch enables assertions in the specified package and any subpackages. If the argument is simply "...", the switch enables assertions in the unnamed package in the current working directory. With one argument not ending in "...", the switch enables assertions in the specified class.
If a single command line contains multiple instances of these switches, they are processed in order before loading any classes. So, for example, to run a program with assertions enabled only in package com.wombat.fruitbat (and any subpackages), the following command could be used:
java -ea:com.wombat.fruitbat... <Main Class>
Java's packages are not hierarchical, but Eclipse stores packages on your system's file structure.
tom.package1.packageA is represented on a Windows file system as tom/package1/packageA.
When you ask Eclipse to refactor a package name, you're asking Eclipse to change the name of the file system directory structure.
You can have packages in Eclipse like:
tom.package1.packageA
tom.package2.packageB
tom.package3.packageC
You'll just have different 2nd level file system directories.
When I used to write libraries in C/C++ I got into the habit of having a method to return the compile date/time. This was always a compiled into the library so would differentiate builds of the library. I got this by returning a #define in the code:
C++:
#ifdef _BuildDateTime_
char* SomeClass::getBuildDateTime() {
return _BuildDateTime_;
}
#else
char* SomeClass::getBuildDateTime() {
return "Undefined";
}
#endif
Then on the compile I had a '-D_BuildDateTime_=Date' in the build script.
Is there any way to achieve this or similar in Java without needing to remember to edit any files manually or distributing any seperate files.
One suggestion I got from a co-worker was to get the ant file to create a file on the classpath and to package that into the JAR and have it read by the method.
Something like (assuming the file created was called 'DateTime.dat'):
// I know Exceptions and proper open/closing
// of the file are not done. This is just
// to explain the point!
String getBuildDateTime() {
return new BufferedReader(getClass()
.getResourceAsStream("DateTime.dat")).readLine();
}
To my mind that's a hack and could be circumvented/broken by someone having a similarly named file outside the JAR, but on the classpath.
Anyway, my question is whether there is any way to inject a constant into a class at compile time
EDIT
The reason I consider using an externally generated file in the JAR a hack is because this is) a library and will be embedded in client apps. These client apps may define their own classloaders meaning I can't rely on the standard JVM class loading rules.
My personal preference would be to go with using the date from the JAR file as suggested by serg10.
I would favour the standards based approach. Put your version information (along with other useful publisher stuff such as build number, subversion revision number, author, company details, etc) in the jar's Manifest File.
This is a well documented and understood Java specification. Strong tool support exists for creating manifest files (a core Ant task for example, or the maven jar plugin). These can help with setting some of the attributes automatically - I have maven configured to put the jar's maven version number, Subversion revision and timestamp into the manifest for me at build time.
You can read the contents of the manifest at runtime with standard java api calls - something like:
import java.util.jar.*;
...
JarFile myJar = new JarFile("nameOfJar.jar"); // various constructors available
Manifest manifest = myJar.getManifest();
Map<String,Attributes> manifestContents = manifest.getAttributes();
To me, that feels like a more Java standard approach, so will probably prove more easy for subsequent code maintainers to follow.
I remember seeing something similar in an open source project:
class Version... {
public static String tstamp() {
return "#BUILDTIME#";
}
}
in a template file. With Ant's filtering copy you can give this macro a value:
<copy src="templatefile" dst="Version.java" filtering="true">
<filter token="BUILDTIME" value="${build.tstamp}" />
</copy>
use this to create a Version.java source file in your build process, before the compilation step.
AFAIK there is not a way to do this with javac. This can easily be done with Ant -- I would create a first class object called BuildTimestamp.java and generate that file at compile time via an Ant target.
Here's an Ant type that will be helpful.
Unless you want to run your Java source through a C/C++ Preprocessor (which is a BIG NO-NO), use the jar method. There are other ways to get the correct resources out of a jar to make sure someone didn't put a duplicate resource on the classpath. You could also consider using the Jar manifest for this. My project does exactly what you're trying to do (with build dates, revisions, author, etc) using the manifest.
You'll want to use this:
Enumeration<URL> resources = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResources("META-INF/MANIFEST.MF");
This will get you ALL of the manifests on the classpath. You can figure out which jar they can from by parsing the URL.
Personally I'd go for a separate properties file in your jar that you'd load at runtime... The classloader has a defined order for searching for files - I can't remember how it works exactly off hand, but I don't think another file with the same name somewhere on the classpath would be likely to cause issues.
But another way you could do it would be to use Ant to copy your .java files into a different directory before compiling them, filtering in String constants as appropriate. You could use something like:
public String getBuildDateTime() {
return "#BUILD_DATE_TIME#";
}
and write a filter in your Ant file to replace that with a build property.
Perhaps a more Java-style way of indicating your library's version would be to add a version number to the JAR's manifest, as described in the manifest documentation.
One suggestion I got from a co-worker
was to get the ant file to create a
file on the classpath and to package
that into the JAR and have it read by
the method. ... To my mind that's a
hack and could be circumvented/broken
by someone having a similarly named
file outside the JAR, but on the
classpath.
I'm not sure that getting Ant to generate a file is a terribly egregious hack, if it's a hack at all. Why not generate a properties file and use java.util.Properties to handle it?