Initialize a POJO dynamically from another method - java

Let's say I have these set of POJO class that implement an interface but there are no common attributes here.
public interface MainIfc {}
class Ifc1 implements MainIfc {
private String a1;
public String getA1() {
return a1;
}
public void setA1(String a1) {
this.a1 = a1;
}
}
class Ifc2 implements MainIfc {
private String x1;
private String x2;
public String getX1() {
return x1;
}
public void setX1(String x1) {
this.x1 = x1;
}
public String getX2() {
return x2;
}
public void setX2(String x2) {
this.x2 = x2;
}
}
And in conjunction with these POJO classes I have a couple of methods which I can use to retrieve the type of POJO being returned based on another value and the actual POJO with values.
public class GetIfc {
public Class getIfcType(int code) {
if (code==1)
return Ifc1.class;
else
return Ifc2.class;
}
public MainIfc getIfc(int code) {
if (code==1) {
Ifc1 thisIfc = new Ifc1();
thisIfc.setA1("Ifc1");
return thisIfc;
} else {
Ifc2 thisIfc = new Ifc2();
thisIfc.setX1("Ifc2");
thisIfc.setX2("Ifc2");
return thisIfc;
}
}
}
Is there a way using which I can read the concrete POJO safely in my code and use the getters/setters? I have gone through quite a few questions which provide answers based on Reflection but that isn't working for me. The getters/setters aren't visible and when I call .getClass() on the returned Object I see it is the MainIfc interface.
The design problem I am trying to solve pertains to a REST API automation framework that I am trying to design. Basically I have a ClientResponse parser which will send back the POJO I am looking for. But I don't want the folks writing the test cases to worry about the type of POJO that is returned. So I was thinking I could return the type and the instantiated POJO so I get the values but I am troubled over how to achieve this dynamically.

Try this code. Maybe this will return all the methods in class as well as methods inherited from Object class.
public static void main(String[] args) throws ClassNotFoundException {
GetIfc getIfc=new GetIfc();
MainIfc clas1s=getIfc.getIfc(1);
Class class1= clas1s.getClass();
System.out.println(class1);
Method[] mem= class1.getMethods();
for(Method mmm : mem) {
System.out.println(mmm.getName());
}
}

Do consumers of MainIfc actually need the POJOs, or just the data inside of them?
It might be cleaner design if MainIfc declares a method or two that exposes the data that its consumers will need. Your POJOs can then implement the methods that the MainIfc interface declares. Or you can build a wrapper class for each POJO that conforms it to the interface, if you want to keep the concerns of implementing your interface separate from your POJOs.
Ideally an interface should expose a few methods that can be used to interact with any class which implements it and no one should need to know about the underlying POJOs/implementation.
public interface MainIfc {
public Hash getAttributes();
public setAttributes(Hash attributes);
}
class Ifc1 implements MainIfc {
private String a1;
public String getA1() {
return a1;
}
public void setA1(String a1) {
this.a1 = a1;
}
public Hash getAttributes() {
// return a hash with data that MainIfc consumer will need from this POJO
}
public setAttributes(Hash attributes) {
// copy hash attributes to corresponding POJO fields
}
}
class Ifc2 implements MainIfc {
private String x1;
private String x2;
public String getX1() {
return x1;
}
public void setX1(String x1) {
this.x1 = x1;
}
public String getX2() {
return x2;
}
public void setX2(String x2) {
this.x2 = x2;
}
public Hash getAttributes() {
// return a hash with data that MainIfc consumer will need from this POJO
}
public setAttributes(Hash attributes) {
// copy hash attributes to corresponding POJO fields
}
}

It sounds to me like you're trying to do something rather illogical. Strategy Pattern or Abstract Factory might be a good fit for your requirement, but at the moment I don't quite understand what exactly it is you're trying to achieve. You should definitely not be conditionally casting and calling different methods on these classes. If you really want to continue on this path, I would suggest going with reflection, if not an option, and you need the flexibility, I'd probably go with a Map of some kind.
But I would definitely rethink your design if at all possible.

Try this piece of code, I don't know if I fully understand your requirement but based on my understanding I think below code would do the trick.
public static void main(String[] args) throws NoSuchMethodException, SecurityException, IllegalAccessException,
IllegalArgumentException, InvocationTargetException {
GetIfc getIfc = new GetIfc();
MainIfc clas1s = getIfc.getIfc(1);
Field[] fields = clas1s.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
for (int i = 0; i < fields.length; i++) {
Field field = fields[i];
Class fieldClasslasse = field.getType();
if (field.getModifiers() == Modifier.PRIVATE) {
// you need to check fieldClass, if it is boolean then initials of the getter could be 'is' instead of 'get'
String methodNameGet = "get" + Character.toUpperCase(field.getName().charAt(0))
+ field.getName().substring(1);
String methodNameSet = "set" + Character.toUpperCase(field.getName().charAt(0))
+ field.getName().substring(1);
Method methodGet = clas1s.getClass().getDeclaredMethod(methodNameGet, null);
Object value = methodGet.invoke(clas1s, null);
if (value != null && value instanceof String) {
String valueUpper = ((String)value).toUpperCase();
Class[] cArg = new Class[1];
cArg[0] = String.class;
Method methodSet = clas1s.getClass().getDeclaredMethod(methodNameSet, cArg);
Object[] var = new Object[1];
var[0] = valueUpper;
methodSet.invoke((Object) clas1s, var);
}
}
}
}
A little explanation about above code : Get all the fileds of the object and check if is a private property, if yes then it must have a public getter and setter, guess their name based on java convention, call the getter, get the value, check if it is a instance of String class, if yes make it UPPERCASE then call setter to set new value.

Related

How to implement Hazelcast PortableFactory for Portable enum

I have a Java enum A that I want to serialize with Hazelcast Portable interface.
To implement the PortableFactory associated with A I need to call an empty constructor to create an empty instance of A, but that is not possible when it comes to enum in Java.
What's the best way to implement a PortableFactory to serialize enum?
Here an example of what I'd like to achive:
public class MyPortableFactory implements PortableFactory {
#Override
public Portable create( int classId ) {
if (Foo.ID == classId) {
return new Foo(); //This is how you return normal class
} else if(MyEnum.ID == classId) {
return ???; //What should I return for the enum?
} else {
return null;
}
}
}
I have tried a workoround using a map to change the ids:
public enum MyEnum implements Portable {
Value1("1", "1", PortableIds.one),
Value2("2", "2", PortableIds.two),
Invalid("0", "0", PortableIds.InvalidID);
private String first;
private String second;
private Integer portableId;
public static final Map<Integer, MyEnum> mapPortableIdValues = new HashMap<>() {{
for (MyEnum myEnum : MyEnum.values()) {
put(myEnum.getPortableId(), myEnum);
}
}};
#Override
public int getFactoryId() {
return MyPortableFactory.FACTORY_ID;
}
#Override
public int getClassId() {
return portableId;
}
public class MyPortableFactory implements PortableFactory {
public static final int FACTORY_ID = 2;
#Override
public Portable create(int classId) {
if(mapPortableIdValues.containsKey(classId)){
return mapPortableIdValues.get(classId);
}
return null;
}
}
public interface PortableIds {
Integer one = 100;
Integer two = 101;
Integer InvalidID = 106;
}
But when I run my application I get the following exception:
com.hazelcast.nio.serialization.HazelcastSerializationException: Wrong Portable type! Generic portable types are not supported! Expected class-id: 100, Actual class-id: 106
at com.hazelcast.internal.serialization.impl.portable.DefaultPortableWriter.checkPortableAttributes(DefaultPortableWriter.java:174)
at com.hazelcast.internal.serialization.impl.portable.DefaultPortableWriter.writePortable(DefaultPortableWriter.java:147)
I think this use case is not a good fit for the design of the Portable serialization. The mechanism of Portable serialization instantiates an instance of a class and fills the fields with readPortable method at runtime. This is not really possible with enums.
I would suggest using a wrapper class to carry simply an integer enum tag or the name of the enum member as a string with Portable serialization.

Deserializing to a class using non-constructor method

I am attempting to deserialize a jackson-serialized Google Ads sdk object. In particular, I am running into issues in instantiating specific classes which behave like enums, for example :
public class CampaignStatus implements Serializable {
private String _value_;
private static HashMap _table_ = new HashMap();
public static final String _UNKNOWN = "UNKNOWN";
public static final String _ENABLED = "ENABLED";
public static final String _PAUSED = "PAUSED";
public static final String _REMOVED = "REMOVED";
public static final CampaignStatus UNKNOWN = new CampaignStatus("UNKNOWN");
public static final CampaignStatus ENABLED = new CampaignStatus("ENABLED");
public static final CampaignStatus PAUSED = new CampaignStatus("PAUSED");
public static final CampaignStatus REMOVED = new CampaignStatus("REMOVED");
private static TypeDesc typeDesc = new TypeDesc(CampaignStatus.class);
protected CampaignStatus(String value) {
this._value_ = value;
_table_.put(this._value_, this);
}
public String getValue() {
return this._value_;
}
public static CampaignStatus fromValue(String value) throws IllegalArgumentException {
CampaignStatus enumeration = (CampaignStatus)_table_.get(value);
if (enumeration == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
} else {
return enumeration;
}
}
public static CampaignStatus fromString(String value) throws IllegalArgumentException {
return fromValue(value);
}
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
return obj == this;
}
public int hashCode() {
return this.toString().hashCode();
}
public String toString() {
return this._value_;
}
public Object readResolve() throws ObjectStreamException {
return fromValue(this._value_);
}
public static Serializer getSerializer(String mechType, Class _javaType, QName _xmlType) {
return new EnumSerializer(_javaType, _xmlType);
}
public static Deserializer getDeserializer(String mechType, Class _javaType, QName _xmlType) {
return new EnumDeserializer(_javaType, _xmlType);
}
public static TypeDesc getTypeDesc() {
return typeDesc;
}
static {
typeDesc.setXmlType(new QName("https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/cm/v201809", "CampaignStatus"));
}
}
When a Campaign object is serialized (which contains a CampaignStatus as defined above), the JSON looks like this:
"status":{"value":"ENABLED"}
The deserializer throws a mismatched input exception when trying to write a JSON campaign to a Campaign object. Since the objects are owned by Google, I can't modify the existing classes or add annotations. My solution needs to work for 250+ classes that follow this pattern, so individually wrapping or extending these isn't a feasible solution. Additionally, I will have many different stakeholders serializing these objects, so modifying how they are serialized is also not a useable solution.
What I need is some way to indicate to the deserializer that when it comes across a situation like this, it should look for the fromValue method and use that. I'm ok with explicitly stating what json keys/values would need to use such a method; I just need a more dynamic way of modifying the serialization than extending the class or adding annotations.
You can indicate factory method using #JsonCreator annotation - it is going to be used by Jackson to perform deserialization.
In your case it would look something like this:
#JsonCreator
public static CampaignStatus fromValue(#JsonProperty("value") String value) throws IllegalArgumentException {
CampaignStatus enumeration = (CampaignStatus)_table_.get(value);
if (enumeration == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
} else {
return enumeration;
}
}
I am a bit confused with what exactly you are trying to achieve but feel free to put any logic that fulfill you requirements in the method above.
So I didn't find the best possible solution, but I'll share the best I could come up with. I implemented a new generic deserializer extending JsonDeserializer, and used reflection in the deserialize method to invoke the .fromValue method. I then used reflection to search the directories for all classes, and search each class for a matching .fromValue method. Every time I successfully find a class that follows this pattern, I register it with the mapper using a new generic deserializer for the corresponding class. It's a bit costly, but I only register the deserializers at instantiation so it's ok that it's a complex.

How to write a method that can return different data type based on enum as the parameter?

I would like to define a method and by passing the enum, returns the mapped type based on the enum. So far I only work out this way:
public class Person {
HashMap<String, Object> mData;
void int getDetail(DetailInt detail){
Object data = mData.get(detail.name());
if(data instanceof Integer)
return (int)data;
return 0;
}
void String getDetail(DetailStr detail){
Object data = mData.get(detail.name());
if(data instanceof String)
return (String)data;
return "";
}
}
public enum DetailInt {
Age("age"), Weight("weight"), Height("height");
String columnName;
DetailInt(String columnName){
this.columnName= columnName;
}
}
public enum DetailStr {
FirstName("first_name"), LastName("last_name");
String columnName;
DetailStr (String columnName){
this.columnName= columnName;
}
}
So I can use the same method, but passing different enums to get the data with the type.
int age = person.getDetail(DetailInt.Age);
String firstName = person.getDetail(DetailStr.FirstName);
Now, what I would like to achieve is to merge both enums together, so I can call as below:
int age = person.getDetail(Detail.Age);
String firstName = person.getDetail(Detail.FirstName);
It is neater. However, I have tried generic type and interface, still cannot find the way to do it. Use below way is similar to what I want but this is not enum type.
abstract class Detail {
}
class DetailStr extend Detail {
}
interface Details {
DetailStr firstName = new DetailStr("first_name");
DetailStr lastName = new DetailStr("las_name");
DetailInt age = new DetailInt("age");
DetailInt weight = new DetailInt("weight");
DetailInt height = new DetailInt("height");
}
public class Person {
void int getDetail(DetailInt detail){
....
}
void String getDetail(DetailStr detail){
....
}
}
You can't do this in Java.
This is because a particular value of an enumerator has the same type as any other value of that enumerator. It's therefore not possible to construct an overloaded function since there's no type difference to act as a descriminator. (You cannot overload a function by return type difference alone.)
The obvious solution is to have two methods getDetailAsInt and getDetailAsString.
I'll share this approach that does not use enums, but it might be of some use to you:
public class Key<T> {
private String key;
...
}
public class Keys {
public static final Key FIRST_NAME = new Key<String>("first_name");
public static final Key AGE = new Key<Integer>("age");
}
public class Person {
public <T> T getDetail(Key<T> key) {
Object detail = mData.get(key.getKey());
return (T) detail;
}
}
I'm afraid it might not be possible to convert it to use enums, so you'd have to ensure no unwanted keys are created in some other way (package-private constructor etc.)

How to model a medium-sized data set with multiple types as a class

Problem
I don't know the best way to model my data. I'm worried my current approach has gotten overly complex, and I want to correct it now before I base any more code off it.
Data to be Modeled
I have data sets that consist of 50+ different data items. Each item consists of:
a unique identifier int
a label String.
validation criteria (min, max, legal characters, etc...).
a value Float, Long, Integer, String, or Date.
The label and validation criteria for each item is the same in every data set. Only the values are dynamic. Order is not important.
Needed Usage Examples
Add data to the data set
dataSet.put(itemIdentifier, value);
Traverse and validate all non-null values in the data set
for (DataItem item : dataSet.values()) {
boolean valid = item.validate();
if (valid) {...}
}
Show the specified items in the given data sets
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
Implementation Attempt
My current implementation has an abstract Key class as the "key" to a map. Each type subclasses for its own validation needs. Then, inside the DataSet class, I have public static keys for each item.
abstract public class Key {
public int mId;
public String mLabel;
public Key(int id, String label) {...}
abstract public boolean validate(Object Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key {
private int mMin, mMax;
public Key(int id, String label, int min, int max) {...}
public boolean validate(Object Value) {...}
}
// one for each type
...
public class DataSet {
public static Key ITEM_A = new FloatKey(1, "item A", 0, 100);
public static Key ITEM_B = new DateKey(2, "item B", "January 1, 1990");
// ~50 more of these
private Map<Key, Object> mMap;
public void put(int itemId, Object value) {...}
public Set<Object> values() {...};
...
}
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat). I also find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set because I need to call subclass-only methods in some situations.
Edits for further clarification
Data items and their validation criteria will require occasional changes and so maintenance should be relatively easy / painless.
Although I could use the Key objects themselves as keys into the map, I will sometimes need to put these keys in a Bundle (part of the android API). I would rather use the label or id (in case labels are the same) to avoid making my Key class Parcelable.
What about this approach:
Create this interface:
interface Validable {
boolean isValid();
}
Then, all data items inherit the following class and implicitly the interface ::
abstract class DataItem implements Validable {
public DataItem(int id, String label, int min, int max) {
}
}
Configure each specific instance of DataItem via constructor parameters, passing the common and the distinct values:
class FloatItem extends DataItem {
public FloatItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Float value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
// set the Float value here
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
class DateItem extends DataItem {
public DateItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Date value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
The client code would assemble the objects like this::
List<Validable> items = Lists.<Validable>newArrayList(new FloatItem(0, "", 0, 0, Float.NaN),
new DateItem(0, "", 0, 0, new Date()));
(note the usage of Google Guava)
Calling code only needs to do this::
for (Validable validable : items) {
System.out.println(validable.isValid());
}
Please note that this approach requires you to first create 'target' objects, and then ask the question if they are valid. In other words, you are passing the valid-able parameters via constructor and then, you ask the object if it is valid. The object itself will answer the question using the validation criteria inside it...
I hope I understood your problem correctly.
I don't quite understand your goals with the design, so maybe not all of this is correct or directly useful to you, but it's some ideas to play with.
First I'd point out that there are lots of fields in the code you've shown that should be marked final. For example, Key.mId, Key.mLabel, FloatKey.mMin, FloatKey.mMax, all the DataSet.ITEM_X, and DataSet.mMap. Marking them final (1) conveys the intended behavior better, (2) prevents accidents where something like a Key's mId changes, and (3) might have marginal performance benefits.
I wonder why you need the numeric ID for each key/field? If they're required for interfacing with some external application or storage format which already defines those IDs, that makes sense, but if it's only for internal things like this method:
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
then that could be more meaningfully implemented using a list of String labels or Key objects, instead of the numeric IDs. Likewise, DataSet.put could possibly use the Key or label instead of the ID.
I find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set
Making Key generic can eliminate some casts. (Well, they will still be present in the bytecode, but not in the source because the compiler will take care of it.) E.g.,
abstract public class Key<T> {
...
abstract public boolean validate(T Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key<Float> {
...
public boolean validate(Float value) { ... }
}
In the validate method, you thus avoid the need to cast value.
Also, I'm guessing you currently have a method on class DataSet like this:
public Object get(int itemId) { ... }
If you use the Key instead of numeric ID to retrieve values, and make the method generic, you'll often be able to avoid the need for callers to cast the return value (though the cast is still present inside the get method):
public <T> T get(Key<T> key) { ... }
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat).
You could make a class for the value instead of the key. E.g.,
abstract public class Value<T> {
public final int id;
public final String label;
protected Value(int id, String label) {
this.id = id;
this.label = label;
}
abstract public T get();
abstract public void set(T value);
}
public class FloatValue extends Value<Float> {
private final float min, max;
private float value;
public FloatValue(int id, String label, float min, float max, float value) {
super(id, label);
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
set(value);
}
public Float get() { return value; }
public void set(Float value) {
if (value < min | value > max) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
this.value = value;
}
}
public class DataSet {
public final FloatValue itemA = new FloatValue(1, "item A", 0, 100, 0);
...
}
That solves the stated problem, and also eliminates the map lookup previously required on every get/set of a value. However it has the side effect of duplicating the storage for the labels and numeric IDs, as the Value classes are not static fields any more.
In this scenario, to access DataSet values by label (or ID?), you can use reflection to build a map. In class DataSet:
private final Map<String, Value<?>> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (Value.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
Value<?> v;
try {
v = (Value<?>)f.get(this);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | IllegalArgumentException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
labelMap.put(v.label, v);
}
}
}
There's a subtlety here: if you subclass DataSet to represent different types of data, then the Value fields of the subclasses will not have been initialized yet at the time DataSet's initializer builds the map. So if you create subclasses of DataSet, you might need a protected init() method to be called from subclass constructors, to tell it to (re)build the map, which is a bit ugly but it would work.
You can re-use this map to provide convenient iteration of a DataSet's values:
public Collection<Value<?>> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
A final idea: if you're using reflection anyway, it might be possible to use ordinary fields for the values, with annotation interfaces to implement their behavior.
import java.lang.annotation.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
public class DataSet {
#Label("item A") #ValidateFloat(min=0, max=100) public float itemA;
#Label("item B") public String itemB;
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface Label {
String value();
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface ValidateFloat {
float min();
float max();
}
public final class Value {
public final String label;
private final Field field;
protected Value(String label, Field field) {
this.label = label;
this.field = field;
}
public Object get() {
try {
return field.get(DataSet.this);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void set(Object value) {
try {
field.set(DataSet.this, value);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void validate() {
Object value = get();
// Test for presence of each validation rule and implement its logic.
// Ugly but not sure how best to improve this...
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ValidateFloat.class)) {
float floatValue = (float)value;
ValidateFloat rule = field.getAnnotation(ValidateFloat.class);
if (floatValue < rule.min() || floatValue > rule.max()) {
//throw new Whatever();
}
}
//if (field.isAnnotationPresent(...)) {
// ...
//}
}
}
private final Map<String, Value> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (f.isAnnotationPresent(Label.class)) {
Value value = new Value(f.getAnnotation(Label.class).value(), f);
labelMap.put(value.label, value);
}
}
}
public Collection<Value> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
}
This approach has different tradeoffs. Code that knows exactly what field it wants can access it directly. E.g., dataSet.itemA instead of dataSet.get(DataSet.ITEM_A). Code that needs to iterate multiple fields does so via the Value wrapper (would Property be a better class name? Or Item?), which encapsulates the ugliness of the field reflection code.
I also put the validation logic into the annotations. If there are lots of fields with very simple numeric limits, that works well. If it's too complex for that you'd be better off with a DataSet.validate method that accesses the fields directly. E.g,
public void validate() {
if (itemC < 10 || itemC > itemD) ...
}
Okay, one more idea:
public class DataSet {
public float itemA;
public String itemB;
public static abstract class Value<T> {
public final String label;
protected Value(String label) {
this.label = label;
}
public abstract T get();
public abstract void set(T value);
}
public Value<?>[] values() {
return new Value[] {
new Value<Float>("itemA") {
public Float get() {
return itemA;
}
public void set(Float value) {
itemA = value;
}
},
new Value<String>("itemB") {
public String get() {
return itemB;
}
public void set(String value) {
itemB = value;
}
},
};
}
}
This is simple (no annotations or reflection) but it's repetitive. Since you have "50+" fields, the repetitiveness is probably not ideal as it's easy when copy-pasting to slip up at some point, forgetting to replace itemX = value with itemY = value, but if you only need to write it once it might be acceptable. Validation code could go either on the Value class or the DataSet class.

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...

Categories