We Keep Coding

Force all Java arithmetic to strictfp at runtime, using javassist?

Given a Java application which was written with performance in mind (i.e. methods are deliberately not declared 'strictfp' in the source code), is it possible to allow users to run the entire application in strictfp mode?
It looks like a crude approach would be to simply add the "strictfp" attribute to all methods of all classes using a custom class loader written using javassist. This would be similar to:
http://www.verious.com/qa/no-strictfp-in-scala-workarounds/
However, the class loader would need to add the strictpf attribute to all class methods in the application, including private ones. (The application is simply too large and complex to explicitly list all possible methods which might requre the strictfp attribute.)
The reflection API in javassist does not seem to support listing private methods:
http://www.csg.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~chiba/javassist/html/javassist/CtClass.html#getMethods()
Is what I want to do possible in javassist (or at all via the custom class loader approach)?

I don't know if this will help you, but if you could change to using the Oracle JRockit JVM, it has a JVM option to enable strictfp globally - '-XX+:-StrictFP`
(There is a '-XX+:-UseStrictFP' option on Hotspot JVMs, but it has the reverse effect to what you want.)
Reference:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E15289_01/doc.40/e15062/optionxx.htm#BABHBDAH
http://stas-blogspot.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/most-complete-list-of-xx-options-for.html

Is using Class.getMethods() a heavy operation in Java?

I have a question about the performance of the java "Class" API. I have a requirement where I have database values which could go like /car or /cars[0]/make. For each of those database values I have to see whether the particular class I am dealing with, has a setter method for /car like setCar ( or for /cars[0]/make a setCars method). Currently, I just iteratre through all the declared methods of the class (using getMethods) and then do some string checking to see using the method names match the database value. I do not invoke any method, when I do this. Although, this is using the Method API, it is really not doing any method invokation. Is this still a heavy operation in terms of java reflection? To paraphrase this, is this java reflection in use?

Yes, you are using reflection by the call getMethods. If you are concerned about performance you could profile your code using a java profiler like JIP

Yes, java reflection is used to look up the declared method and the lookup is already an expensive operation without invoking the method afterwards.
However the OpenJDK (the default implementation of java) uses an internal cache, so subsequent lookups for declared methods on the same class are way faster.
Any major framework for Object mapping (to database or JSON) uses reflection, so as long as your application does not deal with high frequency trading in sub-millisecond reaction time, you should be fine with using reflection here.

Is Object.class.getName() Slow?

I'm writing code in the Java ME environment, so speed is absolutely an important factor. I have read several places that reflection of any sort (even the very limited amounts that are allowed on java ME) can be a very large bottleneck.
So, my question is this: is doing String.class.getName() slow? What about myCustomObject.getClass().getName()? Is it better to simply replace those with string constants, like "java.lang.String" and "com.company.MyObject"?
In case you're wondering, I need the class names of all primitives (and non-primitives as well) because Java ME does not provide a default serialization implementation and thus I have to implement my own. I need a generic serialization solution that will work for both communication across the network as well as local storage (RMS, but also JSR-75)
Edit
I'm using Java 1.3 CLDC.

String.class.getName() would be not slow because its value will be loaded before executed.i.e compiler will put its value before line will execute.
myCustomObject.getClass().getName() would be bit slower then previous as it will be retrieved at time for execution

Reflection is not unnaturally slow; it's just as slow as you'd expect, but no slower. First, calling a method via reflection requires all the object creation and method calling that is obvious from the reflection API, and second, that if you're calling methods through reflection, Hotspot won't be able to optimize through the calls.
Calling getClass().getName() is no slower than you'd expect, either: the cost of a couple of virtual method calls plus a member-variable fetch. The .class version is essentially the same, plus or minus a variable fetch.

I can't speak for Java ME, but I'm not surprised at the overhead by using reflection on a resource constrained system. I wouldn't think it is unbearably slow, but certainly you would see improvements from hard-coding the names into a variable.
Since you mentioned you were looking at serialization, I'd suggest you take a look into how its done in the Kryo project. You might find some of their methods useful, heck you might even be able to use it in Java ME. (Unfortunately, I have no experience with ME)

How to test Java app operating directly on external API

After comming from Ruby world, I'm having little problems doing TDD in Java. The biggest issue is when I have application that is just communicating with external API.
Say I want to just fetch some data from Google Calendar, or 5 tweets from some Twitter user and display it.
In Ruby, I don't have any problems, because I can monkey-patch the API library in tests directly, but I have no such option in Java.
If I think about this in terms of MVC, my model objects are directly accessing the API through some library. The question is, is this bad design? Should I always wrap any API library in some interface, so I can mock/stub it in Java?
Because when I think about this, the only purpose of that interface would be to simulate (please don't kill me for saying this) the monkey-patch. Meaning that any time I use any external resource, I have to wrap each layer in interface that can be stubbed out.
# do I have to abstract everything just to do this in Java?
Twitter.stub!(:search)
Now you might say that I should always abstract away the interface, so I can change the underlying layer to anything else. But if I'm writing twitter app, I'm not going to change it to RSS reader.
Yes, I can add for example Facebook and then it would make sense to have interface. But when there is no other resource that can be substituted for the one I'm using, than I still have to wrap everything in interfaces to make it testable.
Am I missing something, or is this just a way to test in the Java world?

Using interfaces is just generally good practice in Java. Some languages have multiple inheritance, others have duck typing, Java has interfaces. It's a key feature of the language, it lets me use
different aspects of a class in different contexts and
different implementations of the same contract without changing client code.
So interfaces are a concept you should embrace in general, and then you would reap the benefits in situations like this where you could substitute your services by mock objects.
One of the most important books about Java best practices is Effective Java by Joshua Bloch. I would highly suggest you to read it. In this context the most important part is Item 52: Refer to objects by their interfaces. Quote:
More generally, you should favor the use of interfaces rather than
classes to refer to objects. If appropriate interface types exist, then parameters, return values, variables, and fields should all be declared using interface
types. The only time you really need to refer to an object’s class is when you’re
creating it with a constructor.
And if you take things even further (e.g. when using dependency injection), you aren't even calling the constructor.
One of the key problems of switching languages is that you have to switch the way of thinking too. You can't program language x effectively while thinking in language y. You can't program C effectively without using pointers, Ruby not without duck typing and Java not without Interfaces.

Wrapping the external API is the way I would do this.
So, as you already said, you would have an interface and two classes: the real one and the dummy implementation.
Yes, it may seem unreasonable from the perspective of some services indeed being specific, like Twitter. But, this way your build process doesn't depend on external resources. Depending on external libraries isn't all that bad, but having your tests depend on actual data present or not present out there on the web can mess up the build process.
The easiest way is to wrap the API service with your interface/class pair and use that throughout your code.

I understand that what you want are Mock objects.
As you described it, one of the ways one can generate "test versions" of objects is by implementing a common interface and using it.
However, what you are missing is to simply extend the class (provided that it is not declared final) and override the methods that you want to mock. (NB: the possibility of doing that is the reason why it is considered bad form for a library to declare its classes final - it can make testing considerably harder.)
There is a number of Java libraries that aim in facilitating the use of Mock objects - you can look at Mockito or EasyMock.

Mockito is more handy and like your ruby mocks.

You can "monkey-patch" an API in Java. The Java language itself does not provide specific means to do it, but the JVM and the standard libraries do. In Ruby, developers can use the Mocha library for that. In Java, you can use the JMockit library (which I created because of limitations in older mocking tools).
Here is an example JMockit test, equivalent to the test_should_calculate_value_of_unshipped_orders test available in Mocha documentation:
#Test
public void shouldCalculateValueOfUnshippedOrders()
{
final Order anOrder = new Order();
final List<Order> orders = asList(anOrder, new Order(), new Order());
new NonStrictExpectations(Order.class)
{{
Order.findAll(); result = orders;
anOrder.getTotalCost(); result = 10;
}};
assertEquals(30, Order.unshippedValue());
}

Inject New Methods and Properties into Classes During Runtime

Is there any way we can inject new methods and properties into classes during run-time.
http://nurkiewicz.blogspot.com/2009/09/injecting-methods-at-runtime-to-java.html states we may do that by using Groovy.
Is it possible by just doing using Java?

Is it possible by just doing using
Java?
The simple answer is an emphatic "You don't want to do that!".
It is technically possible, but not without resorting to extremely complex, expensive and fragile tricks like bytecode modification1. And even then, you have to rely on dynamic loading to access the modified type and (probably) reflection to make use of its new members. In short, you would be creating lots of pain for yourself, for little if any gain.
Java is a statically typed language, and adding / modifying class type signatures can break the static typing contract of a class.
1 - AspectJ and the like allow you to inject additional behaviour into a class, but it is probably not the "runtime" injection that you are after. Certainly, the injected methods won't be available for statically compiled code to call.

So if you were really crazy, you could do something like what they outline here. What you could do is load the .java file, find the correct insertion point, add whatever methods you need to, call the java compiler and reload the class. Good luck debugging that mess though :)
Edit This actually might be of some use...

You can do some quite funky things with AOP, although genuine modification of classes at runtime is a pretty hairy technique that needs a lot of classloading magic and sleight of hand.
What is easier is using AOP techniques to generate a subclass of your target class and to introduce new methods into this instead, what AOP called a "mixin" or "introduction". See here to read how Spring AOP does it, although this may be quite lame compared to what you're actually trying to achieve.

Is it possible by just doing using Java?
Quite so, the "only" thing you have to do is define an instrumentation agent which supplies an appropriate ClassFileTransformer, and you'll have to use reflection to invoke the added methods. Odds are this isn't what you want to do, though, but it's doable and there's a well-defined interface for it. If you want to modify existing methods you may be interested in something like AspectJ.

While it might be possible, it is not useful.
How would you access these new fields and methods?
You could not use these methods and fields directly (as "ordinary" fields and methods), since they wouldn't be compiled in.
If all you want is the possibility to add "properties" and "methods", you can use a Map<String, Object> for the "dynamic properties", and a Map<String, SuitableInterface> for the "dynamic methods", and look them up by name.
If you need an extension language for Java, an embedded dynamic language (such as Javascript, or Groovy) can be added; most of these can access arbitrary java objects and methods.