We are creating an Android library with an inner interface class. The problem we are facing is that the method parameter names are not preserved for interface class in the release build aar file. Although .aar file works fine, this creates problem in editor when using autocompletion, Implement methods etc. Please note that proguard is disabled.
public class Test {
public interface TestInterface {
void testCallback(int ordernumber, int vendorid);
}
public boolean init(Context context);
}
In the debug build, class is preserved fine. However, in the release build, parameter names of interface methods are not preserved. Interestingly it preserves parameter names of class methods. This I verified using decompiler.
public class Test {
public interface TestInterface {
void testCallback(int paramInt1, int paramInt2);
}
public boolean init(Context context);
}
I also tried setting debuggable flag in buildconfig without any help.
Will appreciate any help.
The official oracle docs state that interfaces do not preserve parameter names, so the only solution is including the docs with the library: Preserving parameter/argument names in compiled java classes
Related
I am working with AspectJ at the moment.
I seperated AspectJ code in a dependency.
Within that dependency everything works as intended.
But as soon as I import it in another project only some functionality does not work anymore.
When using the defaultImpl of #DeclareParents, the interface is shown within the compiled code but not the default Implementation.
Here is my code to show what I mean (every code snippet is its own File):
AspectJ code:
public interface IAspect
{
String hello();
}
public class IAspectDefaultImpl implements IAspect
{
#Override
public String hello()
{
return "hello";
}
}
#Aspect
public class AspectJ
{
#DeclareParents(value = "#SomeAnnotation*", defaultImpl = IAspectDefaultImpl.class)
private IAspect implementedInterface;
}
Target Class in a different project:
#SomeAnnotation
public class MyClass
{
private final int myValue;
public MyClass(final int wert)
{
this.myValue = wert;
}
public int getMyValue()
{
return myValue;
}
}
Maven throws me:
The type MyClass must implement the inherited abstract method IAspect.hello()
Which implies that it works partially.
When looking at the decompiled .class files the targeted Class does in fact implement IAspect.
The method defined in IAspectDefaultImpl is still missing tho.
My pom is set up like in this example.
I am not sure where I should start to look for errors.
Any help is apreciated.
Thanks for the MCVE. But hey, you don't use Git in order to commit 7z or ZIP archives, you ought to commit source code. I forked your project and fixed that, restructured and simplified your POMs and also fixed the main problem.
See my pull request and the commits in it for further details.
Concerning your problem, I can confirm that it occurs if you use #DeclareParents the way you do in an aspect library.
Actually, according to AspectJ maintainer Andy Clement there are certain problems with #DeclareParents when using it to provide parent interfaces + implementations in annotation style. The native AspectJ syntax via declare parents is not affected by that, but for annotation-style syntax Andy provided an alternative called #DeclareMixin, see the AspectJ manual. There he mentions that he is even considering to deprecate the defaultImpl argument of #DeclareParents in favour of #DeclareMixin.
So my bugfix (or workaround) for your problems is to actually replace
#DeclareParents(value = "#de.example.aspect.SomeAnnotation *", defaultImpl = IAspectDefaultImpl.class)
private IAspect implementedInterface;
by
#DeclareMixin("#de.example.aspect.SomeAnnotation *")
public static IAspect createIAspectImplementation() {
return new IAspectDefaultImpl();
}
This works with aspect libraries.
I will discuss with Andy about whether it makes sense to file a bug ticket for your problem or if he won't fix it anyway because there is a viable and recommended alternative.
I am building my Spring Boot 1.5 + Kotlin 1.2.41 project into a jar. One of the interfaces in the jar has the #JvmDefault and it compiles fine with the flag (if I remove the flag, it fails).
Now, I am trying to use this interface in another java project, in which I define the Kotlin project as a dependency.
In one implementing class, I don't override the default method. Intellij seems to be OK with it, as it doesn't complain. However, when I compile with Maven, I get :
[ERROR] attempting to assign weaker access privileges; was public
If I implement the method (with some dummy implementation), then it compiles... but it defeats the purpose of the default interface.
Any idea what could be wrong ?
When opening the Kotlin interface code from the java project, here's the decompiled code I see :
public interface CrawlerOutput {
#kotlin.jvm.JvmDefault public open fun finalize(): kotlin.Unit { /* compiled code */ }
public abstract fun output(analyzedRepository: com.myCompany.Repository): kotlin.Unit
}
My java code implementing the interface :
public class CsvOutput implements CrawlerOutput {
#Override
public void output(Repository repository) throws IOException {
log.info("own output is receiving some data !");
}
/**
* IF I REMOVE BELOW METHOD, MAVEN CAN'T COMPILE IT ANYMORE,
* COMPLAINING OF WEAKER ACCESS PRIVILEGE
*/
#Override
public void finalize(){
}
}
Am I missing something ?
Thanks
Vincent
Your method name conflicts with java.lang.Object.finalize(). The error should be fixed if you choose a different method name.
Android Studio and JVM always update its versions. As a result of that some of you may experience this error message.
Inheritance from an interface with '#JvmDefault' members is only allowed with -Xjvm-default option
Don't worry . The solution is very simple. Just add below code part to the end of android block of your app level build.gradle file and sync.
tasks.withType(org.jetbrains.kotlin.gradle.tasks.KotlinCompile).configureEach {
kotlinOptions {
freeCompilerArgs += [
"-Xjvm-default=all",
]
}
}
I'm reading the draft of the Java 9 specification but this phrase is not clear to me:
The opens directive specifies the name of a package to be opened by the current module. This makes public and protected types in the package, and their public and protected members, be accessible to code in other modules at run time only. It also makes all types in the package, and all their members, be accessible via the reflection libraries of the Java SE Platform.
If the opens makes public and protected accessible at runtime only, what does meaning that all types in the packages area accessible via reflection?
I don't understand the difference between runtime and reflection.
It seems like the opened package makes accessible only public and protected at runtime (via reflection?) and also other packages not specified with type and members accessible vie reflection (also private...).
Let's say you write some code that uses a public class from a library.
import somelibrary.somepackage.SomeClass; // <-- public class from a library.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SomeClass.doSomething();
}
}
You then compile this code, and it compiles fine, since the class you're using is public.
Now, in the next version of the library, the package is added to a module, but not exported. That means that if you try to run your code with this new module on the runtime module path, it would throw an exception because you're trying to access an encapsulated package.
In order to make your code work again, you could use the command line option to open this module to your code, so that it can continue to use the encapsulated package.
Alternatively, the creator of the library could add opens somepackage; to the module definition of the library. That would allow you to run your code using this new version, but not compile with it. I.e. the public and protected members are only accessible at runtime, but there is no reflection involved.
The same goes for when you extend a class, and want to access a protected member of a super class that is in the encapsulated package.
But the opens directive does not change the fact that, if in the next version of a library, a method or field is made private, that you get an IllegalAccessError if you try to use it:
class SomeClass { // <-- the class in the library
public static void doSomething() {
System.out.println("doSomething"); // contrived example code
}
}
...
public class Main {
public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {
SomeClass.doSomething(); // this call compiles fine,
}
}
Then, in the next version of the library doSomething is made private:
private static void doSomething() {...}
And re-compiled. But if you try to run the old version of Main with the new version of SomeClass you get an IllegalAccessError.
In short, opens only works for members that are still public or protected in the new version of the library.
However, in the case of reflection, you can always access a private member, by using setAccessible(true):
public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {
Method m = SomeClass.class.getDeclaredMethod("doSomething");
m.setAccessible(true);
m.invoke(null); // works Fine
}
So in the case of reflection, opens would also make encapsulated private members accessible again.
A package opened by a module, may be qualified or unqualified.
The opens directive in a module declaration declares a package to be
open to allow all types in the package, and all their members, not
just public types and their public members to be reflected on by APIs
that support private access or a way to bypass or suppress default
Java language access control checks.
--Documentation
i have two independent projects Basic and Extension with following setup
Project A:
class Handler {
public void handle(){
...
}
}
Project B
import Handler; //from Proejct A
class SomeClass{
someMethod() {
handle(); //dependency to Project As class with handle method
}
}
So the problem is the dependecy to the handle method which exists at Project A but not at compile time on Project B.
The final step is to have build Project Extension as a jar and import it inside Project Basic.
Ofc the compiler will give me error when i build Project B since the handle is not known at compile time.
For this issue i need a solution:
Either: Tell java that the missing code (import class with handle method) will be there at running time.
Or maybe Dependency Injection due to a factory pattern.
I am known to the factory pattern, but i don't understand how it could help me in this situation.
Or another solution.
Can you help me?
Neither of these are valid Java - won't compile. The proper keyword is "class", not "Class".
You have to provide it at compile time once you get it right - you have no choice. No way around it.
Maybe you should look at the Java JDK and follow the example in the java.sql package: Interfaces. Connection, ResultSet, Statement, etc. are all interfaces so vendors can provide their own implementations. Users only deal with interfaces.
Your GenericHandler should be an interface that you provide to clients. They add their implementations and add their JAR file containing the custom implementation at runtime.
Basic interface that all extensions implement:
public interface GenericHandler {
void genericHandle();
}
Extension code:
import GenericHandler;
public class Extension implements GenericHandler {
public void genericHandle() {
// Do something useful here
}
}
The factory pattern works only if you provide a finite, closed set of implementations:
public class GenericHandlerFactory {
private final GenericHandlerFactory instance = new GenericHandlerFactory();
private GenericHandlerFactory() {}
public GenericHandler getInstance() { return this.instance; }
public GenericHandler createHandler(Class genericHandlerClass) {
GenericHandler result = null;
// Code to create the GenericHandler you want.
return result;
}
}
If users can extend your interface without your knowledge then a factory can't work; you have to stick to the JDBC example.
I am building an Android app. Now, I have a source code for API #1, I should get it adapted for API #2. Then I will publish the both versions for API #1 and API #2 in different packages. I can't use something like values-en, because both versions can be used worldwide. Also, the user may not have choice.
As the new version will use same UI and DB logic, (and because now the code is erroneous,) I don't want to separate the code. If i were coding in c or c++, I must use #ifdef and Makefile. However, I'm in Java. It's possible to run the API-dependent code by determining the package name in runtime, but it's somewhat weird.
I think I can use annotations. What I expect is:
package foo.app;
public class API {
public boolean prepare() { ... }
#TargetPlatform(1)
public void open() { ... }
#TargetPlatform(2)
public void open() { ... }
}
and use only one of them. Also, this is good:
package foo.app;
public class R {
#TargetPlatform(1) com.example.foo.app.R R;
#TargetPlatform(2) net.example.foo.app.R R;
}
Just defining an annotation is simple. What I don't know is, how can I exclude unused duplicates from build or execution, or so on? If the work can be done in this way, I can do anything.
You cannot use annotations for that.
It would be better to hide the implementation specific classes behind an interface.
public interface Api {
boolean prepare();
void open();
}
To create a Api instance use a factory class:
public class ApiFactory {
public static Api createApi() {
if(isTargetPlatform1())
return new com.example.foo.app.Api();
else
return new net.example.foo.app.Api();
}
private boolean isTargetPlatform1() {
// determine the current platform, e.g. by reading a configuration file
}
}
In all other places you only refer to the Api interface and ApiFactory class.
Use it like that:
Api api = ApiFactory.createApi();
api.open();
// ...
A more advanced solution would be to use dependency injection.