We Keep Coding

Java - how to call a method of corresponding class based on string using enum/factory pattern

Yes, I read many examples in web, but I didn't find a way how to call a method based on string value. May be I am not searching in right way... I wrote all code, but don't know how to call the method.
fyi: I don't want to use if else or switch case
Here is what I want:
I get the card reader type as String from database. I have to call the corresponding class' method.
My code:
LoginPanel.java
public class LoginPanel {
public static void main(String args[]) {
String readerType = "Omnikey5427-CK"; // I get this ("Omnikey5427-CK" or "Omnikey5427-G2") from a database as String
// I WANT TO CALL getCardNumber() method of respective class
}
}
ISmartCardReader.java
public interface ISmartCardReader {
public Integer getCardNumber();
}
Omnikey5427G2.java
public class Omnikey5427G2 implements ISmartCardReader {
public Omnikey5427G2() {
System.out.println("G222222222222222...");
}
public Integer getCardNumber() {
return 222;
}
}
Omnikey5427CK.java
public class Omnikey5427CK implements ISmartCardReader {
public Omnikey5427CK() {
System.out.println("CKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK...");
}
public Integer getCardNumber() {
return 111;
}
}
SmacrtCardEnumFactory.java
public enum SmacrtCardEnumFactory {
OMNIKEY5427CK("Omnikey5427-CK") {
public ISmartCardReader geInstance() {
return new Omnikey5427CK();
}
},
OMNIKEY5427G2("Omnikey5427-G2") {
public ISmartCardReader geInstance() {
return new Omnikey5427G2();
}
};
private String cardReaderName;
private SmacrtCardEnumFactory(String cardReaderName) {
this.cardReaderName = cardReaderName;
}
public String cardReaderName() {
return cardReaderName;
}
}

You can use valueOf() function of enum provided your enum sonstant names match strings used to lookup (you may use cardName.toUpper()). You may also create objects for all the card types and store them in a hash map and then lookup them. You can also write some fatory method, but this will be if-then-else or switch inside

You could iterate over the factory's values() and get the one that matches the string:
public enum SmacrtCardEnumFactory {
// current code omitted for brevity
public static getSmartCardReader(String name) {
return Arrays.stream(values())
.filter(r -> r.cardReaderName().equals(name))
.map(SmacrtCardEnumFactory::getInstance();
.orElse(null);
}
}

Java Lambdas: Sending method name as parameter

I've run into a problem in which my class contains several methods with a lot of duplicated code. The reason behind this is that each method traverses a list of entries and calls specific entry method.
In code...
The LowLevelClass class has the following structure:
public class LowLevelClass {
// constructor omitted
public boolean doSomethingA() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
public boolean doSomethingB() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
public boolean doSomethingC() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
}
The top level class contains a List of LowLevelClasses and has the same number of methods, but this time, with a lot of duplications:
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
}
public void doA() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingA();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doB() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingB();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doC() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingC();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
}
My goal is to have something in form of:
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
}
public void doSomething(Lambda /* Functional interface*/ operation) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.operation; // or something else...
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doSomethingA() {
// my goal... and maybe in totally wrong direction is to send something in form of...
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}
// etc
}
Can this be done in Java 8 with Lambdas? In other words, can I define the method to perform on each entry of the given list?
EDIT 1
The answers provided by Jorn Vernee and Joffrey are correct!
Ultimately, the solution was to use Predicate. (see EDIT 2 why I didn't use Consumer in the end...)
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
}
public boolean doSomething(Predicate<LowLevelClass> function) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
boolean val = function.test(entry);
System.out.println("Done " + val);
}
return someEndVerdict;
}
public boolean doSomethingA() {
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}
// etc
}
EDIT 2
My initial methods in HighLevelClass didn't contain boolean return type. That's the reason why I used Predicate (Predicate, as a contast to Consumer, returns boolean value which suited me better - and which I forgot to initially mention :((( )
Thanks for help and time!

You should not confuse the way you call a method, which may or may not involve a lambda, and the way you write a method, which involves finding the right argument types.
When you write a method, you need to focus on your arguments' types. If one of them is an object representing a function, what you need is to understand the appropriate signature that this function should match, and this will give you the functional interface you should put as type of your param.
In your case, you expect a function that takes 1 argument of type LowLevelClass and returns no value. You might be surprised by that, but you need to think of instance methods as functions that take an instance of the class (this) as an extra first argument (as opposed to static methods).
Therefore, the Consumer<LowLevelClass> interface is what you want:
public void doSomething(Consumer<LowLevelClass> operation) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
operation.accept(entry); // or something else...
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doSomethingA() {
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}

How to do refactoring to eliminate type-code if it is used in validation rules?

Let's say we have to check some set of rules before adding a new element in a collection. Elements are objects of a few similar types. All type specific features are encapsulated in subclasses of an abstract class. Collection contains objects of this abstract class. The rules apply conditions for types along with other constraints. For that reason the abstract superclass of items has additional type code. New element can be added to collection but due to additional rules other elements in collection can be removed or replaced.
In the code that needs to be refactored, validation of the rules is implemented as one long block of code with nested control flow statements. Validation of the type code breaks encapsulation. Separate branches of the control flow statements cannot be defined as method of corresponding subclasses of collection elements because them need to check type and make changes to collection.
additional facts regarding type code in my case:
type code does not affect the behaviour of class
type code is immutable
type code is used by ItemsManager to resolve some rules before to add
new element to collection.
How to eliminate type code and separate rules from types?
Here is example of such problem:
Type specific features of Items are encpsulated in AbstractItem subclasses.add method of ItemManager class breaks encapsulation.Rule: item of Type2 must be removed if new item of Type1 with the same value of SomeUsefull property is adding to collection.
For simplicity implementation of ICloneable and IComparable interfaces is omitted. In real world items in collection are immutable and cloneable and the system of rules is quite tangled.
abstract class AbstractItem {
private int Type; // this would like to eliminate
private int SomeUseful;
protected AbstractItem(int Type, int Value) {
this.Type = Type;
this.SomeUseful = Value;
}
public int getType() { return this.Type; }
public int getSomeUseful() { return this.SomeUseful; }
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.format("Item{Type=%d, Value=%d}", Type, SomeUseful);
}
}
class ItemType1 extends AbstractItem {
ItemType1(int Value) { super(1, Value); }
}
class ItemType2 extends AbstractItem {
ItemType2(int Value) { super(2, Value); }
}
class ItemManager {
private java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem> ListOfItems;
public ItemManager(){
this.ListOfItems = new java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem>();
}
public void add(final AbstractItem newItem) {
// this code breaks encapsulation
switch (newItem.getType()) {
case 1:
// do some type dependent operations
for(AbstractItem i: this.ListOfItems) {
if (i.getType()==2 && i.getSomeUseful()==newItem.getSomeUseful()) {
this.ListOfItems.remove(i);
break;
}
}
break;
case 2:
// do some other type dependent operations
break;
default:
// throw error
}
this.ListOfItems.add(newItem);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
String str = String.format("ItemsManager content");
for(AbstractItem i: this.ListOfItems) {
str += String.format("\n\tType = %d, Value = %d", i.getType(), i.getSomeUseful());
}
return str;
}
}
public class Example1 {
public static void main(String[] arg) {
System.out.println("Example 1");
ItemManager im = new ItemManager();
im.add(new ItemType1(1));
im.add(new ItemType2(2));
im.add(new ItemType2(3));
im.add(new ItemType1(3));
System.out.println(im.toString());
}
}
/*
Example 1
ItemsManager content
Type = 1, Value = 1
Type = 2, Value = 2
Type = 1, Value = 3
*/

Starting from #dbugger's answer you can push it further.
You can use Double Dispatch to hide the type code. Still not a perfect solution because the parent knows too much about its children, but the type code is gone now.
It is hard to tell what a better solution might be with the example code you have given, because when you simplified, you removed all the information about the items involved. There might be something there that could be used for discrimination in some other way, allowing you to get rid of the double dispatch with shoudBeRemovedBecauseType1.
Here is the altered onAdd method from type 1
#Override
public List<AbstractItem> onAdd(List<AbstractItem> list) {
for (AbstractItem item : list) {
if (item.shoudBeRemovedBecauseType1(this)) {
list.remove(item);
break;
}
}
return list;
}
A new method in the base class
public boolean shoudBeRemovedBecauseType1(ItemType1 itemType1)
{
return false;
}
overridden in the type 2 subclass
#Override
public boolean shoudBeRemovedBecauseType1(ItemType1 itemType1)
{
return getSomeUseful() == itemType1.getSomeUseful();
}

It's not ideal, but it's a step towards getting some encapsulation and killing the switch statement...
add an onAdd method to the base class that takes the list as a parameter.
public java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem> onAdd(java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem> list) { return list; }
then override it in the sub classes, for example...
#Override
public java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem> onAdd(java.util.ArrayList<AbstractItem> list) {
for(AbstractItem i: this.ListOfItems) {
if (i.getType()==2 && i.getSomeUseful()==this.getSomeUseful()) {
list.remove(i);
break;
}
}
return list;
}
then rewrite the ItemManager add method to just call the sub classes' onAdd methods...
public void add(final AbstractItem newItem) {
this.ListOfItems = newItem.onAdd(this.ListOfItems);
this.ListOfItems.add(newItem);
}

Replacing if else statement with pattern

I have a if else statement which might grow in the near future.
public void decide(String someCondition){
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")){
//
someMethod("someParameter");
}else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")){
//
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
.
.
else{
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Since, this is already looking messy, I think it would be better if I can apply any design patterns here. I looked into Strategy pattern but I am not sure if that will reduce if else condition here. Any suggestions?

This is a classic Replace Condition dispatcher with Command in the Refactoring to Patterns book.
Basically you make a Command object for each of the blocks of code in your old if/else group and then make a Map of those commands where the keys are your condition Strings
interface Handler{
void handle( myObject o);
}
Map<String, Handler> commandMap = new HashMap<>();
//feel free to factor these out to their own class or
//if using Java 8 use the new Lambda syntax
commandMap.put("conditionOne", new Handler(){
void handle(MyObject o){
//get desired parameters from MyObject and do stuff
}
});
...
Then instead of your if/else code it is instead:
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
Now if you need to later add new commands, you just add to the hash.
If you want to handle a default case, you can use the Null Object pattern to handle the case where a condition isn't in the Map.
Handler defaultHandler = ...
if(commandMap.containsKey(someCondition)){
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
}else{
defaultHandler.handle(this);
}

Let's assume that we have such code (which is the same as yours):
public void decide(String someCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
someMethod("someParameter");
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
else {
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Assuming that you don't want to refactor other parts of the application and you don't want to change method signature there are possible ways in which it could be refactored:
Warning - You should use generic versions of mentioned patterns.
I showed non generic ones because it is easier to read them.
Strategy + Factory Method
We can use Strategy and Factory Method patterns. We also take advantage of polymorphism.
private final StrategyConditionFactory strategyConditionFactory = new StrategyConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Strategy strategy = strategyConditionFactory.getStrategy(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
strategy.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseStrategy());
StrategyConditionFactory (factory method):
public class StrategyConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Strategy> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public StrategyConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneStrategy());
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoStrategy());
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
public Optional<Strategy> getStrategy(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Strategy interface:
public interface Strategy {
void apply();
}
Implementations:
public class ConditionOneStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
}
public class ConditionTwoStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter")
}
}
public class ElseStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter")
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Strategy + Factory Method - this particular case (where only parameter changes)
We can use the fact that in this case we always call the same method, only parameter changes
We change our base strategy interface to abstract class with getParameter() method and we make new implementations of this abstract class. Other code remains the same.
public abstract class Strategy {
public abstract String getParameter();
public void apply() {
someMethod(getParameter());
}
private void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementations:
public class CondtionOneStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "someParameter";
}
}
public class CondtionTwoStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "anotherParameter";
}
}
public class ElseStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "elseParameter";
}
}
Enum + enum kinda "factory"
We might use Enum to implement strategy and instead of factory method we can use valueOf() from enum.
public void decide(String someCondition) {
ConditionEnum conditionEnum = ConditionEnum.valueOf(someCondition);
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Condition enum:
public enum ConditionEnum {
CONDITION_ONE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_TWO {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_ELSE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter");
}
};
//...more conditions
public abstract void apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("CONDITION_ONE");
decide("CONDITION_TWO");
decide("CONDITION_ELSE");
//...
}
Notice that you will get IllegalArgumentException when enum type has no constant with the specified name.
Command + Factory
The difference between strategy and command is that command holds also state, so if you have for example compute(int a, int b, String someCondition) and you want to refactor it with strategy including it's signature change you can reduce it to compute(int a, int b, ComputeStrategy computeStrategy) with command you can reduce it to one argument compute(ComputeCommand computeCommand). In this case we also take advantage of polymorphism similarly to strategy pattern case.
CommandConditionFactory commandConditionFactory = new CommandConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Command command = commandConditionFactory.getCommand(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
command.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseCommand());
CommandConditionFactory (factory method):
public class CommandConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Command interface:
public interface Command {
void apply();
}
Implementations (there is some redundancy, but It is there to show how command should look in more general case where instead of someMethod() we have three different methods):
public class ConditionOneCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionOneCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ConditionTwoCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionTwoCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ElseCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ElseCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Command + Factory - This particular case.
This in fact isn't a real command pattern just a derivative. It takes advantage of the fact that in this case we are always calling the same method someMethod(parameter) and only the parameter changes.
Abstract class:
public abstract class Command {
abstract void apply();
protected void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementation (the same for all 3 conditional cases):
public class CommandImpl extends Command {
private final String parameter;
public CommandImpl (String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply(){
someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Factory, please notice that there is only one command implementation, only parameter changes:
public class CommandConditionFactory {
Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new CommandImpl("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new CommandImpl("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new CommandImpl("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Nested if's
Note that even if you have nested ifs sometimes it is possible to refactor them and use one of the mentioned techniques.
Lets say that we have following code:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")){
someLogic1();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")){
someLogic2();
}
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")){
someLogic3();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")){
someLogic4();
}
}
}
You could refactor it using mathematical logic rules:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")) {
someLogic1();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")) {
someLogic2();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")) {
someLogic3();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")) {
someLogic4();
}
}
and then you can use strategy, enum or command. You just have a pair of Strings <String, String> instead of single String.
Decision Tables
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can implement your own decision tables or use some ready to go decision tables solution. I won't give the implementation there.
Rules Engine
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can also implement your own simple rules engine. You should use it only if you have many nested ifs, otherwise it is triumph of form over content.
For very complicated Business Logic there are professional Rule Engines like Drools.
I won't give the implementation there.
One more thing
In the example that you gave there is a high possibility that someone introduced these ifs, but they are totally redundant. And we can check it by trying to refactor decide method signature to make it take some other argument and to refactor surrounding code that is calling our method. By doing so we are getting rid of our Factory Method. There are examples that present how the code might look when it occurs that these ifs were redundant.
Strategy
Decide method:
public void decide(Strategy strategy) {
strategy.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneStrategy());
decide(new ConditionTwoStrategy());
decide(new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
Enum
Decide method:
public void decide(ConditionEnum conditionEnum) {
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumApp() {
//...
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ONE);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_TWO);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ELSE);
//...
}
Command
Decide method:
public void decide(Command command) {
command.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
decide(new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
decide(new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
In fact it is quite specific case, there are cases in which for example we have to use simple type like String, because it comes from the external system or condition is based on integer from input so we can't refactor the code so easily.

The general recommendation by Martin Fowler is to
Replace Conditional with Polymorphism.
In terms of design patterns this would often be the Strategy Pattern
Replace Conditional Logic with Strategy.
If you have a small, finite set of conditions, I recommend to use an enum to implement the Strategy Pattern (provide an abstract method in the enum and override it for each constant).
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
//...
}
},
CONDITION_TWO{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
}
}
public abstract void someMethod(MyClass myClass);
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someCondition.someMethod(this);
}
}
If it's really just a parameter you want to pick, then you could define the enum like this instead:
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE("parameterOne"),
CONDITION_TWO("parameterTwo");
private final String parameter;
private SomeCondition(String parameter){
this.parameter = parameter;
}
public String getParameter(){
return parameter;
}
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someMethod(someCondition.getParameter());
}
}

Another way to solve the current problem is to use Factory Pattern. This provides functionality to extract a factory method that returns an object of a given type and performs the operation based on the concrete object behavior.
public interface Operation {
String process(String a, String b);
}
The method takes two string as input and returns the result.
public class Concatenation implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return a.concat(b);
}
}
public class Join implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return String.join(", ", a, b);
}
}
And then we should define a factory class which returns instances of Operation based on the given operator:
public class OperatorFactory {
static Map<String, Operation> operationMap = new HashMap<>();
static {
operationMap.put("concatenation", new Concatenation());
operationMap.put("join", new Join());
// more operators
}
public static Optional<Operation> getOperation(String operator) {
return Optional.ofNullable(operationMap.get(operator));
}
}
And now we can use it:
public class SomeServiceClass {
public String processUsingFactory(String a, String b, String operationName) {
Operation operation = OperatorFactory
.getOperation(operationName)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid Operation"));
return operation.process(a, b);
}
}

I guess you must have already considered it, but if you are using JDK 7 or above, you can switch on strings. That way your code can look cleaner than a bunch of if-else statements.

Wrap/Proxy Boilerplate from Methods

I'm not a Java specialist and wondering if I could wrap Methods that are only different in their middle to stop having boilerplatecode like this:
public boolean storeAnimals(Cage cage, Collection<Anmial> animals, IConfiguration configuration) {
checkPrerequisite(cage);
String cagePath = cage.getPath();
AnimalStorage animalStore = AnimalStorage.openFile(cage, configuration);
//***/
do_sth_very_special
//***/
animalStore.closeFile();
return true;
}
public Collection<Anmial> getRedAnimals(Cage cage, IConfiguration configuration) {
checkPrerequisite(cage);
String cagePath = cage.getPath();
File animalStore = AnimalStorage.openFile(cage, configuration);
//***/
do_sth_very_special
//***/
animalStore.closeFile();
return result;
}

Since java doesn't present a kind of closure, you could use an interface for it. In this case you could do something like:
public Collection<Anmial> commonMethod(Cage cage, IConfiguration configuration, Runnable runnable) {
checkPrerequisite(cage);
String cagePath = cage.getPath();
File animalStore = AnimalStorage.openFile(cage, configuration);
//***/
runnable.run();
//***/
animalStore.closeFile();
return result;
}
and you method would be something like:
public boolean storeAnimals(Cage cage, Collection<Anmial> animals, IConfiguration configuration) {
commonMethod(cage, animals, configuration, new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("something special");
}
});
return true;
}
of course the Runnable interface was taken just to exemplify the idea, you could implement an interface for your needs. If you need that the inner code accesses some variables defined outside you can pass it as parameters, and if the outside code needs to access some variables defined inside you could return them from the invocation.
You could define a generic interface like:
public interface Executable<ReturnType, ParameterType> {
ReturnType execute(ParameterType parameter);
}
In case you need more parameters to execute the code, you could build a class containing all needed fields for the code execution. The same could be applied to the result.
This would be the idea to return a list of string:
new Executable<List<String>, Void>() {
public List<String> execute(Void void) {
// something special
return new ArrayList<String>();
}
}
ParameterObject could be used to solve the problem when you need to give more objects to the execution. Suppose you have one Integer and a boolean that needs to be given to the execution, this means you will have a class holding an Integer and a boolean like:
public class MyParameter {
private boolean b;
private Integer i;
public MyParameter(Integer i, boolean b) {
this.b = b;
this.i = i;
}
// getters
}
new Executable<Void, MyParameter>() {
public Void execute(MyParameter params) {
// something special
System.out.println(params.getI());
return null;
}
}