I'm a java newbie, and I have some codes like below.
public interface TestJava<T extends MyClass, U> {
public U func(T t);
}
The problem is that U is totally dependant on T so that if T is determined, U is also determined (declaring U is unnecessary!). As an example, if T is String, then U must be Integer and cannot be others. In C++, U can be easily removed using the keyword typedef like below if T is a user-defined class.
class UserDefinedClass {
public:
typedef int ReturnType;
};
template<class T> class TestCpp {
T::ReturnType func(T t);
};
However, java doen't have such keyword (as far as I know), so I have no idea how to achieve this.
Note that T in the java code is a user-defined object, not String, Integer or others.
Don't get confused with the example :)
One thing you could do is hide the eyesore by extending the interface and then from then on just call the extended interface. The point here is that you don't have to pass in the second type if you are SURE it will always be (eg: Integer*) the same.
public class MyClass{
boolean truth;
}
public interface Lame{
}
public interface TestJava<T extends MyClass, U> {
public U func(T t);
}
public interface TestJavaMore<T extends MyClass> extends Lame{
public void funky();
}
public interface TestJavaEvenMore<T extends MyClass> extends TestJava<T, Integer> {
}
Another solution which I think I would recommend if you have more than one combination of types for T and U is to use a factory to create a concrete instance with the types you want. This is a common pattern you can research, but in this case, it's something like:
public class TestJavaImpl<T extends MyClass, U> implements TestJava{
#Override
public Object func(MyClass t) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("Not supported yet.");
}
}
public TestJava TestJavaFactory(){
TestJava testJava = null;
if (true == true){
testJava = new TestJavaImpl<MyClass, Integer>();
} else {
testJava = new TestJavaImpl<MyClass, Float>();
}
return testJava;
}
*Tip:Remember too w/ java and templates you have to use "I"nteger not "i"nteger
Related
I have an interface with a type parameter that allows its conversion into the same type with another type parameter. Like this:
interface Interfaze<A> {
public <B> Interfaze<B> convert(java.util.function.Function<A, B> f);
}
I now want to impose a stricter requirement on the return type: I want the convert method to only return the same type as it was called on. Like this:
class GoodInterfaze<A> implements Interfaze<A> {
public <B> Interfaze<B> convert(java.util.function.Function<A, B> f) {
// return new GoodInterfaze<B>(); // I want this to be allowed by compiler
// return new BadInterfaze<B>(); // I want this to be a compilation error
return null;
}
}
class BadInterfaze<A> implements Interfaze<A> {
public <B> Interfaze<B> convert(java.util.function.Function<A, B> f) {
// return new GoodInterfaze<B>(); // I want this to be a compilation error
// return new BadInterfaze<B>(); // I want this to be allowed by compiler
return null;
}
}
The Interfaze interface is under my control, so I can add extra type parameters to it (or its methods) when needed. Do Java generics allow for anything like this?
You can get close by doing this.
public interface Interfaze<T extends Interfaze<T>> {
T convert();
}
Then you can do
public class Main {
public static class Good implements Interfaze<Good> {
#Override
public Good convert() { return new Good(); } // Compiles
}
public static class Bad implements Interfaze<Bad> {
#Override
public Bad convert() { return new Good(); } // Doesn't compile
}
}
This idea of using recursive bounds like this is very common. I personally dislike it as it's very confusing and because it doesn't mix well with inheritance. For example, you can't make a subclass SubGood of Good that implements Interfaze<SubGood> because you can't implement the same generic interface with 2 different type arguments. It only really works if all implementing classes cannot be extended (that's why Enum<E extends Enum<E>> is ok).
I have a multi level class structure and want to pass their implementation to a function that can call functions on them, but I get an Incompatible equality constraint: Test.SubDTO2 and Test.SubDTO error.
Here is the code:
public class Test {
abstract class DTO { }
class SubDTO extends DTO implements Interf{ }
class SubDTO2 extends DTO implements Interf{ }
class DAO<T extends DTO> { }
interface Interf { }
static DAO<SubDTO> daoImpl1;
static DAO<SubDTO2> daoImpl2;
public static void main(String... args) {
func(Arrays.asList(daoImpl1, daoImpl2)); // <- error is in this line
}
static <T extends DTO & Interf> void func(List<DAO<T>> arg) {
}
}
A more detailed example on what I try to achieve:
public class Test {
abstract class DTO {
abstract void func1();
}
class SubDTO extends DTO implements Interf{
#Override
public void func2() {
// comes from Interf
}
#Override
public void func1() {
// comes from DTO
}
}
class SubDTO2 extends DTO implements Interf{
#Override
public void func2() {
// comes from Interf
}
#Override
public void func1() {
// comes from DTO
}
}
class DAO<T extends DTO> {
public T dto() {
return null;
}
}
interface Interf {
void func2();
}
static DAO<SubDTO> daoImpl1;
static DAO<SubDTO2> daoImpl2;
public static void main(String... args) {
func(Arrays.asList(daoImpl1, daoImpl2));
}
static <T extends DTO & Interf> void func(List<? extends DAO<? extends DTO>> arg) {
arg.get(0).dto().func1(); // <- I can't call func2() here
}
}
exact error message:
[ERROR] required: java.util.List<Test.DAO<T>>
[ERROR] found: java.util.List<Test.DAO<? extends Test.DTO>>
[ERROR] reason: inference variable T has incompatible equality constraints Test.SubDTO2,Test.SubDTO
I need the list in the function func to extend DTO and also implement Interf as well, because I call certain functions on them.
Why is this happening? It works fine if I change the signature of the func and pass only one DAO, but I need it to work with multiple.
What are my options here?
I tried it with multiple java versions (1.8+), all the same.
Your function should be declared like this:
static <T extends DTO & Interf> void func(List<DAO<? extends T>> arg) {
Notice that I changed List<DAO<T>> to List<DAO<? extends T>>. This is because the expression Arrays.asList(daoImpl1, daoImpl2) produces a value of type
List<DAO<? extends DTO & Interf>>
(Of course, this isn't real syntax for a type in Java. There's no syntax for intersection types in Java but Java does know about them when doing type inference, and you could have these types in your code if you use var. I use this notation here just for illustrative purposes.)
If you know PECS, you'll know that this is a list of DAOs that produces DTO & Interfs/Ts, but does not consume DTO & Interfs/Ts. If you are lost at this point, please go read the PECS post - it's great. See also: Difference between <? super T> and <? extends T> in Java
The reason why it does this is quite intuitive. Imagine if DAO is just a container for a T.
static class DAO<T extends DTO> {
private T t;
public T getT() {
return t;
}
public void setT(T t) {
this.t = t;
}
}
If Arrays.asList(daoImpl1, daoImpl2) had produced a list of DAO<DTO & Interf> (with no extends or super), you'd be able to call getT and setT on elements of the list! And being able to call setT is especially dangerous you see - you'd be able to do this:
// suppose arg is a List<DAO<DTO & Interf>>
arg.get(someRandomNumber).setT(new SubDTO());
What if someRandomNumber happens to be 1, and we get the second element, which is a DAO<SubDTO2>? Putting a SubDTO inside that destroys the whole type-safety of generics.
The only type-safe thing to do on elements of such a list like [daoImpl1, daoImpl2] is to use them as producers of DTO & Interfs, hence the type is marked ? extends DTO & Interf. This means that if you have any methods on DAO that takes in a T, you won't be able to call them on elements of this list*.
Also note that, just in case I was not clear, it is not the list that is only a producer - the list is both a producer and consumer of DAOs. It's just that the DAOs in the list are producers of their Ts.
* except by passing nulls.
my code is as below, and I got the error message Bound Mismatch Error: The type String is not a valid substitute for the bounded parameter <K extends myComparable<K>> of the type myInterface<K,V>:
interface myComparable<T> {
public int compareTo(T o);
}
interface myInterface<K extends myComparable<K>, V> {
}
public class myClass implements myInterface<String,String>{
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello world!");
}
}
However, if I changed K extends myComparable<K> to K extends Comparable<K> (without changing the first line; i.e. to use Comparable instead of myComparable), the error will be solved.
Why? And how can I use my own myComparable?
I finally got a solution (i.e. to use myString instead of String):
interface myComparable<T> {
public int compareTo(T o);
}
interface myInterface<K extends myComparable<K>, V> {
}
class myString implements myComparable<myString>{
#Override
public int compareTo(myString o) {
return 0;
}
}
public class myClass implements myInterface<myString,myString>{
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello world!");
}
}
When you write implements myInterface<String, String>, you're 'binding' the K type variable to String and the V type variable to String.
The declaration of the K type variable in particular has a bound on it: You've declared it as myInterface<K extends myComparable<K>, V> which means that any bound you pick for K must at least 'fit' this restriction.
And it doesn't, which is why the compiler won't let you.
The java.lang.String class actually implements Comparable<String> - it's right there in the javadoc as well as the source if you care to look; you can also just cast it:
Comparable<String> test = "hello"; // this compiles and runs fine.
The reason is that string was written by sun/oracle as: public final class String implements Comparable<String>.
It was not written with implements myComparable<String>.
It is not possible to make java.lang.String implement your interface.
That is not how interfaces work; java is nominally and not structurally typed: You can't decree that all Strings are myComparables, just because they so happen to have a compareTo method.
Imagine it worked that way and I wrote this class:
public class Gun {
public void shoot(Person person) { ... }
}
quite a dangerous class!
Let's say it worked the way you appear things are. Then I could do:
public interface Camera {
public void shoot(Person p);
}
Camera c = new Gun();
c.shoot(somebody);
and good grief, now we have an extremely dangerous situation going on. Fortunately, java does not work this way; A Gun is not a Camera. Eventhough it so happens to have all the methods that the Camera interface declared.
You can make your own types that implement your own interfaces, of course. That's no problem. However, in general, it doesn't seem useful to make an interface named myComparable.
How to get Subclass object using implemented interface, if interface is used as Type Parameter for DynamoDBTypeConverter.(e.g. DynamoDBTypeConverter ).
public enum state implements EnumInterface{
CREATED("0");
}
public enum color implements EnumInterface{
GREEN("0");
}
public interface EnumInterface{
void getStatus();
}
public class DynamoDbEnumConverter implements DynamoDBTypeConvereter<String,EnumInterface>{
public EnumInterface unconvert(String value){
// find Object run time, EnumInterface represent color or stat
}
}
Get whether Enum interface represents color or state in unconvert method.
Check this page out: What are Reified Generics? How do they solve Type Erasure problems and why can't they be added without major changes?
Generics are erased in Java.
The only way you're going to get your code to work without hacking around is by providing one instance of the DynamoDbEnumConverter for each EnumInterface:
class DynamoDbEnumConverter<T extends Enum<T> & EnumInterface> implements DynamoDBTypeConvereter<String, T> {
private Class<T> enumType;
public DynamoDbEnumConverter(Class<T> enumType) {
this.enumType = enumType;
}
public EnumInterface unconvert(String value) {
return Enum.valueOf(enumType, value);
}
}
And then:
DynamoDbEnumConverter<Color> colorConverter = new DynamoDbEnumConverter<>(Color.class);
I am facing some difficulty to understand an expression in java generics.
Please help on this:
public interface Inter {
<T extends Enum<T> & FunctionalInterface> String getString();
}
The code you have given is legal, but useless.
It is useless for two reasons:
You have defined a generic type, T, as part of the method declaration that must implement the Enum<T> interface as well as the FunctionalInterface interface. However you haven't then used that type anywhere in the method's signature (i.e. arguments or return type) so it is effectively ignored.
Having an interface implement 'FunctionalInterface' is possible, but certainly not it's intended use. It is designed to be an annotation to an interface, not an interface itself.
You could make this combination work:
public interface Inter {
<T extends Enum<T> & FunctionalInterface> String getString(T value);
}
static class InterImpl implements Inter {
#Override
public <T extends Enum<T> & FunctionalInterface> String getString(T value) {
return value.name();
}
}
enum EnumImpl implements FunctionalInterface {
A, B, C;
#Override
public Class<? extends Annotation> annotationType() {
return null;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
InterImpl impl = new InterImpl();
System.out.println(impl.getString(EnumImpl.B));
}
You'll see that the EnumImpl enumeration implemements Enum and FunctionalInterface so it can be used as an argument to getString.
So that's an explanation but, frankly, I can't think of any useful use case for such a piece of code.