I am trying to create a generic method, but it requires data from the sub class. Is there a way to do this, or is there a better implementation?
Example of my situation:
public class Super {
public static Object method() {
return doSomethingWith(specificToSubClassValue);
}
}
public class Sub1 extends Super {
public static String specificToSubClassValue = "123";
}
public class Sub2 extends Super {
public static String specificToSubClassValue = "456";
}
I obviously cannot do this. What is a better approach?
One alternative I can think of is to override the #method method in each sub class, but it will be the same code in each instance so I wanted to throw it in the parent class (and it won't be truly overridden since it is static), but I am not sure how to approach it since it is dependent on the sub class value.
Static methods in Java can't be overwritten, and can't access children-specific information: they know nothing about inheritance.
What you need here is instance method, which you can overwrite. An you also may use generics.
public class Super<T> {
public Object method() {
final T specificToSubClassValue = getSpecificToSubClassValue();
if (specificToSubClassValue != null) {
return specificToSubClassValue.hashCode();
} else {
return null;
}
}
protected T getSpecificToSubClassValue() {
return null;
}
}
class Sub1 extends Super<String> {
#Override
protected String getSpecificToSubClassValue() {
return "abc";
}
}
class Sub2 extends Super<Integer> {
#Override
protected Integer getSpecificToSubClassValue() {
return 123;
}
}
Declare an abstract method in Super, which will be used to return the value from the implementing classes. Note that this can only be achieved with non-static methods. As per #JB Nizet's comment, static methods cannot be overriden by subclasses. I've removed the static modifier from the code below to shown you how it would work.
public class Super {
public static Object method() {
return doSomethingWith(specificToSubClassValue);
}
protected abstract Object getValue ();
}
public class Sub1 extends Super {
public static String specificToSubClassValue = "123";
#Override
protected Object getValue () {
return specificToSubClassValue;
}
}
public class Sub2 extends Super {
public static String specificToSubClassValue = "456";
#Override
protected Object getValue () {
return specificToSubClassValue;
}
}
Well, te whole idea of inheritance is that the superclass should not be able to do that much without the sub-class. Otherwise the whole inheritance would be pointless exercise and spaghetti code. But you are tackling the problem the wrong way. Make sub-class "spill" the data you need (through getter) and use the generic method from superclass on the data in the sub-class.
Also the overriding of super class methods is highly overrated. You should strive for your super method to be as flexible and re-usable as possible, and even then strive rather for overloading, instead of overriding.
You could have:
public class Super {
public Object method(String specificValue) {
return doSomethingWith(specificToSubClassValue);
}
And then have your sub do this
public class Sub1 extends Super {
public static String specificToSubClassValue = "123";
Object method(specificToSubClassValue);
}
This way you accomplish exactly what you want, operate on the class specific value using the super method.
Related
I've got next situation:
There is an abstract class
public abstract class SuperClass {
public abstract void getString();
public abstract void method2();
}
public class InheritClass1 extends SuperClass {
#Override
public void getString(){...};
#Override
public void method2(){...};
}
public class InheritClass2 extends SuperClass {
#Override
public void getString{...};
#Override
public void method2(){...};
public void customMethod(){...};
}
There is another class that has a method that accepts SuperClass object as an argument. Depending on what kind of String is returned from getString I perform different actions. My case is that I am trying to call a child method while the object is of parent class:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
switch (type.getString()) {
case "1":
return "OK"
case "2":
return ((InheritClass2) type).customMethod()
}
}
I do understand that this is BAD DESIGN, could you please help me with finding the best solution for this problem. Maybe generics are suitable in this case somehow. Also the thing is that customMethod() should be a part of not all classes.
Since only some (sub)classes implements customMethod, I would suggest to create an interface that contains this method:
public interface CustomInterface {
public String customMethod();
}
Your SuperClass can then remain just as it is. Only the subclasses/child classes that have customMethod, would then extend your SuperClass as well as implement this CustomInterface. This way, the child classes that do not implement CustomMethod (does not have the method in their class, such as InheritClass1 in your example), also remain just as they are.
Only child classes that have CustomMethod, such as InheritClass2 would then need to change slightly by saying it implements this new interface:
public class InheritClass2 extends SuperClass implements CustomInteface {
// the rest stays the same
}
Then in the section where you want to do the casting, you rather do the following:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
switch (type.getString()) {
case "1":
return "OK"
case "2":
String s = "";
if (type instance of CustomInterface) {
s = (CustomInterface type).customMethod();
}
return s;
}
}
}
Using the interface in this way will help that you can implement all child classes and not just one as implementing the CustomInterface, and thus, all child classes will work with using instanceof and casting to the interface to call customMethod() - you won't have to handle each child that needs this method separately.
NOTE: Your code is clearly simplified example, it is unclear if the getString() method is just returning an identifier of the child classes in order for you to know which ones you can cast and then call custom Method on... If this is the purpose of your switch and getString methods - to identify which types implement the customMethod() and to call that method, and for any child class that does not have that method to return just "OK" - then you could instead do the following:
public class SubClass1 extends SuperClass implements CustomInterface {
// other mehtods...
public String CustomMethod() { return "SomeString1"; }
}
public class SubClass2 extends SuperClass {
// other methods...
// this subclass does not have the CustomMethod()
}
public class SubClass3 extends SuperClass implements CustomInterface {
// other methods...
public String CustomMethod() { return "SomeString3"; }
}
Then your Processor could look like this:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
return (type instanceof CustomInterface) ? ((CustomInterface) type).CustomMethod() : "OK";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Processor p = new Processor();
SuperClass obj1 = new SubClass1();
SuperClass obj2 = new SubClass2();
SuperClass obj3 = new SubClass3();
System.out.println(p.method(obj1)); // prints: "SomeString1"
System.out.println(p.method(obj2)); // prints: "OK"
System.out.println(p.method(obj3)); // prints: "SomeString3"
}
}
If you don't understand the ternary operator then you can read about it here That's the condition ? exprTrue : exprFalse syntax. It's a short if else statement basically.
You can create an interface, with default custom method implementation, like:
interface A {
default String customMethod() {
return "";
}
}
And abstract class will implement this interface:
public abstract class SupperClass implements A {
public abstract String getString();
public abstract void method2();
}
Bad design will cause you to get bad answers. If you don't want to cast your object to a child object. You could use reflection.
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
Method[] methods = type.getClass().getMethods();
for (Method m : methods) {
if (m.getName().equals("customMethod")) {
try {
return m.invoke(type);
} catch (Exception ex) {
// throw
}
}
}
return "OK";
}
}
Depending on your design you could apply:
if (type instanceof InheritClass2.class) return type.customMethod();
or
if (type.getClass() == InheritClass2.class) return type.customMethod();
I am a junior developer and I am familiar with the theory behind java abstract classes and how they can have constructors to force subclasses to set certain constructor parameters, and how abstract classes themselves cannot be instantiated. However, when looking at some refactored code in my company's test framework I am slightly puzzled.
This abstract class
public abstract class WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert {
private long maxWait;
public WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert(long maxWait) {
this.maxWait = maxWait;
}
public void waitForConditionThenAssert() {
...
...
}
protected abstract boolean checkCondition();
}
gets referenced in this class:
public class DbWrapper extends AbstractDB {
#Override
public void assertColumnValueNotNull(final String schema, final String table, final String columnName, final String whereClause) {
new WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert(this.assertionTemporalTolerance) {
#Override
public boolean checkCondition() {
return getColumnValue(schema, table, columnName, whereClause) != null;
}
}.waitForConditionThenAssert();
}
}
Since we can't instantiate an abstract class, can someone please explain to me exactly what happens and what gets created when we use new keyword in front of an abstract class constructor?
Try looking at anonymous classes. Here you have an anonymous class declaration that extends abstract class WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert and overrides checkCondition method.
This is not an abstract class
new WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert(this.assertionTemporalTolerance) {
#Override
public boolean checkCondition() {
return getColumnValue(schema, table, columnName, whereClause) != null;
}
}
That is an anonymous class that extends WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert. In other words, by writing that you are subclassing "WaitForTestOutcomeThenAssert" and instantiating it.
This is an Anonymous class. It's a shortcut to use Abstract class or Interface without having to explicitly write a subclass.
Since the subclass is not constructed yet, is it unsafe to call an abstract method in a super class constructor?
However, if the method's behaviour does not depend on the constrction of subclass, e.g. just return a constant with regard to the subclass, is it still unsafe or will it work reliably?
Moreover, if it works, how to do it if I do not want to make the super class abstract?
Update: for last question
public class SuperClass {
public SuperClass() {
System.out.println(getValue());
}
public String getValue() {
return "superclass";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubClass();
}
}
class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public SubClass() {
super(); // Comment out this or not will not affect the result
}
public String getValue() {
return "subclass";
}
}
I wrote a test, and figure it out: the result is : subclass
Thanks to #Tim Pote's example.
It is generally (though not necessarily) considered unsafe. As you said, the superclass may not be fully constructed, and therefore won't be ready to handle all of the calls a subclass might make in its overridden method.
However, in the case that all subclasses simply return a constant that isn't dependent on any other method, then it should be fine. The only downside is that you can't guarantee that a subclass will override that method in an appropriate manner.
In regards to your last question: this isn't an issue of an abstract vs. concrete superclass. This is an issue with calling overridable methods in a constructor. Abstract vs. concrete is beside the point.
Edit in response to the OP's comment
I'm not certain what you mean by "polymorphiscly". Calling a virtual method always invokes the sub-most implementation. The only time a superclasses implementation is invoked is via the super keyword. For example:
public class SuperClass {
public SuperClass() {
System.out.println(getValue());
}
public String getValue() {
return "superclass";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubClass();
}
public static class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public String getValue() {
return "subclass";
}
}
}
prints subclass.
And this:
public class SuperClass {
public SuperClass() {
System.out.println(getValue());
}
public String getValue() {
return "superclass";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new SubClass();
}
public static class SubClass extends SuperClass {
public String getValue() {
return super.getValue() + " subclass";
}
}
}
prints superclass subclass
As others have explained there is an inherent risk in calling abstract methods in super class constructor.
The one exception I have found is when the subclass provides some "constant" information, e.g getId(), getHandledMessages() and suchlike.
I wanted to implement a method in a abstract class that is called by the inherited classes and uses their values.
For instance:
abstract class MyClass{
String value = "myClass";
void foo(){System.out.println(this.value);}
}
public class childClass{
String value="childClass";
void foo(){super.foo();}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
new childClass.foo();
}
This will output "myClass" but what I really want is to output "childClass". This is so I can implement a "general" method in a class that when extended by other classes it will use the values from those classes.
I could pass the values as function arguments but I wanted to know if it would be possible to implement the "architecture" I've described.
A super method called by the inherited class which uses the values from the caller not itself, this without passing the values by arguments.
You could do something like this:
abstract class MyClass {
protected String myValue() {
return "MyClass";
}
final void foo() {
System.out.println(myValue());
}
}
public class ChildClass extends MyClass {
#Override
protected String myValue() {
return "ChildClass";
}
}
and so on
This is a place where composition is better than inheritance
public class Doer{
private Doee doee;
public Doer(Doee doee){
this.doee = doee;
}
public void foo(){
System.out.println(doee.value);
}
}
public abstract class Doee{
public String value="myClass"
}
public ChildDoee extends Doee{
public String= "childClass"
}
...
//Excerpt from factory
new Doer(new ChildDoee);
I believe you are asking whether this is possible:
public class MyClass {
void foo() {
if (this instanceof childClass) // do stuff for childClass
else if (this intanceof anotherChildClass) // do stuff for that one
}
}
So the answer is "yes, it's doable", but very much advised against as it a) tries to reimplement polymorphism instead of using it and b) violates the separation between abstract and concrete classes.
You simply want value in MyClass to be different for an instance of childClass.
To do this, change the value in the childClass constructor:
public class childClass {
public childClass() {
value = "childClass";
}
}
Edited:
If you can't override/replace the constructor(s), add an instance block (which gets executed after the constructor, even an undeclared "default" constructor):
public class childClass {
{
value = "childClass";
}
}
I have the following situation:
public abstract class A {
private Object superMember;
public A() {
superMember = initializeSuperMember();
// some additional checks and stuff based on the initialization of superMember (***)
}
protected abstract Object initializeSuperMember();
}
class B extends A {
private Object subMember;
public B(Object subMember) {
super();
subMember = subMember;
}
protected Object initializeSuperMember() {
// doesn't matter what method is called on subMember, just that there is an access on it
return subMember.get(); // => NPE
}
}
The problem is that I get a NPE on a new object B creation.
I know I can avoid this by calling an initializeSuperMember() after I assign the subMember content in the subclass constructor but it would mean I have to do this for each of the subclasses(marked * in the code).
And since I have to call super() as the first thing in the subclass constructor I can't initialize subMember before the call to super().
Anyone care to tell me if there's a better way to do this or if I am trying to do something alltogether wrong?
Two problems:
First, you should never call an overrideable member function from a constructor, for just the reason you discovered. See this thread for a nice discussion of the issue, including alternative approaches.
Second, in the constructor for B, you need:
this.subMember = subMember;
The constructor parameter name masks the field name, so you need this. to refer to the field.
Follow the chain of invocation:
You invoke the B() constructor.
It invokes the A() constructor.
The A() constructor invokes the overridden abstract methot
The method B#initializeSuperMember() references subMember, which has not yet been initialized. NPE.
It is never valid to do what you have done.
Also, it is not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You should ask a separate question explaining what your goal is.
Hum, this code does not look good and in all likelyhood this is a sign of a bad situation. But there are some tricks that can help you do what you want, using a factory method like this:
public static abstract class A {
public abstract Object createObject();
}
public static abstract class B extends A {
private Object member;
public B(Object member) {
super();
this.member = member;
}
}
public static B createB(final Object member) {
return new B(member) {
#Override
public Object createObject() {
return member.getClass();
}
};
}
The problem is when you call super(), the subMember is not initialized yet. You need to pass subMemeber as a parameter.
public abstract class A {
public A (Object subMember) {
// initialize here
}
}
class B extends A {
public B (Object subMember) {
super(subMember);
// do your other things
}
}
Since you don't want to have subMember in the abstract class, another approach is to override the getter.
public abstract class A {
public abstract Object getSuperMember();
protected void checkSuperMember() {
// check if the supberMember is fine
}
}
public class B extends A {
private Object subMember;
public B(Object subMember) {
super();
this.subMember = subMember;
checkSuperMemeber();
}
#Override
public Object getSuperMember() {
return subMember.get();
}
}
I hope this can remove your duplicate code as well.