We Keep Coding

how to Instantiate the list of abstract parent class

Here is some part of the practice.
I created an abstract parent class called Equipment, which has four child classes as shown as ConcreteMixer. Then the exercise asked me to create a class named Job, in which its constructor is as shown in the figure. I can’t understand the meaning of the list parameter, but I still created a class according to its requirements, and set it in It is instantiated in the main function.
This is the result of instantiation. I don’t know what the result of this parameter instantiation has to do with Equipment and its subclasses
public abstract class Equipment {
String requirement;
public Equipment(String requirements){
this.requirement=requirements;
}
public String getRequirement() {
return requirement;
}
}
public class ConcreteMixer extends Equipment{
public ConcreteMixer(String requirement){
super(requirement);
}
public String toString(){
return requirement;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if(obj instanceof ConcreteMixer) {
ConcreteMixer that = (ConcreteMixer) obj;
return this.requirement.equals(that.requirement);
} return false;
}
}
public Job(Address location, String description,List<Equipment> requiredEquipment, Date plannedDate) {
this.location = location;
this.description = description;
this.requiredEquipment = requiredEquipment;
this.plannedDate = plannedDate;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Job s= new Job(new Address("Star street",16, "da","London"),"mixer",new
ArrayList<Equipment>(),new Date(12,5,21));
System.out.println(s);
}
}
and this is the result for the main method
location:Address isLondonStar street16da
description:mixer
requiredEquipment:[]
plannedDate:day:12
month:5
year:21

As shown, your image shows nothing about using (or defining) your Equipment subclasses
But the point of the parameter is that the job can use multiple of any Equipment type
List<Equipment> e = new ArrayList<>();
e.add(new ConcreteMixer("concrete"));
Job j = new Job(..., e,...);

Check if class has a variable in its constructor based on a string?

Let's say I have a class named Person and its constructor had variables like name, age, hairColor and so on. If I had a function that receives a string that should match one of the class's variables, how could I check if that class actually had that variable and how could I go about modifying it? For example:
public class Person {
public String name;
public int age;
public String hairColor;
public Person() {
name = "Bryce";
age = 21;
hairColor = "brown";
}
public void changeHairColor(String variable, String color) {
if (/*this class contains the variable passed as an argument to this method*/) {
// Person[variable] = color
}
}
}
I'm a python dev, mostly, so the method changeHairColor has some pseudo-python in it. I want to be able to edit the variable in a similar way you could edit variables inside of dictionaries with Python:
person = {
"name": "Bryce",
"age": 21,
"hairColor": "brown"
}
def changeHairColor(variable, color):
person[variable] = color
If that is at all possible.

The only way to do it in Java is to use Java Reflection API:
public class Test {
public String name;
public int age;
public String hairColor;
public void setProperty(String property, Object value) {
try {
Field declaredField = this.getClass().getDeclaredField(property);
switch (declaredField.getAnnotatedType().getType().getTypeName()) {
case "java.lang.String":
declaredField.set(this, value);
break;
// handle other types
}
} catch (NoSuchFieldException e) {
// handle exception
} catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
// handle exception
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.setProperty("name", "Bob");
System.out.println(test.name);
}
}

I would not solve this with reflection. If your PlayerCharacter has an enumerable set of attributes, I would model these as a Java enum and store the attribute values within the PlayerCharacter object in an EnumMap:
import java.util.EnumMap;
public class PlayerCharacter {
public enum Attribute {
AGILITY,
DEXTERITY,
/* etc ...*/
VITALITY
}
private EnumMap<Attribute, Integer> attributes = new EnumMap<>(Attribute.class);
public PlayerCharacter() {
// initialize each attribute with a default value (0 in this example)
for (Attribute a : Attribute.values()) {
attributes.put(a, new Integer(0));
}
}
public int getValue(Attribute attribute) {
return attributes.get(attribute);
}
public void levelUp(Attribute attribute, int amount) {
attributes.put(attribute, attributes.get(attribute) + amount);
}
}
The biggest benefit of using an enum instead of plain old String (+reflection), is that this way you get compile-time type safety for the code that's using your PlayerCharacter.

Using Reflection API, you can access the methods and properties on an object at run time. The other answer describes its usage. But I don't recommend reflections for your problem. How about the following:
public void changeHairColor(String variable, String color) {
if("name".equalsIgnoreCase(variable))
this.name = color;
else if("age".equalsIgnoreCase(variable))
this.age = Integer.parseInt(color);
else if("color".equalsIgnoreCase(variable))
this.color = color;
else
throw new Exception ("error - property not available");
}
}
Note, your existing method name 'changeHairColor' doesn't make sense in the context. It should be someething like 'changeProperty' because you are not just changing the 'color', you are changing any available property with this method.

Avoid type casting

I have an empty interface called Data which is implemented by classes DataOne and DataTwo.
I then have a class called DataHolder which contains a Data object.
It looks something like this:
public class DataHolder() {
public Data data;
}
public class DataOne() {
public int importantData;
public int getImportantData() {
return importantData;
}
public int setImportantData(int importantData) {
this.importantData = importantData;
}
}
public class DataTwo() {
public int notSoImportantData;
}
Let's say theres a function which takes a DataHolder object and does some operation on the importantData integer.
public void calculateImportantData(DataHolder dh) {
int importantData = 1234567890;
dh.data.setImportantData(importantData);
}
How can I be sure that the DataHolder contains a DataOne object, without typecasting?

How about:
public class DataHolder<T extends Data> {
public T data;
}
and in your code you will have:
public void calculateImportantData(DataHolder<DataOne> dh) {
int importantData = 1234567890;
dh.data.setImportantData(importantData);
}
and I assume you meant DataOne and DataTwo to implement Data.

first of all , I tweaked your code a little bit ,
1- I created an Interface , Data , containing some random method someMethod() :
package main.interfaces;
public interface Data {
int myData = 0;
public void someMethod();
}
2- then , I created 2 classes called DataOne and DataTwo :
Class DataOne: ( notice how i added the important business method setImportantData() here , this provides total Encapsulation of your work).
package main;
import main.interfaces.Data;
public class DataOne implements Data{
public int importantData;
public int getImportantData() {
return importantData;
}
public void setImportantData(int importantData) {
this.importantData = importantData;
}
#Override
public void someMethod() {
System.out.println("here in DataOne!... ");
}
public void calculateImportantData(int importantData) {
// int importantData = 1234567890;
setImportantData(importantData);
}
}
Class DataTwo:
package main;
import main.interfaces.Data;
public class DataTwo implements Data{
public int notSoImportantData;
#Override
public void someMethod() {
System.out.println("here in DataTwo!...");
}
public void calculateUsualData(DataTwo d2) {
d2.someMethod();
}
}
after that , using Factory Design Pattern ... I created this DataFactory class:
package main.factory;
import main.DataOne;
import main.DataTwo;
import main.interfaces.Data;
public class DataFactory {
public static Data getData(String dataType){
if(dataType == null){
return null;
}
if(dataType.equalsIgnoreCase("DATAONE")){
return new DataOne();
} else if(dataType.equalsIgnoreCase("DATATWO")){
return new DataTwo();
}
return null;
}
}
now , back to your problem solution , I used DataHolder , encapsulating DataFactory here:
package main.holder;
import main.factory.DataFactory;
import main.interfaces.Data;
public class DataHolder {
Data data;
public DataHolder(String dataType){
data = DataFactory.getData(dataType);
}
public Data getData(){
return data;
}
}
now , try to run the application , I added some comments that will appear on your console , and I hope they will be helpful :)
package main.run;
import main.DataOne;
import main.DataTwo;
import main.holder.DataHolder;
import main.interfaces.Data;
public class main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// lets assume user of the method passed a DataOne Object, you can
// manage it by changing the value of flag string
String flag = "DataOne";
DataHolder dataHolder = new DataHolder(flag);
if (dataHolder.getData() instanceof DataOne) {
System.out
.println("you have a DataOne object , but a Data reference");
System.out
.println("/nso , you need to create a 'reference' to DataOne to work on that object ...");
} else if (dataHolder.getData() instanceof DataTwo) {
System.out
.println("you have a DataTwo object , but a Data reference");
} else {
System.out
.println("you dont have a DataOne nor DataTwo references , it is a "
+ dataHolder.getData().getClass() + " object!");
}
System.out
.println("in order for the compiler to pass the following test , you must cast he RHS ( right hand side ) to match the LHS (left hand side)");
// in order for the compiler to pass the following test , you must cast
// the RHS ( right hand side ) to match the LHS (left hand side)
DataOne d1 = (DataOne) dataHolder.getData();
// in case you wanted to test DataTwo scenario
//DataTwo d2 = (DataTwo) dataHolder.getData();
System.out.println("if you didnt do that , you can make it a Data Object , but you will not be able to access the method 'getImportantData()' created in DataOne");
Data data = dataHolder.getData();
}
}
(note , here the program structure is : you select the type of the data before you start the application , stored in the "flag" variable inside the main method. after that , a call to DataHolder method will be made , after that , you can check the returned object and check if it is what u specified earlier. if you want it to be a little complicated , you can pass the object type in the DataHolder's constructor , and do the check from there , I didn't want to do it just for simplicity. Good Luck)

Best practice to prevent further instantiation of java classes

I have some class storing keys with important information. No one else is allowed to create a key, since a key relys on static information (like certain directory structures etc.).
public final class KeyConstants
{
private KeyConstants()
{
// could throw an exception to prevent instantiation
}
public static final Key<MyClass> MY_CLASS_DATA = new Key<MyClass>("someId", MyClass.class);
public static class Key<T>
{
public final String ID;
public final Class<T> CLAZZ;
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz)
{
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
}
}
This example is simplyfied.
I wanted to test the consequences of a wrong key (exception handling, etc.) and instantiated the class via reflection in a JUnit test case.
Constructor<?> c = KeyConstants.Key.class.getDeclaredConstructor(String.class, Class.class);
c.setAccessible(true);
#SuppressWarnings ("unchecked")
KeyConstants.Key<MyClass> r = (KeyConstants.Key<MyClass>) c.newInstance("wrongId", MyClass.class);
Then I asked myself how could I prevent further instantiation of the key class (i. e. preventing further object creating via reflection)?
enums came to my mind, but they don't work with generics.
public enum Key<T>
{
//... Syntax error, enum declaration cannot have type parameters
}
So how can I keep a set of n instances of a generic class and prevent further instantiation?

So how can I keep a set of n instances of a generic class and prevent
further instantiation?
If you truly want to use this pattern, then no one (including you) should be able to instantiate a Key object. In order to keep a set of n instances in a class with this pattern, you could have a private constructor, a static method for access and a SecurityManager to prevent reflection. And since you want to be able to access the keys as pubic constants, I would try something like this..
public class KeyConstants{
// Here are your n instances for public access
public static final int KEY_1 = 1;
public static final int KEY_2 = 2;
.
.
.
public static final int KEY_N = 'n';
// now you can call this method like this..
// Key mKey = KeyConstants.getKey(KeyConstants.KEY_1);
public static Key getKey(int key){
List keys = Key.getInstances();
switch(key){
case KEY_1:
return keys.get(0);
case KEY_2:
return keys.get(1);
.
.
.
case KEY_N:
return keys.get(n);
default:
// not index out of bounds.. this means
// they didn't use a constant
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
}
static class Key<T>{
private static List<Key> instances;
private String ID;
private Class<T> CLAZZ;
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz){
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
public static List<Key> getInstances(){
if(instances == null){
instances = new ArrayList<Key>();
//populate instances list
}
return instances;
}
}
}
Use SecurityManager to prevent reflection access.
//attempt to set your own security manager to prevent reflection
try {
System.setSecurityManager(new MySecurityManager());
} catch (SecurityException se) {
}
class MySecurityManager extends SecurityManager {
public void checkPermission(Permission perm) {
if (perm.getName().equals("suppressAccessChecks"))
throw new SecurityException("Invalid Access");
}
}
This will throw a SecurityException anytime someone attempts to access a private variable or field in your class (including access attempts via reflection).

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but if a private constructor is not sufficient, can you use a more dynamic approach and throw an exception in the constructor after a signal is given? For example:
public static class Key<T>
{
private static boolean isLocked = false;
// Call this method when you want no more keys to be created
public static void lock() { isLocked = true; }
...
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz)
{
if (isLocked) throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot create instances of Key");
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
}
Then - and this is the disadvantage - you will have to call Key.lock() once you want to prevent more instances being created.

As you showed in your code to prevent instantiating KeyConstants you can throw some Exception inside private-non-argument constructor.
Harder part is way to block creating KeyConstants.Key constructor from outside of KeyConstants class.
Some wild idea
Maybe create Exception in your constructor and check how its stack trace looks like. When I add this code to constructor
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz) {
StackTraceElement[] stack = new Exception().getStackTrace();
for (int i=0; i<stack.length; i++){
System.out.println(i+") "+stack[i]);
}
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
and create instance of Key with reflection like
Constructor<?> c = KeyConstants.Key.class.getDeclaredConstructor(
String.class, Class.class);
c.setAccessible(true);
KeyConstants.Key<MyClass> r = (KeyConstants.Key<MyClass>) c
.newInstance("wrongId", MyClass.class);
I get
0) KeyConstants$Key.<init>(Test.java:38)
1) sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
2) sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
3) sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
4) java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:525)
so maybe just if 4th element of stack is java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance throw Exception to prevent executing rest of constructors code like:
if (stack.length>=4 && stack[4].toString().startsWith("java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance")){
throw new RuntimeException("cant create object with reflection");
}

I came across some Multiton patterns recently, where I tried to handle problems with unique enum keys, that gave me the idea of another approach.
The keys can be used for information flow as I intended, or even as keys for typesafe heterogeneous container, where they can perform compile-time casting.
Key-defining class
public class KeyConstants
{
public static final KeysForIntegers SOME_INT_KEY = KeysForIntegers.KEY_2;
public static final KeysForStrings SOME_STRING_KEY = KeysForStrings.KEY_1;
public interface Key<Type>
{
public Class<Type> getType();
}
/* Define methods that classes working with the keys expect from them */
public interface KeyInformation
{
public String getInfo1();
// and so on...
}
public enum KeysForStrings implements Key<String>, KeyInformation
{
KEY_1("someId");
public final String ID;
private KeysForStrings(String id)
{
ID = id;
}
#Override
public String getInfo1()
{
return "Good piece of information on " + ID + ".";
}
#Override
public Class<String> getType()
{
return String.class;
}
}
public enum KeysForIntegers implements Key<Integer>, KeyInformation
{
KEY_2("bla");
public final String ID;
private KeysForIntegers(String id)
{
this.ID = id;
}
#Override
public String getInfo1()
{
return "Some info on " + ID + ".";
}
#Override
public Class<Integer> getType()
{
return Integer.class;
}
}
}
Example key-using class
public class KeyUser
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
KeysForIntegers k1 = KeyConstants.SOME_INT_KEY;
KeysForStrings k2 = KeyConstants.SOME_STRING_KEY;
processStringKey(k2);
useIntKey(k1);
Integer i = useIntKey(KeyConstants.SOME_INT_KEY);
processStringKey(KeyConstants.SOME_STRING_KEY);
}
/* My methods should just work with my keys */
#SuppressWarnings ("unchecked")
public static <TYPE, KEY extends Enum<KeysForIntegers> & Key<TYPE> & KeyInformation> TYPE useIntKey(KEY k)
{
System.out.println(k.getInfo1());
return (TYPE) new Object();
}
public static <KEY extends Enum<KeysForStrings> & KeyInformation> void processStringKey(KEY k)
{
System.out.println(k.getInfo1());
// process stuff
}
}

I have another approach, you can bound an interface in a way to only be implemented by enum.
With that approach you have a fixed set of instances at compile time.
If you want to add lazy loading, the enums implementing it should be proxies that load the desired object if it is requested. The class or classes that are hidden behind the proxies should only be visible to them, so that they have exclusive access to the constructor.
public class User {
public static <S> S handleKey(FixedInstanceSet<S,?> key) {
return key.getKey();
}
}
interface FixedInstanceSet<S, T extends Enum<T> & FixedInstanceSet<S,T>>
{
public S getKey();
}
enum StringKeys implements FixedInstanceSet<String, StringKeys> {
TOP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT;
#Override
public String getKey() { return null; }
}
enum IntKeys implements FixedInstanceSet<Integer, IntKeys > {
TOP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT;
#Override
public Integer getKey() { return null; }
}
/*
* Bound mismatch: The type NotWorking is not a valid substitute for the bounded
* parameter <T extends Enum<T> & FixedInstanceSet<S,T>> of the type
* FixedInstanceSet<S,T>
*/
//class NotCompiling implements FixedInstanceSet<String, NotCompiling> {
//
// #Override
// public String getKey() { return null; }
//}

If I understand you correctly, you don't want your class to be instantiated.
You can set the default constructor to private
private Key() throws IllegalStateException //handle default constructor
{
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
This will prevent its improper instantiation.
Update:
added throw IllegalStateException

How to mark a method obligatory?

Suppose you create a class names Person using the builder pattern, and suppose the Builder class contains methods body(), head(), arms() and of course build() and you consider methods head() and build() obligatory for the user of this class.
We would like to somehow mark these methods obligatory, if possible using annotations. If a user of this class tries to build a Person instance but forgot to call either of these methods, we would like to get some kind of warning - either from the java compiler, or maybe from Eclipse or Maven, which we use to build our projects - any of them would do.
Is it possible to do? Which way would you suggest?

Here is an example with using different types to make some parts mandatory (it also makes the order you call the methods mandatory):
package test;
import test.StepOne.StepThree;
import test.StepOne.StepTwo;
import test.StepOne.LastStep;
public class TestBuilder {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String person1 = PersonBuilder.newInstance().head("head").body("body").arm("arm").leg("leg").build();
String person2 = PersonBuilder.newInstance().head("head").body("body").arm("arm").build();
}
}
interface StepOne {
// mandatory
StepTwo head(String head);
interface StepTwo {
// mandatory
StepThree body(String body);
}
interface StepThree {
// mandatory
LastStep arm(String arm);
}
// all methods in this interface are not mandatory
interface LastStep {
LastStep leg(String leg);
String build();
}
}
class PersonBuilder implements StepOne, StepTwo, StepThree, LastStep {
String head;
String body;
String arm;
String leg;
static StepOne newInstance() {
return new PersonBuilder();
}
private PersonBuilder() {
}
public StepTwo head(String head) {
this.head = head;
return this;
}
public LastStep arm(String arm) {
this.arm = arm;
return this;
}
public StepThree body(String body) {
this.body = body;
return this;
}
public LastStep leg(String leg) {
this.leg = leg;
return this;
}
public String build() {
return head + body + arm + leg;
}
}
Edit
The OP was so impressed with this answer that he wrote it up fully in a blog. It's such a clever take on the builder pattern that a full treatment deserves to be referenced here.

I believe the correct use of the builder pattern would solve the issue you're having.
I would create class PersonBuilder which would contain the methods setBody() and setArms() and every other optional parameter setter method. The constructor of the builder would take the required parameters. Then the method build() would return the new instance of Person.
public class PersonBuilder
{
private final Head head;
private Body body;
private Arms arms;
public PersonBuilder(Head head)
{
this.head = head;
}
public void setBody(Body body)
{
this.body = body;
}
public void setArms(Arms arms)
{
this.arms = arms;
}
public Person build()
{
return new Person(head, body, arms);
}
}
Alternatively you could pass the Head parameter to the method build() but I prefer passing it in the constructor instead.

No way with the compiler.
You can do is throw a runtime exception from the build() method that the builder is not properly initialized (and have a test that is invoked in the maven test phase)
But you can also have build(..) accept a HeadDetails object. That way tou can't invoke build without specifying the obligatory parameters.

Why not calling body(), head(), arms() in the build()-Method if it is really mandatory and returning Person in the build() method?
[edit]
Short example:
public class Builder {
private final String bodyProp;
private final String headProp;
private final String armsProp;
private String hearProps;
public Builder(String bodyProp, String headProp, String armsProp) {
super();
this.bodyProp = bodyProp; // check preconditions here (eg not null)
this.headProp = headProp;
this.armsProp = armsProp;
}
public void addOptionalHair(String hearProps) {
this.hearProps = hearProps;
}
public Person build() {
Person person = new Person();
person.setBody(buildBody());
// ...
return person;
}
private Body buildBody() {
// do something with bodyProp
return new Body();
}
public static class Person {
public void setBody(Body buildBody) {
// ...
}
}
public static class Body {
}
}

Maybe inside of build() you could check if all the required methods have been called. Behaps the Person instance has some internal sanity check which is triggered by build().
Of course this checks runtime behaviour and is no static analysis as you describe it.

isn't possible to call these methods in Person's constructor ?