We Keep Coding

How to avoid duplication on similar classes and similar methods?

Context
I am working with very similar classes like RechargeResponse or ConsultResponse. All of them (around 80) are generated from WSDL scheme has the same structure. (This scheme comes from 3PP company, so I can't change this logic.)
Each of them contains inner classes: RechargeResult and ConsultResult.
I have a bunch of methods with same functionality. The only difference is that I need to call (for example) response.get_ClassName_Result().getAny() to check data. 
Question
How can I escape from using in every method same code with only ClassNameMethod changed?
Is any solution like Generics, Reflections or some else could be used? (I think parsing classname like string is not a solution).
Code examples below:
Similar classes:
public class ConsultResponse {
protected ConsultResult consultResult;
public ConsultResult getConsultResult() {
return consultResult;
}
public static class ConsultResult {
protected Object any;
public Object getAny() {
return any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
}
public class RechargeResponse {
protected RechargeResult rechargeResult;
public RechargeResult getRechargeResult() {
return rechargeResult;
}
public static class RechargeResult {
protected Object any;
public Object getAny() {
return any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
}
Similar (duplicated) method for each class:
private void validateConsult(ConsultResponse response) {
if (response == null ||
response.getConsultResult() == null || // need solution here
response.getConsultResult().getAny() == null) { // need solution or change here
throw new Exception();
}
}
 

One of the problems is that your get«classname»Result method names include the class names. That makes it impossible to make it generic without using reflection. Why don't you just rename both to getResult? You could then use generics to make the class generic.
First, we define an interface which defines both getAny and setAny.
public interface Result {
Object getAny();
void setAny(Object value);
}
Then we could create an implementation of Result, which is, for example, ConsultResult. You could do the same with RechargeResult.
public class ConsultResult implements Result {
protected Object any; // You already have a getter, so this can also be private
public Object getAny() {
return this.any;
}
public void setAny(Object value) {
this.any = value;
}
}
Then we could create a base class Response, which defines the getResult method. The class accepts a type argument T which must implement Result.
public abstract class Response<T extends Result> {
protected T result; // You already have a getter, so this can also be private
public T getResult() {
return this.result;
}
}
At last, we also create our ConsultResponse class. We extend it from Response, and we provide as type argument ConsultResult.
public class ConsultResponse extends Response<ConsultResult> {
// The field 'result' is already present within the Response class,
// so there is no need to include it here.
}
Also, as GhostCat already said in the comments: what is the point of having two different inner classes in the first place? They're both the same in your example as it is currently written. You could replace them with a single base class; however, it could be that there's more members within those classes which are not shown in your example, so I left them as they were in my example.
For the validation you could do roughly the same.

There are several ways around it, for example by creating a superclass from which ConsultResponse and RechargeResponse would be extending. The superclass would have the shared method defined, so you don't have to define it in the extended classes, unless you'd want to override it.
Another approach would be to separate the validation completely into a separate class, for example a ResponseValidator which would handle the validation on its own and would be included and used in the ConsultResponse and RechargeResponse classes.
It's hard to pinpoint an exact solution to this because it depends on your specific situation which we are not aware of completely.

How can I make an interface instance method accept arguments of the same class only?

I want to use an interface like this :
public interface ResultItem {
public int getConfidence();
public boolean equals(ResultItem item);
public ResultItem cloneWithConfidence(int newConfidence);
}
I have it implemented by different kind of objects representing a voice recognition result.
The idea is, I wish to compare only results of the same kind. That is, if I create a class IntResult implementing ResultItem, I want that the method signatures become :
public boolean equals(IntResult item);
public IntResult cloneWithConfidence(int newConfidence);
I feel that there is a design flaw in my interface, because for now I am using pretty ugly casts on the results of cloneWithConfidence and of other methods returning a ResultItem.
Is there a better way?

There is a frequently-seen idiom that goes as follows:
public interface ResultItem<T extends ResultItem<T>> {
public int getConfidence();
public boolean equals(T item);
public T cloneWithConfidence(int newConfidence);
}
public class IntResult implements ResultItem<IntResult> {
//...
}

Not really an answer to your question, but an important remark (I think):
If you want your equals-method to be usable for objects in collections and similar, you need to implement public boolean equals(Object o), and it should work for comparisons to all kinds of objects (in most cases returning false, though). You may have additionally a method with a narrower parameter type, and in implementations delegate like this:
public class IntResult {
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return o instanceof IntResult &&
this.equals((IntResult)o);
}
public boolean equals(IntResult that) {
// TODO
}
}
Make sure you comply to all the conditions in the contract of equals, namely symmetry, reflexivity, transitivity and having a compatible hashCode implementation.

Well, you could make it generic:
public interface ResultItem<T extends ResultItem<T>> {
public boolean equals(ResultItem<T> item);
}
Then you would need to make IntResult implement ResultItem<IntResult>.
Of course that doesn't stop another class from misbehaving, e.g. FloatResult implementing ResultItem<IntResult> but it makes various bits of API work when all the classes are well behaved.

Avoiding instanceof in Java

Having a chain of "instanceof" operations is considered a "code smell". The standard answer is "use polymorphism". How would I do it in this case?
There are a number of subclasses of a base class; none of them are under my control. An analogous situation would be with the Java classes Integer, Double, BigDecimal etc.
if (obj instanceof Integer) {NumberStuff.handle((Integer)obj);}
else if (obj instanceof BigDecimal) {BigDecimalStuff.handle((BigDecimal)obj);}
else if (obj instanceof Double) {DoubleStuff.handle((Double)obj);}
I do have control over NumberStuff and so on.
I don't want to use many lines of code where a few lines would do. (Sometimes I make a HashMap mapping Integer.class to an instance of IntegerStuff, BigDecimal.class to an instance of BigDecimalStuff etc. But today I want something simpler.)
I'd like something as simple as this:
public static handle(Integer num) { ... }
public static handle(BigDecimal num) { ... }
But Java just doesn't work that way.
I'd like to use static methods when formatting. The things I'm formatting are composite, where a Thing1 can contain an array Thing2s and a Thing2 can contain an array of Thing1s. I had a problem when I implemented my formatters like this:
class Thing1Formatter {
private static Thing2Formatter thing2Formatter = new Thing2Formatter();
public format(Thing thing) {
thing2Formatter.format(thing.innerThing2);
}
}
class Thing2Formatter {
private static Thing1Formatter thing1Formatter = new Thing1Formatter();
public format(Thing2 thing) {
thing1Formatter.format(thing.innerThing1);
}
}
Yes, I know the HashMap and a bit more code can fix that too. But the "instanceof" seems so readable and maintainable by comparison. Is there anything simple but not smelly?
Note added 5/10/2010:
It turns out that new subclasses will probably be added in the future, and my existing code will have to handle them gracefully. The HashMap on Class won't work in that case because the Class won't be found. A chain of if statements, starting with the most specific and ending with the most general, is probably the best after all:
if (obj instanceof SubClass1) {
// Handle all the methods and properties of SubClass1
} else if (obj instanceof SubClass2) {
// Handle all the methods and properties of SubClass2
} else if (obj instanceof Interface3) {
// Unknown class but it implements Interface3
// so handle those methods and properties
} else if (obj instanceof Interface4) {
// likewise. May want to also handle case of
// object that implements both interfaces.
} else {
// New (unknown) subclass; do what I can with the base class
}

You might be interested in this entry from Steve Yegge's Amazon blog: "when polymorphism fails". Essentially he's addressing cases like this, when polymorphism causes more trouble than it solves.
The issue is that to use polymorphism you have to make the logic of "handle" part of each 'switching' class - i.e. Integer etc. in this case. Clearly this is not practical. Sometimes it isn't even logically the right place to put the code. He recommends the 'instanceof' approach as being the lesser of several evils.
As with all cases where you are forced to write smelly code, keep it buttoned up in one method (or at most one class) so that the smell doesn't leak out.

As highlighted in the comments, the visitor pattern would be a good choice. But without direct control over the target/acceptor/visitee you can't implement that pattern. Here's one way the visitor pattern could possibly still be used here even though you have no direct control over the subclasses by using wrappers (taking Integer as an example):
public class IntegerWrapper {
private Integer integer;
public IntegerWrapper(Integer anInteger){
integer = anInteger;
}
//Access the integer directly such as
public Integer getInteger() { return integer; }
//or method passthrough...
public int intValue() { return integer.intValue(); }
//then implement your visitor:
public void accept(NumericVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
Of course, wrapping a final class might be considered a smell of its own but maybe it's a good fit with your subclasses. Personally, I don't think instanceof is that bad a smell here, especially if it is confined to one method and I would happily use it (probably over my own suggestion above). As you say, its quite readable, typesafe and maintainable. As always, keep it simple.

Instead of a huge if, you can put the instances you handle in a map (key: class, value: handler).
If the lookup by key returns null, call a special handler method which tries to find a matching handler (for example by calling isInstance() on every key in the map).
When a handler is found, register it under the new key.
This makes the general case fast and simple and allows you to handle inheritance.

You can use reflection:
public final class Handler {
public static void handle(Object o) {
try {
Method handler = Handler.class.getMethod("handle", o.getClass());
handler.invoke(null, o);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public static void handle(Integer num) { /* ... */ }
public static void handle(BigDecimal num) { /* ... */ }
// to handle new types, just add more handle methods...
}
You can expand on the idea to generically handle subclasses and classes that implement certain interfaces.

I think that the best solution is HashMap with Class as key and Handler as value. Note that HashMap based solution runs in constant algorithmic complexity θ(1), while the smelling chain of if-instanceof-else runs in linear algorithmic complexity O(N), where N is the number of links in the if-instanceof-else chain (i.e. the number of different classes to be handled). So the performance of HashMap based solution is asymptotically higher N times than the performance of if-instanceof-else chain solution.
Consider that you need to handle different descendants of Message class differently: Message1, Message2, etc. . Below is the code snippet for HashMap based handling.
public class YourClass {
private class Handler {
public void go(Message message) {
// the default implementation just notifies that it doesn't handle the message
System.out.println(
"Possibly due to a typo, empty handler is set to handle message of type %s : %s",
message.getClass().toString(), message.toString());
}
}
private Map<Class<? extends Message>, Handler> messageHandling =
new HashMap<Class<? extends Message>, Handler>();
// Constructor of your class is a place to initialize the message handling mechanism
public YourClass() {
messageHandling.put(Message1.class, new Handler() { public void go(Message message) {
//TODO: IMPLEMENT HERE SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR Message1
} });
messageHandling.put(Message2.class, new Handler() { public void go(Message message) {
//TODO: IMPLEMENT HERE SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR Message2
} });
// etc. for Message3, etc.
}
// The method in which you receive a variable of base class Message, but you need to
// handle it in accordance to of what derived type that instance is
public handleMessage(Message message) {
Handler handler = messageHandling.get(message.getClass());
if (handler == null) {
System.out.println(
"Don't know how to handle message of type %s : %s",
message.getClass().toString(), message.toString());
} else {
handler.go(message);
}
}
}
More info on usage of variables of type Class in Java: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/class/classNew.html

You could consider the Chain of Responsibility pattern. For your first example, something like:
public abstract class StuffHandler {
private StuffHandler next;
public final boolean handle(Object o) {
boolean handled = doHandle(o);
if (handled) { return true; }
else if (next == null) { return false; }
else { return next.handle(o); }
}
public void setNext(StuffHandler next) { this.next = next; }
protected abstract boolean doHandle(Object o);
}
public class IntegerHandler extends StuffHandler {
#Override
protected boolean doHandle(Object o) {
if (!o instanceof Integer) {
return false;
}
NumberHandler.handle((Integer) o);
return true;
}
}
and then similarly for your other handlers. Then it's a case of stringing together the StuffHandlers in order (most specific to least specific, with a final 'fallback' handler), and your despatcher code is just firstHandler.handle(o);.
(An alternative is to, rather than using a chain, just have a List<StuffHandler> in your dispatcher class, and have it loop through the list until handle() returns true).

Just go with the instanceof. All the workarounds seem more complicated. Here is a blog post that talks about it: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t302491-instanceof-not-always-bad-the-instanceof-myth.html

I have solved this problem using reflection (around 15 years back in pre Generics era).
GenericClass object = (GenericClass) Class.forName(specificClassName).newInstance();
I have defined one Generic Class ( abstract Base class). I have defined many concrete implementations of base class. Each concrete class will be loaded with className as parameter. This class name is defined as part of configuration.
Base class defines common state across all concrete classes and concrete classes will modify the state by overriding abstract rules defined in base class.
At that time, I don't know the name of this mechanism, which has been known as reflection.
Few more alternatives are listed in this article : Map and enum apart from reflection.

Add a method in BaseClass which returns name of the class. And override the methods with the specific class name
public class BaseClass{
// properties and methods
public String classType(){
return BaseClass.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
public class SubClass1 extends BaseClass{
// properties and methods
#Override
public String classType(){
return SubClass1.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
public class SubClass2 extends BaseClass{
// properties and methods
#Override
public String classType(){
return SubClass1.class.getSimpleName();
}
}
Now use the switch case in following way-
switch(obj.classType()){
case SubClass1:
// do subclass1 task
break;
case SubClass2:
// do subclass2 task
break;
}

What I use for Java 8:
void checkClass(Object object) {
if (object.getClass().toString().equals("class MyClass")) {
//your logic
}
}

Why would an Enum implement an Interface?

I just found out that Java allows enums to implement an interface. What would be a good use case for that?

Here's one example (a similar/better one is found in Effective Java 2nd Edition):
public interface Operator {
int apply (int a, int b);
}
public enum SimpleOperators implements Operator {
PLUS {
int apply(int a, int b) { return a + b; }
},
MINUS {
int apply(int a, int b) { return a - b; }
};
}
public enum ComplexOperators implements Operator {
// can't think of an example right now :-/
}
Now to get a list of both the Simple + Complex Operators:
List<Operator> operators = new ArrayList<Operator>();
operators.addAll(Arrays.asList(SimpleOperators.values()));
operators.addAll(Arrays.asList(ComplexOperators.values()));
So here you use an interface to simulate extensible enums (which wouldn't be possible without using an interface).

Enums don't just have to represent passive sets (e.g. colours). They can represent more complex objects with functionality, and so you're then likely to want to add further functionality to these - e.g. you may have interfaces such as Printable, Reportable etc. and components that support these.

The Comparable example given by several people here is wrong, since Enum already implements that. You can't even override it.
A better example is having an interface that defines, let's say, a data type. You can have an enum to implement the simple types, and have normal classes to implement complicated types:
interface DataType {
// methods here
}
enum SimpleDataType implements DataType {
INTEGER, STRING;
// implement methods
}
class IdentifierDataType implements DataType {
// implement interface and maybe add more specific methods
}

There is a case I often use. I have a IdUtil class with static methods to work with objects implementing a very simple Identifiable interface:
public interface Identifiable<K> {
K getId();
}
public abstract class IdUtil {
public static <T extends Enum<T> & Identifiable<S>, S> T get(Class<T> type, S id) {
for (T t : type.getEnumConstants()) {
if (Util.equals(t.getId(), id)) {
return t;
}
}
return null;
}
public static <T extends Enum<T> & Identifiable<S>, S extends Comparable<? super S>> List<T> getLower(T en) {
List<T> list = new ArrayList<>();
for (T t : en.getDeclaringClass().getEnumConstants()) {
if (t.getId().compareTo(en.getId()) < 0) {
list.add(t);
}
}
return list;
}
}
If I create an Identifiable enum:
public enum MyEnum implements Identifiable<Integer> {
FIRST(1), SECOND(2);
private int id;
private MyEnum(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public Integer getId() {
return id;
}
}
Then I can get it by its id this way:
MyEnum e = IdUtil.get(MyEnum.class, 1);

Since Enums can implement interfaces they can be used for strict enforcing of the singleton pattern. Trying to make a standard class a singleton allows...
for the possibility of using reflection techniques to expose private methods as public
for inheriting from your singleton and overriding your singleton's methods with something else
Enums as singletons help to prevent these security issues. This might have been one of the contributing reasons to let Enums act as classes and implement interfaces. Just a guess.
See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/427902/java-enum-singleton and Singleton class in java for more discussion.

It's required for extensibility -- if someone uses an API you've developed, the enums you define are static; they can't be added to or modified. However, if you let it implement an interface, the person using the API can develop their own enum using the same interface. You can then register this enum with an enum manager which conglomerates the enums together with the standard interface.
Edit: #Helper Method has the perfect example of this. Think about having other libraries defining new operators and then telling a manager class that 'hey, this enum exists -- register it'. Otherwise, you'd only be able to define Operators in your own code - there'd be no extensibility.

The post above that mentioned strategies didn't stress enough what a nice lightweight implementation of the strategy pattern using enums gets you:
public enum Strategy {
A {
#Override
void execute() {
System.out.print("Executing strategy A");
}
},
B {
#Override
void execute() {
System.out.print("Executing strategy B");
}
};
abstract void execute();
}
You can have all your strategies in one place without needing a separate compilation unit for each. You get a nice dynamic dispatch with just:
Strategy.valueOf("A").execute();
Makes java read almost like a tasty loosely typed language!

Enums are just classes in disguise, so for the most part, anything you can do with a class you can do with an enum.
I cannot think of a reason that an enum should not be able to implement an interface, at the same time I cannot think of a good reason for them to either.
I would say once you start adding thing like interfaces, or method to an enum you should really consider making it a class instead. Of course I am sure there are valid cases for doing non-traditional enum things, and since the limit would be an artificial one, I am in favour of letting people do what they want there.

Most common usage for this would be to merge the values of two enums into one group and treat them similarly. For example, see how to join Fruits and Vegatables.

For example if you have a Logger enum. Then you should have the logger methods such as debug, info, warning and error in the interface. It makes your code loosely coupled.

One of the best use case for me to use enum's with interface is Predicate filters. It's very elegant way to remedy lack of typness of apache collections (If other libraries mayn't be used).
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import org.apache.commons.collections.CollectionUtils;
import org.apache.commons.collections.Predicate;
public class Test {
public final static String DEFAULT_COMPONENT = "Default";
enum FilterTest implements Predicate {
Active(false) {
#Override
boolean eval(Test test) {
return test.active;
}
},
DefaultComponent(true) {
#Override
boolean eval(Test test) {
return DEFAULT_COMPONENT.equals(test.component);
}
}
;
private boolean defaultValue;
private FilterTest(boolean defautValue) {
this.defaultValue = defautValue;
}
abstract boolean eval(Test test);
public boolean evaluate(Object o) {
if (o instanceof Test) {
return eval((Test)o);
}
return defaultValue;
}
}
private boolean active = true;
private String component = DEFAULT_COMPONENT;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Collection<Test> tests = new ArrayList<Test>();
tests.add(new Test());
CollectionUtils.filter(tests, FilterTest.Active);
}
}

When creating constants in a jar file, it is often helpful to let users extend enum values. We used enums for PropertyFile keys and got stuck because nobody could add any new ones! Below would have worked much better.
Given:
public interface Color {
String fetchName();
}
and:
public class MarkTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MarkTest.showColor(Colors.BLUE);
MarkTest.showColor(MyColors.BROWN);
}
private static void showColor(Color c) {
System.out.println(c.fetchName());
}
}
one could have one enum in the jar:
public enum Colors implements Color {
BLUE, RED, GREEN;
#Override
public String fetchName() {
return this.name();
}
}
and a user could extend it to add his own colors:
public enum MyColors implements Color {
BROWN, GREEN, YELLOW;
#Override
public String fetchName() {
return this.name();
}
}

Another posibility:
public enum ConditionsToBeSatisfied implements Predicate<Number> {
IS_NOT_NULL(Objects::nonNull, "Item is null"),
IS_NOT_AN_INTEGER(item -> item instanceof Integer, "Item is not an integer"),
IS_POSITIVE(item -> item instanceof Integer && (Integer) item > 0, "Item is negative");
private final Predicate<Number> predicate;
private final String notSatisfiedLogMessage;
ConditionsToBeSatisfied(final Predicate<Number> predicate, final String notSatisfiedLogMessage) {
this.predicate = predicate;
this.notSatisfiedLogMessage = notSatisfiedLogMessage;
}
#Override
public boolean test(final Number item) {
final boolean isNotValid = predicate.negate().test(item);
if (isNotValid) {
log.warn("Invalid {}. Cause: {}", item, notSatisfiedLogMessage);
}
return predicate.test(item);
}
}
and using:
Predicate<Number> p = IS_NOT_NULL.and(IS_NOT_AN_INTEGER).and(IS_POSITIVE);

Enums are like Java Classes, they can have Constructors, Methods, etc. The only thing that you can't do with them is new EnumName(). The instances are predefined in your enum declaration.

Here's my reason why ...
I have populated a JavaFX ComboBox with the values of an Enum. I have an interface, Identifiable (specifying one method: identify), that allows me to specify how any object identifies itself to my application for searching purposes. This interface enables me to scan lists of any type of objects (whichever field the object may use for identity) for an identity match.
I'd like to find a match for an identity value in my ComboBox list. In order to use this capability on my ComboBox containing the Enum values, I must be able to implement the Identifiable interface in my Enum (which, as it happens, is trivial to implement in the case of an Enum).

I used an inner enum in an interface describing a strategy to keep instance control (each strategy is a Singleton) from there.
public interface VectorizeStrategy {
/**
* Keep instance control from here.
*
* Concrete classes constructors should be package private.
*/
enum ConcreteStrategy implements VectorizeStrategy {
DEFAULT (new VectorizeImpl());
private final VectorizeStrategy INSTANCE;
ConcreteStrategy(VectorizeStrategy concreteStrategy) {
INSTANCE = concreteStrategy;
}
#Override
public VectorImageGridIntersections processImage(MarvinImage img) {
return INSTANCE.processImage(img);
}
}
/**
* Should perform edge Detection in order to have lines, that can be vectorized.
*
* #param img An Image suitable for edge detection.
*
* #return the VectorImageGridIntersections representing img's vectors
* intersections with the grids.
*/
VectorImageGridIntersections processImage(MarvinImage img);
}
The fact that the enum implements the strategy is convenient to allow the enum class to act as proxy for its enclosed Instance. which also implements the interface.
it's a sort of strategyEnumProxy :P the clent code looks like this:
VectorizeStrategy.ConcreteStrategy.DEFAULT.processImage(img);
If it didn't implement the interface it'd had been:
VectorizeStrategy.ConcreteStrategy.DEFAULT.getInstance().processImage(img);

Simple/elegant way to do object to object transformation in Java?

I have to take over and improve/finish some code that transforms Java objects from a third party library into internal objects. Currently this is done through a big if-else statement along the lines of:
if (obj instanceOf X)
{
//code to initialize internal object
}
else if (obj instanceOf Y)
{
//code to initialize different object
}
else if (obj instanceOf Z)
{
//more init code
}
...
Personally I don't find this solution satisfactory; it's long and messy and to make matters worse many of the if-else blocks contain more if-else blocks dealing with subclasses and edge cases. Is there a better solution to this problem?

Create an interface like this
public interface Converter<S,T> {
public T convert(S source);
}
and implement it for each object of X,Y,Z. Then put all known converters into a Map and get happy!

While it doesn't work for edge cases, building a Map between Classes and Converters
X.getClass() -> X Converter
Y.getClass() -> Y Converter
would get you a lot closer. You'd want to also check superclasses if the leaf class is not found.

Code like this, with all of its instanceof conditions, screams for an interface!
You may want to create a public interface Initializable, with a method public void initialize().
Then all if your if-else's simply resolve into a single obj.initialize() call.

If these internal objects present an interface to the application, rather than being used directly, adapt them rather than converting them.
That is, if you have something like this:
public class ThirdPartyClass { ... }
public interface InternalInterface { ... }
public class InternalClass { ... }
Internal foo(ThirdPartyClass thirdParty) {
InternalClass internal = new InternalClass();
// convert thirdPaty -> internal
return internal;
}
Then instead do something like this:
public class ThirdPartyClass { ... }
public interface InternalInterface { ... }
public class InternalClass { ... }
public class ThirdPartyInternalAdapter implements InternalInterface {
private final ThirdPartyClass thirdParty;
public ThirdPartyInternalAdapter(ThirdPartyClass thirdParty) {
this.thirdParty = thirdParty;
}
// implement interface in terms of thirdParty
}
It's not clear from your question if this applies, but if it does this may be easier and more efficient than direct object-to-object conversion.