I am not familiar in OOPS concept, I have doubt while using abstract class, please clear my doubt.
I have four classes ex: class A, class B, class C and Main class.
class A, B and C contains same method name but the method definition is different
the implementation is like,
class A
{
getValue();
setValue();
}
class B
{
getValue();
setValue();
}
class C
{
getValue();
setValue();
}
In the Main class, I need to call setValue() or getValue(), it can be any of the above three class, how to implement this scenario?
class Main
{
Main()
{}
x.setValue();
x.getValue();
}
where x can be Object for either class A or class B or class C.
The abstract class defines, what methods are available. In your case, this would be
abstract class YourAbstractClass {
abstract public int getValue();
abstract public void setValue(int i);
}
Now your classes A, B and C can inherit this class.
class A extends YourAbstractClass {
public int getValue() { return 23; }
public void setValue(int i) { /* set i */ }
}
class B extends YourAbstractClass {
public int getValue() { return -3; }
public void setValue(int i) { /* set i */ }
}
class C extends YourAbstractClass {
public int getValue() { return 3; }
public void setValue(int i) { /* set i */ }
}
In your main class you can use it the like this:
public class Execution {
public static void main(String[] args) {
YourAbstractClass o = new A();
o.getValue();
o.setValue(3);
}
}
In your particular case you don't need an abstract class but an interface:
public interface I {
Object getValue();
Object setValue();
}
Then your 3 classes A, B and C must implement this interface:
class A implements I {
Object getValue() {...}
void setValue( someParam) {...}
}
class B implements I {
Object getValue() {...}
void setValue( someParam) {...}
}
class C implements I {
Object getValue() {...}
void setValue( someParam) {...}
}
And finally in your main class:
class Main
{
Main()
{
I x = callWhateverYouWantReturningABOrC();
x.setValue();
x.getValue();
}
You could implement that in a couple of ways:
public interface Valuable {
void getValue();
void setValue();
}
class A implements Valuable {
getValue() { ... }
setValue() { ... }
}
class B implements Valuable {
getValue() { ... }
setValue() { ... }
}
class C implements Valuable {
getValue() { ... }
setValue() { ... }
}
Or ...
abstract class Valuable {
void getValue() { ... }
void setValue() { ... }
}
class A extends Valuable {
}
class B extends Valuable {
}
class C extends Valuable {
}
Or ... a hybrid where you both interfaces and abstract classes.
Which is more appropriate depends on a number of things, including whether the method implementations are the same or not. If they are, then the abstract class eliminates some duplicate code.
If I got your question right, you want to create an interface:
interface I {
int getValue();
void setValue(int x);
}
and your classes will implement it:
class A implements I {..};
class B implements I {..};
class C implements I {..};
Then in your Main class you can have method, which doesn't have to know which concrete implementation of I the x variable is (wheather A, B or C) and it can call it's methods:
{
I x = new A(); // or new B() or C()
x.setValue(1);
x.getValue();
}
You can make Main an interface.
interface is a pure abstract class.
public interface Main {
void setValue();
void getValue();
}
Then make A, B, and C classes to implement the Main interface
public class A implements Main {
#Override
public void setValue() {
...
}
#Override
public void getValue() {
...
}
}
public class B implements Main {
#Override
public void setValue() {
...
}
#Override
public void getValue() {
...
}
}
public class C implements Main {
#Override
public void setValue() {
...
}
#Override
public void getValue() {
...
}
}
Related
As in the example below, I need to do an operation on an object of type A passing a reference to an object of type B to the function, but the expression is invalid:
a.setId(a.getId());
public class Example {
public static void main() {
A<?> a = new B();
useA(a);
B b = new B();
useA(b);
useB(b);
}
static void useA(A<? extends A.AId> a) {
a.setId(a.getId());
}
static void useB(B b) {
b.setId(b.getId());
}
}
interface A<ID extends A.AId> {
ID getId();
void setId(ID id);
interface AId {
}
}
class B implements A<B.BId> {
#Override
public BId getId() {
return null;
}
#Override
public void setId(BId id) {
}
static class BId implements A.AId {
}
}
What type should the a parameter of the useA function be for correct assignment?
Hello you can try it.
static <T extends A.AId> void useA(A<T> a) {
a.setId(a.getId());
}
interface Y {
void search(String name);
}
class A implements Y {
void search(String name) {
//Is it possible to say: "If I was called from class B then do a search("B");
}
}
class B extends A {
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B();
b.search();
}
}
Given the above code is it possible to reason in superclass which subclass was used for calling a method?
The reason I want to do this is because the code in Search is very similar for all Subclasses, the only thing that changes is the Classname, so I thought there is no need to Override in each subclass. I have updated the code to reflect this. Please let me know if there is a better way of doing it/
Calling this.getClass() inside your search method will give you the concrete class of the current instance.
For example:
class Example
{
static class A {
public void search() {
System.out.println(getClass());
}
}
static class B extends A {}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
new A().search();
new B().search();
}
}
outputs
class Example$A
class Example$B
The cleanest way to do it is to override the method in each subclass.
interface Y {
void search();
}
class A implements Y {
public void search(){
search("A");
}
protected void search(String name) {
// implement your searching algoithm here
}
}
class B extends A {
public void search(){
search("B");
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B();
b.search();
}
}
That's the way inheritance is suppose to works. A super class should not know its subclasses.
And, in case you extends your class B, you can easily either:
-Keep the same behaviour as B:
class C extends B {
// do nothing, when calling search, it calls the method implemented in B
}
-Change the behaviour to search for "C"
class C extends B {
public void search(){
search("C"); // or search("whateveryouwant")
}
}
You can simply override the method in class B.
The other way could be to write the search() method as
void search() {
if (this.getClass().equals(B.class)) {
//The logic for B
} else if (this.getClass().equals(A.class)) {
//The logic for A
}
}
You have to provide the fully qualified name for the class.
Better follow template pattern.
interface Y {
void search(String name);
}
abstract class AbstractionTemplate implements Y{
#Override
public void search(String name) {
//a lot of code.
System.out.println("common stuff start");
doImplspecificStuffOnly();
System.out.println("common stuff end");
//a lot of code.
}
abstract void doImplspecificStuffOnly();
}
class A extends AbstractionTemplate{
#Override
void doImplspecificStuffOnly() {
System.out.println("a's stuff");
}
}
class B extends A {
#Override
void doImplspecificStuffOnly() {
System.out.println("B's stuff");
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B();
b.search("hey");
}
}
I have few classes that implements some interface. Now I want to create new class, which can extend one of them, based on runtime calculation while using interfaces methods. Let's talk in code:
public interface Interface {
public void doSomething();
}
public class A implements Interface {
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("hello");
}
}
public class B implements Interface {
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("hi");
}
}
These are existing classes, so now I need to do something like this (which is not working of course):
public class C<T extends Interface> extends T {
public void doSomethingElse() {
this.doSomething();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c;
if(isSomethingLoaded) {
c = new C<A>();
} else {
c = new C<B>();
}
c.doSomethingElse();
}
}
Is it possible somehow, except the way that I pass argument Interface other to C's constructor and store to class property..?
A class cannot extend from its type parameter.
Use composition instead of inheritance:
public class C<T extends Interface> {
private final T foo;
public C(T foo){
this.foo = foo;
}
public void doSomethingElse() {
foo.doSomething();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
C<?> c;
if(isSomethingLoaded) {
c = new C<>(new A());
} else {
c = new C<>(new B());
}
c.doSomethingElse();
}
}
You might even not need the type parameter here, but just use the interface type as argument/ member type.
I think it's situations like this which show why we have the rule of favouring composition over inheritance. Consider this solution using composition:
public class Test {
public interface Interface {
void doSomething();
}
public static class A implements Interface {
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Doing A");
}
}
public static class B implements Interface {
#Override
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("Doing B");
}
}
public static class C implements Interface {
private Interface composedWith;
public C(Interface i) {
this.composedWith = i;
}
#Override
public void doSomething() {
this.composedWith.doSomething();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
C c;
if(isSomethingLoaded) {
c = new C(new A());
} else {
c = new C(new B());
}
c.doSomething();
}
}
Personally, I feel this is a clearer and move flexible way of achieving what you are trying to do.
I'm using Java and I want to call the method f2 in class A from the class B. Is it possible to do this?
public class A{
private B b = new B();
public void f1(){
b.f3();
}
public void f2(){
// do something;
}
}
public class B{
public void f3(){
// Call f2 of class A from here.
}
}
You need an instance of A in class B and invoke f2 on that instance. For example, you could instantiate one inside the body of f3:
public class B {
public void f3() {
A a = new A();
a.f2();
}
}
Another way would be for f3 to receive an instance of A:
public class B {
public void f3(A a) {
a.f2();
}
}
And yet another way, you could have B instantiate one:
public class B {
private final A a;
public B() { this.a = new A(); }
public void f3() {
this.a.f2();
}
}
And lastly, B could receive one in it's constructor:
public class B {
private final A a;
public B(A a) { this.a = a; }
public void f3() {
this.a.f2();
}
}
The point being that if you want to invoke an instance method on a class you must have an instance of that class in your hand.
Finally, I notice that you have A.f1 invoking B.f3 and from there you want to invoke A.f2. So, it looks like your best option here is the second option above. That is:
public class A {
private final B = new B();
public void f1() { this.b.f3(this); }
public void f2() { /* do something */ }
}
public class B {
public void f3(A a) { a.f2(); }
}
The key here is that we are passing an instance of A to B.f3. The way that we achieve that is by passing the this reference, which is a reference to the currently executing instance. In A.f1, that would be the instance of A that is currently executing.
You need an instance of class A to do this.
public class A{
private B b = new B();
public void f1(){
b.f3(this);
}
public void f2(){
// do smthing;
}
}
public class B{
public void f3(A a){
a.f2(); // Call f2 of class A from here.
}
}
This type of code structure is usually more confusing than useful. I suggest instead doing this.
public class A{
private B b = new B();
public void f1(){
WhatAf2Needs w = b.f3();
f2(w);
}
public void f2(WhatAf2Needs w){
// do smthing;
}
}
public class B{
public WhatAf2Needs f3(A a){
return WhatAf2Needs;
}
}
If you want to call a method of the thing that called you, you have to have the caller pass itself in using the this keyword. In code, it would be:
public class A{
private B b = new B();
public void f1(){
b.f3(this);
}
public void f2(){
// do smthing;
}
}
public class B{
public void f3(A caller){
caller.f2();
}
}
You would have to instantiate class A in class B, given the way it's currently written, to make any method calls on it.
You can also declare f2 static and call it like A.f2(). This type of things depend a lot on the design of your classes though. The other answers here are very valid too.
public class A{
private B b = new B();
public void f1(){
b.f3();
}
public static void f2(){
// do smthing;
}
}
public class B{
public void f3(){
A.f2();
}
}
I'm developing an application which builds on a class written by another developer (for which I do not have the source).
I wish to use all of the functionality of said class but also to extend it with additional functionality. Ordinarily to achieve this I would have defined an interface (MyInterface) and have extended the external class (TheirClass) from my own (MyClass) while implementing MyInterface.
public interface TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1();
public void theirMethod2();
}
public class TheirClass implements TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1() { ... }
public void theirMethod2() { ... }
}
public class TheirOtherClass {
public void theirOtherMethod1(TheirClassInterface o) { ... }
}
public interface MyInterface() {
public void myMethod1();
}
public class MyClass extends TheirClass implements MyInterface {
public void myMethod1() { ... }
}
public class MyNewClass extends MyClass {
public void MyNewClassMethod() { ... }
}
The problem is complicated by the fact that:
I now wish to create a new class (MyNewClass) which adds additional functionality to MyClass but I don't want my code to be dependent on TheirClass.
I wish to be able to use my class as a parameter to the method of TheirOtherClass.
To combat this I refactored my code to instead use composition over inheritance and implementing TheirClassInterface. This works but requires me to implement many methods and delegate them to theirClassObject (in reality TheirClassInterface contains a very large number of methods).
public interface TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1();
public void theirMethod2();
}
public class TheirClass implements TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1() { ... }
public void theirMethod2() { ... }
}
public class TheirOtherClass {
public void theirOtherMethod1(TheirClassInterface o) { ... }
}
public interface MyInterface() {
public void myMethod1();
}
public class MyClass implements TheirClassInterface, MyInterface {
private TheirClass theirClassObject;
public void myMethod1() { ... }
public void theirMethod1() { theirClassObject.theirMethod1(); }
public void theirMethod2() { theirClassObject.theirMethod2(); }
}
public class MyNewClass extends MyClass {
public void MyNewClassMethod() { ... }
}
My question is whether my approach is appropriate in this case and whether it could be improved upon as it seems to me that my code uses an excessive amount of delegation to get the job done.
Many thanks for any guidance anyone can give on this.
Danny
First, as java is a strongly-typed single inheritance language, you cannot escape the delegation.
But you can avoid having to write a lot of delegation CODE, by using a dirty little trick with Proxies and reflection.
Code follows
public interface Interface1 {
void m1();
}
public interface Interface2 {
void m2();
}
public class Class1 implements Interface1 {
public void m1() {
System.out.println(1);
}
}
public class Class2 implements Interface2 {
public void m2() {
System.out.println(2);
}
}
public interface MixinInterface extends Interface1, Interface2 {
}
And this is how the magic happens
package j.with.pseudo.multiple.inheritance;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
public class MixinBuilder {
public static Object buildMixed(Class _interface, Object... impls){
InvocationHandler h = new MixinHandler(_interface.getInterfaces(), impls);
return Proxy.newProxyInstance(MixinBuilder.class.getClassLoader(),
new Class[]{_interface}, h);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Class1 o1 = new Class1();
Class2 o2 = new Class2();
MixinInterface almost_like_multiple_inheritance_guy =
(MixinInterface) buildMixed(MixinInterface.class, o1, o2);
almost_like_multiple_inheritance_guy.m1();
almost_like_multiple_inheritance_guy.m2();
}
private static class MixinHandler implements InvocationHandler{
private Class[] interfaces;
private Object[] impls;
public MixinHandler(Class[] interfaces, Object[] impls) {
this.interfaces = interfaces;
this.impls = impls;
}
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
int i=0;
for(Class _interface : interfaces){
if(method.getDeclaringClass().isAssignableFrom(_interface)){
return method.invoke(impls[i], args);
}
i++;
}
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
throw new RuntimeException("Method not found: "+method);
}
}
}
Pretty cool huh? :-)
You can't not-depend on a class if you're extending it; it's like having a definition of Human, which does not depend on the definition of Mammal, your optinos are to rewrite everything in the parent, or depend on it.
Many thanks for the answers so far. I've come up with a solution which I think seems reasonable and allows me to fully encapsulate the foreign class.
At the moment I've returned to the method discussed in the first block of code (repeated and extended below) and am now implementing my MyInterface interface for MyNewClass and delegating all interface operations to a composed object. The object to delegate to is decided at runtime by calling a static method on a Factory.
public interface TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1();
public void theirMethod2();
}
public class TheirClass implements TheirClassInterface {
public void theirMethod1() { ... }
public void theirMethod2() { ... }
}
public class TheirOtherClass {
public void theirOtherMethod1(TheirClassInterface o) { ... }
}
public interface MyInterface() {
public void myMethod1();
}
public class MyClass extends TheirClass implements MyInterface {
public void myMethod1() { ... }
}
public class MyNewClass implements MyInterface {
private MyInterface myObject;
public MyNewClass() {
myObject = MyClassFactory.createMyClass();
}
public void myMethod1() {
myObject.myMethod();
}
public void MyNewClassMethod() { ... }
}
Once again, thanks for the ideas. I'm now going to look into them all and see if I can use them to improve my code.
Cheers,
Danny