We Keep Coding

DRY Principle: Angular2/Typescript and Java back end object duplication

I'm a Java developer but I've recently begun learning Angular2/Typescript. I've worked with Angular 1.x before so I'm not a complete noob :)
While working through a POC with a RESTful Spring Boot back end and Angular2 front end I noticed myself duplicating model objects on both sides a lot e.g.
Java Object
public class Car {
private Double numSeats;
private Double numDoors;
.....
}
Now in interest of Typescript and being strongly typed I'd create a similar object within my front end project:
export interface PersonalDetailsVO {
numSeats : number;
numDoors : number;
}
I'm duplicating the work and constantly violating the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle here.
I'm wondering is there a better way of going about this. I was thinking about code generation tools like jSweet but interested to hear if anyone else has come across the same issue and how they approached it.

There are two schools of thought on whether this is a violation of the DRY principle. If you're really, really sure that there's a natural mapping you would always apply to bind json in each language, then you could say that it is duplicate work; which is (at least part of) the thinking behind IDL-type languages in technologies like CORBA (but I'm showing my age).
OTOH maybe each system (the server, the client, an alternate client if anyone were to write one) should be free to independently define the internal representations of objects that is best suited to that system (given its language, what it plans to do, etc.).
In your example, the typescript certainly doesn't contain all of the information needed to define the Java "equivalent". ('number' could map to a lot of things; and the typescript says nothing about access modifiers...) Of course you can narrow that down by adopting conventions, but my point is it's not self-evident that there'd be a 1-to-1 mapping.
Maybe one language handles references more gracefully than another. Maybe one can't deal with circular references but the other can. Maybe one has reason to prefer a more flat view of the object. Maybe a lot of things.
All of that said, it certainly is true that if you modify the json structure of an object, and you're maintaining each system's internal representation independently, then you likely have to make code changes in multiple places to accommodate that single underlying change. And pragmatically, if that can be avoided it's a good thing.
So if you can come up with a code generator that processes the more expressive language's representation to create a representation for the less expressive language, and maybe at least use that by default, you may find it's not a bad thing for your project.

How to split a Java library source into two blocks, keeping one package?

We are creating an android library for use with Android. That means an Eclipse-like IDE and an Ant-like build process.
The nature of the library is that it has two distinct parts, representing different levels of abstraction - let's say 'upper' and 'lower'.
Assume, for the purposes of this question, that we need to call methods in one part from the other, but would like to keep those methods hidden from the library user. I've scoured the usual references but they all stop at the point of explaining package name conventions and scope rules. I've failed to find anything that answers this on SO, though this was useful.
The immediate solution is to simply have everything in one package and for those methods to be package-private. However, for reasons of maintainability, clarity, and not-having-100-files-in-one-folder we'd prefer to split the parts into different folders.
The obvious splitting point is to split the (let's say 'wibble') package into com.me.wibble.upper and com.me.wibble.lower packages/folders, but that makes any interconnecting methods undesirably public. In mitigation they could be hidden from the javadoc with #hide.
Another thought is whether could we split the parts at the top level and instead of the classic /main and /test folders have /upper, /lower and /test and all parts share the same com.me.wibble namespace. I'm unsure if/how Eclipse would cope with that.
Is there a conventional way of doing this, or is it just not done? If there are ways, what are the pro's and con's?

hmmm......Instead of asking for the solution, sometimes it is better to give the question. WHY you want library users to have a restricted view may generate a better answer than the HOWTO. There are a few answers I thought of but didn't give because I don't know the motivation behind the question (I don't want to waste your time with an answer that is not applicable).
/upper,/lower/,/test doesn't make your situation any nicer. It just makes the project more organized. Whether they are all in the same folder or separate it doesn't affect much.
It sounds like you need public 'interfaces' for library users while having private 'interfaces' for your own use. This is possible with hacking but can be painful if this is large pre-existing collection of code.

Design pattern for parameter settings that is maintainable in decent size java project

I am looking for concrete ideas of how to manage a lot of different parameter settings for my java program. I know this question is a bit diffuse but I need some ideas about the big picture so that my code becomes more maintainable.
What my project does is to perform many processing steps on data, mostly text. These processing steps are algorithms of varying complexity that often have many settings. I would also like to change which processing steps are used by e.g. configuration files.
The reason for my program is to do repeatable experiments, and because of this I need to be able to get a complete view of all the parameters used in the different parts of the code, preferably in a nice format.
At this (prototype) stage I have the settings in source code like:
public static final param1=0.35;
and each class that is responsible for some processing step has its own hard coded settings. It is actually quite scary because there is no simple way to change things or to even see what is done and with what parameters/settings.
My idea is to have a central key/value store for all settings that also supports a dump of all settings. Example:
k:"classA_parameter1",v:"0.35"
k:"classC_parameter5",v:"false"
However, I would not really like to just store the parameters as strings but have them associated to an actual java class or object.
Is it smarter to have a singleton "SettingsManager" that manages everything. Or to have a SettingsManager object in each class that main has access to? I don't really like storing string descriptions of the settings but I cant see any other way (Lets say one setting is a SAXparser implementation that is used and another parameter is a double, e.g. percentage) since I really don't want to store them as Objects and cast them.
Experience and links to pages about relevant design patterns is greatly appreciated.
To clarify, my experiments could be viewed as a series of algorithms that are working on data from files/databases. These algorithms are grouped into different classes depending on their task in the whole process, e.g.
Experiment //main
InternetLookup //class that controls e.g. web scraping
ThreadedWebScraper
LanguageDetection //from "text analysis" package
Statistics //Calculate and store statistics
DatabaseAccess
DecisionMaking //using the data that we have processed earlier, make decisions (machine learning)
BuildModel
Evaluate
Each of the lowest level classes have parameters and are different but I still want a to get a view of everything that is going on.

You have the following options, starting with the simplest one:
A Properties file
Apache Commons Configuration
Spring Framework
The latter allows creation of any Java object from an XML config file but note that it's a framework, not a library: this means that it affects the design of the whole application (it promotes the Inversion of Control pattern).

This wheel has been invented multiple times already.
From the most basic java.util.Properties to the more advanced frameworks like Spring, which offers advanced features like value injection and type conversion.
Building it yourself is probably the worst approach.

Maybe not a complete answer to your question, but some points to consider:
Storing values as strings (and parsing the strings into other types via your SettingsManager) is the usual approach. If your configuration value is too complex to do this then it's probably not really a configuration value, but part of your implementation.
Consider injecting the individual configuration values required by each class via constructor arguments, rather than just passing in the whole SettingsManager object (see Law of Demeter)
Avoid creating a Singleton SettingsManager if possible, singletons harm testability and damage the design of your application in various ways.

If the number of parameters is big I would split them to several config files. Apache Commons Configuration, as mentioned by #Pino is really a nice library to handle them.
On the Java-side I would probably create one config-class per file and wrap Commons Configuration config to load settings, eg:
class StatisticsConfig {
private Configuration config = ... ;
public double getParameter1() {
return config.getDouble("classA_parameter1");
}
}
This may need quite a lot of boilerplate code if the number of parameters is big but I think it is quite clean solution (and easy to refactor).

Java code change analysis tool - e.g tell me if a method signature has changed, method implementation

Is there any diff tool specifically for Java that doesn't just highlight differences in a file, but is more complex?
By more complex I mean it'd take 2 input files, the same class file of different versions, and tell me things like:
Field names changed
New methods added
Deleted methods
Methods whose signatures have changed
Methods whose implementations have changed (not interested in any more detail than that)
Done some Googling and can't find anything like this...I figure it could be useful in determining whether or not changes to dependencies would require a rebuild of a particular module.
Thanks in advance
Edit:
I suppose I should clarify:
I'm not bothered about a GUI for the tool, it'd be something I'm interested in calling programmatically.
And as for my reasoning:
To workout if I need to rebuild certain modules/components if their dependencies have changed (which could save us around 1 hour per component)... More detailed explanation but I don't really see it as important.
To be used to analyse changes made to certain components that we are trying to lock down and rely on as being more stable, we are attempting to ensure that only very rarely should method signatures change in a particular component.

You said above that Clirr is what you're looking for.
But for others with slightly differet needs, I'd like to recommend JDiff. Both have pros and cons, but for my needs I ended up using JDiff. I don't think it'll satisfy your last bullet point and it's difficult to call programmatically. What it does do is generate a useful report for API differences.

How to deal with monstrous Struts Actions?

I inherited this gigantic legacy Java web app using Struts 1.2.4. I have a specific question regarding Actions. Most of the pages have exactly one Action, and the processExecute() methods are hideous monsters (very long and tons of nested if statements based on request parameters).
Given that Actions are an implementation of the command pattern, I'm thinking to split these Actions into one Action per user gesture. This will be a large refactoring though, and I'm wondering:
Is this the right direction?
Is there an intermediate step I could take, a pattern that deals with the mess inside the monolithic actions? Maybe another command pattern inside the Action?

My way of dealing with this would be:
dont do 'everything at once'
whenever you change anything, leave it better than you found it
replacing conditionals with separate Action implementations is one step.
Better yet: Make your implementations separate from the Action classes so that you can use it when you change frameworks
Keep your new Command implementation absolutely without references to Struts, use your new Actions as Wrapper around these implementations.
You might need to provide interfaces to your Struts ActionForms in order to pass them around without copying all the data. On the other hand - you might want to pass around other objects than ActionForms that are usually a bunch of Strings (see your other question about Struts 1.2 ActionForms)
start migrating parts to newer & better technology. Struts 1.2 was great when it came out, but is definitely not what you want to support in eternity. There are some generations of better frameworks now.
There's definitely more - Sorry, I'm running out of time here...

Struts Actions, in my mind, shouldn't have very much code in them at all. They should just interact directly with the request and response - take some data from a form or a request parameter, hand that info off to the Service Layer, and then put some stuff in a Response object or maybe save some data in the user's session.
I'd recommend staying away from doing inheritance with action classes. It sounds like a good idea at first but I think sooner or later you realize that you're shoe-horning things more than you're actually making the code base robust. Struts has enough base actions as is, if you're creating new ones you've probably got code in the web layer that shouldn't be there.
That is just my personal experience.

I've dealt with this type of thing before. A good first step is to insert another base class into the inheritance chain between Action and one of the original monstrous action classes (lets call it ClassA). Especially if you don't have time to do everything at once. Then you can start pulling out pieces of functionality into smaller parallel Action classes (ClassB, ClassC). Anything that's common between the original ClassA and the new refactored classes can be pulled up into the new base class. So the hierarchy now looks like this:
Original Hierarchy: New Hierarchy:
Action Action
| |
| BaseA
(old)ClassA |
+--------+----------+
| | |
ClassB (new)ClassA ClassC

Go one method at a time
Record some test cases you can play back later. Example here (make sure to hit as many paths through the code as you can, i.e. all user gestures on the page that call this action)
refactor the method to reduce its complexity by creating smaller methods that do smaller things.
Re-run tests as you do this
At this point, you have refactored version of the big huge annoying method. Now you can actually start creating specific actions.
You can use your newly refactored class as a base class, and implement each specific action as a subclass using those refactored small methods.
Once you've done this, you should have a good picture of the logic shared between the classes and can pull-up or push-down those methods as needed.
It's not fun, but if you will be working on the codebase for a while, it will save you time and headaches.

Tough problem but typical of early web app development.
First things first you need to start thinking about which logic constitutes business behavior, which logic constitutes "flow" (i.e. what the user sees), and which logic gets the content for what he sees.
You don't have to go down the route of factories and interfaces and all that; retroactive implementation is far less useful... but consolidating business logic and data retrieval logic into delegates of some kind... and leaving the struts actions to determine page flow based on success/failure of that logic.
From there you just have to take a few weeks and grind it out

One long method is never good, unless it happens to be a single switch statement where the cases are very short (token parsing or something like that).
You could at least refactor the long method into smaller methods with descriptive names.
If at all possible you could start your method with recognizing what it is it should do by examining the form, and then if/else your way to the various options. No nested ifs though, those tend to make code unreadable. Just
enum Operation {
ADD, DELETE;
}
...
Operation operation = determineOperation(form);
if (operation == Operation.DELETE) {
doDelete(form);
} else if (operation == Operation.ADD) {
doAdd(form);
}
If you can go that far you have your logic nice and clean and you can do whatever refactoring you want.
The hard part is to get your logic clear, and you can do that in steps. Don't choose a pattern untill you understand exactly what your problem is.

If you're planning to refactor the code you should make sure to write tests for the existing code first so you can be sure you haven't altered the functionality of it once you start refactoring.