I am trying to make an enum list, and have an abstract method defined in the enum, which each enum value implements. The problem I am facing is that the abstract class has a generic return type but I want each enum value to return a concrete type.
I'll give an example:
public enum Attributes {
name {
#Override
public void createAttribute(Person person) {
//Do some validations
//Save in some storage
}
#Override
public Name getAttribute(Person person) {
// Validations
// Retreive from storage
return new Name("test");
}
},
address {
#Override
public void createAttribute(Person person) {
//Do some validations
//Save in some storage
}
#Override
public Address getAttribute(Person person) {
// Validations
// Retreive from storage
return new Name("test");
}
}
public abstract Object getAttribute(Person person);
public abstract void createAttribute(Person person);
}
Here the issue is that I would need to do typecasting to get the concrete object which is not recommended and I don't get any type of safety. How Should I go about so that using the enum value I can get my concrete object instead of the generic one.
Now I wanna call this as,
Arrays.stream(Attributes.values()).forEach(r -> {
r.createAttribute(person);
}
final Address address = Attributes.address.getAttribute(person);
final Name name = Attributes.name.getAttribute(person);
So now whenever I need to add a new attribute I don't want to write create methods for it in the Person class every time. I just add it to enum and it gets created. But now since I have the create method in the enum, I also want the getAttribute to be present here.
Here the issue is that I would need to do typecasting to get the concrete object which is not recommended and I don't get any type of safety.
You're right. Given an enum type E with an associated enum constant C, the type of the expression E.C is E. Java provides no mechanism for naming or representing a narrower type for that expression. One of the implications is that although an enum instance can implement methods with covariant return types, the covariance is not visible outside the instance. If you depend for some purpose on the narrower return type of one of those instances' methods, then casting is your only alternative.
And you're right that such casts are not type safe. They cannot be checked by the compiler, and in practice, you as programmer can get them wrong. But the information to perform a compile-time check is not expressed by the language, so there is no scope for a workaround in the language as it is defined today.
How Should I go about so that using the enum value I can get my concrete object instead of the generic one.
You should choose an altogether different approach, not involving an enum.
If you stuck with the enum then you would have to adopt an approach that relies on the enum instances to perform any tasks that depend on their own particular characteristics. Because you ask so persistently, one possibility would be to implement a variation on double dispatch. Instead of a getObject() method, you would have something like
void acceptReceiver(AttributeReceiver r, Person p);
paired with
public interface AttributeReceiver {
default void receiveName(Name name) { /* empty */ }
default void receiveAddress(Address addr) { /* empty */ }
}
Of course, the enum instances would have to implement acceptReceiver appropriately.
You would probably want to use that a little more directly than just to retrieve attributes, but you could use it to retrieve attributes something like this:
class Example {
Name name;
Address address;
void retrieveAttributes(Person person) {
AttributeReceiver receiver = new AttributeReceiver() {
public void receiveName(Name n) { name = n; }
public void receiveAddress(Address a) { addr = a; }
};
Attributes.name.acceptReceiver(receiver, person);
Attributes.address.acceptReceiver(receiver, person);
}
}
But that's awfully roundabout when you have the alternative of using (just) methods, whether on Person or even on some non-enum utility class. I continue not to see any advantage to involving an enum here. I think your code overall would be more complex and harder to understand and maintain with enums than without.
The root issue is that you are abstracting away details that you actually care about. That's a deep design flaw. You can program your way around it, but it would be better to choose a more appropriate level of abstraction in the first place.
Essentially what I'm trying to do is create a generic method that can take many different kinds of enums. I'm looking for a way to do it how I'm going to describe, or any other way a person might think of.
I've got a base class, and many other classes extend off that. In each of those classes, I want to have an enum called Includes like this:
public enum Includes {
VENDOR ("Vendor"),
OFFERS_CODES ("OffersCodes"),
REMAINING_REDEMPTIONS ("RemainingRedemptions");
private String urlParam;
Includes(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
public String getUrlParam() {
return urlParam;
}
}
I've got a method that takes in a generic class that extends from BaseClass, and I want to be able to also pass any of the includes on that class to the method, and be able to access the methods on the enum, like this:
ApiHelper.Response<Offer> offer = apiHelper.post(new Offer(), Offer.Includes.VENDOR);
public <T extends BaseClass> Response<T> post(T inputObject, Includes... includes) {
ArrayList<String> urlParams = new ArrayList<String>();
for (Include include : includes){
urlParams.add(include.getUrlParam());
}
return null;
}
Is there a way to be able to pass in all the different kinds of enums, or is there a better way to do this?
---EDIT---
I've added an interface to my enum, but how can I generify my method? I've got this:
public <T extends BaseClass> Response<T> post(Offer inputObject, BaseClass.Includes includes) {
for (Enum include : includes){
if (include instanceof Offer.Includes){
((Offer.Includes) include).getUrlParam();
}
}
return null;
}
But I get an error on apiHelper.post(new Offer(), Offer.Includes.VENDOR); saying the second param must be BaseClass.Includes.
Enums can implement interfaces, so you can create an interface with these methods that you'd like to be able to call:
interface SomeBaseClass {
String getUrlParam();
void setUrlParam(String urlParam);
}
and then your enum can implement this interface:
public enum Includes implements SomeBaseClass {
VENDOR ("Vendor"),
OFFERS_CODES ("OffersCodes"),
REMAINING_REDEMPTIONS ("RemainingRedemptions");
private String urlParam;
Includes(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
#Override
public String getUrlParam() {
return urlParam;
}
#Override
public void setUrlParam(String urlParam) {
this.urlParam = urlParam;
}
}
If you want to get really fancy, it's possible to restrict subtypes of the interface to enums, but the generic type declaration will be pretty ugly (thus hard to understand and maintain) and probably won't provide any "real" benefits.
Unrelated note regarding this design: it's a pretty strong code smell that the enum instances are mutable. Reconsider why you need that setUrlParam() method in the first place.
I often find I want to do something like this:
class Foo{
public static abstract String getParam();
}
To force a subclasses of Foo to return a parameter.
I know you can't do it and I know why you can't do it but the common alternative of:
class Foo{
public abstract String getParam();
}
Is unsatisfactory because it requires you to have an instance which is not helpful if you just want to know the value of the parameter and instantiating the class is expensive.
I'd be very interested to know of how people get around this without getting into using the "Constant Interface" anti pattern.
EDIT: I'll add some more detail about my specific problem, but this is just the current time when I've wanted to do something like this there are several others from the past.
My subclasses are all data processors and the superclass defines the common code between them which allows them to get the data, parse it and put it where it needs to go.
The processors each require certain parameters which are held in an SQL database. Each processor should be able to provide a list of parameters that it requires and the default values so the configuration database can be validated or initialised to defaults by checking the required parameters for each processor type.
Having it performed in the constructor of the processor is not acceptable because it only needs to be done once per class not once per object instance and should be done at system startup when an instance of each type of class may not yet be needed.
The best you can do here in a static context is something like one of the following:
a. Have a method you specifically look for, but is not part of any contract (and therefore you can't enforce anyone to implement) and look for that at runtime:
public static String getParam() { ... };
try {
Method m = clazz.getDeclaredMethod("getParam");
String param = (String) m.invoke(null);
}
catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
// handle this error
}
b. Use an annotation, which suffers from the same issue in that you can't force people to put it on their classes.
#Target({TYPE})
#Retention(RUNTIME)
public #interface Param {
String value() default "";
}
#Param("foo")
public class MyClass { ... }
public static String getParam(Class<?> clazz) {
if (clazz.isAnnotationPresent(Param.class)) {
return clazz.getAnnotation(Param.class).value();
}
else {
// what to do if there is no annotation
}
}
I agree - I feel that this is a limitation of Java. Sure, they have made their case about the advantages of not allowing inherited static methods, so I get it, but the fact is I have run into cases where this would be useful. Consider this case:
I have a parent Condition class, and for each of its sub-classes, I want a getName() method that states the class' name. The name of the sub-class will not be the Java's class name, but will be some lower-case text string used for JSON purposes on a web front end. The getName() method will not change per instance, so it is safe to make it static. However, some of the sub-classes of the Condition class will not be allowed to have no-argument constructors - some of them I will need to require that some parameters are defined at instantiation.
I use the Reflections library to get all classes in a package at runtime. Now, I want a list of all the names of each Condition class that is in this package, so I can return it to a web front end for JavaScript parsing. I would go through the effort of just instantiating each class, but as I said, they do not all have no-argument constructors. I have designed the constructors of the sub-classes to throw an IllegalArgumentException if some of the parameters are not correctly defined, so I cannot merely pass in null arguments. This is why I want the getName() method to be static, but required for all sub-classes.
My current workaround is to do the following: In the Condition class (which is abstract), I have defined a method:
public String getName () {
throw new IllegalArugmentException ("Child class did not declare an overridden getName() method using a static getConditionName() method. This must be done in order for the class to be registerred with Condition.getAllConditions()");
}
So in each sub-class, I simply define:
#Override
public String getName () {
return getConditionName ();
}
And then I define a static getConditionName() method for each. This is not quite "forcing" each sub-class to do so, but I do it in a way where if getName() is ever inadvertently called, the programmer is instructed how to fix the problem.
It seems to me you want to solve the wrong problem with the wrong tool. If all subclasses define (can't really say inherit) your static method, you will still be unable to call it painlessly (To call the static method on a class not known at compile time would be via reflection or byte code manipulation).
And if the idea is to have a set of behaviors, why not just use instances that all implement the same interface? An instance with no specific state is cheap in terms of memory and construction time, and if there is no state you can always share one instance (flyweight pattern) for all callers.
If you just need to couple metadata with classes, you can build/use any metadata facility you like, the most basic (by hand) implementation is to use a Map where the class object is the key. If that suits your problem depends on your problem, which you don't really describe in detail.
EDIT: (Structural) Metadata would associate data with classes (thats only one flavor, but probably the more common one). Annotations can be used as very simple metadata facility (annotate the class with a parameter). There are countless other ways (and goals to achieve) to do it, on the complex side are frameworks that provide basically every bit of information designed into an UML model for access at runtime.
But what you describe (processors and parameters in database) is what I christened "set of behaviors". And the argument "parameters need to be loaded once per class" is moot, it completely ignores the idioms that can be used to solve this without needing anything 'static'. Namely, the flyweight pattern (for having only once instance) and lazy initialization (for doing work only once). Combine with factory as needed.
I'm having the same problem over and over again and it's hard for me to understand why Java 8 preferred to implement lambda instead of that.
Anyway, if your subclasses only implement retrieving a few parameters and doing rather simple tasks, you can use enumerations as they are very powerful in Java: you can basically consider it a fixed set of instances of an interface. They can have members, methods, etc. They just can't be instanciated (as they are "pre-instanciated").
public enum Processor {
PROC_IMAGE {
#Override
public String getParam() {
return "image";
}
},
PROC_TEXT {
#Override
public String getParam() {
return "text";
}
}
;
public abstract String getParam();
public boolean doProcessing() {
System.out.println(getParam());
}
}
The nice thing is that you can get all "instances" by calling Processor.values():
for (Processor p : Processorvalues()) {
System.out.println(String.format("Param %s: %s", p.name(), p.getParam()));
p.doProcessing();
}
If the processing is more complex, you can do it in other classes that are instanciated in the enum methods:
#Override
public String getParam() {
return new LookForParam("text").getParam();
}
You can then enrich the enumeration with any new processor you can think of.
The down side is that you can't use it if other people want to create new processors, as it means modifying the source file.
You can use the factory pattern to allow the system to create 'data' instances first, and create 'functional' instances later. The 'data' instances will contain the 'mandatory' getters that you wanted to have static. The 'functional' instances do complex parameter validation and/or expensive construction. Of course the parameter setter in the factory can also so preliminary validation.
public abstract class Processor { /*...*/ }
public interface ProcessorFactory {
String getName(); // The mandatory getter in this example
void setParameter(String parameter, String value);
/** #throws IllegalStateException when parameter validation fails */
Processor construct();
}
public class ProcessorA implements ProcessorFactory {
#Override
public String getName() { return "processor-a"; }
#Override
public void setParameter(String parameter, String value) {
Objects.requireNonNull(parameter, "parameter");
Objects.requireNonNull(value, "value");
switch (parameter) {
case "source": setSource(value); break;
/*...*/
default: throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unknown parameter: " + parameter);
}
}
private void setSource(String value) { /*...*/ }
#Override
public Processor construct() {
return new ProcessorAImpl();
}
// Doesn't have to be an inner class. It's up to you.
private class ProcessorAImpl extends Processor { /*...*/ }
}
I have DTOs (Data Transfer Objects) sent to the DAO (Data Access Object).
DTO has an identifier string.
Based on this string (or rather the DTO), I want to invoke specific methods in the DAO.
These methods make database calls.
I have found two options to do this:
1. Constant specific method implementation using Enum
2. Invoke the method based on reflection ( in which case the DTO will carry the name of the method that needs to be invoked.)
I want to know which is a better option. Are there any other alternatives ? Is it okay to have database calls within the Enum.
The programming language used is Java.
I would not put database calls within your Enum. Instead, provide a method on your DAO that accepts the DTO, and then let that method call other methods within the DAO based on the string on the DTO. You could use a switch statement on the Enum, and make this very efficient. (Alternatively, put this implementation in a separate "adapter" class, since it could be argued that this code doesn't strictly belong in the DAO, either.)
I would also avoid reflection, mainly due to additional complexities - including in debugging and troubleshooting, as well as potential security concerns. (What if the String contained a method name that you didn't want called?)
You can create a map that maps the strings to method calls:
class YourDAO {
private interface Action {
public void perform();
}
private Map<String, Action> actions;
public YourDAO() {
actions.add("String1", new Action() {
public void perform() {
daoMethod1();
}
}
actions.add("String2", new Action() {
public void perform() {
daoMethod2();
}
}
}
public void daoMethod1() {
...
}
public void daoMethod2() {
...
}
public void doSomethingWithDTO(YourDTO dto) {
actions.get(dto.getIdentifier()).perform();
}
}
You can even adapt this idea to perform specific actions on different DTO types if you
change the key type of the map to Class<?> and instead of dto.getIdentifier() use dto.getClass().
Is any practical way to reference a method on a class in a type-safe manner? A basic example is if I wanted to create something like the following utility function:
public Result validateField(Object data, String fieldName,
ValidationOptions options) { ... }
In order to call it, I would have to do:
validateField(data, "phoneNumber", options);
Which forces me to either use a magic string, or declare a constant somewhere with that string.
I'm pretty sure there's no way to get around that with the stock Java language, but is there some kind of (production grade) pre-compiler or alternative compiler that may offer a work around? (similar to how AspectJ extends the Java language) It would be nice to do something like the following instead:
public Result validateField(Object data, Method method,
ValidationOptions options) { ... }
And call it with:
validateField(data, Person.phoneNumber.getter, options);
As others mention, there is no real way to do this... and I've not seen a precompiler that supports it. The syntax would be interesting, to say the least. Even in your example, it could only cover a small subset of the potential reflective possibilities that a user might want to do since it won't handle non-standard accessors or methods that take arguments, etc..
Even if it's impossible to check at compile time, if you want bad code to fail as soon as possible then one approach is to resolve referenced Method objects at class initialization time.
Imagine you have a utility method for looking up Method objects that maybe throws error or runtime exception:
public static Method lookupMethod( Class c, String name, Class... args ) {
// do the lookup or throw an unchecked exception of some kind with a really
// good error message
}
Then in your classes, have constants to preresolve the methods you will use:
public class MyClass {
private static final Method GET_PHONE_NUM = MyUtils.lookupMethod( PhoneNumber.class, "getPhoneNumber" );
....
public void someMethod() {
validateField(data, GET_PHONE_NUM, options);
}
}
At least then it will fail as soon as MyClass is loaded the first time.
I use reflection a lot, especially bean property reflection and I've just gotten used to late exceptions at runtime. But that style of bean code tends to error late for all kinds of other reasons, being very dynamic and all. For something in between, the above would help.
There isn't anything in the language yet - but part of the closures proposal for Java 7 includes method literals, I believe.
I don't have any suggestions beyond that, I'm afraid.
Check out https://proxetta.jodd.org/refs/methref. It uses the Jodd proxy library (Proxetta) to proxy your type. Not sure about its performance characteristics, but it does provide type safety.
An example: Suppose Str.class has method .boo(), and you want to get its name as the string "boo":
String methodName = Methref.of(Str.class).name(Str::boo);
There's more to the API than the example above: https://oblac.github.io/jodd-site/javadoc/jodd/methref/Methref.html
Is any practical way to reference a method on a class in a type-safe manner?
First of all, reflection is type-safe. It is just that it is dynamically typed, not statically typed.
So, assuming that you want a statically typed equivalent of reflection, the theoretical answer is that it is impossible. Consider this:
Method m;
if (arbitraryFunction(obj)) {
m = obj.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("foo", ...);
} else {
m = obj.getClass().getDeclaredMethod("bar", ...);
}
Can we do this so that that runtime type exceptions cannot happen? In general NO, since this would entail proving that arbitraryFunction(obj) terminates. (This is equivalent to the Halting Problem, which is proven to be unsolvable in general, and is intractable using state-of-the-art theorem proving technology ... AFAIK.)
And I think that this road-block would apply to any approach where you could inject arbitrary Java code into the logic that is used to reflectively select a method from an object's class.
To my mind, the only moderately practical approach at the moment would be to replace the reflective code with something that generates and compiles Java source code. If this process occurs before you "run" the application, you've satisfied the requirement for static type-safety.
I was more asking about reflection in which the result is always the same. I.E. Person.class.getMethod("getPhoneNumber", null) would always return the same method and it's entirely possible to resolve it at compile time.
What happens if after compiling the class containing this code, you change Person to remove the getPhoneNumber method?
The only way you can be sure that you can resolve getPhoneNumber reflectively is if you can somehow prevent Person from being changed. But you can't do that in Java. Runtime binding of classes is a fundamental part of the language.
(For record, if you did that for a method that you called non-reflectively, you would get an IncompatibleClassChangeError of some kind when the two classes were loaded ...)
It has been pointed out that in Java 8 and later you could declare your validator something like this:
public Result validateField(Object data,
SomeFunctionalInterface function,
ValidationOptions options) { ... }
where SomeFunctionalInterface corresponds to the (loosely speaking) common signature of the methods you are validating.
Then you can call it with a method reference; e.g.
validateField(data, SomeClass::someMethod, options)
This is approach is statically type-safe. You will get a compilation error if SomeClass doesn't have someMethod or if it doesn't conform to SomeFunctionalInterface.
But you can't use a string to denote the method name. Looking up a method by name would entail either reflection ... or something else that side-steps static (i.e. compile time / load time) type safety.
Java misses the syntax sugar to do something as nice as Person.phoneNumber.getter. But if Person is an interface, you could record the getter method using a dynamic proxy. You could record methods on non-final classes as well using CGLib, the same way Mockito does it.
MethodSelector<Person> selector = new MethodSelector<Person>(Person.class);
selector.select().getPhoneNumber();
validateField(data, selector.getMethod(), options);
Code for MethodSelector: https://gist.github.com/stijnvanbael/5965609
Inspired by mocking frameworks, we could dream up the following syntax:
validator.validateField(data, options).getPhoneNumber();
Result validationResult = validator.getResult();
The trick is the generic declaration:
class Validator {
public <T> T validateField(T data, options) {...}
}
Now the return type of the method is the same as your data object's type and you can use code completion (and static checking) to access all the methods, including the getter methods.
As a downside, the code isn't quite intuitive to read, since the call to the getter doesn't actually get anything, but instead instructs the validator to validate the field.
Another possible option would be to annotate the fields in your data class:
class FooData {
#Validate(new ValidationOptions(...))
private PhoneNumber phoneNumber;
}
And then just call:
FooData data;
validator.validate(data);
to validate all fields according to the annotated options.
The framework picklock lets you do the following:
class Data {
private PhoneNumber phoneNumber;
}
interface OpenData {
PhoneNumber getPhoneNumber(); //is mapped to the field phoneNumber
}
Object data = new Data();
PhoneNumber number = ObjectAccess
.unlock(data)
.features(OpenData.class)
.getPhoneNumber();
This works in a similar way setters and private methods. Of course, this is only a wrapper for reflection, but the exception does not occur at unlocking time not at call time. If you need it at build time, you could write a unit test with:
assertThat(Data.class, providesFeaturesOf(OpenData.class));
I found a way to get the Method instance using Lambdas. It works only on interface methods though currently.
It works using net.jodah:typetools which is a very lightweight library.
https://github.com/jhalterman/typetools
public final class MethodResolver {
private interface Invocable<I> {
void invokeWithParams(I instance, Class<?>[] parameterTypes) throws Throwable;
}
interface ZeroParameters<I, R> extends Invocable<I> {
R invoke(I instance) throws Throwable;
#Override
default void invokeWithParams(I instance, Class<?>[] parameterTypes) throws Throwable {
invoke(instance);
}
}
public static <I, R> Method toMethod0(ZeroParameters<I, R> call) {
return toMethod(ZeroParameters.class, call, 1);
}
interface OneParameters<I, P1, R> extends Invocable<I> {
R invoke(I instance, P1 p1) throws Throwable;
#Override
default void invokeWithParams(I instance, Class<?>[] parameterTypes) throws Throwable {
invoke(instance, param(parameterTypes[1]));
}
}
public static <I, P1, R> Method toMethod1(OneParameters<I, P1, R> call) {
return toMethod(OneParameters.class, call, 2);
}
interface TwoParameters<I, P1, P2, R> extends Invocable<I> {
R invoke(I instance, P1 p1, P2 p2) throws Throwable;
#Override
default void invokeWithParams(I instance, Class<?>[] parameterTypes) throws Throwable {
invoke(instance, param(parameterTypes[1]), param(parameterTypes[2]));
}
}
public static <I, P1, P2, R> Method toMethod2(TwoParameters<I, P1, P2, R> call) {
return toMethod(TwoParameters.class, call, 3);
}
private static final Map<Class<?>, Object> parameterMap = new HashMap<>();
static {
parameterMap.put(Boolean.class, false);
parameterMap.put(Byte.class, (byte) 0);
parameterMap.put(Short.class, (short) 0);
parameterMap.put(Integer.class, 0);
parameterMap.put(Long.class, (long) 0);
parameterMap.put(Float.class, (float) 0);
parameterMap.put(Double.class, (double) 0);
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <T> T param(Class<?> type) {
return (T) parameterMap.get(type);
}
private static <I> Method toMethod(Class<?> callType, Invocable<I> call, int responseTypeIndex) {
Class<?>[] typeData = TypeResolver.resolveRawArguments(callType, call.getClass());
Class<?> instanceClass = typeData[0];
Class<?> responseType = responseTypeIndex != -1 ? typeData[responseTypeIndex] : Void.class;
AtomicReference<Method> ref = new AtomicReference<>();
I instance = createProxy(instanceClass, responseType, ref);
try {
call.invokeWithParams(instance, typeData);
} catch (final Throwable e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Failed to call no-op proxy", e);
}
return ref.get();
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <I> I createProxy(Class<?> instanceClass, Class<?> responseType,
AtomicReference<Method> ref) {
return (I) Proxy.newProxyInstance(MethodResolver.class.getClassLoader(),
new Class[] {instanceClass},
(proxy, method, args) -> {
ref.set(method);
return parameterMap.get(responseType);
});
}
}
Usage:
Method method = MethodResolver.toMethod2(SomeIFace::foobar);
System.out.println(method); // public abstract example.Result example.SomeIFace.foobar(java.lang.String,boolean)
Method get = MethodResolver.<Supplier, Object>toMethod0(Supplier::get);
System.out.println(get); // public abstract java.lang.Object java.util.function.Supplier.get()
Method accept = MethodResolver.<IntFunction, Integer, Object>toMethod1(IntFunction::apply);
System.out.println(accept); // public abstract java.lang.Object java.util.function.IntFunction.apply(int)
Method apply = MethodResolver.<BiFunction, Object, Object, Object>toMethod2(BiFunction::apply);
System.out.println(apply); // public abstract java.lang.Object java.util.function.BiFunction.apply(java.lang.Object,java.lang.Object)
Unfortunately you have to create a new interface and method based on the parameter count and whether the method returns void or not.
However, if you have a somewhat fixed/limited method signature/parameter types, then this becomes quite handy.