We Keep Coding

Create different decorated object in case of input

Assume that I used decorated design pattern for making a pizza. There are 3 type of ingredients that user can add his pizza. Mozarella, souce and vegetables. I prepared these classes and set the cost.
This is main code
public class PizzaFactory {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Pizza p = new TomatoSauce(new Mozarella(new PlainPizza()));
System.out.println(p.getIngredients());
}
}
This is interface
public interface Pizza {
public String getIngredients();
public int getCost();
}
This is base pizza
public class PlainPizza implements Pizza{
#Override
public String getIngredients() {
return "Pizza ";
}
#Override
public int getCost() {
return 5;
}
}
This is decorator class
abstract class IngredientDecorator implements Pizza{
protected Pizza tempPizza;
public IngredientDecorator(Pizza newPizza) {
this.tempPizza = newPizza;
}
public String getIngredients() {
return tempPizza.getIngredients();
}
public int getCost() {
return tempPizza.getCost();
}
}
One of ingredient class is
public class Mozarella extends IngredientDecorator{
public Mozarella(Pizza newPizza) {
super(newPizza);
}
public String getIngredients() {
return tempPizza.getIngredients() + " Mozarella";
}
public int getCost() {
return tempPizza.getCost() + 1;
}
}
Others are look like them.
Now, I want to take input from user to which ingradient they want. In order to input I will create pizza. They may want just plain pizza. But since, I create my pizza -> Pizza p = new TomatoSauce(new Mozarella(new PlainPizza())); like this. How can I create pizza dinamic? Do I have to check each condition with if-else or switch-case?

OO: Does container contain bike or chair?

A container may contain bikes and chairs, both belonging to a person. I would like to check, if the container contains either bikes or chairs of said person. Is this possible without using instanceof?
public class Container {
public Map<Person, List<Item>> items = new HashMap<>();
public void add(Person p, Item item) {
items.get(p).add(item);
}
public boolean containsChair(Person owner) {
for(Item i : items.get(owner)) {
if(i instanceof Chair) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public boolean containsBike(Person owner) {
for(Item i : items.get(owner)) {
if(i instanceof Bike) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
For the purpose of illustration, Item, Bike, Chair, Person are all simplest class stubs:
public class Person { public String name; }
public abstract class Item {}
public class Bike extends Item { public Wheel[] wheels;}
public class Chair extends Item { public Leg[] legs;}
public class Wheel {}
public class Leg {}
In the runner, a Person should be able to add Chairs and Bikes to its container:
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Runner {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
// Prevent null pointer exception
c.items.put(p, new ArrayList<>());
c.add(p, new Chair());
// True
System.out.println(c.containsChair(p));
}
}

You could add to class Item an abstract method ItemType getType(). ItemType would be an enum enumerating all possible item types.
public abstract class Item {
public abstract ItemType getType();
}
public enum ItemType {
BIKE, CHAIR;
}
Implementation of Chair:
public static class Chair extends Item {
public Leg[] legs;
#Override
public ItemType getType() {
return ItemType.CHAIR;
}
}
Then you could define a contains method to search for a the given Person if it has an item with a certain ItemType:
public boolean contains(Person owner, ItemType itemType) {
return items.get(owner).stream().anyMatch(item ->itemType.equals(item.getType()));
}
Or null-safe regarding the owners items list:
public boolean contains(Person owner, ItemType itemType) {
return Optional.ofNullable(items.get(owner))
.map(i -> i.stream().anyMatch(item -> itemType.equals(item.getType())))
.orElse(false);
}
Usage:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
// Prevent null pointer exception
c.items.put(p, new ArrayList<>());
c.add(p, new Chair());
// True
System.out.println(c.contains(p, ItemType.CHAIR));
}
EDIT
Following this approach there is no need for instanceof checks. The usage of instanceof can be a hint indicating that the design has some flaws.

You can store Bike and Chair in two different datastructure.
public final class Container {
private final Map<Person, List<Chair>> chairs = new HashMap<>();
private final Map<Person, List<Bike>> bikes = new HashMap<>();
public void add(Person p, Chair chair) {
chairs.putIfAbsent(p, new ArrayList<Chair>());
chairs.get(p).add(chair);
}
public void add(Person p, Bike bike) {
bikes.putIfAbsent(p, new ArrayList<Bike>());
bikes.get(p).add(bike);
}
public boolean containsChair(Person owner) {
return chairs.getOrDefault(owner, Collections.emptyList()).size() > 0;
}
public boolean containsBike(Person owner) {
return bikes.getOrDefault(owner, Collections.emptyList()).size() > 0;
}
}
Note that I also made your instance fields private to hide the fact that data is stored in a Map and avoid the runner code to have the responsibility to instanciate an ArrayList if not existant. Both the class and its fields are also final to achieve a better immutability. Both encapsulation and immutability are considered good practices when doing OOP.
Usage
public static void main(String[] args) {
Container c = new Container();
Person p = new Person();
c.add(p, new Chair());
System.out.println(c.containsChair(p)); //true
System.out.println(c.containsBike(p)); //false
}

What I ended up doing was to add two methods to Item:
public boolean containsBike() {return false;}
public boolean containsChair() {return false;}
While this certainly could be optimized, the check is now done by calling the method of the object:
public boolean containsBike(Person p) {
boolean hasBike = false;
// Prevent NullPointerException
if(containsSomethingOf(p)) {
for(Item i : items.get(p)) {
if(i != null) {
if (i.containsBike()) {
hasBike = true;
}
}
}
}
return hasTrousers;
}
I think this is what is called polymorphism.

Create new Instance of Child Class

I have an array list of Enemies and each enemy kind extends enemy. Now I don't wan't every same enemy kind to share all their stats, but I base my enemy selection of another array list. So I think the way to go would be to get the object of the array list containing all the options and then changing them to new Instances of the same class. My question is, how would I do that? Or do you guys have a better approach?
For easy of understanding here's what I mean abstracted
class shop{
ArrayList<Enemy> allEnemies;
}
class generator{
ArrayList<Enemies> selectedToGenerate = based on some of allEnemies
for(Enemy x : selectedToGenerate){ // i know this wouldn't work
x = newInstanceOf(x.getNonenemyThereforeChildclassClass());
}
}
hope this explains what I mean. Appreciate your time!

You can add a Builder to your Enemy.
abstract class Enemy {
private int strength;
public Builder<Enemy> getBuilder();
public static class Builder<T extends Enemy> {
int str;
public Builder<T> copyValues(T enemy) {
str = enemey.strength;
return this;
}
public Builder<T> strength(int s) {
str = s;
return this;
}
protected void fillValues(T toFill) {
toFill.strength = str;
}
protected abstract T createInstance();
public T build() {
T result = createInstance();
fillValues(result);
return result;
}
}
}
This Builder can create instances of your Enemy and fill it with values. For subclasses, you can extend the Builder by allowing it to fill more values.
class EnemyA extends EnemyA {
private int speed;
public Builder<EnemyA> getBuilder() {
return new Builder();
}
class EnemyABuilder extends Builder<EnemyA> {
int speed;
public EnemyABuilder copyValues(EnemyA enemy) {
super.copyValues(enemy);
speed = enemy.speed;
}
public EnemyABuilder speed(int s) {
speed = s;
return this;
}
protected void fillValues(EnemyA toFill) {
super.fillValues(toFill);
toFill.speed = speed;
}
protected EnemyA createInstance() {
return new EnemyA();
}
}
}
Now, you can create copies of the enemies by using their builders:
for(Enemy x : selectedToGenerate){ // i know this wouldn't work
Builder<? extends Enemy> builder = x.getBuilder();
builer.copyValues(x);
Enemy copy = builder.build();
}
As an additional bonus, you can use the builder to quickly create different versions of the same enemy.
EnemyA.Builder base = new Builder().strength(10);
EnemyA withSpeed1 = base.speed(1).build();
EnemyA withSpeed2 = base.speed(2).build();
EnemyA withSpeed3 = base.speed(3).build();

Skip instanceOf in this specific case (java) [duplicate]

I am attempting to implement my first Factory Design Pattern, and I'm not sure how to avoid using instanceof when adding the factory-made objects to lists. This is what I'm trying to do:
for (Blueprint bp : blueprints) {
Vehicle v = VehicleFactory.buildVehicle(bp);
allVehicles.add(v);
// Can I accomplish this without using 'instanceof'?
if (v instanceof Car) {
cars.add((Car) v);
} else if (v instanceof Boat) {
boats.add((Boat) v);
} else if (v instanceof Plane) {
planes.add((Plane) v);
}
}
From what I've read on Stack Overflow, using 'instanceof' is a code smell. Is there a better way to check the type of vehicle that was created by the factory without using 'instanceof'?
I welcome any feedback/suggestions on my implementation as I'm not even sure if I'm going about this the right way.
Full example below:
import java.util.ArrayList;
class VehicleManager {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ArrayList<Blueprint> blueprints = new ArrayList<Blueprint>();
ArrayList<Vehicle> allVehicles = new ArrayList<Vehicle>();
ArrayList<Car> cars = new ArrayList<Car>();
ArrayList<Boat> boats = new ArrayList<Boat>();
ArrayList<Plane> planes = new ArrayList<Plane>();
/*
* In my application I have to access the blueprints through an API
* b/c they have already been created and stored in a data file.
* I'm creating them here just for example.
*/
Blueprint bp0 = new Blueprint(0);
Blueprint bp1 = new Blueprint(1);
Blueprint bp2 = new Blueprint(2);
blueprints.add(bp0);
blueprints.add(bp1);
blueprints.add(bp2);
for (Blueprint bp : blueprints) {
Vehicle v = VehicleFactory.buildVehicle(bp);
allVehicles.add(v);
// Can I accomplish this without using 'instanceof'?
if (v instanceof Car) {
cars.add((Car) v);
} else if (v instanceof Boat) {
boats.add((Boat) v);
} else if (v instanceof Plane) {
planes.add((Plane) v);
}
}
System.out.println("All Vehicles:");
for (Vehicle v : allVehicles) {
System.out.println("Vehicle: " + v + ", maxSpeed: " + v.maxSpeed);
}
System.out.println("Cars:");
for (Car c : cars) {
System.out.println("Car: " + c + ", numCylinders: " + c.numCylinders);
}
System.out.println("Boats:");
for (Boat b : boats) {
System.out.println("Boat: " + b + ", numRudders: " + b.numRudders);
}
System.out.println("Planes:");
for (Plane p : planes) {
System.out.println("Plane: " + p + ", numPropellers: " + p.numPropellers);
}
}
}
class Vehicle {
double maxSpeed;
Vehicle(double maxSpeed) {
this.maxSpeed = maxSpeed;
}
}
class Car extends Vehicle {
int numCylinders;
Car(double maxSpeed, int numCylinders) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numCylinders = numCylinders;
}
}
class Boat extends Vehicle {
int numRudders;
Boat(double maxSpeed, int numRudders) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numRudders = numRudders;
}
}
class Plane extends Vehicle {
int numPropellers;
Plane(double maxSpeed, int numPropellers) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numPropellers = numPropellers;
}
}
class VehicleFactory {
public static Vehicle buildVehicle(Blueprint blueprint) {
switch (blueprint.type) {
case 0:
return new Car(100.0, 4);
case 1:
return new Boat(65.0, 1);
case 2:
return new Plane(600.0, 2);
default:
return new Vehicle(0.0);
}
}
}
class Blueprint {
int type; // 0 = car; // 1 = boat; // 2 = plane;
Blueprint(int type) {
this.type = type;
}
}

You could implement the Visitor pattern.
Detailed Answer
The idea is to use polymorphism to perform the type-checking. Each subclass overrides the accept(Visitor) method, which should be declared in the superclass. When we have a situation like:
void add(Vehicle vehicle) {
//what type is vehicle??
}
We can pass an object into a method declared in Vehicle. If vehicle is of type Car, and class Car overrode the method we passed the object into, that object would now be processed within the method declared in the Car class. We use this to our advantage: creating a Visitor object and pass it to an overriden method:
abstract class Vehicle {
public abstract void accept(AddToListVisitor visitor);
}
class Car extends Vehicle {
public void accept(AddToListVisitor visitor) {
//gets handled in this class
}
}
This Visitor should be prepared to visit type Car. Any type that you want to avoid using instanceof to find the actual type of must be specified in the Visitor.
class AddToListVisitor {
public void visit(Car car) {
//now we know the type! do something...
}
public void visit(Plane plane) {
//now we know the type! do something...
}
}
Here's where the type checking happens!
When the Car receives the visitor, it should pass itself in using the this keyword. Since we are in class Car, the method visit(Car) will be invoked. Inside of our visitor, we can perform the action we want, now that we know the type of the object.
So, from the top:
You create a Visitor, which performs the actions you want. A visitor should consist of a visit method for each type of object you want to perform an action on. In this case, we are creating a visitor for vehicles:
interface VehicleVisitor {
void visit(Car car);
void visit(Plane plane);
void visit(Boat boat);
}
The action we want to perform is adding the vehicle to something. We would create an AddTransportVisitor; a visitor that manages adding transportations:
class AddTransportVisitor implements VehicleVisitor {
public void visit(Car car) {
//add to car list
}
public void visit(Plane plane) {
//add to plane list
}
public void visit(Boat boat) {
//add to boat list
}
}
Every vehicle should be able to accept vehicle visitors:
abstract class Vehicle {
public abstract void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor);
}
When a visitor is passed to a vehicle, the vehicle should invoke it's visit method, passing itself into the arguments:
class Car extends Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
class Boat extends Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
class Plane extends Vehicle {
public void accept(VehicleVisitor visitor) {
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
That's where the type-checking happens. The correct visit method is called, which contains the correct code to execute based on the method's parameters.
The last problem is having the VehicleVisitor interact with the lists. This is where your VehicleManager comes in: it encapsulates the lists, allowing you to add vehicles through a VehicleManager#add(Vehicle) method.
When we create the visitor, we can pass the manager to it (possibly through it's constructor), so we can perform the action we want, now that we know the object's type. The VehicleManager should contain the visitor and intercept VehicleManager#add(Vehicle) calls:
class VehicleManager {
private List<Car> carList = new ArrayList<>();
private List<Boat> boatList = new ArrayList<>();
private List<Plane> planeList = new ArrayList<>();
private AddTransportVisitor addVisitor = new AddTransportVisitor(this);
public void add(Vehicle vehicle) {
vehicle.accept(addVisitor);
}
public List<Car> getCarList() {
return carList;
}
public List<Boat> getBoatList() {
return boatList;
}
public List<Plane> getPlaneList() {
return planeList;
}
}
We can now write implementations for the AddTransportVisitor#visit methods:
class AddTransportVisitor implements VehicleVisitor {
private VehicleManager manager;
public AddTransportVisitor(VehicleManager manager) {
this.manager = manager;
}
public void visit(Car car) {
manager.getCarList().add(car);
}
public void visit(Plane plane) {
manager.getPlaneList().add(plane);
}
public void visit(Boat boat) {
manager.getBoatList().add(boat);
}
}
I highly suggest removing the getter methods and declaring overloaded add methods for each type of vehicle. This will reduce overhead from "visiting" when it's not needed, for example, manager.add(new Car()):
class VehicleManager {
private List<Car> carList = new ArrayList<>();
private List<Boat> boatList = new ArrayList<>();
private List<Plane> planeList = new ArrayList<>();
private AddTransportVisitor addVisitor = new AddTransportVisitor(this);
public void add(Vehicle vehicle) {
vehicle.accept(addVisitor);
}
public void add(Car car) {
carList.add(car);
}
public void add(Boat boat) {
boatList.add(boat);
}
public void add(Plane plane) {
planeList.add(plane);
}
public void printAllVehicles() {
//loop through vehicles, print
}
}
class AddTransportVisitor implements VehicleVisitor {
private VehicleManager manager;
public AddTransportVisitor(VehicleManager manager) {
this.manager = manager;
}
public void visit(Car car) {
manager.add(car);
}
public void visit(Plane plane) {
manager.add(plane);
}
public void visit(Boat boat) {
manager.add(boat);
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Vehicle[] vehicles = {
new Plane(),
new Car(),
new Car(),
new Car(),
new Boat(),
new Boat()
};
VehicleManager manager = new VehicleManager();
for(Vehicle vehicle : vehicles) {
manager.add(vehicle);
}
manager.printAllVehicles();
}
}

You can add method to vehicle class to print the text. Then override the method in each specialized Car class. Then just add all the cars to the vehicle list. And loop the list to print the text.

I'm not too happy with the lists of cars, boats and planes in the first place. You have multiple examples of reality but the list isn't inherently all-inclusive--what happens when your factory starts making submarines or rockets?
Instead, how about an enum with the types car, boat and plane. You have an array of lists of vehicles.
The generic vehicle has an abstract property CatalogAs, the various vehicles actually implement this and return the proper value.

Done some restructuring of your code. Hope that works for you. Check this:
import java.util.ArrayList;
class VehicleManager {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ArrayList<ABluePrint> bluePrints = new ArrayList<ABluePrint>();
ArrayList<AVehicle> allVehicles = new ArrayList<AVehicle>();
ArrayList<ACar> cars = null;
ArrayList<ABoat> boats = null;
ArrayList<APlane> planes = null;
/*
* In my application I have to access the blueprints through an API
* b/c they have already been created and stored in a data file.
* I'm creating them here just for example.
*/
ABluePrint bp0 = new ABluePrint(0);
ABluePrint bp1 = new ABluePrint(1);
ABluePrint bp2 = new ABluePrint(2);
bluePrints.add(bp0);
bluePrints.add(bp1);
bluePrints.add(bp2);
for (ABluePrint bp : bluePrints) {
AVehicle v = AVehicleFactory.buildVehicle(bp);
allVehicles.add(v);
// Can I accomplish this without using 'instanceof'?
// dont add objects to list here, do it from constructor or in factory
/*if (v instanceof ACar) {
cars.add((ACar) v);
} else if (v instanceof ABoat) {
boats.add((ABoat) v);
} else if (v instanceof APlane) {
planes.add((APlane) v);
}*/
}
cars = ACar.getCars();
boats = ABoat.getBoats();
planes = APlane.getPlanes();
System.out.println("All Vehicles:");
for (AVehicle v : allVehicles) {
System.out.println("Vehicle: " + v + ", maxSpeed: " + v.maxSpeed);
}
System.out.println("Cars:");
for (ACar c : cars) {
System.out.println("Car: " + c + ", numCylinders: " + c.numCylinders);
}
System.out.println("Boats:");
for (ABoat b : boats) {
System.out.println("Boat: " + b + ", numRudders: " + b.numRudders);
}
System.out.println("Planes:");
for (APlane p : planes) {
System.out.println("Plane: " + p + ", numPropellers: " + p.numPropellers);
}
}
}
class AVehicle {
double maxSpeed;
AVehicle(double maxSpeed) {
this.maxSpeed = maxSpeed;
}
void add(){}
}
class ACar extends AVehicle {
static ArrayList<ACar> cars = new ArrayList<ACar>();
int numCylinders;
ACar(double maxSpeed, int numCylinders) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numCylinders = numCylinders;
}
void add(){
cars.add(this);
}
public static ArrayList<ACar> getCars(){
return cars;
}
}
class ABoat extends AVehicle {
static ArrayList<ABoat> boats = new ArrayList<ABoat>();
int numRudders;
ABoat(double maxSpeed, int numRudders) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numRudders = numRudders;
}
void add(){
boats.add(this);
}
public static ArrayList<ABoat> getBoats(){
return boats;
}
}
class APlane extends AVehicle {
static ArrayList<APlane> planes = new ArrayList<APlane>();
int numPropellers;
APlane(double maxSpeed, int numPropellers) {
super(maxSpeed);
this.numPropellers = numPropellers;
}
void add(){
planes.add(this);
}
public static ArrayList<APlane> getPlanes(){
return planes;
}
}
class AVehicleFactory {
public static AVehicle buildVehicle(ABluePrint blueprint) {
AVehicle vehicle;
switch (blueprint.type) {
case 0:
vehicle = new ACar(100.0, 4);
break;
case 1:
vehicle = new ABoat(65.0, 1);
break;
case 2:
vehicle = new APlane(600.0, 2);
break;
default:
vehicle = new AVehicle(0.0);
}
vehicle.add();
return vehicle;
}
}
class ABluePrint {
int type; // 0 = car; // 1 = boat; // 2 = plane;
ABluePrint(int type) {
this.type = type;
}
}
With the above code, the class will have to know about the collection to which it has to be added. This can be considered as a downside to a good design and it can be overcome using the visitor design pattern as demonstrated in the accepted answer (How to avoid 'instanceof' when implementing factory design pattern?).

I know its been a long time since this question was asked. I found http://www.nurkiewicz.com/2013/09/instanceof-operator-and-visitor-pattern.html which looks to be useful. Sharing it here in case if somebody is interested.

Had a similar issue so I used this pattern, to understand it better I created a simple UML drawing showing the sequence of things in comments (follow the numbers). I used Vince Emighs solution above.. The pattern solution is more elegant but can requires some time to truly understand. It requires one interface and one class more then the original but they are very simple.

What if AVehicle classes are out of your control? E.g. you have it from some 3rd party lib? So you have no way to add the Visitor pattern accept() method. Also you could probably dislike boilerplate code in each of the AVehicle subclass and prefer to put everything in one special class keeping your classes clean.
For some cases it could be better just to use HashMap.
In your sample just use:
Map<Class<? extends AVehicle>, List<? extends AVehicle>> lists = new HashMap<>();
lists.put(ACar.class, new ArrayList<ACar>());
lists.put(ABoat.class, new ArrayList<ABoat>());
lists.put(APlane.class, new ArrayList<APlane>());
for (ABluePrint bp : bluePrints) {
AVehicle v = AVehicleFactory.buildVehicle(bp);
allVehicles.add(v);
lists.get(v.getClass()).add(v);
}
The problem with this HashMap approach is that you have to register all possible classes including all known subclasses. Although if you have huge hierarchy and it is not needed all classes for your task you can save lots of work registering in the Map just needed ones.

How can I get data of different types from an anonymous class

I have an object that delegates some work to another object which is implementing an interface. Then, I am creating anonymous classes implementing this interface and I would like to get information from these.
Is it okay to use a final array with a size of one as a pointer to a primitve to share data with the anonymous class?
Here is a working example of what I mean :
public class ExampleClass
{
public static final int INVALID_VALUE = -1;
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final int[] buffer = { INVALID_VALUE }; // buffer is created
final InterfaceA iaObject = new InterfaceA()
{
#Override
public void doStuff(final String paramA)
{
buffer[0] = paramA.length(); // buffer is filled in anonymous class
}
};
final ClassA objA = new ClassA(iaObject);
objA.doStuff("hello, world");
if (buffer[0] == INVALID_VALUE) // buffer is used
{
System.err.println("Invalid length !");
}
else
{
System.err.println("The length is : " + Integer.toString(buffer[0]));
}
}
public static class ClassA
{
private final InterfaceA iaObject;
public ClassA(final InterfaceA iaObject)
{
this.iaObject = iaObject;
}
public void doStuff(final String paramA)
{
this.iaObject.doStuff(paramA);
}
}
public static interface InterfaceA
{
void doStuff(String paramA);
}
}
Thanks

Suggestion: why not using a generic for an out parameter?
interface InterfaceA {
public <T> void doStuff( String paramA, Holder<T> holder );
}
class Holder<T> {
public T t;
}
Full example:
public class ExampleClass
{
public static final int INVALID_VALUE = -1;
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final InterfaceA< Integer > iaObject = new InterfaceA< Integer >() {
#Override
public Integer doStuff( String paramA, Holder<Integer> holder ) {
return holder.value = paramA.length();
}
};
final ClassA<Integer> objA = new ClassA<>( iaObject );
int result = objA.doStuff("hello, world", new Holder<>( INVALID_VALUE ));
if( result == INVALID_VALUE ) {
System.err.println("Invalid length !");
}
else {
System.err.println("The length is : " + Integer.toString( result ));
}
}
public static class ClassA<T> {
private final InterfaceA<T> iaObject;
public ClassA( final InterfaceA<T> iaObject_ ) {
this.iaObject = iaObject_;
}
public T doStuff( final String paramA, Holder<T> holder ) {
return this.iaObject.doStuff( paramA, holder );
}
}
public static interface InterfaceA<T> {
public T doStuff( String paramA, Holder<T> resultHolder );
}
public static class Holder<T> {
public T value;
public Holder( T value_ ) {
value = value_;
}
}
}

If I understand the gist of your question, you're wondering if it is good design principle to use a final array as a wrapper to share memory between an anonymous inner class and its enclosing class.
In my experience, this is a pretty poor way of sharing data between two objects. It is probably wiser to declare your interface differently. Either return an object or use a generic to specify what type you expect back from your anonymous class.

I think one of the largest problems with your approach is the lack of encapsulation - your InterfaceA implementation uses some "global" data holder (the array), and there is no way to prevent that this array can be used elsewhere, which in turn could lead to all kinds of problems (race conditions or whatever).
A cleaner way would be the definition of some separate class (or interface) with a getInt()-method or something similar.