I'm a C\C++ programmer just starting on Java.
I came across this working Java snippet syntax that I understand what it does but I can't understand the logic of the syntax.
object x = new object
.SetContent(aaa)
.SetIcon(bbb)
.SetText(ccc);
I get that the equivalent C++ code is:
object* x = new object;
x->SetContent(aaa);
x->SetIcon(bbb);
x->SetText(ccc);
Can anyone explain to me the logic in the Java syntax?
Is this something like the Visual Basic's With Statement?
P.S.
Don't think it matters but the Java snippet is from an Android program.
Those chain calls are possible because each setter method returns a reference to this:
public object SetContent(final String input){
this.aaa = input;
return this;
}
This is method chaining in java, where each method returns the current instance so that you can invoke the next method on current returned object from that method.
It's method chaining, where each method invocation returns the object it was invoked on. It's very common to see in Java when creating an object with a Builder, e.g.
Foo foo = FooBuilder.builder()
.setBar("bar")
.setVolume(11)
.setAnswer(42)
.build();
Where each .set___() method returns the updated builder object, and the final build() call returns the actual Foo instance. It would be perfectly equivalent to do this:
FooBuilder builder = FooBuilder.builder();
builder = builder.setBar("bar");
builder = builder.setVolume(11);
builder = builder.setAnswer(42);
Foo foo = builder.build();
But IMO the first version is much more readable. I'm not much of a C++ guy but I think you can do the same thing there.
EDIT: Here's a real life example:
http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/collect/ImmutableSet.Builder.html
This syntax is creating the 'x' object, you should know that objects are references in Java.
this syntax is equivalent to:
private object x = new object();
x.setContent(aaa);
x.setIcon(bbb);
x.setText(ccc);
so first it create the object and then it calls each method.
The instance of that Object is returned by each of the methods called,the next subsequent method uses that returned instance to operate further. This is internally done by returning this .
Example:
Object methodFirst(Object ob1)
{
ob1.doSomeOperations();
return this;
}
Object methodSecond(Object ob1)
{
ob1.doSomeOtherOperations();
return this;
}
the above methods can be called like :
Object newObject = oldObject.methodFirst().methodSecond();
A more comprehensive and deep explanation can be found here
I have been working to upgrade my Java code baseline so that it follows good security practices and have run into an issue related to generics. Say you have the following:
public class SomeClass<T>
{
private T value;
public T getValue()
{
return value;
}
public void setValue(T value)
{
this.value = value;
}
}
I have not found a good answer on how to edit these methods so that value does not leak like it does in this example class for a generic object that does not implement Clonable and in some cases has no default constructor.
As I understand it, you want to make sure that nothing outside SomeClass can mutate the object value.
In C++, you could returns a const reference (avoid copying altogether), but Java does not have that. So let's look at copying...
First, know that some objects cannot be copied. For example, stream, gui elements, etc. Thus, trying to copy all objects is a hopeless endeavor from the start.
But what about objects that are copiable?
In Java, you cannot call the copy constructor (or any other constructor) of a generic (Calling constructor of a generic type).
There is the Cloneable interface, but that is really nothing more than a promise that clone works; it does not actually expose clone publically. Thus, for generics, you have to use reflection, as shown here.
Unfortunately, there is no good solution. The only viable one (except for changing the purpose or semantics of your class) is to use the clone method as shown in the link above, and realize that some objects cannot be copied.
Ultimately, the best thing to do is find a solution that does not require this. Make a (non-generic) read-only wrapper class that exposes the non-mutating methods. Or stipulate in documentation that mutating methods must not be called.
I can see three approaches:
Make copies. This of course would only work with types can can be copied (and that you know how to copy).
Only support immutable types.
Remove getValue(). Instead, provide methods that operate directly on this.value without exposing it outside the class. In this approach, setValue() can still be problematic (you need to make sure that the caller does not hold on to the object reference after calling setValue()).
If T can be arbitrary type that you have no control over, then options 1 and 2 won't be suitable.
I believe that i undestand you ... If you want to restrict a generic type you should use extends keyword that in generic type is not equals to general class. If you use only the class how implements Clonable are able to instantiate this class. One example:
public class Stack {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SomeClass<Animal> sc = new SomeClass<>(); //This generate an error because doesnt implements Clonable interface
SomeClass<Person> sc1 = new SomeClass<>();
}
}
class SomeClass<T extends Comparable> //Note that extends means implements or the common extends
{
private T value;
public T getValue()
{
return value;
}
public void setValue(T value)
{
this.value = value;
}
}
class Person implements Comparable<Person>{
#Override
public int compareTo(Person p){
return 0;
}
}
class Animal {
}
I wish i helped you.
:)
An object whose state is encapsulated in a mutable object should generally never expose to the outside world any reference to that object, and should avoid giving the outside world a reference to any mutable object (even a copy) which claims to encapsulate its state. The problem is that given code:
Foo foo = myEntity1.getFoo();
foo.bar = 23;
myEntity2.setFoo(foo);
foo.bar = 47;
myEntity3.setFoo(foo);
there is no clear indication whether or how the change to foo.bar would affect the various entities. If the code had instead been:
Foo foo = myEntity1.getFoo();
foo = foo.withBar(23); // makes a new instance which is like foo, but where bar==23
myEntity2.setFoo(foo);
foo = foo.withBar(47); // makes a new instance which is like foo, but where bar==47
myEntity3.setFoo(foo);
it would be very clear that the bar property of myEntity1's foo will be unaffected, that of myEntity2 will be 23, and that of myEntity3 will be 47. If foo is a mutable class, the pattern should be:
Foo foo = new Foo();
myEntity1.writeTo(foo); // Copy properties from myEntity1 to the supplied instance
foo.bar = 23;
myEntity2.readFrom(foo); // Copy properties from the supplied instance to myEntity2
foo.bar = 47;
myEntity2.readFrom(foo); // Copy properties from the supplied instance to myEntity3
Here, myEntity1 isn't giving the caller an object, but is instead copying data to an object supplied by the caller. Consequently, it's much clearer that the caller shouldn't expect the writes to foo.bar to affect the entities directly, but merely change what will be written in subsequent readFrom calls.
I know there are wrapper methods like Collections#unmodifiableSet and its other variations like Collections#unmodifiableMap, Collections#unmodifiableList etc which makes the collection immutable provided that the client only accesses the collection through the reference returned by these methods and not directly. But does it prevent the individual objects in the collections to be immutable? Can I achieve the same using standard JDK classes and not apis like Google Guava?
No, you have to make yourself immutable versions of your classes.
Sample :
List< StringBuilder > l1 = new LinkedList< StringBuilder >();
l1.add( new StringBuilder()); // ok
List< StringBuilder > l2 = Collections.unmodiableList( l1 );
l2.get(0).append( "Hello" ); // ok, because StringBuilder, unlike String is mutable
l2.add( new StringBuilder()); // throws exception
The only way I could think of making a class immutable that wasnt designed to be so is to wrap it in a Proxy - you could then access control any mutating methods:
ie.
MyClass {
private int anInt;
public void setInt(int a) {
anInt = a;
}
public int getInt() {
return anInt;
}
...
and then
MyProxy {
private MyClass myClass = ...;
public int getInt() {
return myClass.getInt();
}
...
and so on.
You could also achieve the same thing through reflection (in the same way Spring wraps beans and you only generally interact with their proxies)
Not though that if a client got hold of the actual underlying class (MyClass in this example) then they would be able to mutate the internals. Theres no real way to stop this directly, other than only ever exposing the "mutable" wrappers you let clients see
If i understand your goal. You can use something like this
class Wraper<T>{
List<T> list = new ArrayList<T>(); //Other Collection?
T someObj = getYourInstance();
public T get(int index) {
T obj = list.get(index);
if (obj.equals(someObj)){//should be overriden
return createInstanceOf(obj);
} else {
return obj;
}
}
}
You are asking for the equivalent of const in Java. Which is not possible. This has been requested by many users as an enhancement to Java (including myself) over the years. It was closed and rejected by Sun.
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4211070
If you want to do this, you will have to build a mutability flag into your object (probably at construction time). And then in every mutator method, check the mutability flag. Perhaps you might be able to do something more "fancy" using a proxy library such as CGLIB, but it might be overly complicated for what you are trying to achieve.
I am totally confused with ArrayList behavior. Wrote really long post, then realized no one is going to analyse huge code, so just core of the problem. Numbers are for convenience, but in my app these 0 and 24 are dynamic values.
ArrayList<VoipBlock> sortedBlocks = new ArrayList<VoipBlock>();
VoipBlock vb3 =new VoipBlock();
vb3=sortedBlocks.get(0);
vb3.setPacketNumber(24);
Essentially my final aim is to: modify and add back to arrayList as new value. However when I do that the guy at position 0 in ArrayList -> unsortedBlocks.get(0); replicates all the changes done to vb3 which of course is not what I want. I want vb3 acquire same values as VoipBlock inside of ArrayList, but I want it to be detached.
This is yet another case of passing by reference. I hate technical explanations - Java passes everything by value, BUT in some cases it passes references by values - this is same as saying not-oily oil. Please help.
It reminds me my start of learning JavaScript - I hated the language - until I watched proper materials at lynda.com - JavaScript Good Practices? - Diagrams killed me. It is the lazy description that turns us-youth away from brilliant technology, not the technology itself.
Please don't let it bother my stress and don't be in any way offended by me, it is just general complaining, maybe someone will look at it and make life better :-)
Thanks for Your time,
Desperately awaiting for help :-)
To achieve your objective you can use clone method. you have to override this method in VoipBlock class
Lets say VoipBlock is as follows
public class VoipBlock {
private int packetNumber;
private String type;
public int getPacketNumber() {
return packetNumber;
}
public String getType() {
return type;
}
public void setPacketNumber(int value) {
packetNumber = value;
}
public void setType(String value) {
type = value
}
public VoipBlock clone() {
VoipBlock clone = VoipBlock();
clone.setType(this.getType());
clone.setPacketNumber(this.getPacketNumber());
return clone;
}
}
So, using the same code you can do like as follows
ArrayList<VoipBlock> sortedBlocks = new ArrayList<VoipBlock>();
VoipBlock vb3 =new VoipBlock();
sortedBlocks.add(vb3);
vb3=sortedBlocks.get(0).clone();
vb3.setPacketNumber(24);
Note that upon calling clone method in above code segment, vb3 get assigned with a new VoipBlock instance. And already inserted VoipBlock to the array remains unchanged.
if you are looking to have kind of sample instances of VoipBlock instances which you later wanted to use in creating similar instances like them. check on immutability/mutability aspect of the code. check "Effective Java" by Joshua Blouch
The following will always copy the reference of b to a:
AnyClass a = ...;
AnyClass b = ...;
a = b;
What you want is probably to clone the object:
a = b.clone();
If I understand correctly, you're a bit unsure about how references and values work. I think the rule of thumb is that primitive types like int, char, boolean and maybe String are copied but Objects just have their reference passed.
The line vb3=sortedBlocks.get(0); completely replaces whatever vb3 used to be with the first thing in the ArrayList. And yes, it won't be a copy, it will be a reference to the same object in memory. So whatever you do will affect both of them. You need to either manually copy over all the information you need or to use a clone() or copy() function.
So for example, in your code, the line VoipBlock vb3 =new VoipBlock(); is a bit redundant because you're overwriting the new instance straight away.
What you really need here is to either use a copy constructor or declare VoipBlock to be Clonable so you can use the clone() method.
What you are interpreting as passing by reference is not actually passing by reference. Java objects are really pointers. Because of this you are passing the value of the pointer. So when you do:
vb3=sortedBlocks.get(0);
you are really assigning vb3 to point to the same locations in memory as sortedBlocks.get(0). Therefore when you manipulate vb3 properties through their setters, the result is seen in both.
If you want two separate pointers you need to use the new keyword or use the clone() method which does this under the hood.
An example to prove this is:
public class Person {
private String name;
public Person(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
public class Main {
public void doSomething(Person p) {
p = new Person("Bob");
System.out.println(p.getName());
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Person p = new Person("Billy");
System.out.println(p.getName());
doSomething(p);
System.out.println(p.getName());
}
}
Since Java is pass by value the output will be: Billy, Bob, Billy. If Java were pass by reference it would be Billy, Bob, Bob. If I did not do the new Person in the doSomething() method and instead used the setName() method I would end up with Billy, Bob, Bob also but this is due to the fact I'm now modifying off the same pointer not that I passed by reference as the example above proves that's not the case.
I would like to do dynamic casting for a Java variable, the casting type is stored in a different variable.
This is the regular casting:
String a = (String) 5;
This is what I want:
String theType = 'String';
String a = (theType) 5;
Is this possible, and if so how? Thanks!
Update
I'm trying to populate a class with a HashMap that I received.
This is the constructor:
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> obj) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : obj.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
The problem here is that some of the class' variables are of type Double, and if the number 3 is received it sees it as Integer and I have type problem.
Yes it is possible using Reflection
Object something = "something";
String theType = "java.lang.String";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Object obj = theClass.cast(something);
but that doesn't make much sense since the resulting object must be saved in a variable of Object type. If you need the variable be of a given class, you can just cast to that class.
If you want to obtain a given class, Number for example:
Object something = new Integer(123);
String theType = "java.lang.Number";
Class<? extends Number> theClass = Class.forName(theType).asSubclass(Number.class);
Number obj = theClass.cast(something);
but there is still no point doing it so, you could just cast to Number.
Casting of an object does NOT change anything; it is just the way the compiler treats it.
The only reason to do something like that is to check if the object is an instance of the given class or of any subclass of it, but that would be better done using instanceof or Class.isInstance().
Update
according your last update the real problem is that you have an Integer in your HashMap that should be assigned to a Double. What you can do in this case, is check the type of the field and use the xxxValue() methods of Number
...
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
Object value = entry.getValue();
if (Integer.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Integer.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).intValue());
} else if (Double.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
value = Double.valueOf(((Number) entry.getValue()).doubleValue());
} // other cases as needed (Long, Float, ...)
f.set(this, value);
...
(not sure if I like the idea of having the wrong type in the Map)
You'll need to write sort of ObjectConverter for this. This is doable if you have both the object which you want to convert and you know the target class to which you'd like to convert to. In this particular case you can get the target class by Field#getDeclaringClass().
You can find here an example of such an ObjectConverter. It should give you the base idea. If you want more conversion possibilities, just add more methods to it with the desired argument and return type.
Regarding your update, the only way to solve this in Java is to write code that covers all cases with lots of if and else and instanceof expressions. What you attempt to do looks as if are used to program with dynamic languages. In static languages, what you attempt to do is almost impossible and one would probably choose a totally different approach for what you attempt to do. Static languages are just not as flexible as dynamic ones :)
Good examples of Java best practice are the answer by BalusC (ie ObjectConverter) and the answer by Andreas_D (ie Adapter) below.
That does not make sense, in
String a = (theType) 5;
the type of a is statically bound to be String so it does not make any sense to have a dynamic cast to this static type.
PS: The first line of your example could be written as Class<String> stringClass = String.class; but still, you cannot use stringClass to cast variables.
You can do this using the Class.cast() method, which dynamically casts the supplied parameter to the type of the class instance you have. To get the class instance of a particular field, you use the getType() method on the field in question. I've given an example below, but note that it omits all error handling and shouldn't be used unmodified.
public class Test {
public String var1;
public Integer var2;
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Map<String, Object> map = new HashMap<String, Object>();
map.put("var1", "test");
map.put("var2", 1);
Test t = new Test();
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : map.entrySet()) {
Field f = Test.class.getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(t, f.getType().cast(entry.getValue()));
}
System.out.println(t.var1);
System.out.println(t.var2);
}
}
You can write a simple castMethod like the one below.
private <T> T castObject(Class<T> clazz, Object object) {
return (T) object;
}
In your method you should be using it like
public ConnectParams(HashMap<String,Object> object) {
for (Map.Entry<String, Object> entry : object.entrySet()) {
try {
Field f = this.getClass().getField(entry.getKey());
f.set(this, castObject(entry.getValue().getClass(), entry.getValue()); /* <= CASTING PROBLEM */
} catch (NoSuchFieldException ex) {
log.error("did not find field '" + entry.getKey() + '"');
} catch (IllegalAccessException ex) {
log.error(ex.getMessage());
}
}
}
It works and there's even a common pattern for your approach: the Adapter pattern. But of course, (1) it does not work for casting java primitives to objects and (2) the class has to be adaptable (usually by implementing a custom interface).
With this pattern you could do something like:
Wolf bigBadWolf = new Wolf();
Sheep sheep = (Sheep) bigBadWolf.getAdapter(Sheep.class);
and the getAdapter method in Wolf class:
public Object getAdapter(Class clazz) {
if (clazz.equals(Sheep.class)) {
// return a Sheep implementation
return getWolfDressedAsSheep(this);
}
if (clazz.equals(String.class)) {
// return a String
return this.getName();
}
return null; // not adaptable
}
For you special idea - that is impossible. You can't use a String value for casting.
Your problem is not the lack of "dynamic casting". Casting Integer to Double isn't possible at all. You seem to want to give Java an object of one type, a field of a possibly incompatible type, and have it somehow automatically figure out how to convert between the types.
This kind of thing is anathema to a strongly typed language like Java, and IMO for very good reasons.
What are you actually trying to do? All that use of reflection looks pretty fishy.
Don't do this. Just have a properly parameterized constructor instead. The set and types of the connection parameters are fixed anyway, so there is no point in doing this all dynamically.
For what it is worth, most scripting languages (like Perl) and non-static compile-time languages (like Pick) support automatic run-time dynamic String to (relatively arbitrary) object conversions. This CAN be accomplished in Java as well without losing type-safety and the good stuff statically-typed languages provide WITHOUT the nasty side-effects of some of the other languages that do evil things with dynamic casting. A Perl example that does some questionable math:
print ++($foo = '99'); # prints '100'
print ++($foo = 'a0'); # prints 'a1'
In Java, this is better accomplished (IMHO) by using a method I call "cross-casting".
With cross-casting, reflection is used in a lazy-loaded cache of constructors and methods that are dynamically discovered via the following static method:
Object fromString (String value, Class targetClass)
Unfortunately, no built-in Java methods such as Class.cast() will do this for String to BigDecimal or String to Integer or any other conversion where there is no supporting class hierarchy. For my part, the point is to provide a fully dynamic way to achieve this - for which I don't think the prior reference is the right approach - having to code every conversion. Simply put, the implementation is just to cast-from-string if it is legal/possible.
So the solution is simple reflection looking for public Members of either:
STRING_CLASS_ARRAY = (new Class[] {String.class});
a) Member member = targetClass.getMethod(method.getName(),STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
b) Member member = targetClass.getConstructor(STRING_CLASS_ARRAY);
You will find that all of the primitives (Integer, Long, etc) and all of the basics (BigInteger, BigDecimal, etc) and even java.regex.Pattern are all covered via this approach. I have used this with significant success on production projects where there are a huge amount of arbitrary String value inputs where some more strict checking was needed. In this approach, if there is no method or when the method is invoked an exception is thrown (because it is an illegal value such as a non-numeric input to a BigDecimal or illegal RegEx for a Pattern), that provides the checking specific to the target class inherent logic.
There are some downsides to this:
1) You need to understand reflection well (this is a little complicated and not for novices).
2) Some of the Java classes and indeed 3rd-party libraries are (surprise) not coded properly. That is, there are methods that take a single string argument as input and return an instance of the target class but it isn't what you think... Consider the Integer class:
static Integer getInteger(String nm)
Determines the integer value of the system property with the specified name.
The above method really has nothing to do with Integers as objects wrapping primitives ints.
Reflection will find this as a possible candidate for creating an Integer from a String incorrectly versus the decode, valueof and constructor Members - which are all suitable for most arbitrary String conversions where you really don't have control over your input data but just want to know if it is possible an Integer.
To remedy the above, looking for methods that throw Exceptions is a good start because invalid input values that create instances of such objects should throw an Exception. Unfortunately, implementations vary as to whether the Exceptions are declared as checked or not. Integer.valueOf(String) throws a checked NumberFormatException for example, but Pattern.compile() exceptions are not found during reflection lookups. Again, not a failing of this dynamic "cross-casting" approach I think so much as a very non-standard implementation for exception declarations in object creation methods.
If anyone would like more details on how the above was implemented, let me know but I think this solution is much more flexible/extensible and with less code without losing the good parts of type-safety. Of course it is always best to "know thy data" but as many of us find, we are sometimes only recipients of unmanaged content and have to do the best we can to use it properly.
Cheers.
So, this is an old post, however I think I can contribute something to it.
You can always do something like this:
package com.dyna.test;
import java.io.File;
import java.lang.reflect.Constructor;
public class DynamicClass{
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public Object castDynamicClass(String className, String value){
Class<?> dynamicClass;
try
{
//We get the actual .class object associated with the specified name
dynamicClass = Class.forName(className);
/* We get the constructor that received only
a String as a parameter, since the value to be used is a String, but we could
easily change this to be "dynamic" as well, getting the Constructor signature from
the same datasource we get the values from */
Constructor<?> cons =
(Constructor<?>) dynamicClass.getConstructor(new Class<?>[]{String.class});
/*We generate our object, without knowing until runtime
what type it will be, and we place it in an Object as
any Java object extends the Object class) */
Object object = (Object) cons.newInstance(new Object[]{value});
return object;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
DynamicClass dynaClass = new DynamicClass();
/*
We specify the type of class that should be used to represent
the value "3.0", in this case a Double. Both these parameters
you can get from a file, or a network stream for example. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.lang.Double", "3.0"));
/*
We specify a different value and type, and it will work as
expected, printing 3.0 in the above case and the test path in the one below, as the Double.toString() and
File.toString() would do. */
System.out.println(dynaClass.castDynamicClass("java.io.File", "C:\\testpath"));
}
Of course, this is not really dynamic casting, as in other languages (Python for example), because java is a statically typed lang. However, this can solve some fringe cases where you actually need to load some data in different ways, depending on some identifier. Also, the part where you get a constructor with a String parameter could be probably made more flexible, by having that parameter passed from the same data source. I.e. from a file, you get the constructor signature you want to use, and the list of values to be used, that way you pair up, say, the first parameter is a String, with the first object, casting it as a String, next object is an Integer, etc, but somehwere along the execution of your program, you get now a File object first, then a Double, etc.
In this way, you can account for those cases, and make a somewhat "dynamic" casting on-the-fly.
Hope this helps anyone as this keeps turning up in Google searches.
Try this for Dynamic Casting. It will work!!!
String something = "1234";
String theType = "java.lang.Integer";
Class<?> theClass = Class.forName(theType);
Constructor<?> cons = theClass.getConstructor(String.class);
Object ob = cons.newInstance(something);
System.out.println(ob.equals(1234));
I recently felt like I had to do this too, but then found another way which possibly makes my code look neater, and uses better OOP.
I have many sibling classes that each implement a certain method doSomething(). In order to access that method, I would have to have an instance of that class first, but I created a superclass for all my sibling classes and now I can access the method from the superclass.
Below I show two ways alternative ways to "dynamic casting".
// Method 1.
mFragment = getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
switch (mUnitNum) {
case 0:
((MyFragment0) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 1:
((MyFragment1) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
case 2:
((MyFragment2) mFragment).sortNames(sortOptionNum);
break;
}
and my currently used method,
// Method 2.
mSuperFragment = (MySuperFragment) getFragmentManager().findFragmentByTag(MyHelper.getName(mUnitNum));
mSuperFragment.sortNames(sortOptionNum);
Just thought I would post something that I found quite useful and could be possible for someone who experiences similar needs.
The following method was a method I wrote for my JavaFX application to avoid having to cast and also avoid writing if object x instance of object b statements every time the controller was returned.
public <U> Optional<U> getController(Class<U> castKlazz){
try {
return Optional.of(fxmlLoader.<U>getController());
}catch (Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
return Optional.empty();
}
The method declaration for obtaining the controller was
public <T> T getController()
By using type U passed into my method via the class object, it could be forwarded to the method get controller to tell it what type of object to return. An optional object is returned in case the wrong class is supplied and an exception occurs in which case an empty optional will be returned which we can check for.
This is what the final call to the method looked like (if present of the optional object returned takes a Consumer
getController(LoadController.class).ifPresent(controller->controller.onNotifyComplete());