We Keep Coding

Assign unique ID for every new Class (not instance!)

I was wondering, whether it would be possible to assign a unique ID for every new class (not instance!).
Example of what I mean:
public class ChildObjectOne extends SuperClass {}
public class ChildObjectTwo extends SuperClass {}
public SuperClass {
private final int ID;
public SuperClass() {
this.ID = newID();
}
}
final ChildObjectOne childObjectOne = new ChildObjectOne();
final ChildObjectTwo childObjectTwo = new ChildObjectTwo();
System.out.println(childObjectOne.getID()); //prints 1
System.out.println(childObjectOne.getID()); //prints 2
childObjectOne = new ChildObjectOne();
childObjectTwo = new ChildObjectTwo();
System.out.println(childObjectOne.getID()); //prints 3
System.out.println(childObjectOne.getID()); //prints 4
What I want it to do instead is print 1 and 2 again. It should generate a new ID for every new class, but if I create a new instance of that class, I want the ID to stay the same.
I tried to achieve this using generics:
public SuperClass<T> {
private static int ID;
public SuperClass() {
this.ID = newID();
}
}
public class ChildObjectOne extends SuperClass<ChildObjectOne> {}
public class ChildObjectTwo extends SuperClass<ChildObjectTwo> {}
I was hoping, it would count passing a different T as a new class, but that didn't work. Instead the ID is the last one that was set.
How can I achieve this kind of ID system?

To expand upon my comment, the class name will give you an unique String ID. If you want that ID to be a number you could do something like this:
class IdGenerator{
private static int counter = 0;
private static HashMap<String,Integer> classIdMap = new HashMap<>();
public static synchronized int getId(Class clazz){
if (classIdMap.containsKey(clazz.getName())) {
return classIdMap.get(clazz.getName());
} else {
classIdMap.put(clazz.getName(), ++counter);
return counter;
}
}
}
And then from your class you would do:
IdGenerator.getId(this.getClass());
The generated IDs might not be the same every time you run your app, depending on how it is structured.
For example:
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
if (in.nextInt() < 100) {
System.out.println("a = " + new Aclass().id); // a = 1
System.out.println("b = " + new Bclass().id); // b = 2
} else {
System.out.println("b = " + new Bclass().id); // b = 1
System.out.println("a = " + new Aclass().id); // a = 2
}

Class::getName
Each class in Java already carries a unique identifier: the fully-qualified name of the class. No need for you to add an identifier.
Access the fully-qualified name by calling Class::getName.
For a class:
String.class.getName()
"java.lang.String"
For an object (an instance), call Object::getClass, and then Class::getName.
customer.getClass().getName()
com.example.invoicing.Customer

Using a fluent builder pattern without inner static classes for workflow

This is a continuation from what I was working in Passing 1 to many parameters of same object type
I've gotten good feedback on that , I believe i have the improved the design . The whole code is at https://github.com/spakai/flow_input_builder
The requirement is simple : -
I need to build a set of input for different workflows using 1 or more outputs from previous workflows
I have a set of interfaces
public interface SwfInput {
}
public interface SwfOutput {
}
public interface Workflow<I extends SwfInput, O extends SwfOutput> {
public O execute(I input);
}
public interface Builder<I extends SwfInput> {
public I build();
}
Now , Say I have 3 flows which gets executed in sequence FlowA->FlowB->FlowC
FlowC needs mandatory output from FlowB but only optionally from FlowA
so I have a implementation for FlowCBuilder
public class FlowCInputBuilder implements Builder<FlowCInput> {
private final FlowBOutput mandatoryflowBOutput;
private FlowAOutput optionalflowAOutput;
public FlowAOutput getOptionalflowAOutput() {
return optionalflowAOutput;
}
public FlowCInputBuilder setOptionalflowAOutput(FlowAOutput optionalflowAOutput) {
this.optionalflowAOutput = optionalflowAOutput;
return this;
}
public FlowCInputBuilder(FlowBOutput mandatoryflowBOutput) {
this.mandatoryflowBOutput = mandatoryflowBOutput;
}
#Override
public FlowCInput build() {
FlowCInput input = new FlowCInput();
input.setMandatoryFromFlowB(mandatoryflowBOutput.getOutput1FromB());
if (optionalflowAOutput != null) {
input.setOptionalFromFlowA(optionalflowAOutput.getOutput2FromA());
}
return input;
}
}
one test i have written shows an example usage
FlowBOutput mandatoryflowBOutput = new FlowBOutput();
mandatoryflowBOutput.setOutput1FromB("iNeedThis");
FlowAOutput optionalflowAOutput = new FlowAOutput();
FlowCInput input = new FlowCInputBuilder(mandatoryflowBOutput)
.setOptionalflowAOutput(optionalflowAOutput)
.build();
I have not used static inner class for the Builder pattern.
Any suggestions are welcomed.

You should use static inner class. The key point of using this approach is that, the inner can directly access private properties of the object being constructed. This helps eliminating duplicated code since the builder does not need to maintain a long list of temporary state for the constructing. So, your code can be rewritten like this:
public class FlowCInput {
private int output1FromB; // suppose that it is int
private String output2FromA; // suppose that it is String
private FlowCInput() { }
//...
public static class FlowCInputBuilder implements Builder<FlowCInput> {
private final FlowCInput result;
public FlowCInputBuilder(FlowBOutput mandatoryflowBOutput) {
result = new FlowCInput();
// output1FromB is private but still accessed from here
result.output1FromB = mandatoryflowBOutput.getOutput1FromB();
}
public FlowCInputBuilder setOptionalflowAOutput(FlowAOutput optionalflowAOutput) {
// same for output2FromA
result.output2FromA = optionalflowAOutput.getOutput2FromA();
return this;
}
#Override
public FlowCInput build() {
return result;
}
}
}
As you see, the builder now holds only a FlowCInput object, it does not unnecessarily hold mandatoryflowBOutput and optionalflowAOutput as before.

Why won't this cast?

So I have a class:
public static class AVLTreeNode <E extends Comparable<E>> extends BST.TreeNode<E> {
protected int height;
public AVLTreeNode(E e) {
super(e);
}
}
That extends another class:
public static class TreeNode<E extends Comparable<E>> {
protected E element;
protected TreeNode<E> left;
protected TreeNode<E> right;
public TreeNode(E e) {
element = e;
}
}
And I am creating an ArrayList of type TreeNode, and trying to cast it to AVLTreeNode:
public void balancePath(E e) {
ArrayList<TreeNode<E>> path = path(e);
for (int i = path.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
AVLTreeNode<E> a = (AVLTreeNode<E>)(path.get(i));
//continued code not important...
Note that my path method returns an ArrayList of type TreeNode<E>. But when I try to cast the node that I get at position i in the list to AVLTreeNode<E> (a subtype of TreeNode) I get a ClassCastException.
What is the problem here?
Edit Here is the full stack trace
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: com.jeffsite.chapter27.BinarySearchTree$TreeNode cannot be cast to com.jeffsite.chapter29.AVLTree$AVLTreeNode
at com.jeffsite.chapter29.AVLTree.balancePath(AVLTree.java:102)
at com.jeffsite.chapter29.AVLTree.insert(AVLTree.java:19)
at com.jeffsite.chapter29.TestAVLTree.main(TestAVLTree.java:10)

It isn't a safe thing to cast because it is true that every AVLTreeNode is a TreeNode, but it is not necessarily true that every TreeNode is a AVLTreeNode. You could your List only hold AVLTreeNode(s), by changing from
ArrayList<TreeNode<E>> path = path(e);
to
List<AVLTreeNode<E>> path = path(e);
But I you should program to an interface (that's why List instead of ArrayList), so I think you really want
List<TreeNode<E>> path = path(e);
and then you can use
TreeNode<E> a = path.get(i);
And if you must know
if (a instanceof AVLTreeNode) {
// now you can cast a
AVLTreeNode<E> b = (AVLTreeNode<E>) a;
}

It depends on the what path returns. If the the path method/func returns a List of TreeNode then the conversion is not possible as the AVLTreeNode has extra params involved.
You can create the ArrayList or List of AVLTreeNode which should help solve the problem at hand (Only in the case path (method) returns the same).
ArrayList<AVLTreeNode<E>> path = path(e);

Can you show the path method, this dummy method works:
public ArrayList<? extends TreeNode<E>> path(E e) {
AVLTreeNode<E> tn = new AVLTreeNode<E>(e);
ArrayList<AVLTreeNode<E>> list = new ArrayList<AVLTreeNode<E>>();
list.add(tn);
return list;
}

Best practice to prevent further instantiation of java classes

I have some class storing keys with important information. No one else is allowed to create a key, since a key relys on static information (like certain directory structures etc.).
public final class KeyConstants
{
private KeyConstants()
{
// could throw an exception to prevent instantiation
}
public static final Key<MyClass> MY_CLASS_DATA = new Key<MyClass>("someId", MyClass.class);
public static class Key<T>
{
public final String ID;
public final Class<T> CLAZZ;
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz)
{
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
}
}
This example is simplyfied.
I wanted to test the consequences of a wrong key (exception handling, etc.) and instantiated the class via reflection in a JUnit test case.
Constructor<?> c = KeyConstants.Key.class.getDeclaredConstructor(String.class, Class.class);
c.setAccessible(true);
#SuppressWarnings ("unchecked")
KeyConstants.Key<MyClass> r = (KeyConstants.Key<MyClass>) c.newInstance("wrongId", MyClass.class);
Then I asked myself how could I prevent further instantiation of the key class (i. e. preventing further object creating via reflection)?
enums came to my mind, but they don't work with generics.
public enum Key<T>
{
//... Syntax error, enum declaration cannot have type parameters
}
So how can I keep a set of n instances of a generic class and prevent further instantiation?

So how can I keep a set of n instances of a generic class and prevent
further instantiation?
If you truly want to use this pattern, then no one (including you) should be able to instantiate a Key object. In order to keep a set of n instances in a class with this pattern, you could have a private constructor, a static method for access and a SecurityManager to prevent reflection. And since you want to be able to access the keys as pubic constants, I would try something like this..
public class KeyConstants{
// Here are your n instances for public access
public static final int KEY_1 = 1;
public static final int KEY_2 = 2;
.
.
.
public static final int KEY_N = 'n';
// now you can call this method like this..
// Key mKey = KeyConstants.getKey(KeyConstants.KEY_1);
public static Key getKey(int key){
List keys = Key.getInstances();
switch(key){
case KEY_1:
return keys.get(0);
case KEY_2:
return keys.get(1);
.
.
.
case KEY_N:
return keys.get(n);
default:
// not index out of bounds.. this means
// they didn't use a constant
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
}
static class Key<T>{
private static List<Key> instances;
private String ID;
private Class<T> CLAZZ;
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz){
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
public static List<Key> getInstances(){
if(instances == null){
instances = new ArrayList<Key>();
//populate instances list
}
return instances;
}
}
}
Use SecurityManager to prevent reflection access.
//attempt to set your own security manager to prevent reflection
try {
System.setSecurityManager(new MySecurityManager());
} catch (SecurityException se) {
}
class MySecurityManager extends SecurityManager {
public void checkPermission(Permission perm) {
if (perm.getName().equals("suppressAccessChecks"))
throw new SecurityException("Invalid Access");
}
}
This will throw a SecurityException anytime someone attempts to access a private variable or field in your class (including access attempts via reflection).

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but if a private constructor is not sufficient, can you use a more dynamic approach and throw an exception in the constructor after a signal is given? For example:
public static class Key<T>
{
private static boolean isLocked = false;
// Call this method when you want no more keys to be created
public static void lock() { isLocked = true; }
...
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz)
{
if (isLocked) throw new IllegalStateException("Cannot create instances of Key");
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
}
Then - and this is the disadvantage - you will have to call Key.lock() once you want to prevent more instances being created.

As you showed in your code to prevent instantiating KeyConstants you can throw some Exception inside private-non-argument constructor.
Harder part is way to block creating KeyConstants.Key constructor from outside of KeyConstants class.
Some wild idea
Maybe create Exception in your constructor and check how its stack trace looks like. When I add this code to constructor
private Key(String id, Class<T> clazz) {
StackTraceElement[] stack = new Exception().getStackTrace();
for (int i=0; i<stack.length; i++){
System.out.println(i+") "+stack[i]);
}
this.ID = id;
this.CLAZZ = clazz;
}
and create instance of Key with reflection like
Constructor<?> c = KeyConstants.Key.class.getDeclaredConstructor(
String.class, Class.class);
c.setAccessible(true);
KeyConstants.Key<MyClass> r = (KeyConstants.Key<MyClass>) c
.newInstance("wrongId", MyClass.class);
I get
0) KeyConstants$Key.<init>(Test.java:38)
1) sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
2) sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
3) sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
4) java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:525)
so maybe just if 4th element of stack is java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance throw Exception to prevent executing rest of constructors code like:
if (stack.length>=4 && stack[4].toString().startsWith("java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance")){
throw new RuntimeException("cant create object with reflection");
}

I came across some Multiton patterns recently, where I tried to handle problems with unique enum keys, that gave me the idea of another approach.
The keys can be used for information flow as I intended, or even as keys for typesafe heterogeneous container, where they can perform compile-time casting.
Key-defining class
public class KeyConstants
{
public static final KeysForIntegers SOME_INT_KEY = KeysForIntegers.KEY_2;
public static final KeysForStrings SOME_STRING_KEY = KeysForStrings.KEY_1;
public interface Key<Type>
{
public Class<Type> getType();
}
/* Define methods that classes working with the keys expect from them */
public interface KeyInformation
{
public String getInfo1();
// and so on...
}
public enum KeysForStrings implements Key<String>, KeyInformation
{
KEY_1("someId");
public final String ID;
private KeysForStrings(String id)
{
ID = id;
}
#Override
public String getInfo1()
{
return "Good piece of information on " + ID + ".";
}
#Override
public Class<String> getType()
{
return String.class;
}
}
public enum KeysForIntegers implements Key<Integer>, KeyInformation
{
KEY_2("bla");
public final String ID;
private KeysForIntegers(String id)
{
this.ID = id;
}
#Override
public String getInfo1()
{
return "Some info on " + ID + ".";
}
#Override
public Class<Integer> getType()
{
return Integer.class;
}
}
}
Example key-using class
public class KeyUser
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
KeysForIntegers k1 = KeyConstants.SOME_INT_KEY;
KeysForStrings k2 = KeyConstants.SOME_STRING_KEY;
processStringKey(k2);
useIntKey(k1);
Integer i = useIntKey(KeyConstants.SOME_INT_KEY);
processStringKey(KeyConstants.SOME_STRING_KEY);
}
/* My methods should just work with my keys */
#SuppressWarnings ("unchecked")
public static <TYPE, KEY extends Enum<KeysForIntegers> & Key<TYPE> & KeyInformation> TYPE useIntKey(KEY k)
{
System.out.println(k.getInfo1());
return (TYPE) new Object();
}
public static <KEY extends Enum<KeysForStrings> & KeyInformation> void processStringKey(KEY k)
{
System.out.println(k.getInfo1());
// process stuff
}
}

I have another approach, you can bound an interface in a way to only be implemented by enum.
With that approach you have a fixed set of instances at compile time.
If you want to add lazy loading, the enums implementing it should be proxies that load the desired object if it is requested. The class or classes that are hidden behind the proxies should only be visible to them, so that they have exclusive access to the constructor.
public class User {
public static <S> S handleKey(FixedInstanceSet<S,?> key) {
return key.getKey();
}
}
interface FixedInstanceSet<S, T extends Enum<T> & FixedInstanceSet<S,T>>
{
public S getKey();
}
enum StringKeys implements FixedInstanceSet<String, StringKeys> {
TOP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT;
#Override
public String getKey() { return null; }
}
enum IntKeys implements FixedInstanceSet<Integer, IntKeys > {
TOP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT;
#Override
public Integer getKey() { return null; }
}
/*
* Bound mismatch: The type NotWorking is not a valid substitute for the bounded
* parameter <T extends Enum<T> & FixedInstanceSet<S,T>> of the type
* FixedInstanceSet<S,T>
*/
//class NotCompiling implements FixedInstanceSet<String, NotCompiling> {
//
// #Override
// public String getKey() { return null; }
//}

If I understand you correctly, you don't want your class to be instantiated.
You can set the default constructor to private
private Key() throws IllegalStateException //handle default constructor
{
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
This will prevent its improper instantiation.
Update:
added throw IllegalStateException

method does not override or implement a method from a supertype error

I'm trying to design an undo/redo mechanism to my Chess game.. I decided to use stack data structure which is going to build on an ArrayList.. I also want that my UndoStack and RedoStack classes should be singleton.. However i'm getting
method does not override or implement a method from a supertype
pop() in UndoStack cannot implement pop() in IStackable
return type Move is not compatible with cgas5.Move
where Move is a type-variable:
Move extends Object declared in class UndoStack
error..
Here is my IStackable interface:
package cgas5;
public interface IStackable {
abstract public Move pop();
abstract public void push(Move m);
}
and my UndoStack class
package cgas5;
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class UndoStack<Move> extends ArrayList<Move> implements IStackable {
UndoStack undoStack;
private UndoStack() {
undoStack = new UndoStack();
}
public UndoStack getUndoStack() {
if (undoStack == null) {
undoStack = new UndoStack();
}
return undoStack;
}
#Override
public Move pop() {
Move m = get(size() - 1);
remove(size() - 1);
return m;
}
#Override
public void push(Move m) {
add(m);
}
}
and if it's necessary my Move class:
package cgas5;
public class Move {
private Piece pieceToMove;
private Square currentSquare;
private Square targetSquare;
private Piece capturedPiece;
private Piece promotedPiece;
public Move(){
}
public Move(Piece pieceToMove, Square currentSquare, Square targetSquare){
this.pieceToMove = pieceToMove;
this.currentSquare = currentSquare;
this.targetSquare = targetSquare;
}
public Piece getPieceToMove() {
return pieceToMove;
}
public void setPieceToMove(Piece pieceToMove) {
this.pieceToMove = pieceToMove;
}
public Square getCurrentSquare() {
return currentSquare;
}
public void setCurrentSquare(Square currentSquare) {
this.currentSquare = currentSquare;
}
public Square getTargetSquare() {
return targetSquare;
}
public void setTargetSquare(Square targetSquare) {
this.targetSquare = targetSquare;
}
public Piece getCapturedPiece() {
return capturedPiece;
}
public void setCapturedPiece(Piece capturedPiece) {
this.capturedPiece = capturedPiece;
}
public Piece getPromotedPiece() {
return promotedPiece;
}
public void setPromotedPiece(Piece promotedPiece) {
this.promotedPiece = promotedPiece;
}
}
Thanks in advance..

This is the problem:
public class UndoStack<Move> extends ArrayList<Move>
That's using Move as a generic type parameter, whereas really you don't want a generic type at all - you just want to use Move as the type argument for ArrayList<E>. You want:
public class UndoStack extends ArrayList<Move>
That should fix the problem - although personally I'd strongly recommend using composition instead of inheritance here. (In other words, make your UndoStack type contain an ArrayList<Move> - or something similar - rather than subclassing it.)
Additionally, this is never going to work:
UndoStack undoStack;
private UndoStack() {
undoStack = new UndoStack();
}
That means that to create an UndoStack, you need to create another UndoStack... how do you expect that to happen? You'll currently get a stack overflow exception... why do you need the variable at all?