We Keep Coding

How to wrap a command inside if-else statements with same condition used in many places

I have a class with many public methods. Each method executes a single task when a single condition is met. The conditions in all methods are exactly the same as seen below:
public class MyClass{
public ClassA method1 (arguments...){
if(condition(aLong, aString)){
return doSomething(arguments...)
}else{
throw new CustomException();
}
}
public void method2 (arguments...){
if(condition(aLong, aString)){
doSomethingElse(arguments...)
}else{
throw new CustomException();
}
}
public List<ClassB> method3 (arguments...){
if(condition(aLong, aString)){
return doSomethingDifferent(arguments...)
}else{
throw new CustomException();
}
}
private boolean condition(Long aLong, String aString){
// some code
return true;
}
}
I wanted to get rid of the repeating if...else condition by using the command pattern, so i created a class like below to wrap the actual execution inside an if else statement.
public abstract class ValidCommand<T extends Serializable> {
private BiPredicate<Long,String> predicate;
private Long aLong;
private String aString
public ValidCommand(BiPredicate<Long,String> predicate,Long aLong, String aString){
this.predicate = predicate;
this.aLong = aLong;
this.aString = aString;
}
public T execute(){
if(predicate.test(playlistId, requestUserId)){
return onExecution();
}else{
throw new CustomException();
}
}
protected abstract T onExecution();
}
and I refactored the class with the methods as below:
public class MyClass{
private BiPredicate<Long,String> predicate = (a,b) -> condition(a,b);
public ClassA method1(arguments...){
ValidCommand<ClassA> validCommand= new ValidCommand(predicate,aLong,aString){
#Override
protected Serializable onExecution() {
return doSomething();
}
};
return validCommand.execute();
}
.
.
.
}
My question is if there is a better way of doing this in Java and if is worth bothering in terms of code readability and DRY principles. Note that the number of methods inside MyClass may increase and probably all of them will share the same condition.

What about creating a utility function:
private void validate(Long aLong, String aString) {
if (!condition(aLong, aString)){
throw new CustomException();
}
}
and then adjusting your code to use it like:
public ClassA method1 (arguments...){
validate(aLong, aString);
return doSomething(arguments...);
}

Java Lambdas: Sending method name as parameter

I've run into a problem in which my class contains several methods with a lot of duplicated code. The reason behind this is that each method traverses a list of entries and calls specific entry method.
In code...
The LowLevelClass class has the following structure:
public class LowLevelClass {
// constructor omitted
public boolean doSomethingA() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
public boolean doSomethingB() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
public boolean doSomethingC() {
// some non-duplicated code
return true;
}
}
The top level class contains a List of LowLevelClasses and has the same number of methods, but this time, with a lot of duplications:
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass(/* params */));
}
public void doA() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingA();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doB() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingB();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doC() {
System.out.println("Doing ...");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.doSomethingC();
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
}
My goal is to have something in form of:
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
}
public void doSomething(Lambda /* Functional interface*/ operation) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
entry.operation; // or something else...
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doSomethingA() {
// my goal... and maybe in totally wrong direction is to send something in form of...
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}
// etc
}
Can this be done in Java 8 with Lambdas? In other words, can I define the method to perform on each entry of the given list?
EDIT 1
The answers provided by Jorn Vernee and Joffrey are correct!
Ultimately, the solution was to use Predicate. (see EDIT 2 why I didn't use Consumer in the end...)
public class HighLevelClass {
private List<LowLevelClass> classes = new ArrayList<>();
public HighLevelClass() {
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
this.classes.add(new LowLevelClass());
}
public boolean doSomething(Predicate<LowLevelClass> function) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
boolean val = function.test(entry);
System.out.println("Done " + val);
}
return someEndVerdict;
}
public boolean doSomethingA() {
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}
// etc
}
EDIT 2
My initial methods in HighLevelClass didn't contain boolean return type. That's the reason why I used Predicate (Predicate, as a contast to Consumer, returns boolean value which suited me better - and which I forgot to initially mention :((( )
Thanks for help and time!

You should not confuse the way you call a method, which may or may not involve a lambda, and the way you write a method, which involves finding the right argument types.
When you write a method, you need to focus on your arguments' types. If one of them is an object representing a function, what you need is to understand the appropriate signature that this function should match, and this will give you the functional interface you should put as type of your param.
In your case, you expect a function that takes 1 argument of type LowLevelClass and returns no value. You might be surprised by that, but you need to think of instance methods as functions that take an instance of the class (this) as an extra first argument (as opposed to static methods).
Therefore, the Consumer<LowLevelClass> interface is what you want:
public void doSomething(Consumer<LowLevelClass> operation) {
System.out.println("Doing A");
for (LowLevelClass entry : classes) {
System.out.println("Doing something...");
operation.accept(entry); // or something else...
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
public void doSomethingA() {
return doSomething(LowLevelClass::doSomethingA);
}

Replacing if else statement with pattern

I have a if else statement which might grow in the near future.
public void decide(String someCondition){
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")){
//
someMethod("someParameter");
}else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")){
//
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
.
.
else{
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Since, this is already looking messy, I think it would be better if I can apply any design patterns here. I looked into Strategy pattern but I am not sure if that will reduce if else condition here. Any suggestions?

This is a classic Replace Condition dispatcher with Command in the Refactoring to Patterns book.
Basically you make a Command object for each of the blocks of code in your old if/else group and then make a Map of those commands where the keys are your condition Strings
interface Handler{
void handle( myObject o);
}
Map<String, Handler> commandMap = new HashMap<>();
//feel free to factor these out to their own class or
//if using Java 8 use the new Lambda syntax
commandMap.put("conditionOne", new Handler(){
void handle(MyObject o){
//get desired parameters from MyObject and do stuff
}
});
...
Then instead of your if/else code it is instead:
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
Now if you need to later add new commands, you just add to the hash.
If you want to handle a default case, you can use the Null Object pattern to handle the case where a condition isn't in the Map.
Handler defaultHandler = ...
if(commandMap.containsKey(someCondition)){
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
}else{
defaultHandler.handle(this);
}

Let's assume that we have such code (which is the same as yours):
public void decide(String someCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
someMethod("someParameter");
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
else {
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Assuming that you don't want to refactor other parts of the application and you don't want to change method signature there are possible ways in which it could be refactored:
Warning - You should use generic versions of mentioned patterns.
I showed non generic ones because it is easier to read them.
Strategy + Factory Method
We can use Strategy and Factory Method patterns. We also take advantage of polymorphism.
private final StrategyConditionFactory strategyConditionFactory = new StrategyConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Strategy strategy = strategyConditionFactory.getStrategy(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
strategy.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseStrategy());
StrategyConditionFactory (factory method):
public class StrategyConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Strategy> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public StrategyConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneStrategy());
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoStrategy());
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
public Optional<Strategy> getStrategy(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Strategy interface:
public interface Strategy {
void apply();
}
Implementations:
public class ConditionOneStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
}
public class ConditionTwoStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter")
}
}
public class ElseStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter")
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Strategy + Factory Method - this particular case (where only parameter changes)
We can use the fact that in this case we always call the same method, only parameter changes
We change our base strategy interface to abstract class with getParameter() method and we make new implementations of this abstract class. Other code remains the same.
public abstract class Strategy {
public abstract String getParameter();
public void apply() {
someMethod(getParameter());
}
private void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementations:
public class CondtionOneStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "someParameter";
}
}
public class CondtionTwoStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "anotherParameter";
}
}
public class ElseStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "elseParameter";
}
}
Enum + enum kinda "factory"
We might use Enum to implement strategy and instead of factory method we can use valueOf() from enum.
public void decide(String someCondition) {
ConditionEnum conditionEnum = ConditionEnum.valueOf(someCondition);
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Condition enum:
public enum ConditionEnum {
CONDITION_ONE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_TWO {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_ELSE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter");
}
};
//...more conditions
public abstract void apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("CONDITION_ONE");
decide("CONDITION_TWO");
decide("CONDITION_ELSE");
//...
}
Notice that you will get IllegalArgumentException when enum type has no constant with the specified name.
Command + Factory
The difference between strategy and command is that command holds also state, so if you have for example compute(int a, int b, String someCondition) and you want to refactor it with strategy including it's signature change you can reduce it to compute(int a, int b, ComputeStrategy computeStrategy) with command you can reduce it to one argument compute(ComputeCommand computeCommand). In this case we also take advantage of polymorphism similarly to strategy pattern case.
CommandConditionFactory commandConditionFactory = new CommandConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Command command = commandConditionFactory.getCommand(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
command.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseCommand());
CommandConditionFactory (factory method):
public class CommandConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Command interface:
public interface Command {
void apply();
}
Implementations (there is some redundancy, but It is there to show how command should look in more general case where instead of someMethod() we have three different methods):
public class ConditionOneCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionOneCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ConditionTwoCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionTwoCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ElseCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ElseCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Command + Factory - This particular case.
This in fact isn't a real command pattern just a derivative. It takes advantage of the fact that in this case we are always calling the same method someMethod(parameter) and only the parameter changes.
Abstract class:
public abstract class Command {
abstract void apply();
protected void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementation (the same for all 3 conditional cases):
public class CommandImpl extends Command {
private final String parameter;
public CommandImpl (String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply(){
someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Factory, please notice that there is only one command implementation, only parameter changes:
public class CommandConditionFactory {
Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new CommandImpl("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new CommandImpl("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new CommandImpl("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Nested if's
Note that even if you have nested ifs sometimes it is possible to refactor them and use one of the mentioned techniques.
Lets say that we have following code:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")){
someLogic1();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")){
someLogic2();
}
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")){
someLogic3();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")){
someLogic4();
}
}
}
You could refactor it using mathematical logic rules:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")) {
someLogic1();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")) {
someLogic2();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")) {
someLogic3();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")) {
someLogic4();
}
}
and then you can use strategy, enum or command. You just have a pair of Strings <String, String> instead of single String.
Decision Tables
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can implement your own decision tables or use some ready to go decision tables solution. I won't give the implementation there.
Rules Engine
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can also implement your own simple rules engine. You should use it only if you have many nested ifs, otherwise it is triumph of form over content.
For very complicated Business Logic there are professional Rule Engines like Drools.
I won't give the implementation there.
One more thing
In the example that you gave there is a high possibility that someone introduced these ifs, but they are totally redundant. And we can check it by trying to refactor decide method signature to make it take some other argument and to refactor surrounding code that is calling our method. By doing so we are getting rid of our Factory Method. There are examples that present how the code might look when it occurs that these ifs were redundant.
Strategy
Decide method:
public void decide(Strategy strategy) {
strategy.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneStrategy());
decide(new ConditionTwoStrategy());
decide(new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
Enum
Decide method:
public void decide(ConditionEnum conditionEnum) {
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumApp() {
//...
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ONE);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_TWO);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ELSE);
//...
}
Command
Decide method:
public void decide(Command command) {
command.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
decide(new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
decide(new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
In fact it is quite specific case, there are cases in which for example we have to use simple type like String, because it comes from the external system or condition is based on integer from input so we can't refactor the code so easily.

The general recommendation by Martin Fowler is to
Replace Conditional with Polymorphism.
In terms of design patterns this would often be the Strategy Pattern
Replace Conditional Logic with Strategy.
If you have a small, finite set of conditions, I recommend to use an enum to implement the Strategy Pattern (provide an abstract method in the enum and override it for each constant).
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
//...
}
},
CONDITION_TWO{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
}
}
public abstract void someMethod(MyClass myClass);
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someCondition.someMethod(this);
}
}
If it's really just a parameter you want to pick, then you could define the enum like this instead:
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE("parameterOne"),
CONDITION_TWO("parameterTwo");
private final String parameter;
private SomeCondition(String parameter){
this.parameter = parameter;
}
public String getParameter(){
return parameter;
}
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someMethod(someCondition.getParameter());
}
}

Another way to solve the current problem is to use Factory Pattern. This provides functionality to extract a factory method that returns an object of a given type and performs the operation based on the concrete object behavior.
public interface Operation {
String process(String a, String b);
}
The method takes two string as input and returns the result.
public class Concatenation implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return a.concat(b);
}
}
public class Join implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return String.join(", ", a, b);
}
}
And then we should define a factory class which returns instances of Operation based on the given operator:
public class OperatorFactory {
static Map<String, Operation> operationMap = new HashMap<>();
static {
operationMap.put("concatenation", new Concatenation());
operationMap.put("join", new Join());
// more operators
}
public static Optional<Operation> getOperation(String operator) {
return Optional.ofNullable(operationMap.get(operator));
}
}
And now we can use it:
public class SomeServiceClass {
public String processUsingFactory(String a, String b, String operationName) {
Operation operation = OperatorFactory
.getOperation(operationName)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid Operation"));
return operation.process(a, b);
}
}

I guess you must have already considered it, but if you are using JDK 7 or above, you can switch on strings. That way your code can look cleaner than a bunch of if-else statements.

How to call a method whose name is the value of a string variable in java?

This is the code of the method that I want to simplify. The method name I call of SerializedExpFamMixture class is exactly the value of "model", my question is how to assign the value of "model" directly as the name of the method instead of using "if" to determine which method I should call. Since by using "if", I need to list all the possible values of "model" and judge which method I should use.
Thank you very much for help. I am new to java.
public static SerializedExpFamMixture RateMtxModel(String model)
{
SerializedExpFamMixture result=new SerializedExpFamMixture();
if(model=="kimura1980()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
if(model=="accordance()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
if(model=="pair()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
return result;
}

One way you can approach this is to use Reflection:
Method method = myClass.getClass().getMethod("doSomething", null);
method.invoke(myClass, null);

Since you are new to Java, it's time for some general pointers:
In Java, we usually name our methods with camelCase, so the first letter is lower case.
Also, in Java we usually leave the opening curly-bracket on the same line as the code (no newline).
Always use final on your variables. At least your parameters. That way you won't overwrite it, and thus won't have to try to figure out which value it actually has at runtime.
Use curly-brackets! Please!
The result variable is not actually needed.
Use the equals-method to compare Strings.
If you only want one result, use else-if
Fixing these things, your method looks like this:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
if (model.equals("kimura1980()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
} else if (model.equals("accordance()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
} else if(model.equals("pair()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Next, let's look at what you are actually trying to do here. You want to pass some Strings around, and use them as a basis for creating objects. And now, with the advice given here, you will do this using reflection. This does not sound like a very good idea to me. Say you were to go through with this, and this happened:
rateMtxModel("kinura1980");
Small typo, hard to spot, will give unexpected results. If you were actually calling a method the compiler would let you know that you messed up, now you will get no warning (btw did you see both errors in that method call?). The same if someone were to delete the accordance()-method, the compiler would not alert them that this will break the program.
If it was up to be I would just use the static factory-methods in SerializedExpFamMixture directly, but if you have to do it like this (if the task at hand is using a String input to create an object) I would do something like this:
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()"),
ACCORDANCE("accordance()"),
PAIR("pair()");
private final String stringValue;
private Something(final String stringValue) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (something.stringValue.equals(string)) {
return something;
}
}
return null;
}
}
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(final String model) {
if (model == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("model is null!");
}
final Something something = Something.fromString(model);
if (something == null) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
switch(something) {
case KIMURA1980:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
case ACCORDANCE:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
case PAIR:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
default:
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
}
This way, the one place where you will use the Strings is in the enum, the rest of the code will use the enum constants and thus have the safety of the compiler to rely on.
One could also leave the linking between operation and String to the enum, like this:
interface Operation<T> {
public T run();
}
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
}
}) ,
ACCORDANCE("accordance()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
}
}),
PAIR("pair()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
}),
DEFAULT(null, new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
});
private final String stringValue;
private final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation;
private Something(final String stringValue, final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
this.operation = operation;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
if (string != null) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (string.equals(something.stringValue)) {
return something;
}
}
}
return DEFAULT;
}
public SerializedExpFamMixture getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture() {
return operation.run();
}
}
With this setup in the enum (I think the Operation-part can be trimmed out with Java8), the method will be as simple as:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
return Something.fromString(model).getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture();
}

Use reflection, but you need to consider a few things:
Bug alert! Comparing Strings using == doesn't work as expected in java - use .equals() instead. However, the solution below bypasses that problem
For the general case, which includes methods not visible to the invoker, you need to consider accessibility, both in finding the method and invoking it
You don't need the result variable, and even if using your code, don't need to initialize it
Try this:
String methodName = model.replace("(", "").replace(")", "");
try {
// getMethod() returns only public methods, getDeclaredMethod() returns any visibility
Method method = SerializedExpFamMixture.class.getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
// if the method is not guaranteed to be visible (eg public) you need this:
method.setAccessible(true);
return (SerializedExpFamMixture) method.invoke(null); // how to invoke on the class object
} catch (Exception forBrevity) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}

How can I provide a pseudo file system for r.js?

Ok, so r.js can run on Rhino. Which is great.
To do the stuff it needs to do.
On rhino it basically uses java.io.File, java.io.FileOutputStream and java.io.FileInputStream to achieve the filesystem modifications that it needs to do.
(Background: I am working on delivering a better development experience for Maven based Java/Javascript developers. Being Maven, there is the power of convention and the power of being opinionated. You can see the progress at jszip.org.)
So what I want to do is have the on-disk structure appear by magic as a virtual file system.
So on disk we will have a structure like so:
/
/module1/src/main/js/controllers/controller.js
/module2/src/main/js/models/model.js
/module3/src/main/js/views/view.js
/webapp/src/build/js/profile.js
/webapp/src/main/js/main.js
/webapp/src/main/webapp/index.html
The /webapp/src/build/js/profile.js should look something like this:
({
appDir: "src",
baseUrl:".",
dir: "target",
optimize: "closure",
modules:[
{
name:"main"
}
]
})
Such that
when r.js asks for new File("src/main.js") I will actually give it new File("/webapp/src/main/js/main.js")
when it asks for new File("profile.js") I will give it new File("/webapp/src/build/js/profile.js")
when it asks for new File("controllers/controller.js") I will give it new File("/module1/src/main/js/controllers/controller.js")
when it asks for new File("target") I will give it new File("/webapp/target/webapp-1.0-SNAPSHOT").
I have no issue writing the three mock classes required, i.e. the ones to use in place of java.io.File, java.io.FileInputStream and java.io.FileOutputStream,
Some questions such as this have answers that point to things like ClassShutter, which I can see I could use like this:
context.setClassShutter(new ClassShutter() {
public boolean visibleToScripts(String fullClassName) {
if (File.class.getName().equals(fullClassName)) return false;
if (FileOutputStream.class.getName().equals(fullClassName)) return false;
if (FileInputStream.class.getName().equals(fullClassName)) return false;
return true;
}
});
To hide the original implementations.
The problem is then getting Rhino to resolve the sandboxed equivalents... I keep on getting
TypeError: [JavaPackage java.io.File] is not a function, it is object.
Even if I prefix the call with a prior execution of java.io.File = org.jszip.rhino.SandboxFile map my sandboxed implementation over the now missing java.io.File
I could even consider using search and replace on the loaded r.js file just prior to compiling it... but I feel there must be a better way.
Does anyone have any hints?

Ok, after much experimentation, this seems to be the way to do this:
Scriptable scope = context.newObject(global);
scope.setPrototype(global);
scope.setParentScope(null);
NativeJavaTopPackage $packages = (NativeJavaTopPackage) global.get("Packages");
NativeJavaPackage $java = (NativeJavaPackage) $packages.get("java");
NativeJavaPackage $java_io = (NativeJavaPackage) $java.get("io");
ProxyNativeJavaPackage proxy$java = new ProxyNativeJavaPackage($java);
ProxyNativeJavaPackage proxy$java_io = new ProxyNativeJavaPackage($java_io);
proxy$java_io.put("File", scope, get(scope, "Packages." + PseudoFile.class.getName()));
proxy$java_io.put("FileInputStream", scope,
get(scope, "Packages." + PseudoFileInputStream.class.getName()));
proxy$java_io.put("FileOutputStream", scope,
get(scope, "Packages." + PseudoFileOutputStream.class.getName()));
proxy$java.put("io", scope, proxy$java_io);
scope.put("java", scope, proxy$java);
There is a helper method:
private static Object get(Scriptable scope, String name) {
Scriptable cur = scope;
for (String part : StringUtils.split(name, ".")) {
Object next = cur.get(part, scope);
if (next instanceof Scriptable) {
cur = (Scriptable) next;
} else {
return null;
}
}
return cur;
}
And where ProxyNativeJavaPackage is something like
public class ProxyNativeJavaPackage extends ScriptableObject implements Serializable {
static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
protected final NativeJavaPackage delegate;
private final Map<String, Object> mutations = new HashMap<String, Object>();
public ProxyNativeJavaPackage(NativeJavaPackage delegate) {
delegate.getClass();
this.delegate = delegate;
}
#Override
public String getClassName() {
return delegate.getClassName();
}
#Override
public boolean has(String id, Scriptable start) {
return mutations.containsKey(id) ? mutations.get(id) != null : delegate.has(id, start);
}
#Override
public boolean has(int index, Scriptable start) {
return delegate.has(index, start);
}
#Override
public void put(String id, Scriptable start, Object value) {
mutations.put(id, value);
}
#Override
public void put(int index, Scriptable start, Object value) {
delegate.put(index, start, value);
}
#Override
public Object get(String id, Scriptable start) {
if (mutations.containsKey(id)) {
return mutations.get(id);
}
return delegate.get(id, start);
}
#Override
public Object get(int index, Scriptable start) {
return delegate.get(index, start);
}
#Override
public Object getDefaultValue(Class<?> ignored) {
return toString();
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return delegate.toString();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof ProxyNativeJavaPackage) {
ProxyNativeJavaPackage that = (ProxyNativeJavaPackage) obj;
return delegate.equals(that.delegate) && mutations.equals(that.mutations);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return delegate.hashCode();
}
}
That still leaves the original classes at Packages.java.io.File etc, but for the r.js requirement this is sufficient, and it should be possible for others to extend this trick to the general case.