We Keep Coding

Java invoke child method from parent object

I've got next situation:
There is an abstract class
public abstract class SuperClass {
public abstract void getString();
public abstract void method2();
}
public class InheritClass1 extends SuperClass {
#Override
public void getString(){...};
#Override
public void method2(){...};
}
public class InheritClass2 extends SuperClass {
#Override
public void getString{...};
#Override
public void method2(){...};
public void customMethod(){...};
}
There is another class that has a method that accepts SuperClass object as an argument. Depending on what kind of String is returned from getString I perform different actions. My case is that I am trying to call a child method while the object is of parent class:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
switch (type.getString()) {
case "1":
return "OK"
case "2":
return ((InheritClass2) type).customMethod()
}
}
I do understand that this is BAD DESIGN, could you please help me with finding the best solution for this problem. Maybe generics are suitable in this case somehow. Also the thing is that customMethod() should be a part of not all classes.

Since only some (sub)classes implements customMethod, I would suggest to create an interface that contains this method:
public interface CustomInterface {
public String customMethod();
}
Your SuperClass can then remain just as it is. Only the subclasses/child classes that have customMethod, would then extend your SuperClass as well as implement this CustomInterface. This way, the child classes that do not implement CustomMethod (does not have the method in their class, such as InheritClass1 in your example), also remain just as they are.
Only child classes that have CustomMethod, such as InheritClass2 would then need to change slightly by saying it implements this new interface:
public class InheritClass2 extends SuperClass implements CustomInteface {
// the rest stays the same
}
Then in the section where you want to do the casting, you rather do the following:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
switch (type.getString()) {
case "1":
return "OK"
case "2":
String s = "";
if (type instance of CustomInterface) {
s = (CustomInterface type).customMethod();
}
return s;
}
}
}
Using the interface in this way will help that you can implement all child classes and not just one as implementing the CustomInterface, and thus, all child classes will work with using instanceof and casting to the interface to call customMethod() - you won't have to handle each child that needs this method separately.
NOTE: Your code is clearly simplified example, it is unclear if the getString() method is just returning an identifier of the child classes in order for you to know which ones you can cast and then call custom Method on... If this is the purpose of your switch and getString methods - to identify which types implement the customMethod() and to call that method, and for any child class that does not have that method to return just "OK" - then you could instead do the following:
public class SubClass1 extends SuperClass implements CustomInterface {
// other mehtods...
public String CustomMethod() { return "SomeString1"; }
}
public class SubClass2 extends SuperClass {
// other methods...
// this subclass does not have the CustomMethod()
}
public class SubClass3 extends SuperClass implements CustomInterface {
// other methods...
public String CustomMethod() { return "SomeString3"; }
}
Then your Processor could look like this:
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
return (type instanceof CustomInterface) ? ((CustomInterface) type).CustomMethod() : "OK";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Processor p = new Processor();
SuperClass obj1 = new SubClass1();
SuperClass obj2 = new SubClass2();
SuperClass obj3 = new SubClass3();
System.out.println(p.method(obj1)); // prints: "SomeString1"
System.out.println(p.method(obj2)); // prints: "OK"
System.out.println(p.method(obj3)); // prints: "SomeString3"
}
}
If you don't understand the ternary operator then you can read about it here That's the condition ? exprTrue : exprFalse syntax. It's a short if else statement basically.

You can create an interface, with default custom method implementation, like:
interface A {
default String customMethod() {
return "";
}
}
And abstract class will implement this interface:
public abstract class SupperClass implements A {
public abstract String getString();
public abstract void method2();
}

Bad design will cause you to get bad answers. If you don't want to cast your object to a child object. You could use reflection.
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
public class Processor {
public String method(SuperClass type) {
Method[] methods = type.getClass().getMethods();
for (Method m : methods) {
if (m.getName().equals("customMethod")) {
try {
return m.invoke(type);
} catch (Exception ex) {
// throw
}
}
}
return "OK";
}
}

Depending on your design you could apply:
if (type instanceof InheritClass2.class) return type.customMethod();
or
if (type.getClass() == InheritClass2.class) return type.customMethod();

Can a super class method implementation depend on child class field

I am in a situation as follows.
I have an interface A which is inherited by class B,C,D (B,C,D implements A).
public interface A{
public String someMethod();
}
class B implements A{
ObjectType1 model;
#Override
public String someMethod(){
if(model instanceof X){
System.out.print(true);
}
}
}
class C implements A{
ObjectType2 model;
#Override
public String someMethod(){
if(model instanceof X){
System.out.print(true);
}
}
class D implements A{
ObjectType3 model;
#Override
public String someMethod(){
if(model instanceof X){
System.out.print(true);
}
}
As you can see all method implementations are the same. So I am duplicating code. My plan was to move the method to A and make A an abstract class. But the problem is my method depends on the model field. So what would be my options to make this code better?
bdw class A,B,C extends and implements other classes too.
EDIT
modification in code. check field

I don't see any problem related to the model field transforming the interface A into an abstract class.
There is no need to reimplement the method in the subclasses if it is the same, unless you want to change its behavior (override it).
public abstract class A {
// Make it protected so it can accessible by subclasses
protected Object model;
// Common behavior that will be inherited by subclasses
public String someMethod() {
if (model instanceof X) {
return "x";
} else {
return "not x";
}
}
}
public class B extends A {
// Subclasses may access superclasses fields if protected or public.
public void someOtherMethod() {
System.out.println(super.model.toString());
}
}
public class C extends A {
// You may wish to override a parent's method behavior
#Override
public String someMethod() {
return "subclass implements it different";
}
}
For your new code example, if you really want to do that in a procedural way you can create an abstract superclass ObjectType and then it will be accessible for the parent as well.
However I wouldn't do that. It seems to me that in doing so is the very opposite of what object orientation tries to solve.
By using a subclass to define the behavior, you wouldn't need to do it in a procedural logic. That's precisely then point of using objects, inheritance and overriding/implementing behavior as needed.

Create a parent class A with said field, and said function. Have the other classes extend A. No need to override them if they function the same.

To deduplicate, you can either make A an abstract class and move the implementation of the method and the field there, or create an abstract class, say E, that implements the interface with that method and field and then have B, C and D extend that class E.
For the more general question of depending on a subclass's field, you can create an abstract method getModel which the subclasses decide how to implement -- by returning a model field or doing something else.

If you are using java 8 you could use default method in interface A, with a getter method for model.
public interface A{
default public String someMethod() {
if(getModel() instanceof X){
System.out.print(true);
}
}
public Object model getModel();
}
Then implement getModel method in all child interfaces.

If you're going to do this you must have model to be of the same (basic) type in all derived objects. If it were of the same type there's a case for putting the model to a base class. Anyway if they are of different derived types you would need to have an accessor to get it.
interface B {
BaseModel getModel();
default public strict doSomething() {
BaseModel m = getModel();
// do something with m
}
}
class D implements B {
DerivedModel model;
public getModel() {
return model;
}
}

If I was given a chance to refactor it, I will follow below approach, leveraging Java 8 Default Methods:
interface A {
default String someMethod(X objectType) {
if (objectType instanceof X) {
System.out.println(true);
}
// return something, for now returning class
return objectType.getClass().toString();
}
}
class B implements A {
#Override
public String someMethod(X objectType) {
if (objectType instanceof X) {
System.out.println(true);
}
// return "Hello"
return "Hello";
}
}
class C implements A {}
class D implements A {}
Usage:
public class Main implements A {
public static void main(String[] args) {
B b = new B();
C c = new C();
D d = new D();
Main main = new Main();
main.call(b);
main.call(c);
main.call(d);
}
public void call(A clazz) {
ObjectType1 objectType1 = new ObjectType1();
String type = clazz.someMethod(objectType1);
System.out.println(type);
}
}
interface X {
}
class ObjectType1 implements X {
}

Abstract callback in reflection method of java

I have a class in jar of which I want to invoke a method. But that method has parameter of abstract class and that abstract class is inner method of class in jar. AbstractClassA is a HIDDEN class. Here is code:
public class A{
private invokeThisMethod(AbstractClassA object){
}
public abstract class AbstractClassA {
public void update(int remaining){}
}
}
public class myClass{
//using Reflection get object of class A
objectOfClassAusingReflection.inovke("invokeThisMethod", params)
}
Problem here is how do I create concrete implementation of AbstractClassA to pass in invoke method and get update method callbacks ?

Something like this should work:
AbstractClassA a = new AbstractClassA() {
public void update(int remaining) {... do something...}
};
objectOfClassAusingReflection.inovke("invokeThisMethod", a);

You cannot create an instance of abstract class or any interface at runtime.
Instead create an anonymous class for this.
public abstract class A {
public void fun(){....}
public abstract void absFun();
}
public class MyClass {
objectOfClassA = new A(){
public void absFun(){...}
}
}
Or you can first create implementation for that abstract classes for which you will have to create another class extending A
class AWrapper extends A {
public class ImplementationClassA extends AbstractClassA {
// override abstract functions...
}
}
Now you can use this Awrapper class
AWrapper wrapperObj = new AWrapper();
A obj = wrapperObj; // just to make it clear that A can hold wrapperObj as it is implementation of it.
A.AbstractClassA absObj = wrapperObj.new ImplementationClassA();
...
objectOfClassAusingReflection.inovke("invokeThisMethod", params)

Below code should work--
Here, i used anonymus classes for both outer and inner class and then with the help of getdeclatedMethod called your update method.
"TestAbs" is your jar class--
public abstract class TestAbs {
private void invokeThisMethod(AbstractClassA object) {
}
public abstract class AbstractClassA {
public void update(int remaining) {
}
}
}
Then calling your jar class from "TestAbs1" like below--
public class TestAbs1 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestAbs.AbstractClassA abs = new TestAbs() {
AbstractClassA a = new AbstractClassA() {
public void update(int remaining) {
System.out.println("Inside update method : " + remaining);
}
};
}.a;
try {
int i = 1;
Class<?> class1 = Class.forName("app.test.mytest.TestAbs$AbstractClassA"); -- (*Getting instance of inner class*)
System.out.println(class1.getDeclaredMethod("update", int.class));
class1.getDeclaredMethod("update", int.class).invoke(abs, i);
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
The output i got is --
public void app.test.mytest.TestAbs$AbstractClassA.update(int)
Inside update method : 1
Answer to your Comment:-
What I understood from your comment is that, you wanted to call method from abstractClass which is hidden in outerclass.
As per my understanding, there is one way like below--
public abstract class TestAbs {
private void invokeThisMethod(AbstractClassA object) {
}
private abstract class AbstractClassA { --- your hidden class
public void update(int remaining) {
}
}
public class ImplementedClass extends AbstractClassA{ -- use implemented class here
....
...
}
}
And after that, use your ImplementedClass the same way mentioned above.
You can find reference example for private inner class here from java docs.
Note: In your question context, since your inner class and outer class is in jar, so I think it is difficult for you add implementation class in your jar.
In case, you find any alternatives, please let all knows about this;
thanks.

Avoid casting when using generics

In a project, I have a service and a class using that service. In this example case a repair service that will be used by vehicles. A repair service can only repair a certain type of vehicle: The garage can only repair cars. I need a method in the vehicle to repair it with an applicable service, repairUsingService(..).
My goal is to have a clean Vehicle base class and clean RepairService implementations. I have tried two ways of designing the repair method of the repair service:
repair(Vehicle<T> vehicle): This is ugly because implementations would need to do repair(Vehicle<Car> car) but it is obvious that a car is a vehicle.
repairSimple(T vehicle): Is nice with that but cannot be called from the Vehicle class without an ugly cast.
Is there a way to avoid casting but still only use the generic parameter type T (like in repairSimple(T))?
public class Vehicle<T extends Vehicle<T>> {
public void repairUsingService(RepairService<T> obj) {
obj.repair(this);
obj.repairSimple((T) this);
}
}
public class Car extends Vehicle<Car> {
}
public interface RepairService<T extends Vehicle<T>> {
void repair(Vehicle<T> vehicle);
void repairSimple(T vehicle);
}
public class Garage implements RepairService<Car> {
#Override
public void repair(Vehicle<Car> car) {
System.out.println("Car repaired.");
}
#Override
public void repairSimple(Car car) {
System.out.println("Car repaired.");
}
}

Could you use this implementation? This way both the vehicle knows, what repair service can repair it, and the service knows, what vehicles it can repair.
public interface RepairService<T extends Vehicle<?>> {
public void repair(T vehicle);
}
public interface Vehicle<T extends RepairService<?>> {
public void repairUsingService(T service);
}
public class Car implements Vehicle<Garage> {
#Override
public void repairUsingService(Garage service) {
}
}
public class Garage implements RepairService<Car>{
#Override
public void repair(Car vehicle) {
}
}
public class AuthorizedGarage extends Garage {
}
public class Train implements Vehicle<TrainDepot> {
#Override
public void repairUsingService(TrainDepot service) {
}
}
public class TrainDepot implements RepairService<Train> {
#Override
public void repair(Train vehicle) {
}
}
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// this works:
new Car().repairUsingService(new Garage());
new Train().repairUsingService(new TrainDepot());
// and this works
new Garage().repair(new Car());
new TrainDepot().repair(new Train());
// but this does not (which is ok)
//new Garage().repair(new Train());
//new Car().repairUsingService(new TrainDepot());
// this also works
List<Car> cars = new ArrayList<>();
cars.add(new Car());
cars.get(0).repairUsingService(new Garage());
// this also works, if you have an expensive car ;)
new Car().repairUsingService(new AuthorizedGarage());
}
}
You could even have a base class for all your repair services to avoid code repetition:
public abstract class BaseRepairService<T extends Vehicle<?>> implements
RepairService<T> {
#Override
public void repair(T vehicle) {
}
}
Then your Garage would extend a BaseRepairService with a Car type parameter.

One way is to ask the subclass for itself:
abstract class Vehicle<T extends Vehicle<T>> {
public void repairUsingService(RepairService<T> obj) {
obj.repair(this);
obj.repairSimple(getThis());
}
abstract T getThis();
}
class Car extends Vehicle<Car> {
#Override
Car getThis(){
return this;
}
}

Let me present two reasonable alternatives.
The first is a variation of Gafter's Gadget:
public abstract class Vehicle<V extends Vehicle<V>> {
private boolean validate() {
Class<?> cls = getClass();
for(Class<?> sup;
(sup = cls.getSuperclass()) != Vehicle.class;
cls = sup
);
Type sup = cls.getGenericSuperclass();
if(!(sup instanceof ParameterizedType))
return false;
Type arg = ((ParameterizedType)sup).getActualTypeArguments()[0];
if(!(arg instanceof Class<?>))
return false;
return ((Class<?>)arg).isInstance(this);
}
protected Vehicle() {
assert validate() : "somebody messed up";
}
}
Since Vehicle is always parameterized by a subclass, it's OK to use this idiom. During development you run with assertions on and the constructor will throw an error if somebody extends the class incorrectly.
Now the unchecked cast is always safe.
The second is that RepairService no longer carries a type parameter. Instead, you keep a listing of Class<? extends Vehicle> the RepairService can repair.
public interface RepairService {
boolean canRepair(Vehicle v);
// if v can't be repaired, perhaps repair
// throws an exception or returns boolean instead of void
void repair(Vehicle v);
}
public class ServiceStation implements RepairService {
private final List<Class<? extends Vehicle>> types;
public ServiceStation(Class<? extends Vehicle>... types) {
this.types = Arrays.asList(types);
}
#Override
public boolean canRepair(Vehicle v) {
for(Class<? extends Vehicle> c : types) {
if(c.isInstance(v))
return true;
}
return false;
}
#Override
public void repair(Vehicle v) {
if(!canRepair(v))
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
// impl
}
}
At least for the Vehicle/RepairStation analogy this is probably much more usable than trying to force generics in to the design. Vehicle probably doesn't need a type parameter either anymore.
Maybe your actual program is different but you should always consider whether straight program logic solves the problem before introducing a parametric design. Trying to force generics to work in a situation where they are a suboptimal solution gets very awkward.

Super class which uses the values from children

I wanted to implement a method in a abstract class that is called by the inherited classes and uses their values.
For instance:
abstract class MyClass{
String value = "myClass";
void foo(){System.out.println(this.value);}
}
public class childClass{
String value="childClass";
void foo(){super.foo();}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
new childClass.foo();
}
This will output "myClass" but what I really want is to output "childClass". This is so I can implement a "general" method in a class that when extended by other classes it will use the values from those classes.
I could pass the values as function arguments but I wanted to know if it would be possible to implement the "architecture" I've described.
A super method called by the inherited class which uses the values from the caller not itself, this without passing the values by arguments.

You could do something like this:
abstract class MyClass {
protected String myValue() {
return "MyClass";
}
final void foo() {
System.out.println(myValue());
}
}
public class ChildClass extends MyClass {
#Override
protected String myValue() {
return "ChildClass";
}
}
and so on

This is a place where composition is better than inheritance
public class Doer{
private Doee doee;
public Doer(Doee doee){
this.doee = doee;
}
public void foo(){
System.out.println(doee.value);
}
}
public abstract class Doee{
public String value="myClass"
}
public ChildDoee extends Doee{
public String= "childClass"
}
...
//Excerpt from factory
new Doer(new ChildDoee);

I believe you are asking whether this is possible:
public class MyClass {
void foo() {
if (this instanceof childClass) // do stuff for childClass
else if (this intanceof anotherChildClass) // do stuff for that one
}
}
So the answer is "yes, it's doable", but very much advised against as it a) tries to reimplement polymorphism instead of using it and b) violates the separation between abstract and concrete classes.

You simply want value in MyClass to be different for an instance of childClass.
To do this, change the value in the childClass constructor:
public class childClass {
public childClass() {
value = "childClass";
}
}
Edited:
If you can't override/replace the constructor(s), add an instance block (which gets executed after the constructor, even an undeclared "default" constructor):
public class childClass {
{
value = "childClass";
}
}