We Keep Coding

Key-Value map instead of a very long ELSE-IF construction?

I am currently working on a method that is mapping some strings to other strings.
It has a LOT of values, and the method starts to look like this:
The method ValueHelper.isEqual() is looking for an exact match.
private IValue1 mapValue(IValue2 value2) {
if (ValueHelper.isEqual(value2.getName(), StatusValues.ACTIVE)) {
return ValueHelper.getName(StatusValues2.WORKING);
} else if (ValueHelper.isEqual(value2.getName(), StatusValues.INACTIVE)) {
return ValueHelper.getName(StatusValues2.NOT_WORKING);
} else if (ValueHelper.isEqual(value2.getName(), StatusValues.IN_SERVICE)) {
return ValueHelper.getName(StatusValues2.SERVICE);
}
}
At current point I have 10 else-if code blocks.
What is the best way to make this method simpler and shorter? Extracting the values to a Key-Value map? Or maybe another option?

A map would do fine I guess. You could also think about switch-case to make it a little less verbose:
private IValue1 mapValue(IValue2 value2) {
switch(value2.getName()) {
case StatusValues.ACTIVE: return StatusValues2.WORKING;
case StatusValues.INACTIVE: return StatusValues2.NOT_WORKING;
case StatusValues.IN_SERVICE: return StatusValues2.SERVICE;
default: throw new RuntimeException();
}

The OOP approach is to have this method in your interface IValue2:
interface IValue2 {
...
String getName();
IValue1 mapValue();
}
Each implementing object now must override this abstract method. This maybe requires some implementation changes. You could - for example - have a ActiveValue2 class:
class ActiveValue2 implements IValue2 {
...
public String getName() {
return StatusValues.ACTIVE;
}
public IValue1 mapValue() {
return ValueHelper.getName(StatusValues2.WORKING);
}
}
You now simply call the mapValue method on an IValue2-types variable. Done.

Yes, having a Map of <StatusValues, StatusValues2> would be the right approach.
You will simply look for the current StatusValue as the key and receive the matching StatusValue2

You might consider converting your strings to an enum:
public enum Status {
ACTIVE("active", WORKING),
INACTIVE("inactive", NOT_WORKING),
IN_SERVICE("inservice", SERVICE),
...
private final String name;
private final Value value;
Status(String name, Value value) {
this.name = name;
this.value = value;
}
public static Optional<Value> getValueForName(String name) {
return Arrays.stream(values())
.filter(v -> isEqual(name, this.name))
.findAny();
}
}

Use guava Immutable Map. They are faster and take less memory than standard java HashMap.

How to model a medium-sized data set with multiple types as a class

Problem
I don't know the best way to model my data. I'm worried my current approach has gotten overly complex, and I want to correct it now before I base any more code off it.
Data to be Modeled
I have data sets that consist of 50+ different data items. Each item consists of:
a unique identifier int
a label String.
validation criteria (min, max, legal characters, etc...).
a value Float, Long, Integer, String, or Date.
The label and validation criteria for each item is the same in every data set. Only the values are dynamic. Order is not important.
Needed Usage Examples
Add data to the data set
dataSet.put(itemIdentifier, value);
Traverse and validate all non-null values in the data set
for (DataItem item : dataSet.values()) {
boolean valid = item.validate();
if (valid) {...}
}
Show the specified items in the given data sets
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
Implementation Attempt
My current implementation has an abstract Key class as the "key" to a map. Each type subclasses for its own validation needs. Then, inside the DataSet class, I have public static keys for each item.
abstract public class Key {
public int mId;
public String mLabel;
public Key(int id, String label) {...}
abstract public boolean validate(Object Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key {
private int mMin, mMax;
public Key(int id, String label, int min, int max) {...}
public boolean validate(Object Value) {...}
}
// one for each type
...
public class DataSet {
public static Key ITEM_A = new FloatKey(1, "item A", 0, 100);
public static Key ITEM_B = new DateKey(2, "item B", "January 1, 1990");
// ~50 more of these
private Map<Key, Object> mMap;
public void put(int itemId, Object value) {...}
public Set<Object> values() {...};
...
}
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat). I also find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set because I need to call subclass-only methods in some situations.
Edits for further clarification
Data items and their validation criteria will require occasional changes and so maintenance should be relatively easy / painless.
Although I could use the Key objects themselves as keys into the map, I will sometimes need to put these keys in a Bundle (part of the android API). I would rather use the label or id (in case labels are the same) to avoid making my Key class Parcelable.

What about this approach:
Create this interface:
interface Validable {
boolean isValid();
}
Then, all data items inherit the following class and implicitly the interface ::
abstract class DataItem implements Validable {
public DataItem(int id, String label, int min, int max) {
}
}
Configure each specific instance of DataItem via constructor parameters, passing the common and the distinct values:
class FloatItem extends DataItem {
public FloatItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Float value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
// set the Float value here
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
class DateItem extends DataItem {
public DateItem(int id, String label, int min, int max, Date value) {
super(id, label, min, max);
}
#Override
public boolean isValid() {
// validate here
return true;
}
}
The client code would assemble the objects like this::
List<Validable> items = Lists.<Validable>newArrayList(new FloatItem(0, "", 0, 0, Float.NaN),
new DateItem(0, "", 0, 0, new Date()));
(note the usage of Google Guava)
Calling code only needs to do this::
for (Validable validable : items) {
System.out.println(validable.isValid());
}
Please note that this approach requires you to first create 'target' objects, and then ask the question if they are valid. In other words, you are passing the valid-able parameters via constructor and then, you ask the object if it is valid. The object itself will answer the question using the validation criteria inside it...
I hope I understood your problem correctly.

I don't quite understand your goals with the design, so maybe not all of this is correct or directly useful to you, but it's some ideas to play with.
First I'd point out that there are lots of fields in the code you've shown that should be marked final. For example, Key.mId, Key.mLabel, FloatKey.mMin, FloatKey.mMax, all the DataSet.ITEM_X, and DataSet.mMap. Marking them final (1) conveys the intended behavior better, (2) prevents accidents where something like a Key's mId changes, and (3) might have marginal performance benefits.
I wonder why you need the numeric ID for each key/field? If they're required for interfacing with some external application or storage format which already defines those IDs, that makes sense, but if it's only for internal things like this method:
public void displayData(List<DataSet> dataSets, int... itemsIdentifiers) {...}
then that could be more meaningfully implemented using a list of String labels or Key objects, instead of the numeric IDs. Likewise, DataSet.put could possibly use the Key or label instead of the ID.
I find myself using instanceof and casting frequently when I traverse objects in a set
Making Key generic can eliminate some casts. (Well, they will still be present in the bytecode, but not in the source because the compiler will take care of it.) E.g.,
abstract public class Key<T> {
...
abstract public boolean validate(T Value);
}
public class FloatKey extends Key<Float> {
...
public boolean validate(Float value) { ... }
}
In the validate method, you thus avoid the need to cast value.
Also, I'm guessing you currently have a method on class DataSet like this:
public Object get(int itemId) { ... }
If you use the Key instead of numeric ID to retrieve values, and make the method generic, you'll often be able to avoid the need for callers to cast the return value (though the cast is still present inside the get method):
public <T> T get(Key<T> key) { ... }
I don't like that when I pull values out of DataSet, I need to hold onto the value AND the key so I can do things like DataSet.ITEM_A.validate(someFloat).
You could make a class for the value instead of the key. E.g.,
abstract public class Value<T> {
public final int id;
public final String label;
protected Value(int id, String label) {
this.id = id;
this.label = label;
}
abstract public T get();
abstract public void set(T value);
}
public class FloatValue extends Value<Float> {
private final float min, max;
private float value;
public FloatValue(int id, String label, float min, float max, float value) {
super(id, label);
this.min = min;
this.max = max;
set(value);
}
public Float get() { return value; }
public void set(Float value) {
if (value < min | value > max) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
this.value = value;
}
}
public class DataSet {
public final FloatValue itemA = new FloatValue(1, "item A", 0, 100, 0);
...
}
That solves the stated problem, and also eliminates the map lookup previously required on every get/set of a value. However it has the side effect of duplicating the storage for the labels and numeric IDs, as the Value classes are not static fields any more.
In this scenario, to access DataSet values by label (or ID?), you can use reflection to build a map. In class DataSet:
private final Map<String, Value<?>> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (Value.class.isAssignableFrom(f.getType())) {
Value<?> v;
try {
v = (Value<?>)f.get(this);
} catch (IllegalAccessException | IllegalArgumentException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
labelMap.put(v.label, v);
}
}
}
There's a subtlety here: if you subclass DataSet to represent different types of data, then the Value fields of the subclasses will not have been initialized yet at the time DataSet's initializer builds the map. So if you create subclasses of DataSet, you might need a protected init() method to be called from subclass constructors, to tell it to (re)build the map, which is a bit ugly but it would work.
You can re-use this map to provide convenient iteration of a DataSet's values:
public Collection<Value<?>> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
A final idea: if you're using reflection anyway, it might be possible to use ordinary fields for the values, with annotation interfaces to implement their behavior.
import java.lang.annotation.*;
import java.lang.reflect.*;
public class DataSet {
#Label("item A") #ValidateFloat(min=0, max=100) public float itemA;
#Label("item B") public String itemB;
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface Label {
String value();
}
#Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
public static #interface ValidateFloat {
float min();
float max();
}
public final class Value {
public final String label;
private final Field field;
protected Value(String label, Field field) {
this.label = label;
this.field = field;
}
public Object get() {
try {
return field.get(DataSet.this);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void set(Object value) {
try {
field.set(DataSet.this, value);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException | IllegalAccessException e) {
throw new AssertionError(e); // shouldn't happen
}
}
public void validate() {
Object value = get();
// Test for presence of each validation rule and implement its logic.
// Ugly but not sure how best to improve this...
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ValidateFloat.class)) {
float floatValue = (float)value;
ValidateFloat rule = field.getAnnotation(ValidateFloat.class);
if (floatValue < rule.min() || floatValue > rule.max()) {
//throw new Whatever();
}
}
//if (field.isAnnotationPresent(...)) {
// ...
//}
}
}
private final Map<String, Value> labelMap = new HashMap<>();
{
for (Field f : DataSet.class.getFields()) {
if (f.isAnnotationPresent(Label.class)) {
Value value = new Value(f.getAnnotation(Label.class).value(), f);
labelMap.put(value.label, value);
}
}
}
public Collection<Value> values() {
return Collections.unmodifiableCollection(labelMap.values());
}
}
This approach has different tradeoffs. Code that knows exactly what field it wants can access it directly. E.g., dataSet.itemA instead of dataSet.get(DataSet.ITEM_A). Code that needs to iterate multiple fields does so via the Value wrapper (would Property be a better class name? Or Item?), which encapsulates the ugliness of the field reflection code.
I also put the validation logic into the annotations. If there are lots of fields with very simple numeric limits, that works well. If it's too complex for that you'd be better off with a DataSet.validate method that accesses the fields directly. E.g,
public void validate() {
if (itemC < 10 || itemC > itemD) ...
}
Okay, one more idea:
public class DataSet {
public float itemA;
public String itemB;
public static abstract class Value<T> {
public final String label;
protected Value(String label) {
this.label = label;
}
public abstract T get();
public abstract void set(T value);
}
public Value<?>[] values() {
return new Value[] {
new Value<Float>("itemA") {
public Float get() {
return itemA;
}
public void set(Float value) {
itemA = value;
}
},
new Value<String>("itemB") {
public String get() {
return itemB;
}
public void set(String value) {
itemB = value;
}
},
};
}
}
This is simple (no annotations or reflection) but it's repetitive. Since you have "50+" fields, the repetitiveness is probably not ideal as it's easy when copy-pasting to slip up at some point, forgetting to replace itemX = value with itemY = value, but if you only need to write it once it might be acceptable. Validation code could go either on the Value class or the DataSet class.

How to avoid instanceof? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Anything wrong with instanceof checks here?
I have this code
public static int getNumberOfOwned(Player owner, String type){
int count = 0;
for (Field f: board.fieldList)
if (type == "Shipping" && f instanceof Shipping)
if (((Shipping)f).getOwnedBy() == owner)
count++;
else if (type == "Brewery" && f instanceof Brewery)
if (((Brewery)f).getOwnedBy() == owner)
count++;
return count;
}
I don't think this is very elegant and future proof. How can i avoid those instanceof operators.

You can always use an enum, and use a method on Field which returns the type. Here I'll go a little further and surmise that you do not want to update the count for certain types, so the enum is also "adorned" with a boolean expressing that:
enum FieldType {
SHIPPING(true),
BREWERY(true),
NOTME(false);
private final boolean countUpdate;
FieldType(boolean countUpdate) { this.countUpdate = countUpdate; }
public boolean mustUpdateCount() { return countUpdate; }
};
abstract class Field {
protected final FieldType type;
protected Field(FieldType type) { this.type = type; }
public final FieldType getType() { return type; }
public final boolean mustUpdateCount() { return type.mustUpdateCount(); }
}
class Brewery implements Field {
Brewery() {
super(BREWERY);
}
}
and in your code:
FieldType expectedType = Enum.valueOf(type.toUpperCase());
for (Field f: board.fieldlist) {
if (field.getType() != expectedType)
continue;
if (!f.getOwnedBy().equals(owner))
continue;
// Correct type, owned by the correct guy:
// check that we must update; if so, update
if (expectedType.mustUpdateCount())
count++;
}

Since Shipping and Brewery are derived from Field, Field could provide a getter that tells you its type, something like getFieldType(). When Shipping or Brewery are instantiated, they set the appropriate value, or you make getFieldType() abstract and have Shipping and Brewery implement them.

Pass Shipping.class or Brewery.class to your function instead of a string representing the class and check that your Field belongs to that class:
public static int getNumberOfOwned(Player owner, Class<? extends Field> type){
int count = 0;
for (Field f: board.fieldList) {
if (type.isInstance(f) && f.getOwnedBy() == owner) {
count++;
}
}
return count;
}

The best solution would be to use the visitor pattern for this problem, you can look it up here: Visitor pattern
At least it's the object oriented way of handling the problem, but it certainly needs more coding than your current solution.

Add an "isType(String type)" method to Field. For that matter, add "isOwnedBy(String owner)" to Field as well.
for (Field f: board.fieldList)
if (f.isType(type) && f.isOwnedBy(owner))
count++;
return count;

first of all be advice you are using the "==" operator to test the equality of objects, this is most of the the times wrong, and definitely wrong in this case :)
If you want to determine if an object is of an particular type you could use the instanceof operator, see if they have the same class reference (here you could use the "==" operator) or try a cast and check for an exception, the last option is more of a fantasy because in the real world you should not try this.
I am not quite sure what you are trying to do, but you could definitely tailor your objects to avoid the instanceof/class/cast stuff, something like:
class Foxtrot implements Sub {
private SubType type = SubType.ATACK;
public SubType getType() {
return type;
}
}
interface Sub {
enum SubType{ ATACK, BOOMER }
public SubType getType();
}
And you can treat object as implementations of the Sub interface and check with their getType() method what kind they are, it should pretty much work.

You should rewrite this code
1)
class Field
add method getType();
2) code:
public static int getNumberOfOwned(Player owner, String type){
int count = 0;
for (Field f: board.fieldList){
if (f.getType.equals(type)&& f.getOwnedBy().equesl(owner))
count++;
}
return count;
}

Make string getTypeString() a property of Field, and avoid having a bunch of if statements (check type.equals(f.getTypeString())) Make getOwnedBy a property of Field, and don't use a cast. (fields that don't have owners can return null)

Java Generics Selective Return Value

I've been struggling with this for a while and have yet to find an answer. As a result, my brain is somewhat muddled, so pardon me if I make a dumb mistake.
I'm trying to implement a typed INI parser, that will parse this kind of file:
[section1]
<int>intkey=0
<float>floatkey=0.0
<str>stringkey=test
[section2]
<float>x=1.0
<float>y=1.0
<float>z=0.0
In doing so, I have a central class named Config, which handles the basic reading and writing operations. One of the methods of Config is called get(String section, String key), which ideally would return a value appropriate for the requested section-key pair, like so:
Config cfg = new Config("test.ini");
cfg.get("section2", "x"); // 1.0, not "1.0" or some Object that technically represents the float
cfg.get("section1", "intkey"); // 0
cfg.get("section1", "strkey"); // "test"
I'm currently using an enum to handle the conversion of the String to various types, with an abstract method overridden by the different types:
enum Type
{
INTEGER ("int") {
public Object parse(String value) {
try
{
return Integer.parseInt(value);
} catch (NumberFormatException e)
{
return null;
}
}
},
FLOAT ("float") {
public Object parse(String value) {
try
{
return Float.parseFloat(value);
} catch (NumberFormatException e)
{
return null;
}
}
},
STRING ("str") {
public Object parse(String value) {
return value;
}
};
public final String name;
Type(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
private static HashMap<String, Type> configMap = generateConfigMap();
private static HashMap<String, Type> generateConfigMap()
{
HashMap<String, Type> map = new HashMap<String, Type>();
for (Type type : Type.values())
map.put(type.name, type);
return map;
}
public static Type get(String name)
{
return configMap.get(name);
}
abstract public Object parse(String value);
}
Unfortunately, parse(String value) returns an Object, and when passed out of Config, requires a cast or similar, and ideally this would be self-contained.
If I'm going about this completely wrong and there's a more flexible or simple way to code it, please let me know. I'm open to suggestions. Though I would like to know if there's a way to do this. Maybe with generics...?
Note: I know I'm missing imports and the like. That's not why I'm posting here.

Here's the thing. If the code that calls config.get() doesn't know what type to expect, you can't possibly return anything other than Object since the calling code doesn't know what to expect. Of course you'll have to cast.
Now, if you wanted to design Config in a way that the caller did know what type it was asking for, than that becomes a bit easier. The easiest approach then is to do something like this:
public class Config {
public int getInt(String a, String b) {
return ((Integer)get(a, b)).intValue();
}
}
But until the caller knows what to expect, you really gain nothing from avoiding casts.

If you want to return a a type of object depending on what you get you can do this:
public <T extends MyObject> T myMethod(Class<T> type) {
return type.cast(myObj);
}

What is the best way to compare several javabean properties?

I need to compare dozens of fields in two objects (instances of the same class), and do some logging and updating in case there are differences. Meta code could look something like this:
if (a.getfield1 != b.getfield1)
log(a.getfield1 is different than b.getfield1)
b.field1 = a.field1
if (a.getfield2!= b.getfield2)
log(a.getfield2 is different than b.getfield2)
b.field2 = a.field2
...
if (a.getfieldn!= b.getfieldn)
log(a.getfieldn is different than b.getfieldn)
b.fieldn = a.fieldn
The code with all the comparisons is very terse, and I would like to somehow make it more compact. It would be nice if I could have a method which would take as a parameter method calls to setter and getter, and call this for all fields, but unfortunately this is not possible with java.
I have come up with three options, each which their own drawbacks.
1. Use reflection API to find out getters and setters
Ugly and could cause run time errors in case names of fields change
2. Change fields to public and manipulate them directly without using getters and setters
Ugly as well and would expose implementation of the class to external world
3. Have the containing class (entity) do the comparison, update changed fields and return log message
Entity should not take part in business logic
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
EDIT: There are some fields in the class which must not be compared.

Use Annotations.
If you mark the fields that you need to compare (no matter if they are private, you still don't lose the encapsulation, and then get those fields and compare them. It could be as follows:
In the Class that need to be compared:
#ComparableField
private String field1;
#ComparableField
private String field2;
private String field_nocomparable;
And in the external class:
public <T> void compare(T t, T t2) throws IllegalArgumentException,
IllegalAccessException {
Field[] fields = t.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
if (fields != null) {
for (Field field : fields) {
if (field.isAnnotationPresent(ComparableField.class)) {
field.setAccessible(true);
if ( (field.get(t)).equals(field.get(t2)) )
System.out.println("equals");
field.setAccessible(false);
}
}
}
}
The code is not tested, but let me know if helps.

The JavaBeans API is intended to help with introspection. It has been around in one form or another since Java version 1.2 and has been pretty usable since version 1.4.
Demo code that compares a list of properties in two beans:
public static void compareBeans(PrintStream log,
Object bean1, Object bean2, String... propertyNames)
throws IntrospectionException,
IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException {
Set<String> names = new HashSet<String>(Arrays
.asList(propertyNames));
BeanInfo beanInfo = Introspector.getBeanInfo(bean1
.getClass());
for (PropertyDescriptor prop : beanInfo
.getPropertyDescriptors()) {
if (names.remove(prop.getName())) {
Method getter = prop.getReadMethod();
Object value1 = getter.invoke(bean1);
Object value2 = getter.invoke(bean2);
if (value1 == value2
|| (value1 != null && value1.equals(value2))) {
continue;
}
log.format("%s: %s is different than %s%n", prop
.getName(), "" + value1, "" + value2);
Method setter = prop.getWriteMethod();
setter.invoke(bean2, value2);
}
}
if (names.size() > 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("" + names);
}
}
Sample invocation:
compareBeans(System.out, bean1, bean2, "foo", "bar");
If you go the annotations route, consider dumping reflection and generating the comparison code with a compile-time annotation processor or some other code generator.

I would go for option 1, but I would use getClass().getDeclaredFields() to access the fields instead of using the names.
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass other) throws IllegalAccessException {
for (Field field : getClass().getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() == String.class) {
Object thisValue = field.get(this);
Object otherValue = field.get(other);
// if necessary check for null
if (!thisValue.equals(otherValue)) {
log(field.getName() + ": " + thisValue + " <> " + otherValue);
field.set(other, thisValue);
}
}
}
}
There are some restrictions here (if I'm right):
The compare method has to be implemented in the same class (in my opinion it should - regardless of its implementation) not in an external one.
Just the fields from this class are used, not the one's from a superclass.
Handling of IllegalAccessException necessary (I just throw it in the example above).

This is probably not too nice either, but it's far less evil (IMHO) than either of the two alternatives you've proposed.
How about providing a single getter/setter pair that takes a numeric index field and then have getter/setter dereference the index field to the relevant member variable?
i.e.:
public class MyClass {
public void setMember(int index, String value) {
switch (index) {
...
}
}
public String getMember(int index) {
...
}
static public String getMemberName(int index) {
...
}
}
And then in your external class:
public void compareAndUpdate(MyClass a, MyClass b) {
for (int i = 0; i < a.getMemberCount(); ++i) {
String sa = a.getMember();
String sb = b.getMember();
if (!sa.equals(sb)) {
Log.v("compare", a.getMemberName(i));
b.setMember(i, sa);
}
}
}
This at least allows you to keep all of the important logic in the class that's being examined.

While option 1 may be ugly, it will get the job done. Option 2 is even uglier, and opens your code to vulnerabilities you can't imagine. Even if you eventually rule out option 1, I pray you keep your existing code and not go for option 2.
Having said this, you can use reflection to get a list of the field names of the class, if you don't want to pass this as a static list to the method. Assuming you want to compare all fields, you can then dynamically create the comparisons, in a loop.
If this isn't the case, and the strings you compare are only some of the fields, you can examine the fields further and isolate only those that are of type String, and then proceed to compare.
Hope this helps,
Yuval =8-)

since
All fields are String type, and I can modify code of the class owning the fields if required.
you could try this class:
public class BigEntity {
private final Map<String, String> data;
public LongEntity() {
data = new HashMap<String, String>();
}
public String getFIELD1() {
return data.get(FIELD1);
}
public String getFIELD2() {
return data.get(FIELD2);
}
/* blah blah */
public void cloneAndLogDiffs(BigEntity other) {
for (String field : fields) {
String a = this.get(field);
String b = other.get(field);
if (!a.equals(b)) {
System.out.println("diff " + field);
other.set(field, this.get(field));
}
}
}
private String get(String field) {
String value = data.get(field);
if (value == null) {
value = "";
}
return value;
}
private void set(String field, String value) {
data.put(field, value);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return data.toString();
}
magic code:
private static final String FIELD1 = "field1";
private static final String FIELD2 = "field2";
private static final String FIELD3 = "field3";
private static final String FIELD4 = "field4";
private static final String FIELDN = "fieldN";
private static final List<String> fields;
static {
fields = new LinkedList<String>();
for (Field field : LongEntity.class.getDeclaredFields()) {
if (field.getType() != String.class) {
continue;
}
if (!Modifier.isStatic(field.getModifiers())) {
continue;
}
fields.add(field.getName().toLowerCase());
}
}
this class has several advantages:
reflects once, at class loading
it is very simply adding new fields, just add new static field (a better solution here
is using Annotations: in the case you care using reflection works also java 1.4)
you could refactor this class in an abstract class, all derived class just get both
data and cloneAndLogDiffs()
the external interface is typesafe (you could also easily impose immutability)
no setAccessible calls: this method is problematic sometimes

A broad thought:
Create a new class whose object takes the following parameters: the first class to compare, the second class to compare, and a lists of getter & setter method names for the objects, where only methods of interest are included.
You can query with reflection the object's class, and from that its available methods. Assuming each getter method in the parameter list is included in the available methods for the class, you should be able to call the method to get the value for comparison.
Roughly sketched out something like (apologies if it isn't super-perfect... not my primary language):
public class MyComparator
{
//NOTE: Class a is the one that will get the value if different
//NOTE: getters and setters arrays must correspond exactly in this example
public static void CompareMyStuff(Object a, Object b, String[] getters, String[] setters)
{
Class a_class = a.getClass();
Class b_class = b.getClass();
//the GetNamesFrom... static methods are defined elsewhere in this class
String[] a_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(a_class.getMethods());
String[] b_method_names = GetNamesFromMethods(b_class.getMethods());
String[] a_field_names = GetNamesFromFields(a_class.getFields());
//for relative brevity...
Class[] empty_class_arr = new Class[] {};
Object[] empty_obj_arr = new Object[] {};
for (int i = 0; i < getters.length; i++)
{
String getter_name = getter[i];
String setter_name = setter[i];
//NOTE: the ArrayContainsString static method defined elsewhere...
//ensure all matches up well...
if (ArrayContainsString(a_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(b_method_names, getter_name) &&
ArrayContainsString(a_field_names, setter_name)
{
//get the values from the getter methods
String val_a = a_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(a, empty_obj_arr);
String val_b = b_class.getMethod(getter_name, empty_class_arr).invoke(b, empty_obj_arr);
if (val_a != val_b)
{
//LOG HERE
//set the value
a_class.getField(setter_name).set(a, val_b);
}
}
else
{
//do something here - bad names for getters and/or setters
}
}
}
}

You say you presently have getters and setters for all these fields? Okay, then change the underlying data from a bunch of individual fields to an array. Change all the getters and setters to access the array. I'd create constant tags for the indexes rather than using numbers for long-term maintainability. Also create a parallel array of flags indicating which fields should be processed. Then create a generic getter/setter pair that use an index, as well as a getter for the compare flag. Something like this:
public class SomeClass
{
final static int NUM_VALUES=3;
final static int FOO=0, BAR=1, PLUGH=2;
String[] values=new String[NUM_VALUES];
static boolean[] wantCompared={true, false, true};
public String getFoo()
{
return values[FOO];
}
public void setFoo(String foo)
{
values[FOO]=foo;
}
... etc ...
public int getValueCount()
{
return NUM_VALUES;
}
public String getValue(int x)
{
return values[x];
}
public void setValue(int x, String value)
{
values[x]=value;
}
public boolean getWantCompared(int x)
{
return wantCompared[x];
}
}
public class CompareClass
{
public void compare(SomeClass sc1, SomeClass sc2)
{
int z=sc1.getValueCount();
for (int x=0;x<z;++x)
{
if (!sc1.getWantCompared[x])
continue;
String sc1Value=sc1.getValue(x);
String sc2Value=sc2.getValue(x);
if (!sc1Value.equals(sc2Value)
{
writeLog(x, sc1Value, sc2Value);
sc2.setValue(x, sc1Value);
}
}
}
}
I just wrote this off the top of my head, I haven't tested it, so their may be bugs in the code, but I think the concept should work.
As you already have getters and setters, any other code using this class should continue to work unchanged. If there is no other code using this class, then throw away the existing getters and setters and just do everything with the array.

I would also propose a similar solution to the one by Alnitak.
If the fields need to be iterated when comparing, why not dispense with the separate fields, and put the data into an array, a HashMap or something similar that is appropriate.
Then you can access them programmatically, compare them etc. If different fields need to be treated & compared in different ways, you could create approriate helper classes for the values, which implement an interface.
Then you could just do
valueMap.get("myobject").compareAndChange(valueMap.get("myotherobject")
or something along those lines...