We Keep Coding

Getting Variables From Java constructor

I'm new to Java programming, sorry if this is a dumb question.
I find it hard to word this question properly, but I have an assignment to create a aircraft class that can make aircraft land, takeoff etc. And need to test it using Testclass. When the new object are entered it automatically assigns a unique ID to the aircraft in the constructor.
I can do this using a instance method fine as it has a return value which is returned to to Testclass. The question wants me to do this in the constructor itself, however, the constructor never returns anything. So the variable never gets sent to the Testclass. I clearly am not understanding OOP properly. Even when I try to just use a getter method to get the ID created in the constructor it gives me the initialized variable before the the constructor has worked on this. This is the code I have so far and its completely wrong I know but if someone could point me in the right direction or tell me how to word this question better it would be a massive help.
// I need to enter 3 aircraft into the system in the testclass
public class Aircraft {
private int aircraftID;
private static int lastID;
private String airportcode;
private int ID = 100;
private int count;
public Aircraft(int a, int b, int c){
// Constructor
// Assign ID
this.ID = a;
lastID = ID;
ID++;
this.ID =b;
lastID = ID;
ID++;
}
}

OK, you want to create an Aircraft that has an automatically-assigned unique identifier, and can take off and land. That implies you need a field for tracking the identifier, a field for tracking whether it's in the air (or not), and methods for the take off and land operations. You also need a static field for generating the unique identifiers. (Note that this implementation isn't thread safe.)
private class Aircraft {
private static int staticId = 0;
private int uniqueId = 0;
private boolean onGround = true; // Aircraft start on the ground in this implementation
public Aircraft(){
this.uniqueId = staticId; // putting this line first makes uniqueId zero-indexed in effect
staticId++;
}
public void land(){
onGround = true;
}
public void takeoff(){
onGround = false;
}
public boolean isFlying(){
return !onGround; // If it's not on the ground, it's flying
}
public int getUniqueId(){
return uniqueId;
}
}
Unit tests checks all of the methods and expected functionality of the class in question:
import org.junit.Test;
import static org.junit.Assert.*;
import Aircraft;
class Testclass {
private final Aircraft aircraft = new Aircraft();
#Test
public void hasId(){
aircraft.getUniqueId() >= 0;
}
#Test
public void canLand(){
assertTrue(aircraft.land());
}
#Test
public void canTakeOff(){
assertTrue(aircraft.takeOff());
}
#Test
public void checkFlightOperationsAreTrackedCorrectly(){
aircraft.land();
assertFalse(aircraft.isFlying());
aircraft.takeOff();
assertTrue(aircraft.isFlying());
}
}

As pointed out a constructor does not return anything (the simplified version is that with new it returns an object instance). I am kinda guessing at what you are trying to acomplish, but I'll have a go anyways. It seems to me that you are trying to cram the construction of 3 objects into one constructor - which is why your constructor has 3 parameters. Also you are playing havoc with the IDs.
I have removed all the variables that I didnt quite understand, leaving only ID that increments with each instantiated Aircraft. The #Override is mainly just for show.
public class Aircraft {
private int aircraftID;
private static int lastID = 0;
#Override
public String toString(){
return "Aircraft_" + this.aircraftID;
}
public Aircraft() {
lastID++;
this.aircraftID = lastID;
}
}
I took the liberty and wrote the TestClass just to see if we have the same thing in mind. Again the printAircraft() method is for show.
public class TestClass {
private List<Aircraft> aircrafts;
public TestClass(){
aircrafts = new ArrayList<>();
}
public void addAircraft(Aircraft a){
aircrafts.add(a);
}
public void printAircraft(){
Iterator<Aircraft> it = aircrafts.iterator();
while(it.hasNext()){
System.out.println(it.next().toString());
}
}
}
and to test it, we create and instance of TestClass add 3 Aircraft instances and print out the contents
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestClass tc = new TestClass();
tc.addAircraft(new Aircraft());
tc.addAircraft(new Aircraft());
tc.addAircraft(new Aircraft());
tc.printAircraft();
}
This would be the case if you are to write the TestClass. If that is given, it would help to know what it looks like - maybe that would help us understand better.

Class Cast Exception while adding Objects to Apache Pool

I'm trying to figure out how to implement Apache Pool 2 (I'm using 2.5). As an initial POC I created an Employee Object with firstName, lastName, employeeId and age (Observer Pattern). I created an EmployeeObjectFactory which implements PooledObjectFactory and in the main class I was trying to add objects of Employee class. But I'm getting a class cast exception(EmployeeObjects cannot be cast to PooledObjects). So what changes do I need to make to my EmployeeObjects?
Employee Class
public class Employee{
private String firstName;
// omitting the getters and setters for other fields
public static class Builder {
private String firstName = "Unsub";
// declared and initialized lastName, emailId and age
public Builder firstName(String val) {
firstName = val;
return this;
}
// Similarly for other values
public EmployeeObject build() {
return new EmployeeObject(this);
}
}
private EmployeeObject(Builder builder) {
firstName = builder.firstName;
// omitting rest of the code
}
}
In the EmployeeObjectFactory
public class EmployeeObjectFactory implements PooledObjectFactory<EmployeeObject> {
#Override
public PooledObject<EmployeeObject> makeObject() {
return (PooledObject<EmployeeObject>) new EmployeeObject.Builder().build(); // This is where I'm getting the class cast
}
// Omitting rest of the code
}
Main Class
public static void main(String arg[]) throws Exception {
GenericObjectPool employeeObjectPool = new GenericObjectPool(new EmployeeObjectFactory());
employeeObjectPool.addObject();
I have tried to add as much little code as possible, because even I hate going through loads of code. Any help would be appreciated.

Finally got the answer after reading through the Apache Docs. DefaultPooledObject is what I need to use. DefaultPooledObject - "Create a new instance that wraps the provided object so that the pool can track the state of the pooled object." In the makeObject() function, I returned a DefaultPooledObject. So my code would look like
#Override
public PooledObject<EmployeeObject> makeObject() {
return new DefaultPooledObject<>(new EmployeeObject.Builder().build());
}

Is my scenario come under Prototype Design Pattern?

Scenario 1 :
I am generating a report for more department's performance and participation in a institute. When I am display the report in GUI, it can be sort by department performance and participation(No.of student participated).
For this scenario, should i use Prototype Design pattern?
Ex :
public abstract class Report implements Cloneable {
private String id;
protected String type;
public void setId(String id){
id=id;
}
public String getId(){
return id;
}
public String getType(){
return type;
}
abstract void getReportData();
public Object clone() {
Object clone = null;
try {
clone = super.clone();
} catch (CloneNotSupportedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return clone;
}
}
public class PerformanceReport extends Report {
public PerformanceReport(){
type = "Performance";
}
#Override
public void getReportData() {
/* Get report data from database and sort based on performance*/
}
}
public class ParticipationReport extends Report {
public ParticipationReport(){
type = "Participation";
}
#Override
public void getReportData() {
/* Get report data from database and sort based on participation*/
}
}
public class ReportCache {
private static Hashtable<String, Report> reportMap = new Hashtable<String, Report>();
public static Report getReport(String reportid) {
Report cachedReport = reportMap.get(reportid);
return (Report) cachedReport.clone();
}
public static void loadCache() {
ParticipationReport participationReport = new ParticipationReport();
participationReport.setId("1");
reportMap.put(report.getId(),report);
PerformanceReport performanceReport = new PerformanceReport();
performancenReport.setId("2");
reportMap.put(report.getId(),report);
}
}
public class PrototypePatternReport {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ReportCache.loadCache();
Report clonedReport = (Report) ReportCache.getReport("1");
System.out.println("Report : " + clonedReport.getType());
Report clonedReport2 = (Report) ReportCache.getReport("2");
System.out.println("Report : " + clonedReport2.getType());
}
}
Is my above concept is correct ? and this concept is relevant to Prototype-pattern?
Scenario 2 :
I am storing quiz detail (questions and options, answers) in a object, while student request for quiz, I should encrypt the answer and give. For encrypted answer i should keep another object to give. I this scenario can i use prototype? After response come from student I should compare the student answer with existing object.

Prototype pattern is often useful when object initialization is expensive or when you explicitly need an object that is a copy of another.
Scenario 1:
In your case, getting report data from database and sorting it is much more expensive than instantiating an object, and each report will consist on its own data (you will not benefit from copying from another object) so I would not consider using a prototype.
Scenario 2:
In this scenario, the key is
For encrypted answer i should keep another object to give
In this case, as you need another object and you need to ensure that the second object is an exact copy of the first, you could use a prototype to create the second object, and then change its properties to ensure that the answers are hidden.

Java-How do I call a class with a string?

I am a beginner programmer and this is my first question on this forum.
I am writing a simple text adventure game using BlueJ as a compiler, and I am on a Mac. The problem I ran into is that I would like to make my code more self automated, but I cannot call a class with a string. The reason I want call the class and not have it all in an if function is so that I may incorporate more methods.
Here is how it will run currently:
public class textadventure {
public method(String room){
if(room==street){street.enterRoom();}
}
}
public class street{
public enterRoom(){
//do stuff and call other methods
}
}
The if statement tests for every class/room I create. What I would like the code to do is automatically make the string room into a class name that can be called. So it may act like so:
Public method(string room){
Class Room = room;
Room.enterRoom();
}
I have already looked into using Class.forName, but all the examples were too general for me to understand how to use the function. Any help would be greatly appreciated, and if there is any other necessary information (such as more example code) I am happy to provide it.
-Sebastien
Here is the full code:
import java.awt.*;
import javax.swing.*;
public class Player extends JApplet{
public String textOnScreen;
public void start(){
room("street1");
}
public void room(String room){
if(room=="street1"){
textOnScreen=street1.enterRoom();
repaint();
}
if(room=="street2"){
textOnScreen=street2.enterRoom();
repaint();
}
}
public void paint(Graphics g){
g.drawString(textOnScreen,5,15);
}
}
public abstract class street1
{
private static String textToScreen;
public static String enterRoom(){
textToScreen = "You are on a street running from North to South.";
return textToScreen;
}
}
public abstract class street2
{
private static String textToScreen;
public static String enterRoom(){
textToScreen = "You are on another street.";
return textToScreen;
}
}

Seeing as you are rather new to programming, I would recommend starting with some programs that are simpler than a full-fledged adventure game. You still haven't fully grasped some of the fundamentals of the Java syntax. Take, for example, the HelloWorld program:
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String output = "Hello World!"
System.out.println(output);
}
}
Notice that public is lowercased. Public with a capital P is not the same as public.
Also notice that the String class has a capital S.* Again, capitalization matters, so string is not the same as String.
In addition, note that I didn't have to use String string = new String("string"). You can use String string = "string". This syntax runs faster and is easier to read.
When testing for string equality, you need to use String.equals instead of ==. This is because a == b checks for object equality (i.e. a and b occupy the same spot in memory) and stringOne.equals(stringTwo) checks to see if stringOne has the same characters in the same order as stringTwo regardless of where they are in memory.
Now, as for your question, I would recommend using either an Enum or a Map to keep track of which object to use.
For example:
public class Tester {
public enum Location {
ROOM_A("Room A", "You are going into Room A"),
ROOM_B("Room B", "You are going into Room B"),
OUTSIDE("Outside", "You are going outside");
private final String name;
private final String actionText;
private Location(String name, String actionText) {
this.name = name;
this.actionText = actionText;
}
public String getActionText() {
return this.actionText;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public static Location findByName(String name) {
name = name.toUpperCase().replaceAll("\\s+", "_");
try {
return Enum.valueOf(Location.class, name);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
return null;
}
}
}
private Location currentLocation;
public void changeLocation(String locationName) {
Location location = Location.findByName(locationName);
if (location == null) {
System.out.println("Unknown room: " + locationName);
} else if (currentLocation != null && currentLocation.equals(location)) {
System.out.println("Already in room " + location.getName());
} else {
System.out.println(location.getActionText());
currentLocation = location;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Tester tester = new Tester();
tester.changeLocation("room a");
tester.changeLocation("room b");
tester.changeLocation("room c");
tester.changeLocation("room b");
tester.changeLocation("outside");
}
}
*This is the standard way of formating Java code. Class names are PascalCased while variable names are camelCased.

String className=getClassName();//Get class name from user here
String fnName=getMethodName();//Get function name from user here
Class params[] = {};
Object paramsObj[] = {};
Class thisClass = Class.forName(className);// get the Class
Object inst = thisClass.newInstance();// get an instance
// get the method
Method fn = thisClass.getDeclaredMethod(fnName, params);
// call the method
fn.invoke(inst, paramsObj);

The comments below your question are true - your code is very rough.
Anyway, if you have a method like
public void doSomething(String str) {
if (str.equals("whatever")) {
// do something
}
}
Then call it like
doSomething("whatever");

In Java, many classes have attributes, and you can and will often have multiple instances from the same class.
How would you identify which is which by name?
For example
class Room {
List<Monster> monsters = new ArrayList <Monster> ();
public Room (int monstercount) {
for (int i = 0; i < monstercount; ++i)
monsters.add (new Monster ());
}
// ...
}
Monsters can have attributes, and if one of them is dead, you can identify it more easily if you don't handle everything in Strings.

java - an enum question

I have encountered a weird problem in my app (java).
I have an enum. Something like that
public enum myEnum implement myIntrface{
valueA(1),valueb(2),valuec(3),valued(4)
private int i;
// and then - a constructor
public MyEnum(int number){
i = number;
}
private MyObj obj = new MyObj;
// getter and setter for obj
}
and in another class I have this
MyEnum.valueA.setObj(new Obj(...))
in briefe - I have an enum with a private instance member that has a set and a get.
So far so good -
The only thing that amazes me is that later on I look at the value of the MyEnum.valueA().obj is null.
there is nothing that updates the value to null, I have even gave it a default value in the constructor and I still see it null later.
any suggestions?

Enums should be un-modifiable classes so you shouldn't really be doing this. If your looking to modify the state of a type based object like an enum you should use an final class approach with embedded constants. Below is an example of a class based approach with a modifiable name an a un-modifiable name...
public final class Connection {
public static final Connection EMAIL = new Connection("email");
public static final Connection PHONE = new Connection("phone");
public static final Connection FAX = new Connection("fax");
/**/
private final String unmodifiableName; //<-- it's final
private String modifiableName;
/*
* The constructor is private so no new connections can be created outside.
*/
private Connection(String name) {
this.unmodifiableName = name;
}
public String getUnmodifiableName() {
return unmodifiableName;
}
public String getModifiableName() {
return modifiableName;
}
public void setModifiableName(String modifiableName) {
this.modifiableName = modifiableName;
}
}

The purpose of enums is to represent constant values. It does not make any sense to set the fields of a constant value.
You should declare your fields as final, and use the constructor to initialize all of them.

For reference, the following code works as expected:
public class Test {
public static enum MyEnum {
valueA(1),valueb(2),valuec(3),valued(4);
private int i;
private Object o;
private MyEnum(int number) {
i = number;
}
public void set(Object o) {
this.o = o;
}
public Object get() {
return o;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(MyEnum.valueA.get()); // prints "null"
MyEnum.valueA.set(new Integer(42));
System.out.println(MyEnum.valueA.get()); // prints "42"
}
}

the cause of this problem is the db40 framework . It loads an enum from the db using reflection. This is well documented .
http://developer.db4o.com/Forums/tabid/98/aft/5439/Default.aspx