We Keep Coding

Maintain path constants for RestControllers

I'd like to know whats the common style to maintain path constants for Rest Controllers.
For example you have something like that:
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET, value = ANY_PATH_VALUE)
I do maintain those constants (in the example ANY_PATH_VALUE) at the moment in a class called PathConstants which looks like this:
public abstract class PathConstants {
public static final String ANY_PATH_VALUE = "/path/{SOME_ID}";
...
}
Is it a common way to keep those values straight at the method of the RestController class or is it like I do currently? Or is there a even more common way how to maintain this kind of stuff?

There are two sides to this,
It actually has close to zero performance problem. This has to something with readability.
The first view is keeping the values as native strings there itself in the controllers. This is more readable in the sense that you can directly check the exact API route when you enter the controller.
The second view is keeping it in some other file with static constants. Keeping all the routes like this actually gives you one common place where you can get to know all the API routes you currently support in your application.
I personally prefer the second i.e. keeping all the paths in a file called APIRoutes and further divided by domains.
public class APIRoutes {
public class SYSTEM {
public static final String HEALTH_CHECK = "api/v1/healthcheck";
public static final String LB_HEALTH_CHECK = "lb/v1/healthcheck";
}
public class API {
public static final String SAVE_X = "api/v1/save";
public static final String GET_X = "api/v1/get";
}
public class CACHE {
public static final String RELOAD_X = "cache/v1/load/x";
public static final String RELOAD_Y = "cache/v1/load/y";
}
}
This way in your controller, you have something like
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET, value = APIRoutes.API.SAVE_X)

Using constants seems to be a quite reasonable approach. I would, however, define the constants in a final class with a private constructor throwing an AssertionError to enforce noninstantiability:
public final class PathConstants {
// Suppress default constructor for noninstantiability
private PathConstants() {
throw new AssertionError("No instances for you!");
}
public static final String PATH_TO_FOO = "foo";
public static final String PATH_TO_BAR = "bar";
}
Quoting the Item 4 from Effective Java 3rd edition from Joshua Bloch:
Because the explicit constructor is private, it is inaccessible outside the class. The AssertionError isn’t strictly required, but it provides insurance in case the constructor is accidentally invoked from within the class. It guarantees the class will never be instantiated under any circumstances. This idiom is mildly counterintuitive because the constructor is provided expressly so that it cannot be invoked. It is therefore wise to include a comment, as shown earlier.
As a side effect, this idiom also prevents the class from being subclassed. All constructors must invoke a superclass constructor, explicitly or implicitly, and a subclass would have no accessible superclass constructor to invoke.
You also could use something like #RequestMapping("${foo.bar}"), where foo.bar is a value defined in a property souce (such as an application.properties file or YAML variant).
Quoting the Spring MVC documentation:
URI path patterns can also have embedded ${…​} placeholders that are resolved on startup by using PropertyPlaceHolderConfigurer against local, system, environment, and other property sources. You can use this, for example, to parameterize a base URL based on some external configuration.

I think it is a reasonable way to maintain paths. Just make sure you always build the paths from other constants. For example, if your path has version, you define the version as another variable.
public static final String VERSION_1 = "/v1";
public static final String USERS_V1 = VERSION_1 + "/users";

What is the best way of reading configuration parameters from configuration file in Java?

Let us assume up to runtime we do not know what are the details of configuration(may user need to configure these parameters in config file before running the application.
I want to read those configuration details and need to reuse them wherever I need them in my application. For that I want to make them as global constants(public static final).
So, My doubt is, is there any performance implications if I read from config file directly from the required class? since,runtime values I can not directly put in separate Interface.
I am thinking it will impact performance.Please suggest me any better way to do this.
UPDATE: Can I use separate final class for configuration details?
putting all configuration details as constants in a separate public final class
(To read all configuration details at once from the configuration file and storing them as global constants for later use in application)

I am thinking it will impact performance.
I doubt that this will be true.
Assuming that the application reads the configuration file just once at startup, the time taken to read the file is probably irrelevant to your application's overall performance. Indeed, the longer the application runs, the less important startup time will be.
Standard advice is to only optimize for application performance when you have concrete evidence (i.e. measurements) to say that performance is a significant issue. Then, only optimize those parts of your code that profiling tells you are really a performance bottleneck.
Can I use separate final class for configuration details
Yes it is possible to do that. Nobody is going to stop you1.
However, it is a bad idea. Anything that means that you need to recompile your code to change configuration parameters is a bad idea. IMO.
To read all configuration details at once from the configuration file and storing them as global constants for later use in application.
Ah ... so you actually want to read the values of the "constants" instead of hard-wiring them.
Yes, that is possible. And it makes more sense than hard-wiring configuration parameters into the code. But it is still not a good idea (IMO).
Why? Well lets look at what the code has to look like:
public final class Config {
public static final int CONST_1;
public static final String CONST_2;
static {
int c1;
String c2;
try (Scanner s = new Scanner(new File("config.txt"))) {
c1 = s.nextInt();
c2 = s.next();
} catch (IOException ex) {
throw RuntimeException("Cannot load config properties", ex);
}
CONST_1 = c1;
CONST_2 = c2;
}
}
First observation is that makes no difference that the class is final. It is declaring the fields as final that makes them constant. (Declaring the class as final prevents subclassing, but that has no impact on the static fields. Static fields are not affected by inheritance.)
Next observation is that this code is fragile in a number of respects:
If something goes wrong in the static initializer block. the unchecked exception that is thrown by the block will get wrapped as an ExceptionInInitializerError (yes ... it is an Error!!), and the Config class will be marked as erroneous.
If that happens, there is no realistic hope of recovering, and it possibly even a bad idea to try and diagnose the Error.
The code above gets executed when the Config class is initialized, but determining when that happens can be tricky.
If the configuration filename is a parameter, then you have the problem of getting hold of the parameter value ... before the static initialization is triggered.
Next, the code is pretty messy compared with loading the state into a instance variables. And that messiness is largely a result of having to work within the constraints of static initializers. Here's what the code looks like if you use final instance variables instead.
public final class Config {
public final int CONST_1;
public final String CONST_2;
public Config(File file) throws IOException {
try (Scanner s = new Scanner(file)) {
CONST_1 = s.nextInt();
CONST_2 = s.next();
}
}
}
Finally, the performance benefits of static final fields over final fields are tiny:
probably one or two machine instructions each time you access one of the constants,
possibly nothing at all if the JIT compiler is smart, and you handle the singleton Config reference appropriately.
In either case, in the vast majority of cases the benefits will be insignificant.
1 - OK ... if your code is code-reviewed, then someone will probably stop you.

Have you ever heard of apache commons configuration http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/ ?
It is the best configuration reader I have ever found and even am using it in my application which is running in production since 1 year. Never found any issues, very easy to understand and use, great performance. I know its a bit of dependency to your application but trust me you will like it.
All you need to do is
Configuration config = new ConfigSelector().getPropertiesConfiguration(configFilePath);
String value = config.getString("key");
int value1 = config.getInt("key1");
String[] value2 = config.getStringArray("key2");
List<Object> value3 = config.getList("key3");
And thats it. Your config object will hold all the config values and you can just pass that object to as many classes as you want. With so many available helpful methods you can extract whichever type of key you want.

It will be only one time cost if you are putting them in a property file and reading the file at the start of your application and initialize all the parameters as system parameters(System.setProperty) and then define constants in your code like
public static final String MY_CONST = System.getProperty("my.const");
But ensure the initialization at start of your application before any other class is loaded.

There are different types of configuration.
Usually some sort of bootstrapping configuration, for example to connect to a database or service, is needed to be able to start the application. The J2EE way to specify database connection parameters is via a 'datasource' specified in your container's JNDI registry (Glassfish, JBoss, Websphere, ...). This datasource is then looked up by name in your persistence.xml. In non-J2EE applications it is more common to specify these in a Spring context or even a .properties file. In any case, you usually need something to connect your application to some sort of data store.
After bootstrapping to a data store an option is to manage config values inside this datastore. For example if you have a database you can use a separate table (represented by e.g. a JPA Entity in your application) for configuration values. If you don't want/need this flexibility you can use simple .properties file for this instead. There is good support for .properties files in Java (ResourceBundle) and in frameworks like Spring. The vanilla ResourceBundle just loads the properties once, the Spring helper offers configurable caching and reloading (this helps with the performance aspect which you mentioned). Note: you can also use Properties backed by a data store instead of a file.
Often both approaches coexist in an application. Values that never change within a deployed application (like the application name) can be read from a properties file. Values that might need to be changed by an application maintainer at runtime without redeployment (e.g. the session timeout interval) might better be kept in a reloadable .properties file or in a database. Values that can be changed by users of the application should be kept in the application's data store and usually have an in-application screen to edit them.
So my advise is to separate your configuration settings into categories (e.g. bootstrap, deployment, runtime and application) and select an appropriate mechanism to manage them. This also depends on the scope of your application, i.e. is it a J2EE web app, a desktop app, command-line utility, a batch process?

What kind of configuration file do you have in mind? If it is a properties file, this might suit you:
public class Configuration {
// the configuration file is stored in the root of the class path as a .properties file
private static final String CONFIGURATION_FILE = "/configuration.properties";
private static final Properties properties;
// use static initializer to read the configuration file when the class is loaded
static {
properties = new Properties();
try (InputStream inputStream = Configuration.class.getResourceAsStream(CONFIGURATION_FILE)) {
properties.load(inputStream);
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Failed to read file " + CONFIGURATION_FILE, e);
}
}
public static Map<String, String> getConfiguration() {
// ugly workaround to get String as generics
Map temp = properties;
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>(temp);
// prevent the returned configuration from being modified
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
public static String getConfigurationValue(String key) {
return properties.getProperty(key);
}
// private constructor to prevent initialization
private Configuration() {
}
}
You could also return the Properties object immediately from the getConfiguration() method, but then it could potentially be modified by the code that access it. The Collections.unmodifiableMap() does not make the configuration constant (since the Properties instance gets its values by the load() method after it was created), however since it is wrapped in an unmodifiable map, the configuration cannot be changed by other classes.

Well this is a great problem which is faced in every one's life once in a will. Now coming to the problem, this can be solved by creating a singleton class which has instance variables same as in configuration file with default values. Secondly this class should have a method like getInstance() which reads the properties once and every times returns the same object if it exists. For reading file we can use Environmental variable to get path or something like System.getenv("Config_path");. Reading the properties (readProperties() method) should read each item from config file and set the value to the instance variables of singleton object. So now a single object contains all the configuration parameter's value and also if the parameter is empty than default value is considered.

One more way is to define a class and read the properties file in that class.
This class needs to be at the Application level and can be marked as Singleton.
Marking the class as Singleton will avoid multiple instances to be created.

Putting configuration keys directly to classes is bad: configuration keys will be scattered over the code. Best practice is separation of application code and configuration code. Usually dependency injection framework like spring is used. It loads a configuration file and constructs the objects using configuration values. If you need some configuration value in your class you should create a setter for this value. Spring will set this value during context initialization.

I recommend using JAXB or a similar binding framework that works with text based files. Since a JAXB implementation is part of the JRE, it's pretty easy to use. As Denis I advise against configuration keys.
Here is a simple example for an easy to use and still pretty mighty way to configure you application with XML and JAXB. When you use a DI framework you can just add a similar config object to the DI context.
#XmlRootElement
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
public class ApplicationConfig {
private static final JAXBContext CONTEXT;
public static final ApplicationConfig INSTANCE;
// configuration properties with defaults
private int number = 0;
private String text = "default";
#XmlElementWrapper
#XmlElement(name = "text")
private List<String> texts = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList("default1", "default2"));
ApplicationConfig() {
}
static {
try {
CONTEXT = JAXBContext.newInstance(ApplicationConfig.class);
} catch (JAXBException ex) {
throw new IllegalStateException("JAXB context for " + ApplicationConfig.class + " unavailable.", ex);
}
File applicationConfigFile = new File(System.getProperty("config", new File(System.getProperty("user.dir"), "config.xml").toString()));
if (applicationConfigFile.exists()) {
INSTANCE = loadConfig(applicationConfigFile);
} else {
INSTANCE = new ApplicationConfig();
}
}
public int getNumber() {
return number;
}
public String getText() {
return text;
}
public List<String> getTexts() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(texts);
}
public static ApplicationConfig loadConfig(File file) {
try {
return (ApplicationConfig) CONTEXT.createUnmarshaller().unmarshal(file);
} catch (JAXBException ex) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Could not load configuration from " + file + ".", ex);
}
}
// usage
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getNumber());
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getText());
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getTexts());
}
}
The configuration file looks like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<applicationConfig>
<number>12</number>
<text>Test</text>
<texts>
<text>Test 1</text>
<text>Test 2</text>
</texts>
</applicationConfig>

protected java.util.Properties loadParams() throws IOException {
// Loads a ResourceBundle and creates Properties from it
Properties prop = new Properties();
URL propertiesFileURL = this.getClass().getResource("/conf/config.properties");
prop.load(new FileInputStream(new File(propertiesFileURL.getPath())));
return prop;
}
Properties prop = loadParams();
String prop1=(String) prop.get("x.y.z");

Given the prevalence of YML to express configuration, I'd recommend creating a YML file with the configuration inside it and then loading that once, at startup, into a POJO, then accessing the fields of that POJO to get the configuration:
user: someuser
password: somepassword
url: jdbc://mysql:3306/MyDatabase
With Java Class
public class Config {
private String user;
private String password;
private String url;
// getters/setters
Jackson can be used to load YML as can SnakeYml directly.
On top of this, you could use the OS project I've been working on - https://github.com/webcompere/lightweight-config - which allows you to wrap this up, and even express placeholders in your file to interpolate environment variables:
user: ${USER}
password: ${PASSWORD}
url: jdbc://${DB_HOST}:3306/MyDatabase
then
Config config = ConfigLoader.loadYmlConfigFromResource("config.yml", Config.class);

How to call getClass() from a static method in Java?

I have a class that must have some static methods. Inside these static methods I need to call the method getClass() to make the following call:
public static void startMusic() {
URL songPath = getClass().getClassLoader().getResource("background.midi");
}
However Eclipse tells me:
Cannot make a static reference to the non-static method getClass()
from the type Object
What is the appropriate way to fix this compile time error?

The Answer
Just use TheClassName.class instead of getClass().
Declaring Loggers
Since this gets so much attention for a specific usecase--to provide an easy way to insert log declarations--I thought I'd add my thoughts on that. Log frameworks often expect the log to be constrained to a certain context, say a fully-qualified class name. So they are not copy-pastable without modification. Suggestions for paste-safe log declarations are provided in other answers, but they have downsides such as inflating bytecode or adding runtime introspection. I don't recommend these. Copy-paste is an editor concern, so an editor solution is most appropriate.
In IntelliJ, I recommend adding a Live Template:
Use "log" as the abbreviation
Use private static final org.slf4j.Logger logger = org.slf4j.LoggerFactory.getLogger($CLASS$.class); as the template text.
Click Edit Variables and add CLASS using the expression className()
Check the boxes to reformat and shorten FQ names.
Change the context to Java: declaration.
Now if you type log<tab> it'll automatically expand to
private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(ClassName.class);
And automatically reformat and optimize the imports for you.

As for the code example in the question, the standard solution is to reference the class explicitly by its name, and it is even possible to do without getClassLoader() call:
class MyClass {
public static void startMusic() {
URL songPath = MyClass.class.getResource("background.midi");
}
}
This approach still has a back side that it is not very safe against copy/paste errors in case you need to replicate this code to a number of similar classes.
And as for the exact question in the headline, there is a trick posted in the adjacent thread:
Class currentClass = new Object() { }.getClass().getEnclosingClass();
It uses a nested anonymous Object subclass to get hold of the execution context. This trick has a benefit of being copy/paste safe...
Caution when using this in a Base Class that other classes inherit from:
It is also worth noting that if this snippet is shaped as a static method of some base class then currentClass value will always be a reference to that base class rather than to any subclass that may be using that method.

In Java7+ you can do this in static methods/fields:
MethodHandles.lookup().lookupClass()

I wrestled with this myself. A nice trick is to use use the current thread to get a ClassLoader when in a static context. This will work in a Hadoop MapReduce as well. Other methods work when running locally, but return a null InputStream when used in a MapReduce.
public static InputStream getResource(String resource) throws Exception {
ClassLoader cl = Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader();
InputStream is = cl.getResourceAsStream(resource);
return is;
}

Simply use a class literal, i.e. NameOfClass.class

Try it
Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[1].getClassName()
Or
Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[2].getClassName()

getClass() method is defined in Object class with the following signature:
public final Class getClass()
Since it is not defined as static, you can not call it within a static code block. See these answers for more information: Q1, Q2, Q3.
If you're in a static context, then you have to use the class literal expression to get the Class, so you basically have to do like:
Foo.class
This type of expression is called Class Literals and they are explained in Java Language Specification Book as follows:
A class literal is an expression consisting of the name of a class, interface, array, or primitive type followed by a `.' and the token class. The type of a class literal is Class. It evaluates to the Class object for the named type (or for void) as defined by the defining class loader of the class of the current instance.
You can also find information about this subject on API documentation for Class.

I had the same problem !
but to solve it just modify your code as following.
public static void startMusic() {
URL songPath = YouClassName.class.getClassLoader().getResource("background.midi");
}
this worked fine with me hope it will also work fine with you.

Suppose there is a Utility class, then sample code would be -
URL url = Utility.class.getClassLoader().getResource("customLocation/".concat("abc.txt"));
CustomLocation - if any folder structure within resources otherwise remove this string literal.

Try something like this. It works for me. Logg (Class name)
String level= "";
Properties prop = new Properties();
InputStream in =
Logg.class.getResourceAsStream("resources\\config");
if (in != null) {
prop.load(in);
} else {
throw new FileNotFoundException("property file '" + in + "' not found in the classpath");
}
level = prop.getProperty("Level");

java Properties - to expose or not to expose?

This might be an age old problem and I am sure everyone has their own ways.
Suppose I have some properties defined such as
secret.user.id=user
secret.password=password
website.url=http://stackoverflow.com
Suppose I have 100 different classes and places where I need to use these properties.
Which one is good
(1) I create a Util class that will load all properties and serve them using a key constant
Such as :
Util is a singleton that loads all properties and keeps up on getInstance() call.
Util myUtil = Util.getInstance();
String user = myUtil.getConfigByKey(Constants.SECRET_USER_ID);
String password = myUtil.getConfigByKey(Constants.SECRET_PASSWORD);
..
//getConfigByKey() - inturns invokes properties.get(..)
doSomething(user, password)
So wherever I need these properties, I can do steps above.
(2) I create a meaningful Class to represent these properties; say,
ApplicationConfig and provide getters to get specific properties.
So above code may look like:
ApplicationConfig config = ApplicationConfig.getInstance();
doSomething(config.getSecretUserId(), config.getPassword());
//ApplicationConfig would have instance variables that are initialized during
// getInstance() after loading from properties file.
Note: The properties file as such will have only minor changes in the future.
My personal choice is (2) - let me hear some comments?

Do it the most straightforward way (a class with static values):
package com.domain.packagename
public class Properties {
private static String hostName;
public static getHostName() { return hostName; }
private static int port;
public static int getPort() { return port; }
public static void load() {
//do IO stuff, probably
hostName = ??;
port = ??;
//etc
}
}

I find the first approach to be more verbose than necessary. (Especially if the properties are not expected to change very much.) Also, by using the second approach you can handle casting/type issues when the properties are loaded instead of when they are used.

Your option (2) to keep application specific getters sounds better and clean.
public static final keys from an interface had been a bad design in Java for ages.

I guess my first question is why you want to create an instance of something you're saying is a singleton (you mentioned using code like Util.getInstance()). A singleton only has 1 instance so you shouldn't try to instantiate multiple copies in your code.
If the data is static (like this appears to be) I'd create a singleton and retrieve the values from it.

I don't think there is any significant advantage of one method over the other and I don't think the solution (1) is more secure, just because it provides a property key instead of a java getter for getting passwords.
If I had to chose one though I would take option (2).

Refactoring Java factory method

There's something very unsatisfactory about this code:
/*
Given a command string in which the first 8 characters are the command name
padded on the right with whitespace, construct the appropriate kind of
Command object.
*/
public class CommandFactory {
public Command getCommand(String cmd) {
cmdName = cmd.subString(0,8).trim();
if(cmdName.equals("START")) {
return new StartCommand(cmd);
}
if(cmdName.equals("END")) {
return new EndCommand(cmd);
}
// ... more commands in more if blocks here
// else it's a bad command.
return new InvalidCommand(cmd);
}
}
I'm unrepentant about the multiple exit points - the structure is clear. But I'm not happy about the series of near-identical if statements. I've considered making a Map of Strings to Commands:
commandMap = new HashMap();
commandMap.put("START",StartCommand.class);
// ... etc.
... then using Reflection to make instances of the appropriate class looked up from the Map. However while conceptually elegant, this involves a fair amount of Reflection code that whoever inherits this code might not appreciate - although that cost might be offset by the benefits. All the lines hardcoding values into the commandMap smell almost as bad as the if block.
Even better would be if the factory's constructor could scan the classpath for subclasses of Command, query them for String representations, and automatically add them them to its repertoire.
So - how should I go about refactoring this?
I guess some of the frameworks out there give me this kind of thing for free. Let's assume I'm not in a position to migrate this stuff into such a framework.

How about the following code:
public enum CommandFactory {
START {
#Override
Command create(String cmd) {
return new StartCommand(cmd);
}
},
END {
#Override
Command create(String cmd) {
return new EndCommand(cmd);
}
};
abstract Command create(String cmd);
public static Command getCommand(String cmd) {
String cmdName = cmd.substring(0, 8).trim();
CommandFactory factory;
try {
factory = valueOf(cmdName);
}
catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
return new InvalidCommand(cmd);
}
return factory.create(cmd);
}
}
The valueOf(String) of the enum is used to find the correct factory method. If the factory doesn't exist it will throw an IllegalArgumentException. We can use this as a signal to create the InvalidCommand object.
An extra benefit is that if you can make the method create(String cmd) public if you would also make this way of constructing a Command object compile time checked available to the rest of your code. You could then use CommandFactory.START.create(String cmd) to create a Command object.
The last benefit is that you can easily create a list of all available command in your Javadoc documentation.

Your map of strings to commands I think is good. You could even factor out the string command name to the constructor (i.e. shouldn't StartCommand know that its command is "START"?) If you could do this, instantiation of your command objects is much simpler:
Class c = commandMap.get(cmdName);
if (c != null)
return c.newInstance();
else
throw new IllegalArgumentException(cmdName + " is not as valid command");
Another option is to create an enum of all your commands with links to the classes (assume all your command objects implement CommandInterface):
public enum Command
{
START(StartCommand.class),
END(EndCommand.class);
private Class<? extends CommandInterface> mappedClass;
private Command(Class<? extends CommandInterface> c) { mappedClass = c; }
public CommandInterface getInstance()
{
return mappedClass.newInstance();
}
}
since the toString of an enum is its name, you can use EnumSet to locate the right object and get the class from within.

With the exception of the
cmd.subString(0,8).trim();
part, this doesn't look too bad to me. You could go with the Map and use reflection, but, depending on how often you add/change commands, this might not buy you much.
You should probably document why you only want the first 8 characters, or maybe change the protocol so it's easier to figure out which part of that string is the command (e.g. put a marker like ':' or ';' after the command key-word).

Its not directly an answer to your question, but why don't you throw an InvalidCommandException (or something similar), rather then returning an object of type InvalidCommand?

Unless there is a reason they can't be I always try to make my command implementations stateless. If that's the case you can add a method boolean identifier(String id) method to your command interface which would tell whether this instance could be used for the given string identifier. Then your factory could look something like this (note: I did not compile or test this):
public class CommandFactory {
private static List<Command> commands = new ArrayList<Command>();
public static void registerCommand(Command cmd) {
commands.add(cmd);
}
public Command getCommand(String cmd) {
for(Command instance : commands) {
if(instance.identifier(cmd)) {
return cmd;
}
}
throw new CommandNotRegisteredException(cmd);
}
}

I like your idea, but if you want to avoid reflection you could add instead instances to the HashMap:
commandMap = new HashMap();
commandMap.put("START",new StartCommand());
Whenever you need a command, you just clone it:
command = ((Command) commandMap.get(cmdName)).clone();
And afterwards, you set the command string:
command.setCommandString(cmdName);
But using clone() doesn't sound as elegant as using reflection :(

Taking a Convetion vs Configuration approach and using reflection to scan for available Command objects and loading them into your map would be the way to go. You then have the ability to expose new Commands without a recompile of the factory.

Another approach to dynamically finding the class to load, would be to omit the explicit map, and just try to build the class name from the command string. A title case and concatenate algorithm could turn "START" -> "com.mypackage.commands.StartCommand", and just use reflection to try to instantiate it. Fail somehow (InvalidCommand instance or an Exception of your own) if you can't find the class.
Then you add commands just by adding one object and start using it.

One option would be for each command type to have its own factory. This gives you two advantages:
1) Your generic factory wouldn't call new. So each command type could in future return an object of a different class according to the arguments following the space padding in the string.
2) In your HashMap scheme, you could avoid reflection by, for each command class, mapping to an object implementing a SpecialisedCommandFactory interface, instead of mapping to the class itself. This object in practice would probably be a singleton, but need not be specified as such. Your generic getCommand then calls the specialised getCommand.
That said, factory proliferation can get out of hand, and the code you have is the simplest thing that does the job. Personally I'd probably leave it as it is: you can compare command lists in source and spec without non-local considerations like what might have previously called CommandFactory.registerCommand, or what classes have been discovered through reflection. It's not confusing. It's very unlikely to be slow for less than a thousand commands. The only problem is that you can't add new command types without modifying the factory. But the modification you'd make is simple and repetitive, and if you forget to make it you get an obvious error for command lines containing the new type, so it's not onerous.

Having this repetitive object creation code all hidden in the factory is not so bad. If it has to be done somewhere, at least it's all here, so I'd not worry about it too much.
If you really want to do something about it, maybe go for the Map, but configure it from a properties file, and build the map from that props file.
Without going the classpath discovery route (about which I don't know), you'll always be modifying 2 places: writing a class, and then adding a mapping somewhere (factory, map init, or properties file).

Thinking about this, You could create little instantiation classes, like:
class CreateStartCommands implements CommandCreator {
public bool is_fitting_commandstring(String identifier) {
return identifier == "START"
}
public Startcommand create_instance(cmd) {
return StartCommand(cmd);
}
}
Of course, this adds a whole bunch if tiny classes that can't do much more than say "yes, thats start, give me that" or "nope, don't like that", however, you can now rework the factory to contain a list of those CommandCreators and just ask each of it: "you like this command?" and return the result of create_instance of the first accepting CommandCreator. Of course it now looks kind of akward to extract the first 8 characters outside of the CommandCreator, so I would rework that so you pass the entire command string into the CommandCreator.
I think I applied some "Replace switch with polymorphism"-Refactoring here, in case anyone wonders about that.

I'd go for the map and creation via reflection. If scanning the class path is too slow, you can always add a custom annotation to the class, have an annotation processor running at compile time and store all class names in the jar metadata.
Then, the only mistake you can do is forgetting the annotation.
I did something like this a while ago, using maven and APT.

The way I do it is to not have a generic Factory method.
I like to use Domain Objects as my command objects. Since I use Spring MVC this is a great approach since the DataBinder.setAllowedFields method allows me a great deal of flexibility to use a single domain object for several different forms.
To get a command object, I have a static factory method on the Domain object class. For example, in the member class I'd have methods like -
public static Member getCommandObjectForRegistration();
public static Member getCommandObjectForChangePassword();
And so on.
I'm not sure that this is a great approach, I never saw it suggested anywhere and kind of just came up with it on my own b/c I like the idea of keeping things like this in one place. If anybody sees any reason to object please let me know in the comments...

I would suggest avoiding reflection if at all possible. It is somewhat evil.
You can make your code more concise by using the ternary operator:
return
cmdName.equals("START") ? new StartCommand (cmd) :
cmdName.equals("END" ) ? new EndCommand (cmd) :
new InvalidCommand(cmd);
You could introduce an enum. Making each enum constant a factory is verbose and also has some runtime memory cost. But you can eaily lookup an enum and then use that with == or switch.
import xx.example.Command.*;
Command command = Command.valueOf(commandStr);
return
command == START ? new StartCommand (commandLine) :
command == END ? new EndCommand (commandLine) :
new InvalidCommand(commandLine);

Go with your gut, and reflect. However, in this solution, your Command interface is now assumed to have the setCommandString(String s) method accessible, so that newInstance is easily useable. Also, commandMap is any map with String keys (cmd) to Command class instances that they correspond to.
public class CommandFactory {
public Command getCommand(String cmd) {
if(cmd == null) {
return new InvalidCommand(cmd);
}
Class commandClass = (Class) commandMap.get(cmd);
if(commandClass == null) {
return new InvalidCommand(cmd);
}
try {
Command newCommand = (Command) commandClass.newInstance();
newCommand.setCommandString(cmd);
return newCommand;
}
catch(Exception e) {
return new InvalidCommand(cmd);
}
}

Hmm, browsing, and only just came across this. Can I still comment?
IMHO there's nothing wrong with the original if/else block code. This is simple, and simplicity must always be our first call in design (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork)
This seems esp true as all the solutions offered are much less self documenting than the original code...I mean shouldn't we write our code for reading rather than translation...

At the very least, your command should have a getCommandString() -- where StartCommand overrides to return "START". Then you can just register or discover the classes.

+1 on the reflection suggestion, it will give you a more sane structure in your class.
Actually you could do the following (if you haven't thought about it already)
create methods corresponding to the String you'd be expecting as an argument to your getCommand() factory method, then all you have to do is reflect and invoke() these methods and return the correct object.