Is it possible to import and use two different classes with the same name and package in java?
For example, let's say I have two classes named "com.foo.Bar" that are slightly different. I'd like to be able to use both, but I have a restriction (because of stupid reflective crap) that forces me to keep the names and packages the same.
Is there some feature of java that would allow me to import and isolate each of these classes?
To elaborate, I changed my avro schemas in ways that they shouldn't have ever been changed (oops!) and now I'd like to go back and change the old avro files that can't be read with my new schema into files that can be read by my new schema. Avro seems to force you to use a specific class and package name to load the files.
Yes there is. You would need to implement your own Classloader and play some games to be able to access both during runtime.
I'm sure this is possible, because I ran into a very hard to debug issue where someone had a weird Classloader in their product that was messing up loading libraries and providing 2 different versions of the same file from 2 different versions of the library.
However, this sounds like an INCREDIBLY bad idea. I'd go back and find a different way of fixing your issue. This will only bring you heartache in the long run. Heck, it probably already is, as you investigate class loaders.
EDIT: To be specific, you cannot "import" both. But you can access both at runtime.
No, java packages are used precisely to avoid that problem.
Yes it is. It does require you to make your own ClassLoader, though
I had made a demo of that on github to!
If you really most definitely must do something like this, you can achieve it by using different classloaders and possibly reflection.
This is not the way Java works and it's not allowed on purpose - you shouldn't be doing stupid things which will screw up things for you.
There are no namespaces in Java, only in C#, so I assume you mean packages. There can only be one fully qualified name per project.
Technically it can be done using some low-level trickery such as rewriting the byte-level code. As far as I know the different java crypter/encrypters work like that - they have a lot of classes called A.class B.class C.class etc.
It sounds to me like you need to define your method signatures in an interface called com.foo.Bar. Then provide two different concrete implementations of the interface (say, com.foo.DefaultBar, and com.foo.SpecialBar). This way, you can program against the interface type, and switch between the two different implementations as required.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "reflective crap"? That may provide insight into your exact issue.
Don't mess with the class loader or any other low level trickery. The best way to solve such issues it to have a clear design in the first place that anyone can understand.
As already mentioned writing your own Classloader or additionally use a OSGi framework like Equinox which does the classloading for you
Related
I have created a library which supports an application, however in the newest version of the application the developer has changed the structure without changing the class names.
So version 1 of the application has classX in package A but version 2 has classX in package B. How can I develop my library in a way which allows supporting both of these in the same build?
Edit: My library is dependent on the application, not the other way around.
That is a bad decision, if you still want to make it work you need to provide skeleton classes with old structure and delegate calls to new version of class but it would get very dirty
better to not provide backward compatibility if you are firm with the renaming decision
Short answer: You can't.
Real answer: Your library should be able to exist independently of any application that uses it. The purpose of a library is to provide a set of reusable, modular code that you can use in any application. If your library is directly dependent on application classes, then it seems like a redesign should be seriously considered, as your dependencies are backwards. For example, have A.classX and B.classX both implement some interface (or extend some class) that your library provides, then have the application pass instances of those objects, or Class's for those objects, to the library.
If your "library" can't be designed this way then consider integrating it into application code, making it a direct part of the application, and come up with a better team workflow for you, the other developer, and others to work on the same project together.
Quick fix answer: Do not provide backward compatibility, as Jigar Joshi states in his answer.
Bad answer: You could hack a fragile solution together with reflection if you really had to. But please note that the "real answer" is going to last in the long run. You are already seeing the issues with the design you have currently chosen (hence your question), and a reflection based solution isn't going to prevent that from happening again (or even be reliable).
In the past few weeks, I've run into several different peoples' code using .class objects. For example, ArrayList of classes : ArrayList<Class> but how to force those classes to extend some super class?.
I looked them up: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/reflect/class/index.html
I'm just wondering why you'd want to use .class objects. I can see getDeclaredFields() and getDeclaredMethods() being potentially useful, but I can't really think of concrete examples as to why I'd actually want to use the .class objects in lieu of something else. Could anyone shed some light on this topic?
Thanks in advance.
I think you misunderstood the concept. Class class has nothing to do with compiled classes (.class).
Class is a class that represents a Java class internal structure, such as fields, methods, etc... This is a compile-time entity, which you can use in your code (even before compiling).
.class is a compiled Java class file, which is Java bytecode. This is not a "code" entity (you cannot use it as a class or object in your code -besides as any file-) and it is not available before compilation.
Reflection (Class is part of the reflection package) is useful when you want to do advanced stuff with the code, like manipulating it, accessing its members, getting information from it, etc...
A typical example where you want to use reflection is making a Java debugger. Since any code can be run on the debugger, you need reflection to get information about the object instances and their structure and show this to the user.
Reflection is one reason to use it. Another good example is dynamically constructing objects at runtime.
For example, the Spring framework uses configuration files that contain the names of Java classes. Somewhere in that code, Spring needs to build object instances of those classes. In this way, the objects are created without the compiler needing to know anything about the Java classes at compile time.
This can be useful when developing an interpreter of a scripting language running on JVM, which has an ability to call Java methods.
Also, might be useful in a system allowing for plugin extensions.
Another use case:
InputStream is = MyClass.class.getResourceAsStream("/some/resource/in/the/jar");
Plug-in are a big use for this.
Dynamically load .class files which are in say, your plugins folder and execute some specified function from said files. Then, you can have 0 or more plug-ins and any combination of them installed for your application at a time.
As good as the Java API is, I need to change the code of some classes in the default API packages (for example java.util.Scanner) for a project I am working on.
Ideally, I would extend the classes I am interested and create my own sub-classes, but the classes I want to extend are declared 'final'. How do you suggest I do this? Will I get into trouble with the compiler if I customize the source code of these packages?
If you can, you should rather wrap and delegate, as suggested in another answer. See the Adapter Pattern.
But there are of course ways to do this if you really need it.
A straightforward approach is to simply modify the code in downloaded sources and substitute your own version of a jar in the classpath.
Another option is to use aspect-oriented programming techniques, likely with AspectJ to intercept and modify calls as needed.
It might also be possible to hack together a solution using reflection and home-grown classloaders, but it will be painful to code.
All of these are however quite risky if you don't know what you're doing. Frequently classes are made final for good reason.
If you tell us more specifically what it is you're hoping to change, we might be able to provide assistance in avoiding what you currently think you need.
you really cant extend a final class..
if u really want to add a functionality by extending a class you can do it by modifying class src. from JDK and save it as your own class and use it.
Don't do that. Write your own code which wraps around the original scanner and use that. To update internal packages, there is an endorsed directory property which you can provide at runtime.
Never do it! Never change core classes. If class is final - use composition not inheritance.
As a best-practice, is it ok for interfaces / classes in higher level packages to depend on interfaces / classes in lower level packages?
e.g.
can com.company.core.SomeClass depend on com.company.core.apackage.AnotherClass
Or should the dependencies flow the other way? I am trying to eliminate cycles between packages.
Typically, a user of a package might be interested in com.company.functionality.MainUse, which is implemented using com.company.functionality.implementationdetail.FiddleWithStuff, so I'd say you have to accept dependencies in that direction.
But the other direction is probably necessary as well, as implementation detail classes may need to implement interfaces that is part of the interface to the functionality.
So, unfortunatley, I think a strict directionality like that isn't a workable way to avoid cycles.
They usually flow the other way. com.mycompany.myproduct.Widget is an interface, and com.mycompany.myproduct.fancy.Button implements it.
There are however big exceptions to this general rule, and there is no reasons why it should be a rule.
Packages themselves are simply folders, except for primitive access rules on methods and fields.
What is far more important are dependencies between bundles, that is (in their basic form) jars. Having jar A depend on jar B depending on jar C depending again on jar A is a real problem. If you have the same circle between packages in the same jar, it can cause frustration in people who read or debug your code, or in elitists reading it, but is not a big issue.
Such dependencies are common even in the Java API itself.
Look at: http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/awt/image/renderable/package-use.html
You can see that classes in java.awt use classes in java.awt.image.renderable.
(ADDENDUM) Bottom line: Both directions are used in practice. One is not, IMHO, necessarily better than the other.
Sure, you're using the so-called top-down approach, a package depends on its subpackages but not vice versa.
The bottom-up approach would be the other way around, a package would depend on its parent packages but not vice versa.
Either way is fine as long as you are able to maintain consistency, but the top-down approach is easier and more common.
This is for an Android application but I'm broadening the question to Java as I don't know how this is usually implemented.
Assuming you have a project that targets a specific SDK version. A new release of the SDK is backward incompatible and requires changing three lines in one class.
How is this managed in Java without duplicating any code(or by duplicating the least amount)?
I don't want to create two projects for only 3 lines that are different.
What I'm trying to achieve in the end is a single executable that'll work for both versions. In C/C++, you'd have a #define based on the version. How do I achieve the same thing in Java?
Edit: after reading the comments about the #define, I realized there were two issues I was merging into one:
So first issue is, how do I not
duplicate code ? What construct is there that is the equivalent of a
#define in C.
The second one is: is it possible
to bundle everything in the same
executable? (this is less of a
concern as the first one).
It depends heavily on the incompatibility. If it is simply behavior, you can check the java.version system property and branch the code accordingly (for three lines, something as simple as an if statement).
If, however, it is a lack of a class or something similar that will throw an error when the class is loaded or when the code gets closer to execution (not necessarily something you can void reasonably by checking before calling), then the solution gets a lot harder. The notion of having a separate version is the cleanest from a code point of view, but it does mean you have to distribute two versions.
Another solution is reflection. Don't reference the class directly, call it via reflection (test for the methods or classes to determine what environment you are currently running in and execute the methods). This is probably the "official" approach in that reflection exists to deal with classes that you don't have or don't know you will have at compile time. It is just being applied to libraries within the JDK. It gets very ugly very fast, however. For three lines of code, it's ok, but doing anything extensive is going to get bad.
The last thing I can think of is to write common denominator code - that is code that gets the job done in both, finding another way to do it that doesn't trigger the problematic class or method.
I would isolate the code that needs to be different in a separate class (or multiple classes if necessary), and include / exclude them when building the project for the different versions.
So i would have like src/java/org/myproj/Foo.java which is the common stuff, and then oldversion/java/org/myproj/Bar.java and newversion/java/org/myproj/Bar.java which is the different implementations of the class that uses changed api.
Then I either compile "src/java and oldversion/java" or "src/java and newversion/java".
Possibly a similar situation, I had a method which wasn't available in the previous version of the JDK but if it was there I wanted to call it, I didn't want to force people to use the more recent version though. I used reflection to look for the method, if it was there I called it, if it wasn't I didn't.
Pretty hacky but might give you what you want.
Addressing Java in general, I see two primary approaches.
1). Refactor the specific code to its own library. Have different versions of that library. Effectively your app is creating an abstaction above the different SDKs. Heavyweight for 3 lines of code, but perhaps quite reasonable for larger scale problems.
2). Injection using annotation. Write your own annotation processor to manage the appropriate injection. More work, but maybe more fun.
Separate changing code in different classes with the same interface. Place classes in the same jar. Use factory design pattern to instantiate one or another class depending on SDK version.