We Keep Coding

Tuple vs Class in Java

Are there any advantages of using Tuples instead of creating a new class in Java?
I've seen something like this a few times
return Pair.of (username, password);. And I've always wondered what kind of advantages it has in relation to something like this return new Credentials (username, password).

Java doesn't have a (first class) notion of tuples. Some projects and libraries introduce types like Pair or Tuple2/Tuple3/Tuple4/... to make up for it, but this is often considered poor style in Java.
By contrast returning a clearly-defined type like Credentials that provides not just structure but also type safety and meaningful getters for your data you make your code clearer, safer, and easier to work with. The Auto/Value project in particular makes it quick and painless to create value-types, making tuple-esque types all but unnecessary.

A Pair (Apache) is immutable, for one. You cannot change it’s values after creation. Many people do in fact choose to create their own class and add methods as necessary.
In general it’s considered better practise to make your own class. You can validate parameters and so on and have the ability to add additional functionality if the need arises.

As dimo414 says, the Pair class is often encountered in 3rd party libs; it has two advantages:
it makes defining a separate class for each key/value pairing unnecessary; so you don't need to define a Credential class. Of course, this should only be used to temporarily store data, not to be used within your implementation model.
Even if you do have a Credential class already, usually Pair is immutable, while the Credential class may not be. That means that it may provide setUsername() and setPassword() methods which you don't always want; using a Pair class makes sure both key and value remain unchanged.

Should my classes restrict developers from doing wrong things with them?

I am trying to understand where good contracts end and paranoia starts.
Really, I just have no idea what good developer should care about and what shall he leave out :)
Let's say I have a class that holds value(s), like java.lang.Integer. Its instances are aggregated by other objects (MappedObjects), (one-to-many or many-to-many), and often used inside MappedObjects' methods. For performance reasons, I also track these relationships in TreeMap (guava MultiMap, doesn't matter) in addition, to be able to get fast iterations over MappedObjects bound to some range of Integer keys.
So, to keep system in consistent state, I should modify MappedObject.bind(Integer integer) method to update my Map like:
class MappedObject {
public void bind (Integer integer) {
MegaMap.getInstance().remove(fInteger, this);
fInteger = integer;
MegaMap.getInstance().add(fInteger, this);
}
...
private Integer fInteger;
}
I could just make abstract MappedObject class with this final method, forcing other to inherit from it, but it is rude. If I will define MappedObject as interface with method bind() and provide skeletal implementation -- other developer might later just forget to include it in object and implement method by himself without Map updating.

Yes, you should force people to do the right thing with your code. A great example of letting people do the wrong thing is the servlet method init( ServletConfig config ) that expected you would store the servlet config yourself but, obviously, a lot of people forgot to store the config and when running their servlets just failed to work.
When defining APIs, you should always follow the open-closed principle, your class should be open for extension and closed for modification. If your class has to work like this, you should only open extension points where they make sense, all the other functionality should not be available for modification, as it could lead to implementation issues in the future.

Try to focus on functionality first and leave all unnecessary things behind. Btw you can't prohibit reflection so don't worry too much on misuse. On the other hand your API should be clear and straightforward so users will have clear idea, what they should and what they shouldn't do with it.

I'd say your classes should be designed for as simple use as possible.
If you allow a developer to override methods you definitely should document the contract as good as possible. In that case the developer opts to override some basic functionality and thus is responsible to provide an implementation that adheres to the contract.
In cases where you don't want the developer to override parts of the functionality - for security reasons, if there is no sensible alternative etc. - just make that part final. In your case, the bind method might look like this:
class MappedObject {
public final void bind (Integer integer) {
MegaMap.getInstance().remove(fInteger);
internalBind( integer );
MegaMap.getInstance().add(fInteger);
}
protected void internalBind( Integer integer ) {
fInteger = integer;
}
...
private Integer fInteger;
}
Here you'd allow the developer to override the internalBind() method but ensure that bind() will do the mapping.
To summarize: Make using and extending classes as easy as (sensibly) possible and don't have the developer to copy lots of boiler plate code (like the map updates in your case) in case he just wants to override some basic functionality (like the actual binding).

At least you should do really everything that prevents bugs but cost no effort.
For example: use primitive types (int) instead of wrappers (Integer) if the variable is not allowed to be null.
So in your bind method. If you not have intended to bind null, then use int instead of Integer as parameter type.

If you think your API users are stupid, you should prohibit wrong usage. Otherwise you should not stand in their way to do things they need to do.
Domumentation and good naming of classes and methods should indicate how to use your API.

Find serialization usage

I'm mantaining some application and I have a class marked as Serializable but I suspect that is not being serialized anywhere so the Serializable mark is not needed.
What is the best way to be sure of that? It's possible to determine this statically?
Thanks

Not directly. Generally, serialization happens when the object is being written to ObjectOutputStream, but this most often happen outside of your code (for example in libraries you are using, or in your container). So you have two options:
dynamically - define this method on your class. Thus you will eventually know if the class is being serialized, without breaking any functionality. But you'd need the system to be running:
private void writeObject(java.io.ObjectOutputStream out) {
out.defaultWriteObject();
log.info("Object of type " +
getClass().getName() + " is being serialized");
// optionally include a stacktrace here, or use a debugger, to see
// when exactly it happened
}
try to understand where is your object going. If it transferred over a network, or stored in a temporary storage (session, cache), then it should be Serializable. Otherwise, most probably, not.

I think it's impossible to determine statically, at least very hard - your object can be a part of non-generic collection, it can be used by reflection, etc.
What you can do is put some logging/debugging code in objects' readResolve() and writeReplace() methods, that are called by jvm when the object is serialized/deserialized.

I'm quite sure, that it can't be checked statically, except you don't use external libraries at all (which will not result in serious programs)
Perhaps you are using some sort of ORM like Hibernate, which in some cases need to have serializable object, or your object has to be sent through Web-Service or other middleware stacks like Corba where a serialization is done implicitly (when the object is marked as such).
What's the purpose of your class?

When NOT to use the static keyword in Java?

When is it considered poor practice to use the static keyword in Java on method signatures? If a method performs a function based upon some arguments, and does not require access to fields that are not static, then wouldn't you always want these types of methods to be static?

Two of the greatest evils you will ever encounter in large-scale Java applications are
Static methods, except those that are pure functions*
Mutable static fields
These ruin the modularity, extensibility and testability of your code to a degree that I realize I cannot possibly hope to convince you of in this limited time and space.
*A "pure function" is any method which does not modify any state and whose result depends on nothing but the parameters provided to it. So, for example, any function that performs I/O (directly or indirectly) is not a pure function, but Math.sqrt(), of course, is.
More blahblah about pure functions (self-link) and why you want to stick to them.
I strongly encourage you to favor the "dependency injection" style of programming, possibly supported by a framework such as Spring or Guice (disclaimer: I am co-author of the latter). If you do this right, you will essentially never need mutable static state or non-pure static methods.

One reason why you may not want it to be static is to allow it to be overridden in a subclass. In other words, the behaviour may not depend on the data within the object, but on the exact type of the object. For example, you might have a general collection type, with an isReadOnly property which would return false in always-mutable collections, true in always-immutable collections, and depend on instance variables in others.
However, this is quite rare in my experience - and should usually be explicitly specified for clarity. Normally I'd make a method which doesn't depend on any object state static.

In general, I prefer instance methods for the following reasons:
static methods make testing hard because they can't be replaced,
static methods are more procedural oriented.
In my opinion, static methods are OK for utility classes (like StringUtils) but I prefer to avoid using them as much as possible.

What you say is sort of true, but what happens when you want to override the behavior of that method in a derived class? If it's static, you can't do that.
As an example, consider the following DAO type class:
class CustomerDAO {
public void CreateCustomer( Connection dbConn, Customer c ) {
// Some implementation, created a prepared statement, inserts the customer record.
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID( Connection dbConn, int customerId ) {
// Implementation
}
}
Now, none of those methods require any "state". Everything they need is passed as parameters. So they COULD easily be static. Now the requirement comes along that you need to support a different database (lets say Oracle)
Since those methods are not static, you could just create a new DAO class:
class OracleCustomerDAO : CustomerDAO {
public void CreateCustomer( Connection dbConn, Customer c ) {
// Oracle specific implementation here.
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID( Connection dbConn, int customerId ) {
// Oracle specific implementation here.
}
}
This new class could now be used in place of the old one. If you are using dependancy injection, it might not even require a code change at all.
But if we had made those methods static, that would make things much more complicated as we can't simply override the static methods in a new class.

Static methods are usually written for two purposes. The first purpose is to have some sort of global utility method, similar to the sort of functionality found in java.util.Collections. These static methods are generally harmless. The second purpose is to control object instantiation and limit access to resources (such as database connections) via various design patterns such as singletons and factories. These can, if poorly implemented, result in problems.
For me, there are two downsides to using static methods:
They make code less modular and harder to test / extend. Most answers already addressed this so I won't go into it any more.
Static methods tend to result in some form of global state, which is frequently the cause of insidious bugs. This can occur in poorly written code that is written for the second purpose described above. Let me elaborate.
For example, consider a project that requires logging certain events to a database, and relies on the database connection for other state as well. Assume that normally, the database connection is initialized first, and then the logging framework is configured to write certain log events to the database. Now assume that the developers decide to move from a hand-written database framework to an existing database framework, such as hibernate.
However, this framework is likely to have its own logging configuration - and if it happens to be using the same logging framework as yours, then there is a good chance there will be various conflicts between the configurations. Suddenly, switching to a different database framework results in errors and failures in different parts of the system that are seemingly unrelated. The reason such failures can happen is because the logging configuration maintains global state accessed via static methods and variables, and various configuration properties can be overridden by different parts of the system.
To get away from these problems, developers should avoid storing any state via static methods and variables. Instead, they should build clean APIs that let the users manage and isolate state as needed. BerkeleyDB is a good example here, encapsulating state via an Environment object instead of via static calls.

That's right. Indeed, you have to contort what might otherwise be a reasonable design (to have some functions not associated with a class) into Java terms. That's why you see catch-all classes such as FredsSwingUtils and YetAnotherIOUtils.

when you want to use a class member independently of any object of that class,it should be declared static.
If it is declared static it can be accessed without an existing instance of an object of the class.
A static member is shared by all objects of that specific class.

An additional annoyance about static methods: there is no easy way to pass a reference to such a function around without creating a wrapper class around it. E.g. - something like:
FunctorInterface f = new FunctorInterface() { public int calc( int x) { return MyClass.calc( x); } };
I hate this kind of java make-work. Maybe a later version of java will get delegates or a similar function pointer / procedural type mechanism?
A minor gripe, but one more thing to not like about gratuitous static functions, er, methods.

Two questions here
1) A static method that creates objects stays loaded in memory when it is accessed the first time? Isnt this (remaining loaded in memory) a drawback?
2) One of the advantages of using Java is its garbage collection feature - arent we ignoring this when we use static methods?

Object Conversion Pattern

I have several different classes coming from external sources (unmodifiable) that represent the same concept. For example Address. I have com.namespace1.Address (with fields houseNum, street, city), com.namespace2.Address (with fields h, s, c), namespace3.com.CoolAddress (with fields house_num, street, city).
The problem is that certain web services I use require certain Address object types so I am required to create a com.namespace1.Address given a namespace3.com.CoolAddress. The fields are easy enough to map but I'm looking for a pattern on how to do it.
From my point of view, an instance object AddressConverter doesn't make sense as there is no state (only behaviour) and when classes only have behaviour it boils down to static methods in a utility class. In the long term, anytime I need to map new objects to one another, I have one place to add/modify/remove methods. How it's done might change, but I know where the code sits (in once place) and can change the mapping when I need to.
Thoughts?

I think what you're looking for is a factory class. The factory pattern is used when you need to be able to instantiate one of several related classes, to be determined by the factory, not the developer.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_method_pattern
You're right to try to keep all this business logic in one place instead of doing ClassOne.toClassTwo(), ClassOne.toClassThree(),...
The most flexible way I can think of implementing this (but not the easiest by far) would be to have the factory start with a simple class with only basic common methods in it, and add handlers to a Hashtable or other container. That way you don't need concrete implementations of every possible combinations of features.
Of course it would be quicker to have a concrete implementation for each possible address variant, but there would be a fair amount of duplicated code, and it would be a little harder to add new address class types.

Since you can't modify the classes themselves, I'd suggest an implementation of the Adapter pattern for each direction. As you said, the adapter methods themselves can be static, but you can group both directions inside a single class so that the logic is all in one place.
At the end of the day you're going to be performing the same task no matter what you call it, or where you put the code. I'd suggest that both directions live in the same file, as they'll often both need updating when either direction changes.

If you are always converting to the same Class I would keep it simple and put all you conversion code in that Class and not worry about factories and the like, especially if you are only dealing with a couple of different classes. Why does there always have to be a complicated pattern for these things?!
public class A {
...
public static A convertB(B b) {
...
}
}

Are the classes you need to output final? If not, you could subclass them to create proper Adapters. Otherwise I'd go with dj_segfault's suggestion of a Factory with a table of handlers.
Or, wait -- is it just a web service you need to talk to? If so, there should be no reason your implementations of its datatypes can't be Adapters wrapping the input datatypes, or some intermediate object of your own.