My problem concerns an API design.
Let's say I'm designing a vector (math/physics meaning). I would like to have both an immutable implemenation and a mutable one.
I have then my vector that looks like this:
public interface Vector {
public float getX(); public float getY();
public X add(Vector v);
public X subtract(Vector v);
public X multiply(Vector v);
public float length();
}
I wonder how I can ensure to have both a mutable and an immutable implementation. I don't really like java.util.List's approach (allowing mutability by default) and the UnsupportedOperationException() that Guava's immutable implementation has.
How can I design a "perfect" interface or abstract class Vector with both these implementations?
I've thought about something like this:
public interface Vector {
...
public Vector add(Vector v);
...
}
public final class ImmutableVector implements Vector {
...
public ImmutableVector add(Vector v) {
return new ImmutableVector(this.x+v.getX(), this.y+v.getY());
}
...
}
public class MutableVector implements Vector {
...
public MutableVector add(Vector v) {
this.x += v.getX();
this.y += v.getY();
return this;
}
...
}
So all in all, I would like to check if this approach has flagrant design flaws, which are they and what should I do tho fix these?
Notes: the "vector" stuff is an example of a more general use case. For the sake of my question I could have chosen to rewrite the List interface or anything else. Please focus on the more general use case.
Final choice, after answers below, based on Joda-time as someone explained but now edited:
/** Basic class, allowing read-only access. */
public abstract class ReadableVector {
public abstract float getX(); public abstract float getY();
public final float length() {
return Vectors.length(this);
}
// equals(Object), toString(), hashCode(), toImmutableVectors(), mutableCopy()
}
/** ImmutableVector, not modifiable implementation */
public final class ImmutableVector extends ReadableVector implements Serializable {
// getters
// guava-like builder methods (copyOf, of, etc.)
}
/** Mutable implementation */
public class Vector extends ReadableVector implements Serializable {
// fields, getters and setters
public void add (ReadableVector v) {/* delegate to Vectors */}
public void subtract(ReadableVector v) {/* delegate to Vectors */}
public void multiply(ReadableVector v) {/* delegate to Vectors */}
}
/** Tool class containing all the logic */
public final class Vectors {
public static ImmutableVector add(ReadableVector v1, ReadableVector v2) {...}
public static void addTo(Vector v1, ReadableVector v2) {...}
...
}
I changed Vector from an interface to a abstract class because basically a vector shouldn't be anything else.
Thank you to everyone.
As a user of your Vector library, I would not like to have one add implementation which modifies the current Object and another add implementation (of the same interface) which returns a new one.
Better have a clear set of methods which do not modify the current object, and then have additional methods in the mutable vector which do modify the current object.
I do not think there is anything evidently wrong with your design. I find it perfectly valid. There are few things that I would take into account if I were you:
Reckless users may write code for the
interface Vector thinking their
implementations are always mutable.
Immutability typically means more objects and a performance penalty due to the need to put more and more objects in the heap and forces the garbage collection to do more work. If your application will need to do many "add" operations you may need to pay the price. But hey, that's the whole purpose of having a mutable version, right?
Also, if you are writing for a multithreading environment, you will still need to synchronize access to share variables of type Vector when you are not sure of implementation above all if you want to ensure that the implementation can be switched without consequences. This, again, proves that it can be hard to write code oblivious of implementation details.
Although I argued a bit with #Paulo Eberman in other post, I do believe he is totally right. I think it is best to have two separate interfaces, one for immutable objects, and one for mutable (which could extend this latter).
Of course most of this points are arguable, these are just my opinions.
Your idea is fine, but it's hardly perfect.
You've left out generics.
You assume that arithmetic operations such as addition and subtraction are defined for the types your Vector is holding, which may not be true. (Generics might help with that.)
I don't know how useful an immutable vector is in the context of mathematics and physics.
A perfect API would have an analogous Matrix class, since you'll need to do linear algebra for math and physics.
I'd have a look at Apache's common math library for inspiration. It's the heir to JAMA. I find that looking at successful designs and implementations by my betters is a good way to learn.
I think this design is not very good. Having mutable arithmetical objects is not good if even you have them explicitly marked as mutable. Additionally, I wouldn't put vector operations in the class vector. Because now you have only addition and multiplication and tomorrow you will want something else and your class will grow and grow as you will add this or what vector operation. If I were you, I would create an immutable vector like this
public class Vector {
private Double X;
private Double Y;
public Vector(Double x, Double y) {
X = x;
Y = y;
}
public Double getX() {
return X;
}
public Double getY() {
return Y;
}
}
and then I would create a class for doing basic vector operations:
public class BaseVectorAlgebra {
public static Vector add(Vector arg1, Vector arg2) {
return new Vector(arg1.getX() + arg2.getX(), arg1.getY() + arg2.getY());
}
}
This way you will have an easy way to extend the system without touching existing classes and without introducing mutability, which just complicate things.
UPDATE:
If you still want to go with mutable vectors, then I would add SetX and SetY setters into Vector class, but put mutability decision into BaseVectorAlgebra like this:
public static Vector addInto(Vector arg1, Vector arg2) {
arg1.setX(arg1.getX() + arg2.getX());
arg1.setY(arg1.getY() + arg2.getY());
return arg1;
}
But really I don't like mutability here as it introduces unnecessary complications
Related
Here's the problem, I have two drawing JAR libraries (A and B). Both provide separate but useful functionality. However, in their infinite wisdom they have two different concepts of the basic point class.
Neither has any interesting or particularly unique methods or fields and both basically boil down to:
public class PointA{
double x;
double y;
}
and
public class PointB{
double x;
double y;
}
The functions in these libraries have methods that look like:
public static List<PointA> doInterestingThing();
or
public static PointB calculateThatThing();
I feel like there should be some nice way to just understand that these two classes are for all intents, the same.
If I had source access I could just have them implement some IPoint interface, but both libraries are in JARS.
The way I see it, there are several options:
Convert one to the other. Either make functions to convert all PointA's to PointB's or vice versa. That would mean essentially making a abstraction layer atop one of the libraries by wrapping every function in it with some boilerplate conversion code.
public static List<PointA>doInterestingThingWrapper(){
return convertPoints(LibraryB.doInterestingThing());
}
Make some third class PointC, that both library's results are converted to which represented my code's understanding of a point. Same problems as above, but now I need to write two times as many boilerplate conversions!
Edit the JARS directly. Obviously this is not preferable. However, it would allow me make PointA and PointB implement the same interface.
Some magic dynamic interface interaction I don't know about.
Could it be that Java has some way of dynamically assigning interfaces to already loaded classes?
Something like:
public interface IPoint{
double getX();
double getY();
}
public static void main(){
//Magical made up linking syntax
PointA implements IPoint{
public getX(){
this.getX()//PointA's method
}
public getY(){
this.getY(){//pointA's method
}
}
//And same for pointB
//And now we can say things like:
List<? extends IPoint> listOPoints=A.doInterestingThing();
//and:
IPoint thePoint=B.calculateThatThing();
}
I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate. I didn't even know what to call the problem which makes searching hard. If there's some obvious design pattern (adapter pattern?) that I missed that solves this, let me know.
You have two solutions
Use reflection and unreflection to use same named functionatily.
Wrap both in your project code into a object that implements the interface.
Sample:
class A { public void d(){}}
class B { public void d(){}}
interface D { void d(); }
class AD extends A implements D {}
class BD extends B implements D {}
Or
class AD implements D {A obj = new A(); public void d(){obj.d();}}
I have a Java class that has some private variable that I don't intend to create setters and getters for; I want these variables to remain inaccessible. But there is one class that needs access to these variables. This class is a visitor in a different package (and I'd prefer to keep it in a different package). Is it bad practice to allow this class to provide the visitor with Consumers and Suppliers, that act as setters and getters, so that the visitor could read and modify these variables? If yes, please state the reasons.
Example:
A.java
public class A {
private int x;
private Consumer<Integer> setter;
private Supplier<Integer> getter;
public A(int v) {
x = v;
setter = new Consumer<Integer>() {
#Override
public void accept(Integer t) {
x = t;
}
};
getter = new Supplier<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer get() {
return x;
}
};
}
public void accept(SomeVisitor visitor) {
visitor.setSetter(setter);
visitor.setGetter(getter);
visitor.visit(this);
}
}
SomeVisitor.java
public class SomeVisitor extends ParentVisitor {
private Consumer<Integer> setter;
private Supplier<Integer> getter;
public SomeVisitor() {
setter = null;
getter = null;
}
public void setSetter(Consumer<Integer> setter) {
this.setter = setter;
}
public void setGetter(Supplier<Integer> getter) {
this.getter = getter;
}
#Override
public void visit(A a) {
// Code that will, possibly, read and modify A.x
...
}
}
This way the variable A.x remains inaccessible to every class except the visitor.
More Details:
I have some classes that will make use of the visitors. These classes have private variables that are dependent on one another. If these variables had setters, inconsistencies could arise as users change these variables, that should be dependent on one another, without respecting these dependecies.
Some of these variables will have getters, others won't as they will only be used internally and shouldn't be accessed elsewhere. The reason the visitors are an exception and should get read/write access to these variables is that the functionality the visitors are intended to implement were meant to be implemented within methods in these classes. But I thought it will be cleaner if I used visitors. And these functionalities do need read/write access to these variables.
The intention behind this approach was to emulate the friend feature in C++. I could place the visitors within the same package as these classes (which I would do if I didn't find a neat solution to this problem); But I think the package will look messy if it had the visitors as well (and there will be many visitors).
The functionality the visitors will implement will also have something to do with these classes relations to one another.
I tried to squeeze it into a comment, as it technically does not answer the question about whether this is a "Bad Practice™", but this term is hard to define, and thus, it is nearly impossible to give an answer anyhow...
This eventually seems to boil down to the question of how to Make java methods visible to only specific classes (and there are similar questions). The getter/setter should only be available to one particular class - namely, to the visitor.
You used very generic names and descriptions in the question, and it's hard to say whether this makes sense in general.
But some points to consider:
One could argue that this defeats the encapsulation in general. Everybody could write such a visitor and obtain access to the get/set methods. And even though this would be a ridiculous hack: If people want to achieve a goal, they will do things like that! (sketeched in Appendix 1 below)
More generally, one could argue: Why is only the visitor allowed to access the setter/getter, and other classes are not?
One convincing reason to hide getter/setter methods behind Supplier/Consumer instances could be related to visibility and the specificness of classes (elaborated in Appendix 2). But since the visitor always has the dependency to the visited class, this is not directly applicable here.
One could argue that the approach is more error prone. Imagine the case that either the setter or the getter are null, or that they belong to different instances. Debugging this could be awfully hard.
As seen in the comments and other answer: One could argue that the proposed approach only complicates things, and "hides" the fact that these are actually setter/getter methods. I wouldn't go so far to say that having setter/getter methods in general already is a problem. But your approach is now to have setter-setters and getter-setters in a visitor. This extends the state space of the visitor in a way that is hard to wrap the head around.
To summarize:
Despite the arguments mentioned above, I would not call it a "bad practice" - also because it is not a common practice at all, but a very specific solution approach. There may be reasons and arguments to do this, but as long as you don't provide more details, it's hard to say whether this is true in your particular case, or whether there are more elegant solutions.
Update
For the added details: You said that
inconsistencies could arise as users change these variables
It is usually the responsibility of a class to manage its own state space in a way that makes sure that it is always "consistent". And, in some sense, this is the main purpose of having classes and encapsulation in the first place. One of the reasons of why getters+setters are sometimes considered as "evil" is not only the mutability (that should usually be minimized). But also because people tend to expose properties of a class with getters+setters, without thinking about a proper abstraction.
So specifically: If you have two variables x and y that depend on one another, then the class should simply not have methods
public void setX(int x) { ... }
public void setY(int y) { ... }
Instead, there should (at best, and roughly) be one method like
public void setState(int x, int y) {
if (inconsistent(x,y)) throw new IllegalArgumentException("...");
...
}
that makes sure that the state is always consistent.
I don't think that there is a way of cleanly emulating a C++ friend function. The Consumer/Supplier approach that you suggested may be reasonable as a workaround. Some (not all) of the problems that it may cause could be avoided with a slightly different approach:
The package org.example contains your main class
class A {
private int v;
private int w;
public void accept(SomeVisitor visitor) {
// See below...
}
}
And the package org.example also contains an interface. This interface exposes the internal state of A with getter+setter methods:
public interface InnerA {
void setV(int v);
int getV();
void setW(int w);
int getW();
}
But note that the main class does not implement this interface!
Now, the visitors could reside in a different packakge, like org.example.visitors. And the visitor could have a dedicated method for visiting the InnerA object:
public class SomeVisitor extends ParentVisitor {
#Override
public void visit(A a) {
...
}
#Override
public void visit(InnerA a) {
// Code that will, possibly, read and modify A.x
...
}
The implementation of the accept method in A could then do the following:
public void accept(SomeVisitor visitor) {
visitor.accept(this);
visitor.accept(new InnerA() {
#Override
public void setX(int theX) {
x = theX;
}
#Override
public int getX() {
return x;
}
// Same for y....
});
}
So the class would dedicatedly pass a newly created InnerA instance to the visitor. This InnerA would only exist for the time of visiting, and would only be used for modifying the specific instance that created it.
An in-between solution could be to not define this interface, but introduce methods like
#Override
public void visit(Consumer<Integer> setter, Supplier<Integer> getter) {
...
}
or
#Override
public void visit(A a, Consumer<Integer> setter, Supplier<Integer> getter) {
...
}
One would have to analyze this further depending on the real application case.
But again: None of these approaches will circumvent the general problem that when you provide access to someone outside of your package, then you will provide access to everyone outside of your package....
Appendix 1: A class that is an A, but with public getter/setter methods. Goodbye, encapsulation:
class AccessibleA extends A {
private Consumer<Integer> setter;
...
AccessibleA() {
EvilVisitor e = new EvilVisitor();
e.accept(this);
}
void setSetter(Consumer<Integer> setter) { this.setter = setter; }
...
// Here's our public setter now:
void setValue(int i) { setter.accept(i); }
}
class EvilVisitor {
private AccessibleA accessibleA;
...
public void setSetter(Consumer<Integer> setter) {
accessibleA.setSetter(setter);
}
...
}
Appendix 2:
Imagine you had a class like this
class Manipulator {
private A a;
Manipulator(A a) {
this.a = a;
}
void manipulate() {
int value = a.getValue();
a.setValue(value + 42);
}
}
And now imagine that you wanted to remove the compile-time dependency of this class to the class A. Then you could change it to not accept an instance of A in the constructor, but a Supplier/Consumer pair instead. But for a visitor, this does not make sense.
As getters and setters are evil anyway, you'll be better off making things not more complicated than ordinary getters and setters.
I was reading some article about collision avoidance systems in cars when my programmer mind led me to think of that concept in the object-oriented way, and it made me wonder if those systems respect the object-oriented programming model.
Being mainly a Java developer, I transposed this problem in a Java environment and it raised a particular question: does calling a public method within the same class (in a non-static context) respect and follow the object-oriented way?
I mean, take this brief hypothetical Car class:
public class Car {
// Class attributes.
// Constructors.
public void accelerate(final double amplitude) {
// Accelerate according to the amplitude.
}
public void brake(final double amplitude) {
// Brake according to the amplitude.
}
// Other useful methods.
private void collisionPreventionActions() {
// Some actions.
brake(100.0);
// Some other actions.
}
}
Suppose some Thread is responsible of detecting a collision and take actions when it does detect a collision, and one of those actions would be braking. Obviously the brake(...) method becomes an interesting choice, but doesn't that break the object-oriented way of doing things? It's not just the brakes though. What if the collision avoidance system in this class used the steering wheel instead to avoid the accident? I find it weird that the car would be using its own input from an internal point of view...
On a more general scope, suppose you have a generic object, which I like to see as a black box. The public methods would be the equivalent of levers on that black box that would control its behaviour. Calling a public method within this object would mean that the black box would activate its own levers from its internal mechanism.
I ask because I know it's legal in Java to do so, and that I've seen public methods being called within the same class numerous times in my life, but it being legal doesn't necessarily mean that it's the proper OO way of doing it.
Does using public methods within the same class in a non-static context follow the rules of object-oriented programming and encapsulation? If not, what would be the proper way of doing it or what could be the workaround?
There is nothing wrong with this choice from the OOP perspective: it is perfectly fine for a method to perform things that require combinations of other methods.
In practice, though, a common approach would be to separate the functionality into a public and a private portions, like this:
public void brake(final double amplitude) {
// check preconditions
if (speed == 0) throw new IllegalStateException("cannot brake when standing");
if (amplitude <= 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException("amplitude must be positive");
// ... do other important checks
doBrake(amplitude);
}
private void doBrake(final double amplitude) {
// The real code goes here
}
Now your collisionPreventionActions could call doBrake instead of brake, assuming that you have checked all the necessary preconditions before making the call.
Note: doBrake should check its preconditions as well. However, rather than throwing exceptions when preconditions are not met, it can use assertions. The difference is that exceptions indicate a misuse of your public methods by others, while assertions indicate misuse of your encapsulated methods by you or someone else maintaining your code.
No rules are violated when an object uses its own API. On the contrary, problems are likely to occur if a class has an API that can be overridden, but it fails to use that API internally.
As a trivial example, consider a non-final property accessor. An object could skip the accessor and read (or worse, write) fields directly. Suppose the accessor is overridden in a subclass to compute the property value using the field together with some other information from the subclass. Now the class is broken because it failed to honor its own contract.
Consider the (somewhat contrived) Point and OffsetPoint classes below. The derived class, OffsetPoint is written correctly, but it's inherited toString() method will not work as expected because the parent class, Point, wrongly fails to use its own accessors.
public class Point {
private final int x, y;
public Point(int x, int y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; }
public int getX() { return x; }
public int getY() { return y; }
#Override
public final String toString() {
/* Here's the bug; should be getX() and getY() instead of x and y */
return String.format("(%d,%d)", x, y);
}
}
class OffsetPoint extends Point {
private int dx, dy;
OffsetPoint(Point point, int dx, int dy) {
super(point.getX(), point.getY());
this.dx = dx;
this.dy = dy;
}
#Override
public int getX() { return super.getX() + dx; }
#Override
public int getY() { return super.getY() + dy; }
}
Does using public methods within the same class in a non-static context follow the rules of object-oriented programming and encapsulation?
No, there is no problem with encapsulation becuase the method is public so anyone (even this) can call it.
However, for something like a collision avoidance system, relying on public methods could be bad security wise.
Let's use your example of this intenal Collision detector calling the public method brake(). What if someone subclassed car and overrode the method?
public class BrokenCar extends Car{
#Override
public void brake(final double amplitude) {
//BREAKS CUT!!!
}
}
So there are some security rules of not relying on overridable methods. Making brake and accelerate final methods resolves this problem.
Yes, I think it is proper in an OO context to call your own public method. It's quite common when there are overloads for a method that all but one call the most specific one, either filling in defaults for missing parameters or transforming the type of the argument(s). I also see the pattern where all the overloads call into a private or protected method of the same name with _internal or _impl added to the end. For example, several overloads of ComputeSpeed might all call ComputerSpeed_internal. This pattern would be appropriate if there is parameter validation in the public methods that you don't want to do twice, or would be inappropriate for internal calls.
You can certainly introduce problems by not having a clear separation of concerns. For example, if the caller of collisionPreventionActions also decided it was a good idea to set the brake, you could have a conflict in how much brake is applied.
KC
In general, it is fine to call the public methods. The thing to consider is what the interface of the Car should be. In this case, does preventCollision() belong in the Car class or in some other CollisionPrevention class.
Breaking your code multiple classes each with a single responsibility, and then using them a bigger class like Car, is generally a good idea.
I totally agree with you that it's common that a class itself addresses its private members and methods. But I don't understand why it shouldn't be legal in terms of the Object Oriented Paradigm. Consider the following example:
public class Human {
public Human() {
liveYourLife();
}
private void liveYourLife() {
while(alive){
createYourDay();
}
}
private void createYourDay() {
drink();
eat();
sleep();
awake();
drink();
}
private void eat() {}
private void drink() {}
private void sleep() {}
private void awake() {}
}
Probably someone will criticise the simple rule of life, shown in the example above. But what I want to demonstrate with the few lines above is, that "normally" a human is allowed to decide on his daily routine.
The basic principle of the OO-Paradigm is to describe the actions and properties of real world entities. Hence, as long you are allowed to yourself decide on when you want to eat, drink, sleep, etc. your above described model is absolutely correct. But if you discover some exceptional cases in your problem domain which you want to address in your software (e.g. you got arrested, etc. ) you should update your OO-design.
In case that there is an something, which heavily influences the state of another instance, you should treat that "instance of disturbance" as a different object which has a reference to the actual instance.
public class Prisoner extends Human {
#Override
private void liveYourLife() {
while(jailed){
createYourDay();
}
}
#Override
private void createYourDay() {
// A bit different :)
}
}
public class Prison {
private List<Prisoner> prisoners;
}
I'm working on an application in which I have two fairly similar object classes whose fields need to be normalized. Many of the fields that need to be normalized are shared by both of these classes, but there are some that pertain only to one or the other.
I was thinking to create an interface with getters and setters for all of the fields that need to be normalized, that way I could pass both objects to the same class and access the fields / set the normalized values via the interface methods. Would this be considered bad convention?
Below is simplified example-- the objects I am normalizing will only ever be read from once the normalization is completed. Thanks in advance!
class A implements C{
T x;
T y;
T z;
...
}
class B implements C{
T x;
T y;
T k; // no 'z', above has no k
....
}
interface C {
public T getX();
public void setX(T x);
public T getY();
public void setY(T y);
public T getZ();
public void setZ(T z);
public T getK();
public void setK(T k);
}
If the code is properly documented saying A does not support
public T getK();
public void setK(T k);
and B does not support
public T getZ();
public void setZ(T z);
then I think you can go ahead with this design.
And, also construct UnsupportedOperationException with the specified detail message for the classes that doesn't support some of the methods of C. For example,
class A implements C{
T x;
T y;
T z;
...
public T getK(){
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("YOUR MESSAGE");
}
}
Isn't implementing an interface and providing an empty implementation a bad design issue? though you document it, it goes against the concept of interface and is inconsistent as you may have an empty implementation of one method in one class, and another implementation in another class and the code will become inconsistent in the long run, making it unsafe.. consider this
interface iSample {
void doThing1();
void doThing2();
void doThing3();
}
class sClass1 implements iSample {
void doThing1() { //doThing1 code }
void doThing2() { //doThing2 code }
void doThing3() { } // empty implementation
}
class sClass2 implements iSample {
void doThing1() { //doThing1 code }
void doThing2() { } // empty implementation
void doThing3() { //doThing2 code }
}
class Test {
public static void main (String[] args) {
testing(new sClass1());
testing(new sClass2());
}
public void testing(iSample s) {
// you would have no idea here which object has omitted which method.
s.doThing1();
s.doThing2();
s.doThing3();
}
as stated above you would have no idea which object has omitted which method and inconsistency prevails.
Well, based on your description, you would have empty methods inside both of your classes because you won't need them. class A would leave getK and setK unimplemented, and class B would do the same with getZ and setZ.
In this case it might be best to use a parent class that has x and y, and leave the implementation of z and k local to class A and class B, respectively.
Highly similar classes?
This sounds like a really good time to design for inheritance. Note that designing for inheritance should be a really deliberate decision ... because there's a right way to do it which will make your API a joy to use and a wrong way which can make your API a hassle to use.
You can also use an interface-based type system as you are suggesting. This has the advantage of being applicable to classes that may not otherwise be related.
Or you can do both.
I suggest that you capture the essence of the relationship in your classes and describe that as the contract for your interface-based type system.
Then, I suggest that you produce a skeletal implementation of your contract in an abstract skeletal implementation class. Your concrete classes can inherit from your skeletal implementation and, if done well, will inherit much of the behavior and state that describes the essence of your contract.
Note that you should use your interface as the type designation for all your objects, much like we do with the Java Collections API. It is not encouraged to declare a parameter type as void myFunc(HashMap m); the best practice is to declare void myFunc(Map m). In the latter case, Map represents the interface-based type system for all the different implementors of the Map contract.
I have 2 classes that perform a very similar task, but require different data types passed to them in order to perform those functions.
They both ultimately write to files and have expose a single public method: write() using the constructor for simple dependency injection.
This is where they differ - 1 class accepts a single object of a specific type, while the other accepts an array of that object type.
Is this a valid case for polymorphism? I think it can be but tehcnically should not?
How is this situation to be correctly handled i.e. 2 or more classes which perform a very similar function, but in a slightly different way and crucially, require different data types passed in as dependencies?
You need overloaded methods in this case. One which works with single object and other with a number of objects. They should be in the same class.
Here is an easy-to-remember way of when to use what:
1. Overloading is when you need to do the same thing with different data
2. Overriding is when you need to do the same thing with the same data in a different way
public class FileWriter {
public void write(File from){ // single file
// magic logic
}
public void write(File... from){ // multiple files using varargs
// magic logic
}
}
If you only have two Write methods, one taking a single object and the other taking a List of objects -> I would put both methods on the same class.
If you have one Write for each type, I would go for generics.
Introducing a base class wouldn't be my first choice, better to extract the general stuff into another class and use it from different classes (has-a instead of is-a).
Polymorphism is only useful if you have the same method signature but need to do stuff in different ways.
Hard to answer without a particular code sample, but the scenario you've presented fits something similar to a decorator pattern:
class X
{
public void doSomething(int number) { ... }
};
class XForCollections
{
public XForCollections(X x) { ... }
public void doSomething(int[] numbers) { ... }
};
Note, that it's not really a decorator, as XForCollection doesn't inherit X.
Use an abstract generic superclass with the common stuff.
If you want WriterA that writes an argument of type ArgA, and WriterB that writes an argument of type ArgB, you'll make
an abstract Writer<T> with all of the common stuff in it, and an abstract method such as public void write(T arg)
WriterA that extends Writer<ArgA>
WriterB that extends Writer<ArgB>
Say you have this:
class A{
void write(int a){}
}
class B{
void write(int[] a){}
}
Since you say the implementations for those methods vary deeply between each other, then varargs probably wouldn't be a suitable option. To simplify things, do this::
class WriteStuff{
void write(int a){}
void write(int[] a){}
}
This would let you attain a higher level of cohesion for your classes. Polymorphism isn't really necessary here.
Then again, it's really too little information to go on with. You should probably write up some example code.
Polymorphism – means the ability of a single variable of a given type to be used to reference objects of
different types, and automatically call the method that is specific to the type of object the variable references. In a
nutshell, polymorphism is a bottom-up method call. The benefit of polymorphism is that it is very easy to add new
classes of derived objects without breaking the calling code that uses the polymorphic classes or interfaces. When you send a message to an object even though you
don’t know what specific type it is, and the right thing happens, that’s called polymorphism. The process used by
object-oriented programming languages to implement polymorphism is called dynamic binding.
Example:
Launcher
private void init() {
//client or calling code
double dim = 5.0; //i.e. 5 meters radius or width
List<Shape> listShapes = new ArrayList<Shape>(20);
Shape s = new Circle();
listShapes.add(s); //add circle
s = new Square();
listShapes.add(s); //add square
getTotArea (listShapes,dim); //returns 78.5+25.0=103.5
//Later on, if you decide to add a half circle then define
//a HalfCircle class, which extends Circle and then provide an
//area(). method but your called method getTotArea(...) remains
//same.
}
/** called method: method which adds up areas of various
** shapes supplied to it.
**/
public double getTotArea(List<Shape> listShapes, double dim){
Iterator<Shape> it = listShapes.iterator();
double totalArea = 0.0;
//loop through different shapes
while(it.hasNext()) {
Shape s = (Shape) it.next();
totalArea += s.area(dim); //polymorphic method call
}
return totalArea ;
}
}
Shape
public abstract class Shape {
protected abstract double area(double dim);
}
Square
public class Square extends Shape{
#Override
protected double area(double dim) {
return dim*dim;
}
}
Circle
public class Circle extends Shape{
#Override
protected double area(double dim) {
return Math.PI*dim*dim;
}
}