I have a number of setter methods which take an enum. These are based on incoming objects attribute. Rather than write a bunch of these is there a way around having to hard code say 10 different case statements. Would there be a way to create a reusable method?
//Side class declared as
public final enum Side
//How I initialise side
static Side side = Side.SELL;//default
//method to set object
Obj.setSide(sideEnum(zasAlloc.getM_buySellCode()));
//How I am implementing it
public static Side sideEnum(String buysell)
{
if(buysell.equalsIgnoreCase("S"))
{
side = Side.SELL; //default
}
else if(buysell.equalsIgnoreCase("B"))
{
side = Side.BUY;
}
return side;
}
You can implement that functionality in your Enum.
public enum Side {
BUY("B"), SELL("S"), ...
private String letter;
private Side(String letter) {
this.letter = letter;
}
public static Side fromLetter(String letter) {
for (side s : values() ){
if (s.letter.equals(letter)) return s;
}
return null;
}
}
You could also do this as a helper static method if you can't edit Side.
public static Side fromString(String from) {
for (Side s: Side.values()) {
if (s.toString().startsWith(from)) {
return s;
}
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException( from );
}
The above method assumes your strings correspond to the names of you enums.
Enums have valueOf() method that can be used to convert from String. Is it what you are looking for?
I ended up using a simple object map:
private static HashMap<String, Side> sideMap = new HashMap<String, Side>(7);
static{
sideMap.put("B", Side.BUY);
sideMap.put("S", Side.SELL);
}
and simply using
Obj.setSide(sideMap.get(zasAlloc.getM_buySellCode()));
I think you need smth like:
Obj.setSide(Side.valueOf(zasAlloc.getM_buySellCode()));
Related
I have list of string data that are not change during any operation inside my program. But i need to access those data in several places by using key.
As a example: (1,ANN)(2,ALEX)(3,ANDROW)
Is there any way to store these data in separate class.Can I use java enum for this. thank you
With the use of enum you can implement something like below:
public enum Name {
ONE {
#Override
public String getName() {
return "ANN";
}
},
TWO {
#Override
public String getName() {
return "ALEX";
}
},
THREE {
#Override
public String getName() {
return "ANDROW";
}
};
public abstract String getName();
}
Then you can get the the names :
System.out.println(Name.ONE.getName());
This is really a good candidate for using Map. Where you can use your numbers as keys and String's as values.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/collections/interfaces/map.html
Map<Integer, String> map = new HashMap<Integer,String>();
Map<Integer,String> is one option and if key is also constant you could define string variable like
public static final string ONE = "ANN";
public static final string TWO = "ALEX";
A different way to use enums to define a statically mapping:
public enum Names {
ONE("ANN"),
TWO("ALEX"),
THREE("ANDREW");
private final String name;
private Names(String name){
this.name=name;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
}
This is only applicable to real-static values (change to values does mean a code change), but you can easily define multiple properties as well.
You can do the following:
import java.util.HashMap;
public class Main {
static HashMap<Integer,String>data = new HashMap<>();
public static void main(String[] args) {
// write your code here
data.put(data.size(),"ALEX"); // if you want 1-based indexing,
data.put(data.size(),"ANDROW"); // then use data.size()+1
data.put(data.size(),"ANN"); // instead of data.size()
for (int i = 0; i<data.size(); i++){
System.out.println(i+" : "+data.get(i)); // use i+1 if 1-based indexing
}
}
}
This is the code of the method that I want to simplify. The method name I call of SerializedExpFamMixture class is exactly the value of "model", my question is how to assign the value of "model" directly as the name of the method instead of using "if" to determine which method I should call. Since by using "if", I need to list all the possible values of "model" and judge which method I should use.
Thank you very much for help. I am new to java.
public static SerializedExpFamMixture RateMtxModel(String model)
{
SerializedExpFamMixture result=new SerializedExpFamMixture();
if(model=="kimura1980()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
if(model=="accordance()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
if(model=="pair()")
result=SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
return result;
}
One way you can approach this is to use Reflection:
Method method = myClass.getClass().getMethod("doSomething", null);
method.invoke(myClass, null);
Since you are new to Java, it's time for some general pointers:
In Java, we usually name our methods with camelCase, so the first letter is lower case.
Also, in Java we usually leave the opening curly-bracket on the same line as the code (no newline).
Always use final on your variables. At least your parameters. That way you won't overwrite it, and thus won't have to try to figure out which value it actually has at runtime.
Use curly-brackets! Please!
The result variable is not actually needed.
Use the equals-method to compare Strings.
If you only want one result, use else-if
Fixing these things, your method looks like this:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
if (model.equals("kimura1980()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
} else if (model.equals("accordance()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
} else if(model.equals("pair()")) {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Next, let's look at what you are actually trying to do here. You want to pass some Strings around, and use them as a basis for creating objects. And now, with the advice given here, you will do this using reflection. This does not sound like a very good idea to me. Say you were to go through with this, and this happened:
rateMtxModel("kinura1980");
Small typo, hard to spot, will give unexpected results. If you were actually calling a method the compiler would let you know that you messed up, now you will get no warning (btw did you see both errors in that method call?). The same if someone were to delete the accordance()-method, the compiler would not alert them that this will break the program.
If it was up to be I would just use the static factory-methods in SerializedExpFamMixture directly, but if you have to do it like this (if the task at hand is using a String input to create an object) I would do something like this:
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()"),
ACCORDANCE("accordance()"),
PAIR("pair()");
private final String stringValue;
private Something(final String stringValue) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (something.stringValue.equals(string)) {
return something;
}
}
return null;
}
}
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(final String model) {
if (model == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("model is null!");
}
final Something something = Something.fromString(model);
if (something == null) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
switch(something) {
case KIMURA1980:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
case ACCORDANCE:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
case PAIR:
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
default:
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
}
This way, the one place where you will use the Strings is in the enum, the rest of the code will use the enum constants and thus have the safety of the compiler to rely on.
One could also leave the linking between operation and String to the enum, like this:
interface Operation<T> {
public T run();
}
public enum Something {
KIMURA1980("kimura1980()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.kimura1980();
}
}) ,
ACCORDANCE("accordance()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.accordance();
}
}),
PAIR("pair()", new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return SerializedExpFamMixture.pair();
}
}),
DEFAULT(null, new Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture>() {
public SerializedExpFamMixture run() {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
});
private final String stringValue;
private final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation;
private Something(final String stringValue, final Operation<SerializedExpFamMixture> operation) {
this.stringValue = stringValue;
this.operation = operation;
}
public static Something fromString(final String string) {
if (string != null) {
for (final Something something : values()) {
if (string.equals(something.stringValue)) {
return something;
}
}
}
return DEFAULT;
}
public SerializedExpFamMixture getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture() {
return operation.run();
}
}
With this setup in the enum (I think the Operation-part can be trimmed out with Java8), the method will be as simple as:
public static SerializedExpFamMixture rateMtxModel(String model) {
return Something.fromString(model).getCorrespondingSerializedExpFamMixture();
}
Use reflection, but you need to consider a few things:
Bug alert! Comparing Strings using == doesn't work as expected in java - use .equals() instead. However, the solution below bypasses that problem
For the general case, which includes methods not visible to the invoker, you need to consider accessibility, both in finding the method and invoking it
You don't need the result variable, and even if using your code, don't need to initialize it
Try this:
String methodName = model.replace("(", "").replace(")", "");
try {
// getMethod() returns only public methods, getDeclaredMethod() returns any visibility
Method method = SerializedExpFamMixture.class.getDeclaredMethod(methodName);
// if the method is not guaranteed to be visible (eg public) you need this:
method.setAccessible(true);
return (SerializedExpFamMixture) method.invoke(null); // how to invoke on the class object
} catch (Exception forBrevity) {
return new SerializedExpFamMixture();
}
I have encountered a weird problem in my app (java).
I have an enum. Something like that
public enum myEnum implement myIntrface{
valueA(1),valueb(2),valuec(3),valued(4)
private int i;
// and then - a constructor
public MyEnum(int number){
i = number;
}
private MyObj obj = new MyObj;
// getter and setter for obj
}
and in another class I have this
MyEnum.valueA.setObj(new Obj(...))
in briefe - I have an enum with a private instance member that has a set and a get.
So far so good -
The only thing that amazes me is that later on I look at the value of the MyEnum.valueA().obj is null.
there is nothing that updates the value to null, I have even gave it a default value in the constructor and I still see it null later.
any suggestions?
Enums should be un-modifiable classes so you shouldn't really be doing this. If your looking to modify the state of a type based object like an enum you should use an final class approach with embedded constants. Below is an example of a class based approach with a modifiable name an a un-modifiable name...
public final class Connection {
public static final Connection EMAIL = new Connection("email");
public static final Connection PHONE = new Connection("phone");
public static final Connection FAX = new Connection("fax");
/**/
private final String unmodifiableName; //<-- it's final
private String modifiableName;
/*
* The constructor is private so no new connections can be created outside.
*/
private Connection(String name) {
this.unmodifiableName = name;
}
public String getUnmodifiableName() {
return unmodifiableName;
}
public String getModifiableName() {
return modifiableName;
}
public void setModifiableName(String modifiableName) {
this.modifiableName = modifiableName;
}
}
The purpose of enums is to represent constant values. It does not make any sense to set the fields of a constant value.
You should declare your fields as final, and use the constructor to initialize all of them.
For reference, the following code works as expected:
public class Test {
public static enum MyEnum {
valueA(1),valueb(2),valuec(3),valued(4);
private int i;
private Object o;
private MyEnum(int number) {
i = number;
}
public void set(Object o) {
this.o = o;
}
public Object get() {
return o;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(MyEnum.valueA.get()); // prints "null"
MyEnum.valueA.set(new Integer(42));
System.out.println(MyEnum.valueA.get()); // prints "42"
}
}
the cause of this problem is the db40 framework . It loads an enum from the db using reflection. This is well documented .
http://developer.db4o.com/Forums/tabid/98/aft/5439/Default.aspx
I am creating a helper class in parsing XML elements, so the developer do not need to know the exact name and capitalization of the XML fields.
private static class TagNames{
public static String RESOURCE_ID = "ResourceId";
public static String RESOURCE_NAME = "ResourceName";
public static String RESOURCE_PRICE = "ResourcePrice";
}
This makes it easier to do things like:
someXMLParser.getValueByTagName(TagNames.RESOURCE_ID);
My question is this. If I want to iterate over all the fields declared in class TagNames, how do I do that? Pseudocode:
For tag in TagNames:
someXMLParser.getValueByTagName(tag)
I know I will probably have to restructure all of this. But I can't figure out a way to make the names easily accessible as well as iterable, without any duplication.
Any suggestions?
You're literally asking for a solution based on reflection, but I think a Java Enum may be a better choice in this case. Building on Frederick's example:
public class EnumTest {
public enum Tags {
RESOURCE_ID("ResourceId"),
REOURCE_NAME("ResourceName"),
RESOURCE_PRICE("ResourcePrice");
private final String tagName;
Tags(String tagName) {
this.tagName = tagName;
}
public String getTagName() {
return tagName;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
for(Tags tag : Tags.values()) {
System.out.println("const:" + tag.name()
+ " tagName:" + tag.getTagName());
}
// API user might do e.g.:
// document.getValueForTag(Tags.REOURCE_NAME);
}
}
Although I agree that you should probably use enums or ResourceBundles, here's a solution to your actual question. A method that generates a Map name -> value from all public constants in a given class (the only thing that's missing should be try / catch or throws)
public static Map<String, Object> getConstantValues(Class<?> clazz){
Map<String, Object> constantValues = new LinkedHashMap<String, Object>();
for(Field field : clazz.getDeclaredFields()){
int modifiers = field.getModifiers();
if(Modifiers.isPublic(mod)
&& Modifiers.isStatic(mod) && Modifiers.isFinal(mod)){
constantValues.put(field.getName(), field.get(null));
}
}
return constantValues;
}
You may want to consider using a ResourceBundle instead of a class to store the tag names. May require a little bit of reworking of your code but it will be easier to produce a list of tags compared to what you are doing now, and adding a new tag won't require much work other then adding a line to the properties file.
You can do this quite easily using enum and an accompanying array:
public class Main {
public enum TagName { RESOURCE_ID, REOURCE_NAME, RESOURCE_PRICE }
private static String[] tags = {"ResourceID", "ResourceName", "ResourcePrice"};
public static String getValueByTagName(TagName tag) {
return tags[tag.ordinal()];
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Calling by getValueByTagName:");
System.out.println(getValueByTagName(TagName.RESOURCE_ID));
System.out.println("Calling TagName.values() for loop:");
for (TagName t : TagName.values()) {
System.out.println(getValueByTagName(t));
}
}
}
Using an enum is a good fit, especially if you use a custom constructor and the built in "values" method:
public class Main {
public static enum TagName {
RESOURCE_ID("ResourceId"),
RESOURCE_NAME("ResourceName"),
RESOURCE_PRICE("ResourcePrice"),
;
private String s;
private TagName(String s) { this.s = s; }
public String toString() { return this.s; }
public static String[] strings() {
List<String> ss = new ArrayList<String>();
for (TagName tagName : TagName.values()) {
ss.add(tagName.toString());
}
return ss.toArray(new String[ss.size()]);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Use TagName.values() for the enums, or for strings...
for (String s : TagName.strings()) {
System.out.println(s);
}
}
}
This way you can simply add new tags and they'll automatically get picked up by the "strings" method; for extra performance you could compute that string array just once, statically, since you can't change the set of enums dynamically. You could get even fancier by auto-generating the tag strings from their constant values, if they are really normalized...
Right now I have about 60 Message types which are passed to a getStuff(Message) method of a class which implements ContainerOfThings. There are multiple variations of an ContainerOfThings such as BoxOfStuff and BagOfTricks both of which realize the getStuff(Message) method which generates a string based on member variables. The result may also have pre-pended or post-pended data such as labels or concatenated data. See code below.
public class BoxOfStuff implements ContainerOfThings
{
private String var1;
private String var2;
private String varN;
public String getStuff(Message message)
{
if (message.equals(Message.GET_STUFF1))
return var1;
else if (message.equals(Message.GET_STUFF2))
return "Var2 is: " + var2;
else if (message.equals(Message.GET_STUFFN))
return varN + "\n";
// Etc. for each Message.GET_*
}
// getters and setters for each var*
}
public class Message
{
private String id = null;
private Message(String id)
{ this.id = id; }
public final String toString()
{ return this.id; }
public static final Message GET_STUFF1 = new Message("V1");
public static final Message GET_STUFF2 = new Message("V2");
public static final Message GET_STUFFN = new Message("VN");
}
I am trying to find a design that meets the following objectives. (1) The string returned from getStuf() needs to reflect the current state of the implementing class's member fields. (2) Also I would prefer to get away from an incredibly long series of if / else if blocks. One concern is ease of potentially changing to a persistent data-driven configurable object approach which a Map lends well towards. (3) Design should allow for simple maintenance and/or edits.
One design that could work but is a little messy is to create a Map with all key/values initialized in the constructor and also reset any key/value pair inside each setter method. In this way, the response to getStuff(Message) is updated to the new content after changes (ie: in a setVar*() method). Any other thoughts?
I think you'll need two maps. One will be a Map<Message, String> where the value will be a format string (i.e. something that will get passed into String.format()). The second map will be a Map<Message, Field> which should be fairly self explanatory once you take a look at the reflection libs. These will need to be setup at init time but after that the getStuff() method should be fairly clean and your setters won't be affected at all.
BTW, Java doesn't generally prefix interfaces with I.
I'm not 100% sure I understand your problem, but it sounds like you want to memoize the result of your getStuff() call.
One easy way to do this is to use the makeComputingMap() method from the MapMaker class in the Google Guava library.
For example, you could do:
Map<Message, String> map = new MapMaker()
.expireAfterWrite(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.makeComputingMap(
new Function<Message, String>() {
public String apply(Message message) {
// Your getStuff() implementation here
}
});
Does that make sense?
How about this:
public abstract class BaseOfBox implements IContainerOfThings {
protected final Map<Message, String> stuffs =
new HashMap<Message, String>();
public final String getStuff(Message message) {
return stuffs.get(message);
}
}
public class BoxOfStuff extends BaseOfBox {
private String var1;
private String var2;
public BoxOfStuff() {
super();
}
public setVar1(String var1) {
this.var1 = var1;
stuffs.put(Message.GET_STUFF1, var1);
}
public setVar2(String var2) {
this.var2 = var2;
stuffs.put(Message.GET_STUFF2, "Var2 is: " + var2);
}
...
}
Frankly, I think this is a pretty ugly solution, but so are the requirements, IMO. I suspect a more elegant solution can only be found if we review the (real) requirements