We Keep Coding

over reliance on one arrayList

public class InventorySetDAO{
public LinkedList<CustomInventory> inventories = new LinkedList<>();
}
I am developing plugin that add/delete data in arraylist. and There's too much reference on the arrayList from other class.
Class InventoryItemModifier:
public class InventoryItemModifier {
InventorySetDAO inventorySetDAO;
public InventoryItemModifier(InventorySetDAO inventorySetDAO){
this.inventorySetDAO = inventorySetDAO;
}
public void addItem(ItemStack itemStack, ClickAction click, RequiredItems requiredItems) {
Bukkit.getPluginManager().callEvent(new ItemAddedEvent());
inventorySetDAO.getLastInventory().addItem(itemStack, click, requiredItems);
}
public void removeItem(ItemStack itemStack){
Bukkit.getPluginManager().callEvent(new ItemRemovedEvent());
inventorySetDAO.getLastInventory().removeItem(itemStack);
}
}
Class InventoryPlayerAccessor:
public class InventoryPlayerAccessor {
InventorySetDAO inventorySetDAO;
public boolean openPage(Player player) {
if (!inventories.isEmpty()) {
inventories.get(0).openInventory(player);
return true;
}
return false;
}
public boolean openPage(Player player, int index) {
if (!inventories.isEmpty()) {
if (index >= 0 && index < inventories.size()) {
inventories.get(index).openInventory(player);
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
}
I think there is risk of manipualte arrayList unproperly, so I think arrayList must be in a class and provide methods(add/insert/remove...) but if then there are too much responsibilities in that class.
I tried to seperate them into multiple classes, but it doesn't seem to solve this problem. is there a way to reduce reliance on arrayList, or efficient way to encapsulate arrayList?

To reduce each classes reliance on the underlying ArrayList (or just List), you could think about using the composite pattern instead of the DAO pattern. This would hide all/most of the logic to the InventorySet class.
class InventorySet {
private final List<CustomInventory> inventories = new ArrayList<>();
public void addItem() { }
public void removeItem() { }
}
Then, you can just keep your InventoryPlayerAccessor (maybe rename) but compose it of a InventorySet for easy access.
class InventorySetView {
void open();
}

Java synchronization depending on method parameter

how can I provide synchronization upon method parameter values?
All method calls using the 'same' parameter value A should be synchronized. A method call with a different parameter value e.g. B can access, even when calls with A are already waiting. The next concurrent call for B must wait also for the first B to be released.
My use case: I want to synchronize the access to JPA entities on ID level but want to avoid pessimistic locking because I need kind of a queue. The 'key' for locking is intended to be the entity ID - which is in fact of the type Java Long.
protected void entityLockedAccess(SomeEntity myEntity) {
//getId() returns different Long objects so the lock does not work
synchronized (myEntity.getId()) {
//the critical section ...
}
}
I read about lock objects but I am not sure how they would suit in my case.
On the top level I want to manage a specific REST call to my application which executes critical code.
Thanks,
Chris

As far as I understood you basically want a different, unique lock for each of your SomeEntity IDs.
You could realize this with a Map<Integer, Object>.
You simply map each ID to an object. Should there already be an object, you reuse it. This could look something like this:
static Map<Integer, Object> locks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int i1 = 1;
int i2 = 2;
foo(i1);
foo(i1);
foo(i2);
}
public static void foo(int o)
{
synchronized (locks.computeIfAbsent(o, k -> new Object()))
{
// computation
}
}
This will create 2 lock objects in the map as the object for i1 is reused in the second foo(i1) call.

Objects which are pooled and potentially reused should not be used for synchronization. If they are, it can cause unrelated threads to deadlock with unhelpful stacktraces.
Specifically, String literals, and boxed primitives such as Integers should NOT be used as lock objects because they are pooled and reused.
The story is even worse for Boolean objects because there are only two instances of Boolean, Boolean.TRUE and Boolean.FALSE and every class that uses a Boolean will be referring to one of the two.
I read about lock objects but I am not sure how they would suit in my
case. On the top level I want to manage a specific REST call to my
application which executes critical code.
You DB will take care for concurrent writes and other transactional issues.
All you need to do is use Transactions.
I would also recommend you to go through the classical problems (DIRTY READs NON Repeatable reads). You can also use Optimistic Locking for

The problem is that you simply should not synchronize on values (for example strings, or Integer objects).
Meaning: you would need to define some special EntityId class here, and of course, all "data" that uses the same ID would somehow need to be using the same EntityId object then.

private static final Set<Integer> lockedIds = new HashSet<>();
private void lock(Integer id) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (lockedIds) {
while (!lockedIds.add(id)) {
lockedIds.wait();
}
}
}
private void unlock(Integer id) {
synchronized (lockedIds) {
lockedIds.remove(id);
lockedIds.notifyAll();
}
}
public void entityLockedAccess(SomeEntity myEntity) throws InterruptedException {
try {
lock(myEntity.getId());
//Put your code here.
//For different ids it is executed in parallel.
//For equal ids it is executed synchronously.
} finally {
unlock(myEntity.getId());
}
}
id can be not only an 'Integer' but any class with correctly overridden 'equals' and 'hashCode' methods.
try-finally - is very important - you must guarantee to unlock waiting threads after your operation even if your operation threw exception.
It will not work if your back-end is distributed across multiple servers/JVMs.

Just use this class:
(and the map will NOT increase in size over time)
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class SameKeySynchronizer<T> {
private final ConcurrentHashMap<T, Object> sameKeyTasks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public void serializeSameKeys(T key, Consumer<T> keyConsumer) {
// This map will never be filled (because function returns null), it is only used for synchronization purposes for the same key
sameKeyTasks.computeIfAbsent(key, inputArgumentKey -> acceptReturningNull(inputArgumentKey, keyConsumer));
}
private Object acceptReturningNull(T inputArgumentKey, Consumer<T> keyConsumer) {
keyConsumer.accept(inputArgumentKey);
return null;
}
}
Like in this test:
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
class SameKeySynchronizerTest {
private static final boolean SHOW_FAILING_TEST = false;
#Test
void sameKeysAreNotExecutedParallel() throws InterruptedException {
TestService testService = new TestService();
TestServiceThread testServiceThread1 = new TestServiceThread(testService, "a");
TestServiceThread testServiceThread2 = new TestServiceThread(testService, "a");
testServiceThread1.start();
testServiceThread2.start();
testServiceThread1.join();
testServiceThread2.join();
Assertions.assertFalse(testService.sameKeyInProgressSimultaneously);
}
#Test
void differentKeysAreExecutedParallel() throws InterruptedException {
TestService testService = new TestService();
TestServiceThread testServiceThread1 = new TestServiceThread(testService, "a");
TestServiceThread testServiceThread2 = new TestServiceThread(testService, "b");
testServiceThread1.start();
testServiceThread2.start();
testServiceThread1.join();
testServiceThread2.join();
Assertions.assertFalse(testService.sameKeyInProgressSimultaneously);
Assertions.assertTrue(testService.differentKeysInProgressSimultaneously);
}
private class TestServiceThread extends Thread {
TestService testService;
String key;
TestServiceThread(TestService testService, String key) {
this.testService = testService;
this.key = key;
}
#Override
public void run() {
testService.process(key);
}
}
private class TestService {
private final SameKeySynchronizer<String> sameKeySynchronizer = new SameKeySynchronizer<>();
private Set<String> keysInProgress = ConcurrentHashMap.newKeySet();
private boolean sameKeyInProgressSimultaneously = false;
private boolean differentKeysInProgressSimultaneously = false;
void process(String key) {
if (SHOW_FAILING_TEST) {
processInternal(key);
} else {
sameKeySynchronizer.serializeSameKeys(key, inputArgumentKey -> processInternal(inputArgumentKey));
}
}
#SuppressWarnings("MagicNumber")
private void processInternal(String key) {
try {
boolean keyInProgress = !keysInProgress.add(key);
if (keyInProgress) {
sameKeyInProgressSimultaneously = true;
}
try {
int sleepTimeInMillis = 100;
for (long elapsedTimeInMillis = 0; elapsedTimeInMillis < 1000; elapsedTimeInMillis += sleepTimeInMillis) {
Thread.sleep(sleepTimeInMillis);
if (keysInProgress.size() > 1) {
differentKeysInProgressSimultaneously = true;
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException(e);
}
} finally {
keysInProgress.remove(key);
}
}
}
}

Replacing if else statement with pattern

I have a if else statement which might grow in the near future.
public void decide(String someCondition){
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")){
//
someMethod("someParameter");
}else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")){
//
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
.
.
else{
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Since, this is already looking messy, I think it would be better if I can apply any design patterns here. I looked into Strategy pattern but I am not sure if that will reduce if else condition here. Any suggestions?

This is a classic Replace Condition dispatcher with Command in the Refactoring to Patterns book.
Basically you make a Command object for each of the blocks of code in your old if/else group and then make a Map of those commands where the keys are your condition Strings
interface Handler{
void handle( myObject o);
}
Map<String, Handler> commandMap = new HashMap<>();
//feel free to factor these out to their own class or
//if using Java 8 use the new Lambda syntax
commandMap.put("conditionOne", new Handler(){
void handle(MyObject o){
//get desired parameters from MyObject and do stuff
}
});
...
Then instead of your if/else code it is instead:
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
Now if you need to later add new commands, you just add to the hash.
If you want to handle a default case, you can use the Null Object pattern to handle the case where a condition isn't in the Map.
Handler defaultHandler = ...
if(commandMap.containsKey(someCondition)){
commandMap.get(someCondition).handle(this);
}else{
defaultHandler.handle(this);
}

Let's assume that we have such code (which is the same as yours):
public void decide(String someCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
someMethod("someParameter");
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
else {
someMethod("elseParameter");
}
}
Assuming that you don't want to refactor other parts of the application and you don't want to change method signature there are possible ways in which it could be refactored:
Warning - You should use generic versions of mentioned patterns.
I showed non generic ones because it is easier to read them.
Strategy + Factory Method
We can use Strategy and Factory Method patterns. We also take advantage of polymorphism.
private final StrategyConditionFactory strategyConditionFactory = new StrategyConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Strategy strategy = strategyConditionFactory.getStrategy(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
strategy.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseStrategy());
StrategyConditionFactory (factory method):
public class StrategyConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Strategy> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public StrategyConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneStrategy());
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoStrategy());
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
public Optional<Strategy> getStrategy(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Strategy interface:
public interface Strategy {
void apply();
}
Implementations:
public class ConditionOneStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
}
public class ConditionTwoStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter")
}
}
public class ElseStrategy implements Strategy {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter")
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Strategy + Factory Method - this particular case (where only parameter changes)
We can use the fact that in this case we always call the same method, only parameter changes
We change our base strategy interface to abstract class with getParameter() method and we make new implementations of this abstract class. Other code remains the same.
public abstract class Strategy {
public abstract String getParameter();
public void apply() {
someMethod(getParameter());
}
private void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementations:
public class CondtionOneStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "someParameter";
}
}
public class CondtionTwoStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "anotherParameter";
}
}
public class ElseStrategy extends Strategy {
#Override
public String getParameter() {
return "elseParameter";
}
}
Enum + enum kinda "factory"
We might use Enum to implement strategy and instead of factory method we can use valueOf() from enum.
public void decide(String someCondition) {
ConditionEnum conditionEnum = ConditionEnum.valueOf(someCondition);
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Condition enum:
public enum ConditionEnum {
CONDITION_ONE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("someParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_TWO {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("anotherParameter");
}
},
CONDITION_ELSE {
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod("elseParameter");
}
};
//...more conditions
public abstract void apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("CONDITION_ONE");
decide("CONDITION_TWO");
decide("CONDITION_ELSE");
//...
}
Notice that you will get IllegalArgumentException when enum type has no constant with the specified name.
Command + Factory
The difference between strategy and command is that command holds also state, so if you have for example compute(int a, int b, String someCondition) and you want to refactor it with strategy including it's signature change you can reduce it to compute(int a, int b, ComputeStrategy computeStrategy) with command you can reduce it to one argument compute(ComputeCommand computeCommand). In this case we also take advantage of polymorphism similarly to strategy pattern case.
CommandConditionFactory commandConditionFactory = new CommandConditionFactory();
public void decide(String someCondition) {
Command command = commandConditionFactory.getCommand(someCondition)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition"));
command.apply();
}
It would be better to design it in a way that else condition is included in the factory, and developer calls it on purpose. In such case we throw exception when condition is not meet. Alternatively we could write it exactly as it was in question. If you want so instead of .orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong condition")); put .orElse(new ElseCommand());
CommandConditionFactory (factory method):
public class CommandConditionFactory {
private Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Command interface:
public interface Command {
void apply();
}
Implementations (there is some redundancy, but It is there to show how command should look in more general case where instead of someMethod() we have three different methods):
public class ConditionOneCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionOneCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ConditionTwoCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ConditionTwoCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
public class ElseCommand implements Command {
private final String parameter;
public ElseCommand(String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply() {
//someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandFactoryApp() {
//...
decide("conditionOne");
decide("conditionTwo");
decide("conditionElse");
//...
}
Command + Factory - This particular case.
This in fact isn't a real command pattern just a derivative. It takes advantage of the fact that in this case we are always calling the same method someMethod(parameter) and only the parameter changes.
Abstract class:
public abstract class Command {
abstract void apply();
protected void someMethod(String parameter) {
//someAction
}
}
Implementation (the same for all 3 conditional cases):
public class CommandImpl extends Command {
private final String parameter;
public CommandImpl (String parameter) {
this.parameter = parameter;
}
#Override
public void apply(){
someMethod(parameter);
}
}
Factory, please notice that there is only one command implementation, only parameter changes:
public class CommandConditionFactory {
Map<String, Command> conditions = new HashMap<>();
public CommandConditionFactory() {
conditions.put("conditionOne", new CommandImpl("someParameter"));
conditions.put("conditionTwo", new CommandImpl("anotherParameter"));
//It is better to call else condition on purpose than to have it in the conditional method
conditions.put("conditionElse", new CommandImpl("elseParameter"));
//...
}
public Optional<Command> getCommand(String condition) {
return Optional.ofNullable(conditions.get(condition));
}
}
Nested if's
Note that even if you have nested ifs sometimes it is possible to refactor them and use one of the mentioned techniques.
Lets say that we have following code:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")){
someLogic1();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")){
someLogic2();
}
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")) {
if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")){
someLogic3();
}
else if(nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")){
someLogic4();
}
}
}
You could refactor it using mathematical logic rules:
public void decide2(String someCondition, String nestedCondition) {
if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionOne")) {
someLogic1();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionOne")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionTwo")) {
someLogic2();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionThree")) {
someLogic3();
}
else if(someCondition.equals("conditionTwo")
&& nestedCondition.equals("nestedConditionFour")) {
someLogic4();
}
}
and then you can use strategy, enum or command. You just have a pair of Strings <String, String> instead of single String.
Decision Tables
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can implement your own decision tables or use some ready to go decision tables solution. I won't give the implementation there.
Rules Engine
When you have nested ifs that couldn't be refactored as mentioned you can also implement your own simple rules engine. You should use it only if you have many nested ifs, otherwise it is triumph of form over content.
For very complicated Business Logic there are professional Rule Engines like Drools.
I won't give the implementation there.
One more thing
In the example that you gave there is a high possibility that someone introduced these ifs, but they are totally redundant. And we can check it by trying to refactor decide method signature to make it take some other argument and to refactor surrounding code that is calling our method. By doing so we are getting rid of our Factory Method. There are examples that present how the code might look when it occurs that these ifs were redundant.
Strategy
Decide method:
public void decide(Strategy strategy) {
strategy.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void strategyApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneStrategy());
decide(new ConditionTwoStrategy());
decide(new ElseStrategy());
//...
}
Enum
Decide method:
public void decide(ConditionEnum conditionEnum) {
conditionEnum.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void enumApp() {
//...
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ONE);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_TWO);
decide(ConditionEnum.CONDITION_ELSE);
//...
}
Command
Decide method:
public void decide(Command command) {
command.apply();
}
Usage (simplified):
public void commandApp() {
//...
decide(new ConditionOneCommand("someParameter"));
decide(new ConditionTwoCommand("anotherParameter"));
decide(new ElseCommand("elseParameter"));
//...
}
In fact it is quite specific case, there are cases in which for example we have to use simple type like String, because it comes from the external system or condition is based on integer from input so we can't refactor the code so easily.

The general recommendation by Martin Fowler is to
Replace Conditional with Polymorphism.
In terms of design patterns this would often be the Strategy Pattern
Replace Conditional Logic with Strategy.
If you have a small, finite set of conditions, I recommend to use an enum to implement the Strategy Pattern (provide an abstract method in the enum and override it for each constant).
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
//...
}
},
CONDITION_TWO{
public void someMethod(MyClass myClass){
}
}
public abstract void someMethod(MyClass myClass);
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someCondition.someMethod(this);
}
}
If it's really just a parameter you want to pick, then you could define the enum like this instead:
public enum SomeCondition{
CONDITION_ONE("parameterOne"),
CONDITION_TWO("parameterTwo");
private final String parameter;
private SomeCondition(String parameter){
this.parameter = parameter;
}
public String getParameter(){
return parameter;
}
}
public class MyClass{
//...
public void decide(SomeCondition someCondition){
someMethod(someCondition.getParameter());
}
}

Another way to solve the current problem is to use Factory Pattern. This provides functionality to extract a factory method that returns an object of a given type and performs the operation based on the concrete object behavior.
public interface Operation {
String process(String a, String b);
}
The method takes two string as input and returns the result.
public class Concatenation implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return a.concat(b);
}
}
public class Join implements Operation {
#Override
public String process(String a, String b) {
return String.join(", ", a, b);
}
}
And then we should define a factory class which returns instances of Operation based on the given operator:
public class OperatorFactory {
static Map<String, Operation> operationMap = new HashMap<>();
static {
operationMap.put("concatenation", new Concatenation());
operationMap.put("join", new Join());
// more operators
}
public static Optional<Operation> getOperation(String operator) {
return Optional.ofNullable(operationMap.get(operator));
}
}
And now we can use it:
public class SomeServiceClass {
public String processUsingFactory(String a, String b, String operationName) {
Operation operation = OperatorFactory
.getOperation(operationName)
.orElseThrow(() -> new IllegalArgumentException("Invalid Operation"));
return operation.process(a, b);
}
}

I guess you must have already considered it, but if you are using JDK 7 or above, you can switch on strings. That way your code can look cleaner than a bunch of if-else statements.

Pass outer anon class ref to a method in an inner anon class

How to pass outer anon class ref to a method in an inner anon class in Java?
I have a method that makes async call to a server - sendCall(some_args, callback). The callback is represented by anonymous class (let's name it OuterAnon) and contains a method for failure case. Inside this method a message box is created and sendCall() is called each time OK button is pressed. So I need to pass OuterAnon to the method again.
Here is a code to demonstrate what I mean:
private void sendCall(MyData data, OuterAnon<Boolean> callback){/*...*/}
private void myCall(final MyData data) {
sendCall(data, new OuterAnon<Boolean>() {
public void onFailure(Throwable throwable) {
final OuterAnon<Boolean> callback = this; //how to avoid this?
MessageBox.show(throwable.getMessage(), new MessageListener() {
public void process(MessageBox.OnClick action) {
if (action == MessageBox.OnClick.OK) {
sendCall(new MyData("resend?"), callback);
}
}
});
}
}
});
}
As you noticed, I take a ref for callback here:
final OuterAnon<Boolean> callback = this;
and use it here:
sendCall(new MyData("resend?"), callback);
But I want to avoid ref creation and pass callback like:
sendCall(new MyData("resend?"), this); //at the moment we point to MessageListener instead of OuterAnon.
Is there any way to do it in Java?

It's hard for us to fix since you've only shown incomplete code with classes that aren't supplied, so I don't know if this example is syntactically correct. That being said, a refactoring like this may suit your needs:
private void myCall(final MyData data)
{
sendCall(data, new OuterAnon<Boolean>()
{
public void onFailure(Throwable throwable)
{
showErrorMessage(throwable);
}
});
}
private void showErrorMessage(Throwable throwable)
{
MessageBox.show(throwable.getMessage(), new MessageListener()
{
public void process(MessageBox.OnClick action)
{
if (action == MessageBox.OnClick.OK)
{
sendCall(new MyData("resend?"));
}
}
});
}
private void sendCall(MyData data)
{
sendCall(data, this);
}
In general, I think it's a usually good idea to abstract code out of anon inner classes and into their own method on the enclosing class. It's now testable, reusable, and more readable, IMO.

If you really need to specify the onFailure inside the inner class the way you showed the code, and if you need to use that specific reference for callback, and you need to code this way...
Let's answer the question: no.
In my attempts, I've achieved 3 ways to access the anon-inner-least instance inside the anon-inner-most instance, but I think that none satisfies what you expect.
In that case, the anon-inner-most doesn't have a reference to the anon-inner-least: as you said, the this now points to the anon-inner-least.
Also, I tried to search at the java specification, but couldn't find exactly the answer to the question - if someone find the answer there, please contribute.
My try:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.LinkedList;
public abstract class AnonTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ArrayList<Object>() {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -5986194903357006553L;
{
// initialize inner anon class
add("1");
}
// Way 1
private Object thisReference1 = this;
// Way 2
private Object getThisReference2() {
return this;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
// Way 3
final Object thisReference3 = this;
new LinkedList<Object>() {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 900418265794508265L;
{
// initialize inner inner anon class
add("2");
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object innerObj) {
// achieving the instance
System.out.println(thisReference1);
System.out.println(getThisReference2());
System.out.println(thisReference3);
System.out.println(this);
System.out.println();
// achieving the class
System.out.println(thisReference1.getClass());
System.out.println(getThisReference2().getClass());
System.out.println(thisReference3.getClass());
System.out.println(this.getClass());
System.out.println(this.getClass().getEnclosingClass());
return super.equals(innerObj);
}
}.equals("");
return super.equals(obj);
}
}.equals("");
}
}

Can overriding be an effective replacement for an if statement in lazy initialization and in general?

I'm trying to mimic the following abstract class, designed to enable only one lazy initialization, without using logic statements. I'm ignoring the synchronization elements necessary for thread safety for simplicity's sake.
abstract class Thunk<T>
{
private boolean initiated = false;
private T value;
public T get()
{
if(!initiated) // not using (value == null)
{
value = compute();
initiated = true;
}
return value;
}
abstract protected T compute();
}
Can an instance of the following abstract class be hacked by a child to initialize the same variable more than once?
abstract class Thunk<T>
{
private T value;
private Computer<T> computer;
public Thunk()
{
computer = new Computer<T>(this);
}
public T get()
{
value = computer.getValue();
return value;
}
abstract protected T compute();
private class Computer<T>
{
private static final String TAG = "Computer";
private Thunk<T> thunk;
private T value;
private Computer<T> computer;
public Computer(Thunk<T> thunk)
{
Log.d(TAG, "constructed");
this.thunk = thunk;
computer = this;
}
public T getValue()
{
Log.d(TAG + ".getValue()", "");
value = computer.computeValue();
return value;
}
protected T computeValue()
{
Log.d(TAG + ".computeValue()", "");
value = thunk.compute();
computer = new DumbComputer<T>(thunk, value);
return value;
}
//this is for maximal encapsulation
private class DumbComputer<T> extends Computer<T>
{
private static final String TAG = "DumbComputer";
private T value;
public DumbComputer(Thunk<T> thunk, T value)
{
super(thunk);
Log.d(TAG + ".contructed()", "booki");
this.value = value;
}
//overriding so that value will be calculated only once.
#Override
protected T computeValue()
{
Log.d(TAG + ".computeValue()", "");
return value;
}
}
}
}

Yes, by overriding the get method.
To fix that you can make the get into a final method. That will prevent overriding and give you singleton-like behaviour.
Note that the code you have written is not thread safe.
You could achieve thread safety by making the method synchronized (don't worry about performance until you know you gave a problem and that the method is the hotspot, because slow correct code is better than fast incorrect code, and the JVM is very good at optimising locks. If you find a specific lock for this class to be excessively hot, you can use a number of tricks to speed it up... but don't worry about that just yet)
Also worth pointing out the resource holder inner class pattern for lazy init (not applicable to your use case as this class need. It be used for only singletons) can be used if you wan the best lazy init of singletons.
update (responding to comment as comments don't support formatting)
Do this:
abstract class Thunk<T>
{
private boolean initiated = false;
private T value;
public synchronized final T get()
{
if(!initiated) // not using (value == null)
{
value = compute();
initiated = true;
}
return value;
}
abstract protected T compute();
}
That is the simplest code that can possibly work. Don't even dream of trying to "improve" that code. It can be improved, but the improvements will differ depending on how the class is being used, and the complexity of the improvement will hide what your code is trying to do. Start with the simplest thing that can work, and go from there.
Keep It Simple Stupid
And don't solve problems you don't have yet

The pattern
public final void f() {
...
X x = ...;
g(x);
...
}
abstract protected void g(X x);
is quite usefull in contractual programming:
to impose a behaviour (body of f), and
to provide a local context (x).
A behaviour often is realized by holding a state (like your initiated).
So yes, it is fine for lazy evaluation. Though lazy evaluation can be achieved on field level, for instance by the seldom seen jewel Future<>.

Your second example does not work as (probably) intended, as you create a new DumbComputer each time you call Thunk.get. You can achieve your goal as follows (but I do not think it's good design, and I really do not see where the advantage compared to an easier solution shuld be):
abstract class Thunk<T> {
T value;
Computer<T> computer;
protected abstract T doCompute ();
private interface Computer<T> {
Computer getComputer ();
T compute ();
}
public Thunk<T> () {
// initialize computer with a calculating one
computer = new Computer<T> () {
Computer getComputer () {
// return a dumb computer
return new Computer<T> () {
Computer getComputer () { return this; }
T compute () { return value; }
}
}
T compute () { value = doCompute (); return value; }
};
}
public T getValue () {
T v = computer.compute (); computer = computer.getComputer (); return v;
}
}