I am developping a server application in Java. I need to load some ressources from different sources (XML and a Database). So, i need some advice on how to cleanly implement the loading.
I have a class "ServerX" who create some "Memory" object, it's those objets who'll hold the loaded ressources.
I've found two different way of loading, but both seems dirty.
1
public class ServerX
{
/**
Will hold the houses for further use.
*/
private Memory<House> houses;
public ServerX()
{
houses = new Memory<House>();
loadHouses();
loadXX();
loadYY();
LoadZZ();
Load...
}
private void loadHouses()
{
//Pseudo code
List<House> loaded = loadHousesFromDatabase();
houses.addAll(loaded);
}
private void loadXX();
...
}
But this way, it flood my "ServerX" class.
2
public interface Loader
{
public void loadHouses(Memory<House> toFill);
public void loadXX(Memort<XX> toFill);
public void loadYY(Memort<YY> toFill);
public void loadZZ(Memort<ZZ> toFill);
}
public class SimpleLoader implements Loader
{
//Implements methods.
}
public class ServerX
{
/**
Will hold the houses for further use.
*/
private Memory<House> houses;
public ServerX(Loader loader)
{
houses = new Memory<House>();
loader.loadHouses(houses);
loader.loadXX...
}
}
But this way, i think i fall into the Poltergeist antipattern, because i create a new loader only to do the request to the database/XML file, and then it's garbage-collected.
So, is there another way to do it, or is one of my solutions good enough?
Thanks.
One pattern you can consider is the Service Locator Pattern. An explanation of Service Locator can be found here.
Basically, a service locator is a registry + cache combined to find the resource once and keep it in memory for object retrieval during the lifecycle of the application. Service Locator is mainly implemented using the Singleton pattern.
Your second solution using a Loader interface and multiple implementations (XMLLoader and DBLoader) is good. However, keep the loader and the server decoupled by making the load methods return a new Memory instance instead of passing the memory as a reference. Add a copyAll method in Memory class to copy the contents of one memory into another memory. ( See ArrayList.addAll or System.arrayCopy in javadoc )
Related
I decided to split the last part of that question here into a new question here: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/411738/extension-of-classes-where-to-put-behaviour-how-much-direct-access-is-allowe
If i have a lib and i want to use it, i wrote mostly a own class. This class has one method. In that there is the code how to instantiate the lib/framework. Sometimes there are a few more methods, with them i not only instantiate the class but use it. For example if i want to start a http-server i have there a start-method.
class Container
{
TheLib theLib;
public void init() //or a constructor
{
//some init of the theLib
}
public void start() //
{
theLib.doSomething(...)
theLib.doSomethingmore(...);
theLib.start(...);
}
//important!
public TheLib getTheLib()
{
return this.theLib; //after i started configured it and so on, i want of course use all methods,
which the lib have in some other parts in my application
}
}
But it seems not to be the best solution.
Are there any better solutions, that OO is?
Often i also use only one method, a own class for this seems to be here a big overhead?
Exposing the lib breaks encapsulation? Tell-Dont-Ask is also violated?
Everything depend on what you actually need or how you have access to your 'the lib' instance.
public class Container {
private TheLib theLib;
/* #1: Do you already created the instance before? */
public Container(TheLib theLib) {
this.theLib = theLib;
}
/* #2: Do you need to created the instance each time? */
public Container() {
this.theLib = new TheLib();
}
public void start() {
theLib.doSomething(...)
theLib.doSomethingmore(...);
theLib.start(...);
}
public TheLib getTheLib() {
return this.theLib;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
/* #1 */
TheLib theLib = ...;
Container container = new Container(theLib);
/* #2 */
Container container = new Container();
/* Continue the flow of your program */
container.start();
container.getTheLib().doSomethingEvenMore();
}
}
Or maybe you actually need only one instance of your 'Container' class. In this case, you should look on how to make a singleton: Java Singleton and Synchronization
Anwser: Often i also use only one method, a own class for this seems to be here a big overhead?
Well, in Java, you cannot do formal programming like in C, so everything line of code that you write, or will be using, has to be in a class of some sort.
If your piece of code is small and don't really need an object, static function might do the work.
I'm searching for a concept to forward an object to subobjects.
Example:
I would like to create log files for several main Objects, that include sub objects (imagine a REST server that would log every single connection by ID).
Creating one big log file is simple ( redirect System.out.println, I already encapsulated that)
Example code:
class SubElementA{
public SubElementA(){
Debugger.debug("I am called, too");
}
}
Application.java
package com.dev4ag;
class Application{
private ElementA elA;
private String prefix;
public Application(String name){
this.elA = new ElementA();
this.prefix = name;
}
public void countUp(){
Debugger.debug(this.prefix+": I will now count up");
this.elA.doSomeStuff();
}
}
ElementA.java
package com.dev4ag;
class ElementA{
private int counter;
private SubElementA subElementA;
public void doSomeStuff(){
counter++;
Debugger.debug("Counter is: "+counter);
}
//Constructor
public ElementA(){
subElementA = new SubElementA();
this.counter = 0;
};
}
SubElementA.java
package com.dev4ag;
class SubElementA{
public SubElementA(){
Debugger.debug("I am called, too");
}
}
Debugger.java
package com.dev4ag;
public class Debugger {
public static void debug(String output){
//Just imagine we would write to a file here ;)
System.out.println(output);
}
}
(it was more easy to write system.out.println than to create a file, just imagine, Debugger.debug would write to a file).
Now I am thinking about a solution to create one Debug output target for each App. I could definitely change debug to not being static and create a debug object within Application.
But is there any way to use this object in the sub classes without forwarding the debug object either through Constructor or setter function, which would mean to have to add an object for the debugger to each class?
What would be the most beautiful solution for that?
Note that this solution might decrease performance a lot and it is pretty dirty way, but some loggers include such data.
But you can use Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace() to get stacktrace like in error and get class and method from where your method was called.
If you are using java9+ then you should probably use StackWalker API instead, especially that it have nice filters and other useful features.
So then you could guess app by class/method names on the stack.
I'm doing some big refactoring operations relative to some performance improvements in an android app which is using a class with lot of static variables and even static activity references which are then use through the app ! So I was looking for some best practices in Android to store data and give to these data a global access in my app.
First I removed all the activity references to avoid any memory leak, but I'm still looking to know what is the best practice regarding static variables which need to be used anywhere in the android app.
I read many times (example1, exemple2) : using static variables is not necessary a good practices and it's better/cleaner to use one singleton class with getter and setter to have access to my global variables whatever the activity where I am. So what I've started to think is a class which could looks like this one :
public class AppSingleton extends Application {
private static AppSingleton appInstance;
// different stored data, which could be relative to some settings ..
private String setting1;
private String setting2;
private AppSingleton() {
super();
appInstance = new AppSingleton();
}
public static AppSingleton getAppInstance() {
if (appInstance == null) {
appInstance = new AppSingleton();
}
return appInstance;
}
// Getter and Setter for global access
public String getSetting1() {return setting1;}
public void setSetting1(String setting1) {this.setting1 = setting1;}
public String getSetting2() {return setting2;}
public void setSetting2(String setting2) {this.setting2 = setting2;}
}
Then I can use for example :
// Get the application instance
AppSingleton appS = (App) getApplication();
// Call a custom application method
appS.customAppMethod();
// Call a custom method in my App singleton
AppSingleton.getInstance().customAppSingletonMethod();
// Read the value of a variable in my App singleton
String var = AppSingleton.getInstance().getCustomVariable;
For me AppSingleton sounds good because this singleton which restrics ths instantiation of this class to one object, also this class is not destroyed until there are any undestroyed Activity in the application so it means I can keep my global data in the current lifecycle of my app for example from a 'Log in'. But also I can maintain the state of my global variables from my getters/setters.
But then I also had a look on the official android documentation about Performance Tips which say it's good to use static variable it's faster and don't forget to avoid internal getter and setter it's too expansive !
I'm a bit confused about all of these and I'm really keen to learn more about that topic. What is the best practices about using one class to provide an access to some variables which are needed in different part of my code ? Is the class above AppSingeleton is something which could be interesting to use in terms of architecture and performance ?
Is it a good idea to use a singleton pattern for managing global variables in android ?
those lines are completely wrong on your code:
private AppSingleton() {
super();
appInstance = new AppSingleton();
}
public static AppSingleton getAppInstance() {
if (appInstance == null) {
appInstance = new AppSingleton();
}
return appInstance;
}
you cannot instantiate new Application, the Android framework instantiates it. Change to this:
private AppSingleton() {
super();
appInstance = this; // keep ref to this application instance
}
public static AppSingleton getAppInstance() {
return appInstance;
}
Regarding the accessing of global variables. I believe it's more organized to have those singletons somewhere else on your application. The application class have different responsibilities you should not overload it with different tasks. That's OO clean coding.
Also, sometimes there's not that much reason in an Android app to have getters/setters for everything, because u don't need as much access control as in bigger projects. But this should be considered case-by-case about the necessity and not be used a general rule.
So you could for example have it like:
public class Globals {
private static final Globals instance = new Globals();
public static Globals get() { return instance; }
public String value1 = "Hello"
public int value2 = 42;
}
then on your code call as needed:
Log.d(TAG, Globals.get().value1);
Globals.get().value1 = "World";
Log.d(TAG, Globals.get().value1);
Log.d(TAG, "Value2 = " + Globals.get().value2);
I have class which is used to display the current location in the bread crumb.
This class is getting initialised per user from the front end.
my question is do I need to synchronise the methods in this class if yes which are methods needs to be synchronised .There is some confusion. so please advise.
public class CrumbNav {
private Stack<Crumb> stack;
private Crumb crumb;
public CrumbNav() {
stack = new Stack<Crumb>();
crumb = new Crumb("Home");
stack.push(crumb);
}
public void addcrumb(String current) {
Crumb newCrumb = new Crumb(current);
if (stack.peek().equals(newCrumb)) {
return;
}
stack.push(newCrumb);
}
public void removeCurrent() {
stack.pop();
}
public void eraseTrail() {
stack.clear();
stack.push(crumb);
}
public void removeCrumbsClicked(Crumb selected) {
while (true) {
if (stack.peek().equals(selected) || stack.isEmpty())
break;
stack.pop();
}
}
public Crumb getLastBreadCrumb() {
return stack.lastElement();
}
public Crumb getPreviousCrumb() {
if (stack.size() > 1) {
return stack.get(stack.size() - 2);
}
return null;
}
public List<Crumb> getCrumbTrail() {
return stack.subList(0, stack.size());
}
}
It depends on what web framework you're using as to if the object is created per-thread, or as a singleton for the entire session. Spring will, by default, create a single instance and may require synchronization. Other web frameworks may not.
Note that in the "happy path" world, there's only one active thread rendering a page for any given user, but there's nothing stopping the user from rapid-fire clicking on different link initiating many connections and therefore threads.
(I mentioned this in comments, I think it's better to make it an answer.)
There are so many web framework in the industry, who knows how they gonna use your class? The best way is to test whether multiple thread gonna access the same instance concurrently.
Maintain a concurrent set in your class. Every time the method been called, add currentThread.thread_id into the set. Then output the set at last, seeing that whether it's been called from multiple threads. If so, then rewrite your class to a thread-safe version.
Tracking navigation is normally on a per user basis. This class contains storage of the navigation state - which is user specific state, so you need one instance per user session. The methods don't need to be synchronised unless there is the possibility of the same user re-entrantly entering the web server (as mentioned by PaulProgrammer).
Some frameworks will allow this. It can be prevented in Spring MVC by setting the synchronizeOnSession controller property, and there are likely similar techniques for other frameworks.
I am building a user interface in netBeans (coding by hand, more flexible) with multiple toolbars.
What I am trying to do is create an actionListener for each button. I am retrieving names of the functions from XML and parse them to string. I will write implementations for those functions in a separate class, but my problem is the following:
How do I make the link between the function name and the string containing it's name?
Example: String is Open(), function will be Open(someParameter) and in the definitions class there will be static void Open(param).
First of all, consider my comment about your idea of dynamic button behavior resolved from strings being a wrong approach. However if you still need exactly what you asked, what you need is Reflection API.
Here's an example:
Class c = SomeClassWithMethods.class;
Method m = c.getMethod("someMethodName", String.class, Integer.class, Integer.TYPE);
m.invoke(baseObjectFromWhichToCallTheMethod, "stringParam", 10, 5);
Added:
Another option, which is a little bit prettier than reflection, but still a messy design, would be to use a map to link those Strings to methods. The code is a bit longer, but from the Java perspective it is much better than using reflection for your task (unless you have some specific requirement of which I'm not aware). This is how it would work:
//Interface whose instances will bind strings to methods
interface ButtonClickHandler {
void onClick();
}
class SomeClassYouNeed {
//One of the methods that will be bound to "onButtonOneClick()"
public void onButtonOneClick() {
log.info("ButtonOneClick method is called");
}
public void onButtonTwoClick() {
log.info("ButtonTwoClick method is called");
}
//Map that will hold your links
private static Map<String, ButtonClickHandler> buttonActionMap;
//Static constructor to initialize the map
static {
buttonActionMap = new Map<String, ButtonClickHandler>();
buttonActionMap.put("onButtonOneClick()",new ButtonClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick() {
onButtonOneClick();
}
});
buttonActionMap.put("onButtonTwoClick()",new ButtonClickHandler() {
#Override
public void onClick() {
onButtonTwoClick();
}
});
}
public void callByName(String methodName) {
final ButtonClickHandler handler = buttonActionMap.get(methodName);
if (handler == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("No handler found by name: "+methodName);
}
handler.onClick();
}
}
After you call callByName("onButtonTwoClick()") it will fetch the respective instance of ButtonClickHandler which will use the static method onButtonTwoClick() to process the click of the button.
It seems to me that you are looking for the equivalent of JS "eval" function in Java. This might help. Nevertheless it is generally not a good idea as #Max stated, you might want to rethink your design.
If i have understood your question correctly you are trying to generate your code files based on some strings taken from a XML file. I can suggest you this library to generate your codes.
For tutorials you can visit this link.
You may even use the Java Reflection API. Here is a link for the tutorial.
Its upto you, that which of the above two you use.