We Keep Coding

Java - passing an object as a parameter vs. using it's qualified name

I am writing a Java program where a method in one class needs to access a method of an object that is a member of another class. I can do this in at least two different ways, passing as a parameter, or directly accessing the object using the name of the class it is a member of. I find a lot of questions about pass-by-reference vs. pass-by-value, but I can't find anything that addresses this scenario.
Here is some pseudo-code showing what I mean:
// class of object to pass
class MyPrefs {
public String getPref(int i){
String s = ... //some code to get a String indexed by i
return s;
}
}
// class where object is instantiated
class Main {
protected static MyPrefs prefs = new MyPrefs();
}
Here are the two options I am looking at. In a third class, Toolbar, I can do either of these:
// pass as parameter
class Toolbar{
public void applyPrefs(MyPrefs p){
String s = p.getPref(1);
...
}
//or use qualified name of object
class Toolbar{
public void applyPrefs(){
String s = Main.prefs.getPref(1);
...
}
}
It works either way, what I would like to know is what are the merits or problems associated with each method, and if there is another way of doing this that I hadn't considered.

I hope this question doesn't get closed for being opinion-based because technically it is. So, I am not going to claim my answer is based on some undisputed best-practice, but I do believe it is generally accepted as the correct approach.
In my opinion, it would be either a variant of the first, and/or a combination of the two. For example:
public static String getProp(String prop) {
// use java.util.Properties to retrieve the property.
}
This works well when your application has a single property file. In cases you have multiple property files, you need to override this method and pass the path to the correct file.
public static String getProp(String filename, String prop) {
// use java.util.Properties to retrieve the property.
}
Where filename could be just the file name or the fully qualified name (with the path). I tend to keep all my property files in the same folder, so I "hard-code" the path and use that as the base location for my files, so most of the time when using this approach, I only need the actual file name.
I also have created utility methods to obtain specific properties where the name of the method implies what property I am obtaining. This is useful for people that are not too familiarized with the property keys.
public static String getXYZProp() {
// use java.util.Properties to load the properties.
return prop.getProperty("XYZ");
}
Alternatively, you should take advantage of the genetic method you created to do the same
public static String getXYZProp() {
return getProp("XYZ");
}
Or even something like
public static String getXYZProp() {
return getProp("someProps.properties", "XYZ");
}
It is OK to have multiple method that ultimately do the same thing. Think that some users will call the generic ones because they are more familiarized with the property keys while others will rely on method with names that help them figure out what properties they need to retrieve.

Maintain path constants for RestControllers

I'd like to know whats the common style to maintain path constants for Rest Controllers.
For example you have something like that:
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET, value = ANY_PATH_VALUE)
I do maintain those constants (in the example ANY_PATH_VALUE) at the moment in a class called PathConstants which looks like this:
public abstract class PathConstants {
public static final String ANY_PATH_VALUE = "/path/{SOME_ID}";
...
}
Is it a common way to keep those values straight at the method of the RestController class or is it like I do currently? Or is there a even more common way how to maintain this kind of stuff?

There are two sides to this,
It actually has close to zero performance problem. This has to something with readability.
The first view is keeping the values as native strings there itself in the controllers. This is more readable in the sense that you can directly check the exact API route when you enter the controller.
The second view is keeping it in some other file with static constants. Keeping all the routes like this actually gives you one common place where you can get to know all the API routes you currently support in your application.
I personally prefer the second i.e. keeping all the paths in a file called APIRoutes and further divided by domains.
public class APIRoutes {
public class SYSTEM {
public static final String HEALTH_CHECK = "api/v1/healthcheck";
public static final String LB_HEALTH_CHECK = "lb/v1/healthcheck";
}
public class API {
public static final String SAVE_X = "api/v1/save";
public static final String GET_X = "api/v1/get";
}
public class CACHE {
public static final String RELOAD_X = "cache/v1/load/x";
public static final String RELOAD_Y = "cache/v1/load/y";
}
}
This way in your controller, you have something like
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.GET, value = APIRoutes.API.SAVE_X)

Using constants seems to be a quite reasonable approach. I would, however, define the constants in a final class with a private constructor throwing an AssertionError to enforce noninstantiability:
public final class PathConstants {
// Suppress default constructor for noninstantiability
private PathConstants() {
throw new AssertionError("No instances for you!");
}
public static final String PATH_TO_FOO = "foo";
public static final String PATH_TO_BAR = "bar";
}
Quoting the Item 4 from Effective Java 3rd edition from Joshua Bloch:
Because the explicit constructor is private, it is inaccessible outside the class. The AssertionError isn’t strictly required, but it provides insurance in case the constructor is accidentally invoked from within the class. It guarantees the class will never be instantiated under any circumstances. This idiom is mildly counterintuitive because the constructor is provided expressly so that it cannot be invoked. It is therefore wise to include a comment, as shown earlier.
As a side effect, this idiom also prevents the class from being subclassed. All constructors must invoke a superclass constructor, explicitly or implicitly, and a subclass would have no accessible superclass constructor to invoke.
You also could use something like #RequestMapping("${foo.bar}"), where foo.bar is a value defined in a property souce (such as an application.properties file or YAML variant).
Quoting the Spring MVC documentation:
URI path patterns can also have embedded ${…​} placeholders that are resolved on startup by using PropertyPlaceHolderConfigurer against local, system, environment, and other property sources. You can use this, for example, to parameterize a base URL based on some external configuration.

I think it is a reasonable way to maintain paths. Just make sure you always build the paths from other constants. For example, if your path has version, you define the version as another variable.
public static final String VERSION_1 = "/v1";
public static final String USERS_V1 = VERSION_1 + "/users";

What is the best way of reading configuration parameters from configuration file in Java?

Let us assume up to runtime we do not know what are the details of configuration(may user need to configure these parameters in config file before running the application.
I want to read those configuration details and need to reuse them wherever I need them in my application. For that I want to make them as global constants(public static final).
So, My doubt is, is there any performance implications if I read from config file directly from the required class? since,runtime values I can not directly put in separate Interface.
I am thinking it will impact performance.Please suggest me any better way to do this.
UPDATE: Can I use separate final class for configuration details?
putting all configuration details as constants in a separate public final class
(To read all configuration details at once from the configuration file and storing them as global constants for later use in application)

I am thinking it will impact performance.
I doubt that this will be true.
Assuming that the application reads the configuration file just once at startup, the time taken to read the file is probably irrelevant to your application's overall performance. Indeed, the longer the application runs, the less important startup time will be.
Standard advice is to only optimize for application performance when you have concrete evidence (i.e. measurements) to say that performance is a significant issue. Then, only optimize those parts of your code that profiling tells you are really a performance bottleneck.
Can I use separate final class for configuration details
Yes it is possible to do that. Nobody is going to stop you1.
However, it is a bad idea. Anything that means that you need to recompile your code to change configuration parameters is a bad idea. IMO.
To read all configuration details at once from the configuration file and storing them as global constants for later use in application.
Ah ... so you actually want to read the values of the "constants" instead of hard-wiring them.
Yes, that is possible. And it makes more sense than hard-wiring configuration parameters into the code. But it is still not a good idea (IMO).
Why? Well lets look at what the code has to look like:
public final class Config {
public static final int CONST_1;
public static final String CONST_2;
static {
int c1;
String c2;
try (Scanner s = new Scanner(new File("config.txt"))) {
c1 = s.nextInt();
c2 = s.next();
} catch (IOException ex) {
throw RuntimeException("Cannot load config properties", ex);
}
CONST_1 = c1;
CONST_2 = c2;
}
}
First observation is that makes no difference that the class is final. It is declaring the fields as final that makes them constant. (Declaring the class as final prevents subclassing, but that has no impact on the static fields. Static fields are not affected by inheritance.)
Next observation is that this code is fragile in a number of respects:
If something goes wrong in the static initializer block. the unchecked exception that is thrown by the block will get wrapped as an ExceptionInInitializerError (yes ... it is an Error!!), and the Config class will be marked as erroneous.
If that happens, there is no realistic hope of recovering, and it possibly even a bad idea to try and diagnose the Error.
The code above gets executed when the Config class is initialized, but determining when that happens can be tricky.
If the configuration filename is a parameter, then you have the problem of getting hold of the parameter value ... before the static initialization is triggered.
Next, the code is pretty messy compared with loading the state into a instance variables. And that messiness is largely a result of having to work within the constraints of static initializers. Here's what the code looks like if you use final instance variables instead.
public final class Config {
public final int CONST_1;
public final String CONST_2;
public Config(File file) throws IOException {
try (Scanner s = new Scanner(file)) {
CONST_1 = s.nextInt();
CONST_2 = s.next();
}
}
}
Finally, the performance benefits of static final fields over final fields are tiny:
probably one or two machine instructions each time you access one of the constants,
possibly nothing at all if the JIT compiler is smart, and you handle the singleton Config reference appropriately.
In either case, in the vast majority of cases the benefits will be insignificant.
1 - OK ... if your code is code-reviewed, then someone will probably stop you.

Have you ever heard of apache commons configuration http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/ ?
It is the best configuration reader I have ever found and even am using it in my application which is running in production since 1 year. Never found any issues, very easy to understand and use, great performance. I know its a bit of dependency to your application but trust me you will like it.
All you need to do is
Configuration config = new ConfigSelector().getPropertiesConfiguration(configFilePath);
String value = config.getString("key");
int value1 = config.getInt("key1");
String[] value2 = config.getStringArray("key2");
List<Object> value3 = config.getList("key3");
And thats it. Your config object will hold all the config values and you can just pass that object to as many classes as you want. With so many available helpful methods you can extract whichever type of key you want.

It will be only one time cost if you are putting them in a property file and reading the file at the start of your application and initialize all the parameters as system parameters(System.setProperty) and then define constants in your code like
public static final String MY_CONST = System.getProperty("my.const");
But ensure the initialization at start of your application before any other class is loaded.

There are different types of configuration.
Usually some sort of bootstrapping configuration, for example to connect to a database or service, is needed to be able to start the application. The J2EE way to specify database connection parameters is via a 'datasource' specified in your container's JNDI registry (Glassfish, JBoss, Websphere, ...). This datasource is then looked up by name in your persistence.xml. In non-J2EE applications it is more common to specify these in a Spring context or even a .properties file. In any case, you usually need something to connect your application to some sort of data store.
After bootstrapping to a data store an option is to manage config values inside this datastore. For example if you have a database you can use a separate table (represented by e.g. a JPA Entity in your application) for configuration values. If you don't want/need this flexibility you can use simple .properties file for this instead. There is good support for .properties files in Java (ResourceBundle) and in frameworks like Spring. The vanilla ResourceBundle just loads the properties once, the Spring helper offers configurable caching and reloading (this helps with the performance aspect which you mentioned). Note: you can also use Properties backed by a data store instead of a file.
Often both approaches coexist in an application. Values that never change within a deployed application (like the application name) can be read from a properties file. Values that might need to be changed by an application maintainer at runtime without redeployment (e.g. the session timeout interval) might better be kept in a reloadable .properties file or in a database. Values that can be changed by users of the application should be kept in the application's data store and usually have an in-application screen to edit them.
So my advise is to separate your configuration settings into categories (e.g. bootstrap, deployment, runtime and application) and select an appropriate mechanism to manage them. This also depends on the scope of your application, i.e. is it a J2EE web app, a desktop app, command-line utility, a batch process?

What kind of configuration file do you have in mind? If it is a properties file, this might suit you:
public class Configuration {
// the configuration file is stored in the root of the class path as a .properties file
private static final String CONFIGURATION_FILE = "/configuration.properties";
private static final Properties properties;
// use static initializer to read the configuration file when the class is loaded
static {
properties = new Properties();
try (InputStream inputStream = Configuration.class.getResourceAsStream(CONFIGURATION_FILE)) {
properties.load(inputStream);
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Failed to read file " + CONFIGURATION_FILE, e);
}
}
public static Map<String, String> getConfiguration() {
// ugly workaround to get String as generics
Map temp = properties;
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<String, String>(temp);
// prevent the returned configuration from being modified
return Collections.unmodifiableMap(map);
}
public static String getConfigurationValue(String key) {
return properties.getProperty(key);
}
// private constructor to prevent initialization
private Configuration() {
}
}
You could also return the Properties object immediately from the getConfiguration() method, but then it could potentially be modified by the code that access it. The Collections.unmodifiableMap() does not make the configuration constant (since the Properties instance gets its values by the load() method after it was created), however since it is wrapped in an unmodifiable map, the configuration cannot be changed by other classes.

Well this is a great problem which is faced in every one's life once in a will. Now coming to the problem, this can be solved by creating a singleton class which has instance variables same as in configuration file with default values. Secondly this class should have a method like getInstance() which reads the properties once and every times returns the same object if it exists. For reading file we can use Environmental variable to get path or something like System.getenv("Config_path");. Reading the properties (readProperties() method) should read each item from config file and set the value to the instance variables of singleton object. So now a single object contains all the configuration parameter's value and also if the parameter is empty than default value is considered.

One more way is to define a class and read the properties file in that class.
This class needs to be at the Application level and can be marked as Singleton.
Marking the class as Singleton will avoid multiple instances to be created.

Putting configuration keys directly to classes is bad: configuration keys will be scattered over the code. Best practice is separation of application code and configuration code. Usually dependency injection framework like spring is used. It loads a configuration file and constructs the objects using configuration values. If you need some configuration value in your class you should create a setter for this value. Spring will set this value during context initialization.

I recommend using JAXB or a similar binding framework that works with text based files. Since a JAXB implementation is part of the JRE, it's pretty easy to use. As Denis I advise against configuration keys.
Here is a simple example for an easy to use and still pretty mighty way to configure you application with XML and JAXB. When you use a DI framework you can just add a similar config object to the DI context.
#XmlRootElement
#XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.FIELD)
public class ApplicationConfig {
private static final JAXBContext CONTEXT;
public static final ApplicationConfig INSTANCE;
// configuration properties with defaults
private int number = 0;
private String text = "default";
#XmlElementWrapper
#XmlElement(name = "text")
private List<String> texts = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList("default1", "default2"));
ApplicationConfig() {
}
static {
try {
CONTEXT = JAXBContext.newInstance(ApplicationConfig.class);
} catch (JAXBException ex) {
throw new IllegalStateException("JAXB context for " + ApplicationConfig.class + " unavailable.", ex);
}
File applicationConfigFile = new File(System.getProperty("config", new File(System.getProperty("user.dir"), "config.xml").toString()));
if (applicationConfigFile.exists()) {
INSTANCE = loadConfig(applicationConfigFile);
} else {
INSTANCE = new ApplicationConfig();
}
}
public int getNumber() {
return number;
}
public String getText() {
return text;
}
public List<String> getTexts() {
return Collections.unmodifiableList(texts);
}
public static ApplicationConfig loadConfig(File file) {
try {
return (ApplicationConfig) CONTEXT.createUnmarshaller().unmarshal(file);
} catch (JAXBException ex) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Could not load configuration from " + file + ".", ex);
}
}
// usage
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getNumber());
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getText());
System.out.println(ApplicationConfig.INSTANCE.getTexts());
}
}
The configuration file looks like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<applicationConfig>
<number>12</number>
<text>Test</text>
<texts>
<text>Test 1</text>
<text>Test 2</text>
</texts>
</applicationConfig>

protected java.util.Properties loadParams() throws IOException {
// Loads a ResourceBundle and creates Properties from it
Properties prop = new Properties();
URL propertiesFileURL = this.getClass().getResource("/conf/config.properties");
prop.load(new FileInputStream(new File(propertiesFileURL.getPath())));
return prop;
}
Properties prop = loadParams();
String prop1=(String) prop.get("x.y.z");

Given the prevalence of YML to express configuration, I'd recommend creating a YML file with the configuration inside it and then loading that once, at startup, into a POJO, then accessing the fields of that POJO to get the configuration:
user: someuser
password: somepassword
url: jdbc://mysql:3306/MyDatabase
With Java Class
public class Config {
private String user;
private String password;
private String url;
// getters/setters
Jackson can be used to load YML as can SnakeYml directly.
On top of this, you could use the OS project I've been working on - https://github.com/webcompere/lightweight-config - which allows you to wrap this up, and even express placeholders in your file to interpolate environment variables:
user: ${USER}
password: ${PASSWORD}
url: jdbc://${DB_HOST}:3306/MyDatabase
then
Config config = ConfigLoader.loadYmlConfigFromResource("config.yml", Config.class);

Alternative To Singleton Util Class

So I have a class like so:
public class HBaseUtil {
private final String fileName = "hbase.properties";
private Configuration config;
private HBaseUtil() {
try {
config = new PropertiesConfiguration(fileName);
} catch (ConfigurationException e) {
// some exception handling logging
}
}
// now some getters pulling data out of the config object
public static String getProperty(String fieldKeyName) {...}
public static String getColumnFamily(String fieldName) {...}
// ... some more getters
// NO setters (thus making this a read-only class)
}
Thus, basically I have for myself a Singleton class, that the very first time that it is put to use, sets up a configuration object, and then simply keeps listening for get calls. There are a number of problems with this class:
Unit testing the static methods within class HBaseUtil becomes difficult because of a tight-knit coupling between the Singleton and the configurations file.
What I really want is me being able to supply the filename/filename+path to the class so that it can go in there, read the configuration properties from that file and offer them to incoming read requests. One important note here though: I need this flexibility in specifying the properties file ONLY ONCE per JVM launch. So I certainly don't need to maintain state.
Here is what I was able to come up with:
Instead of a Singleton, I have a normal class with all static methods and no explicit constructor defined.
public class HBaseUtil {
// directly start with getters
public static String getProperty(Configuration config, String fieldKeyName) {...}
public static String getColumnFamily(Configuration config, String fieldKeyName) {...}
// ...and so on
}
And then, instead of using the class in my other code like such:
HBaseUtil.getProperty(String fieldKeyName)
I'd use it like so:
Configuration externalConfig = new PropertiesConfiguration("my-custom-hbase.properties");
HbaseUtil.getProperty(externalConfig, fieldKeyName)
My questions:
Am I even thinking in the right direction? My requirement is to have the flexibility in the class only ONCE per JVM. All that needs to be configurable in my project for this, is the location/contents of the HBase .properties file. I was thinking having a Singleton is overkill for this requirement.
What other better approaches are there for my requirement (stated in above point)?
Thanks!
Note: I've read this StackOverflow discussion, but now it's gotten me even more confused.

You should avoid all static methods and instead design a class which does not mandate its lifecycle: it can be a typical immutable POJO with a public constructor.
Then, when you need it as a singleton, use it as a singleton. For testing, use it in some other way.
Usually, dependency injection is the preferred avenue to solve these problems: instead of hard-coding a pulling mechanism for your configuration object, you have the object delivered to any class which needs it. Then you can decide late what bean you will deliver.
Since you are probably not using Spring (otherwise dependency injection would be your default), consider using Guice, which is a very lightweight and non-intrusive approach to dependency injection.

Read from property file in interface

i was wondering if it's possible to initialize a constant in an interface from a property file using java or using spring messageSource, or such thing is not possible
please advise, thanks.

You can:
public interface Foo {
String a = Properties.getProperty("foo"); // public static final by default
}
However, that means that Properties.getProperty(..) has to be a static method which relies on an already initialized message source (statically again). Depending on the project and the frameworks you use this might not be the best option.

You could initialise a bean via a configuration which includes a final member. Since it's final you can assign to it during construction/initialisation and it then is immutable.
To configure from a property file using Spring, check out the PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer. That will allow you to initialise Spring beans using one or more property files from your classpath, filesystem, remote services etc.

Yes, that's possible:
public static final CONSTANT = System.getProperty("myProperty");

Although it's possible using some static helper method (as was already suggested), I would strongly recommend you not to do so for 2 reasons:
That looks like a pretty bad design. If you need a dynamic value - make it a method in the interface. Or use a static helper directly - you will need one anyway to make it work.
Constants might be inlined at compile time. That shouldn't happen in this particular case - compiler should go with inlining only if it can prove that value won't change between executions, basically if you initialize it with a literal, But there is a tiny chance that it would. Just think how bad will it be - no matter in which environment the progran is running, it picks up some useless value set during compilation, instead of what is configured. (This is rather a theoretical problem, need to say).

by reading a property file like in the example below.
int property1;
String otherProperty;
public void loadProperties(File propFile) throws IOException {
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(propFile));
String line;
while ((line = reader.readLine()) != null) {
if (line.startsWith("Property1=")) {
property1 = Integer.parseInt(line.substring(10));
}
if (line.startsWith("OtherProperty=")) {
otherProperty = line.substring(14);
}
}
}