I am sorry for the vague question. I am not sure what I'm looking for here.
I have a Java class, let's call it Bar. In that class is an instance variable, let's call it foo. foo is a String.
foo cannot just have any value. There is a long list of strings, and foo must be one of them.
Then, for each of those strings in the list I would like the possibility to set some extra conditions as to whether that specific foo can belong in that specific type of Bar (depending on other instance variables in that same Bar).
What approach should I take here? Obviously, I could put the list of strings in a static class somewhere and upon calling setFoo(String s) check whether s is in that list. But that would not allow me to check for extra conditions - or I would need to put all that logic for every value of foo in the same method, which would get ugly quickly.
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right either.
What approach should I take here?
Here's a more concrete example, to make it more clear what I am looking for. Say there is a Furniture class, with a variable material, which can be lots of things, anything from mahogany to plywood. But there is another variable, upholstery, and you can make furniture containing cotton of plywood but not oak; satin furniture of oak but not walnut; other types of fabric go well with any material; et cetera.
I wouldn't suggest creating multiple classes/templates for such a big use case. This is very opinion based but I'll take a shot at answering as best as I can.
In such a case where your options can be numerous and you want to keep a maintainable code base, the best solution is to separate the values and the logic. I recommend that you store your foo values in a database. At the same time, keep your client code as clean and small as possible. So that it doesn't need to filter through the data to figure out which data is valid. You want to minimize dependency to data in your code. Think of it this way: tomorrow you might need to add a new material to your material list. Do you want to modify all your code for that? Or do you want to just add it to your database and everything magically works? Obviously the latter is a better option. Here is an example on how to design such a system. Of course, this can vary based on your use case or variables but it is a good guideline. The basic rule of thumb is: your code should have as little dependency to data as possible.
Let's say you want to create a Bar which has to have a certain foo. In this case, I would create a database for BARS which contains all the possible Bars. Example:
ID NAME FOO
1 Door 1,4,10
I will also create a database FOOS which contains the details of each foo. For example:
ID NAME PROPERTY1 PROPERTY2 ...
1 Oak Brown Soft
When you create a Bar:
Bar door = new Bar(Bar.DOOR);
in the constructor you would go to the BARS table and query the foos. Then you would query the FOOS table and load all the material and assign them to the field inside your new object.
This way whenever you create a Bar the material can be changed and loaded from DB without changing any code. You can add as many types of Bar as you can and change material properties as you goo. Your client code however doesn't change much.
You might ask why do we create a database for FOOS and refer to it's ids in the BARS table? This way, you can modify the properties of each foo as much as you want. Also you can share foos between Bars and vice versa but you only need to change the db once. cross referencing becomes a breeze. I hope this example explains the idea clearly.
You say:
Is the solution to make several hundred classes for every possible
value of foo and insert in each the respective (often trivial) logic
to determine what types of Bar it fits? That doesn't sound right
either.
Why not have separate classes for each type of Foo? Unless you need to define new types of Foo without changing the code you can model them as plain Java classes. You can go with enums as well but it does not really give you any advantage since you still need to update the enum when adding a new type of Foo.
In any case here is type safe approach that guarantees compile time checking of your rules:
public static interface Material{}
public static interface Upholstery{}
public static class Oak implements Material{}
public static class Plywood implements Material{}
public static class Cotton implements Upholstery{}
public static class Satin implements Upholstery{}
public static class Furniture<M extends Material, U extends Upholstery>{
private M matrerial = null;
private U upholstery = null;
public Furniture(M matrerial, U upholstery){
this.matrerial = matrerial;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public M getMatrerial() {
return matrerial;
}
public U getUpholstery() {
return upholstery;
}
}
public static Furniture<Plywood, Cotton> cottonFurnitureWithPlywood(Plywood plywood, Cotton cotton){
return new Furniture<>(plywood, cotton);
}
public static Furniture<Oak, Satin> satinFurnitureWithOak(Oak oak, Satin satin){
return new Furniture<>(oak, satin);
}
It depends on what you really want to achieve. Creating objects and passing them around will not magically solve your domain-specific problems.
If you cannot think of any real behavior to add to your objects (except the validation), then it might make more sense to just store your data and read them into memory whenever you want. Even treat rules as data.
Here is an example:
public class Furniture {
String name;
Material material;
Upholstery upholstery;
//getters, setters, other behavior
public Furniture(String name, Material m, Upholstery u) {
//Read rule files from memory or disk and do all the checks
//Do not instantiate if validation does not pass
this.name = name;
material = m;
upholstery = u;
}
}
To specify rules, you will then create three plain text files (e.g. using csv format). File 1 will contain valid values for material, file 2 will contain valid values for upholstery, and file 3 will have a matrix format like the following:
upholstery\material plywood mahogany oak
cotton 1 0 1
satin 0 1 0
to check if a material goes with an upholstery or not, just check the corresponding row and column.
Alternatively, if you have lots of data, you can opt for a database system along with an ORM. Rule tables then can be join tables and come with extra nice features a DBMS may provide (like easy checking for duplicate values). The validation table could look something like:
MaterialID UpholsteryID Compatability_Score
plywood cotton 1
oak satin 0
The advantage of using this approach is that you quickly get a working application and you can decide what to do as you add new behavior to your application. And even if it gets way more complex in the future (new rules, new data types, etc) you can use something like the repository pattern to keep your data and business logic decoupled.
Notes about Enums:
Although the solution suggested by #Igwe Kalu solves the specific case described in the question, it is not scalable. What if you want to find what material goes with a given upholstery (the reverse case)? You will need to create another enum which does not add anything meaningful to the program, or add complex logic to your application.
This is a more detailed description of the idea I threw out there in the comment:
Keep Furniture a POJO, i.e., just hold the data, no behavior or rules implemented in it.
Implement the rules in separate classes, something along the lines of:
interface FurnitureRule {
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException;
}
class ValidMaterialRule implements FurnitureRule {
// this you can load in whatever way suitable in your architecture -
// from enums, DB, an XML file, a JSON file, or inject via Spring, etc.
private Set<String> validMaterialNames;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
if (!validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial());
}
}
class UpholsteryRule implements FurnitureRule {
// Again however suitable to implement/config this
private Map<String, Set<String>> validMaterialsPerUpholstery;
#Overload
void validate(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
Set<String> validMaterialNames = validMaterialsPerUpholstery.get(furniture.getUpholstery();
if (validMaterialNames != null && !validMaterialNames.contains(furniture.getMaterial()))
throws new FurnitureRuleException("Invalid material " + furniture.getMaterial() + " for upholstery " + furniture.getUpholstery());
}
}
// and more complex rules if you need to
Then have some service along the lines of FurnitureManager. It's the "gatekeeper" for all Furniture creation/updates:
class FurnitureManager {
// configure these via e.g. Spring.
private List<FurnitureRule> rules;
public void updateFurniture(Furniture furniture) throws FurnitureRuleException {
rules.forEach(rule -> rule.validate(furniture))
// proceed to persist `furniture` in the database or whatever else you do with a valid piece of furniture.
}
}
material should be of type Enum.
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY,
TEAK,
OAK,
...
}
Furthermore you can have a validator for Furniture that contains the logic which types of Furniture make sense, and then call that validator in every method that can change the material or upholstery variable (typically only your setters).
public class Furniture {
private Material material;
private Upholstery upholstery; //Could also be String depending on your needs of course
public void setMaterial(Material material) {
if (FurnitureValidator.isValidCombination(material, this.upholstery)) {
this.material = material;
}
}
...
private static class FurnitureValidator {
private static boolean isValidCombination(Material material, Upholstery upholstery) {
switch(material) {
case MAHOGANY: return upholstery != Upholstery.COTTON;
break;
//and so on
}
}
}
}
We often are oblivious of the power inherent in enum types. The Java™ Tutorials clearly states "you should use enum types any time you need to represent a fixed set of constants."
How do you simply make the best of enum in resolving the challenge you presented? - Here goes:
public enum Material {
MAHOGANY( "satin", "velvet" ),
PLYWOOD( "leather" ),
// possibly many other materials and their matching fabrics...
OAK( "some other fabric - 0" ),
WALNUT( "some other fabric - 0", "some other fabric - 1" );
private final String[] listOfSuitingFabrics;
Material( String... fabrics ) {
this.listOfSuitingFabrics = fabrics;
}
String[] getListOfSuitingFabrics() {
return Arrays.copyOf( listOfSuitingFabrics );
}
public String toString() {
return name().substring( 0, 1 ) + name().substring( 1 );
}
}
Let's test it:
public class TestMaterial {
for ( Material material : Material.values() ) {
System.out.println( material.toString() + " go well with " + material.getListOfSuitingFabrics() );
}
}
Probably the approach I'd use (because it involves the least amount of code and it's reasonably fast) is to "flatten" the hierarchical logic into a one-dimensional Set of allowed value combinations. Then when setting one of the fields, validate that the proposed new combination is valid. I'd probably just use a Set of concatenated Strings for simplicity. For the example you give above, something like this:
class Furniture {
private String wood;
private String upholstery;
/**
* Set of all acceptable values, with each combination as a String.
* Example value: "plywood:cotton"
*/
private static final Set<String> allowed = new HashSet<>();
/**
* Load allowed values in initializer.
*
* TODO: load allowed values from DB or config file
* instead of hard-wiring.
*/
static {
allowed.add("plywood:cotton");
...
}
public void setWood(String wood) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + this.upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
}
public void setUpholstery(String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(this.wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
public void setMaterials(String wood, String upholstery) {
if (!allowed.contains(wood + ":" + upholstery)) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("bad combination of materials!");
}
this.wood = wood;
this.upholstery = upholstery;
}
// getters
...
}
The disadvantage of this approach compared to other answers is that there is no compile-time type checking. For example, if you try to set the wood to plywoo instead of plywood you won’t know about your error until runtime. In practice this disadvantage is negligible since presumably the options will be chosen by a user through a UI (or through some other means), so you won’t know what they are until runtime anyway. Plus the big advantage is that the code will never have to be changed so long as you’re willing to maintain a list of allowed combinations externally. As someone with 30 years of development experience, take my word for it that this approach is far more maintainable.
With the above code, you'll need to use setMaterials before using setWood or setUpholstery, since the other field will still be null and therefore not an allowed combination. You can initialize the class's fields with default materials to avoid this if you want.
public void getSchoolClasses(ArrayList<SchoolClass>schoolClassesIds , final CompletionHandler completionHandler){
ParseQuery<ParseObject> query = ParseQuery.getQuery("schoolClasses");
query.whereContainedIn("objectId",schoolClassesIds);
query.findInBackground(new FindCallback<ParseObject>() {
#Override
public void done(List<ParseObject> objects, ParseException e) {
if (e==null){
for (int i =0 ; i < objects.size();i++){
SchoolClass schoolClass=(SchoolClass)objects.get(i);
schoolClass.getTeacher().fetchInBackground(new GetCallback<ParseObject>() {
#Override
public void done(ParseObject object, ParseException e) {
}
});
}
}else{
completionHandler.onError(e);
}
}
});
}
How do I know when all objects are finished being fetched and to fire the completion handler?
from your code i can understand that you have a School class and each school can have 1...many teachers.
For that structure you should go with pointers.
Pointers allows you to save one to many relation between 2 parse objects and the big advantage is that you can execute one api call to get all the data that you need so you will not need to call fetch in a loop which is a bad practice.
In order to use pointers you need to do the following:
Go to your School sub class and add setter and getter for teachers. The teachers will be of type List<{Teacher Sub Class object}>
Your query should look like the following now:
ParseQuery<ParseObject> query = ParseQuery.getQuery("schoolClasses");
query.whereContainedIn("objectId",schoolClassesIds);
query.include("teachers"); // this line will fetch also the teachers together with the school
In your query callback you can now access the teachers in the following way:
SchoolClass schoolClass=(SchoolClass)objects.get(i);
schoolClass.getTeachers();
Pointers also allows you to retrieve relation of relations by using dot notation inside the include function (e.g. "teachers.students" will bring all the teachers and all the students for each teacher). That is the reason why i told you to use Pointers.
You can read more about it in here
I also suggest you to read also on Sub Classing your parse objects. By looking at your code it looks like you are not really using it. Sub classing of parse objects allows you to keep your code more organized and also expose easy access to the parse objects.
Please read more about Subclass and how to use it in here
It's not mandatory only a recommendation :)
I have two classes. The OrderSlip class has a one-to-many relationship with orderedItemDescription.
class OrderSlip {
String employeeID
int serving
int tableNumber
static hasMany = [orderedItemDescription: OrderedItemDescription]
}
class OrderedItemDescription {
MenuItem menuItem
MenuItemProgressStatus progress//progress
String descriptionOfOrder
int quantity = 1
static belongsTo = OrderSlip
}
Now my problem is how do i iterate orderedItemDescription so that when i update my orderSlip i can add many orderedItemDescriptions along with its properties.
def updateOrderSlip(Long id) {
User currentUser = springSecurityService.currentUser
def orderSlipInstance = Table.get(id)
//other codes for orderedItemDescription here
orderSlipInstance.employeeID = currentUser.username
orderSlipInstance.serving= Integer.parseInt(params.serving)
orderSlipInstance.tableNumber= params.tableNumber
render(action:'server')
}
Im doing something like this in my gsp. im only adding data to the DOM with the add buttons. Then for the send order im hoping i can update it like the problem since im also adding many g:hiddenField for each orderedItemDescription in my summary
You should be persisting each new instance OrderedItemDescription somehow.
You can store it immediately in the DB upon click on add-button with the status flag set to incomplete. When you save the whole order, you must change the incomplete to complete.
Another option would be to keep the items in the http session. Upon send order you iterate through the in-session items and persist them all along with the order instance.
Both ways have advantages and drawbacks, but they both are useful.
I am working on an android app that loads in a list of students to display in a list based activity. There are two components to the app. There is a server which responds via xml with the list of current active students and a database on the app end which stores theses students with some details (name,age etc). I would like a way to sync these two data sources. When the app starts, I would like to check against the xml to see if students on the server were added/deleted and update the db accordingly.
I would be parsing the xml list into a student object at login. Is there any way to store/retrieve an entire object into an android supported db so I can do a direct comparison to see what to update/delete? It would end up being something like
if (serverStudent[0].name == dbStudent[0].name)
//overwrite dbStudent object with serverStudent fields
What is the most efficient/lightweight way to achieve object persistance and then comparison in Android?
Here's a method I have used in the past:
Anytime an object in the database is changed, use a timestamp column to store that time. When the app connects on startup, simply check each timestamp in the app db against the timestamp in the server db for each object. If the timestamps match, do nothing. If the timestamps don't match, retrieve the updated record from the server. Make sure you're using a detail enough timestamp (usually down to milli- or micro- seconds).
The nice thing about timestamps is that if you don't want the server data to override the app data, you could look at which is newer and keep that object if they've both been edited. Just adding some additional thoughts!
You can do something like this -
public class StudentRecord {
Vector<StudentData> studentDatas;
public StudentRecord()
{
studentDatas = new Vector<StudentData>();
}
public Vector<StudentData> getRecords() {
return studentDatas;
}
public void setRecords(Vector<StudentData> records) {
this.studentDatas = records;
}
public class StudentData
{
String name,Rollno;
public String getRollno() {
return Rollno;
}
public void setRollno(String rollno) {
Rollno = rollno;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
}
}
When you get the vector object studentDatas you can do something like this -
for(Object object : record.getRecords())
{
data = (StudentData)object;
data.getRollno();
data.getName();
}
Check out these libraries:
http://www.datadroidlib.com/
https://github.com/octo-online/robospice
I believe both offer solutions for your situation.
Or you can roll your own solution... Basically you will want to create a service or asynctask to do the syncing, in your student object you can create a constructor that you can pass an id to and have it pull the appropriate record from your local db then make a comparison method that will update if newer information is available.
I'm not sure i understood your question correctly.But as far as i understand i would do something like this.
In server side send send Json array which holds json student objects.
In android side create similer Student class and override equals
method as you want.
Then for each student check with equals method whether they are
equals or not and take action accordingly.
If you want to make faster search in students object array then apply
hash map instead of arrays.
I'm trying to merge these three objects into a single complex object:
public class Person {
private String name;
private List<Event> events;
// getters and setters
}
public class Event {
private String name;
private List<Gift> gifts;
// getters and setters
}
public class Gift {
private String name;
private String recipient;// the name of the person
private String eventName;
// getters and setters
}
My goal is to save the Person object in MongoDB using Morphia and this how I want my document laid out. I've created a document builder, of sorts, that combines lists of each object. Each Person gets a list of all Events, but can only receive specific Gifts. While my document builder does create a document that Morphia can persist, only the Gifts of that last recipient (sort order) are inserted into the Events for all Persons. Though for the correct Events.
public void merge() {
for (Person person : listOfPersons) {
for (Event event : listOfEvents) {
// somePersonsGifts: a sublist of gifts based on Event and Person.
List<Gift> somePersonsGifts = new ArrayList<Gift>();
for (Gift gift : listOfGifts) {
if (person.getName().equals(gift.getRecipient()) && gift.getEventName().equals(event.getName())) {
somePersonsGifts.add(gift);
}
}
event.setGifts(somePersonsGifts);
}
person.setEvents(listOfEvents)
}
}
If I modify the code slightly to process one person at a time by removing the outer loop and having the method take an argument for specific index of the Persons list:
public void merge(int p) {
Person person = listOfPersons.get(p);
//...and so on
I get one complete Person object with the correct gifts. If try to feed the this modified version into a loop, the problem comes back. I've tried using regular for-loops and synchronized collections. I've tried using Google Guava's ImmutableArrayList and still no luck. I know the problem is that I'm changing the lists while accessing them but I can't find anyway around it. I wrote a DAO that uses the MongoDB driver directly and it works properly, but it's a lot more code and quite ugly. I really want this approach to work, the answer is in front of me but I just can't see it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here is your problem:
List<Gift> somePersonsGifts = new ArrayList<Gift>();
....
event.setGifts(somePersonsGifts);
You add the gifts only for one person; if you want to aggregate all the gifts into the event, re-use the existing list.
I don't know anything about MongoDB or Morphia but I suspect the problem is your use of the setters event.setGifts(somePersonsGifts) and person.setEvents(events). Your code does not seem to merge the existing gift and event lists with the ones you are calculating further in the loop, which is how you would want it to behave (if I understand the question correctly).
You should retrieve the allready existing gift list (and event list too) instead of overwriting them with empty new ones.
I don't know if the method merge() is inside the list but I assume that since you are using the list events here
person.setEvents(events);
Maybe you meant
person.setEvents(listOfEvents)
Notice that you are adding all the events to each person. If all the persons went to all the events, it is unnecessary to have the events inside the person.