We Keep Coding

What is the name of the design pattern where you have a single-value, strongly typed property container?

Looking for the name of the design pattern by which you have a POJO with public final "properties" where the property acts as a holder/wrapper for a certain type of value and contains the getter/setter for that value as well as potentially some additional logic.
This differs from the "Property Container" design pattern where you have a single properties container which contains many types, as this only holds a single value and can thus enjoy the benefits of remaining strongly typed.
An example use:
public class User extends Entity<User> {
private static final Structure<User> STRUCTURE = Structure.of(User.class, User::new)
.addPrimaryKey("user_id", UUID).property((e) -> e.userID).setDefault(() -> UUID()).build()
.addIndex("username", VCHARS_50).property((e) -> e.username).build()
.addIndex("email", VCHARS_255).property((e) -> e.email).build()
.add("password", VCHARS_255).property((e) -> e.passwordHash).build()
.add("privacy_policy_accepted", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.ppAccepted).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.add("tos_accepted", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.tosAccepted).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.add("registration_date", EPOCH).property((e) -> e.registrationDate).setDefault(() -> now()).build()
.buildFor(Schema.MASTER);
public final Property<UUID> userID = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> username = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> email = new Property<>();
public final Property<String> passwordHash = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> ppAccepted = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> tosAccepted = new Property<>();
public final Property<Long> registrationDate = new Property<>();
public User() {
super(STRUCTURE);
}
public void hashAndSetPassword(String password) {
this.passwordHash.set(Argon2Factory.create(Argon2Types.ARGON2id).hash(3, 102800, 1, password.toCharArray()));
}
public boolean verifyPassword(String attempt) {
return Argon2Factory.create(Argon2Types.ARGON2id).verify(passwordHash.get(), attempt.toCharArray());
}
}
With each entity property using the following:
public class Property<T> {
private T currentValue;
public void set(T newValue) {
this.currentValue = newValue;
}
public T get() {
return this.currentValue;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return Objects.equals(currentValue, o);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hashCode(currentValue);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.valueOf(currentValue);
}
}
We can extend or modify this Properties class and make it do more useful stuff for us, like have it record an original value, provided on creation (pulled from a database) and allow it to self-report on whether the current value of the property differs from what it was originally. Useful for determining which columns need to be updated in a database.
Most notably, this eliminates the need to create getters and setters for every new property because the Property has that functionality already. Moreover, the getters/setters are able to be overridden per-property if additional logic is needed.
I naturally ended up using this design while aiming for a more broad goal of eliminating the use of reflection/annotation processors and other black magic from my web framework. However, I’m having difficulty finding it on the internet so that I might be able to research its potential deficiencies.

This kind of wrapper "variable" is used for Observable properties like StringProperty and such. Its primary use is to hold state and have change listeners, binding in general.
It is fruitfully used, like in JavaFX. And as you mentioned, in entity frameworks. But it definitely is stateful, non-functional, mutable.
A pattern name I cannot find, and I think the gang of 4 would haunt one, if calling this a pattern, other than State.

Credit to #Michael and #Kayaman for answering in the comments: This is not a known design pattern, contrary to my expectations.
In other words, there is not a name by which people generally know to refer to what I’m calling a "Property" nor the design I’m suggesting which assumes public getters and setters are desired and uses public final fields to expose a wrapper which provides them.
This is likely because, as Kayaman pointed out, it’s pretty heavy while being not terribly useful.

How to structure email request class for different types of emails requiring different rendering params?

Currently, my notification request is like this:
public class EmailRequest{
public enum EmailType{
TYPE_1,
TYPE_2,
...
}
EmailType emailType;
String toAddress;
EmailRenderer renderer;
}
where EmailRenderer is an interface
public interface EmailRenderer{
EmailMessage render()
}
Now, each type of email has a separate implementation of the renderer interface and each implementation contains some rendering data that has to be provided by the client. This data can be different for each implementation.
Example:
public class Type1EmailRenderer implements EmailRenderer{
String param1;
String param2;
#Override
EmailMessage render(){
//rendering logic using the params
}
}
But, it seems redundant to me for the user to set the email type and renderer as well. Choosing the renderer should automatically get me the emailType. How should I restructure the request to be free of this redundancy? Also, can I use any design pattern for providing the renderers to my users?

I'll base my answer on a claim that,
putting aside programming-related questions, at the level of human logic, it looks to me strange that if I want to send an email I should know about renderers at all.
In my understanding If I have emails of different types (you've called them TYPE_1 and TYPE_2, let's give more "business" names for better clarity, like "dailyReport" or "advertisement", you'll see later why) I should just prepare a request with my data (param1, param2) and send it. I shouldn't care about renderers at all as long as the same email type assumes that the same type of renderer will be used.
So, lets say, type "advertisement" has a mandatory parameter String topic and optional parameter String targetAudience and type "dailyReport" has Integer totalUsersCount and optional String mostActiveUserName.
In this case, I propose the somewhat hybrid approach mainly based on Builder creation pattern:
public class EmailRequestBuilder {
private String toAddress;
private EmailRequestBuilder(String to) {
this.toAddress = to;
}
public static EmailRequestBuilder newEmailRequest(String to) {
return new EmailRequestBuilder(to);
}
public AdvertisementBuilder ofAdvertisementType(String topic) {
return new AdvertisementBuilder(topic, this);
}
public DailyReportBuilder ofDailyReportType(Integer totalUsersCount) {
return new DailyReportBuilder(totalUsersCount, this);
}
// all builders in the same package, hence package private build method,
// concrete email type builders will call this method, I'll show at the end
EmailRequest build(EmailType type, EmailRenderer emailRenderer) {
return new EmailRequest (to, type, emailRenderer);
}
}
public class AdvertisementBuilder {
private String topic;
private EmailRequestBuilder emailRequestBuilder;
// package private, so that only EmailRequestBuilder will be able to create it
AdvertisementBuilder(String topic, EmailRequestBuilder emailRequestBuilder) // mandatory parameters in constructor + reference to already gathered data {
this.topic = topic;
this.emailRequestBuilder = emailRequestBuilder;
}
// for optional parameters provide an explicit method that can be called
// but its not a mandatory call
public AdvertisementBuilder withTargetAudience(String audience) {
this.audience = audience;
return this;
}
public EmailRequest buildRequest() {
EmailRenderer renderer = new AdvertisementRenderer(topic, audience);
return emailRequestBuilder.build(EmailType.ADVERTISEMENT, renderer);
}
}
// A similar builder for DailyReport (I'll omit it but assume that there is a class
class DailyReportBuilder {}
Now the good part about it that now you can't go wrong as a user. A typical interaction with such a construction will be:
EmailRequest request = EmailRequestBuilder.newEmailRequest("john.smith#gmail.com")
.ofAdvertisementType("sample topic") // its a mandatory param, you have to supply, can't go wrong
.withTargetAudience("target audience") // non-mandatory call
.buildRequest();
Couple of notes:
Once you pick a type by calling ofDailyReportType/ ofAdvertisementType the user can't really supply parameters of different email type, because it gets "routed" to the builder that doesn't have methods for wrong parameters. An immediate implication of this is that an autocomplete will work in your IDE and people who will use this method will thank you about it ;)
It's easy to add new email types this way, no existing code will change.
Maybe with this approach, an enum EmailType will be redundant. I've preserved it in my solution but probably you'll drop it if it's not required.
Since I sometimes restrict the visibility (package private build methods, constructors, and so forth) - it will be __the_only__way to create the request which means that no-one will create "internal" objects only because it's possible to do so. At least a malicious programmer will think twice before breaking encapsulation :)

For example you can use "factory method".
EmailRenderer createRenderer(EmailType type) {
switch (type) {
case: TYPE_1:
return new RendererType1();
case: TYPE_2:
return new RendererType2();
...
}
}
Also, you probably can introduce cashing of this objects in order not to create them every time. Maybe some lazy initialization (you create appropriate Renderer first time when you needed and after that always return that same instance).

Coding style and organization

So I am currently making a airplane reservation system for a summer project to keep fresh with Java. With any reservation system its requiring a lot of classes and methods. Currently I'm working on importing the fleet.
My main method is acting like the chronological guide to my program.
public static void main(String[] args){
//start here
//accept passenger credentials
//place passenger in seat on plane
}
My question is a formatting problem. When I'm looking to start "making" my aircraft for my fleet. It goes a little like this.
//...
Airplane Boeing737 = new Airplane(seats[], nameOfAircraft);
This will put all values that i need to construct my airplane, obviously there are more variables for the airplane constructor.
My thought is to make a method in the Airplane class that will do this for me. but in order to do this i need to call a blank constructor for the other class (the one with my main method) to see it. I feel like this is horrible form for some reason. Is there a better way to do this?
Another thought as I'm posting is to modify the constructor to not accept any arguments and have that do everything in there. I feel like that's what I should be doing but I'm not 100% sure that would be the correct choice. I guess my overall question would be what are best practices in situations like this.

Use builder pattern, this will allow you:
dynamic way of building events
maintainable code (you can add more params when you want)
preserve integrity of the objects when created
Joshua Bloch's in Effective Java Chapter 1 Item 2 states:
Luckily, there is a third alternative that combines the safety of the telescoping
constructor pattern with the readability of the JavaBeans pattern. It is a form of the
Builder pattern. Instead of making the desired object directly,
the client calls a constructor (or static factory) with all of the required parameters and gets a builder object.
Modifying his example:
//Builder Pattern
public class Airplane {
private final int[] seats;
private final String name;
private final int maxSpeed;
private final int maxPassengers;
public static class Builder {
// Required parameters
private final int[] seats;
private final String name;
// Optional parameters - initialized to default values
private int maxSpeed = 1000;
private int maxPassengers = 150;
public Builder(int[] seats, String name) {
this.seats = seats;
this.name = name;
}
public Builder maxSpeed(int val) {
maxSpeed = val;
return this;
}
public Builder maxPassengers(int val) {
maxPassengers = val;
return this;
}
public Airplane build() {
return new Airplane(this);
}
}
private Airplane(Builder builder) {
seats = builder.seats;
name = builder.name;
maxSpeed = builder.maxSpeed;
maxPassengers = builder.maxPassengers;
}
}
Then you can create several different airplanes
public static void main(String[] args) {
// only mandatory params
Airplane boeing747 = new Airplane.Builder(new int[] {1,0,1}, "boeing747").build();
// just one param
Airplane boeing646 = new Airplane.Builder(new int[] {1,1,1}, "boeing646").maxPassengers(250).build();
// all params
Airplane fighter = new Airplane.Builder(new int[] {1,0,0}, "fighter_1").maxPassengers(3).maxSpeed(1600).build();
}

Forget the main method for now, you don't know if it will be a command line program, desktop app with a UI, web service or what. You don't know if it will be standalone or hosted in some framework or application server.
I would suggest starting with unit tests and drive the design of your domain model / business logic with TDD.
You don't want to see anything like Boeing737 hard coded like that. It will get its input from some other source, e.g. typed in, xml file, existing database, some other system.
You will then create instances of Airplane dynamically. You will pass something like a DTO from the UI or DB or XML parser to the constructor. There are other ways, look up Factory Pattern for example, but they tend to get overused IMHO.
You seem to be starting off in a way that doesn't match anything anyone does in the real world. Its hard to give any better advice.

How to serialize ANY Object into a URI?

My basic question: is there anything built that already does this automatically (doesn't have to be part of a popular library/package)? The main things I'm working with are Spring (MVC) and Jackson2.
I understand there are a few manual ways to do this:
Create a method in each class that serializes its specific properties into property=value& form (kind of stinks because it's a bunch of logic duplication, I feel).
Create a function that accepts an object, and uses reflection to dynamically read all the properties (I guess the getters), and build the string by getting each. I'm assuming this is how Jackson works for serialization/deserialization in general, but I really don't know.
Use some feature of Jackson to customly serialize the object. I've researched custom serializers, but it seems they are specific to a class (so I'd have to create one for each Class I'm trying to serialize), while I was hoping for a generic way. I'm just having trouble understanding how to apply one universally to objects. A few of the links:
http://techtraits.com/Programming/2011/11/20/using-custom-serializers-with-jackson/
http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonHowToCustomSerializers
Use ObjectMapper.convertValue(object, HashMap.class);, iterate over the HashMap's key/value pairs, and build the string (which is what I'm using now, but I feel the conversions are excessive?).
I'm guessing there's others I'm not thinking of.
The main post I've looked into is Java: Getting the properties of a class to construct a string representation
My point is that I have several classes that I want to be able to serialize without having to specify something specific for each. That's why I'm thinking a function using reflection (#2 above) is the only way to handle this (if I have to do it manually).
If it helps, an example of what I mean is with, say, these two classes:
public class C1 {
private String C1prop1;
private String C1prop2;
private String C1prop3;
// Getters and setters for the 3 properties
}
public class C2 {
private String C2prop1;
private String C2prop2;
private String C2prop3;
// Getters and setters for the 3 properties
}
(no, the properties names and conventions are not what my actual app is using, it's just an example)
The results of serializing would be C1prop1=value&C1prop2=value&C1prop3=value and C2prop1=value&C2prop2=value&C2prop3=value, but there's only one place that defines how the serialization happens (already defined somewhere, or created manually by me).
So my idea is that I will have to end up using a form of the following (taken from the post I linked above):
public String toString() {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
try {
Class c = Class.forName(this.getClass().getName());
Method m[] = c.getDeclaredMethods();
Object oo;
for (int i = 0; i < m.length; i++)
if (m[i].getName().startsWith("get")) {
oo = m[i].invoke(this, null);
sb.append(m[i].getName().substring(3) + ":"
+ String.valueOf(oo) + "\n");
}
} catch (Throwable e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
return sb.toString();
}
And modify it to accept an object, and change the format of the items appended to the StringBuilder. That works for me, I don't need help modifying this now.
So again, my main question is if there's something that already handles this (potentially simple) serialization instead of me having to (quickly) modify the function above, even if I have to specify how to deal with each property and value and how to combine each?
If it helps, the background of this is that I'm using a RestTemplate (Spring) to make a GET request to a different server, and I want to pass a specific object's properties/values in the URL. I understand I can use something like:
restTemplate.getForObject("URL?C1prop1={C1Prop1}&...", String.class, C1Object);
I believe the properties will be automatically mapped. But like I said, I don't want to have to make a different URL template and method for each object type. I'm hoping to have something like the following:
public String getRequest(String url, Object obj) {
String serializedUri = SERIALIZE_URI(obj);
String response = restTemplate.getForObject("URL?" + serializedUri, String.class);
return response;
}
where SERIALIZE_URI is where I'd handle it. And I could call it like getRequest("whatever", C1Object); and getRequest("whateverElse", C2Object);.

I think, solution number 4 is OK. It is simple to understand and clear.
I propose similar solution in which we can use #JsonAnySetter annotation. Please, see below example:
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonAnySetter;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper;
public class JacksonProgram {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
C1 c1 = new C1();
c1.setProp1("a");
c1.setProp3("c");
User user = new User();
user.setName("Tom");
user.setSurname("Irg");
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
System.out.println(mapper.convertValue(c1, UriFormat.class));
System.out.println(mapper.convertValue(user, UriFormat.class));
}
}
class UriFormat {
private StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
#JsonAnySetter
public void addToUri(String name, Object property) {
if (builder.length() > 0) {
builder.append("&");
}
builder.append(name).append("=").append(property);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return builder.toString();
}
}
Above program prints:
prop1=a&prop2=null&prop3=c
name=Tom&surname=Irg
And your getRequest method could look like this:
public String getRequest(String url, Object obj) {
String serializedUri = mapper.convertValue(obj, UriFormat.class).toString();
String response = restTemplate.getForObject(url + "?" + serializedUri, String.class);
return response;
}

Lets we have c1.
c1.setC1prop1("C1prop1");
c1.setC1prop2("C1prop2");
c1.setC1prop3("C1prop3");
Converts c1 into URI
UriComponentsBuilder.fromHttpUrl("http://test.com")
.queryParams(new ObjectMapper().convertValue(c1, LinkedMultiValueMap.class))
.build()
.toUri());
After we will have
http://test.com?c1prop1=C1prop1&c1prop2=C1prop2&c1prop3=C1prop3

Persistent data structures in Java

Does anyone know a library or some at least some research on creating and using persistent data structures in Java? I don't refer to persistence as long term storage but persistence in terms of immutability (see Wikipedia entry).
I'm currently exploring different ways to model an api for persistent structures. Using builders seems to be a interesting solution:
// create persistent instance
Person p = Builder.create(Person.class)
.withName("Joe")
.withAddress(Builder.create(Address.class)
.withCity("paris")
.build())
.build();
// change persistent instance, i.e. create a new one
Person p2 = Builder.update(p).withName("Jack");
Person p3 = Builder.update(p)
.withAddress(Builder.update(p.address())
.withCity("Berlin")
.build)
.build();
But this still feels somewhat boilerplated. Any ideas?

Builders will make your code too verbose to be usable. In practice, almost all immutable data structures I've seen pass in state through the constructor. For what its worth, here are a nice series of posts describing immutable data structures in C# (which should convert readily into Java):
Part 1: Kinds of Immutability
Part 2: Simple Immutable Stack
Part 3: Covariant Immutable Stack
Part 4: Immutable Queue
Part 5: Lolz! (included for completeness)
Part 6: Simple Binary Tree
Part 7: More on Binary Trees
Part 8: Even More on Binary Trees
Part 9: AVL Tree Implementation
Part 10: Double-ended Queue
Part 11: Working Double-ended Queue Implementation
C# and Java are extremely verbose, so the code in these articles is quite scary. I recommend learning OCaml, F#, or Scala and familiarizing yourself with immutability with those languages. Once you master the technique, you'll be able to apply the same coding style to Java much more easily.

I guess the obvious choices are:
o Switch to a transient data structure (builder) for the update. This is quite normal. StringBuilder for String manipulation for example. As your example.
Person p3 =
Builder.update(p)
.withAddress(
Builder.update(p.address())
.withCity("Berlin")
.build()
)
.build();
o Always use persistent structures. Although there appears to be lots of copying, you should actually be sharing almost all state, so it is nowhere near as bad as it looks.
final Person p3 = p
.withAddress(
p.address().withCity("Berlin")
);
o Explode the data structure into lots of variables and recombine with one huge and confusing constructor.
final Person p3 = Person.of(
p.name(),
Address.of(
p.house(), p.street(), "Berlin", p.country()
),
p.x(),
p.y(),
p.z()
);
o Use call back interfaces to provide the new data. Even more boilerplate.
final Person p3 = Person.of(new PersonInfo(
public String name () { return p.name(); )
public Address address() { return Address.of(new AddressInfo() {
private final Address a = p.address();
public String house () { return a.house() ; }
public String street () { return a.street() ; }
public String city () { return "Berlin" ; }
public String country() { return a.country(); }
})),
public Xxx x() { return p.x(); }
public Yyy y() { return p.y(); }
public Zzz z() { return p.z(); }
});
o Use nasty hacks to make fields transiently available to code.
final Person p3 = new PersonExploder(p) {{
a = new AddressExploder(a) {{
city = "Berlin";
}}.get();
}}.get();
(Funnily enough I was just put down a copy of Purely Functional Data Structures by Chris Okasaki.)

Have a look at Functional Java. Currently provided persistent datastructures include:
Singly-linked list (fj.data.List)
Lazy singly-linked list (fj.data.Stream)
Nonempty list (fj.data.NonEmptyList)
Optional value (a container of length 0 or 1) (fj.data.Option)
Set (fj.data.Set)
Multi-way tree (a.k.a. rose tree) (fj.data.Tree)
Immutable map (fj.data.TreeMap)
Products (tuples) of arity 1-8 (fj.P1..P8)
Vectors of arity 2-8 (fj.data.vector.V2..V8)
Pointed list (fj.data.Zipper)
Pointed tree (fj.data.TreeZipper)
Type-safe, generic heterogeneous list (fj.data.hlist.HList)
Immutable arrays (fj.data.Array)
Disjoint union datatype (fj.data.Either)
A number of usage examples are provided with the binary distribution. The source is available under a BSD license from Google Code.

I implemented a few persistent data structures in Java. All open source (GPL) on Google code for anyone who is interested:
http://code.google.com/p/mikeralib/source/browse/#svn/trunk/Mikera/src/mikera/persistent
The main ones I have so far are:
Persistent mutable test object
Persistent hash maps
Persistent vectors/lists
Persistent sets (including a specialised persistent set of ints)

Follow a very simple tentative with dynamic proxy:
class ImmutableBuilder {
static <T> T of(Immutable immutable) {
Class<?> targetClass = immutable.getTargetClass();
return (T) Proxy.newProxyInstance(targetClass.getClassLoader(),
new Class<?>[]{targetClass},
immutable);
}
public static <T> T of(Class<T> aClass) {
return of(new Immutable(aClass, new HashMap<String, Object>()));
}
}
class Immutable implements InvocationHandler {
private final Class<?> targetClass;
private final Map<String, Object> fields;
public Immutable(Class<?> aTargetClass, Map<String, Object> immutableFields) {
targetClass = aTargetClass;
fields = immutableFields;
}
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args) throws Throwable {
if (method.getName().equals("toString")) {
// XXX: toString() result can be cached
return fields.toString();
}
if (method.getName().equals("hashCode")) {
// XXX: hashCode() result can be cached
return fields.hashCode();
}
// XXX: naming policy here
String fieldName = method.getName();
if (method.getReturnType().equals(targetClass)) {
Map<String, Object> newFields = new HashMap<String, Object>(fields);
newFields.put(fieldName, args[0]);
return ImmutableBuilder.of(new Immutable(targetClass, newFields));
} else {
return fields.get(fieldName);
}
}
public Class<?> getTargetClass() {
return targetClass;
}
}
usage:
interface Person {
String name();
Person name(String name);
int age();
Person age(int age);
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Person mark = ImmutableBuilder.of(Person.class).name("mark").age(32);
Person john = mark.name("john").age(24);
System.out.println(mark);
System.out.println(john);
}
}
grow directions:
naming policy (getName, withName, name)
caching toString(), hashCode()
equals() implementations should be straightforward (although not implemented)
hope it helps :)

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to make things immutable that ain't designed so.
If you can design from ground up:
use only final fields
do not reference non immutable objects

Do you want immutability :
so external code cannot change the data?
so once set a value cannot be changed?
In both cases there are easier ways to accomplish the desired result.
Stopping external code from changing the data is easy with interfaces:
public interface Person {
String getName();
Address getAddress();
}
public interface PersonImplementor extends Person {
void setName(String name);
void setAddress(Address address);
}
public interface Address {
String getCity();
}
public interface AddressImplementor {
void setCity(String city);
}
Then to stop changes to a value once set is also "easy" using java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference (although hibernate or some other persistence layer usage may need to be modified):
class PersonImpl implements PersonImplementor {
private AtomicReference<String> name;
private AtomicReference<Address> address;
public void setName(String name) {
if ( !this.name.compareAndSet(name, name)
&& !this.name.compareAndSet(null, name)) {
throw new IllegalStateException("name already set to "+this.name.get()+" cannot set to "+name);
}
}
// .. similar code follows....
}
But why do you need anything more than just interfaces to accomplish the task?

Google Guava now hosts a variety of immutable/persistent data structures.