I have the following method:
#Override
public <T> T method(T object){
if(object instanceOf Type1){
...
}
elseif(object instanceOf Type2){
...
}
...
}
object is always of type SuperType and Type1, Type2, ... are all subtypes of SuperType. I don't have acces to any of the types SuperType, Type1, etc., so I cannot change them.
I´d like to eliminate this structure that has a lot of if-s and instanceOf checks. I tried implementing the Visitor pattern for this purpose, but it didn´t work, as I cannot modify any of the types mentioned above.
Does anyone know a nice solution for this example? Thank you!
You could have a dispatch table.
private final static Map<Class<?>, Handler> dispatch = ....
// contains things like Type2.class -> Type2Handler
dispatch.get(object.getClass()).handle(object);
// may need to iterate superclasses if that is a concern
Not sure if that is better, though.
Related
I often use the double-colon notation for brevity.
I am writing the following method that takes a short list of entities, validates them, and saves back to database.
#Override#Transactional
public void bulkValidate(Collection<Entity> transactions)
{
Consumer<Entity> validator = entityValidator::validate;
validator = validator.andThen(getDao()::update);
if (transactions != null)
transactions.forEach(validator);
}
I'd like to know if there is a shorthand syntax avoiding to instantiate the validator variable
Following syntax is invalid ("The target type of this expression must be a functional interface")
transactions.forEach((entityValidator::validate).andThen(getDao()::update));
You could do that, but you would need to cast explicitly...
transactions.forEach(((Consumer<Entity>)(entityValidator::validate))
.andThen(getDao()::update));
The thing is that a method reference like this entityValidator::validate does not have a type, it's a poly expression and it depends on the context.
You could also define a method to combine these Consumers:
#SafeVarargs
private static <T> Consumer<T> combine(Consumer<T>... consumers) {
return Arrays.stream(consumers).reduce(s -> {}, Consumer::andThen);
}
And use it:
transactions.forEach(combine(entityValidator::validate, getDao()::update))
So I'm attempting to go through a groovyObject's fields and obtain the property of that field. So this is what I got(sorry its a little rough so cleaning would be appreciated but not necessary, I'm also doing a little debugging and other stuff with the Log and what not.):
public void traverse(final GroovyObject groovy) throws RepositoryException, NoSuchFieldException, SecurityException, IllegalArgumentException, IllegalAccessException
{
Field[] theFields = groovy.getClass().getDeclaredFields();
final ArrayList<Field> fields = new ArrayList<Field>();
int count =0;
for(Field field : theFields)
{
fields.add(field);
LOG.error("{} = {}",field.getName(), groovy.getProperty(field.getName()));
}
//this is the guava tree traverser
TreeTraverser<GroovyObject> traverser = new TreeTraverser<GroovyObject>()
{
#Override
public Iterable<GroovyObject> children(GroovyObject root)
{
return (Iterable<GroovyObject>)root.getProperty(fields.get(0).getName());
//|-->Here I get the String cannot be cast to Iterable. Which I find odd since it is still an object just getProperty takes a string. right?
}
};
Thoughts on this? Thanks for the help!
GroovyObject.getProperty(String) retrieves the value of the given property. And if that value happens to be a String you cannot cast it to Iterable.
If you adjust your log statement, you can inspect the types of the fields:
LOG.error("{} of type {} = {}", field.getName(), field.getType(), groovy.getProperty(field.getName()));
So I figured it outl. Essentially what needs to happen is I need to make two iterators: one for the groovy objects and one for the property strings so the end goal looks like
groovyObject.iterate().next().getProperty(string.iterate().next());
Or something like that, I will update this when I figure it out.!
Once I make that I can go back in and think about making it more efficient
I was reading a book about Linq, and saw that the Distinct method has an overload that takes a comparer. This would be a good solution to a problem I have where I want to get the distinct entities from a collection, but want the comparison to be on the entity ID, even if the other properties are different.
According to the book, if I have a Gribulator entity, I should be able to create a comparer like this...
private class GribulatorComparer : IComparer<Gribulator> {
public int Compare(Gribulator g1, Gribulator g2) {
return g1.ID.CompareTo(g2.ID);
}
}
...and then use it like this...
List<Gribulator> distinctGribulators
= myGribulators.Distinct(new GribulatorComparer()).ToList();
However, this gives the following compiler errors...
'System.Collections.Generic.List' does not contain a definition for 'Distinct' and the best extension method overload 'System.Linq.Enumerable.Distinct(System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable, System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer)' has some invalid arguments
Argument 2: cannot convert from 'LinqPlayground.Program.GribulatorComparer' to 'System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer'
I've searched around a bit, and have seen plenty of examples that use code like this, but no complaints about compiler errors.
What am I doing wrong? Also, is this the best way of doing this? I want a one-off solution here, so don't want to start changing the code for the entity itself. I want the entity to remain as normal, but just in this one place, compare by ID only.
Thanks for any help.
You're implementing your comparer as an IComparer<T>, the LINQ method overload requires an implementation of IEqualityComparer:
private class GribulatorComparer : IEqualityComparer<Gribulator> {
public bool Equals(Gribulator g1, Gribulator g2) {
return g1.ID == g2.ID;
}
}
edit:
For clarification, the IComparer interface can be used for sorting, as that's basically what the Compare() method does.
Like this:
items.OrderBy(x => new ItemComparer());
private class ItemComparer : IComparer<Item>
{
public int Compare(Item x, Item y)
{
return x.Id.CompareTo(y.Id)
}
}
Which will sort your collection using that comparer, however LINQ provides a way to do that for simple fields (like an int Id).
items.OrderBy(x => x.Id);
I'd like to create an IList<Child> that maintains its Child objects in a default/implicit sort order at all times (i.e. regardless of additions/removals to the underlying list).
What I'm specifically trying to avoid is the need for all consumers of said IList<Child> to explicitly invoke IEnumerable<T>.OrderBy() every time they want to enumerate it. Apart from violating DRY, such an approach would also break encapsulation as consumers would have to know that my list is even sorted, which is really none of their business :)
The solution that seemed most logical/efficient was to expose IList<Child> as IEnumerable<Child> (to prevent List mutations) and add explicit Add/Remove methods to the containing Parent. This way, I can intercept changes to the List that necessitate a re-sort, and apply one via Linq:
public class Child {
public string StringProperty;
public int IntProperty;
}
public class Parent{
private IList<Child> _children = new List<Child>();
public IEnumerable<Child> Children{
get
{
return _children;
}
}
private void ReSortChildren(){
_children = new List<Child>(child.OrderBy(c=>c.StringProperty));
}
public void AddChild(Child c){
_children.Add();
ReSortChildren()
}
public void RemoveChild(Child c){
_children.Remove(c);
ReSortChildren()
}
}
Still, this approach doesn't intercept changes made to the underlying Child.StringProperty (which in this case is the property driving the sort). There must be a more elegant solution to such a basic problem, but I haven't been able to find one.
EDIT:
I wasn't clear in that I would preferable a LINQ compatible solution. I'd rather not resort to using .NET 2.0 constructs (i.e. SortedList)
What about using a SortedList<>?
One way you could go about it is to have Child publish an event OnStringPropertyChanged which passes along the previous value of StringProperty. Then create a derivation of SortedList that overrides the Add method to hookup a handler to that event. Whenever the event fires, remove the item from the list and re-add it with the new value of StringProperty. If you can't change Child, then I would make a proxy class that either derives from or wraps Child to implement the event.
If you don't want to do that, I would still use a SortedList, but internally manage the above sorting logic anytime the StringProperty needs to be changed. To be DRY, it's preferable to route all updates to StringProperty through a common method that correctly manages the sorting, rather than accessing the list directly from various places within the class and duplicating the sort management logic.
I would also caution against allowing the controller to pass in a reference to Child, which allows him to manipulate StringProperty after it's added to the list.
public class Parent{
private SortedList<string, Child> _children = new SortedList<string, Child>();
public ReadOnlyCollection<Child> Children{
get { return new ReadOnlyCollection<Child>(_children.Values); }
}
public void AddChild(string stringProperty, int data, Salamandar sal){
_children.Add(stringProperty, new Child(stringProperty, data, sal));
}
public void RemoveChild(string stringProperty){
_children.Remove(stringProperty);
}
private void UpdateChildStringProperty(Child c, string newStringProperty) {
if (c == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("c");
RemoveChild(c);
c.StringProperty = newStringProperty;
AddChild(c);
}
public void CheckSalamandar(string s) {
if (_children.ContainsKey(s))
var c = _children[s];
if (c.Salamandar.IsActive) {
// update StringProperty through our method
UpdateChildStringProperty(c, c.StringProperty.Reverse());
// update other properties directly
c.Number++;
}
}
}
I think that if you derive from KeyedCollection, you'll get what you need. That is only based on reading the documentation, though.
EDIT:
If this works, it won't be easy, unfortunately. Neither the underlying lookup dictionary nor the underlying List in this guy is sorted, nor are they exposed enough such that you'd be able to replace them. It might, however, provide a pattern for you to follow in your own implementation.
While using SubSonic 3 with ActiveRecord T4 templates, the generated code shows many warnings about CLS-compliance, unused items, and lack of GetHashCode() implementation.
In order to avoid them, I did the following modifications:
// Structs.tt
[CLSCompliant(false)] // added
public class <#=tbl.CleanName#>Table: DatabaseTable
{ ...
// ActiveRecord.tt
[CLSCompliant(false)] // added
public partial class <#=tbl.ClassName#>: IActiveRecord
{
#region Built-in testing
#pragma warning disable 0169 // added
static IList<<#=tbl.ClassName#>> TestItems;
#pragma warning restore 0169 // added
...
public override Int32 GetHashCode() // added
{
return this.KeyValue().GetHashCode();
}
...
Is there a better way to get rid of the warnings? Or a better GetHashCode() implementation?
Currently, the only way to get rid of the warnings is to update your t4 templates and submit a bug/fix to Rob. Or wait until somebody else does.
As for the GetHashCode implementation, I don't think you're going to find a good way to do this through templates. Hash code generation is very dependent on what state your object contains. And people with lots of letters after their name work long and hard to come up with hash code algorithms that are fast and return results with low chances of collision. Doing this from within a template that may generate a class with millions of different permutations of the state it may hold is a tall order to fill.
Probably the best thing Rob could have done would be to provide a default implementation that calls out to a partial method, checks the result and returns it if found. Here's an example:
public partial class Foo
{
public override int GetHashCode()
{
int? result = null;
TryGetHashCode(ref result);
if (result.HasValue)
return result.Value;
return new Random().Next();
}
partial void TryGetHashCode(ref int? result);
}
public partial class Foo
{
partial void TryGetHashCode(ref int? result)
{
result = 5;
}
}
If you compile this without the implementation of TryGetHashCode, the compiler completely omits the call to TryGetHashCode and you go from the declaration of result to the check to see if it has value, which it never will, so the default implementation of the hash code is returned.
I wanted a quick solution for this as well. The version that I am using does generate GetHashCode for tables that have a primary key that is a single int.
As our simple tables use text as their primary keys this didn't work out of the box. So I made the following change to the template near line 273 in ActiveRecord.tt
<# if(tbl.PK.SysType=="int"){#>
public override int GetHashCode() {
return this.<#=tbl.PK.CleanName #>;
}
<# }#>
<# else{#>
public override int GetHashCode() {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
<# }#>
This way GetHashCode is generated for all the tables and stops the warnings, but will throw an exception if called (which we aren't).
We use this is for a testing application, not a website or anything like that, and this approach may not be valid for many situations.