I'm generating bytecode roughly equivalent to a class like:
final class MyCls {
final MethodHandle handle1;
final MethodHandle handle2;
// and so on
// This needs to invoke `handle1`, `handle2`, etc. in it somehow
final static myMethod() {
// ...
}
}
The class is fairly long-lived and I wish to call the MethodHandles from inside other methods, with ideally as little overhead as possible. What would be the best way to do this? The two ideas that come to mind are:
Generating explicit MethodHandle.invokeExact calls on the fields
Using invokedynamic somehow (although I think I'd still need the exactInvoker?)
The handles will vary in signatures (although their use-sites should all use the right signatures - I can detect/enforce that at codegen time).
Update
Here's some extra context on what I'm actually doing. The classes represent compiled WASM modules, the method handles are imported functions, and each instance of the class in another instance of the WASM module.
Using MethodHandle to represent imported functions isn't a necessity here - I could also accept something like a java.util.function.Function or maybe even just a virtual method invocation. I do need a MethodHandle representation sometimes, but I could summon one up from a virtual method too (and I could implement a virtual method manually calling a Function too).
The module class instances themselves might end up being stored in static fields but that's not guaranteed. If there is a way to speed up that case, I could recommend users use that.
The simple answer is to just generate invokeExact calls. With the code shape you've shown, there's no need to use invokedynamic (in fact that doesn't seem possible, since invokedynamic calls a bootstrap method which supplies the implementation dynamically).
Since the handles are stored instance fields, they are not seen as constants, and so the calls will be out of line, which adds overhead, as well as missed optimization opportunities due to a lack of inlining.
If you really want this to be as fast as possible, you'd need to generate a new class per combination of method handles you want to use, and store the method handles in static final fields, or in the constant pool (for instance using constant pool patching, or hidden classes + class data + dynamic constants [1]).
Related
I have looked at other discussions about this topic (on StackOverflow) however the other questions seem to be language specific whereas this is not language specific and I'm considering no longer using private methods, classes, and modules.
I want to test my private methods, classes, and modules so that I can more easily locate bugs. To allow me to do this I'm considering no longer using private methods, classes, and modules for two reasons, (1) I see no reasonable way of testing a private method, class, or module without injecting test code or using some sort of "magic" and (2) to improve code reuse. Note that I'm not considering no longer using private variables and properties because data needs protecting and does not provide behaviour therefore it does not need to be public during testing.
As a lame example, if you're writing a module called OneOperations that has two public methods addOne and subtractOne, and two private methods add and subtract. If you were not allowing yourself to have private methods you would put the two private methods into another module (basicOperations) where they are public and import those methods inside the OneOperations module. From this you should now be able to write testing code for all the methods in both modules without injecting code. An advantage of this is that the methods add and subtract can now be used in other modules by importing the basicOperations module (2 - improving code reuse).
I have a feeling this a bad idea, but I lack the real world experience to justify not doing this, which is why I've posted this question on StackOverflow.
So, how do you test your private methods, classes, and modules? Is not writing private methods, modules, and classes a potential solution?
1) Like in many other answers on this topic, the main question is why would you want to test your private methods? The purpose of a class is to provide some functionality to its clients. If you have comprehensive unit tests that prove that the public interface of this class behaves correctly, why do you care what it's doing in its private methods?
2) Your idea of not having private methods at all seems like cutting your leg off. For small projects it may be possible to have every tiny behaviour well separated and tested. But for large projects it's an overkill. What matters, is the domain logic behaving correctly.
Consider for example a method:
public double getDistanceSquared(Point other)
{
return getDifferenceSquared(this.x, other.x)
+ getDifferenceSquared(this.y, other.y);
}
private double getDifferenceSquared(double v1, double v2)
{
return (v1 - v2)*(v1 - v2);
}
Ad1) Does it really make sense to unit test getDifferenceSquared method, if getDistanceSquared returns correct results for all test cases?
Ad2) Creating a separate class for calculating squared distance between doubles - in case there is only one place when it'll be used leads to a swarm of tiny classes, with millions of tests. Also, constructors of your domain classes will accept like 10 different interfaces for every tiny thing they're doing internally.
Maintaining all this is a lot of unnecessary work. Imagine that you would like to change the method of calculating the distance (maybe use some precomputed values). The behaviour of getDistanceSquared would not change. But you would have to change all of the tests of getDifferenceSquared even though you shouldn't have to care how is the distance being calculated, as long as it's calculated correctly.
Diving into minor details when it's not necessary makes you forgot what you're really doing - you lose the "big picture view". Value your time, and focus on important problems.
As a side note, also - the main concern of unit tests is not "locating bugs" as you suggest. They impose a clean design, provide an always up-to-date documentation of your code's behaviour and allow convenient refactoring giving you flexibility. Additionally they assure you that the code is working as you expect it to.
http://artofunittesting.com/definition-of-a-unit-test/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing#Benefits
There is another way to look at this, which is how do you generate a private method?
If we are following the TDD process properly, then the first thing we write is the test. At this point the test should contain all of our code, e.g.
public void ShouldAddTwoNumbers()
{
(1 + 1).ShouldEqual(2);
}
Yes, that looks appalling. But consider what happens as we write is some more tests.
public void ShouldAddTwoMoreNumbers()
{
(2 + 2).ShouldEqual(4);
}
Now we have something to reactor, so it can become
public void ShouldAddTwoNumbers()
{
Add(1, 1).ShouldEqual(2);
}
public void ShouldAddTwoMoreNumbers()
{
Add(2, 2).ShouldEqual(4);
}
private int Add(int a, int b)
{
return a+b;
}
So now we have a private method that we can test inside our test class. It's only when you complete further refactoring to move the code out into your application, that the private becomes an issue. Most automated refactoring tools will offer you the option of changing the methods signature at this point, so that the private method is still accessible, because its not private.
(There is a fabulous exercise called TDD as if you mean it by Keith Braithwaite which I've just paraphrased above)
However, this isn't the end of our refactorings and development. One thing that we should be doing as we write and refactor our tests is to delete old tests, for example when functionality is duplicated. Another is to extract new methods so we don't repeat ourselves. Both of these can lead to scenarios where we have private methods back in the non-test code base.
So my advice is to be pragmatic, make the best decision you can for the code that you have in front of you. I wouldn't advise not creating private methods, but I would instead look at the factors that lead you to create them.
I have developed a Data Access Layer for an application that connects to Oracle and SQL databases. I have written a similar class to that provided by Application Blocks here: http://www.sharpdeveloper.net/source/SqlHelper-Source-Code-cs.html.
I am not sure why the methods are static in the link. When I want to perform a CRUD operation I create an instance of the class and then call the appropriate function. Why are the methods static?
VB.NET does not allow for Shared classes (only shared functions). Therefore I was thinking about making all the functions Shared. Before I do this I want to understand why the methods in the link are static.
I have researched this. For example, the following link explains that the methods are static but does not explain why: https://web.archive.org/web/20210304123854/https://www.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/062503-1.aspx.
A couple of big reasons spring to mind.
Simplicity
Everything you need to run that method arrives via the parameter list. Developers don't have to follow any quirks of an instantiated implementation.
Speed.
According to the following link, static method calls are about 4-5 times faster than their instanced equivalent.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973852.aspx
In vb a module behaves as a static class does in c#. Useful when you just want a helper type class with all shared methods.
As a very general rule static/shared methods should be more efficient. As you do not need to instantiate a class to make the same call. So you aren't generating an entire object to do something that you don't need a full object to do. For example, a simple math function.
public shared function AddNumbers(number1 as integer, number2 as integer) as integer
versus something that modifies or accesses object data.
public function AccrueInterest() as integer
which might be something that accesses an interestRate and Balance property on the same object.
For example, i see myself doing things like this latley, when i create an object, if it has a logical path of tasks then
public Class Link
{
public Link(String value)
{
callMethodA(value)
}
public void callMethodA(String data)
{
CallMethodB(doSomethingWithValue)
}
...
...
}
Here you can see, as soon as you instantiate the object, yours tasks get completed automatically.
The other way i can see of doing it is by creating an object, that doesnt link via the constructor, then calling methods individually.
Which was is right and why?
Thanks
Either way we can implement.
Recommended way is to do tasks like initialization stuffs within the constructor and rest of the things can be implemented by way of calling the method with its reference object.
for such scenario one should go for Factory pattern
for example:
Calendar.getInstance();
Constructor should do ALL that requires to make an object complete. That is, if without calling method callMethodA , if the object is incomplete then callMethodA must be called from constructor itself. If the callMethodA is optional API then the user of class Link can call the method when he wants.
I prefer second method. Constructor's job is to initialize the class members. Any modification to change the state of the object needs to be done seperately by member functions.
As long as the objects that are created do not have nothing in common the current way of creating them is fine. Factory Method or Abstract Factory pattern makes sense when there's similarity between created objects. They'll help you isolate the parts that are always the same and moving parts that define differences between objects.
It depends on business logic involved. Both ways are practical. If you want to simply initiate instance specific data, then better to do it in constructor method itself which is more logical and simple. It will save calling other methods explicitly unnecessarily. If instanciating your data is based on certain buisiness condition, then it is good to have main functionality in separate method and then conditionally call it from constructor. This is easy to manage in such scenario.
A constructor is meant to bring the object in the correct initial state. So use it for that purpose. As a general rule of thumb, only use a constructor to set properties. Basic calculations are also ok.
I would not recommend calling very time consuming methods, or methods that are likely to throw exceptions (like calling a webservice or access a file).
When you need to do very special things to bring the object in its initial state, make the constructor private and use a static method to create the object.
I'm reading about constructors,
When an object is instantiated for a class, c'tors (if explicitly written or a default one) are the starting points for execution. My doubts are
is a c'tor more like the main() in
C
Yes i understand the point that you
can set all the default values using
c'tor. I can also emulate the behavior
by writing a custom method. Then why a c'tor?
Example:
//The code below is written in C#.
public class Manipulate
{
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Provide provide = new Provide();
provide.Number(8);
provide.Square();
Console.ReadKey();
return 0;
}
}
public class Provide {
uint num;
public void Number(uint number)
{
num = number;
}
public void Square()
{
num *= num;
Console.WriteLine("{0}", num);
}
}
Am learning to program independently, so I'm depending on programming communities, can you also suggest me a good OOP's resource to get a better understanding. If am off topic please excuse me.
Head First OOA&D will be a good start.
Dont you feel calling a function for setting each and every member variable of your class is a bit overhead.
With a constructor you can initialize all your member variables at one go. Isnt this reason enough for you to have constructors.
Constructor and Destructor functionality may be emulated using regular methods. However, what makes those two type of methods unique is that the language treats them in a special way.
They are automatically called when an object is created or destroyed. This presents a uniform means to handle the most delicate operations that must take place during those two critical periods of an object's lifetime. It takes out the possibility of an end user of a class forgetting to call those at the appropriate times.
Furthermore, advanced OO features such as inheritance require that uniformity to even work.
First of all, most answers will depend at least a bit on the language you're using. Reasons that make great sense in one language don't necessarily have direct analogs in other languages. Just for example, in C++ there are quite a few situations where temporary objects are created automatically. The ctor is invoked as part of that process, but for most practical purposes it's impossible to explicitly invoke other member functions in the process. That doesn't necessarily apply to other OO languages though -- some won't create temporary objects implicitly at all.
Generally you should do all your initialization in the constructor. The constructor is the first thing called when an instance of your class is created, so you should setup any defaults here.
I think a good way to learn is comparing OOP between languages, it's like seeing the same picture from diferent angles.
Googling a while:
java (I prefer this, it's simple and full)- http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/
python - http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Python/Object-Oriented-Programming-With-Python-part-1/
c# - http://cplus.about.com/od/learnc/ss/csharpclasses.htm
Why constructors?
The main diference between a simple function (that also could have functions inside) and an Object, is the way that an Object can be hosted inside a "variable", with all it functions inside, and that also can react completly diferent to an other "variable" with the same kind of "object" inside. The way to make them have the same structure with diferent behaviours depends on the arguments you gave to the class.
So here's a lazy example:
car() is now a class.
c1 = car()
c2 = car()
¿c1 is exactly c2? Yes.
c1 = car(volkswagen)
c2 = car(lamborghini)
C1 has the same functionalities than C2, but they are completly diferent kinds of car()
Variables volkswagen and lamborghini were passed directly to the constructor.
Why a -constructor-? why not any other function? The answer is: order.
That's my best shot, man, for this late hours. I hope i've helped somehow.
You can't emulate the constructor in a custom method as the custom method is not called when the object is created. Only the constructor is called. Well, of course you can then call your custom method after you create the object, but this is not convention and other people using your object will not know to do this.
A constructor is just a convention that is agreed upon as a way to setup your object once it is created.
One of the reasons we need constructor is 'encapsulation',the code do something initialization must invisible
You also can't force the passing of variables without using a constructor. If you only want to instantiate an object if you have say an int to pass to it, you can set the default constructor as private, and make your constructor take an int. This way, it's impossible to create an object of that class without having it take an int.
Sub-objects will be initialized in the constructor. In languages like C++, where sub-objects exist within the containing object (instead of as separate objects connected via pointers or handles), the constructor is your only chance to pass parameters to sub-object constructors. Even in Java and C#, any base class is directly contained, so parameters to its constructor must be provided by your constructor.
Lastly, any constant (or in C#, readonly) member variables can only be set from the constructor. Even helper functions called from the constructor are unable to change them.
This question already has answers here:
What is reflection and why is it useful?
(23 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was just curious, why should we use reflection in the first place?
// Without reflection
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.hello();
// With reflection
Class cls = Class.forName("Foo");
Object foo = cls.newInstance();
Method method = cls.getMethod("hello", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
We can simply create an object and call the class's method, but why do the same using forName, newInstance and getMthod functions?
To make everything dynamic?
Simply put: because sometimes you don't know either the "Foo" or "hello" parts at compile time.
The vast majority of the time you do know this, so it's not worth using reflection. Just occasionally, however, you don't - and at that point, reflection is all you can turn to.
As an example, protocol buffers allows you to generate code which either contains full statically-typed code for reading and writing messages, or it generates just enough so that the rest can be done by reflection: in the reflection case, the load/save code has to get and set properties via reflection - it knows the names of the properties involved due to the message descriptor. This is much (much) slower but results in considerably less code being generated.
Another example would be dependency injection, where the names of the types used for the dependencies are often provided in configuration files: the DI framework then has to use reflection to construct all the components involved, finding constructors and/or properties along the way.
It is used whenever you (=your method/your class) doesn't know at compile time the type should instantiate or the method it should invoke.
Also, many frameworks use reflection to analyze and use your objects. For example:
hibernate/nhibernate (and any object-relational mapper) use reflection to inspect all the properties of your classes so that it is able to update them or use them when executing database operations
you may want to make it configurable which method of a user-defined class is executed by default by your application. The configured value is String, and you can get the target class, get the method that has the configured name, and invoke it, without knowing it at compile time.
parsing annotations is done by reflection
A typical usage is a plug-in mechanism, which supports classes (usually implementations of interfaces) that are unknown at compile time.
You can use reflection for automating any process that could usefully use a list of the object's methods and/or properties. If you've ever spent time writing code that does roughly the same thing on each of an object's fields in turn -- the obvious way of saving and loading data often works like that -- then that's something reflection could do for you automatically.
The most common applications are probably these three:
Serialization (see, e.g., .NET's XmlSerializer)
Generation of widgets for editing objects' properties (e.g., Xcode's Interface Builder, .NET's dialog designer)
Factories that create objects with arbitrary dependencies by examining the classes for constructors and supplying suitable objects on creation (e.g., any dependency injection framework)
Using reflection, you can very easily write configurations that detail methods/fields in text, and the framework using these can read a text description of the field and find the real corresponding field.
e.g. JXPath allows you to navigate objects like this:
//company[#name='Sun']/address
so JXPath will look for a method getCompany() (corresponding to company), a field in that called name etc.
You'll find this in lots of frameworks in Java e.g. JavaBeans, Spring etc.
It's useful for things like serialization and object-relational mapping. You can write a generic function to serialize an object by using reflection to get all of an object's properties. In C++, you'd have to write a separate function for every class.
I have used it in some validation classes before, where I passed a large, complex data structure in the constructor and then ran a zillion (couple hundred really) methods to check the validity of the data. All of my validation methods were private and returned booleans so I made one "validate" method you could call which used reflection to invoke all the private methods in the class than returned booleans.
This made the validate method more concise (didn't need to enumerate each little method) and garuanteed all the methods were being run (e.g. someone writes a new validation rule and forgets to call it in the main method).
After changing to use reflection I didn't notice any meaningful loss in performance, and the code was easier to maintain.
in addition to Jons answer, another usage is to be able to "dip your toe in the water" to test if a given facility is present in the JVM.
Under OS X a java application looks nicer if some Apple-provided classes are called. The easiest way to test if these classes are present, is to test with reflection first
some times you need to create a object of class on fly or from some other place not a java code (e.g jsp). at that time reflection is useful.