I'm working in Kotlin, and I have a library that I can't modify (without maintaining my own fork of this huge and rapidly changing library).
There's a class in that library I need to instantiate, and it requires an instance of another class that does some stuff for it. I need to change how that second class works, so it feeds different information to the first class. But the second class is not open, and the first class asks for it by its full, non-open type.
How do I force my way into the non-open class and extend it anyway, against the desires of the library authors? Alternately, how do I cheat the type system to pass my own class off as an instance of the class the library is demanding?
Do I need to do some fiddling around at the JAR/build system level to replace the library's class files with my own versions? Can I use reflection to somehow impersonate the non-open class? Is there some other way to do it?
Related
I included a library I'd like to use, but in accessing to one of its classes I get the error message,
"Cannot access '<init>': it is private in [class name]
Is there something I can do to rectify this on my side, or am I just stuck to not use the package?
The error means the constructor is private. Given your comment, I'm assuming you're using a library. If this is the case, you'll have to find a different way to initialize it. Some libraries have factories or builders for classes, so look up any applicable documentation (if it is a library or framework). Others also use the singleton pattern, or other forms of initialization where you, the developer, don't use the constructor directly.
If, however, it is your code, remove private from the constructor(s). If it's internal and you're trying to access it outside the module, remove internal. Remember, the default accessibility is public. Alternatively, you can use the builder pattern, factory pattern, or anything similar yourself if you want to keep the constructor private or internal.
I came across this issue when trying to extend a sealed class in another file. Without seeing the library code it is hard to know if that is also what you are attempting to do.
The sealed classes have the following unique features:
A sealed class can have subclasses, but all of them must be declared in the same file as the sealed class itself.
A sealed class is abstract by itself, it cannot be instantiated directly and can have abstract members.
Sealed classes are not allowed to have non-private constructors (their constructors are private by default).
Classes that extend subclasses of a sealed class (indirect inheritors) can be placed anywhere, not necessarily in the same file.
For more info, have a read at https://www.ericdecanini.com/2019/10/14/kotlins-sealed-class-enums-on-steroids/
Hopefully, this will help others new to Kotlin who are also encountering this issue.
Class constructors are package-private by default. Just add the public keyword before declaring the constructor.
By default constructor is public so need to remove internal keyword.
I have the following code working in a SpringBoot application, and it does what's I'm expecting.
TypePool typePool = TypePool.Default.ofClassPath();
ByteBuddyAgent.install();
new ByteBuddy()
.rebase(typePool.describe("com.foo.Bar").resolve(), ClassFileLocator.ForClassLoader.ofClassPath())
.implement(typePool.describe("com.foo.SomeInterface").resolve())
.make()
.load(ClassLoader.getSystemClassLoader());
Its makes is so that the class com.foo.Bar implements the interface com.foo.SomeInterface (which has a default implementation)
I would like to . use the above code by referring to the class as Bar.class, not using the string representation of the name. But if I do that I get the following exception.
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: class redefinition failed: attempted to change superclass or interfaces
I believe due to the fact that it cause the class to be loaded, prior to the redefinition. I'm just now learning to use ByteBuddy.
I want to avoid some reflection at runtime, by adding the interface and an implementation using ByteBuddy. I've some other code that checks for this interface.
This is impossible, not because of Byte Buddy but no tool is allowed to do this on a regular VM. (There is the so-called dynamic code evolution VM which is capable of that).
If you want to avoid the problem, use redefine rather then rebase. Whenever you instrument a method, you do now however replace the original.
If this is not acceptable, have a look at the Advice class which you can use by the .visit-API to wrap logic around your original code without replacing it.
I work with a codebase where there are many classes with thousands of lines of code. I've noticed inconsistencies in style concerning prepending class names when using their methods and I'm trying to figure out the previous developer's reasoning. If we
import GeneralCode
in Class A, is it bad practice to write
GeneralCode.DoSomething()
in Class A since we already imported it (instead of simply using DoSomething())? I would think so, but I suppose it's also nice to know which methods come from which classes at a glance, since Class A imports many classes and uses methods from several of them.
EDIT: This is for VB.NET, not Java (sorry for the wrong tag, rough morning). I am new to VB.NET but GeneralCode and DoSomething() are not declared as static, neither is the import in Class A.
Might be something to do with VB.NET, but DoSomething() can indeed be used with or without prepending GeneralCode.
A method need to be prefixed with
The class name if it's a static method.
The name of the instance when it's not a static method.
Unless you are calling a method from your own class.
Say you want to add a lengthOfFirstLine method to the predefined File class. Is it a better practice to modify the existing class, or make a new class that extends the File class with your new method?
EDIT -- Specifically, the situation is that a class is lacking one method in particular. I don't want to completely change the class, but rather augment it with that method.
It depends if the method is applicable to all elements of the class File. For instance, lengthOfFirstLine doesn't apply to binary files, so probably it doesn't belong in a generic File class, but if your class only represent text files, then it should go there.
For .NET languages, there's also the option of using extension methods. This way you don't have to "dirty up" a class by adding helper/utility methods to it, and no inheritance is required as well - you add functionality to a class by simply adding a using statement to your code.
Agree with Luis and Lester. If you are using .Net the extension methods are the way to go for this sort of functionality. But you should try not add LengthOfFirstLine to a base class if you can open all sorts of files such as binary files. You would sub class it to a FileClass and add the method to that.
Remember that the extension methods in .Net are syntactic sugar anyway. You can simulate it in your own language using Static classes and methods. This is what .Net does under the covers anyway.
For example have a static FileHelpers class and have various static helper methods on it. The first parameter for each of these static methods would be the File class. So you could call this using FileHelpers.GetLengthOfFirstLine(myOpenedFile)
My VB project is large enough that it requires several files. It was originally developed as a Console App and I created each file as a MODULE. All modules could use subroutines, data structures and constants from other MODULES and everything worked fine. I needed to add basic windowing to the app and this required that the app be converted from a Console App to a Windows Forms App. The main window is Form1 which is not a MODULE but a CLASS. The problem is that some MODULE based functions cannot access subroutines, data and constants that are defined within the CLASS Form1 unless they are incorporated into the CLASS file and this makes the CLASS file very large. If I add a new Class file to the project, it also cannot interoperate with Class Form1 in the same way that multi-MODULE code interoperates.
How does one spread CLASS code across several files and still allow it to interoperate as if it were in a single file? Alternatively, how does one create several CLASS files that operate the way multiple MODULE files operate.
I am sure that there are all kinds of best practices that I am violating but the goal to to get some prototype software working and interfaced to some lab equipment.
Thank you in advance
Use a partial class (Partial keyword on the class declaration). Each partial "bit" of the class will be merged at compile time. All partial bits must be in the same project.
Modules are default shared and do not require initialization with the New keyword. When you made your console app a windows app, it became a class...You could change it to the same behavior as a module simply by making it a Public shared Class and making all properties and methods inside shared as well.
so while you can access your methods and properties in your modules without initialization, you would need to use the NEW method to initialize your Class methods.
To access the Class from the module you would simply have to use:
SomeModulemethod
dim x as new CLASS
CLASS.SOMEMETHOD
someModuleMethod End
You could also use Partial Classing to split up your Classes, but it is much better to decide if you really need a separate class for what you want to do.