Class Design of a meeting scheduler using OO principles - oop

What would be the sample class design of Outlook like meeting scheduler?
This should help you to schedule a meeting with the rest of the invitees and book a room as we do in offices.
Few things I omit purposely,i.e checking meeting room availability, person availability at looking his/her calendar.
Here is my approach to this. I would love to know what improvements can be there and mistakes have done in the process.
class Person{
String name;
Email emailId;
}
class Organizer{
Person organizer; //using composite here
public void Organizer(Person p){
this.organizer = p;
}
private boolean scheduleMeeting(){
Meeting m = Meeting.getInstance();
sendInvites(m);
}
private void sendInvites(Meeting m){
for(Person p : m.inviteesList){
send(p.emailId, m);
}
}
}
class Meeting{
private String agenda;
private String bodyMessage;
private String location;
private TimeFrame time;
private ArrayList<Parent> inviteesList;
private Meeting(){}
public static Meeting getInstance(){
Meeting meet = new Meeting();
agenda = addLocation();
bodyMessage = addBody();
location = addLocation();
time = addTime();
addInvitees();
return meet;
}
}
class TimeFrame{
Time startTime;
Time endTime;
}
Edit - Update on the above
https://codeshare.io/5e4vNx
Any help on this would be appreciated.

Despite the oft-cited "favour composition over inheritance", Organizer is a valid extension of the Person class, provided it has additional responsibilites not fulfilled by the Person class. However, it is not its responsibility to create meetings and to send invites; that is the responsibility of a Scheduler.
Also, you might not need a separate Organizer class because it could simply be the role played on the Person side of a Meeting--Person relationship, as below.
* [organizer] 1
Meeting -----------------> Person
| ^ *
| | [invitees]
| |
+--------------------------+
Now, this is a nit-pick: I think Period is a better name than TimeFrame.
Also, I like your use of an abstract data type Email instead of a simple String; it helps enforce strict typing.
Without knowing the requirements of your system, I would go with something like the following.
class EmailAddress {
String value;
public EmailAddress(String value) {
// TODO validate email address here
this.value = value;
}
public String get() {
return value;
}
}
class Person {
String name;
EmailAddress emailAddress;
public Person(String name, EmailAddress emailAddress) {
this.name = name;
this.emailAddress = emailAddress;
}
}
class Meeting {
Person organizer;
Person[] invitees;
Period period;
String description;
public Meeting(Person organizer, Person[] invitees, Period period, String description) {
this.organizer = organizer;
this.invitees = invitees;
this.period = period;
this.description = description;
}
}
class Period {
Date start;
Date end;
public Period(Date start, Date end) {
this.start = start;
this.end = end;
}
}
class SchedulerFacade {
public Meeting schedule(EmailAddress organizerEmailAddress, EmailAddress[] inviteesEmailAddresses, Period period, String description) {
// TODO validate organizer and invitees
// TODO create Person instances for organizer and invitees
// TODO check for schedule conflict, etc.
Meeting meeting = new Meeting(organizer, invitees, period, description);
// TODO save meeting
return meeting
}
}

Related

Wrong approach or Wrong OOP design?

Following is my code isolation.
Interactable Interface.
public interface Interactable <E extends Interactable> {
List<Person> personsInteracting = new ArrayList<>();
List<Person> personsWaiting = new ArrayList<>();
long INTERACTION_TIME = 5 * 60;
default int getNumberOfPeopleInteracting () {
return personsInteracting.size();
}
default int getNumberOfPeopleWaiting () {
return personsWaiting.size();
}
boolean isMultipleActionsAllowed ();
boolean isFurtherActionsAllowed ();
public abstract boolean tryOccupiedBy (final Person person, final Interactions interaction)
throws InteractionNotPossibleException;
E getObject ();
EnumSet<Interactions> getInteractions ();
}
InteractiveObject Abstract Class
public abstract class InteractiveObject implements Interactable {
protected final String name;
protected int numberOfSimultaneousInteractions;
protected Interactions currentInteraction;
public InteractiveObject (final String name) {
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public boolean isMultipleActionsAllowed () {
return numberOfSimultaneousInteractions > 1;
}
#Override
public boolean isFurtherActionsAllowed () {
return personsInteracting.isEmpty() ||
(getNumberOfPeopleInteracting() > numberOfSimultaneousInteractions);
}
#Override
public boolean tryOccupiedBy (final Person person, final Interactions interaction)
throws InteractionNotPossibleException {
boolean isOccupied = false;
if (!isFurtherActionsAllowed()) {
throw new InteractionNotPossibleException(this + " is already in use by some other " +
"person.");
}
personsInteracting.add(person);
currentInteraction = interaction;
return isOccupied;
}
#Override
public String toString () {
return name;
}
public int getNumberOfSimultaneousInteractions () {
return numberOfSimultaneousInteractions;
}
}
Chair (One of the child class)
public class Chair extends InteractiveObject {
private final EnumSet<Interactions> INTERACTIONS = EnumSet.copyOf(Arrays.asList(
new Interactions[] {Interactions.DRAG, Interactions.SIT}));
public Chair (final String objectName) {
super(objectName);
super.numberOfSimultaneousInteractions = 1;
}
#Override
public Interactable getObject () {
return this;
}
#Override
public EnumSet<Interactions> getInteractions () {
return INTERACTIONS;
}
}
Here is the piece of code that executes and brings the problem, this question is asked for.
final InteractiveObject chair1 = new Chair("Chair1");
final Person person1 = new Person("Person1");
final Room room = new Room("Room1", 2, 2);
room.personEnters(person1);
room.putObject(chair1);
person1.tryOccupying(chair1);
Above piece of code, successfully occupies the chair object. Now,
final InteractiveObject chair2 = new Chair("Chair2");
final Person person2 = new Person("Person2");
final Room room2 = new Room("Room2", 2, 2);
room2.personEnters(person2);
room2.putObject(chair2);
person2.tryOccupying(chair2);
This piece of code doesn't let the person2 occupy since my code states that 1 person is already interacting with chair2, where as no one is interacting with it.
Solution of my problem:
I moved my List of personInteracting to InteractiveObject and function tryOccupiedBy to each child class and everything works fine.
Questions:
I put personsInteracting in Interactable interface since I believe that every future implementation of Interactable will have it. Developers won't have to implement themselves. (But perhaps this idea seems to be wrong)
If tryOccupiedBy function has same implementation, what is the purpose of whole OOP?
I now know that the isolation was wrong and I know where to place the pieces to get the results. But can someone kindly point me out about some OOP concept which I did not understand and should be implemented in a much better way?
The default keyword was not added to the Java language to do the kind of thing which you seem to be trying to achieve. Data defined in an interface is intended to be constant - the modifiers 'public static' are automatically applied to any field definitions in an interface. If you create a default method in the interface then it must either be stateless or act directly only on purely statically available state. Default methods can call other interface methods to modify instance state, .
By placing personsInteracting field in the interface, you made the same instance common to every object implementing that interface, and so your tryOccupying method was acting on purely global state.
So, the purpose of having default methods in the Java language is to support adding new methods to interfaces in a backwards compatible fashion, nothing more. You shouldn't reuse it as a generic form of code re-use - it was never intended for that and you'll get (as you did) weird behaviour.
You didn't have to put tryOccupiedBy in the child classes, however, so you didn't have to have a load of duplicated code. You could still declare the method signature in the interface (which is what interfaces are generally supposed to do) and then implement the common method in your abstract base class. By putting the data fields in the base class, you make them instance fields and so they are not shared between objects.
public interface Interactable <E extends Interactable> {
...
boolean tryOccupiedBy (final Person person, final Interactions interaction)
throws InteractionNotPossibleException;
...
}
public abstract class InteractiveObject implements Interactable {
private final List<Person> personsInteracting = new ArrayList<>();
private final List<Person> personsWaiting = new ArrayList<>();
...
#Override
public final boolean tryOccupiedBy (final Person person, final Interactions interaction)
throws InteractionNotPossibleException {
boolean isOccupied = false;
if (!isFurtherActionsAllowed()) {
throw new InteractionNotPossibleException(this + " is already in use by some other " +
"person.");
}
personsInteracting.add(person);
currentInteraction = interaction;
return isOccupied;
}
...
}

Bluej basics - tester class

I got some troubles making a method that transfer money from object to another
which is mainly was to make a class that simulates a tester class that do the following
public class BankAccountTest
{
public void main()
{
// Create an account with an opening balance of 5000 AED for Mr. Said
BankAccount acc1 = new BankAccount("Said", 5000);
acc1.withdraw(1000);
acc1.printAccountInfo(); // Should display on the screen: "Said's blanace is 4000"
// Create an accoutn with an initial balance of ZERO for Mr. Shady
BankAccount acc2 = new BankAccount("Shady");
acc2.deposit(2000);
// Transfer 3000 from acc2 to acc1. If successful, the method returns 0, otherwise -1
int code = acc2.transfer(acc1, 3000);
if(code !=0) {
System.out.println("Insufficient Fund!");
}
System.our.println(acc1.balance() );
System.our.println(acc2.balance() );
}
}
So here is my code
public class BankAccount
{
public int balance;
private int deposite;
private int withdraw;
private String name;
public BankAccount(String name)
{ balance = 5000;
}
public BankAccount(String nameName, int balance)
{
name = nameName;
this.balance = balance;
deposite = 0;
withdraw = 0;
}
public void DepostieMoney (int deposite)
{ this.balance = balance + deposite;}
public void WithdrawMoney(int withdraw)
{ this.balance = balance - withdraw;
}
public void printAccountInfo()
{
System.out.println(this.name + "'s balance is " + balance);
}
public void TransferMoney(BankAccount that , int balance)
{ this.balance= this.balance - balance;
}
}
what I couldn't able to figure is how to make the following method transfer the items of the first object to the second object
public void TransferMoney(BankAccount that , int balance)
{ this.balance= this.balance - balance;
So how actually I can specify methods for specific object ?.
edited withdrawMoney method
public void withdrawMoney(int balance)
{if ( balance <= this.balance)
this.balance = this.balance - balance;
else
{System.out.println("insfufficient funds");}
}
First of all, the Java coding style suggests:
Methods should be verbs, in mixed case with the first letter
lowercase, with the first letter of each internal word capitalized (e.g run(); runFast(); getBackground(); )
Now, for you question, you're trying to transfer the money from the one account to the other, so the method called on one object should call the second object in order to complete the transaction.
public void transferMoney(BankAccount that , int balance)
{
//sanity check here
if (this == that || that == null)
return;
If (withdrawMoney(balance)) {
that.depositeMoney(balance);
}
}
As you see I choose not to use the variables directly but through the methods. The reason is that the logic around the method could be more than simply updating the variable, for example you may want to print the action. This way you only need to update once the code in your method, the transferMoney method will remain the same.

Trouble employing BeanItemContainer and TreeTable in Vaadin

I have reviewed multiple examples for how to construct a TreeTable from from a Container datasource and just adding items iterating over an Object[][]. Still I'm stuck for my use case.
I have a bean like so...
public class DSRUpdateHourlyDTO implements UniquelyKeyed<AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId>, Serializable
{
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private final AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId id = new AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId();
private String commitStatus;
private BigDecimal economicMax;
private BigDecimal economicMin;
public void setCommitStatus(String commitStatus) { this.commitStatus = commitStatus; }
public void setEconomicMax(BigDecimal economicMax) { this.economicMax = economicMax; }
public void setEconomicMin(BigDecimal economicMin) { this.economicMin = economicMin; }
public String getCommitStatus() { return commitStatus; }
public BigDecimal getEconomicMax() { return economicMax; }
public BigDecimal getEconomicMin() { return economicMin; }
public AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId getId() { return id; }
#Override
public AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId getKey() {
return getId();
}
}
The AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId is a compound id. It looks like...
public class AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId implements Serializable, AssetOwned, HasHour, Locatable,
UniquelyKeyed<AssetOwnedHourlyLocatableId> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private String location;
private String hour;
private String assetOwner;
#Override
public String getLocation() {
return location;
}
#Override
public void setLocation(final String location) {
this.location = location;
}
#Override
public String getHour() {
return hour;
}
#Override
public void setHour(final String hour) {
this.hour = hour;
}
#Override
public String getAssetOwner() {
return assetOwner;
}
#Override
public void setAssetOwner(final String assetOwner) {
this.assetOwner = assetOwner;
}
}
I want to generate a grid where the hours are pivoted into column headers and the location is the only other additional column header.
E.g.,
Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24
would be the column headers.
Underneath each column you might see...
> L1
> Commit Status Status1 .... Status24
> Eco Min EcoMin1 .... EcoMin24
> Eco Max EcoMax1 .... EcoMax24
> L2
> Commit Status Status1 .... Status24
> Eco Min EcoMin1 .... EcoMin24
> Eco Max EcoMax1 .... EcoMax24
So, if I'm provided a List<DSRUpdateHourlyDTO> I want to convert it into the presentation format described above.
What would be the best way to do this?
I have a few additional functional requirements.
I want to be able to toggle between read-only and editable views of the same table.
I want to be able to complete a round-trip to a datasource (e.g., JPAContainerSource).
I (will eventually) want to filter items by any part of the compound id.
My challenge is in the adaptation. I well understand the simple use case where I could take the list and simply splat it into a BeanItemContainer and use addNestedContainerProperty and setVisibleColumns. Pivoting properties into columns seems to be what's stumping me.
As it turns out this was an ill-conceived question.
For data entry purposes, one could use a BeanItemContainer and have the columns include nested container property hour from the composite id and instead of a TreeTable, use a Table that has commitStatus, ecoMin and ecoMax as columns. Limitation: you'd only ever query for / submit one assetOwner and location's worth of data.
As for display, where you don't care to filter one assetOwner and location's worth of data, you could pivot the hour info as originally described. You could just convert the original bean into another bean suitable for display (where each hour is its own column).

Data member default values, how to figure out whether something was really sent?

By default, WCF deserializes missing elements into default values like null, 0 or false. The problem with this approach is that if it's a basic type like number 0 I'm not sure whether it means the real value sent by an external system or a default value generated by WCF.
So my question is: Is it possible to find out at run-time whether the default value means "I didn't send anything".
This is crucial because we can't update and overwrite existing data in the database with the default values just because the external system didn't send a particular element this time (data corruption).
Microsoft's short answer is "It is up to the receiving endpoint to appropriately interpret a missing element."
Data member default values
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa347792.aspx
Can somebody please clarify what's that supposed to mean?
Thanks
If you define your data members as properties, you can use whether the setter was called or not to decide whether some value was sent. The code below shows one data contract which knows whether it deserialized its fields.
public class Post_51ca1ead_2f0a_4912_a451_374daab0101b
{
[DataContract(Name = "Person", Namespace = "")]
public class Person
{
string name;
int age;
bool nameWasSent;
bool ageWasSent;
[DataMember]
public string Name
{
get
{
return this.name;
}
set
{
this.nameWasSent = true;
this.name = value;
}
}
[DataMember]
public int Age
{
get
{
return this.age;
}
set
{
this.ageWasSent = true;
this.age = value;
}
}
[OnDeserializing]
void OnDeserializing(StreamingContext ctx)
{
this.ageWasSent = false;
this.nameWasSent = false;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("Person[Name={0},Age={1}]",
nameWasSent ? name : "UNSPECIFIED",
ageWasSent ? age.ToString() : "UNSPECIFIED");
}
}
public static void Test()
{
MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream();
DataContractSerializer dcs = new DataContractSerializer(typeof(Person));
dcs.WriteObject(ms, new Person { Name = "John", Age = 30 });
Console.WriteLine(Encoding.UTF8.GetString(ms.ToArray()));
string noAge = "<Person><Name>John</Name></Person>";
ms = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(noAge));
object p = dcs.ReadObject(ms);
Console.WriteLine("No age: {0}", p);
string noName = "<Person><Age>45</Age></Person>";
ms = new MemoryStream(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(noName));
p = dcs.ReadObject(ms);
Console.WriteLine("No name: {0}", p);
}
}

How do I get back a strongly typed collection that queries multiple entities with Castle's ActiveRecord?

I'm trying to get a specific set of data while joining 4 different entities together to do so. What I've done is setup a DTO to try to get this working:
public class LatestThread
{
private readonly string comment;
private readonly DateTime posted;
private readonly string userName;
private readonly int reputation;
private readonly int threadId;
private readonly string topic;
private readonly int userId;
private readonly string avatar;
public LatestThread(string comment, DateTime posted, string userName, int reputation, int threadId, string topic, int userId, string avatar)
{
this.comment = comment;
this.avatar = avatar;
this.userId = userId;
this.topic = topic;
this.threadId = threadId;
this.reputation = reputation;
this.userName = userName;
this.posted = posted;
}
public string Comment
{
get { return comment; }
}
public DateTime Posted
{
get { return posted; }
}
public string UserName
{
get { return userName; }
}
public int Reputation
{
get { return reputation; }
}
public int ThreadId
{
get { return threadId; }
}
public string Topic
{
get { return topic; }
}
public int UserId
{
get { return userId; }
}
public string Avatar
{
get { return avatar; }
}
}
Now I thought I could use SimpleQuery like so:
string hql = string.Format("select new LatestThread(m.Comment, m.Posted, u.UserName, u.Reputation, t.Id, t.Topic, u.Id, u.Avatar) from Thread as t inner join Message as m on t.Id = m.ThreadId inner join User as u on u.Id = m.PostedById inner join Activity as a on a.Id = t.ActivityId where a.Lineage like '{0}%' order by t.LastPosted desc", activityLineage);
return repository.SimpleQuery(0, 10, hql);
My repository method looks like:
public virtual IList<T> SimpleQuery<T>(int firstResult, int maxResults, string hql, params object[] parameters)
{
var query = new SimpleQuery<T>(hql, parameters);
query.SetQueryRange(firstResult, maxResults);
return query.Execute();
}
Now it's asking for me to put [ActiveRecord] at the top of my LatestThread class. When I do that it wants a primary key, and that just seems to be the wrong route.
I've also read bits that refer to the Import attribute given to classes that aren't the DTO. In all the examples though it's just two entities being joined, not the 4 I have. Do I need to add Import to all 4? Or is there something to tell AR that it's a readonly DTO class? OR am I doing this all wrong and there's a really easy way to do what I'm trying to do.
TIA!
Add the Import attribute to your new Thread class
[Import(typeof(LatestThread), "LatestThread")]
[ActiveRecord("Thread")]
public class Thread : ActiveRecordBase<Thread> { /* blah blah */ }
And then, query magic happens :)
string hql = string.Format("select new LatestThread(m.Comment, m.Posted, u.UserName, u.Reputation, t.Id, t.Topic, u.Id, u.Avatar) from Thread as t inner join Message as m on t.Id = m.ThreadId inner join User as u on u.Id = m.PostedById inner join Activity as a on a.Id = t.ActivityId where a.Lineage like '{0}%' order by t.LastPosted desc", activityLineage);
SimpleQuery<LatestThread> query = new SimpleQuery<LatestThread>(typeof(Thread), hql );
LatestThread[] results = query.Execute()
Source : http://www.kenegozi.com/Blog/2006/10/08/projection-using-activerecords-importattribute-and-hqls-select-new-clause.aspx
You can't query a type that isn't mapped (which is what the [ActiveRecord] attribute does). AFAIK you can't get NHibernate to create a new arbitrary object instance like that via HQL (I stand to be corrected if someone knows otherwise).
Your best bet is to do a projection query and then have a method to map the tuples returned into instances of your type.
My answer here shows how to do a projection query and map it to an anonymous type; what you want to do is not much different. You could then put a method to do this in a type-specific repository or a strongly-typed extension method to the generic repository.