So i have a class that makes an array list for me and i need to access it in another class through a constructor but i don't know what to put into the constructor because all my methods in that class are just for manipulating that list. im either getting a null pointer exception or a out of bounds exception. ive tried just leaving the constructor empty but that dosent seem to help. thanks in advance. i would show you code but my professor is very strict on academic dishonesty so i cant sorry if that makes it hard.
You are confusing the main question, with a potential solution.
Main Question:
I have a class ArrayListOwnerClass with an enclosed arraylist property or field.
How should another class ArrayListFriendClass access that property.
Potential Solution:
Should I pass the arraylist from ArrayListOwnerClass to ArrayListFriendClass,
in the ArrayListFriendClass constructor ?
It depends on what the second class does with the arraylist.
Instead of passing the list thru the constructor, you may add functions to read or change, as public, the elements of the hidden internal arraylist.
Note: You did not specify a programming language. I'll use C#, altought Java, C++, or similar O.O.P. could be used, instead.
public class ArrayListOwnerClass
{
protected int F_Length;
protected ArrayList F_List;
public ArrayListOwnerClass(int ALength)
{
this.F_Length = ALength;
this.F_List = new ArrayList(ALength);
// ...
} // ArrayListOwnerClass(...)
public int Length()
{
return this.F_Length;
} // int Length(...)
public object getAt(int AIndex)
{
return this.F_List[AIndex];
} // object getAt(...)
public void setAt(int AIndex, object AValue)
{
this.F_List[AIndex] = AValue;
} // void setAt(...)
public void DoOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void DoOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListOwnerClass
public class ArrayListFriendClass
{
public void UseArrayList(ArrayListOwnerClass AListOwner)
{
bool CanContinue =
(AListOwner != null) && (AListOwner.Length() > 0);
if (CanContinue)
{
int AItem = AListOwner.getAt(5);
DoSomethingWith(Item);
} // if (CanContinue)
} // void UseArrayList(...)
public void AlsoDoesOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void AlsoDoesOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListFriendClass
Note, that I could use an indexed property.
Related
I am trying to clean and refactor my service code which currently looks like this-
public void generateBalance(Receipt receipt) {
if (receipt.getType().equals(X) && receipt.getRegion.equals(EMEA)) {
// do something to the receipt that's passed
} else if (receiptType.equals(Y)) {
// do something to the receipt
} else if (receipt.getRegion.equals(APAC) {
// call an external API and update the receipt
}....
...
// finally
dataStore.save(receipt);
Basically there's a bunch of conditionals that are in this main service which look for certain fields in the object that is being passed. Either it's the type or the region.
I was looking to use this design pattern- https://www.refactoring.com/catalog/replaceConditionalWithPolymorphism.html
However, I am not sure how this would work for a service class. Currently my REST handler calls this particular service. Also how can I do polymorphism for both the "receiptType" and "region"?
Is there a way I can just do all the updates to the receipt once in different services, then finally save the receipt at one location? (maybe a base class?) I am really confused on how to start. TIA!
If your classes should have the same behaviour, then it becomes pretty simple to use polymorpism. The pattern is called as Strategy. Let me show an example.
At first we need to use enum. If you do not have enum, then you can create a method which will return enum value based on your conditions:
if (receipt.getType().equals(X) && receipt.getRegion.equals(EMEA)) // other
// code is omitted for the brevity
So enum will look like this:
public enum ReceiptType
{
Emea, Y, Apac
}
Then we need an abstract class which will describe behaviour for derived classes:
public abstract class ActionReceipt
{
public abstract string Do();
}
And our derived classes will look this:
public class ActionReceiptEmea : ActionReceipt
{
public override string Do()
{
return "I am Emea";
}
}
public class ActionReceiptY : ActionReceipt
{
public override string Do()
{
return "I am Y";
}
}
public class ActionReceiptApac : ActionReceipt
{
public override string Do()
{
return "I am Apac";
}
}
Moreover, we need a factory which will create derived classes based on enum. So we can use Factory pattern with a slight modification:
public class ActionReceiptFactory
{
private Dictionary<ReceiptType, ActionReceipt> _actionReceiptByType =
new Dictionary<ReceiptType, ActionReceipt>
{
{
ReceiptType.Apac, new ActionReceiptApac()
},
{
ReceiptType.Emea, new ActionReceiptEmea()
},
{
ReceiptType.Y, new ActionReceiptY()
}
};
public ActionReceipt GetInstanceByReceiptType(ReceiptType receiptType) =>
_actionReceiptByType[receiptType];
}
And then polymorpism in action will look like this:
void DoSomething(ReceiptType receiptType)
{
ActionReceiptFactory actionReceiptFactory = new ActionReceiptFactory();
ActionReceipt receipt =
actionReceiptFactory.GetInstanceByReceiptType(receiptType);
string someDoing = receipt.Do(); // Output: "I am Emea"
}
UPDATE:
You can create some helper method which will return enum value based on
your logic of region and receiptType:
public class ReceiptTypeHelper
{
public ReceiptType Get(ActionReceipt actionReceipt)
{
if (actionReceipt.GetType().Equals("Emea"))
return ReceiptType.Emea;
else if (actionReceipt.GetType().Equals("Y"))
return ReceiptType.Y;
return ReceiptType.Apac;
}
}
and you can call it like this:
void DoSomething()
{
ReceiptTypeHelper receiptTypeHelper = new ReceiptTypeHelper();
ReceiptType receiptType = receiptTypeHelper
.Get(new ActionReceiptEmea());
ActionReceiptFactory actionReceiptFactory = new
ActionReceiptFactory();
ActionReceipt receipt =
actionReceiptFactory.GetInstanceByReceiptType(receiptType);
string someDoing = receipt.Do(); // Output: "I am Emea"
}
This might be a duplicate. But I cannot find a solution to my Problem.
I have a class
public class MyResponse implements Serializable {
private boolean isSuccess;
public boolean isSuccess() {
return isSuccess;
}
public void setSuccess(boolean isSuccess) {
this.isSuccess = isSuccess;
}
}
Getters and setters are generated by Eclipse.
In another class, I set the value to true, and write it as a JSON string.
System.out.println(new ObjectMapper().writeValueAsString(myResponse));
In JSON, the key is coming as {"success": true}.
I want the key as isSuccess itself. Is Jackson using the setter method while serializing? How do I make the key the field name itself?
This is a slightly late answer, but may be useful for anyone else coming to this page.
A simple solution to changing the name that Jackson will use for when serializing to JSON is to use the #JsonProperty annotation, so your example would become:
public class MyResponse implements Serializable {
private boolean isSuccess;
#JsonProperty(value="isSuccess")
public boolean isSuccess() {
return isSuccess;
}
public void setSuccess(boolean isSuccess) {
this.isSuccess = isSuccess;
}
}
This would then be serialised to JSON as {"isSuccess":true}, but has the advantage of not having to modify your getter method name.
Note that in this case you could also write the annotation as #JsonProperty("isSuccess") as it only has the single value element
I recently ran into this issue and this is what I found. Jackson will inspect any class that you pass to it for getters and setters, and use those methods for serialization and deserialization. What follows "get", "is" and "set" in those methods will be used as the key for the JSON field ("isValid" for getIsValid and setIsValid).
public class JacksonExample {
private boolean isValid = false;
public boolean getIsValid() {
return isValid;
}
public void setIsValid(boolean isValid) {
this.isValid = isValid;
}
}
Similarly "isSuccess" will become "success", unless renamed to "isIsSuccess" or "getIsSuccess"
Read more here: http://www.citrine.io/blog/2015/5/20/jackson-json-processor
Using both annotations below, forces the output JSON to include is_xxx:
#get:JsonProperty("is_something")
#param:JsonProperty("is_something")
When you are using Kotlin and data classes:
data class Dto(
#get:JsonProperty("isSuccess") val isSuccess: Boolean
)
You might need to add #param:JsonProperty("isSuccess") if you are going to deserialize JSON as well.
EDIT: If you are using swagger-annotations to generate documentation, the property will be marked as readOnly when using #get:JsonProperty. In order to solve this, you can do:
#JsonAutoDetect(isGetterVisibility = JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.NONE)
data class Dto(
#field:JsonProperty(value = "isSuccess") val isSuccess: Boolean
)
You can configure your ObjectMapper as follows:
mapper.setPropertyNamingStrategy(new PropertyNamingStrategy() {
#Override
public String nameForGetterMethod(MapperConfig<?> config, AnnotatedMethod method, String defaultName)
{
if(method.hasReturnType() && (method.getRawReturnType() == Boolean.class || method.getRawReturnType() == boolean.class)
&& method.getName().startsWith("is")) {
return method.getName();
}
return super.nameForGetterMethod(config, method, defaultName);
}
});
I didn't want to mess with some custom naming strategies, nor re-creating some accessors.
The less code, the happier I am.
This did the trick for us :
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonIgnoreProperties;
import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty;
#JsonIgnoreProperties({"success", "deleted"}) // <- Prevents serialization duplicates
public class MyResponse {
private String id;
private #JsonProperty("isSuccess") boolean isSuccess; // <- Forces field name
private #JsonProperty("isDeleted") boolean isDeleted;
}
Building upon Utkarsh's answer..
Getter names minus get/is is used as the JSON name.
public class Example{
private String radcliffe;
public getHarryPotter(){
return radcliffe;
}
}
is stored as { "harryPotter" : "whateverYouGaveHere" }
For Deserialization, Jackson checks against both the setter and the field name.
For the Json String { "word1" : "example" }, both the below are valid.
public class Example{
private String word1;
public setword2( String pqr){
this.word1 = pqr;
}
}
public class Example2{
private String word2;
public setWord1(String pqr){
this.word2 = pqr ;
}
}
A more interesting question is which order Jackson considers for deserialization. If i try to deserialize { "word1" : "myName" } with
public class Example3{
private String word1;
private String word2;
public setWord1( String parameter){
this.word2 = parameter ;
}
}
I did not test the above case, but it would be interesting to see the values of word1 & word2 ...
Note: I used drastically different names to emphasize which fields are required to be same.
You can change primitive boolean to java.lang.Boolean (+ use #JsonPropery)
#JsonProperty("isA")
private Boolean isA = false;
public Boolean getA() {
return this.isA;
}
public void setA(Boolean a) {
this.isA = a;
}
Worked excellent for me.
If you are interested in handling 3rd party classes not under your control (like #edmundpie mentioned in a comment) then you add Mixin classes to your ObjectMapper where the property/field names should match the ones from your 3rd party class:
public class MyStack32270422 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ObjectMapper om3rdParty = new ObjectMapper();
om3rdParty .addMixIn(My3rdPartyResponse.class, MixinMyResponse.class);
// add further mixins if required
String jsonString = om3rdParty.writeValueAsString(new My3rdPartyResponse());
System.out.println(jsonString);
}
}
class MixinMyResponse {
// add all jackson annotations here you want to be used when handling My3rdPartyResponse classes
#JsonProperty("isSuccess")
private boolean isSuccess;
}
class My3rdPartyResponse{
private boolean isSuccess = true;
// getter and setter here if desired
}
Basically you add all your Jackson annotations to your Mixin classes as if you would own the class. In my opinion quite a nice solution as you don't have to mess around with checking method names starting with "is.." and so on.
there is another method for this problem.
just define a new sub-class extends PropertyNamingStrategy and pass it to ObjectMapper instance.
here is a code snippet may be help more:
mapper.setPropertyNamingStrategy(new PropertyNamingStrategy() {
#Override
public String nameForGetterMethod(MapperConfig<?> config, AnnotatedMethod method, String defaultName) {
String input = defaultName;
if(method.getName().startsWith("is")){
input = method.getName();
}
//copy from LowerCaseWithUnderscoresStrategy
if (input == null) return input; // garbage in, garbage out
int length = input.length();
StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder(length * 2);
int resultLength = 0;
boolean wasPrevTranslated = false;
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
char c = input.charAt(i);
if (i > 0 || c != '_') // skip first starting underscore
{
if (Character.isUpperCase(c))
{
if (!wasPrevTranslated && resultLength > 0 && result.charAt(resultLength - 1) != '_')
{
result.append('_');
resultLength++;
}
c = Character.toLowerCase(c);
wasPrevTranslated = true;
}
else
{
wasPrevTranslated = false;
}
result.append(c);
resultLength++;
}
}
return resultLength > 0 ? result.toString() : input;
}
});
The accepted answer won't work for my case.
In my case, the class is not owned by me. The problematic class comes from 3rd party dependencies, so I can't just add #JsonProperty annotation in it.
To solve it, inspired by #burak answer above, I created a custom PropertyNamingStrategy as follow:
mapper.setPropertyNamingStrategy(new PropertyNamingStrategy() {
#Override
public String nameForSetterMethod(MapperConfig<?> config, AnnotatedMethod method, String defaultName)
{
if (method.getParameterCount() == 1 &&
(method.getRawParameterType(0) == Boolean.class || method.getRawParameterType(0) == boolean.class) &&
method.getName().startsWith("set")) {
Class<?> containingClass = method.getDeclaringClass();
String potentialFieldName = "is" + method.getName().substring(3);
try {
containingClass.getDeclaredField(potentialFieldName);
return potentialFieldName;
} catch (NoSuchFieldException e) {
// do nothing and fall through
}
}
return super.nameForSetterMethod(config, method, defaultName);
}
#Override
public String nameForGetterMethod(MapperConfig<?> config, AnnotatedMethod method, String defaultName)
{
if(method.hasReturnType() && (method.getRawReturnType() == Boolean.class || method.getRawReturnType() == boolean.class)
&& method.getName().startsWith("is")) {
Class<?> containingClass = method.getDeclaringClass();
String potentialFieldName = method.getName();
try {
containingClass.getDeclaredField(potentialFieldName);
return potentialFieldName;
} catch (NoSuchFieldException e) {
// do nothing and fall through
}
}
return super.nameForGetterMethod(config, method, defaultName);
}
});
Basically what this does is, before serializing and deserializing, it checks in the target/source class which property name is present in the class, whether it is isEnabled or enabled property.
Based on that, the mapper will serialize and deserialize to the property name that is exist.
Given a bean like this:
public class MyBean {
private List<Something> things;
private List<Something> internalGetThings() {
if (things == null) {
things = new ArrayList<Something>();
}
return things;
}
public Iterable<Something> getThings() {
return <an immutable copy of internalGetThings()>;
}
public void setThings(List<Something> someThings) {
things.clear();
for (Something aThing : someThings) {
addThing(aThing);
}
}
public void addThing(Something aThing) {
things.add(aThing);
// Do some special stuff to aThing
}
}
Using external mapping file, when I map like this:
<xml-element java-attribute="things" name="thing" type="com.myco.Something" container-type="java.util.ArrayList" />
It seems that each individual Something is being added to the MyBean by calling getThings().add(). That's a problem because getThings() returns an immutable copy of the list, which is lazily initialized. How can I configure mapping (I'm using an external mapping file, not annotations) so that MOXy uses setThings() or addThing() instead?
Why Does JAXB/MOXy Check the Get Method for Collection First?
JAXB (JSR-222) implementations give you a chance to have your property be the List interface and still leverage the underlying List implementation that you choose to use. To accomplish this a JAXB implementation will call the get method to see if the List implementation has been initialized. It it has the List will be populated using the add method.
public List<String> getThings() {
if(null == things) {
things = new ArrayList<String>();
}
return things;
}
public List<String> getThings() {
if(null == things) {
things = new LinkedList<String>();
}
return things;
}
If you don't pre-initialize the List property then MOXy/JAXB will build an instance of the List (default is ArrayList) and set it on the object using the set method.
private List<Something> things; // Don't Initialize
public List<String> getThings() {
return things;
}
public void setThings(List<String> things) {
this.things = things;
}
Given the reason in #Blaise's answer, it doesn't seem possible to have MOXy (or any JAXB implementation in general?) populate a lazily-initialized collection via a setter method on the collection. However, a combination of xml-accessor-type="FIELD" (or #XmlAccessorType if using annotations) and defining a JAXB unmarshal event callback will get the job done. In my afterUnmarshal() implementation I do the special work on Something instances that is done in addSomething().
private void afterUnmarshal(Unmarshaller, Object parent) {
for (Something aThing : getSomethings()) {
// Do special stuff on aThing
}
}
Using FIELD access type gets JAXB/MOXy to directly inject the collection into the field, bypassing the getter. Then the call back cleans things up properly.
How can I bind InitializerForXXX (non-generic implementation) to IInitializer<XXX> (generic interface) using Ninject Conventions so that requests for an IInitializer<T> resolve a non-generic implementation whose name starts with InitializerFor and end with typeof(T).Name like:
initializerFactory.CreateFor<Blue>(); //resolves InitializerOfBlue
initializerFactory.CreateFor<ShadeOfBlue>(); //resolves InitializerOfShadeOfBlue
where no non-abstract class directly implement IInitializer<T>, and some implementations inherit from other implementations:
InitializerForShadeOfBlue inherits from InitializerForBlue
InitializerForBlue inherits from abstract Initializer<Blue>
abstract Initializer<T> directly implements IInitializer<T>
I'm hoping I can use a .EndsWith(typeof(T).Name) for a given IInitializer<T> convention I can use, because there are literally hundreds of initializers in the ShadeOfxxx vein. If I have to map all of them, I'm better off finding a way to resolve with reflection at runtime.
Given the following:
UPDATE: bindings with custom binding generator (see my answer below for implementation)
void Bootstrap(IBindingRoot kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<IInitializerFactory>()
.To<InitializerFactory>()
.InSingletonScope();
kernel.Bind(scanner =>
scanner.FromThisAssembly().SelectAllClasses()
.WhichAreNotGeneric()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(IComplexContent))
.BindAllInterfaces());
kernel.Bind(scanner =>
scanner.FromThisAssembly().SelectAllClasses()
.WhichAreNotGeneric()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(IInitializer<>))
.BindWith<FirstTypeParameterNameMatchesEndOfBoundClassNameGenerator>());
}
main method
void Main(IEnumerable<string> values)
{
// setup bindings
var kernel = new StandardKernel();
Bootstrap(kernel);
IInitializerFactory initializerFactory =
kernel.Get<IInitializerFactory>();
IInitializer<ShadeOfBlueComplexContent> initializer =
initializerFactory.CreateFor<ShadeOfBlueComplexContent>();
initializer.Initialize(values);
}
initializer factory
interface IInitializerFactory
{
IInitializer<T> CreateFor<T>() where T : class, IComplexContent, new();
}
class InitializerFactory : IInitializerFactory
{
public IInitializer<T> CreateFor<T>() where T : class, IComplexContent, new()
{
return MagicallyGetInitializer<T>();
}
//behind the curtain, whirring noises are heard as 't' is resolved...
private static IInitializer<T> MagicallyGetInitializer<T>()
where T : class, IComplexContent, new()
{
IInitializer<T> i = null;
return i;
}
}
initializers
interface IInitializer<out T> where T : IComplexContent
{
T Initialize(IEnumerable<string> values);
}
abstract class Initializer<T> : IInitializer<T> where T : IComplexContent
{
public abstract T Initialize(IEnumerable<string> values);
}
class InitializerOfBlue : Initializer<Blue>
{
private readonly Blue _content;
public InitializerOfBlue(Blue content) {_content = content;}
public override Blue Initialize(IEnumerable<string> values)
{
_content.BlueSpecificProperty = values.ElementAt(0);
//... populate other blue-specific properties like this
return _content;
}
}
class InitializerOfShadeOfBlue : InitializerOfBlue
{
public InitializerOfShadeOfBlue(ShadeOfBlue content) : base(content){}
}
content models
interface IComplexContent
{
string OneBasicProperty { get; set; }
// other properties are specific to implementation
string UniqueOperation();
}
abstract class BaseComplexContent : IComplexContent
{
public string OneBasicProperty { get; set; }
public abstract string UniqueOperation();
}
class Blue : BaseComplexContent
{
// initializer sets this
public string PropertyForAllKindsOfBlue { get; set; }
// initializer doesn't interact with this
public override string UniqueOperation() {return "I'm plain.";}
}
class ShadeOfBlue : Blue
{
// initializer doesn't interact with this
public override string UniqueOperation() {return "I'm fabulous!";}
}
You are over specifying the class selection
kernel.Bind(scanner =>
scanner.FromThisAssembly().SelectAllClasses()
.WhichAreNotGeneric()
.InheritedFrom(typeof (IInitializer<>))
This is already enough. What you need to do though is to add a custom Binding Generator. That selects IInitializer<Blue> for InitializerForBlue and IInitializer<ShadeOfBlue> for InitializerForShadeOfBlue
https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.conventions/wiki/Projecting-Services-to-Bind
BEGIN SOLUTION CANDIDATE - custom binding generator:
custom binding generator
Thanks for the advice, #RemoGloor and #RubenBartelink. I'm stumped though - the problem is that I wind up binding the IInitializer<Blue> to InitializerOfShadeOfBlue. I need to be able to somehow change the generic type argument from Blue to ShadeOfBlue in the IInitializer<Blue> binding candidate, since IInitializer<ShadeOfBlue> is what will be requested from the factory method at runtime.
Is there a way to modify the generic type argument list of the binding candidate? Or am I barking up the wrong implementation? Any edit suggestions to my OP or this answer are appreciated.
/// <summary>Creates bindings on open generic types where bound implementations'
/// names end with the name of the generic type argument</summary>
public class FirstTypeParameterNameMatchesEndOfBoundClassNameGenerator : IBindingGenerator
{
public IEnumerable<IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>> CreateBindings(Type type, IBindingRoot bindingRoot)
{
if (type == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("type");
if (bindingRoot == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("bindingRoot");
// only consider concrete, non-abstract classes
if (type.IsInterface || type.IsAbstract) yield break;
var bindingType = GetBindingType(type);
if (bindingType != null)
yield return bindingRoot.Bind(bindingType).To(type);
// ARGH! bindingType == IInitializer`1[[Blue]] but I want
// IInitializer`1[[ShadeOfBlue]] for type == ShadeOfBlue
}
private static Type GetBindingType(Type type)
{
Type goodMatch = null;
foreach (var candidate in type.GetInterfaces())
{
// skip non-generic interfaces
if (!candidate.IsGenericType) continue;
// assumption: using argument in first position
var firstArg = candidate.GetGenericArguments().First();
if (!type.Name.EndsWith(firstArg.Name)) continue;
// IInitializer<XXX> matches InitializerOfXXX
goodMatch = candidate;
break;
}
if (goodMatch == null)
{
// if no match on interfaces, walk through the ancestor types
foreach (var candidate in type.GetAllAncestors())
{
goodMatch = GetBindingType(candidate);
if (goodMatch != null) break;
}
}
return goodMatch;
}
Type Extension helper
public static class TypeExtensions
{
// returns all ancestor types starting with the parent
public static IEnumerable<Type> GetAllAncestors(this Type type)
{
for (var current = type.BaseType; current != null; current = current.BaseType)
yield return current;
}
}
END SOLUTION CANDIDATE - custom binding generator
For example, we have the class Man
If Man.age is protected, then I don't see why chuckNorris (instance of class Man) can change the protected/private attribute age of the object jackBauer (another instance of class Man). He shouldn't be able to do that (IMO).
In my mind, the value of a protected/private attribute is supposed to belong only to the object itself, not the class...
I need some explanation I think, I'm confused.
Matthieu is right. cuckNorris can do jackBauer.age
But there is no problem on that. If you are referencing Man instance attributes inside Man, that means you are coding Man class, so you know what you are doing.
The problem would be if you pass me that Man class and I could access the Man attributes with out knowing how Man class is coded.
Setters and getters may be doing some business logic that I don't know and I don't need to know. But the one who coded Mam does know.
Consider this Java class:
public class Base {
private int a
protected int b;
public Base(int a,int b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
public int getA() {
return a;
}
public int getB() {
return b;
}
}
...
Base foo = new Base(1,2);
Base bar = new Base(3,4);
There is no way(maybe except via dirty reflection) the foo instance can change the protected or private variable in bar
You might allow it to if you want,
public class Base {
private int a
protected int b;
public Base(int a,int b) {
this.a = a;
this.b = b;
}
public int getA() {
return a;
}
public int getB() {
return b;
}
public void changeB(int newB,Base other) {
other.b = newB;
}
}
...
Base foo = new Base(1,2);
Base bar = new Base(3,4);
foo.changeB(5,bar);
You can't protect the changeB method from altering stuff inside the other object [*], you just have to be careful about what your program does. With some languages you could have marked the other argument as unchangable , but not in Java - I don't find it a big deal.
[*} You could, by marking all the fields of Base as final, though then not even the instance itself could change the members after the object has been constructed.
A private attribute is accessible only by method in the class.
A protected attribute is accessibe in descendant class only. Therefore an object jackbauer can't modify anything private or protected in an object chuckNorris of class Man. Hope this would help