The main WebServerExtension example from the JUnit5 manual is incomplete and it doesn't fully show how to properly store the configuration (e.g. enableSecurity, server url).
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/blob/master/documentation/src/main/java/example/registration/WebServerExtension.java
The example ignores or hard codes the values. The manual (section 5.11. Keeping State in Extensions) implies that the "Store" should be used but the ExtensionContext is not yet available yet when the object is constructed -- its not clear how to handle migrating this data to the Store as the ExtensionContext is not yet available in the constructor.
Also its not clear to me that using the Store API for the WebServerExtension programmatic example is even desirable and perhaps it could work just using the internal state (e.g. this.serverUrl, this.enableSecurity, etc.).
Maybe the Store is more applicable to Extensions which don't use this "programmatic" style where multiple instances of the custom extension may exist (appropriately)? In other words its not clear to me from the guide if this a supported paradigm or not?
Other JUnit 5 extension examples online (e.g. org.junit.jupiter.engine.extension.TempDirectory) show how to leverage annotations to handle passing configuration info to the Store but it would be nice if there were a complete programmatic builder type example like WebServerExtension too.
Examples like TempDirectory clearly have access to the ExtensionContext from the beforeXXX() methods whereas the WebServerExtension example does not.
Using the following approach below seems to work fine but I wanted confirmation that this is a supported paradigm (i.e. using fields instead of Stores when using this programmatic approach).
public class WebServerExtension implements BeforeAllCallback {
private final boolean securityEnabled;
private final String serverUrl;
public WebServerExtension(Builder builder) {
this.securityEnabled = builder.enableSecurity;
this.serverUrl = build.serverUrl;
}
#Override
public void beforeAll(ExtensionContext context) {
// is it ok to use this.securityEnabled, this.serverUrl instead of Store API???
}
public String getServerUrl() {
return this.serverUrl;
}
public boolean isSecurityEnabled() {
return this.securityEnabled;
}
public static Builder builder() {
return new Builder();
}
public static class Builder {
private boolean enableSecurity;
private String serverUrl;
public Builder enableSecurity(boolean b) {
this.enableSecurity = b;
return this;
}
public Builder serverUrl(String url) {
this.serverUrl = url;
return this;
}
public WebServerExtension build() {
return new WebServerExtension(this);
}
}
}
Thanks!
I would like to create a calculator application that can switch between different number bases. As far as entering digits is concerned, I was thinking the following would be a flexible api:
public interface ICalculator
{
string Enter(INumberElement element);
}
public class BaseTenCalculator : ICalculator
{
public string Enter(INumberElement element)
{
...
}
}
public class BaseTwoCalculator : ICalculator
{
public string Enter(INumberElement element)
{
...
}
}
My problem is that for the BaseTenCalculator, I would like a method
Enter(BaseTenNumberElement element)
and for a BaseTwoCalculator, I would like a method
Enter(BaseTwoNumberElement element)
to make sure only valid digits for that number base get entered. However, the only way I can think of enforcing this constraint is downcasting the 'element' argument in the two different implementations, and throwing an exception if INumberElement is not of the correct type. I feel like this is 'wrong', and I'm missing something. Is there another way? Is it even possible to create a common interface for two different number base calculators?
public interface ICalculator<in T> where T : INumberElement
{
string Enter(T element);
}
public class BaseTenCalculator : ICalculator<BaseTenNumberElement>
{
public string Enter(BaseTenNumberElement element)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class BaseTwoCalculator : ICalculator<BaseTwoNumberElement>
{
public string Enter(BaseTwoNumberElement element)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
I think you're thinking of the problem incorrectly. A number is a number regardless of base. Base is only a visible representation of the number. A good example to work from might be BigInteger. It has a constructor: BigInteger(String val, int radix), and a function: toString(int radix). All the work of representing the number is done the same. The only thing that differs is parsing from a string representation into the number, and then getting back out into a number format in a particular base.
You could create a multi-base calculator by using BigInteger or BigDecimal underneath and just using a base selection to set the radix value to parse or print the number(s). You'd also want to limit the input buttons (assuming you're using buttons), but that's really just a counting problem.
I have project that need to reference to some web service, just say my reference is
service1Facade and service2Facade
both of them contain class name objectA
i must load objectA from service1Facade and use it as parameter in service2Facade.
but i got error
"value of type service1Facade.objectA cannot be converted to service2Facade.objectA"
how can i convert these object ?
what i have try but still not work:
group all reference into same folder, but .NET change its name into
objectA and objectA1
I copy every property of the property inside objectA, but still not working.
The functionality that is responsible for generating proxy classes based on your WSDL specification doesn't know (and it shouldn't know) that both your services use the same underlying type for objectA, and as I mentioned, no assumptions can be made regarding this since web services are meant to be decoupled from each other (from the consumer point of view).
I'd say your best option is to have your own proxy class (let's say ServiceProxyDTO) that can be used in both service #1 and #2. Something along the lines of:
public class ServiceProxyDTO
{
// Define properties from "objectA"
public ServiceProxyDTO() { }
public ServiceProxyDTO(service1Facade.ObjectA copyFrom)
{
// Copy state from "copyFrom"
}
public ServiceProxyDTO(service2Facade.ObjectA copyFrom)
{
// Copy state from "copyFrom"
}
public static implicit operator service1Facade.ObjectA(ServiceProxyDTO dto)
{
return new service1Facade.ObjectA() { /* Copy state back */ };
}
public static implicit operator service2Facade.ObjectA(ServiceProxyDTO dto)
{
return new service2Facade.ObjectA() { /* Copy state back */ };
}
public static implicit operator ServiceProxyDTO(service1Facade.ObjectA obj)
{
return new ServiceProxyDTO(obj);
}
public static implicit operator ServiceProxyDTO(service2Facade.ObjectA obj)
{
return new ServiceProxyDTO(obj);
}
}
With this code you can instantiate ServiceProxyDTO and pass it as parameter to both service #1 and #2 (as well as get the return values from both of these services).
Hope this helps.
Referring to the below link:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-11-1998/jw-11-techniques.html?page=2
The composition approach to code reuse provides stronger encapsulation
than inheritance, because a change to a back-end class needn't break
any code that relies only on the front-end class. For example,
changing the return type of Fruit's peel() method from the previous
example doesn't force a change in Apple's interface and therefore
needn't break Example2's code.
Surely if you change the return type of peel() (see code below) this means getPeelCount() wouldn't be able to return an int any more? Wouldn't you have to change the interface, or get a compiler error otherwise?
class Fruit {
// Return int number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public int peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1;
}
}
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return fruit.peel();
}
}
class Example2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Apple apple = new Apple();
int pieces = apple.peel();
}
}
With a composition, changing the class Fruit doesn't necessary require you to change Apple, for example, let's change peel to return a double instead :
class Fruit {
// Return String number of pieces of peel that
// resulted from the peeling activity.
public double peel() {
System.out.println("Peeling is appealing.");
return 1.0;
}
}
Now, the class Apple will warn about a lost of precision, but your Example2 class will be just fine, because a composition is more "loose" and a change in a composed element does not break the composing class API. In our case example, just change Apple like so :
class Apple {
private Fruit fruit = new Fruit();
public int peel() {
return (int) fruit.peel();
}
}
Whereas if Apple inherited from Fruit (class Apple extends Fruit), you would not only get an error about an incompatible return type method, but you'd also get a compilation error in Example2.
** Edit **
Lets start this over and give a "real world" example of composition vs inheritance. Note that a composition is not limited to this example and there are more use case where you can use the pattern.
Example 1 : inheritance
An application draw shapes into a canvas. The application does not need to know which shapes it has to draw and the implementation lies in the concrete class inheriting the abstract class or interface. However, the application knows what and how many different concrete shapes it can create, thus adding or removing concrete shapes requires some refactoring in the application.
interface Shape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
class Box implement Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class Ellipse implements Shape {
...
public void draw(Graphics g) { ... }
}
class ShapeCanvas extends JPanel {
private List<Shape> shapes;
...
protected void paintComponent(Graphics g) {
for (Shape s : shapes) { s.draw(g); }
}
}
Example 2 : Composition
An application is using a native library to process some data. The actual library implementation may or may not be known, and may or may not change in the future. A public interface is thus created and the actual implementation is determined at run-time. For example :
interface DataProcessorAdapter {
...
public Result process(Data data);
}
class DataProcessor {
private DataProcessorAdapter adapter;
public DataProcessor() {
try {
adapter = DataProcessorManager.createAdapter();
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Could not load processor adapter");
}
}
public Object process(Object data) {
return adapter.process(data);
}
}
static class DataProcessorManager {
static public DataProcessorAdapter createAdapter() throws ClassNotFoundException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
String adapterClassName = /* load class name from resource bundle */;
Class<?> adapterClass = Class.forName(adapterClassName);
DataProcessorAdapter adapter = (DataProcessorAdapter) adapterClass.newInstance();
//...
return adapter;
}
}
So, as you can see, the composition may offer some advantage over inheritance in the sense that it allows more flexibility in the code. It allows the application to have a solid API while the underlaying implementation may still change during it's life cycle. Composition can significantly reduce the cost of maintenance if properly used.
For example, when implementing test cases with JUnit for Exemple 2, you may want to use a dummy processor and would setup the DataProcessorManager to return such adapter, while using a "real" adapter (perhaps OS dependent) in production without changing the application source code. Using inheritance, you would most likely hack something up, or perhaps write a lot more initialization test code.
As you can see, compisition and inheritance differ in many aspects and are not preferred over another; each depend on the problem at hand. You could even mix inheritance and composition, for example :
static interface IShape {
public void draw(Graphics g);
}
static class Shape implements IShape {
private IShape shape;
public Shape(Class<? extends IShape> shape) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
this.shape = (IShape) shape.newInstance();
}
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.print("Drawing shape : ");
shape.draw(g);
}
}
static class Box implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Box");
}
}
static class Ellipse implements IShape {
#Override
public void draw(Graphics g) {
System.out.println("Ellipse");
}
}
static public void main(String...args) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException {
IShape box = new Shape(Box.class);
IShape ellipse = new Shape(Ellipse.class);
box.draw(null);
ellipse.draw(null);
}
Granted, this last example is not clean (meaning, avoid it), but it shows how composition can be used.
Bottom line is that both examples, DataProcessor and Shape are "solid" classes, and their API should not change. However, the adapter classes may change and if they do, these changes should only affect their composing container, thus limit the maintenance to only these classes and not the entire application, as opposed to Example 1 where any change require more changes throughout the application. It all depends how flexible your application needs to be.
If you would change Fruit.peel()'s return type, you would have to modify Apple.peel() as well. But you don't have to change Apple's interface.
Remember: The interface are only the method names and their signatures, NOT the implementation.
Say you'd change Fruit.peel() to return a boolean instead of a int. Then, you could still let Apple.peel() return an int. So: The interface of Apple stays the same but Fruit's changed.
If you would have use inheritance, that would not be possible: Since Fruit.peel() now returns a boolean, Apple.peel() has to return an boolean, too. So: All code that uses Apple.peel() has to be changed, too. In the composition example, ONLY Apple.peel()'s code has to be changed.
The key word in the sentence is "interface".
You'll almost always need to change the Apple class in some way to accomodate the new return type of Fruit.peel, but you don't need to change its public interface if you use composition rather than inheritance.
If Apple is a Fruit (ie, inheritance) then any change to the public interface of Fruit necessitates a change to the public interface of Apple too. If Apple has a Fruit (ie, composition) then you get to decide how to accomodate any changes to the Fruit class; you're not forced to change your public interface if you don't want to.
Return type of Fruit.peel() is being changed from int to Peel. This doesn't meant that the return type of Apple.peel() is being forced to change to Peel as well. In case of inheritance, it is forced and any client using Apple has to be changed. In case of composition, Apple.peel() still returns an integer, by calling the Peel.getPeelCount() getter and hence the client need not be changed and hence Apple's interface is not changed ( or being forced to be changed)
Well, in the composition case, Apple.peel()'s implementation needs to be updated, but its method signature can stay the same. And that means the client code (which uses Apple) does not have to be modified, retested, and redeployed.
This is in contrast to inheritance, where a change in Fruit.peel()'s method signature would require changes all way into the client code.
I have the following:
An interface I1 extends Ia, Ib, Ic
An interface I2.
A class C implements I1, I2. And this class has its own setters and getters as well.
C cInstance = new C():
//Jackson
ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
mapper.writeValue(new File("somefile.json"), cInstance);
//Gson
Gson gson = new Gson();
String json = gson.toJson(cInstance);
The output will be cInstance serialized according to the properties of C and what it inherited.
However, I like the properties are being serialized to be according to the setters/getters in I1 (only the cInstance properties represented in the I1 interface).
How can I do this with Jackson knowing that I have too many classes with the same problem and I can't modify the class definition or add annotations.
And the same issue applies to Deserialization (Deserializing according to an interface)
Thanks
First of all, you can always attach "mix-in annotations" even without adding annotations directly (see wiki page). With this, annotation to use would be:
#JsonSerialize(as=MyInterface.class)
but if you do not want to use mix-ins, you can force specific type to use with
objectMapper.typedWriter(MyInterface.class).writeValue(....)
Jackson's VisibilityChecker provides an easy way for filtering certain properties, especially because it allows you to test for visibility (equals "will be serialized or not") for each method/field individually.
At least this helps for the serialization phase.
Here is what I did (using Jackson version 1.9.11):
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.ObjectMapper;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.introspect.AnnotatedMethod;
import org.codehaus.jackson.map.introspect.VisibilityChecker;
public static class InterfaceVisibilityChecker extends VisibilityChecker.Std {
private final Set<Method> visibleMethods;
public InterfaceVisibilityChecker(Class<?>... clazzes) {
super(JsonAutoDetect.Visibility.PUBLIC_ONLY);
this.visibleMethods = new HashSet<>();
for (Class<?> clz : clazzes) {
this.visibleMethods.addAll(Arrays.asList(clz.getMethods()));
}
}
#Override
public boolean isGetterVisible(Method m) {
return super.isGetterVisible(m) && isVisible(m);
}
#Override
public boolean isGetterVisible(AnnotatedMethod m) {
return isGetterVisible(m.getAnnotated());
}
private boolean isVisible(Method m) {
for (Method visiMthd : visibleMethods) {
if (isOverwriteMethod(m, visiMthd)) return true;
}
return false;
}
private boolean isOverwriteMethod(Method subMethod, Method superMethod) {
// names must be equal
if (! subMethod.getName().equals(superMethod.getName())) return false;
// return types must be assignable
if (! superMethod.getReturnType().isAssignableFrom(subMethod.getReturnType())) return false;
// parameters must be equal
if (! Arrays.equals(subMethod.getParameterTypes(), superMethod.getGenericParameterTypes())) return false;
// classes must be assignable
return superMethod.getDeclaringClass().isAssignableFrom(subMethod.getDeclaringClass());
}
}
The main idea is to use the standard VisibilityChecker and extend it by a check whether the method is declared in one of the given interfaces.
The checker is applied to an ObjectMapper instance using the following snippet:
ObjectMapper om = new ObjectMapper();
om.setVisibilityChecker(new InterfaceVisibilityChecker(
I1.class,
I2.class,
Ia.class,
Ib.class,
Ic.class
));
Some comments on the solution above:
The checker is not complete, methods like isIsGetterVisible or isFieldVisible can be handled in a similar manner if needed.
isOverwriteMethod is not optimized at all, it's checks could be cached.