I know that I can implement a Java interface with Jython like this:
class MyListener (Listener):
def foo(self, event):
print(str(event))
Python has first-class functions so that seems like an overkill - especially for interfaces with one method. Is there a way to just pass a lambda or function which implements a single method in an interface instead?
As of Jython 2.5.2 (beta 2), Jython functions work as implementations of single method Java interfaces. From http://www.zyasoft.com/pythoneering/2010/09/jython-2.5.2-beta-2-is-released/ :
Python functions can be directly passed to Java methods that take a single method interface (such as Callable or Runnable). This means you can now pass a callback function, usually a closure, instead wrapping it in a class implementing that interface. Tobias Ivarsson implemented this feature.
According to online examples, it is possible for the AWT/Swing Event interface. Simply create a closure with the correct arguments, pass it on and Jython should do the rest. Unfortunately I did not succeed in replicating this behavior for self declared interfaces as I always get a "TypeError: arg can't be coerced" exception.
I, too, would really like to know if it's possible and if so, what I'm doing wrong.
Related
I see some usages of Extension functions in Kotlin I don't personally think that makes sense, but it seems that there are some guidelines that "apparently" support it (a matter of interpretation).
Specifically: defining an extension function outside a class (but in the same file):
data class AddressDTO(val state: State,
val zipCode: String,
val city: String,
val streetAddress: String
)
fun AddressDTO.asXyzFormat() = "${streetAddress}\n${city}\n${state.name} $zipCode"
Where the asXyzFormat() is widely used, and cannot be defined as private/internal (but also for the cases it may be).
In my common sense, if you own the code (AddressDTO) and the usage is not local to some class / module (hence behing private/internal) - there is no reason to define an extension function - just define it as a member function of that class.
Edge case: if you want to avoid serialization of the function starting with get - annotate the class to get the desired behavior (e.g. #JsonIgnore on the function). This IMHO still doesn't justify an extension function.
The counter-response I got to this is that the approach of having an extension function of this fashion is supported by the Official Kotlin Coding Conventions. Specifically:
Use extension functions liberally. Every time you have a function that works primarily on an object, consider making it an extension function accepting that object as a receiver.
Source
And:
In particular, when defining extension functions for a class which are relevant for all clients of this class, put them in the same file where the class itself is defined. When defining extension functions that make sense only for a specific client, put them next to the code of that client. Do not create files just to hold "all extensions of Foo".
Source
I'll appreciate any commonly accepted source/reference explaining why it makes more sense to move the function to be a member of the class and/or pragmatic arguments support this separation.
That quote about using extension functions liberally, I'm pretty sure means use them liberally as opposed to top level non-extension functions (not as opposed to making it a member function). It's saying that if a top-level function conceptually works on a target object, prefer the extension function form.
I've searched before for the answer to why you might choose to make a function an extension function instead of a member function when working on a class you own the source code for, and have never found a canonical answer from JetBrains. Here are some reasons I think you might, but some are highly subject to opinion.
Sometimes you want a function that operates on a class with a specific generic type. Think of List<Int>.sum(), which is only available to a subset of Lists, but not a subtype of List.
Interfaces can be thought of as contracts. Functions that do something to an interface may make more sense conceptually since they are not part of the contract. I think this is the rationale for most of the standard library extension functions for Iterable and Sequence. A similar rationale might apply to a data class, if you think of a data class almost like a passive struct.
Extension functions afford the possibility of allowing users to pseudo-override them, but forcing them to do it in an independent way. Suppose your asXyzFormat() were an open member function. In some other module, you receive AddressDTO instances and want to get the XYZ format of them, exactly in the format you expect. But the AddressDTO you receive might have overridden asXyzFormat() and provide you something unexpected, so now you can't trust the function. If you use an extension function, than you allow users to replace asXyzFormat() in their own packages with something applicable to that space, but you can always trust the function asXyzFormat() in the source package.
Similarly for interfaces, a member function with default implementation invites users to override it. As the author of the interface, you may want a reliable function you can use on that interface with expected behavior. Although the end-user can hide your extension in their own module by overloading it, that will have no effect on your own uses of the function.
For what it's worth, I think it would be very rare to choose to make an extension function for a class (not an interface) when you own the source code for it. And I can't think of any examples of that in the standard library. Which leads me to believe that the Coding Conventions document is using the word "class" in a liberal sense that includes interfaces.
Here's a reverse argument…
One of the main reasons for adding extension functions to the language is being able to add functionality to classes from the standard library, and from third-party libraries and other dependencies where you don't control the code and can't add member functions (AKA methods). I suspect it's mainly those cases that that section of the coding conventions is talking about.
In Java, the only option in this cases is utility methods: static methods, usually in a utility class gathering together lots of such methods, each taking the relevant object as its first parameter:
public static String[] splitOnChar(String str, char separator)
public static boolean isAllDigits(String str)
…and so on, interminably.
The main problem there is that such methods are hard to find (no help from the IDE unless you already know about all the various utility classes). Also, calling them is long-winded (though it improved a bit once static imports were available).
Kotlin's extension methods are implemented exactly the same way down at the bytecode level, but their syntax is much simpler and exactly like member functions: they're written the same way (with this &c), calling them looks just like calling a member function, and your IDE will suggest them.
(Of course, they have drawbacks, too: no dynamic dispatch, no inheritance or overriding, scoping/import issues, name clashes, references to them are awkward, accessing them from Java or reflection is awkward, and so on.)
So: if the main purpose of extension functions is to substitute for member functions when member functions aren't possible, why would you use them when member functions are possible?!
(To be fair, there are a few reasons why you might want them. For example, you can make the receiver nullable, which isn't possible with member functions. But in most cases, they're greatly outweighed by the benefits of a proper member function.)
This means that the vast majority of extension functions are likely to be written for classes that you don't control the source code for, and so you don't have the option of putting them next to the class.
There's a solid chance I'm misusing classes here which is why I need your help.
I've started developing with Java EE and one of the problems I am facing is I have a process which I have organised in a class, call it: "SendEmail.java".
Now let's say I have two other classes called "Thunderalert.java" and "FloodAlert.java" which will use all the methods that SendEmails.java has within it.
So I want to know the best way of using the SendEmails methods from each of the other classes.
Should I be creating an instance of SendEmails and accessing each method individually and error checking along the way (what if an exception is thrown?).. It's methods are just procedural code, so it's not really an 'object' as such
Shall I just be using the one method that runs all the other internal ones from within SendMail
Should this SendMail be redesigned as a helper class-type design?
I'm still quite new at Java EE so I'm not sure if there are any options available which I am missing
I think you should have one public method inside SendEmail class.
Btw, I would consider changing its name. I think having method send() when class is called SendEmail is not the best way (not to mention about names like call(), invoke() etc).
This is great article about this problem (The Kingdom of Nouns) in java.
What about something like: new Email(recipient, body).send()?
Or if you want to do it in a service style, I'd call it for example MailService
I am using AspectJ and Load-time weaving to trace methods calls in an arbitrary java program. I can trace all calls using the standard:
call(* *.*(..))
But what I now trying to do is separate out calls to the native java libraries and any application code:
nativeCalls(): !within(MethodTracer) && call(* java..*.*(..));
appCalls(): !within(MethodTracer) && call(* *.*(..)) && !call(* java..*.*(..));
The issue is that the nativeCalls() pointcut is picking out calls to application classes that inherit from native java classes, even though the signatures do not start with java.lang. or java.util, etc.
For example:
If I have a class tetris.GameComponent that inherits from java.awt.Component, my nativeCalls() pointcut will pick out tetris.GameComponent.getBackground() when the method is actually implemented in java.awt.Component.getBackground().
Is there a way to have my nativeCalls() pointcut ignore the calls to inherited methods?
I hope this is clear. I can provide additional info if necessary. Thanks for any help that can be provided.
Actually I have no idea why you want to exclude those inherited method calls from your trace because IMO it is important or at least interesting to know if a method was called on one of your classes, even if that method was defined in a JDK super class.
But anyway, the answer is no, you cannot exclude calls to JDK methods from your nativeCalls() pointcut if those calls are actually made upon target objects typed to one of your application classes. At the time the call is made, AspectJ does not know how the JVM will resolve the polymorphism. There can be several cases:
Call to Foo.aaa(), existing method Foo.aaa() is executed. This is the simple case where a called method actually exists.
Call to Foo.bbb(), inherited method Base.bbb() is executed (polymorphism). This is the case you want to exclude, but you cannot because the fact that a base method is called will only be known when the method is executed. Furthermore, if Base is a JDK class, you cannot even intercept its method executions with AspectJ.
Call to Base.ccc(), non-overridden method Base.ccc() is executed. This can happen if you directly create an instance of Base or also if you assign/cast a Foo instance to a variable typed Base, e.g. Base obj = new Foo(), and call obj.ccc() which has not been overridden by Foo.
Call to Base.ddd(), overridden method Foo.ddd() is executed (polmorphism). This also happens if you assign/cast a Foo instance to a variable typed Base, e.g. Base obj = new Foo(), and call obj.ddd() which has been overridden by Foo.
So much for not being able to easily exclude the polymorphism stuff when calling inherited JDK method.
Now the other way around: You can easily intercept execution() instead of call() upon your application classes and take advantage of the fact that JDK method executions cannot be intercepted anyway: pointcut appMethod() : execution(* *(..));
It's common in a lot of classes in JDK, just a few examples:
java.util.Properties
load0
store0
java.lang.Thread
start0
stop0
setPriority0
Usually they are private native methods (like in Thread class), but sometimes they are just private (Properties class)
I'm just curious if anybody know if there is any history behind that.
I believe they are named like that because equivalent functions with same names exist in the code and just to distinguish between native helper functions and public functions they decided to suffix them with 0.
in java.util.Properties both load, store and load0, store0 exist.
The 0 after the method name is done so to distinguish between public and private methods having same name .
Start function will call the start0 function.
Those functions which ends with 0 is private method.
And those which are not ending with number is public.
You can check in any of the library.
The use of zero suffixes on method names is just a convention to deal with cases where you have a public API method and a corresponding private method. In the Java SE libraries, this is commonly used for the native methods that provide the underlying functionality implemented by the classes. (You can see what is going on by looking at the OpenJDK source code.)
But your questions are:
Why some java methods in core libraries end with numbers?
Because someone thought it would be a good idea. It is not strictly necessary since they typically could have overloaded the public methods instead. And since the zero suffix matters are private, the naming of methods should not be relevant beyond the class and its native implementation.
I'm just curious if anybody know if there is any history behind that.
There is no mention of this convention in the original Java Style Guide. In fact, I think it predates Java. I vaguely recall seeing it in C libraries in 4.x BSD Unix. That was the mid 1980's. And I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted it from somewhere else.
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.