I am trying to figure out a pattern to avoid code duplication in a situation similar to the one bellow:
std::list<int> error_list;
void validate()
{
if( validate_0001() == false )
{ error_list.push_back(1); }
if( validate_0002() == false )
{ error_list.push_back(2); }
...
}
The method 'validate' is public in a class responsible for performing different actions, in the example validations, each one with an unique id. I want to be able to add a new action by just extending a base class, without the need to create a new method and add its call and its error handling inside the validate method.
I'm suggesting you use validating decorators (Here is a Java example)
abstract class Validation {
final List<Integer> list;
Validation(List<Integer> list) {
this.list = list;
}
public abstract int error();
}
class FirstValidation extends Validation {
public FirstValidation(List<Integer> list) {
super(list);
}
#Override
public int error() {
return 0;
}
}
You can't really extend a single function from a base class without extending the whole class.
One thing you can do is make the validation methods in a separate class and extend it by the two other classes. Another thing you can do is make the validations as an abstract class and implement it as you please in the child classes,the disadvantage of this approach is that you would have to provide the implementation in each of the child classes.
Well, I'm looking for the best way to refactor a (huge) legacy code-base and introducing some tests in it..There was no test framework. (yeah, I mean not at all)
It was an JEE 5 application. The goal is to revamp that in JEE7
Let me introduce a quick overview .
The end-users (those of them who are authorized) are free to evolve , configure many aspect of the application behavior by setting in the UI a bunch of preferences.
Theses are stored in an SQL table for the main part (the rest in some xml and properties files).
To fulfill this requirement, there is an #Startup object dedicated to build a sort-of huge map with all key-values.
Then all across the code base when a use case needs to adapt it's processing it checks the current value of the parameter(s) needed to its task.
A real case is that the app has to do a few operations on images;
For instance, Class ImgProcessing has to create thumbnail of a picture via this method :
Optional<Path> generateThumb_fromPath(Path origImg);
for this the method generateThumb_fromPath, calls Thumbnailer,
which uses a generic ImageProcessingHelper,
which holds a few set of generic image related tools and methods,
and specially an static method returning the wished dimensions of the thumbnail to be generated based on the original image constraints and some thumbnail preferences (keys = "THUMBNAIL_WIDTH" and "THUMBNAIL_HEIGHT").
These preferences are the user wishes for what size a thumbnail should have.
So far so good, nothing special.
Now the dark side of this :
The original JEE5 config loader is an bad old fashioned infamous singleton pattern as :
OldBadConfig {
private static OldBadConfig instance ;
public static getInstance(){
if(instance==null){
// create, initialize and populate our big preferences' map
}
return instance;
}
}
Then all across the whole code-base these preferences are used. In my refactoring effort I've already done using #Inject for injecting the singleton object.
But in static utilities ( no injection point available ) you have lots of this nasty calls :
OldBadConfig.getInstance.getPreference(key, defaultValue)
(Briefly I will explain that I use testNg + Mockito, I don't think the tools are relevant here, it seems to be more about an original terrible design,
but if I HAVE to change my toolbox (Junit or whatever) I will. But again I don't think the tooling is the root problem here. )
Trying to refactor the image part and make it test-friendly., I want to do this test with cut = instance of my Class Under Test:
#Test
public void firstTest(){
Optional<Path> op = cut.generateThumb_fromPath(targetPath);
// ..assertThatTheThumbnailWasCreated........
}
So in a few words ,
the execution flow will be like :
class under test --> some business implementation --> someutilities --> static_global_app_preference ---> other_class-othermethod.finalizingProcessing,
then return to the caller.
My testing effort halts here. How to mock the static_global_app_preference ?
How can I refactor the static_global_app_preference part from
*OldBadConfig.getInstance.getPreference(key, defaultValue)*
to something mockable where I could mock like :
Mockito.when(gloablConf.getPreference("THUMBNAIL_WIDTH", anyString)).thenReturn("32");
I've spent quite a time reading boks, blog posts etc all saying
'(these kind of) Singleton is EVIL'. You should NOT do that !
I think we all agree , thanks.
But what about a real word and effective solution to such really trivial, common tasks?
I can not add the singleton instance (or the preferences'map ) as parameters (because as it is already spread all across the code-base it will pollute all and every classes and methods . For instance in the exposed use case, it will pollute 5 methods in 4 classes just for one, poor, miserable, access to a parameter.
It's really not feasible.
So far I tried to refactor OldBadConfig class in two part : one with all initialization/write stuff,
and the other with only the read parts. that way I can at least make this a real JEE #Singleton and benefits from concurrent access once the startup is over and the configuration all loaded.
Then I tried to make this SharedGlobalConf accessible via a factory, called like :
SharedGlobalConf gloablConf= (new SharedGlobalConfFactory()).getShared();
then gloablConf.getPreference(key, defaultValue); is accessible.
It seems to be a little better than the original bottleneck, but didn't help at all for the testing part.
I thought the factory will ease everything but nothing like that comes out.
So there is my question :
For myself, I can split the OldBadConfig to an startup artefact doing the init and refesh, and to an SharedGlobalConf which is a JEE7 pure Singleton,
#Singleton
#ConcurrencyManagement(ConcurrencyManagementType.BEAN)
#Lock(LockType.READ)
Then, as for the legacy use case described here, How Can I make this reasonably mock-able ? Real word solutions are all welcomed.
Thanks sharing your wisdom and skills !
I will like to share my own answer.
Let's say we got these classes after the initial large OldBadConfig class was splitted :
#Startup AppConfigPopulator in charge of loading all information and populating the kind-of internal cache,
which is now a distinct SharedGlobalConf object. The populator is the only one in charge of feeding the SharedGlobalConf via :
#Override
public SharedGlobalConf sharedGlobalConf() {
if (sharedGlobalConf.isDirty()) {
this.refreshSharedGlobalConf();
}
return sharedGlobalConf;
}
private void refreshSharedGlobalConf() {
sharedGlobalConf.setParams(params);
sharedGlobalConf.setvAppTempPath_temp(getAppTempPath_temp());
}
In all components (by that I mean all Classes holding valid injection points) you just do your classic
#Inject private SharedGlobalConf globalConf;
For static utilities that can not do #Inject, we got an SharedGlobalConfFactory which handles the shared data to everything in a one-liner :
SharedGlobalConf gloablConf = (new SharedGlobalConfFactory()).getShared();
That way our old code base can be smoothly upgraded : #Inject in all valid components, And the (too many) old utilities that we can not reasonably rewrite them all in this refactoring step can get these
*OldBadConfig.getInstance.getPreference(key, defaultValue)*
,simply replaced by
(new SharedGlobalConfFactory()).getShared().getPreference(key, defaultValue);
And we are test-compliant and mockable !
Proof of concept :
A really critical Business demands is modeled in this class :
#Named
public class Usage {
static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Usage.class);
#Inject
private SharedGlobalConf globalConf;#Inject
private BusinessCase bc;public String doSomething(String argument) {
logger.debug(" >>doSomething on {}", argument);
// do something using bc
Object importantBusinessDecision = bc.checks(argument);
logger.debug(" >>importantBusinessDecision :: {}", importantBusinessDecision);
if (globalConf.isParamFlagActive("StackOverflow_Required", "1")) {
logger.debug(" >>StackOverflow_Required :: TRUE");
// Do it !
return "Done_SO";
} else {
logger.debug(" >>StackOverflow_Required :: FALSE -> another");
// Do it another way
String resultStatus = importantBusinessDecision +"-"+ StaticHelper.anotherWay(importantBusinessDecision);
logger.debug(" >> resultStatus " + resultStatus);
return "Done_another_way " + resultStatus;
}
}
public void err() {
xx();
}
private void xx() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(" WTF !!!");
}
}
To get it's job done , we need a hand from our old companion StaticHelper :
class StaticHelper {
public static String anotherWay(Object importantBusinessDecision) {// System.out.println("zz #anotherWay on "+importantBusinessDecision);
SharedGlobalConf gloablConf = (new SharedGlobalConfFactory()).getShared();
String avar = gloablConf.getParamValue("deeperParam", "deeperValue");
//compute the importantBusinessDecision based on avar
return avar;
}
}
Usage of this =
#Named public class Usage {
static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Usage.class);
#Inject
private SharedGlobalConf globalConf;
#Inject
private BusinessCase bc;
public String doSomething(String argument) {
logger.debug(" >>doSomething on {}", argument);
// do something using bc
Object importantBusinessDecision = bc.checks(argument);
logger.debug(" >>importantBusinessDecision :: {}", importantBusinessDecision);
if (globalConf.isParamFlagActive("StackOverflow_Required", "1")) {
logger.debug(" >>StackOverflow_Required :: TRUE");
// Do it !
return "Done_SO";
} else {
logger.debug(" >>StackOverflow_Required :: FALSE -> another");
// Do it another way
String resultStatus = importantBusinessDecision +"-"+ StaticHelper.anotherWay(importantBusinessDecision);
logger.debug(" >> resultStatus " + resultStatus);
return "Done_another_way " + resultStatus;
}
}
public void err() {
xx();
}
private void xx() {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(" WTF !!!");
}}
As you see the old shared key/value holder is still used every where but this time, we can test
public class TestingAgainstOldBadStaticSingleton {
private final Boolean boolFlagParam;
private final String deepParam;
private final String decisionParam;
private final String argument;
private final String expected;
#Factory(dataProvider = "tdpOne")
public TestingAgainstOldBadStaticSingleton(String argument, Boolean boolFlagParam, String deepParam, String decisionParam, String expected) {
this.argument = argument;
this.boolFlagParam = boolFlagParam;
this.deepParam = deepParam;
this.decisionParam = decisionParam;
this.expected = expected;
}
#Mock
SharedGlobalConf gloablConf = (new SharedGlobalConfFactory()).getShared();
#Mock
BusinessCase bc = (new BusinessCase());
#InjectMocks
Usage cut = new Usage();
#Test
public void testDoSomething() {
String result = cut.doSomething(argument);
assertEquals(result, this.expected);
}
#BeforeMethod
public void setUpMethod() throws Exception {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
Mockito.when(gloablConf.isParamFlagActive("StackOverflow_Required", "1")).thenReturn(this.boolFlagParam);
Mockito.when(gloablConf.getParamValue("deeperParam", "deeperValue")).thenReturn(this.deepParam);
SharedGlobalConfFactory.setGloablConf(gloablConf);
Mockito.when(bc.checks(ArgumentMatchers.anyString())).thenReturn(this.decisionParam);
}
#DataProvider(name = "tdpOne")
public static Object[][] testDatasProvider() {
return new Object[][]{
{"**AF-argument1**", false, "AF", "DEC1", "Done_another_way DEC1-AF"},
{"**AT-argument2**", true, "AT", "DEC2", "Done_SO"},
{"**BF-Argument3**", false, "BF", "DEC3", "Done_another_way DEC3-BF"},
{"**BT-Argument4**", true, "BT", "DEC4", "Done_SO"}};
}
The test is with TestNG and Mockito : it shows how we don't need to do the complex stuff (reading the sql table, the xml files etc..) but simply mock different set of values targeting just our sole business case. (if a nice fellow would accept to translate in other frameworks for those interested...)
As for the initial request was about the design allowing to reasonably refactor a -huge- existing code-base away from the 'static singleton anti-pattern' , while introducing tests and mocks I assume this a quite valid answer.
Will like to hear about your opinion and BETTER alternatives
With using of JAX-WS, implemented #WebMethod method in #WebService class.
Need to do something like this:
WebService.java:
#WebMethod
#MyWrapper
public Object someWebserviceMethod() ...
Here is MyWrapper annotation, which must wrap call of someWebserviceMethod into another code, where it will be decided whether to execute it or not. For example, in such way:
MyWrapperImpl.java:
...
public Object wrapMethodExecution( contextOfCalledWebMethod ) {
if ( someFlag ) {
//then contextOfCalledWebMethod called to execute someWebserviceMethod
//or directly call Method.invoke()
} else {
return null; //or error message
}
So wrapMethodExecution() needs to be automatically called before the call to any method, annotated with #MyWrapper.
Is it possible to perform such pattern by using jax-ws?
I tried to use WebServiceFeatureAnnotation but failed.
I have an observer (or "listener") pattern implemented in my code as such:
struct EntityListener
{
public:
virtual void entityModified(Entity& e) = 0;
};
class Entity
{
public:
Entity();
void setListener(EntityListener* listener);
private:
EntityListener* m_listener;
};
Now, this works in C++; the Entity class calls the entityModified() method whenever it needs. Now, I'd like to transfer some of the functionality to Lua, and among those function points is this listener callback. The entities are now created from the Lua scripts. The question is, how do I achieve the listener functionality in Lua?
For example, the Lua script currently does something like this:
function initializeEntity()
-- The entity object is actually created in C++ by the helper
Entity = Helper.createEntity()
-- Here I'd like to hook a Lua function as the Entity's listener
end
One possible solution is to have a LuaListener class in your C++ code that contains a "pointer" to the Lua function, and a Lua-specific setListener function that is called from the Lua script that takes a Lua function as argument, and creates a LuaListener instance and passes that to the actual C++ setListener.
So the Lua code would look something like
function onModified(entity)
-- ...
end
function initializeEntity()
entity = Helper.createEntity()
entity.setListener(onModified)
end
And the C++ code would look something like (pseudoish-code only):
class LuaListener : public EntityListener
{
private:
lua_State* state;
std::string funcName;
public:
void entityModified(Entity& e)
{
// Call function `funcName` in `state`, passing `e` as argument
}
};
class LuaEntity : public Entity
{
public:
void setListenerLua(state, funcName, ...)
{
Entity::setListener(new LuaListener(state, funcName, ...));
}
};
Firstly, can anyone explain how a state object can be shared when the state object has no instance variables ?
This text is taken from GOF, page 308, item 3 (consequences section):
The state object can be shared.
If state objects have no instance variabkes - that is, the state they
represent is encoded entirely in their
type - then contexts can share a
state object. When states are shared in
this way, they are essentially
flyweight.
Can anyone explain this text ?
Secondly, what are the approaches to the state transition decision? I mean the decision of which next state to propagate?
Please help.
Thanks.
In the state pattern you have an represent the state of an object by using state-objects. These state-objects represent a certain state, but they do not have any mutable state of their own. This means they never change. Therefore, any number of objects can use the same state-object at the same time (even from different threads). If the state-object had mutable state, other objects would have to worry about their state-object being changed from elsewhere.
The using of one object instance by many others can be seen as an instance of the flyweight-pattern.
As for the second part of your question, here is an example:
class SomeStateMachine;
class AbstractState {
// abstract baseclass for all state-classes
void input(const std::string & data, SomeStateMachine & caller) = 0;
}
class FinalState : public AbstractState {
FinalState * getInstance(); // always returns same instance
}
class InitialState : public AbstractState {
public:
InitialState * getInstance(); // always returns same instance
void input(const std::string & data, SomeStateMachine & caller) {
std::cout << data << std::endl;
caller.m_State = FinalState::getInstance();
}
}
class SomeStateMachine {
public:
SomeStateMachine() : m_State(InitialState::getInstance())
void input(const std::string & data) {
m_State->input(data, *this);
}
private:
friend class InitialState;
AbstractState * m_State;
};
So you basically pass a reference to the calling object to every method of your state-object. This way, the state-object is able to change the state of the caller when needed. This example might not be very beautiful, but I hope you get the idea.
The paragraph is basically saying that you encode your states as individual classes - then the instance type is the "state" and the classes don't need any instance variables because their type encodes all the information you need.
E.g say I want to have three states "Open", "Active" and "Closed". I might define the following classes:
abstract class State {};
class Open extends State {
public Open() {}
}
class Active extends State {
public Active() {}
}
class Closed extends State {
public Closed() {}
}
--
Another option - I'd suspect this is the combination with flyweight being hinted at in the GOF text would be to create a state class which a bunch of static members (one for each state) which can then be shared -
public class State {
private string name;
private State(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public final static State OPEN = new State("Open");
public final static State ACTIVE = new State("Active");
public final static State CLOSED = new State("Closed");
}
I had to go digging to remind myself of how all this stuff worked in detail. Kerievsky has a good description of this (I've heavily borrowed from one of his examples above!) and how the state transitions can be handled by sub-classing from the state class, to create classes that manage each transition. See "Refactoring to Patterns" (ISBN: 0321213351)
EDIT(2): His web site has a class diagram for his example - http://www.industriallogic.com/xp/refactoring/alteringConditionalsWithState.html