Reputation: 5596
My class is like this:
class X {}
class Y extends X {};
class Z extends X {};
I have an enum for each subclass (id + class):
enum Type {
Y_TYPE(1, Y.class), Z_TYPE(2, Z.class);
int id;
Class c;
public Type(int id, Class c) { this.id = id; this.c = c; }
public static X createInstance() throws Exception {
return c.newInstance();
}
}
Then I used them as follows:
X parseFromID(int id) {
for (Type v : Type.values()) {
if (v.id == id) {
return v.createInstance();
}
}
}
It works fine but I'm wondering if this a Java-ist way to create data based on integer id ? Is there any bad thing that should look for ?
Is there a way to enforce the class that is passed into are of X type without lengthy if-else condition? Think when I have a large number of subclasses.
Why do you want to work on integer ids?
I'm writing some sort of parser, so I need to convert integer id that I've taken from somewhere to the appropriate object.
Upvotes: 4
Views: 6321
Reputation: 692073
There is really no reason to use reflection here. Throwing Exception is also a bad practice, and if you didn't use reflection, you wouldn't have to deal with reflection exceptions. You could simply do
enum Type {
Y_TYPE(1) {
@Override
public X createInstance() {
return new Y();
}
}, Z_TYPE(2) {
@Override
public X createInstance() {
return new Z();
}
};
private int id;
private Type(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
public abstract X createInstance();
}
This is also helpful because it doesn't force every subclass to have a public no-arg constructor, and also allows returning the same instance of X or Y, if possible.
If you're concerned about the verbosity of the anonymous class definitions, you could replace them with lambdas, if you're using Java 8:
import java.util.function.Supplier;
enum Type {
Y_TYPE(1, X::new), Z_TYPE(2, Y::new);
private int id;
private Supplier<X> supplier;
private Type(int id, Supplier<X> supplier) {
this.id = id;
this.supplier = supplier;
}
public X createInstance() {
return supplier.get();
}
}
Upvotes: 7
Reputation: 14873
Using a factory and a map is more academic:
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
interface Factory<T> {
T createInstance();
}
class X {/**/}
class Y extends X {/**/}
class Z extends X {/**/}
class Factories {
static Map<Integer, Factory<?>> factories = new HashMap<>();
static {
factories.put( 1, X::new );
factories.put( 2, Y::new );
factories.put( 3, Z::new );
}
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
static <T> Factory<T> get( int id ) {
return (Factory<T>)factories.get( id );
}
}
public class Main {
static void main( String[] args ) {
final Factory<X> fx = Factories.get( 1 );
final X x = fx.createInstance();
final Factory<Y> fy = Factories.get( 2 );
final Y y = fy.createInstance();
final Factory<Z> fz = Factories.get( 3 );
final Z z = fz.createInstance();
}
}
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 2623
Is there a way to enforce the class that is passed into are of X type without lengthy if-else condition?
Yes, you can use generics to restrict the class. Change the constructor to:
public Type(int id, Class<? extends X> c) { this.id = id; this.c = c; }
Why do you want to work on integer ids? You can use either the enum values directly or - if you need to transfer or store them - their string representation and parse the String if needed using the enum's valueOf
method.
Upvotes: 0