Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsWhite Papers
Discussion GroupsFirst AidDatabasesJavaBeansGUIJava 3DVirtual MachineCORBASecurityToolsGeneral
Java DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsSample Book ChaptersUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Databases.NETMore Topics ...

Java Forum / General / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Want to get a message when field value is changed

Thread view: 
dlwnsdud1205@gmail.com - 04 Jan 2007 02:51 GMT
class A{
 private String feeling = ":-(";
 public void smile(){
   str = ":-)";
 }
}
class B{
  public static void main(){
     A a = new A();
     a.smile(); // the value is changed
  }
}

Not modifying class A, I want to get a message when 'feeling' is
changed.

Does it require JNI?

Thanks
Arne Vajhøj - 04 Jan 2007 03:10 GMT
> class A{
>   private String feeling = ":-(";
>   public void smile(){
>     str = ":-)";

I assume this should have been feeling.

>   }
> }
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Does it require JNI?

I don't think JNI can do it.

I you can modify class B then you can create a class
tha extends class A and do the notification in an
overriden smile method.

If modifying source code is banned, but modifying
byte code is OK, then you could look at AOP and AspectJ.

Arne
John Ersatznom - 04 Jan 2007 12:53 GMT
> class A{
>   private String feeling = ":-(";
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Thanks

What you want is probably the observer pattern:

public interface Observer<T> {
    public void notice (T object);
}

public final class Observable<T> {
    private T object;
    private Set<Observer<? super T>> observers;
    public Observable (T object) {
        this.object = object;
        observers = new HashSet<Observer<? super T>>;
    }
    public T get () { return object; }
    public void set (T object) {
        this.object = object;
        for (Observer<? super T> observer : observers)
            observer.notice(object);
    }
    public void addObserver (Observer<? super T> observer) {
        observers.add(observer);
    }
    public void removeObserver (Observer<? super T> observer) {
        observers.remove(observer);
    }
}

class A {
    private Observable<String> feeling =
        new Observable<String>(":-(");
    public void smile () {
        feeling.set(":-)");
    }
    public void addFeelingObserver
        (Observer<? super String> observer) {
            feeling.addObserver(observer);
    }
    public void removeFeelingObserver
        (Observer<? super String> observer) {
            feeling.removeObserver(observer);
    }
    public String getCurrentFeeling () {
        return feeling.get();
    }
}

public class StdoutObserver implements Observer<Object> {
    public void notice (Object object) {
        System.out.println("Changed to " + object);
    }
}

class B {
    public static void main (String[] args) {
        A a = new A();
        A.addFeelingObserver(new StdoutObserver());
        A.smile();    // Prints "Changed to :-)"
    }
}

The beauty of this is that you can extend this easily. If something else
wants notification of feeling changing it can call an A's
addFeelingObserver as well, and nothing else needs to be changed (in A
or B or anywhere else). You can add new methods in A that change the
feeling using feeling.set(whatever) and the observers are automatically
notified without your having to remember to put a bunch of notifying
calls in the new method; the need to notify is encapsulated in the
Observable.set method, and because there's no other way to change the
field, you can't forget even to do that. The getCurrentFeeling method in
A demonstrates that A can access and use the field's value as needed.

And you can observe if any field changes by making it an Observable<Foo>
instead of a Foo and putting (at least) an addFooObserver method that
takes an Observer<? super Foo>.

You can even make A itself observable and make changing feeling notify
A's observers: make A's constructor private, provide a static factory
method A.getInstance such as

public static Observable<A> getInstance () {
    final A a = new A();
    Observable<A> result = new Observable<A>(a);
    a.observer = result;
    a.addFeelingObserver(new Observer<String>() {
        public void notify (String s) {
            a.observer.set(a);
        }
    }
    return result;
}

A now needs a private "observer" field of type Observer<A> and that's
it! This uses an anonymous inner class to observe A's feeling, which
references the "a" local variable in the getInstance method. "a" has to
be final for this to work, but that's no problem. It gets bound to the
same instance of A whose feeling the instance of the anonymous inner
class is observing, and a new one gets bound to a new instance of that
observer each time the method runs. The observer notices the string
change and just changes the Observable<A> the factory method returned to
refer to the same A it already did refer to. This doesn't change
anything, except that the set method notifies anything the factory
method's caller set to observing A. If A's own observers check
getCurrentFeeling() they will discover that it has been altered.

The caveat is that if you create a separate Observable<A> wrapping the A
(e.g. new Observable<A>(A.getInstance().get())) that one will not be
notified if the feeling changes. Only the one Observable<A> directly
returned by getInstance will.
Ian Wilson - 04 Jan 2007 14:27 GMT
>> class A{
>>   private String feeling = ":-(";
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> public final class Observable<T> {
>     private T object;

<snip>

You seem to be reinventing java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable.

What don't you like about them?
Chris Uppal - 04 Jan 2007 19:13 GMT
> You seem to be reinventing java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable.
>
> What don't you like about them?

I don't know about John, but to me they seem pretty pointless.

There are several things that pre-packaged utility classes /could/ provide:

   Save implementation effort.

   Allow clearer code.

   Pre-package more flexibility than most developers would bother to provide
   upfront.

   Use advanced implementation techniques.

The java.util.Observe* classes seem to provide none of these.  For instance,
there is little flexibility in the data passed along with the notification
(exactly one Object reference -- not even generified (though I can live with
that ;-)).  No flexibility in how the list of Observers is maintained (e.g.
using a weak collections).  No flexibility in how Observers are notified (e.g.
in a separate thread, or within a comprehensive try-catch clause).

Now not providing those kinds of flexibility might be justified (to avoid
over-engineering) but in this case what's left is so /very/ simple that it
provides no significant advantage to use at all.  So why bother ?

   -- chris
John Ersatznom - 06 Jan 2007 02:38 GMT
> The java.util.Observe* classes seem to provide none of these.  For instance,
> there is little flexibility in the data passed along with the notification
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> over-engineering) but in this case what's left is so /very/ simple that it
> provides no significant advantage to use at all.  So why bother ?

Mine, of course, was generified ... and since any code I post here I
consider PD, you can extend it to suit. :) Adding cross-thread
notification is simple -- heck you can just extend Observer<T> to chain
its notify method to another Observer<T> via a thread pool. You can
always implement your Observable to pass any complex object as the type
T too, containing whatever data you desire, encapsulated or un-. It's so
much fun, it's freaky! :)
Arne Vajhøj - 05 Jan 2007 01:48 GMT
>> class A{
>>   private String feeling = ":-(";
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> Not modifying class A, I want to get a message when 'feeling' is
>> changed.

> What you want is probably the observer pattern:

There was that part with:

#Not modifying class A

...

Arne
John Ersatznom - 08 Jan 2007 07:40 GMT
> There was that part with:
>
> #Not modifying class A

Then you have a problem.
Arne Vajhøj - 09 Jan 2007 00:55 GMT
>> There was that part with:
>>
>> #Not modifying class A
>
> Then you have a problem.

There are certain possibilities within OOP and AOP
that can solve the problem depending on the specific
requirements.

Arne
John Ersatznom - 15 Jan 2007 14:25 GMT
>>>There was that part with:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that can solve the problem depending on the specific
> requirements.

Yes. Decorator comes to mind. If you can subclass A or implement an
interface A implements, thereby making a substitutable type, you can
wrap A's mutators with ones that notify callbacks or that directly do
whatever you need doing. Basically, if you control the code that
directly calls A's methods, or you control A itself, or you can
substitute a subclass or wrapper type for A, or any combination of
those, then you can solve this.

If not, then you have a nontrivial problem. AOP and annotations *may*
come to the rescue, but you'll need an AOP expert to help you with that. :)


Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.