Search Results

Search found 255 results on 11 pages for 'instanceof'.

Page 1/11 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • Avoiding instanceof in Java

    - by Mark Lutton
    Having a chain of "instanceof" operations is considered a "code smell". The standard answer is "use polymorphism". How would I do it in this case? There are a number of subclasses of a base class; none of them are under my control. An analogous situation would be with the Java classes Integer, Double, BigDecimal etc. if (obj instanceof Integer) {NumberStuff.handle((Integer)obj);} else if (obj instanceof BigDecimal) {BigDecimalStuff.handle((BigDecimal)obj);} else if (obj instanceof Double) {DoubleStuff.handle((Double)obj);} I do have control over NumberStuff and so on. I don't want to use many lines of code where a few lines would do. (Sometimes I make a HashMap mapping Integer.class to an instance of IntegerStuff, BigDecimal.class to an instance of BigDecimalStuff etc. But today I want something simpler.) I'd like something as simple as this: public static handle(Integer num) { ... } public static handle(BigDecimal num) { ... } But Java just doesn't work that way. I'd like to use static methods when formatting. The things I'm formatting are composite, where a Thing1 can contain an array Thing2s and a Thing2 can contain an array of Thing1s. I had a problem when I implemented my formatters like this: class Thing1Formatter { private static Thing2Formatter thing2Formatter = new Thing2Formatter(); public format(Thing thing) { thing2Formatter.format(thing.innerThing2); } } class Thing2Formatter { private static Thing1Formatter thing1Formatter = new Thing1Formatter(); public format(Thing2 thing) { thing1Formatter.format(thing.innerThing1); } } Yes, I know the HashMap and a bit more code can fix that too. But the "instanceof" seems so readable and maintainable by comparison. Is there anything simple but not smelly?

    Read the article

  • Problem of instanceOf

    - by eric2323223
    Hi, could anyone tell me why this code won't compile? public boolean isOf(Class clazz, Object obj){ if(obj instanceof clazz){ return true; }else{ return false; } } Why I can't pass a class variable to instanceOf? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • javascript instanceof get type from string name

    - by dcp
    Let's say I have this (assume the name variable is "receiver"): if (!(receiver instanceof com.HTMLReceiver)) { throw new com.IllegalArgumentException( name + " is not an instance of com.HTMLReceiver."); } I'd like to factor this code out into a common method so I could call it like this: Helper.checkInstance(receiver, "com.HTMLReceiver"); But I don't know of a way to convert the com.HTMLReceiver from a string to its actual type so I can use instanceof on it. Is there a way?

    Read the article

  • java instanceof not finding method

    - by Razvan N
    I have a problem with java instanceof. I have a class called Employee and several others that extend this one, for example - Manager. I also created another class,EmployeeStockPlan, where I wanted to test if instanceof is finding which object I am using. But when I am calling a method from the new class, I have this error: The method grantStock(Manager) is undefined for the type Loader. Sorry, I am somehow new to some thing in java, I hope I am not asking dumb questions. The Employee class: package com.example.domain; public class Employee { private int empId; private String name; private String ssn; private double salary; public Employee(int empId, String name, String ssn, double salary) { // constructor // method; this.empId = empId; this.name = name; this.ssn = ssn; this.salary = salary; } public void setName(String newName) { if (newName != null) { this.name = newName; } } public void raiseSalary(double increase) { this.salary += increase; } public String getName() { return name; } public double getSalary() { return salary; } public String getDetails() { return "Employee id: " + empId + "\n" + "Employee name: " + name; } } The Manager class: package com.example.domain; public class Manager extends Employee { private String deptName; public Manager(int empId, String name, String ssn, double salary, String dept) { super(empId, name, ssn, salary); this.deptName = dept; } public String getDeptName() { return deptName; } public String getDetails() { return super.getDetails() + "\n" + "Department: " + deptName; } } The EmployeeStockPlan class: package com.example.domain; public class EmployeeStockPlan { public void grantStock(Employee e) { // nothing calculated, just simulating; System.out.println("This is an employee!"); if (e instanceof Manager) { // process Manager stock grant System.out.println("This is a manager!"); } else { // error - instance of Engineer? System.out.println("Not an engineer!"); } return; } } The main class: EmployeeStockPlan esp = new EmployeeStockPlan(); Manager m = new Manager (12421, "Manager1", "111-4254-521", 2430, "Marketing1"); grantStock(m);

    Read the article

  • Is instanceof considered bad practice? If so, under what circumstances is instanceof still preferabl

    - by aioobe
    Over the years, I've tried to avoid instanceof whenever possible. Using polymorphism or the visitor pattern where applicable. I suppose it simply eases maintenance in some situations... Are there any other drawbacks that one should be aware of? I do however see it here and there in the Java libraries so I suppose it has its place? Under what circumstances is it preferable? Is it ever unavoidable?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use instanceof when passing objects between Threads?

    - by Risser
    I've run into an issue where instanceof works, and then it doesn't. Going into details is difficult, but I think this might be the problem: Reading this: http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=40229 (search for Thread.currentThread), it seems to imply that, even if the two objects are the same class, if you pass them between threads with different class loaders, instanceof (and isAssignableFrom) might still fail. This certainly would explain the behavior I'm having, but I was wondering if anyone could verify it? (I wish the article linked at the beginning of the discussion was still available, but it doesn't seem like it is.) Thanks, Peter

    Read the article

  • Why does instanceof seem to work in a static generic function sometimes?

    - by michael
    Greetings. This is my first post in this site. I thought that because of type erasure, one could not expect the following code to compile, and indeed, it did not compile on an earlier version of Eclipse. My understanding was that instanceof was a run-time operator and could not know about the generic type which would be, by run-time, compiled away: public static <E extends Comparable<? super E>> void SampleForQuestion(E e) { if ( !(e instanceof String) ) System.out.println("I am not a String"); else System.out.println("I am a String"); } However, I was surprised to see that one of your threads actually included some code like this in an answer, and my latest Eclipse (Galileo on Windows with JVM 1.6 rev 20) is perfectly happy with it -- and it works, too. (I did notice that someone said it worked on Eclipse but not in another IDE/JDK in that thread, but don't remember the specifics.) Can someone explain why it works, and more importantly, because I have to guide my students, whether it should be expected to work in the future. Thank you. (I hope the code formatting comes through correctly - it looks indented correctly from my perspective and there are no tabs.)

    Read the article

  • Javascript instanceof & typeof in GWT (JSNI)

    - by rybz
    Hi, I've encountered an curious problem while trying to use some objects through JSNI in GWT. Let's say we have javscript file with the function defined: test.js: function test(arg){ var type = typeof(arg); if (arg instanceof Array) alert('Array'); if (arg instanceof Object) alert('Object'); if (arg instanceof String) alert('String'); } And the we want to call this function user JSNI: public static native void testx()/ *-{ $wnd.test( new Array(1, 2, 3) ); $wnd.test( [ 1, 2, 3 ] ); $wnd.test( {val:1} ); $wnd.test( "Some text" ); }-*/; The questions are: why instanceof instructions will always return false? why typeof will always return "object" ? how to pass these objects so that they were recognized properly?

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between isPrototypeOf and intanceof in Javascript?

    - by Steffen Heil
    Hi In some of my own older code, I use the following: Object.prototype.instanceOf = function( iface ) { return iface.prototype.isPrototypeOf( this ); }; Then I do (for example) [].instanceOf( Array ) This works, but it seems the following would do the same: [] instanceof Array Now, surly this is only a very simple example. My question therefor is: Is a instanceof b ALWAYS the same as b.prototype.isPrototypeOf(a) ? Regards, Steffen

    Read the article

  • Java Instance of: Supertypes and Subtypes seem to be equal? How to test exactly for Type?

    - by jens
    I need to test, if an instance is exactly of a given type. But it seems that instanceof returns true also if the subtype is tested for the supertype (case 3). I never knew this before and I am quite surprised. Am I doing something wrong here? How do I exactly test for a given type? //.. class DataSourceEmailAttachment extends EmailAttachment //... EmailAttachment emailAttachment = new EmailAttachment(); DataSourceEmailAttachment emailAttachmentDS = new DataSourceEmailAttachment(); if (emailAttachment instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 1"); } if (emailAttachment instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 2"); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 3 "); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 4"); } RESULT: 1 3 4 I want to avoid case 3, I only want "exact matches" (case 1 and 4) how do I test for them?

    Read the article

  • PHP 'instanceof' failing with class constant

    - by Nathan Loding
    I'm working on a framework that I'm trying to type as strongly as I possibly can. (I'm working within PHP and taking some of the ideas that I like from C# and trying to utilize them within this framework.) I'm creating a Collection class that is a collection of domain entities/objects. It's kinda modeled after the List<T> object in .Net. I've run into an obstacle that is preventing me from typing this class. If I have a UserCollection, it should only allow User objects into it. If I have a PostCollection, it should only allow Post objects. All Collections in this framework need to have certain basic functions, such as add, remove, iterate. I created an interface, but found that I couldn't do the following: interface ICollection { public function add($obj) } class PostCollection implements ICollection { public function add(Post $obj) {} } This broke it's compliance with the interface. But I can't have the interface strongly typed because then all Collections are of the same type. So I attempted the following: interface ICollection { public function add($obj) } abstract class Collection implements ICollection { const type = 'null'; } class PostCollection { const type = 'Post'; public function add($obj) { if(!($obj instanceof self::type)) { throw new UhOhException(); } } } When I attempt to run this code, I get syntax error, unexpected T_STRING, expecting T_VARIABLE or '$' on the instanceof statement. A little research into the issue and it looks like the root of the cause is that $obj instanceof self is valid to test against the class. It appears that PHP doesn't process the entire self::type constant statement in the expression. Adding parentheses around the self::type variable threw an error regarding an unexpected '('. An obvious workaround is to not make the type variable a constant. The expression $obj instanceof $this->type works just fine (if $type is declared as a variable, of course). I'm hoping that there's a way to avoid that, as I'd like to define the value as a constant to avoid any possible change in the variable later. Any thoughts on how I can achieve this, or have I take PHP to it's limit in this regard? Is there a way of "escaping" or encapsulating self::this so that PHP won't die when processing it?

    Read the article

  • Backbone.js (model instanceof Model) via Chrome Extension

    - by Leoncelot
    Hey guys, This is my first time ever posting on this site and the problem I'm about to pose is difficult to articulate due to the set of variables required to arrive at it. Let me just quickly explain the framework I'm working with. I'm building a Chrome Extension using jQuery, jQuery-ui, and Backbone The entire JS suite for the extension is written in CoffeeScript and I'm utilizing Rails and the asset pipeline to manage it all. This means that when I want to deploy my extension code I run rake assets:precompile and copy the resulting compressed JS to my extensions Directory. The nice thing about this approach is that I can actually run the extension js from inside my Rails app by including the library. This is basically the same as my extensions background.js file which injects the js as a content script. Anyway, the problem I've recently encountered was when I tried testing my extension on my buddy's site, whiskeynotes.com. What I was noticing is that my backbone models were being mangled upon adding them to their respective collections. So something like this.collection.add(new SomeModel) created some nonsense version of my model. This code eventually runs into Backbone's prepareModel code _prepareModel: function(model, options) { options || (options = {}); if (!(model instanceof Model)) { var attrs = model; options.collection = this; model = new this.model(attrs, options); if (!model._validate(model.attributes, options)) model = false; } else if (!model.collection) { model.collection = this; } return model; }, Now, in most of the sites on which I've tested the extension, the result is normal, however on my buddy's site the !(model instance Model) evaluates to true even though it is actually an instance of the correct class. The consequence is a super messed up version of the model where the model's attributes is a reference to the models collection (strange right?). Needless to say, all kinds of crazy things were happening afterward. Why this is occurring is beyond me. However changing this line (!(model instanceof Model)) to (!(model instanceof Backbone.Model)) seems to fix the problem. I thought maybe it had something to do with the Flot library (jQuery graph library) creating their own version of 'Model' but looking through the source yielded no instances of it. I'm just curious as to why this would happen. And does it make sense to add this little change to the Backbone source? Update: I just realized that the "fix" doesn't actually work. I can also add that my backbone Models are namespaced in a wrapping object so that declaration looks something like class SomeNamespace.SomeModel extends Backbone.Model

    Read the article

  • Java Instance of: Supertypes und Subtypes seem to be equal? How to test exaclty for Type?

    - by jens
    Hello, i would be thankful for your advice. I need to test, if an instance is exactly of a given type. But it seems that instanceof returns true also if the subtype is tested for the supertype (case 3). I never knew this before and I am quite surprised. Am I doing something wrong here? How do I exactly test for a given typen? //.. class DataSourceEmailAttachment extends EmailAttachment //... EmailAttachment emailAttachment = new EmailAttachment(); DataSourceEmailAttachment emailAttachmentDS = new DataSourceEmailAttachment(); if (emailAttachment instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 1"); } if (emailAttachment instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 2"); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof EmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 3 "); } if (emailAttachmentDS instanceof DataSourceEmailAttachment){ System.out.println(" 4"); } RESULT: 1 3 4 I want to avoid case 3, I only want "exact matches" (case 1 and 4) how to thest for them?? thanks!!! Jens

    Read the article

  • Invoking a method overloaded where all arguments implement the same interface

    - by double07
    Hello, My starting point is the following: - I have a method, transform, which I overloaded to behave differently depending on the type of arguments that are passed in (see transform(A a1, A a2) and transform(A a1, B b) in my example below) - All these arguments implement the same interface, X I would like to apply that transform method on various objects all implementing the X interface. What I came up with was to implement transform(X x1, X x2), which checks for the instance of each object before applying the relevant variant of my transform. Though it works, the code seems ugly and I am also concerned of the performance overhead for evaluating these various instanceof and casting. Is that transform the best I can do in Java or is there a more elegant and/or efficient way of achieving the same behavior? Below is a trivial, working example printing out BA. I am looking for examples on how to improve that code. In my real code, I have naturally more implementations of 'transform' and none are trivial like below. public class A implements X { } public class B implements X { } interface X { } public A transform(A a1, A a2) { System.out.print("A"); return a2; } public A transform(A a1, B b) { System.out.print("B"); return a1; } // Isn't there something better than the code below??? public X transform(X x1, X x2) { if ((x1 instanceof A) && (x2 instanceof A)) { return transform((A) x1, (A) x2); } else if ((x1 instanceof A) && (x2 instanceof B)) { return transform((A) x1, (B) x2); } else { throw new RuntimeException("Transform not implemented for " + x1.getClass() + "," + x2.getClass()); } } @Test public void trivial() { X x1 = new A(); X x2 = new B(); X result = transform(x1, x2); transform(x1, result); }

    Read the article

  • 'is instanceof' Interface bad design

    - by peterRit
    Say I have a class A class A { Z source; } Now, the context tells me that 'Z' can be an instance of different classes (say, B and C) which doesn't share any common class in their inheritance tree. I guess the naive approach is to make 'Z' an Interface class, and make classes B and C implement it. But something still doesn't convince me because every time an instance of class A is used, I need to know the type of 'source'. So all finishes in multiple 'ifs' making 'is instanceof' which doesn't sound quite nice. Maybe in the future some other class implements Z, and having hardcoded 'ifs' of this type definitely could break something. The escence of the problem is that I cannot resolve the issue by adding functions to Z, because the work done in each instance type of Z is different. I hope someone can give me and advice, maybe about some useful design pattern. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Refactoring huge if ( ... instanceof ...)

    - by Chris
    I'm currently trying to refactor a part of a project that looks like this: Many classes B extends A; C extends A; D extends C; E extends B; F extends A; ... And somewhere in the code: if (x instanceof B){ B n = (B) x; ... }else if (x instanceof C){ C n = (C) x; ... }else if (x instanceof D){ D n = (D) x; ... }else if (x instanceof E){ E n = (E) x; ... }else if (x instanceof G){ G n = (G) x; ... }... Above if-construct currently sits in a function with a CC of 19. Now my question is: Can I split this if-construct up in mutliple functions and let Java's OO do the magic? Or are there any catches I have to look out for? My idea: private void oopMagic(C obj){ ... Do the stuff from the if(x instanceof C) here} private void oopMagic(D obj){ ... Do the stuff from the if(x instanceof D) here} private void oopMagic(E obj){ ... Do the stuff from the if(x instanceof E) here} .... and instead of the huge if: oopMagic(x);

    Read the article

  • Reflection: cast an object to subclass without use instaceof

    - by Fabrizio
    I have this simple interface/class: public abstract class Message { } public class Message1 extends Message{ } public class Message2 extends Message{ } And an utility class: public class Utility { public void handler(Message m){ System.out.println("Interface: Message"); } public void handler(Message1 m){ System.out.println("Class: Message1"); } public void handler(Message2 m){ System.out.println("Class: Message2"); } } Now, the main class: public static void main(String[] args) { Utility p=new Utility(); Message1 m1=new Message1(); p.handler(m1); Message m=(Message) m1; p.handler(m); } The output is Class: Message1 Interface: Message I would that p.handler(m) call the method p.handler(m:Message1) I don't want use the "manual" command instanceof because I have many cases: if(m instance of Message1) p.handler((Message1)m) else if (m instanceof Message2) p.handler((Message2)m) ... If I call m.getClass() I obtain "mypackage.Message1", so the subclass and not the superclass. I try with this code (use reflection): p.handler(m.getClass().cast(m)); But the output is Interface: Message So, this is my problem. I would do a runtime cast of superclass object to subclassobject without use the "code command" istanceof. I would a right command like this: p.handler((m.getclass)m); How can I obtain it? It's possible? Thank in advance. Fabrizio

    Read the article

  • method with two parameters which both need to be double dispatched

    - by mixm
    lets say i have a method which has two parameters. i have been implementing them as: if(aObj instance of Marble) { if(bObj instance of Bomb) { this.resolve((Marble)aObj,(Bomb)bObj); } } as you can see its not a very pretty solution. i plan to implement using double dispatching, but with two parameters which both need double dispatching, im afraid im a bit stumped. any ideas please. im implementing in java btw.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >