Showing posts with label builder pattern. Show all posts
Showing posts with label builder pattern. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 June 2011

The new Builder Pattern

I like to create immutable objects, especially after reading Josh Bloch's excellent "Effective Java" book. If an object is immutable, it has only one possible state and it is a stable one, so once you successfully build an object, you don't need to care about state transitions that can make your object unstable or corrupted. And immutable objects can be shared even in a multithreaded application. There are many other pros of immutability (you can read some of them here).

There is a classical way of making immutable objects in Java which consists of making all fields final (and private, of course), using only constructors to modify them (so that the only moment when a field is modified is during its construction) and making the class final (to avoid adding "setter" methods to subclasses). When you only have a couple of fields, that's fine, but when you have many of them you end up with a constructor with many arguments, which is ugly and difficult to use. If you have optional parameters, you can have a constructor with all the parameters and some other shorter constructors that have the mandatory parameters and some optional ones, that invoke the big constructor, like this:

public class Foo {

private final String mandatoryOne;
private final String mandatoryTwo;
private final String optionalOne;
private final String optionalTwo;

public Foo(String mOne, String mTwo, String optOne, String optTwo){
this.mandatoryOne = mOne;
this.mandatoryTwo = mTwo;
this.optionalOne = optOne;
this.optionalTwo = optTwo;
}

public Foo(String mOne, String mTwo, String optOne){
this(mOne, mTwo, optOne, null);
}
...
}


This can be a bit messy when you add more optional parameters, you end up with a lot of constructors like these and it has a lot of boilerplate code.The use of setters for the optional parameters is not an option, because this leads to non immutable objects (some object can change the state of your object with one of those setter methods).
Some time ago, thinking about this problem, I thought a solution could be to use a Javabean object, with one setter per field (even for the mandatory ones), but with a kind of "seal" method, that would "mark" the object as built and since that moment, an IllegalStateException would be thrown if a setter was called. Nevertheless, I wasn't very satisfied with this approach, because the setter methods that sometimes can be called and sometimes not would be confusing for the caller.

So one solution to this is chained invocation of setters in java. This method is used in the New Builder pattern, explained by Josh Bloch in this PDF presentation, which is different from the original GoF Builder pattern. This pattern uses a public inner static class as a builder. The constructor of the original class is made private, so the only way to build objects is with the inner builder class. The builder has a setter method for each optional parameter and uses a fluent idiom that allows chaining of these method calls. I like this pattern a lot, because it solves the problem elegantly and effectively.

Implementation of the New Builder pattern


In Josh Bloch's presentation there wasn't a detailed implementation of the pattern, although it was very clear the idea and the intention so I have searched for it in the Internet.

Static Builder - the builder is a static nested class of the class from which it has to make instances, the builder's constructor is public (so you invoke the builder with 'new'), and the builder has the same fields as its enclosing class. The 'build()' method copies the content of the builder's fields into a new instance of the enclosing class. What I don't like about this implementation is this duplication of fields (for each field in the original class you have a duplicate field in the builder).

public class ID3Tag {

private final String title;
private final String artist;
private volatile String album;
private volatile int albumTrack;
private volatile String comment;

public static class Builder {

private boolean isBuilt = false;
private ID3Tag id3tag;

public Builder(String title, String artist) {
id3tag = new ID3Tag(title, artist);
}

public Builder album(String val) {
if (isBuilt){
throw new IllegalStateException("The object cannot be modified after built");
}
id3tag.album = val;
return this;
}

public Builder albumTrack(int val) {
if (isBuilt){
throw new IllegalStateException("The object cannot be modified after built");
}
id3tag.albumTrack = val;
return this;
}

public Builder comment(String val) {
if (isBuilt){
throw new IllegalStateException("The object cannot be modified after built");
}
id3tag.comment = val;
return this;
}
// ... a lot more optional parameters

public ID3Tag build() {
if (isBuilt){
throw new IllegalStateException("The object cannot be built twice");
}
isBuilt = true;
return id3tag;
}
}

private ID3Tag(String title, String artist) {
this.title = title;
this.artist = artist;
}
}


The usage of this class would be:

ID3Tag tag = new ID3Tag.Builder("My Title", "My author")
.comment("Great song").build();

There is a similar pattern, called the Essence pattern, here by Dr Herbie. This pattern uses direct access to the fields of the builder (like in a C++ structure) instead of using "setter" methods and it doesn't use "chaining" of modifications like in the New Builder Pattern ("...builder.option1(value1).option2(value2)...").

Builder style setters or Chained invocation in Java

Setters idiom in Java is an evil and I hate it. And I don't hate it because you have to invoke setXXX methods multiple times when you have to set many fields. The most annoying thing for me is that you can only set one field in a line. This is because setter method return this stupid void. Here is the example:

public class Car {  
private int maxSpeed;
// remainder omitted

public void setMaxSpeed(int maxSpeed) {
this.maxSpeed = maxSpeed;
}
// remainder omitted
}

So my code using the Car class will look like this:

Car car = new Car();  
car.setMaxSpeed(210);
car.setSpeedUnit("km/h");
car.setLength(5);
// remainder omitted


I have an idea how the life of the developers can be made easier using builder-style setters "pattern". Here is the new BETTER Car class:


public class Car {  
private int maxSpeed;
private String speedUnit;
// remainder omitted

public Car setMaxSpeed(int maxSpeed) {
this.maxSpeed = maxSpeed;
return this;
}

public Car setSpeedUnit(String speedUnit) {
this.speedUnit = speedUnit;
return this;
}
// remainder omitted
}


I can now instantiate and initialize my Car object in one line (maybe wrapped but still one line of code):

Car car = new Car()  
.setMaxSpeed(210)
.setSpeedUnit("km/h")
.setLength(5)
...


What do you think? Isn't it much easier now? Of course if you extend Car class it becomes more tricky as you have to repeat all the setter methods like this:

public class Truck extends Car {  
private int capacity;
private String capacityUnit;
// remainder omitted

@Override
public Truck setMaxSpeed(int maxSpeed) {
super.setMaxSpeed(maxSpeed);
return this;
}

@Override
public Truck setSpeedUnit(String speedUnit) {
super.setSpeedUnit(speedUnit);
return this;
}
// remainder omitted
}


Looking at the better use case


The example is not very good above, so please bear with this. Actually when there is class hierarchy having full inheritance among them, example – There is a class called Person as the Base class. Now suppose GrandParent extends Person, Parent extends GrandParent, Child extends Parent. Now the common properties of these can be set by some interface say ISetter (stupid name, please ignore).


Now all the common settings can be set by implementing ISetter interface and that will be kind of one-liner, increasing the code readability.

Saturday, 28 May 2011

Difference between Factory Pattern or Abstract Factory Pattern and Builder Pattern

Abstract factory may also be used to construct a complex object, then what is the difference with builder pattern? In builder pattern emphasis is on ‘step by step’. Builder pattern will have many number of small steps. Those every steps will have small units of logic enclosed in it. There will also be a sequence involved. It will start from step 1 and will go on upto step n and the final step is returning the object. In these steps, every step will add some value in construction of the object. That is you can imagine that the object grows stage by stage. Builder will return the object in last step. But in abstract factory how complex the built object might be, it will not have step by step object construction.

Both are creational pattern but differ:
Factory Pattern Builder Pattern
The factor pattern defers the choice of what concrete type of object to
make until run time.
E.g. going to a restaurant to order the special of  the day.  The waiter is the interface to the factory that takes the
abstractor generic message "Get me the special of the day!" and returns
the concrete product (i.e "Chilli Paneer" or some other dish.)
The builder pattern encapsulates the logic of how to put together a
complex object so that the client just requests a configuration and the
builder directs the logic of building it.   E.g The main contractor
(builder) in building a house knows, given a floor plan, knows how to
execute the sequence of operations (i,e. by delegating to subcontractors)
needed to build the complex object.  If that logic was not encapsulated in
a builder, then the buyers would have to organize the subcontracting
themselves 
The factory is concerned with what is made. The builder with how it is
made. So it focuses on the steps of constructing the complex object.
In case of Factory or Abstract Factory, the product gets returned immediately Builder returns the product as
the final step.