initialization of static utility class problem

[puzzlecracker]

I have an interesting problem to which I have written a solution I don'
t like.


Here is a sample static class (followed by more precise requirements):


public class Initializer{

private String name ="DefaultName";

private SomeUtil utility=null;

private static void init(){
if (utility!=null){
return;
}
//initialize utility with name
}

static void setName(String name){
this.name=name;
}

static T someOp1 (T t){
init();
//some stuff
}
static T someOp1 (T t){
init();
//some stuff
}
static T someOp1 (T t){
init();
//some stuff
}

//***

}

Above utility class, can only be used when utility is initialized with
specific name. I accomplish that by either setting the name or calling
an operation, that performs a dirty check to decide whether
initialization is needed, and if so - default name is set

Support initialization is expensive and doing more than once in not
desirable.


I don't like the above solution because it calls init on every
operation.


Can someone suggest an alternative, more elegant solution (perhaps
along the AOP lines )?

Thanks

 

[Tobias Schierge]

Here is a sample static class (followed by more precise requirements):
....

Can someone suggest an alternative, more elegant solution (perhaps
along the AOP lines )?

Must the utility methods be static? If not, why not use a singleton for
this?

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

puzzlecracker wrote:
....

Above utility class, can only be used when utility is initialized with
specific name. I accomplish that by either setting the name or calling
an operation, that performs a dirty check to decide whether
initialization is needed, and if so - default name is set

Support initialization is expensive and doing more than once in not
desirable.


I don't like the above solution because it calls init on every
operation.


Can someone suggest an alternative, more elegant solution (perhaps
along the AOP lines )?

Why all static, rather than singleton?

Patricia

 

[puzzlecracker]

Why all static, rather than singleton?

I want users to either use this class without any initialization:

UtilityClass.oper1()

.... as well as , a really, for really tiny community, tp have an
option to initialize with name


UtilityClass.setName();
UtilityClass.oper1()

 

[Soren Kuula]

I want users to either use this class without any initialization:

UtilityClass.oper1()

Can't you do something like:

class MyUtils {
private static boolean alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization;

private static void init() {
if (!alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization) {
alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization = true;
computePlanForSolvingWorldEnergyProblems(OtherClass.something);
saveTheWhales();
//...
}
}

public Type1 DoStuff1(Type2 t) {
init();
BlaBlah(t);
//more
}

public Type3 DoStuff1(Type3 t) {
init();
BlaBlahBlah(t);
//more
}
}

It's fairly standard. .. the call to init() when the if-test eval to
false takes almost no time.

BTW, it is not a "static class" -- just a class without any instance
members / methods. A static class is a class nested inside another
class, and declared static.

Soren

 

[puzzlecracker]

Can't you do something like:

class MyUtils {
private static boolean alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization;

private static void init() {
if (!alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization) {
alreadyDecidedWhatToDoAboutInitialization = true;
computePlanForSolvingWorldEnergyProblems(OtherClass.something);
saveTheWhales();
//...
}
}

public Type1 DoStuff1(Type2 t) {
init();
BlaBlah(t);
//more
}

public Type3 DoStuff1(Type3 t) {
init();
BlaBlahBlah(t);
//more
}
}

It's fairly standard. .. the call to init() when the if-test eval to
false takes almost no time.

BTW, it is not a "static class" -- just a class without any instance
members / methods. A static class is a class nested inside another
class, and declared static.

Soren

That is what I have. I was wondering whether another, more elegent, but
with the same net effect solution exists

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

puzzlecracker wrote:
....

That is what I have. I was wondering whether another, more elegent, but
with the same net effect solution exists

I don't know of one, given the all-static-method requirement.

Patricia

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

puzzlecracker wrote:
....

Support initialization is expensive and doing more than once in not
desirable.

How about default name initialization in a static block, and redo the
initialization if the name gets set. I think you said that name setting
is infrequent?

Patricia