views:

788

answers:

7

Hello, for my Java game server I send the Action ID of the packet which basically tells the server what the packet is for. I want to map each Action ID (an integer) to a function. Is there a way of doing this without using a switch?

+1  A: 

Java does not have first-class function pointers. In order to achieve similar functionality, you have to define and implement an interface. You can make it easier using anonymous inner classes, but it's still not very pretty. Here's an example:

public interface PacketProcessor
{
    public void processPacket(Packet packet);
}

...

PacketProcessor doThing1 = new PacketProcessor()
{
    public void processPacket(Packet packet)
    {
        // do thing 1
    }
};
// etc.

// Now doThing1, doThing2 can be used like function pointers for a function taking a
// Packet and returning void
Adam Rosenfield
+11  A: 

What about this one?

HashMap<Integer, Runnable> map = new HashMap<Integer, Runnable>();
map.put(Register.ID, new Runnable() { 
    public void run() { functionA(); }
});
map.put(NotifyMessage.ID, new Runnable() { 
    public void run() { functionB(); }
});
// ...
map.get(id).run();

(If you need to pass some arguments, define your own interface with a function having a suitable parameter, and use that instead of Runnable).

Johannes Schaub - litb
I think a switch where functionA and functonB get called would be much clearer code. This just moves the mapping of IDs to functions into the section of code where you're loading the map, instead of where you're calling the function.
Bill the Lizard
yes, i agree a switch would be cleaner. i would use a switch too. but i think you should tell it the original questioner (in the OP comments section) :)
Johannes Schaub - litb
I put it in my answer instead.
Bill the Lizard
The main reason *not* to use a switch is if the mapping is dynamic.
Jason S
Jason, you can always have lists of handlers that are called that contain their switch. that's no less dynamic. i think it depends on the actual situation. is there much post processing? how many code can be shared? how much control should be retained into the main module?
Johannes Schaub - litb
@litb: true. I'm just thinking of something like AddEventListener or something where you would register a function handler at runtime.
Jason S
+1  A: 

Have you ever used Swing/AWT? Their Event hierarchy solves a similar problem. The way Java passes functions around is with an interface, for example

public interface ActionHandler {
    public void actionPerformed(ActionArgs e);
}

Then, if you want to map integers onto these objects, you could use something like a java.util.HashMap<Integer,ActionHandler> to manage that. The actual implementations can either go in anonymous classes (Java's best approximation of "lambda") or in proper classes somewhere. Here's the anonymous class way:

HashMap<Integer,ActionHandler> handlers;
handlers.put(ACTION_FROB, new ActionHandler() {
    public void actionPerformed(ActionArgs e) {
        // Do stuff
        // Note that any outer variables you intend to close over must be final.
    }
});
handlers.get(ACTION_FROB).actionPerformed(foo);

(edit) If you want to be even more abusive, you can initialize the HashMap like so:

HashMap<Integer,String> m = new HashMap<Integer,String>() {{
    put(0,"hello");
    put(1,"world");
}};
jleedev
+1  A: 

Java doesn't really have function pointers (we got anonymous inner classes instead). There's really nothing wrong with using a switch, though, as long as you're switching on value and not on type. Is there some reason you don't want to use a switch? It seems like you'll have to do a mapping between Action IDs and actions somewhere in your code, so why not keep it simple?

Bill the Lizard
Yeah, my thought was the same. Myself I'd use the switch. I believe that behind the scenes switches are handled in a random-access manner rather than sequentially checking the cases like you'd have to do with if/else. Only thing is that the case indices should be consecutive I think...?
Willie Wheeler
They don't have to be consecutive. You can put the most likely cases first if you need to optimize. (Always measure before you optimize.)
Bill the Lizard
A switch statement doesn't let classes in various parts of his code dynamically load callbacks. This prevents advanced features such as loading callbacks from configuration files at runtime and such. I'd recommend against switch statements in favor of a more powerful solution for this reason.
Eli Courtwright
A switch doesn't prevent that at all. You don't have to hard code the logic of the function in the body of each case. Just call the dynamically loaded functions.
Bill the Lizard
A: 

You can do this through the use of the chain of responsibility pattern.

It is a pattern that links different objects to together kind of like a linked list. i.e. Each object has a reference to next in the chain. The objects in the chain usually handles one specific behavior. The flow between the objects is very similar to the switch-case statement.

There are some gotchas, such as, it spreads your logic out, an excessively long chain can cause performance problems. But along with these gotchas you have the benefit of increased testability, and stronger cohesion. Also you are not limited to the using enum, byte, int short, and char expressions as the trigger for branching.

Thedric Walker
Sweet. I got voted down with no explanation. I guess the person didn't like the way I typed my response. Maybe what I said was wrong. My guess is the person has a problem with CoR. But I'm just guessing because there was no comment as to why.
Thedric Walker
What is this pattern? How does it solve/circumvent the problem of using a code to switch over multiple functions? An example, or at least a link, would have saved this answer.But yes, I didn't like the way you typed your response.
jleedev
Thank you. That is all I ask. If you have the guts to downvote someone have the guts to give a reason.
Thedric Walker
+1 to bring it back to zero. This isn't a BAD answer. It isn't the MOST helpful but it doesn't reduce the net knowledge in the universe. I mean, come on, Bill the Lizard is answering with the standard "your question is wrong. You should change it to match my answer."
Bob Cross
A: 

Check the closures how they have been implemented in the lambdaj library. They actually have a behavior very similar to C# delegates:

http://code.google.com/p/lambdaj/wiki/Closures

Mario Fusco
A: 

I have implemented callback/delegate support in Java using reflection. Details and working source are available on my website. Using a Callback such as I have created should work quite nicely for what you want to do.

That being said, I think it's likely that an interface would be better.

Software Monkey