The page I am working on has a javascript function executed to print parts of the page. For some reason, printing in Safari, causes the window to somehow update. I say somehow, because it does not really refresh as in reload the page, but rather it starts the "rendering" of the page from start, i.e. scroll to top, flash animations start from 0, and so forth. The effect is reproduced by this fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/fYmnB/ Clicking the print button and finishing or cancelling a print in Safari causes the screen to "go white" for a sec, which in my real website manifests itself as something "like" a reload. While running print button with, let's say, Firefox, just opens and closes the print dialogue without affecting the fiddle page in any way. Is there something with my way of calling the browsers print method that causes this, or how can it be explained - and preferably, avoided? P.S.: On my real site the same occurs with Chrome. In the ex
That is perfectly acceptable, probably even the standard.
ReplyDelete(public/private) static final TYPE NAME = VALUE;
where TYPE is the type, NAME is the name in all caps with underscores for spaces, and VALUE is the constant value;
As a side note: Variables that are declared final and are mutable can still be changed; however, the variable can never point at a different object.
For example:
public static final Point ORIGIN = new Point(0,0);
public static void main(String[] args){
ORIGIN.x = 3;
}
That is legal and ORIGIN would then be a point at (3, 0).
I would highly advise against having a single constants class. It may seem a good idea at the time, but when developers refuse to document constants and the class grows to encompass upwards of 500 constants which are all not related to each other at all (being related to entirely different aspects of the application), this generally turns into the constants file being completely unreadable. Instead:
ReplyDeleteIf you have access to Java 5+, use enums to define your specific constants for an application area. All parts of the application area should refer to enums, not constant values, for these constants. You may declare an enum similar to how you declare a class. Enums are perhaps the most (and, arguably, only) useful feature of Java 5+.
If you have constants that are only valid to a particular class or one of its subclasses, declare them as either protected or public and place them on the top class in the hierarchy. This way, the subclasses can access these constant values (and if other classes access them via public, the constants aren't only valid to a particular class...which means that the external classes using this constant may be too tightly coupled to the class containing the constant)
If you have an interface with behavior defined, but returned values or argument values should be particular, it is perfectly acceptible to define constants on that interface so that other implementors will have access to them. However, avoid creating an interface just to hold constants: it can become just as bad as a class created just to hold constants.
It is a BAD PRACTICE to use interfaces just to hold constants (named constant interface pattern by Josh Bloch). Here's Josh advices:
ReplyDeleteIf the constants are strongly tied to
an existing class or interface, you
should add them to the class or
interface. For example, all of the
boxed numerical primitive classes,
such as Integer and Double, export
MIN_VALUE and MAX_VALUE constants. If
the constants are best viewed as
members of an enumerated type, you
should export them with an enum
type. Otherwise, you should export the
constants with a noninstantiable
utility class.
Example:
// Constant utility class
package com.effectivejava.science;
public class PhysicalConstants {
private PhysicalConstants() { } // Prevents instantiation
public static final double AVOGADROS_NUMBER = 6.02214199e23;
public static final double BOLTZMANN_CONSTANT = 1.3806503e-23;
public static final double ELECTRON_MASS = 9.10938188e-31;
}
About the naming convetion:
By convention, such fields have names
consisting of capital letters, with
words separated by underscores. It is
critical that these fields contain
either primitive values or references
to immutable objects.
Just avoid using an interface:
ReplyDeletepublic interface MyConstants {
String CONSTANT_ONE = "foo";
}
public class NeddsConstant implements MyConstants {
}
It is tempting, but violates encapsulation and blurs the distinction of class definitions.
That's the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteGenerally constants are not kept in separate "Constants" classes because they're not discoverable. If the constant is relevant to the current class, keeping them there helps the next developer.
The number one mistake you can make is creating a globally accessible class called with a generic name, like Constants. This simply gets littered with garbage and you lose all ability to figure out what portion of your system uses these constants.
ReplyDeleteInstead, constants should go into the class which "owns" them. Do you have a constant called TIMEOUT? It should probably go into your Communications() or Connection() class. MAX_BAD_LOGINS_PER_HOUR? Goes into User(). And so on and so forth.
The other possible use is Java .properties files when "constants" can be defined at run-time, but not easily user changeable. You can package these up in your .jars and reference them with the Class resourceLoader.
Creating static final constants in a separate class can get you into trouble. The Java compiler will actually optimize this and place the actual value of the constant into any class that references it.
ReplyDeleteIf you later change the 'Constants' class and you don't do a hard re-compile on other classes that reference that class, you will wind up with a combination of old and new values being used.
Instead of thinking of these as constants, think of them as configuration parameters and create a class to manage them. Have the values be non-final, and even consider using getters. In the future, as you determine that some of these parameters actually should be configurable by the user or administrator, it will be much easier to do.
A good object oriented design should not need many publicly available constants. Most constants should be encapsulated in the class that needs them to do its job.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to use getters rather than constants. Those getters might return constant values, e.g. public int getMaxConnections() {return 10;}, but anything that needs the constant will go through a getter.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit is that if your program outgrows the constant--you find that it needs to be configurable--you can just change how the getter returns the constant.
The other benefit is that in order to modify the constant you don't have to recompile everything that uses it. When you reference a static final field, the value of that constant is compiled into any bytecode that references it.
I agree that using an interface is not the way to go. Avoiding this pattern even has its own item (#18) in Bloch's Effective Java.
ReplyDeleteAn argument Bloch makes against the constant interface pattern is that use of constants is an implementation detail, but implementing an interface to use them exposes that implementation detail in your exported API.
The public|private static final TYPE NAME = VALUE; pattern is a good way of declaring a constant. Personally, I think it's better to avoid making a separate class to house all of your constants, but I've never seen a reason not to do this, other than personal preference and style.
If your constants can be well-modeled as an enumeration, consider the enum structure available in 1.5 or later.
If you're using a version earlier than 1.5, you can still pull off typesafe enumerations by using normal Java classes. (See this site for more on that).
Based on the comments above I think this is a good approach to change the old-fashioned global constant class (having public static final variables) to its enum-like equivalent in a way like this:
ReplyDeletepublic class Constants {
private Constants() {
throw new AssertionError();
}
public interface ConstantType {}
public enum StringConstant implements ConstantType {
DB_HOST("localhost");
// other String constants come here
private String value;
private StringConstant(String value) {
this.value = value;
}
public String value() {
return value;
}
}
public enum IntConstant implements ConstantType {
DB_PORT(3128),
MAX_PAGE_SIZE(100);
// other int constants come here
private int value;
private IntConstant(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
public int value() {
return value;
}
}
public enum SimpleConstant implements ConstantType {
STATE_INIT,
STATE_START,
STATE_END;
}
}
So then I can refer them to like:
Constants.StringConstant.DB_HOST
What about an enumeration?
ReplyDeleteA single, generic constants class is a bad idea. Constants should be grouped together with the class they're most logically related to.
ReplyDeleteRather than using variables of any kind (especially enums), I would suggest that you use methods. Create a method with the same name as the variable and have it return the value you assigned to the variable. Now delete the variable and replace all references to it with calls to the method you just created. If you feel that the constant is generic enough that you shouldn't have to create an instance of the class just to use it, then make the constant method a class method.
FWIW, a timeout in seconds value should probably be a configuration setting (read in from a properties file or through injection as in Spring) and not a constant.
ReplyDeleteFor Constants, Enum is a better choice IMHO. Here is an example
ReplyDeletepublic class myClass {
public enum myEnum {
Option1("String1", 2),
Option2("String2", 2)
;
String str;
int i;
myEnum(String str1, int i1) { this.str = str1 ; this.i1 = i }
}
A Constant, of any type, can be declared by creating an immutable property that within a class (that is a member variable with the final modifier). Typically the static and public modifiers are also provided.
ReplyDeletepublic class OfficePrinter {
public static final String STATE = "Ready";
}
There are numerous applications where a constant's value indicates a selection from an n-tuple (e.g. enumeration) of choices. In our example, we can choose to define an Enumerated Type that will restrict the possible assigned values (i.e. improved type-safety):
public class OfficePrinter {
public enum PrinterState { Ready, PCLoadLetter, OutOfToner, Offline };
public static final PrinterState STATE = PrinterState.Ready;
}
One of the way I do it is by creating a 'Global' class with the constant values and do a static import in the classes that need access to the constant.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference
ReplyDelete1.
public interface MyGlobalConstants {
public static final int TIMEOUT_IN_SECS = 25;
}
2.
public class MyGlobalConstants {
private MyGlobalConstants () {} // Prevents instantiation
public static final int TIMEOUT_IN_SECS = 25;
}
and using
MyGlobalConstants.TIMEOUT_IN_SECS whereever we need this constant. I think both are some.
I use following approach:
ReplyDeletepublic final class Constants {
public final class File {
public static final int MIN_ROWS = 1;
public static final int MAX_ROWS = 1000;
private File() {}
}
public final class DB {
public static final String name = "oups";
public final class Connection() {
public staic final String URL = "jdbc:tra-ta-ta";
public staic final String USER = "testUser";
public staic final String PASSWORD = "testPassword";
private Connection() {}
}
private DB() {}
}
private Constants() {}
}
Than, for example, I use Constants.DB.Connection.URL to get constant.
It looks more "object oriently" as for me.
I wouldn't call the class the same (aside from casing) as the constant ... I would have at a minimum one class of "Settings", or "Values", or "Constants", where all the constants would live. If I have a large number of them, I'd group them up in logical constant classes (UserSettings, AppSettings, etc.)
ReplyDeleteTo take it a step further, you can place globally used constants in an interface so they can be used system wide. E.g.
ReplyDeletepublic interface MyGlobalConstants {
public static final int TIMEOUT_IN_SECS = 25;
}
But don't then implement it. Just refer to them directly in code via the fully qualified classname.