Click here to close now.


Java IoT Authors: Steve Watts, Philippe Abdoulaye, Elizabeth White, Carmen Gonzalez, AppDynamics Blog

Related Topics: Java IoT

Java IoT: Article

Evolving Functionality

Evolving Functionality

C++ brought into vogue the concept of interfaces, abstractness, and implementations. Java went a step further and formalized them with proper keywords for each of the concepts. There are a substantial number of patterns in which interfaces, abstract classes, and classes can be combined for various purposes. You only have to look at the book Design Patterns, by Erich Gamma et al (Addison-Wesley), to realize the importance of recognizing these constructs.

Constructing a software program that you expect to have a long life is an attempt to evolve its functionality over time, without abandoning older behavior for backward compatibility. This is a lot more essential when you're designing libraries and frameworks. The newer libraries should work with older systems that were designed for the older releases of a library. Here are some concrete examples of why this is important and how to accomplish this in situations where every programmer is encouraged to adapt the scheme owing to its simplicity.

What Is Evolving Functionality?
To understand what evolving functionality is, let's walk through the design of a very simple class in Java. Here's the class:

class LogFacility
public log(final String message)
// implementation
LogFacility provides a mechanism to log messages. Everyone on the team would use this functionality as follows:
LogFacility lf = new LogFacility()
lf.log("log this message for me");

As it's simple and useful, it's hard to argue against it. Now I take this utility and ship it to two different teams. One team wants to log to a file and the other to stdout. I improvised and came up with StdoutLogFacility and FileLogFacility, and suggested that the programmer use the appropriate logging facility as follows:

StdoutLogFacility lf = new
lf.log("log this message for me");

FileLogFacility lf = new
lf.log("log this message for me");
You'd quickly realize that irrespective of what log facility is constructed, it gets used the same way. This is a cue to design an interface for the usage of the log facility as follows:
public interface ILogFacility { public
log(final String message); }
StdoutLogFacility and FileLogFacility would implement this interface. In this scenario the programmer would do the following:
ILogFacility lf = new
lf.log("log this message for me");
ILogFacility lf = new FileLogFacility();
lf.log("log this message for me");
As you can see, irrespective of the nature of the construction, an object of type ILogFacility is used the same way.

This brings us to an important observation in OO programming - construction is different from usage. In other words, the construction interface of an object is different from its usage contract/interface. We can delegate the construction of the ILogFacility to any number of mechanisms, but the usage remains the same. Using this property let's investigate a method where the programmer doesn't have to do the following:

ILogFacility lf = new FileLogFacility();
This line of code is hard-coding the construction of an implementation. In doing so we create a compile-time dependency with the implementation. And we can't substitute StdoutLogFacility for FileLogFacility because that dependency is necessitated by the compiling.

So, in a general sense, you can't really vary the implementation of a given interface at runtime if we use the "new" option for construction. Also you'll have to know the name of the implementation class, which may not even exist at compile time. What to do? The solution lies in understanding the factory pattern. Here's an example:

class ObjectFactory
public static Object create(final String
objectName, Object args )
throws CreationException;

You can attempt the following:

ILogFacility lf = ObjectFactory.create
(ILogFacility.NAME, null);
if.log("log my message"):
As a programmer you've delegated the construction of an interface named ILogFacility.NAME to a factory. This factory could look up a system-wide properties file for a class that's responsible for this interface and load it at runtime. Let's look at one such properties-file entry:

Assuming ILogFacility.NAME is "Objects.loggingObject", it is not difficult for the factory to do the following:

public static Object create(final String
objectName, Object args )
Properties systemWidePropertiesFile;
String className = systemWide
Object o = Class.forName(className);
return o;

Using this mechanism you can improvise StdoutLogFacility gradually without impacting its users. For example, you've improved logging but don't want to replace the older implementation until it's been field tested. You can cut and paste the source code of StdoutLogFacility to another class called StdoutLogFacility1 and replace your properties file as follows:

This way the older clients can continue to use the older implementation while you migrate to the new one. You can continue to evolve this functionality while incrementing the numbers. The same facility can provide a radically different implementation if necessary. For example:

logs all your messages to a socket.

This discussion isn't limited to logging; any of your core modules can follow the same pattern, which allows them a path for evolution while maintaining backward compatibility.

To summarize the points so far, we've learned the following:

  1. Construction is different from usage
  2. Use interfaces, not implementations for, key areas of functionality
  3. Use factories to construct implementations, at runtime
  4. You can use properties files to associate implementations with their interface names
  5. Having an interface.NAME as a standard allows a programmer a simple reference to instantiate an interface

Usage Pattern for an Evolving Implementation
Let's reexamine how we can utilize an interface. The emphasis here is that you get your implementations via a global factory instead of "new"ing them explicitly. This allows for runtime variations of the implementation. For example:

MyInterface i = (MyInterface)ObjectFactory.create
Let's examine the MyInterface.NAME:
interface MyInterface
public static final String NAME =
                                                                                                                        . .. other public method signatures
Using a synonym like "interface.NAME" instead of a literal string, we reduce the risk of getting the name wrong. If every interface has the same public synonym, it's just that much easier for the programmer to instantiate an implementation for it.

Interface Definition for an Application-Wide Factory Service
Now we'll discuss the factory object in more detail and define some desirable characteristics. The idea is we'll use this factory object to create all our implementations for the desired interfaces. By that I mean to choose interfaces that are going to be instantiated by factories. Once decided, these interfaces can be instantiated by the same global object factory. The aim of this section is to define a simple interface for such an application-wide factory service.

Static vs Nonstatic Method
The method "create" of the ObjectFactory is declared static and public. It's public for obvious reasons and static so the programmer can invoke it without an object reference. For example:

instead of
ObjectFactory of = new ObjectFactory();
There are some exceptions to this rule for example, if you want to evolve the functionality of the factory itself. The method also throws a suitable exception indicating any failures in the construction process. There are some interesting consequences to the nature of this exception, which I'll cover at the end of this article.

getObject vs createObject
At this point I'd like to change the name of the "create" method of the ObjectFactory to "getObject". create() implies that an object is being created every time the method is called. This may not be true for a number of reasons. Certain objects you may want to create only once, others with each request, and some as part of a pool. Because of this, getObject() suits the semantics of this intention more accurately.

Passing Arguments
Certain objects require construction arguments. How do you pass them? The arguments are passed via the second parameter to the function call. This could be any object, including a collection of objects that get passed to the constructor of the target object. This can get sophisticated with EJBs when the constructors are invoked through reflection and the correct constructor called. But for simplicity the classes can have default constructors, with a well-known "init()" method that accepts the passed parameter as an argument.

The implication is that programmers not only need to know the interface name of the object that they want to instantiate, but also the nature of its arguments. This I call the construction interface of the object. This needs to be published and adhered to by all the implementations. And it's the responsibility of the programmer to pass the correct set of arguments. Otherwise an exception is thrown by the generic factory.

Caching Strategy
Once you start using this facility, it won't be long before you start asking, "How can I limit the number of object occurrences of a specific class?" For example, singleton. To facilitate this a factory can use multiple strategies to cache object instances. The factory can save the instantiated objects in a hashtable keyed by their interface names. So, when a repeated request comes in for an interface, the factory can return the previously constructed object. But how does the factory know to cache an object? You can specify in the properties file that a certain interface needs to be cached, which is how it's done in EJBs at deployment time. Specifying the number of object instances at deployment time is more generic. But for systems of medium complexity, you may want to define an ISingleThreaded interface and implement that interface to force multiple instances of the object. This avoids the errors that might occur due to lack of knowledge at deployment time, or you could provide both facilities.

Name-Based Caching May Not Be Sufficient
Interface name-based caching sounds good until you consider the fact that a given implementation can support multiple interfaces. In this case you'll have two such objects cached when one would have been sufficient and even wrong at times. I believe the right approach is to use caching based on class names instead.

Pooling Support
I think a factory shouldn't provide pooling; it should be implemented on top of factory. Otherwise the simple factory interface also needs to deal with synchronization and return to pool semantics.

Support for Object Filters
When a factory instantiates an object, it can also pass the object to an object filter and return the output of the filter instead. This allows for the chaining of objects, which is similar to the servlet chaining popular in Web-based systems. It's fairly trivial to do, but adds a great value to the overall functionality. For example, using such a functionality you can convert an incoming result set to a comma-separated string or sum the values into a single entity. All this can be done without recompiling the target code. This properties file demonstrates how this can be accomplished:

The Default Object
When you're specifying target implementation objects via a properties file, it's possible that anything might go wrong in the construction process, resulting in an exception. In this case you'd like a default implementation to be available. For example:
MyInterface myObj = null;
myObj = ObjectFactory.getObject
catch( FactoryException x)
myObj = new MyDefaultObject;
Doing this everywhere discourages the programmer from using the facility. The following code alleviates the problem:
MyInterface myObj = ObjectFactory.get
Object (MyInterface.NAME, args, new
This method doesn't throw any exceptions, instead it returns the MyDefaultObject on any kind of internal exception, ensuring the default functionality of the application.

A Well-Defined Factory Interface to
Fulfill the Factory Service

With that discussion we're able to define an interface for our factory object:

interface IFactory
Object getObject(final String
interfaceName, Object args) throws
Object getObject(final String
interfaceName, Object args, Object
An interface definition tells you only the contract of the factory and doesn't specify its intended behavior. For that reason I'm summarizing here the desired characteristics of a typical factory implementation:
  1. Provides a static façade for easier calling semantics
  2. Uses getObject, not createObject, semantics
  3. Requires a default constructor for the objects to be constructed
  4. Arguments are passed to the init method for initialization
  5. Caching is based on the class name of the object
  6. Caching is also based on the IsingleThreaded tagging interface
  7. Supports object filters
  8. Supports default objects
  9. Uses an application-wide configuration interface for class definitions
ObjectFactory Implementation
Although we've defined an interface for a factory, we need a convenient set of static methods that would make use of the above interface internally. Such a facility provides the best of both worlds. On one side it obviates the need to instantiate a factory interface and on the other it adheres to a nonstatic factory interface definition. Here's one such implementation. Obviously many variations are possible, but the idea is to give the programmer the simplest way to accomplish the characteristics stated above (see Listing 1).

Role of an Application-Wide Configuration Service
So far all the object definitions are stored in a properties file. It's not that difficult for the factory implementation to instantiate a properties object and read in the properties file. What if in the future you'd like to move the entries from a properties file to a database, an LDAP, or an XML configuration file?

For this reason the factory implementation accesses the object definitions through a common configuration interface.

Interface Iconfig
public String getValue(final String key)
throws ConfigException;
public String getValue(final String key,
String defaultValue );
Again, for programmer simplicity, this interface is exposed through a static Config class as follows:
Class Config
static public String getValue(final String
key) throws ConfigException;
static public String getValue(final String
key, String defaultValue );
With this you'd be able to do:
String value = Config.getValue("key","default value");
Why go to such lengths when properties is such a simple interface; why not use it? Frequently you would want the IConfig implementation to exhibit the following characteristics:
  1. Case-insensitive keys so you don't have to constantly remember capitalizations
  2. Ability to include multiple-properties file inside the main configuration file
  3. Ability to provide substitutions based on keys that were defined at the beginning of the properties file
All these can be provided gradually by the evolving implementations of IConfig. In this case, one of the facilities of the framework evolves using the same principles.

Evolving an Interface
So far I've discussed where the implementations are changing. What if the interface itself has migrated to the next level? Although less common, this will happen eventually, even in the best of designed interfaces. For instance, with the logging interface defined above, I'd like to extend the interface by providing a logging mechanism for exceptions. One approach is to extend the base interface instead of modifying it:

interface ILogFacility_1 extends
public void log(Throwable t);
If there's an implementation that supports the ILogFacility_1 interface, it automatically supports the ILogInterface and hence can be used in a backward-compatible manner. On the other hand, if an older implementation that supports only ILogInterface is used in a newer environment that's expecting ILogFacility_1, there are two alternatives:
  1. Let the system throw a class-cast exception and correct the mistake
  2. Write the client code in such a way that this can be handled gracefully:
Object logFacility =
(ILogFacility.NAME,null,new MyLogFacility);
if (logFacility instanceof ILogFacility_1)
else (logFacility instanceof ILogFacility)
Request-Based Factories
As I've mentioned, factory plays a central role in adapting this evolution-based approach to programming. The factory I've discussed so far is primarily creation-based because it instantiates the necessary class and calls the well-known method to initialize it. A more sophisticated approach would be a request-based factory in which the input symbolic name refers to a request rather than a class name. You can simulate the creation-based factory from a request-based factory. For example:
Object o = RequestBasedFactory.getObject
("GET_OBJECT", null):
The request-based factory locates a class name identified by "GET_OBJECT" in a properties file. Instead of calling the init method to initialize the object, the request factory calls the "executeRequest" method with the parameters. Whatever the executeRequest method returns is then returned to the caller as the return object.

When the executeRequest method returns the self-reference, we basically have the RequestFactory behaving like a creation factory. RequestFactory has broader applications than a simple CreationFactory. For example:

ROWS","employee_name=John Doe")
invokes a database request executor identified by "GET_EMPLOYEE_ROWS" and returns the result set back to the caller.

Interfaces and Exceptions
I'd like to cover one more detail since we're dealing extensively with interfaces, particularly such generic interfaces as the factory interface I've shown here. When a factory tries to load a class at runtime and fails, all the client sees is the factory exception. If you're not careful, the root cause of the exception is never known. To deal with this scenario, interfaces should define exceptions that can carry with them a child exception, and the child exception can carry another child exception. This way the root exceptions are propagated all the way to the top. When the final exception is printed, you'll see a complete hierarchy of exceptions, which is extremely good for debugging purposes. I call this the principle of Kangaroo exceptions, and it's necessary for interface-based programming. This is because interfaces are like firewalls and compile-time exceptions can't propagate through them without help. This concept of Kangaroo exceptions hides the root exception in terms of the interface-specific exception.

Using a simple application-level factory service, it's possible to effectively employ interfaces and implementations to write code that provides backward compatibility. Even when you don't need this compatibility, it enables you to try new bug fixes without affecting the old behavior. This provides developers with some assurance that they won't undo everything they've done before.

More Stories By Satya Komatenini

Satya Komatineni is Chief Technology Officer of INDENT, Inc and the author of a Java based RAD framework for developing J2EE based HTML applications. The product has the distinction of supporting multiple html transformations (XSL,JSP, proprietary templates) while utilizing the same data abstraction to interact with EJBs, relational databases and ERP systems. After earning an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, worked with LAN based collaboration technologies, C++ patterns and frameworks, Java and Web based frameworks in a distributed environment.

Comments (0)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

@ThingsExpo Stories
The Internet of Things (IoT) is growing rapidly by extending current technologies, products and networks. By 2020, Cisco estimates there will be 50 billion connected devices. Gartner has forecast revenues of over $300 billion, just to IoT suppliers. Now is the time to figure out how you’ll make money – not just create innovative products. With hundreds of new products and companies jumping into the IoT fray every month, there’s no shortage of innovation. Despite this, McKinsey/VisionMobile data shows "less than 10 percent of IoT developers are making enough to support a reasonably sized team....
With major technology companies and startups seriously embracing IoT strategies, now is the perfect time to attend @ThingsExpo 2016 in New York and Silicon Valley. Learn what is going on, contribute to the discussions, and ensure that your enterprise is as "IoT-Ready" as it can be! Internet of @ThingsExpo, taking place Nov 3-5, 2015, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA, is co-located with 17th Cloud Expo and will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading industry players in the world. The Internet of Things (IoT) is the most profound cha...
Just over a week ago I received a long and loud sustained applause for a presentation I delivered at this year’s Cloud Expo in Santa Clara. I was extremely pleased with the turnout and had some very good conversations with many of the attendees. Over the next few days I had many more meaningful conversations and was not only happy with the results but also learned a few new things. Here is everything I learned in those three days distilled into three short points.
DevOps is about increasing efficiency, but nothing is more inefficient than building the same application twice. However, this is a routine occurrence with enterprise applications that need both a rich desktop web interface and strong mobile support. With recent technological advances from Isomorphic Software and others, rich desktop and tuned mobile experiences can now be created with a single codebase – without compromising functionality, performance or usability. In his session at DevOps Summit, Charles Kendrick, CTO and Chief Architect at Isomorphic Software, demonstrated examples of com...
As organizations realize the scope of the Internet of Things, gaining key insights from Big Data, through the use of advanced analytics, becomes crucial. However, IoT also creates the need for petabyte scale storage of data from millions of devices. A new type of Storage is required which seamlessly integrates robust data analytics with massive scale. These storage systems will act as “smart systems” provide in-place analytics that speed discovery and enable businesses to quickly derive meaningful and actionable insights. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Paul Turner, Chief Marketing Officer at...
In his keynote at @ThingsExpo, Chris Matthieu, Director of IoT Engineering at Citrix and co-founder and CTO of Octoblu, focused on building an IoT platform and company. He provided a behind-the-scenes look at Octoblu’s platform, business, and pivots along the way (including the Citrix acquisition of Octoblu).
In his General Session at 17th Cloud Expo, Bruce Swann, Senior Product Marketing Manager for Adobe Campaign, explored the key ingredients of cross-channel marketing in a digital world. Learn how the Adobe Marketing Cloud can help marketers embrace opportunities for personalized, relevant and real-time customer engagement across offline (direct mail, point of sale, call center) and digital (email, website, SMS, mobile apps, social networks, connected objects).
We all know that data growth is exploding and storage budgets are shrinking. Instead of showing you charts on about how much data there is, in his General Session at 17th Cloud Expo, Scott Cleland, Senior Director of Product Marketing at HGST, showed how to capture all of your data in one place. After you have your data under control, you can then analyze it in one place, saving time and resources.
The Internet of Everything is re-shaping technology trends–moving away from “request/response” architecture to an “always-on” Streaming Web where data is in constant motion and secure, reliable communication is an absolute necessity. As more and more THINGS go online, the challenges that developers will need to address will only increase exponentially. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Todd Greene, Founder & CEO of PubNub, exploreed the current state of IoT connectivity and review key trends and technology requirements that will drive the Internet of Things from hype to reality.
Two weeks ago (November 3-5), I attended the Cloud Expo Silicon Valley as a speaker, where I presented on the security and privacy due diligence requirements for cloud solutions. Cloud security is a topical issue for every CIO, CISO, and technology buyer. Decision-makers are always looking for insights on how to mitigate the security risks of implementing and using cloud solutions. Based on the presentation topics covered at the conference, as well as the general discussions heard between sessions, I wanted to share some of my observations on emerging trends. As cyber security serves as a fou...
With all the incredible momentum behind the Internet of Things (IoT) industry, it is easy to forget that not a single CEO wakes up and wonders if “my IoT is broken.” What they wonder is if they are making the right decisions to do all they can to increase revenue, decrease costs, and improve customer experience – effectively the same challenges they have always had in growing their business. The exciting thing about the IoT industry is now these decisions can be better, faster, and smarter. Now all corporate assets – people, objects, and spaces – can share information about themselves and thei...
Continuous processes around the development and deployment of applications are both impacted by -- and a benefit to -- the Internet of Things trend. To help better understand the relationship between DevOps and a plethora of new end-devices and data please welcome Gary Gruver, consultant, author and a former IT executive who has led many large-scale IT transformation projects, and John Jeremiah, Technology Evangelist at Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), on Twitter at @j_jeremiah. The discussion is moderated by me, Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.
Too often with compelling new technologies market participants become overly enamored with that attractiveness of the technology and neglect underlying business drivers. This tendency, what some call the “newest shiny object syndrome” is understandable given that virtually all of us are heavily engaged in technology. But it is also mistaken. Without concrete business cases driving its deployment, IoT, like many other technologies before it, will fade into obscurity.
Discussions of cloud computing have evolved in recent years from a focus on specific types of cloud, to a world of hybrid cloud, and to a world dominated by the APIs that make today's multi-cloud environments and hybrid clouds possible. In this Power Panel at 17th Cloud Expo, moderated by Conference Chair Roger Strukhoff, panelists addressed the importance of customers being able to use the specific technologies they need, through environments and ecosystems that expose their APIs to make true change and transformation possible.
The Internet of Things is clearly many things: data collection and analytics, wearables, Smart Grids and Smart Cities, the Industrial Internet, and more. Cool platforms like Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Intel's Galileo and Edison, and a diverse world of sensors are making the IoT a great toy box for developers in all these areas. In this Power Panel at @ThingsExpo, moderated by Conference Chair Roger Strukhoff, panelists discussed what things are the most important, which will have the most profound effect on the world, and what should we expect to see over the next couple of years.
Microservices are a very exciting architectural approach that many organizations are looking to as a way to accelerate innovation. Microservices promise to allow teams to move away from monolithic "ball of mud" systems, but the reality is that, in the vast majority of organizations, different projects and technologies will continue to be developed at different speeds. How to handle the dependencies between these disparate systems with different iteration cycles? Consider the "canoncial problem" in this scenario: microservice A (releases daily) depends on a couple of additions to backend B (re...
The cloud. Like a comic book superhero, there seems to be no problem it can’t fix or cost it can’t slash. Yet making the transition is not always easy and production environments are still largely on premise. Taking some practical and sensible steps to reduce risk can also help provide a basis for a successful cloud transition. A plethora of surveys from the likes of IDG and Gartner show that more than 70 percent of enterprises have deployed at least one or more cloud application or workload. Yet a closer inspection at the data reveals less than half of these cloud projects involve production...
Growth hacking is common for startups to make unheard-of progress in building their business. Career Hacks can help Geek Girls and those who support them (yes, that's you too, Dad!) to excel in this typically male-dominated world. Get ready to learn the facts: Is there a bias against women in the tech / developer communities? Why are women 50% of the workforce, but hold only 24% of the STEM or IT positions? Some beginnings of what to do about it! In her Day 2 Keynote at 17th Cloud Expo, Sandy Carter, IBM General Manager Cloud Ecosystem and Developers, and a Social Business Evangelist, wil...
PubNub has announced the release of BLOCKS, a set of customizable microservices that give developers a simple way to add code and deploy features for realtime apps.PubNub BLOCKS executes business logic directly on the data streaming through PubNub’s network without splitting it off to an intermediary server controlled by the customer. This revolutionary approach streamlines app development, reduces endpoint-to-endpoint latency, and allows apps to better leverage the enormous scalability of PubNub’s Data Stream Network.
Container technology is shaping the future of DevOps and it’s also changing the way organizations think about application development. With the rise of mobile applications in the enterprise, businesses are abandoning year-long development cycles and embracing technologies that enable rapid development and continuous deployment of apps. In his session at DevOps Summit, Kurt Collins, Developer Evangelist at, examined how Docker has evolved into a highly effective tool for application delivery by allowing increasingly popular Mobile Backend-as-a-Service (mBaaS) platforms to quickly crea...