Refactoring dumb switch-case statements [on hold]

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

I am struggling to invent a better way of eliminating stupid switch-case statements by adding more knowledge to the code.

switch (shapeType) {

        case "circle":

            shape = new Circle(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radius")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY"))

            ); break;

        case "ellipse":

            shape = new Ellipse(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusY"))

            ); break;

}

My idea is to keep a dictionary

Map<String, ShapeFactory> shapesByShapeTypes;

for a later usage similar to

shapesByTypes[shapeType].create();

How good of an approach is it?

I am looking for a rather hard, fundamental and shameless critics. Feel free to mock it.

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

put on hold as off-topic by 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast yesterday

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

While your question is off-topic for code review (no implementation here), as a general hint: look into enums with abstract methods, so that you can have an enum for your shape types where each constant can create its each concrete shape.
– mtj
2 days ago

2

There is not enough context here to see what you are trying to achieve and give you the proper advice for doing it the best way. Please see How to Ask.
– 200_success
2 days ago

How about a function createShape taking the shape (circle/ellipse) and the parameters as arguments? Create a Shape class.
– Mast
yesterday

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

I am struggling to invent a better way of eliminating stupid switch-case statements by adding more knowledge to the code.

switch (shapeType) {

        case "circle":

            shape = new Circle(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radius")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY"))

            ); break;

        case "ellipse":

            shape = new Ellipse(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusY"))

            ); break;

}

My idea is to keep a dictionary

Map<String, ShapeFactory> shapesByShapeTypes;

for a later usage similar to

shapesByTypes[shapeType].create();

How good of an approach is it?

I am looking for a rather hard, fundamental and shameless critics. Feel free to mock it.

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

put on hold as off-topic by 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast yesterday

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

While your question is off-topic for code review (no implementation here), as a general hint: look into enums with abstract methods, so that you can have an enum for your shape types where each constant can create its each concrete shape.
– mtj
2 days ago

2

There is not enough context here to see what you are trying to achieve and give you the proper advice for doing it the best way. Please see How to Ask.
– 200_success
2 days ago

How about a function createShape taking the shape (circle/ellipse) and the parameters as arguments? Create a Shape class.
– Mast
yesterday

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

favorite

I am struggling to invent a better way of eliminating stupid switch-case statements by adding more knowledge to the code.

switch (shapeType) {

        case "circle":

            shape = new Circle(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radius")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY"))

            ); break;

        case "ellipse":

            shape = new Ellipse(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusY"))

            ); break;

}

My idea is to keep a dictionary

Map<String, ShapeFactory> shapesByShapeTypes;

for a later usage similar to

shapesByTypes[shapeType].create();

How good of an approach is it?

I am looking for a rather hard, fundamental and shameless critics. Feel free to mock it.

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

I am struggling to invent a better way of eliminating stupid switch-case statements by adding more knowledge to the code.

switch (shapeType) {

        case "circle":

            shape = new Circle(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radius")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY"))

            ); break;

        case "ellipse":

            shape = new Ellipse(colour,

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("cY")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusX")),

                    Double.valueOf(req.getParameter("radiusY"))

            ); break;

}

My idea is to keep a dictionary

Map<String, ShapeFactory> shapesByShapeTypes;

for a later usage similar to

shapesByTypes[shapeType].create();

How good of an approach is it?

I am looking for a rather hard, fundamental and shameless critics. Feel free to mock it.

java object-oriented hash-map abstract-factory

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

edited 2 days ago

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

asked 2 days ago

vatevr

294

put on hold as off-topic by 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast yesterday

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

put on hold as off-topic by 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast yesterday

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

"Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – 200_success, Toby Speight, Graipher, Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ, Mast

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1

While your question is off-topic for code review (no implementation here), as a general hint: look into enums with abstract methods, so that you can have an enum for your shape types where each constant can create its each concrete shape.
– mtj
2 days ago

2

There is not enough context here to see what you are trying to achieve and give you the proper advice for doing it the best way. Please see How to Ask.
– 200_success
2 days ago

How about a function createShape taking the shape (circle/ellipse) and the parameters as arguments? Create a Shape class.
– Mast
yesterday

add a comment |

1

While your question is off-topic for code review (no implementation here), as a general hint: look into enums with abstract methods, so that you can have an enum for your shape types where each constant can create its each concrete shape.
– mtj
2 days ago

2

There is not enough context here to see what you are trying to achieve and give you the proper advice for doing it the best way. Please see How to Ask.
– 200_success
2 days ago

How about a function createShape taking the shape (circle/ellipse) and the parameters as arguments? Create a Shape class.
– Mast
yesterday

While your question is off-topic for code review (no implementation here), as a general hint: look into enums with abstract methods, so that you can have an enum for your shape types where each constant can create its each concrete shape.
– mtj
2 days ago

There is not enough context here to see what you are trying to achieve and give you the proper advice for doing it the best way. Please see How to Ask.
– 200_success
2 days ago

How about a function createShape taking the shape (circle/ellipse) and the parameters as arguments? Create a Shape class.
– Mast
yesterday

add a comment |

active

oldest

votes

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Krdytkyu