I have a set of domain objects that inherit from a shared type (i.e. GroupRecord extends Record, RequestRecord extends Record). The subtypes have specific properties (i.e. GroupRecord::getCumulativeTime, RequestRecord::getResponseTime).
Further, I have a list of records with mixed subtypes as a result of parsing a logfile.
List<Record> records = parseLog(...);
In order to compute statistics on the log records, I want to apply math functions only on a subset of the records that matches a specific subtype, i.e. only on GroupRecords. Therefore I want to have a filtered stream of specific subtypes. I know that I can apply a filter and map to a subtype using
records.stream()
.filter(GroupRecord.class::isInstance)
.map(GroupRecord.class::cast)
.collect(...
Apply this filter&cast on the stream multiple times (especially when doing it for the same subtype multiple times for different computations) is not only cumbersome but produces lots of duplication.
My current approach is to use a TypeFilter
class TypeFilter<T>{
private final Class<T> type;
public TypeFilter(final Class<T> type) {
this.type = type;
}
public Stream<T> filter(Stream<?> inStream) {
return inStream.filter(type::isInstance).map(type::cast);
}
}
To be applied to a stream:
TypeFilter<GroupRecord> groupFilter = new TypeFilter(GroupRecord.class);
SomeStatsResult stats1 = groupFilter.filter(records.stream())
.collect(...)
SomeStatsResult stats2 = groupFilter.filter(records.stream())
.collect(...)
It works, but I find this approach a bit much for such a simple task. Therefore I wonder, is there a better or what is the best way for making this behavior reusable using streams and functions in a concise and readable way?
It depends on what do you find "more concise and readable". I myself would argue that the way you already implemented is fine as it is.
However, there is indeed a way to do this in a way that is slightly shorter from the point of where you use it, by using Stream.flatMap:
static <E, T> Function<E, Stream<T>> onlyTypes(Class<T> cls) {
return el -> cls.isInstance(el) ? Stream.of((T) el) : Stream.empty();
}
What it would do is it will convert each original stream element to either a Stream of one element if the element has expected type, or to an empty Stream if it does not.
And the use is:
records.stream()
.flatMap(onlyTypes(GroupRecord.class))
.forEach(...);
There are obvious tradeoffs in this approach:
- You do lose the "filter" word from your pipeline definition. That may be more confusing that the original, so maybe a better name than
onlyTypesis needed. Streamobjects are relatively heavyweight, and creating so much of them may result in performance degradation. But you should not trust my word here and profile both variants under heavy load.
Edit:
Since the question asks about reusing filter and map in slightly more general terms, I feel like this answer can also discuss a little more abstraction. So, to reuse filter and map in general terms, you need the following:
static <E, R> Function<E, Stream<R>> filterAndMap(Predicate<? super E> filter, Function<? super E, R> mapper) {
return e -> filter.test(e) ? Stream.of(mapper.apply(e)) : Stream.empty();
}
And original onlyTypes implementation now becomes:
static <E, R> Function<E, Stream<R>> onlyTypes(Class<T> cls) {
return filterAndMap(cls::isInstance, cls::cast);
}
But then, there is yet again a tradeoff: resulting flat mapper function will now hold captured two objects (predicate and mapper) instead of single Class object in above implementation. It may also be a case of over-abstracting, but that one depends on where and why you would need that code.