@Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
    if (this == obj) {
        return true;
    }
    if (obj == null) {
        return false;
    }
    if (!(obj instanceof ${enclosing_type})) {
        return false;
    }
    ${enclosing_type} other = (${enclosing_type}) obj;
    ${builderType:newType(org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.EqualsBuilder)} ${builder:newName(builderType)} = new ${builderType}();
    ${builder}.append(this.${field}, other.${field}());${cursor}

    return ${builder}.isEquals();
}

When I ran the application again (I was trying to find a bug) I wasn’t getting to the same place in the code as before. Stepping through with the debugger I noticed that I was no longer returning “true” during a comparison of the object I had just changed. So I went back to the old version of the equals method. I could not visually see a difference. So I wrote a JUnit test case to test the equals method, specifically for symmetry. That didn’t get me very far; everything passed as expected.

So I ran the program through the debugger stopping in the equals method for comparison. It looked like the passed in object had nulls for everything. I changed my JUnit tests to test for the same setup, but it worked as expected.

So I went back and created 2 equals methods. Then I had each run and if there was a difference between the old equals method and the new equals method, I would just exit the program:

@Override
public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
    // TEMPORARY!!!
    final boolean newEquals = newEquals(obj);
    final boolean oldEquals = oldEquals(obj);
    if (newEquals != oldEquals) {
        newEquals(obj); // for debugging, I can step through the method again
        oldEquals(obj); // for debugging, I can step through the method again
        LOGGER.error("newEquals (" + newEquals + ") doesn't equal oldEquals (" + oldEquals + ")!!!");
        LOGGER.error("this = " + this);
        LOGGER.error("obj = " + obj);
        System.exit(1); // TEMPORARY!!!
    }
    return oldEquals;
}

I re-ran the JUnit test, but still no luck.

I re-ran the application and viola the equals methods were different and the app exited. But what was going on?

I added a breakpoint in the equals method and looked at the state of the variables again. That’s when I noticed the my object being passed in wasn’t what I expected, but some kind of proxy object. I expanded the object and found a target variable. I expanded that and saw the values matched the “this” object!

Equals Comparison Screenshot

I looked back at the equals methods. The original equals method has get() and mine had just the direct access to the member variable. I step throw the call to the get method and found the proxy will load the member variables to their real values.

So, the lesson I learned was that I need to be calling the get methods in my equals method for the object being passed in. I changed my equals template to add a long-winded explanation for the change. Here’s my Eclipse template:

@Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
    if (this == obj) {
        return true;
    }
    if (obj == null) {
        return false;
    }
    if (!(obj instanceof ${enclosing_type})) {
        return false;
    }
    ${enclosing_type} other = (${enclosing_type}) obj;
    ${builderType:newType(org.apache.commons.lang3.builder.EqualsBuilder)} ${builder:newName(builderType)} = new ${builderType}();
    // You want to use get() methods because ${enclosing_type} might by a "proxy" that libraries (such as Hibernate with CGLIB) will create. (Hibernate uses proxies for lazy loading.) And if the object is not loaded, then access to the fields directly will yield nulls. But calls to the get() methods are intercepted and the proxy returns the correct value. See https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=946468
    ${builder}.append(this.${name}, other.get${name}());${cursor}

    return ${builder}.isEquals();
}

Thanks go to this post for helping me understand the issue.


import java.io.Serializable;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;

System.out.println("subList instanceof Serializable = " + (subList instanceof Serializable));
   }
}

list instanceof Serializable = true
subList instanceof Serializable = false

Momomaha.com
You have to develop a thick skin to blog about your personal life. And not everyone will like you — accept it.

5 things you can do to motivate your team:

1. Stand up
2. Hurry up
3. Shut up
4. Pair up – not just programming
5. Think up – think positively

How To Work with Your Spouse
Communicate! But don’t talk about work at home or home at work.
Having a 3rd person to settle debates is good.

Manage Users like a Roman Centenarian
Accept what is not in your control. Prepare for the worst.

They could charge double the price and it would still be a great deal!

What I learned is: being Serializable does not make a class a Java Bean. And, to be Serializeable, you don’t need mutators.

But PMD thinks my object is a bean. Why?

After reading the source, I determined that there are only a few criteria that exclude classes:

1. if it’s an interface
2. if the variable is transient
3. if the variable is static

Otherwise, PMD assumes it’s a bean and tries to match variables with methods. If there isn’t both a setter and getter, it creates a violation.

My Serializable classes are not Beans and do not need getters and setters. So I think I can safely turn off this warning.

Thoughts?

Edit: PMD should change the rule:

1. Only check Java Beans (or at least Serializable classes)
2. Re-word the rule to something like “Java Beans should have mutators (getters and setters)”

Let’s be materialistic and say I have a list of things I want.

• Car
• TV
• Blu-ray player
• iPad

Each of these have a different order based on different attributes. For example, if I sorted by the order of price, I might have

• Blu-ray player
• iPad
• TV
• Car

I also might want to sort how soon I want an item. (I would need a TV before a Blu-ray player.)

• TV
• Blu-ray player
• Car
• iPad

Here’s a my mockup:

Mockup by Balsamiq

Thoughts?

Daily

Weekly

Bi-Weekly

So what does this mean? It means I’m already doing a lot that a tech lead should be doing, so I’d be totally comfortable taking that position. (Hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

def sayHello(name) {
  println("Hello, " + name)
}

("world", "Adam").foreach(sayHello)

but will have to settle for

def sayHello(name: String) {
  println("Hello, " + name)
}

List("world", "Adam").foreach(sayHello _)

I even use it at work (using PortableApps.com).

But some sites (ok, only StackExchange sites) I visit I get multiple popups asking for my user name and password. Because I’m behind a firewall I have to enter my credentials, no big deal. But they don’t work! So I have to hit Cancel. Not just once, but, like, 4 times!

Annoying Popup

Annoying Popup 2

And it’s not the HTTP proxy, it’s asking for a “moz-proxy”.

I finally decided to Google my issue. I found some reports of others with the same issue. (Ironically, the last page was from a StackExchange site and produced the error.)

When I found a page suggesting it was a Firebug issue I opened it and found a bunch of “407 Proxy Authentication Required” errors for http://sockets.ny.stockexchange.com.

I also found these errors in the Javascript Console.

When I saw the “ws” protocol I was pretty sure the issue was with web sockets.

I decided to look to see if I could turn this off.

Google didn’t provide any obvious hits, but at the bottom of this page it mentioned turning on web sockets. So I looked in “about:config” and filtered on “socket”.

Sure enough, I was able to disable web sockets! Hurray! And now I don’t get those popups! Problem solved!

(This bug seems to be related.)

(Maybe I can make this guy hate Firefox a little less.)

More discussion and a  possible solution.

I decided to give it a try by setting a goal of running in the 2012 Corporate Cup Run.

I just got back from my 5th run. 1.5 miles around the neighborhood. And I can honestly say, I hate exercise. I don’t get any pleasure (read: endorphins) from exercising. I am listening to Java Posse so I did get a couple of chuckles along the way. But boy am I beat.