For my Java game server I send the Action ID of the packet which basically tells the server what the packet is for. I want to map each Action ID (an integer) to a function. Is there a way of doing this without using a switch?
相关问题
- Delete Messages from a Topic in Apache Kafka
- Jackson Deserialization not calling deserialize on
- How to maintain order of key-value in DataFrame sa
- StackExchange API - Deserialize Date in JSON Respo
- Difference between Types.INTEGER and Types.NULL in
Check the closures how they have been implemented in the lambdaj library. They actually have a behavior very similar to C# delegates:
http://code.google.com/p/lambdaj/wiki/Closures
You could interface static methods. This method allows you to specify parameters too. Declare your interface...
And your map...
Then implement static methods that match the interface/params...
You can then add those methods into your map...
and call them as follows...
Java does not have first-class function pointers. In order to achieve similar functionality, you have to define and implement an interface. You can make it easier using anonymous inner classes, but it's still not very pretty. Here's an example:
What about this one?
(If you need to pass some arguments, define your own interface with a function having a suitable parameter, and use that instead of Runnable).
You can do this through the use of the chain of responsibility pattern.
It is a pattern that links different objects to together kind of like a linked list. i.e. Each object has a reference to next in the chain. The objects in the chain usually handles one specific behavior. The flow between the objects is very similar to the switch-case statement.
There are some gotchas, such as, it spreads your logic out, an excessively long chain can cause performance problems. But along with these gotchas you have the benefit of increased testability, and stronger cohesion. Also you are not limited to the using enum, byte, int short, and char expressions as the trigger for branching.
Java doesn't really have function pointers (we got anonymous inner classes instead). There's really nothing wrong with using a switch, though, as long as you're switching on value and not on type. Is there some reason you don't want to use a switch? It seems like you'll have to do a mapping between Action IDs and actions somewhere in your code, so why not keep it simple?