Java 8 Supplier with arguments in the constructor

Question

Why do suppliers only support no-arg constructors?

If the default constructor is present, I can do this:

create(Foo::new)

But if th

Answer 1

If you like method references so much, you can write a bind method by yourself and use it:

public static <T, R> Supplier<R> bind(Function<T,R> fn, T val) {
    return () -> fn.apply(val);
}

create(bind(Foo::new, "hello"));

Answer 2

If you have a constructor for new Klass(ConstructorObject) then you can use Function<ConstructorObject, Klass> like this:

interface Interface {
    static Klass createKlass(Function<Map<String,Integer>, Klass> func, Map<String, Integer> input) {
        return func.apply(input);
    }
}
class Klass {
    private Integer integer;
    Klass(Map<String, Integer> map) {
        this.integer = map.get("integer");
    }
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Map<String, Integer> input = new HashMap<>();
        input.put("integer", 1);
        Klass klazz = Interface.createKlass(Klass::new, input);
        System.out.println(klazz.integer);
    }
}

Answer 3

Why do suppliers only work with no-arg constructors?

Because a 1-arg constructor is isomorphic to a SAM interface with 1 argument and 1 return value, such as java.util.function.Function<T,R>'s R apply(T).

On the other hand Supplier<T>'s T get() is isomorphic to a zero arg constructor.

They are simply not compatible. Either your create() method needs to be polymorphic to accept various functional interfaces and act differently depending on which arguments are supplied or you have to write a lambda body to act as glue code between the two signatures.

What is your unmet expectation here? What should happen in your opinion?

Answer 4

Pair the Supplier with a FunctionalInterface.

Here's some sample code I put together to demonstrate "binding" a constructor reference to a specific constructor with Function and also different ways of defining and invoking the "factory" constructor references.

import java.io.Serializable;
import java.util.Date;

import org.junit.Test;

public class FunctionalInterfaceConstructor {

    @Test
    public void testVarFactory() throws Exception {
        DateVar dateVar = makeVar("D", "Date", DateVar::new);
        dateVar.setValue(new Date());
        System.out.println(dateVar);

        DateVar dateTypedVar = makeTypedVar("D", "Date", new Date(), DateVar::new);
        System.out.println(dateTypedVar);

        TypedVarFactory<Date, DateVar> dateTypedFactory = DateVar::new;
        System.out.println(dateTypedFactory.apply("D", "Date", new Date()));

        BooleanVar booleanVar = makeVar("B", "Boolean", BooleanVar::new);
        booleanVar.setValue(true);
        System.out.println(booleanVar);

        BooleanVar booleanTypedVar = makeTypedVar("B", "Boolean", true, BooleanVar::new);
        System.out.println(booleanTypedVar);

        TypedVarFactory<Boolean, BooleanVar> booleanTypedFactory = BooleanVar::new;
        System.out.println(booleanTypedFactory.apply("B", "Boolean", true));
    }

    private <V extends Var<T>, T extends Serializable> V makeVar(final String name, final String displayName,
            final VarFactory<V> varFactory) {
        V var = varFactory.apply(name, displayName);
        return var;
    }

    private <V extends Var<T>, T extends Serializable> V makeTypedVar(final String name, final String displayName, final T value,
            final TypedVarFactory<T, V> varFactory) {
        V var = varFactory.apply(name, displayName, value);
        return var;
    }

    @FunctionalInterface
    static interface VarFactory<R> {
        // Don't need type variables for name and displayName because they are always String
        R apply(String name, String displayName);
    }

    @FunctionalInterface
    static interface TypedVarFactory<T extends Serializable, R extends Var<T>> {
        R apply(String name, String displayName, T value);
    }

    static class Var<T extends Serializable> {
        private String name;
        private String displayName;
        private T value;

        public Var(final String name, final String displayName) {
            this.name = name;
            this.displayName = displayName;
        }

        public Var(final String name, final String displayName, final T value) {
            this(name, displayName);
            this.value = value;
        }

        public void setValue(final T value) {
            this.value = value;
        }

        @Override
        public String toString() {
            return String.format("%s[name=%s, displayName=%s, value=%s]", getClass().getSimpleName(), this.name, this.displayName,
                    this.value);
        }
    }

    static class DateVar extends Var<Date> {
        public DateVar(final String name, final String displayName) {
            super(name, displayName);
        }

        public DateVar(final String name, final String displayName, final Date value) {
            super(name, displayName, value);
        }
    }

    static class BooleanVar extends Var<Boolean> {
        public BooleanVar(final String name, final String displayName) {
            super(name, displayName);
        }

        public BooleanVar(final String name, final String displayName, final Boolean value) {
            super(name, displayName, value);
        }
    }
}

Answer 5

That's just a limitation of the method reference syntax -- that you can't pass in any of the arguments. It's just how the syntax works.

Answer 6

But, a 1-arg constructor for T that takes a String is compatible with Function<String,T>:

Function<String, Foo> fooSupplier = Foo::new;

Which constructor is selected is treated as an overload selection problem, based on the shape of the target type.