I need to change the following if's to a switch-case while checking for a String, to improve the cyclomatic complexity.
String value = some methodx;
if ("apple".equals(value)) {
method1;
}
if ("carrot".equals(value)) {
method2;
}
if ("mango".equals(value)) {
method3;
}
if ("orange".equals(value)) {
method4;
}
But I am not sure what value I'm going to get.
Here is a possible pre-1.7 way, which I can't recommend:
public class PoorSwitch
{
final static public int poorHash (String s) {
long l = 0L;
for (char c: s.toCharArray ()) {
l = 97*l + c;
}
return (int) l;
}
public static void main (String args[])
{
String param = "foo";
if (args.length == 1)
{
param = args[0];
}
// uncomment these lines, to evaluate your hash
// test ("foo");
// test ("bar");
switch (poorHash (param)) {
// this doesn't work, since you need a literal constant
// so we have to evaluate our hash beforehand:
// case poorHash ("foo"): {
case 970596: {
System.out.println ("Foo!");
break;
}
// case poorHash ("bar"): {
case 931605: {
System.out.println ("Bar!");
break;
}
default: {
System.out.println ("unknown\t" + param);
break;
}
}
}
public static void test (String s)
{
System.out.println ("Hash:\t " + s + " =\t" + poorHash (s));
}
}
Maybe you could work with such a trick in a generated code. Else I can't recommend it. Not so much that the possibility of a hash collision makes me worry, but if something is mixed up (cut and paste), it is hard to find the error. 931605 is not a good documentation.
Take it just as proof of concept, as curiosity.
We can apply Switch just on data type compatible int :short,Shor,byte,Byte,int,Integer,char,Character or enum type.