While it is not possible to write a switch statement, it is possible to branch out to specific processing for each given type. One way of doing this is to use standard double dispatch mechanism. An example where we want to "switch" based on type is Jersey Exception mapper where we need to map multitude of exceptions to error responses. While for this specific case there is probably a better way (i.e. using a polymorphic method that translates each exception to an error response), using double dispatch mechanism is still useful and practical.

interface Processable {
    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor);
}

interface Processor<R> {
    R process(final A a);
    R process(final B b);
    R process(final C c);
    // for each type of Processable
    ...
}

class A implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

class B implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

class C implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

然后在任何需要“开关”的地方，你可以这样做:

public class LogProcessor implements Processor<String> {
    private static final Logger log = Logger.for(LogProcessor.class);

    public void logIt(final Processable base) {
        log.info("Logging for type {}", process(base));
    }

    // Processor methods, these are basically the effective "case" statements
    String process(final A a) {
        return "Stringifying A";
    }

    String process(final B b) {
        return "Stringifying B";
    }

    String process(final C c) {
        return "Stringifying C";
    }
}

这个怎么样?

switch (this.name) 
{
  case "A":
    doA();
    break;
  case "B":
    doB();
    break;
  case "C":
    doC();
    break;
  default:
    console.log('Undefined instance');
}

创建一个Map，其中键为Class<?>，值为表达式(lambda或类似)。考虑:

Map<Class,Runnable> doByClass = new HashMap<>();
doByClass.put(Foo.class, () -> doAClosure(this));
doByClass.put(Bar.class, this::doBMethod);
doByClass.put(Baz.class, new MyCRunnable());

// of course, refactor this to only initialize once

doByClass.get(getClass()).run();

如果你需要检查异常，那就实现一个抛出异常的FunctionalInterface，而不是使用Runnable。

下面是一个真实的单词前后对比，展示了这种方法如何简化代码。

重构映射之前的代码:

private Object unmarshall(
  final Property<?> property, final Object configValue ) {
  final Object result;
  final String value = configValue.toString();

  if( property instanceof SimpleDoubleProperty ) {
    result = Double.parseDouble( value );
  }
  else if( property instanceof SimpleFloatProperty ) {
    result = Float.parseFloat( value );
  }
  else if( property instanceof SimpleBooleanProperty ) {
    result = Boolean.parseBoolean( value );
  }
  else if( property instanceof SimpleFileProperty ) {
    result = new File( value );
  }
  else {
    result = value;
  }

  return result;
}

重构为映射后的代码:

private final Map<Class<?>, Function<String, Object>> UNMARSHALL = 
Map.of(
  SimpleBooleanProperty.class, Boolean::parseBoolean,
  SimpleDoubleProperty.class, Double::parseDouble,
  SimpleFloatProperty.class, Float::parseFloat,
  SimpleFileProperty.class, File::new
);

private Object unmarshall(
  final Property<?> property, final Object configValue ) {
  return UNMARSHALL
    .getOrDefault( property.getClass(), ( v ) -> v )
    .apply( configValue.toString() );
}

这避免了重复，消除了几乎所有的分支语句，并简化了维护。

不，这是不可能的。然而，您可能想要做的是将多态性作为处理这类问题的一种方法。

While it is not possible to write a switch statement, it is possible to branch out to specific processing for each given type. One way of doing this is to use standard double dispatch mechanism. An example where we want to "switch" based on type is Jersey Exception mapper where we need to map multitude of exceptions to error responses. While for this specific case there is probably a better way (i.e. using a polymorphic method that translates each exception to an error response), using double dispatch mechanism is still useful and practical.

interface Processable {
    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor);
}

interface Processor<R> {
    R process(final A a);
    R process(final B b);
    R process(final C c);
    // for each type of Processable
    ...
}

class A implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

class B implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

class C implements Processable {
    // other class logic here

    <R> R process(final Processor<R> processor){
        return processor.process(this);
    }
}

然后在任何需要“开关”的地方，你可以这样做:

public class LogProcessor implements Processor<String> {
    private static final Logger log = Logger.for(LogProcessor.class);

    public void logIt(final Processable base) {
        log.info("Logging for type {}", process(base));
    }

    // Processor methods, these are basically the effective "case" statements
    String process(final A a) {
        return "Stringifying A";
    }

    String process(final B b) {
        return "Stringifying B";
    }

    String process(final C c) {
        return "Stringifying C";
    }
}

我认为使用switch语句是有原因的。如果你使用xText生成的代码。或者另一种EMF生成的类。

instance.getClass().getName();

返回类实现名称的字符串。即: org.eclipse.emf.ecore.util.EcoreUtil

instance.getClass().getSimpleName();

返回简单的表示形式，即: EcoreUtil