Before I used reflection to invoke a state based on the string, it looked like this:public void setState (String state) {    try {        this.state = (State) Class.forName(state+state).getConstructor().newInstance();    } catch (Exception e) {        System.out.println (Tried to set state to  + state.toString() + , but no such state exists.);    }        }It is supposed to say ...forName(state.+state). Notice the period in state..However, it feels wrong to use reflection when I know all the State the project can be in.They are:TitleNewGameLoadGameCreditsHighScoreWorldI'm rendering the most straightforward solution to be along these lines:private  void setState (String state) {    switch (state) {        case Title:            this.state = new Title ();            break;        case NewGame:            this.state = new NewGame ();            break;        case LoadGame:            this.state = new LoadGame ();            break;        case Credits:            this.state = new Credits ();            break;        case HighScore:            this.state = new HighScore ();            break;        case World:            this.state = new World ();            break;        default:            System.out.println (Tried to set state to  + state.toString() + , but no such state exists.);    }}Is it possible to clean that up?For example, could instance-mapping be a solution?There is a very similar situation with the handle method. In the reflection case it looks like this:public void handle (Event event) {    try {        this.getClass().getMethod(event.getMethod(), String.class).invoke(this, event.getArgument());    } catch (Exception e) {        state.handle (event);    }}If the method can't be invoked in this class then it will be invoked in the state instead. Meaning, the exception can be caught for that reason.However, it does not look as neat if I were to use mapping or a switch-case clause here:public void handle (Event event) {    switch (event.getMethod()) {        case setState:            setState (event.getArgument());            break;        case loadGame:            loadGame (event.getArgument());            break;        case logDebug:            logDebug (event.getArgument());            break;        case exitGame:            exitGame (event.getArgument());            break;        default:            state.handle(event);            break;    }    logDebug (Event handled:  + event.toString());}Can something similar be used in these two cases or is it fine to use reflection?
Set Game State from String
java;reflection
    this.state = (State) Class.forName(state+state).getConstructor().newInstance();This looks for a class named stateWhatever, which isn't what you're doing below. Let's assume it's an error which happened when you copied the code.private  void setState (String state) {    switch (state) {        case Title:            this.state = new Title ();            break;        case ....................        default:            System.out.println (Tried to set state to  + state.toString() + , but no such state exists.);    }}Yes, this is going to get pretty long. But don't you simply separate the setting of the state from its computation? private State getState() {    switch (state) {        case Title:             return new Title ();        case ....Here, you save one line, you could save another one if your conventions allow it and that's the optimum.In case you can precreate your states, then simplyprivate static final Map<String, State> stateMap;static {     Map<String, State> map = new Map<>();     map.put(Title, new Title()):     ...     stateMap = Collections.unmodifieableMap(map);}would do. The usage is obvious.In case you can't precreate your states, then you could create aprivate static final Map<String, Class<? extends State>> stateClassMap;and use reflection for the instance creation.You're having many implementation of state and each of them has a no-args constructor. This looks like an enum.    System.out.println (Tried to set state to  + state.toString() + , but no such state exists.);You know that's no proper error handling, right?