EDIT:

Based on Ilgorbek Kuchkarovs answer (original from StackOverflow) (similar problem here: Dispatching SOAP function calls) I have implemented the solution as this:

Interface ServiceMethod.java:

interface ServiceMethod {
    public void execute();
}

WorkingClass.java:

public class WorkingClass {

    static OrderObject orderObject;

    public static Map<String, ServiceMethod> serviceMethodMap = new HashMap<>();
    public static Map<String, String> allCarAttributes = new HashMap<>();
    
    public static void main(String[] args) {

        orderObject = new OrderObject();
        
        allCarAttributes.put("CAR_DOORS", "4");
        allCarAttributes.put("CAR_WHEELS", "10");
        

        serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_DOORS", new ServiceMethod() {

            @Override
            public void execute(String input) {
                orderObject.setCarDoors(input);
            }
        });

        serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_WHEELS", new ServiceMethod() {

            @Override
            public void execute(String input) {
                orderObject.setCarWheels(input);
            }
        });

        for (Map.Entry<String, String> attribute : allCarAttributes.entrySet()) {
            serviceMethodMap.get(attribute.getKey()).execute(attribute.getValue());
        }

        System.out.println(orderObject.toString());
    }
}

This works as intended, however I dont see the advantage of using the interface-approach to using switch-case.

I still have to write 80 times:

serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_DOORS / WHEELS / COLORS / ...", new ServiceMethod() {

    @Override
    public void execute(String input) {
        orderObject.setCarDoors / -Wheels / -Colors / ...(input);
    }
});

This does not seem any shorter and even complexer?

Could anyone explain the advantages of using this approach?

Should I get rid of it at all? The switch-case works fine as it is, it is just very long and ugly.

Should I get rid of it at all? The switch-case works fine as it is, it is just very long and ugly.

EDIT:

Based on Ilgorbek Kuchkarovs answer (original from StackOverflow) (similar problem here: Dispatching SOAP function calls) I have implemented the solution as this:

Interface ServiceMethod.java:

interface ServiceMethod {
    public void execute();
}

WorkingClass.java:

public class WorkingClass {

    static OrderObject orderObject;

    public static Map<String, ServiceMethod> serviceMethodMap = new HashMap<>();
    public static Map<String, String> allCarAttributes = new HashMap<>();
    
    public static void main(String[] args) {

        orderObject = new OrderObject();
        
        allCarAttributes.put("CAR_DOORS", "4");
        allCarAttributes.put("CAR_WHEELS", "10");
        

        serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_DOORS", new ServiceMethod() {

            @Override
            public void execute(String input) {
                orderObject.setCarDoors(input);
            }
        });

        serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_WHEELS", new ServiceMethod() {

            @Override
            public void execute(String input) {
                orderObject.setCarWheels(input);
            }
        });

        for (Map.Entry<String, String> attribute : allCarAttributes.entrySet()) {
            serviceMethodMap.get(attribute.getKey()).execute(attribute.getValue());
        }

        System.out.println(orderObject.toString());
    }
}

This works as intended, however I dont see the advantage of using the interface-approach to using switch-case.

I still have to write 80 times:

serviceMethodMap.put("CAR_DOORS / WHEELS / COLORS / ...", new ServiceMethod() {

    @Override
    public void execute(String input) {
        orderObject.setCarDoors / -Wheels / -Colors / ...(input);
    }
});

This does not seem any shorter and even complexer?

Could anyone explain the advantages of using this approach?

How can I refactor this?

Should I refactor this? The switch-case works fine as it is, it is just very long and ugly.

How can I get rid of this huge switch-case?

Should I get rid of it at all? The switch-case works fine as it is, it is just very long and ugly.